Bjørn Stærk blog - The Norwegian Islam debate

p | 2005-07-23 19:42 | Link

Forza Fallaci.

norvegia, norvegia | 2005-07-23 19:45 | Link

You say: «On second place, the idea that Islam itself is evil, and Europe's Muslim population a danger to us. Some of these views were racist, most were not.»

If I was to say Judaism in itself is evil, and the Jewish population of Europe is a real danger to us, would you not call me a racist and an anti-semite?

Or is this in some peculiar way a different story alltogether if we replace «Muslim» with «Jew»?

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-23 20:16 | Link

Islam is not a "race", so being phobic about Muslims it not necessarily racist, no more than being phobic about, say, American politicians is. Anti-semitism on the other hand is rarely aimed at followers of the Judaist religion as such, but at Jews as a people. But it's a special kind of racism, not just random genetic xenophobia, but a specific hatred spiced up with a large mythology of conspiracy theories.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-23 20:32 | Link

I am sad to see you utilizing the word islamophobia yet again - it appears to me that you are desperately seeking to create an image of mental illness in those who fear islam as well as the rapid islamification of Europe - the creation of Eurabia. Just recently you labelled us "useful idiots". Say, are you picking up bad habits from your new leftist friends?

My kind suggestion to you, Mr. Bjorn Sterk, is to stop these grossly primitive argumentum ad hominem attacks against those who have fought off the kassandra syndrome, seen the darkness and come to the inevitable realisation that the problem lies within islam per se. (You do not have to agree with us of course, but we are not insane lunatics nor retarded idiots.)

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-23 21:03 | Link

Nomen Nescio: Say, are you picking up bad habits from your new leftist friends?

I'm friends with anyone who thinks for themselves and can argue for it. I'm also willing to pick up good ideas from anywhere. Not sure which of my bad habits I've picked up from "leftists", but I'd rather pick up an idea from a stranger too often than stick too cautiously to the dogma of some camp you believe I should be loyal to.

And no I don't believe you're mentally ill, nor that you're an idiot. By Islamophobic I mean that many Islam critics have an irrational fear of everything Islamic, leading them to believe wild tales about the Evil nature of a religion with 1 billion followers. And "useful idiot" is a well-known expression, it means only that these people naively serve a sinister purpose.

In the Norwegian thread I wrote about there was a Muslim Norwegian girl who wrote about how her Islam is peaceful and friendly and tolerant, and then someone had the nerve to reply to her that she had misunderstood Islam. He gave her all the usual arguments, about how the Quran properly intepreted is evil and violent. That is so obviously ridiculous that a person has to be unusually daft not to realize that they're serving the purpose of extremists, but what Islamophobes ordinarily do is not very different: By describing Islam itself as fundamentally and irrevocably evil and violent, they're telling any Muslim who wants to improve Islam that they're wrong, that they're phony or failed or bad Muslims.

What they should do is not say "the Quran says to kill infidels, which makes Islam evil", but "if you interpret the Quran as telling you to kill infidels, that's evil". Anyone who goes around saying the first is a useful idiot for extremists, no matter how smart they are.

Sara | 2005-07-23 21:29 | Link

"...What they should do is not say "the Quran says to kill infidels, which makes Islam evil", but "if you interpret the Quran as telling you to kill infidels, that's evil". Anyone who goes around saying the first is a useful idiot for extremists, no matter how smart they are."

You apparently overlook another alternative, namely that arguing the way you do, makes you the most useful idiot of all.

Bernt | 2005-07-23 21:56 | Link

I am not sure where the Norwegian debate about islam and terror is heading either, but I think it may be starting to make more sense. That means less apologism. However, the left-wing aburdities are still alive and well, especially in university circles, where there still are strong anti-western attitudes, arguing that we are 100% responsible for the terror ourselves.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-23 22:01 | Link

Dear Bjørn:

My question asking you whether you had started picking up bad habits from your new leftist friends was somewhat humourous in character, though it also had a serious side to it, considering the increased number of argumentum ad hominem attacks originating from you recently. These are similar in nature and content to those of many leftists.

And no I don't believe you're mentally ill, nor that you're an idiot. By Islamophobic I mean that many Islam critics have an irrational fear of everything Islamic, leading them to believe wild tales about the Evil nature of a religion with 1 billion followers.

A phobia is a mental illness, consequently using the word islamophobic to characterize me and others like me implies that we are suffering from a mental condition. I believe my fear is more than justified, and I feel I should be allowed this view without being given a phobia diagnosis by you over the internet... (And by the way, an ideology can perfectly well be evil even though it has a large number of followers - for me at least, that goes without saying...)

In the Norwegian thread I wrote about there was a Muslim Norwegian girl who wrote about how her Islam is peaceful and friendly and tolerant, and then someone had the nerve to reply to her that she had misunderstood Islam.

To show you how absurd that statement of yours is, I have modified your sentence just a little bit to illustrate why: "In the Norwegian thread I wrote about there was a nazist Norwegian girl who wrote about how her nazism is peaceful and friendly and tolerant, and then someone had the nerve to reply to her that she had misunderstood nazism."

Again: Please stop your name-calling and handing out phobia diagnoses to those you disagree with.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-23 22:37 | Link

Nomen Nescio: A phobia is a mental illness, consequently using the word islamophobic to characterize me and others like me implies that we are suffering from a mental condition.

Oh quit whining. I already told you I don't mean phobia in a medical sense. You talk about me borrowing leftist rhetoric, but you seem to have caught a whiff of victimology. I don't believe you're insane, and I can't say it any plainer than that.

I don't object to Nazis who are tolerant, peaceful, non-antisemitic, and democratic. The fewer bad qualities a Nazi has, the better a person they are. Is such a person still a Nazi? If they prefer to call themselves that, and if there are about a billion of them, yes. As it happens, there are no nice tolerant Nazi's. But there are nice tolerant Muslims, as illustrated by that Muslim girl. You can either tell these people that they can't exist, that they're failed Muslims, or you can encourage other Muslims to be more like them. Choice seems easy to me, and, yes, making the wrong choice makes you very useful to the extremists you're supposedly fighting.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-23 23:27 | Link

Dear Bjørn:

Oh quit whining. I already told you I don't mean phobia in a medical sense. You talk about me borrowing leftist rhetoric, but you seem to have caught a whiff of victimology. I don't believe you're insane, and I can't say it any plainer than that.

In its medical sense, phobia is an irrational fear. You described islamophobia as "an irrational fear of everything Islamic". If that is not phobia in a medical sense - in exactly which sense is it? Furthermore, I do not feel that I am whining when I am politely asking you to stop giving phobia diagnoses to people you disagree with over the Internet.

By the way, since we are also discussing leftist rhetoric: Asking people to stop whining is not an uncommon method meant to bring people to silence. Nobody wants to be whining, right?

In fact, The Norwegian Labour Party perfected this technique, and received quite a significant amount of criticism for this. (You may remember the discussion in the media on the usage of "hersketeknikker" in Norwegian politics some time ago.)

I don't object to Nazis who are tolerant, peaceful, non-antisemitic, and democratic. The fewer bad qualities a Nazi has, the better a person they are.

This type of reasoning admittedly puzzles me... What you are de facto saying is that a nazi which is not a nazi is a good nazi. In other words: Strip away everything related to the nazi ideology from a given nazi and he will be a good person. How about expanding that reasoning to include muslims as well? I'm looking forward to hearing your explanation.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-24 00:02 | Link

Nomen, you show a brave resilience against all my assurances that I do not believe you're insane, or an idiot. As I've never heard of you before I don't even know that you're an Islamophobe. This would be because you haven't actually written much about Islam yet. We can continue playing this game. I can call you uninsane in a number of creative ways while you protest my insensitivity in ever strong words, but let's pretend we've already done that, and we've arrived at a point where there really are no more ways for me to tell you that, although you may turn out to be an Islamophobe, no insanity in a clinical sense is intended, and let's also pretend that you've managed to share all your hurt feelings and suspicions of leftist influence with the rest of us.

Now what? Do you have anything say, or is it all just meta?

As for the Nazi's, (and I should have appealed to Godwin's law but I'll let you off), Nazi is what Nazi does, and if you remove all the bad aspects of being a Nazi, then there's only the good and neutral left. Of course, when you remove all the bad aspects of being a Nazi you're left with something so similar to being a non-Nazi there's no reason to name it by a word of its own. But, as it happens, removing all the bad aspects of being a Muslim leaves us with something still very much Muslim. There's still Allah, and the Quran, and prayers, and religious identity, and all that's different is how these ideas are applied. For you to say that a non-bad Muslim isn't allowed to call themselves a Muslim because you read the Quran in a certain way is arrogant and ridiculous. And, to the degree that Muslims listen to you, counterproductive.

Is your personal interpretation of the Quran that important? Is the purity of a religion you don't believe in so important to you that you'd help extremists spread their ideas sooner than undermine the ideological basis of the terror threat against us? Like I said to the Islamophobe you're defending, who told a tolerant Muslim girl she had misunderstood Islam, if that's your idea of how to fight Islamic extremism then I don't want your help. Please go help the other side.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-24 00:37 | Link

Dear Bjørn:

What you apparently fail to grasp is that I object to the term islamophobia per se, and I have attempted to explain why:

"A phobia is a mental illness, consequently using the word islamophobic to characterize me and others like me implies that we are suffering from a mental condition. I believe my fear is more than justified, and I feel I should be allowed this view without being given a phobia diagnosis by you over the internet..."

Please use a different expression or term. "Fear of islam" for example.

About Godwin's law: I think we should deactivate Godwin's law in this particular discussion. After all, we are discussing the totalitarian ideology called islam, and as such it is only natural that we use our knowledge about and understanding of the previous totalitarian and hateful ideologies in this context. (This is not a discussion about Pepsi vs. Coke, Eminem vs. Britney Spears, et cetera.)

Finally, I believe we are in a war with islam and that we should fight this ideology as we fought others similar in character in the past. Let us, as you suggest, remove the bad aspects of islam. As I see it, that includes the quran, hadith and mohammed. Whatever is left I can accept...

norvegia, norvegia | 2005-07-24 02:19 | Link

Can I just ask why you require your commenters to submit their email address and blog/website address, but choose to not show either of them either above or below the comment?

Not very democratic, is it? But then your type was never very fond of democracy as a way of government, I reckon.

Love, norvegia

norvegia | 2005-07-24 03:03 | Link

By the way, what is lost in the so-called «Islam Debate» (norwegian), is the fact that British undercover agents have now killed 57 innocent civilians, including the Brazilian guy Jean Charles de Menezes shot yesterday, five times through the head after laid down by two or three agents, and that these hideous killings are the gazoline that is fueling everyone's bonfire of Hate.

Or «islamophobia» or whatever you choose to call it. One man's fascism is another man's mental disease.

So what puzzles me is that everyone's on about how evil this religion is, or these Arab immigrants, while the fact of the matter is they got nothing to do with it. (Other than that they've been chosen as fall guys, or patsies, for this bombing campaign, and that we are all told to hate this religion and these Arab or Asian immigrants, so that we are «divided and conquered» by our strongmen and saviors Blair & Bush, so that they get a greencard to do Whatever.)

Please tell me why we are not furious that British agents are killing Brazilian nationals wearing too much clothes (for a Northern European) on the subway.

And please tell me why we are not furious and angered out of our tiny little minds that the British undercover agents are allowed to Tube Bomb 56 people in rush hour traffic for the case of introducing new limits on personal freedom in Europe and extending the USA PATRIOT ACT by ten years untill 2016.

These people, no, these un-people, these British agents are the crap of the earth, and should not be allowed to carry on with their dirty, deadly business.

That's my word.

Amos Keppler | 2005-07-24 04:19 | Link

The important thing right now, is to say NO to the lies the government tells us.

They tell us that islamic terrorists are behind the bombings the last five years. They lie! The various governments or rather the forces behind the throne executed the bombings in an ongoing attempt to impose tyranny on a mostly clueless population.

And even now, with the result of the paranoia they've created seeing the light of day, unavoidable, they're allowed to continue their charade, allowed to keep building their modern tyranny.

We see now what secret services are created for, to terrorize a nation's own population.

That's their sole purpose.

The tyrants have been exposed... again, but nothing significantly is DONE to STOP it!

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-24 08:25 | Link

Nomen Nesico: Please use a different expression or term. "Fear of islam" for example.

Okay, but what do I call someone who has such a fear of Islam itself, in order to distinguish them from people who only fear Islamic extremists? Anti-Islamist is ambigous. "Person with an irrational fear of Islam" is too long.

Norvegia: Can I just ask why you require your commenters to submit their email address and blog/website address, but choose to not show either of them either above or below the comment?

Because Movable Type requires either both name and e-mail or neither, and people were forgetting to write their names, but I don't really care about the e-mail so I don't show it, although I do use the URL in the link on your name. Oh, and because MI5 wants me to provide a list of people who are on to them.

And thanks for explaining your theory, which I mostly ignored in my post. Everyone, meet Norvegia and Amos, local adherents to the "can't brainwash all the people all the time"-philosophy.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-24 12:17 | Link

Bjoern,

regarding :

"....Okay, but what do I call someone who has such a fear of Islam itself, in order to distinguish them from people who only fear Islamic extremists? Anti-Islamist is ambigous. "Person with an irrational fear of Islam" is too long. ......"

why not use the truthful descriptor " victims of islamo-tyranny" .

Did you know that everytime when someone like you use the word 'islamophobe' , you are aiding and abetting islamist world propaganda. This is a rather newly coined word - astute word-engineering by clever islamicians to garner support and sympathy for adherents of this retrograde Cult masquerading as 'religion'.

The word 'phobia' is pregnant with ideas of 'irrational hate', ' bigotry','mindlessness' etc etc.....attributes which the islamicians :)would just love to have you- Mister Bjoern and your co-horts- besmear and besmirch us genuine critics ( who incidentally are far from mindless and irrational, but au contraire are really quite level-minded, erudite and superbly knowledgeable about the true nature of the beast!.....Nay, verily we ain't no dilettante either)

So you see, dear Bjoern,in your haste to be a la mode with the new vocabulary ( very insidiously slipped into general circulation by islamicians and islamo-philes), YOU may have unwittingly set yourself up to be a 'USEFOOL IDIOT' for the nefarious islamicians of the world !;)

Sister (non islamo-)Phoebe N. Kim
etymologician and bona-fide islam critikkk

p.s. it is possible that you 'forgot' to rebuttal my previous 'posting' to you???

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-24 19:50 | Link

Okay, but what do I call someone who has such a fear of Islam itself, in order to distinguish them from people who only fear Islamic extremists? Anti-Islamist is ambigous. "Person with an irrational fear of Islam" is too long.

"Fear of islam" or "fear of islamism". If, however, you use "irrational fear", then we are back at where we started. You are making this very difficult - I take that as evidence supporting my notion that you rather enjoyed the practise of suggesting that those who disagree with you regarding your view on islam are suffering from a mental condition.

Cossack | 2005-07-24 22:57 | Link

Bjorn, if you really believe that "a friendly Islam is possible", you may want to consult this site: www.jihadwatch.com. Very revealing as to how "friendly" Islam actually is!

Michael Farris | 2005-07-24 23:20 | Link

Cossack, you might want to actually get to know some educated secular muslims (or some agressively non-secular US southern babtists).
Islamophobia is a fine description of those who freak out at the words Islam or Muslims (as opposed to specific evil deeds by those who claim Islam as their justification).

tonymixan | 2005-07-24 23:42 | Link

Islam is a man-founded mega-cult which has managed to produce a failed culture/civilization or whatever you choose to call this "Mother of all Ebolas." Just look at its 1400 years history and what do you see??

tonymixan | 2005-07-24 23:42 | Link

Rob Lambert | 2005-07-25 00:35 | Link

Oh Lord!
British agents!
Run for the hills...!

Whilst I cling to the hope that some of our annointed intellectual betters are simple victims of their own failure to realize the extent to which they serve islam's fascist wing - our would-be overlords who they apparently (ignorantly?) try to claim don't even exist - I'm not holding my breath over the matter.

Luxurious self-asphyxiation isn't gonna cut it in this CBRN for the masses age.

Alternative explanations for the apparent global pandemic of crypto-idiocy in the face of Osama's declared Gotterdammerung seem to me to be: Plain old willful ignorance from the tenured professional cadres of 'Che' adorned university trolls, utopian naivete from the "Look at me I'm a [faux] working-class rebel" of the couch-bound revolutionary anarchist on the dole sort, a blotter dose of mortal fear from aging hippie guiltsters defending tattered worldviews, or an imbalanced amalgam thereof.

What remains is something altogether more sinister in its intent.

Whatever the particular Grand Mal failure of cause & effect logic that has led to the mass worship of the suicide-lovers leap into the memory hole, it reeks of self-identification as a Useful Idiot...Or at the very least some sort of compulsive masturbatory Loki fetish writ large.

The resultant crippling of our Liberal society's ability to defend itself from the gathering medieval darkness is the same.

In any event, 'coming-out' under the influence of any of the aforementioned postulates isn't particularly smart for those sages amongst us who so vocally bind themselves to the illusion that there are shadowy British agents of the global Bush Illuminati mucking about ready to kick their heathen door down to force them to consume a pretty red white and blue capitalist pill laced with crude laxative fuel oils and christian triumphalism.

The brazen lack of fear such de facto UI's show whilst suckling at the western teat is a testament to either utter confidence in their guaranteed freedoms within the bosum of the west, or abject stupidity in the face of their fevered rants against their own adopted societies.

Anyone who believes that we are living under fascist regimes or would consent to suffer under same, is an outright fool.

Alas FWIW, thank you for your part in locally lancing conspiratorial boils Mr. Stærk.

It's heartening to see that the Yggdrasil of 'root causes' constructed by Norway's X-File intellectual dwarves is as knotted-up and ineffective at bearing it's nihilistic fruit as are the branches in my neck of the Kufr Western woods.

There is hope in the westfold yet, despite the lingering haze of islamofascist cordite smoke, & leftist mirrors.

Fides | 2005-07-25 01:52 | Link

"For you to say that a non-bad Muslim isn't allowed to call themselves a Muslim because you read the Quran in a certain way is arrogant and ridiculous. And, to the degree that Muslims listen to you, counterproductive."

Nomen can read the Quran any way he chooses, which is, I gander, literaly, and the consequences are minimal. If on the other hand, a born and bred Briton of Pakistani descent reads it the same way, say in a Madrassa in Pakistan or the Finsbury Mosque in London, then 50+ people die. Who's being arrogant here, Bjorn? The person who reads the Quran literaly and takes it seriously, or person who ignores all that and simply points to the odd man( or woman ) out.

"You can either tell these people that they can't exist, that they're failed Muslims, or you can encourage other Muslims to be more like them. Choice seems easy to me, and, yes, making the wrong choice makes you very useful to the extremists you're supposedly fighting."

Actually, I don't say it in that way, but I do come out and say 'How can you consider yourself Muslim?' The bottom line is, that Muslims who do not act according to the literal dictates of the Quran and Hadith, are *not* Muslims, at least not in the historic sense. They simply ignore the sections of the Quran/Hadith that dictate what we would consider illegal. Non Muslims are and have always been second class citizens in Islamic majority societies. This is undeniable. It is a fundamental pillar of Islamic culture.

And your defence of Islam with regards to Nazism is weak. Islam has a much longer history and doesn't appeal to race, as is the case with the Nazis.

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-25 01:57 | Link

Bjorn said: Islamist terrorists are evil fanatics and a real threat, but a friendly Islam is possible and should be encouraged.

My issue is only with the last part of Bjorn’s statement. A friendly Islam is NOT possible and should NOT be encouraged. Deception in any form should NEVER be encouraged.

We wring our hands, nodding back and forth, and generally agree we must do something about this problem of terrorism. We think there must be some logical common ground from which we can all begin the process of understanding the issue(s). Are we no longer the barbarians of our fathers? Has not our culture advanced beyond the simple rules of survival of the fittest? Do we not live in a culture that prides itself in our ability to communicate? Consider we are no longer bound by a repressive religion that holds us hostage to rules established by despots, kings, and pious priests. Some want to accomplish this great moral breakthrough by negotiation; surely the process of arbitration will allow us to work through our differences. After all, there are plenty of peaceful Muslims who want to co-exist in the Western World willing to embrace a peace mantle and step forward, right? Is not this our ultimately goal on our harsh and troubled planet? I read the pleas of those who simply want to live in peaceful and harmony without understanding what, if any issues are at stake, and I want to throw-up.

Although both understand the problems, Kim sook-im and Bjorn frequently spar, but continue to ridicule Christianity as if the past 1,800 years of Catholicism and state church rule represent the faithful and message of our Savior. Spiritually blind, they see no solutions at the core of His message, and offer no solutions themselves. As webmaster, this is Bjorn’s prerogative, though perhaps as webmaster, he should he remain unbiased.

Kim is correct, in our use of the word “islamophobe”. We, in our own small way, garner support and sympathy for adherents of this Cult with its overuse. Kim dear, you’re a very gifted woman with acidic words of political truth. But, where are the solutions? Are we to occupy ourselves by simply kicking the situation back and forth and arguing semantics?

In your quest for answers, consider the radical Islamism’s distain Christians more than any other recognizable group. Even the slightest possibility you sympathize or are affiliated with Christianity can put you in harms way. In the spiritual world there are two apposing sides, and our natural instinct (spirit) knows this truth, even if you deny it. Countless books, movies, and personal experiences have documented the existence of the spiritual world, yet many remain skeptics.

For an accurate secular assessment of the global threat posed by this asymmetric form of Islamist warfare/terrorism read the following articles. Any search engine will direct you to a website where they are posted. Their origin is http://federalistpatriot.us/. Although these articles were written primarily for the benefit of US readers, the information is immensely valuable to all who cherish freedom.

“U.S. National Security: Imminent Threats (Part 1 of 3)
“U.S. National Security: Homeland Defense (Part 2 of 3)
"The Long War" (Part 3 of 3 will not be posted until later the week of 7/24)

Bjorn: Occasionally I will submit a blog for post, to later find it is missing. Frustrating, as I seldom maintain copies because I post from variety workstations. Can I assume this is an unintended mishap and a glitch in the process? I’m a much better listener (reader) and only speak-up (post) when I think I have something valuable to contribute; a self assessment of course. These lost posts generally respond to others and maybe viewed as my unwillingness to participate in dialog. That da-gum hit-and-run Geronimo.

FYI, Geronimo is my real name, although an Apache translation of my Anglo given name, Geronimo is what I go by when traveling in South and Central American. I’m a Norwegian-American with a vast network of cousins in Norway. However, I suspect that network is no larger than the number of Jihadis and members of al-Qa'ida currently residing/hiding in Norway today who want to draw you into a snare of complacency and fear. Friends, we are at war.

PeerG | 2005-07-25 01:59 | Link

To the USEFUL IDIOT Bjoern Staerk:

I admit it: I am an Anti-Islamist. I hate Islamism and Islam. You call me a useful idiot for being anti Islam. A question to you: What is your stand on Islam? Are you pro, neutral or anti?

This creed tells their followers "to kill the unbelievers where ever you find them". And: "not befriend them". And so on for page after page in their "holy" book. Who are the unbelievers not to befriended, to be killed? It is people like me and you this "holy" text is talking about!

Is it strange that I am anti Islam when Islam tells their followers that I should be killed?

I don't think you are pro Islam, so I guess you are neutral. Neutral to an ideology that is arguing for killing you. Who is the USEFUL IDIOT?

norvegia | 2005-07-25 02:47 | Link

Rob Lambert, thanks for your introduction to the sickening, over-intellectual, Ivy-educated or wannabe, tradition of masturbatory word games. You've shown us all that you can construct meaningless sentences, and even long ones. Now we know.

Anyways; which play?

- Run for your lives! Run for the hills!

- Er, My Lord, they're coming from the hills.

- Oh, sorry. Run >away from the hills! If you see the hills, run the other way!

That should conclude our little lecture in the necessity of figuring out what to do in the face of peril...

Gareth, Ottawa | 2005-07-25 03:29 | Link

I, on the othe hand, really liked your post, Bjoern. I'm never sure what to think about the Left in the larger sense or Norwegians in the particular. You suggest there is "movement," and hallelujah for that, but I'm as befuddled as you are.

Allan, Singapore | 2005-07-25 03:40 | Link

I guess, that if we look the same way at Christianity as those islamophobes in here look at Islam, most of the worlds population would actually be our enemies. Now thats a task grand enough for islamophobes; 'unconvert' all the Christians and Muslims of the world.

daniel, japan | 2005-07-25 04:01 | Link

"He gave her all the usual arguments, about how the Quran properly intepreted is evil and violent. That is so obviously ridiculous that a person has to be unusually daft not to realize that they're serving the purpose of extremists,"

Perhaps the inherent evil in the Qur'an is so hideous, that it is easier on the conscience to ignore it, or to play it down?

Fides | 2005-07-25 04:06 | Link

Allan, you are obviously ignorant. Forgetting that this is a thread about Islam and not Chritianity, point out to me the equivalent ideas rooted in Islam, such as second class citizenship mandated by law, explicit calls to slay non-Christians, the explicit insults to people of other faiths, etc.

You wont, because at a fundamental level, Islam and Chritianity are worlds apart. Only an ignorant fool would make the comparisons that you do.

M. Simon | 2005-07-25 04:18 | Link

norvegia,

I might go along with your idea about the Jews if they were attacking and were a cultural threat.

The closest idea would be the German form of National Socialism with ubermensch and untermench. In Islam we have believers and dhimmi.

Instead of the Master Race we have the Master Religion.

Jan Haugland, Bergen | 2005-07-25 04:34 | Link

Sometimes I admit I am a bit jealous at those who have a more lively debate in their blog comments.

Other times, like now, I am pretty happy about that.

You have the patience of a saint, Bjørn. Really.

fred lapides | 2005-07-25 04:42 | Link

In my (new) blog/web site, I have posted and continue to post various explanations of why so much of the terrorism worldwide is clearly the work of those claiming to be Muslims--that is, having a background of belief in Islam. I have found that the positions offered can and do group together into but a few categories. I will not take up room here to offer the groupings I have found. Suffice to say that the latest "hi" explanation is the thesis offered by Prof. Pape (Univ of Chicago), whose data base, meticulously kept, states that Muslim terrorists seem to do their suicidal deeds to drive out non-muslims from what is perceived as Arab/Muslim lands.

That said, the most recent horror--Sharam el Sheikh took place in an Arab land, where Muslims count on tourists for their economy. That then seems an exception to the Pape thesis.
http://www.WarTrash.blogspot.com lots more here

Sara | 2005-07-25 04:50 | Link

What exactly is it in this discussion that you object to, Jan Haugland?

PS: Compliments on your blog from an avid reader.

Chest Rockwell, Los Angeles | 2005-07-25 04:52 | Link

At the end of the day, it's pretty simple. Is Islam a problem? Of course. Are there non-evil Muslims? Of course - mostly ones that are not so devout, and have picked and chosen a la carte items from Islam - basically sheep that are rolling with the culture they grew up with. I'm sure there were a lot of non-evil, purportedly "Nazi" sheep in Nazi Germany too.

Alex Showalter, San Diego | 2005-07-25 05:43 | Link

A fear is phobic, by definition, only if it is irrational, or not supported by objective fact. With that prelude in mind, I have not seen, in this discussion of the merits of the term “Islamophobia”, or countless others like it, a straightforward debate of the underlying question: is an Islam which does not produce significant numbers of people who wish to kill or subjugate non-Muslims realistically possible?

I don't know the answer to that, but let's start by dispatching with the red herring parallels that were drawn here - “Naziphobia” and “Judaophobia”. Because fear of Nazism was objectively and rationally based on both the stated credo of Nazism and its resulting actions, “Naziphobia” is a misnomer. In contrast, can anyone state objective reasons why Judaism should be feared? If not (and I certainly can't) fear of Judaism would be a true phobia. Where does fear of Islam fall along this spectrum? There are two sides to this. It's possible to make a serious argument that there are objective reasons for non-Muslims to fear (or dislike) Islam, in terms of its stated credo and the resulting actions. There are also many Muslims who wish no harm on anyone, Muslim or otherwise. Which view within Islam will prevail? We non-Muslims have only one non-suicidal choice: to crushingly defeat the elements within Islam that want to subjugate or kill us, and to support the elements within Islam that want to peacefully coexist with us. Unfortunately, the hard part often times is discerning them.

norvegia | 2005-07-25 05:54 | Link

M. Simon: And who says the Arabs are attacking?

If you look at the facts of September 11, 2001 (the facts, not the Disneyland version of the events), it is pretty clear there is a US military component.

Same goes for the London Underground saga, only the perps are British, not American.

And by the way: All religions have words for Believers and Non-Believers, and they have their own lists of unpleasantries that will occur to those who don't get it, or who refuse to believe in the «obvious truth».

So, to summarize, you have a warped view of who is attacking the public in London etc, plus you have a peculiar concept of what a religion is and how «special» Islam is from all the other religions.

[In Christianity you have the Christians and the Heathens. And the latter go to hell to fry for all eternity. And just recently every Christian had a duty to kill «witches» and «magicians». And on and on.]

Ardsgaine | 2005-07-25 05:57 | Link

I agree that Islam is the problem. I also agree that the only way for someone to be a decent Muslim is to water down Islam, and practice some non-literal, liberalized version of it. I don't think that problem is unique to Islam, though. It's true of ANY religion. All religions preach self-sacrifice and faith over reason. Practiced consistently, they turn humans into monsters.

In the west, Christianity has been watered down to the point where most Christians don't go around killing people for God. They pay lip-service to God on Sunday, and spend the rest of the week working and making money. Still, there is always the danger that they will be motivated to start taking their religion seriously. It is like having a sleeping lion in your living room. You never know when he's going to wake up and realize that he's hungry. Islam might be tamed--there have been times in its history it was more liberal than Christianity--but to reach a point where we can say that Islam is as liberalized as Christianity will just mean that now we have two lions in the living room.

What's my point? Just that, ultimately, the war is between liberalism and religion, not liberalism and Islam.

Some Guy, Yo Mama's House | 2005-07-25 06:18 | Link

I love it when people try to equate Islam with other major religions, and invoke a half-assed theory of equivalence, like the first commenter here.

Praytell, wise sir, when was the last time a rabbinical student strapped ten pounds of Semtex and two pounds of cyanide laced nails to his body and blew up a bus full of women and children? When was the last time a rabbi hung a homosexual for not following God's will? When was the last time a Jew beheaded his daughter for dating a Christian? Or for showing her face in public?

Only an idiot would even suggest that Islam is just like Judaism. Or Christianity. Or any other religion where the participants aren't batshit insane and out to kill everyone who isn't a member.

Thomas Hazlewood, Hawaii | 2005-07-25 06:36 | Link

I used to read your blog regularly, but, had moved on to others. Instapundit linked to you and I find that I'm shocked to see that what was a reputable blog now seems to be inhabited by an inordinate number of radical conspiracy theorists and a fair number of folks who can't argue an issue honestly because they keep getting bogged down in the minutia the meaning of 'is', or something like that.

Being somewhat familiar with your posts, Bjorn, I did NOT assume you were using phobia solely as a perjorative term but, rather, were describing some people who make grand generalizations. Your further explanations confirmed this. So, what the hell are these people disputing with you?

Somehow, your blog has become a watering hole for the petulant and the deranged. Pity, that....

Ardsgaine | 2005-07-25 06:45 | Link

When was the last time a Christian blew up a government building, slaughtering 168 people, including children at a daycare center housed in the building? When was the last time a Christian blew up an abortion clinic, or assassinated an abortion doctor?

As I said, Christianity is *mostly* tame nowadays (thanks to the infusion of Aristotelian philosophy into Christian religious thought) but there are exceptions. All it requires is a revival of authentic religiosity to send us back to the days of the Inquisition and religious crusades.

AKS | 2005-07-25 07:02 | Link

"I don't think that problem is unique to Islam, though. It's true of ANY religion. All religions preach self-sacrifice and faith over reason. Practiced consistently, they turn humans into monsters."

This an empty and patently inaccurate set of statements. There is a substantial difference between preaching self-sacrifice and sacrifice of others. Your disdain for "faith over reason" notwithstanding, it is a very different thing to say 'God will punish those who do not follow The Way' vs. 'You should punish those who do not follow The Way'. This, in fact, is the essential difference that you gloss over. Believing that others will ultimately pay a price for not believing does not intrinsically turn you into a monster, so long as you do not consider it your own duty to make them pay the price.

Sandy P | 2005-07-25 07:53 | Link

Congrats, Bjorn, you've been a groundbreaker, glad to read it's becoming more lively up there.

---

Ardsgaine, read Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie. They should set your brain spinning.

In short, Iraq or Iran could have been involved. Conspiracies are so much fun sometimes.

---

...religious crusades....
We won it the last time. Better hope we do so again.

----

Allan, now you're in Singapore? I thought you were heading to Norway.

----

including the Brazilian guy Jean Charles de Menezes shot yesterday, five times through the head ---

Ehhh, quite a coincidence that, I guess we'll wait and see who he was visiting in the house, via LGF, from the Financial Times:

According to police sources, the man who was shot dead had been observed leaving a house in London that was being watched in connection with bomb incidents earlier in the day. He was followed by a police surveillance team backed by armed officers, none of whom are thought to have been carrying photographs identifying the suspect.

Allan, Singapore | 2005-07-25 08:03 | Link

I (as a Christian myself) have no intention of making Islam the same as Christianity, but I do know that if you really want to nit-pick the bible in the same way as the Islamophobes nit-pick Islam, then you would indeed end up (that is, if you are not a hypocrit) with a grand quest of 'unconverting' both the Christians and Muslims of the world.

There are plenty of things to complain about in the bible. Check this list:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

Allan, Singapore | 2005-07-25 08:07 | Link

Sandy:
I went to Norway, stayed there for a month. Now I'm in Singapore. Its nice to get around. Kinda broadens your horizon. :p

Ardsgaine | 2005-07-25 09:00 | Link

"There is a substantial difference between preaching self-sacrifice and sacrifice of others."

No, there isn't.

In the first place, it doesn't matter if you are a Muslim preaching that one should slaughter the infidel, or a Christian preaching non-violence in the face of imminent slaughter. Either way, you are complicit in murder.

In the second place, when one advocates self-sacrifice as a moral principle, one *is* advocating the sacrifice of others. That is, one is preaching that others *ought* to sacrifice themselves because it is their moral obligation to God. Moving from preaching their self-sacrifice to enforcing it is a very easy step. Religious texts are contradictory, and faith is such a malleable emotion, that anything can be justified. Given a pretense of moral justification, there are always people who will follow where others lead.

As Goya said, "the Sleep of Reason produces monsters." An imagination untempered by reason causes us to people the world with monsters. We see monsters in our neighbors, and finally we become monsters when we set out to rid the world of these imaginary monsters by flame and sword. Religion, untamed by Reason, causes men to fall into superstition, suspicion and persecution. They see monsters everywhere, and in lashing out at them, become monsters themselves. That is what the terrorists are doing, and it is not because they are Muslims per se, but because they are religious.

Ardsgaine | 2005-07-25 09:12 | Link

"Ardsgaine, read Jayna Davis and Laurie Mylroie. They should set your brain spinning.

In short, Iraq or Iran could have been involved. Conspiracies are so much fun sometimes."

I assume you mean in connection with the OKC bombing? I've heard of that theory, but I don't think it disproves my point, unless it includes proof that McVeigh himself was a Muslim, which would contradict his claim to be acting in response to Waco and Ruby Ridge. I find that unlikely, since the Muslims would not want to fund such an enterprise and not get credit for it. The whole point of blowing things up is being able to say afterwards, "Yes, we did that. Fear us." Anonymous explosions don't do anything for the terrorists.

Sara | 2005-07-25 09:14 | Link

Thomas Hazlewood, Hawaii
...
I did NOT assume you were using phobia solely as a perjorative term but, rather, were describing some people who make grand generalizations. Your further explanations confirmed this. So, what the hell are these people disputing with you?

Somehow, your blog has become a watering hole for the petulant and the deranged. Pity, that....

It's clearly a great shock for you to realise that not everybody thinks and reasons in the manner you do. Your method of choice for dealing with this newly discovered fact appears to be personal attacks.

How very special.

(I too dislike the word Islamophobia due to the reasons given by others in this discourse, but I think we should put that discussion to rest for now, and instead focus on the contents of Bjorn's post.)

Alistair | 2005-07-25 12:17 | Link

"Islamophobia" is a political, not an objective term. The assumption behind it is that those who oppose Islamists suffer from an irrational fear which is a psychological ailment. Of course radical Islamists would love to see the term thrive, as it tacitly dismisses their opponents as phobic freaks.

We need an alternative term to "Islamophobia," such as "anti-Islamist." (I don't pretend to know the best term -- I hope someone else comes up with a better one.)

I will just add one last fact, which appears to have been distorted heretofore: Timothy McVeigh, the a-hole who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City, was not a Christian. He was a self-professed agnostic.

Cossack | 2005-07-25 13:21 | Link

Michael Farris and other Islamophobia-fighters simply switch the subject of the discussion. When we say "it is Islam that mandates an aggressive war against the rest of the world" (and offer proofs), they say "there are many good Muslims, and there are many bad non-Muslims" (which is absolutely obvious, but off topic). However, the real issue is not the personal qualities of Muslims and non-Muslims, but the nature of Islam as an ideology. What the study of Islam reveals is that it is a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology that is the driving force of all the recent terror activity.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-25 13:55 | Link

Alistair: "Islamophobia" is a political, not an objective term. The assumption behind it is that those who oppose Islamists suffer from an irrational fear which is a psychological ailment.

On the contrary, its purpose is to tell those who oppose everything about Islam from those (like me) who merely oppose parts of it, like Islamism. And if you'd read my comments above, you'd know that there's no psychological assumption behind it, (in fact I recall spending a lot of time convincing a sensitive fellow that I didn't think he was crazy). Islamophobia just a word for "excessive/irrational fear of Islam".

And again, anti-Islamist is ambigious, because it could also mean being against Islamism, which many are. But not everyone goes around arrogantly lecturing Muslims about the inherent Evil of their religion and the theological mistakes that lie behind any other interpretation of the Quran.

Cossack: However, the real issue is not the personal qualities of Muslims and non-Muslims, but the nature of Islam as an ideology.

Islam is the sum of the beliefs and behaviors of all Muslims. To say that there's some kind of "Islam" beyond that, a real Islam that's disconnected from actual Muslims, is a kind of mysticism. So you've studied the Quran, and found it to be hateful, but that hate is not part of Islam unless Muslims want it to be. And if your next step is to tell Muslims that in order to be real Muslims they need to obey your interpretation of that real Islam, as I observed one person doing, that's not just Islamophobia but aiding the enemy.

Btw, everyone, there seems to be problems with the site today. If you have problems posting a comment try again - and make sure it's actually posted before you delete the text.

Hartmut, Germany | 2005-07-25 14:18 | Link

Hello Bjoern,

found the link on Instapundit. Interesting discussion.

My 2 Cents:

I think we have a problem with islam itself, not only some radicals. If a religion/ideology can turn seemingly assimilated people in suicidal terrorists as seen in London, we have a problem with this religion/ideology, and not only with radicals.

But we can argue endlessly about it. The question is what to do about it? Wether we have problem with islam itself or only the radicals, the solution is the same, at least in the beginning.

1) Identify, jail, intern and throw radical islamists and imams out of our countries.

2) close mosques and qu'ran schools in which hate is preached.

3) cut their fundings, freeze the money (give it to the people who suffered islamo-terrorist attacks)

4) make laws that make forced marriages a crime, etc. Angela Merkel proposes this in Germany. I think to a good extend, the "taming" of islam is a battle for womens rights, which is an often underestimated aspect. I personaly know some muslimas who have not the slightest interest in wearing a headscarve or even a burkha.

5) punish even minor offences hard, for example if a muslim calls a woman "christian sl*t".

6) encourage muslim groups and individuals to speak out against terror, and demand loud and clear that muslims in our countries have to follow our laws, and not the other way round.

Then, we will see if we have a problem only with some radicals, or if it is worse. But fighting back we must (I think You agree), and it is impossible to do that without offending some muslims. In fact, it will be impossible to do it without offending many muslims; they're so easily to offend.

MD | 2005-07-25 14:25 | Link

Bjorn Staerk\'s writings clearly suggest to me that he is suffering from the mental illness called schizophrenia. I strongly suggest treatment. Best of luck. Cheerio!

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-25 15:08 | Link

(It is very interesting to hear from Germany, Hartmut. Are there any blogs about islam and Germany written in English which you could recommend?)

Humpty , USA | 2005-07-25 15:12 | Link

As one of Lewis Carroll's characters in Alice in Wonderland said, "Words mean exactly what I want them to mean, neither more nor less."

So, we must read into Bjorn's mind to understand what he writes. I am not "Islamophobic", my wife has a phobia about snakes, the way I feel about Islam is quite different from that. I guess in WWII, most of American was Japanophobic, or Gemanophobice, or even Italophobic? I have never seen those words used.

I despise Islam. I despise a religion that condemns adultresses, but not adulterers, gays, apostates, blasphemers, etc to death. If tolerance means anything, it dictates rejection of such a philosophy. I think that Islam needs to be defeated, certainly rejected in the West in no uncertain terms. I have a lot of good reasons for this that have nothing to do with "irrational fear". Even use of the word "irrational" is logically problematice, by the way. It says that you have examined all of my arguments and reasons in detail, and have been able to prove them baseless. Like proving a negative, this is impossible in all but the simplest cases. Or does "irrational" mean something different when it comes out of your mouth?

Words mean what the users of the language agree they mean. Phobic implies irrationality. Use of the term is a way to deligitimize holders of a point of view, with which you apparently disagree, before even starting the debate.

TallDave | 2005-07-25 15:16 | Link

I think people tend to get some things confused. There are two very separate problems here.

1) We have Islam, not just a religion but a blueprint for society, one regrettably stuck a few centuries in the past, with the strictures, prejudices, and attitudes of those times. As with Christianity a few centuries ago, much of Islam is slowly undergoing an Enlightenment, while some Islamic societies (esp Arabs) are mostly left behind.

2) We have the death cults like Al Qaeda. These are the outgrowth of two other phenomena: fundie sects like Wahhabism that use oil money to preach hatred of the West to gullible young men, and lust for power among some like bin Laden who cynically manipulate the former to try to unite Islam in a holy war -- with themselves as Supreme Mullahs of All Islam, of course.

Only one thing will end Islamic terrorism: popular demand by Muslims. We are seeing the beginnings of this trend, but everything possible should be done to encourage it.

Cossack | 2005-07-25 15:17 | Link

Bjorn: You say, "Islam is the sum of the beliefs and behaviors of all Muslims."

So, what do these beliefs and behaviors sum up to in practice? In today's world, they sum up to terror, in the VII century to military conquest. The fact that most Muslims do not engage in terror is not much of relevance because those who do engage in terror are clearly motivated by Islamic teachings, i.e. Koran, Hadith, and the teachings of Islamic scholars. If you need examples, look at al-Zarqawi's recent statements, bin Laden's fatwas, or sermons by Saudi clerics (as well as Iranian, Palestinian, British and others). I have never seen any widely-accepted, Koran-based refutation of those preachings from moderate Muslims. All we here are tepid condemnations of terror without quotations from Muslim holy books or respected scholars.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-25 15:32 | Link

Nomen Nescio,

here is a site with links ,i think Islamofascism is in both german and english ;)

http://listislam.freeweb-hosting.org/

Sister Aishah Nyanaponiika Kim

kim sook-im | 2005-07-25 15:37 | Link

Nomen Nescio,

try the following:

http://listislam.freeweb-hosting.org/

i think the link on Islamofascism is in german and english :)

Sister Aishah Nyanyaponika kim

Humpy, USA | 2005-07-25 15:48 | Link

"Only one thing will end Islamic terrorism: popular demand by Muslims. We are seeing the beginnings of this trend"

Prove it. When I see the London bombers outed by their community, along with all who supported them, I will see evidence of the beginning of a trend. Now they are fish that swim in their environment safely. A few scattered comments from the 1 billion Muslims is not the beginning of a trend, it is random noise.

Rob Read London | 2005-07-25 15:52 | Link

If you have BRCA1 you are much more likely to develop breast cancer.

If you have K0r4n you are much more likely to develop terrorism.

The Islam Terrorism correlation hints at a strong causation.

norvegia | 2005-07-25 16:13 | Link

Looks like the British undercover agents also threatened to shoot the tube driver through the head:

The driver of the train which was the scene of a brutal police slaying on friday morning was himself chased by armed terror police who held a gun to his head as he tried to get away from terrifying 'shoot to kill' attack.

The driver started running as passengers fled from Stockwell Tube station following the shooting of a man it has since been revealed was unarmed.

According to officials from the train drivers' union Aslef, the train driver was chased by police who on catching up pointed a gun at his head.

Hearing about this outrageous behavior by armed cops given orders to shoot to kill, many train drivers have been understandably reluctant to continue working normally, the union's London officer Steve Grant has reported.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/319301.html

Forgive me for thinking that these guys, including their collegues who killed and wounded 700 innocent civilians in London earlier this month, should not be allowed to roam free on the tube or in the streets of London, for that matter.

They should be put in a safe place. And interrogated. And taken to court, and eventually put in a high security prison. (Or just lynched, as this problem may go all the way through the system.)

Robert Speirs | 2005-07-25 16:15 | Link

I see Islam as similar in many ways to Communism. Some people living under Communism were peaceful and tolerant. But the ideology itself was totalitarian, intolerant and violent and its goal was to conquer the world. Allowing Islamic clerics to promote Islam in a free country is as bad as allowing Stalinists to preach world revolution there. And free countries did that for far too long and at the cost of far too many lives. Let's not repeat the mistake.

Klenda Thu, USA | 2005-07-25 17:26 | Link

"What surprised me most was how popular the idea that Islam Is Evil has become. Not a watered down version of it, but the lazily generalizing, scripture-misquoting kind best described as Islamophobia."

I'm curious: what scripture was misquoted by these people? Would they be the ones clearly commanding believers to kill infidels?

Remember Islam's principle of abrogation, which was proferred to resolve its many contradictions - the later commands negate the former. Unfortunately, it is a fact that it is the peaceful commands which have been negated in favor of the violent ones.

I assume, like most of us here, that most Muslims are peaceful. However, that does not tell us what historical Islam teaches, which seems to be otherwise. See www.answering-islam.org for ex-Muslim analyses of its original teachings.

Klenda Thu, USA | 2005-07-25 17:30 | Link

Also note that Islam regards treaties with "infidels" to be breakable the moment they deem they have enough power to do so. All manner of behavior is acceptable in the service of bringing the world under the "house of Islam."

This is not the accuse the peace-loving Muslims, who are mostly Muslims because they have no choice. It's just a reality of the historical teachings of Islam.

Also, has there been any news on why that poor Brazilian fellow was RUNNING from the police? I'm surprised no one seems to have brought that up.

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-25 17:32 | Link

To Hartmut, Germany. The overwhelming consensus of the responses are “we got trouble right here in River City” with an ideology that holds not only it adherents to bondage, it justifies terrorism.

So, what should we be going to do about it? Alas, Hartmut attempts to offer a SOLUTION. Bravo. Your two cents and mine make four. Were on a roll.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-25 17:45 | Link

I regard a second mass expulsion of muslims from Europe to be our only hope. Sadly, that is my solution.

Cossack | 2005-07-25 17:57 | Link

To Robert Speirs

I completely agree with analogy between Islam and Communism. The really bad news about Islam (as opposed to Communism) is that Islam is a religion offering to its followers some reward in the afterlife for whatever they have to endure or sacrifice now.

John, Kactuzkid - USA | 2005-07-25 18:55 | Link

Islamophobic? Irrational fear of Islam? Heck no! I just don't like a religion and philosophy that oppresses and discriminates wherever it dominates. Speaking out against Islam is not for people who are afraid... I have been promised a horrible death more than once.

Islam is an evil ideology invented by an evil man. Period! The fact that Muslims will argue otherwise in the face of so many undeniable facts shows just how intellectually dishonest and morally corrupt they are. There are only two groups of Muslims: those that will kill and those that will make excuses and say the others are not real Muslims. I wish I could say otherwise, but that is the way it is. Sad.

Want proof? Read verse 261 here at this link:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html. Can any of you apologists still say that Mohammed was not a scumbag? Can anybody justify that action by the great prophet of Islam? That one verse (from a Muslim group site) should end all debate about Islam, so there should be no need even to drag in references (also written by Muslims themselves) to slavery, executions, sexual misconduct, special rules for himself, inaccuracies in the Koran, the issues of abrogation, etc… or to the current state of the Islamic world. However, Muslims are blind and care not to face the cruel truth about their religion - and the liberals and multiculturalists provide them with spiritual comfort.

So what to do? Just speak out. Tell Muslims what they don't want to hear. Go to meetings. Get a blog (like this fine site!). Say it again and again and again. Be polite, but be honest! Be aware that nobody will thank you and you will be called 'racist', 'intolerant' and a bunch of other unprintable things. You will be threatened. Oh well.

If you don't take a strong position now, it is going to get worse, much worse. As I have said before, we will probably see riots in Europe and maybe even a religious war within 5 years.

Yeah Kim... I have been watching Brazilian TV to see if I could find anything more on that poor man in London, mas ate agora nao ha informacoes novas. Que coisa triste!

John, AKA Kactuz

I could write about each of these trespasses, by why bother? These don’t matter because Muslim have faith – blind, stupid faith (which is not against the law) and they refuse to see the obvious.

To a normal human being this one reference would be enough to end all discussion. But no, Muslims are morally blind. So I guess there is no reason to drag in references (written by Muslims
no moderate Muslims, only o imoral they are . everything Islamic, leading them to believe wild tales about the Evil nature of a religion with 1 billion followers.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-25 19:15 | Link

After reading "Jihad" by Paul Fregosi, it is impossible to accept that Islam is not a threat to the integrity of Western civilization. For over 1,400 years the West has been under assault in one form or another by Islam which is characterized by beheadings, slavery and tribute. Nothing in Islamic thought has changed

Thomas Hazlewood, Hawaii | 2005-07-25 19:21 | Link

Dear Sara,

Indeed, the shock would be akin to going to a book reading and finding it's been invaded by a motorcycle gang. One might not expect to agree, always, with others but, at least, one could expect to find a common ground from which to begin speaking. Where is the common ground with those who proclaim 'secret government agents' are the REAL culprits?

Or, how many times must the host placate an irate guest's proclivity for misrepesenting his words?

As for my 'personal attacks', the deranged will be unable to discern that they've been recognized. The petulant, however, don the garment of their petulance at the drop of a hat... or a sentence they don't like, n'cest pas?

Judith Weiss | 2005-07-25 20:55 | Link

"If I was to say Judaism in itself is evil, and the Jewish population of Europe is a real danger to us, would you not call me a racist and an anti-semite?"

As a Jew, I say: Not if you can make a case based on the facts. But you can't do that with Judaism, and you can with most of Islam. Until and unless more and more Muslims take the initiative to condemn the terrorism generated by their extremists. At this point way too many Muslims agree with or make excuses for the extremists.

(Jews have already done this with our very few extremists, over and over again, and they have never done anything on the scale of the much more frequent acts of Muslim terrorists. There just is no equivalence, so don't try that meme.)

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-25 21:07 | Link

Judith: well said

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-26 01:19 | Link

John, Kactuzkid – USA: You’r absolutely correct when you say: “Speaking out against Islamism is not for the faint at heart.” If you stand against anything, now is the time to standup. Our European cousins are definitely at the same crossroads as the USA.

Judith Weiss: We should never try to compare Judaism with the tyranny and bondage of Islamism. First, few know exactly whom you are referring when you say Jews, because some think you are referring to a religion while others think you are referring to an ethnic group of people. This is painting with too broad a brush. Judaism is a religion and includes many ethnic groups, some even Hebrew. There is no Jewish race therefore CAN NOT be a racist issue. However, if you are referring to Zionism then we are getting closer to a political philosophy fueled by misguided religious interpretation, and that gets us into the problems we have in Palestine. Ariel Sharon is a Zionist and belongs to the Likud Party formed primarily by Menachem Begin. I would NOT refer to Sharon as a religious Jew. There are many rabbis who warned the people against the errors of Zionism. The Likud Party embraces the philosophy of Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, a charter member of the World Zionist Organization, with its own history of terrorism. This is topic for a totally different discussion group, but important to understand if you are into Middle East history. If this is confusing to you, then you’re in good company, including about 99% of Christendom. Warning, don’t look to the evening news to help you understand the issues.

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-26 02:05 | Link

To show you how absurd that statement of yours is, I have modified your sentence just a little bit to illustrate why: "In the Norwegian thread I wrote about there was a nazist Norwegian girl who wrote about how her nazism is peaceful and friendly and tolerant, and then someone had the nerve to reply to her that she had misunderstood nazism."

Perfect illustration of the absurdity!

I don't object to Nazis who are tolerant, peaceful, non-antisemitic, and democratic. The fewer bad qualities a Nazi has, the better a person they are. Is such a person still a Nazi? If they prefer to call themselves that, and if there are about a billion of them, yes. As it happens, there are no nice tolerant Nazi's.

Bjorn, your problem seems to be that you are completely non-ideological. You believe that ideas don't matter, only people. You fail to understand that ideas propel people. Even worse, you are completely wrong on the facts. There were plenty, I mean plenty, of nice people who were/are nazis, fascists, communists. People are usually good. But many people accept evil ideologies. It is the non-ideological who are the useful idiots for those proponents of evil ideologies.

Finally, I believe we are in a war with islam and that we should fight this ideology as we fought others

Nomen, you are exactly right. At the root, this is war of ideas, and we can only fight bad ideas with better ideas.

Judith Weiss | 2005-07-26 05:49 | Link

Geronimo, your statements show you know nothing about Judaism and the Jewish people. Judaism was always a nation, a people, and a religion. but not a race. Anyone can convert to Judaism, and many do, but when they do they explicitly make a commitment to join the Jewish PEOPLE, as well as take on the practices of the religion. This is true of all branches of Judaism, and always has been.

Zionism in its many permutations has always been the desire of the Jewish people to have its heart's center in its ancestral homeland, just like any other ethnic group. Zionism didn't start in the 1800s. Don't lecture me about what various rabbis think. I know the history and theology of my people better than you do.

Judith Weiss | 2005-07-26 05:51 | Link

"The Likud Party embraces the philosophy of Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky, a charter member of the World Zionist Organization, with its own history of terrorism."

This totally ahistorical sentence illustrates your ignorance. Looks like you are getting your "facts" from Justin Raimondo or Electronic Intifada or somebody similar.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 06:29 | Link

Gunnar: Bjorn, your problem seems to be that you are completely non-ideological. You believe that ideas don't matter, only people.

Hm? And I thought I just spent this entire thread arguing that ideas matter more than words. That the word "Islam" includes a wide selection of ideas, and the possibility of even more, some of which are good, others bad. For a non-Muslim to say that there's one meaning of Islam that is purer and more right than the others, because it follows more logically from the Quran, and that those who disagree with this meaning aren't allowed to call themselves Muslims, that is not to fight against bad ideas, it is to introduce an illusory concept of semantic purity. Religious believers can believe in a "pure" version of their faith, but for non-believers to meddle with theology and discuss religion on theological terms is meaningless.

Some Muslims believe A. Others B. Or C. Perhaps A is a good idea, and B is a bad idea. And that's as far as a non-Muslim can go without resorting to theology, mysticism and word magic.

Cossack | 2005-07-26 08:50 | Link

Bjorn: “Some Muslims believe A. Others B. Or C. Perhaps A is a good idea, and B is a bad idea.”

Can you be more specific? Can you name the idea A, articulate this idea, name the Islamic scholars who promulgate it, as well as some famous Muslim followers of it? Absent that, your belief in the existence of some good idea A in Islam is sheer fantasy and wishful thinking.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 09:42 | Link

Cossack: Can you be more specific? Can you name the idea A, articulate this idea, name the Islamic scholars who promulgate it, as well as some famous Muslim followers of it?

Sure I can.

Many people have misunderstood Islam as a religion. The prophet Muhammed actually sat down and meditated with Christians, and got much of his inspiration from them. If you take the time to read the Quran and interpret it according to the times we live in, it is nothing more than a moral book with rules that encourage us to be good people, make good choices, see the difference between right and wrong. When it says in the Quran that a man may have four wives, one must keep in mind that this was written in a time when there was a lack of men due to war etc, and when it says not to eat pork this was at a time when pigs had a lot of diseases. There are many other examples.

This was written by a young Muslim as a response to my post in Dagbladet's blog. A woman, even. (Who was consequently told by more "educated" non-Muslims that she had misunderstood Islam.)

Right, you wanted a scholar, with famous followers. For which values of "good idea" would you accept an answer? For "not being an extremist who hates the West and sympathizes with terrorism" that would be most Muslim scholars, unless you go into conspiracy mode and assume that they're all lying, (and the fact that you can't prove it just shows how good liars they are). For "agreeing with basic Western ideals of freedom and democracy", that would be far fewer, but let's fight one problem at a time. Conservative Muslims don't go about blowing up people, that requires a particularly radical interpretation of Islam to justify, and while I'll be the first to complain about lack of women's rights in Muslim communities, that's a separate and less urgent problem than terrorism. It also requires a separate and less drastic solution.

Oh, and numbers aren't the issue here. Potential is. The fact that it is possible to write the paragraph I've quoted above and call yourself a Muslim proves that Islam can be peaceful and democratic, as compatible with liberal democracy as any other religious lie. All we have to do is encourage it, and discourage extreme interpretations. But our well-educated Islam critics here are so proud of their personal ability to interpret the Quran that they'd rather promote the extreme interpretations, and fight liberal ones. Or, as one person replied to this Muslim in Dagbladet, "she is in practice rejecting Islam by interpreting it as she does. The fact that she continues to call herself a Muslim becomes a contradiction in terms." That was written by someone who claims to be against extremism. But it might as well have been written by a terrorist.

John Anderson USA | 2005-07-26 09:46 | Link

I am not an Islamophobe, but I am an Islamist-phobe or Wahhabi-phobe: not because (I hope) I am irrational, but more in the way of hydrophobia, which despite the first definition in dictionaries I have never heard used as other than a synonym for rabies - a victim's fear of water is a symptom of having a physical illness resulting from being bitten, not a sign of irrationality.

Most religious movements have promoted killing or enslaving of unbelievers (ask any Huguenot you can find), in deed if not doctrine. Most sects of Christianity and Judaism have altered their practice of such over a century ago, more recently others such as Shinto: many Moslem groups as well. Alas, some Muslim groups have not, and remain powerful - in particular, the Wahhabi sect in power in Saudi Arabia and powerful far beyond its borders through the use of wealth to establish control of schools, medical services, etc., and its violent sub-sects such as al Queada. These I fear: I think it was Lenin who said if you can get ten percent of a country to believe, that group can assert and maintain control of the country.

Cossack | 2005-07-26 11:04 | Link

Bjorn: "This was written by a young Muslim as a response to my post in Dagbladet's blog. A woman, even."

So what does that woman thinks of jihad? That problem is more urgent then whether or not Muslims masy eat pork; I don't really care whther they eat pork or not. And regarding her other beliefs: did she convince other Muslims? Did she ever tried to convince any Muslim? Do you know any preacher that preaches similar staff in his mosque? And if the preacher in her nearby mosque preaches hatred and violence, did she confronted him and his followers, saying "you're wrong, guys!" and arguing why exactly they are wrong? No, she did nothing of the kind. But that's precisely what we need of Muslims. claiming to be moderate: don't try to convince us, convince the terrorists and their supporters!

What worries me is that those "moderate" Muslims go to great lengths to fight the negative image of Islam among non-Muslims, but do nothing to convince their fellow Muslims that their moderate interpretation of Islam is correct. I see only two reasons why they do nothing. First, they are not sincere in what they write and say to non-Muslims. One example may be Yasser Arafat, who denounced terror in English and encouraged it in Arabic. Another reason is that the arguments of sincerely moderate Muslims just don't hold water, as long as their co-religionists believe that Koran is a divine book and Muhammed was a prophet, and not believing it amounts to saying that Islam is man-made ideology, not divinely-inspired religion. And that's precisely why moderates have always lost and will continue losing debates with hardliners: the arguments of moderates are sheer speculation and not based on Koran. As a result, our encouragement of moderates is waste of time and efforts: their fight, if it has ever occurred, is irredeemably lost.

And as you admit, "Oh, and numbers aren't the issue here. Potential is." So, even you admit that the numbers are puny, and potential is ... well, pretty much the same.

YOu also say, "For "not being an extremist who hates the West and sympathizes with terrorism" that would be most Muslim scholars". Proofs, please. Can you name those non-extremist schools of scholarship and their followers, so that we knew for sure they are in majority?

Cossack | 2005-07-26 11:23 | Link

John Anderson: "Most religious movements have promoted killing or enslaving of unbelievers (ask any Huguenot you can find), in deed if not doctrine. Most sects of Christianity and Judaism have altered their practice of such over a century ago"

"In deed, if not in doctrine" is the critical distinction. Christianity does not have Bible-based doctines of killing or enslaving of unbelievers. so such practice could be challenged as un-Christian. On the other hand, similar Islamic practices are based on Koran and the life of Muhammad, so prooving that such practices are un-Islamic is very tricky, if at all possible.

And can you refer me to specific examples of Jews killing or enslaving of unbelievers? You claim that Judaism ceased such practices over a century ago, but can you give examples of Judaism ever following those practices?

Anonymous, Oslo | 2005-07-26 12:32 | Link

Islam generates some terrorism != Islam is based on terrorism.

Christianity has also generated some terrorism (whitch-hunts). This does not mean that Christianity is based on terrorism.

Todays Islam, in my view, is quite equal to the christianity in Europe a few hundred years back.

It's of course totally unacceptable in todays world. As would the christianity we had a few hundred years back be totally unacceptable.

We didn't eradicate christianity because of it evils. We modified it.

Muslims shouldn't be required to eradicate Islam, they should, however, modify it.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 12:38 | Link

Cossack: So what does that woman thinks of jihad?

Which part of the quote did you not understand? This is not an extremist. This is a person who interprets Islam in a modern, secular-compatible way. She argues elsewhere that women shouldn't have to wear headscarfs, what matters is how you behave, not how you dress. Now what do you think she thinks of jihad?

And if the preacher in her nearby mosque preaches hatred and violence, did she confronted him and his followers, saying "you're wrong, guys!"

I should certainly hope so, but I'm curious why you bring this up. We're talking about the inherent Evil of Islam, or, as you put it, that "hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology". Are we in agreement that this Muslim does not appear to subscribe to a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology? If so, then Islam is not necessarily evil, it is what Muslims make it, which in this case is something hardly more evil than any other religion.

Proofs, please. Can you name those non-extremist schools of scholarship and their followers, so that we knew for sure they are in majority?

Nope. I'm no expert on Islam, just an observer. I haven't studied Islamic "schools of scholarship and their followers". I merely observe that there's no shortage of Muslim leaders who are willing to condemn terrorism, (nor of Muslims who are able to live here peacefully). Like those 11 imams who gathered in Oslo yesterday to .. condemn terrorism. One of them believes that the West is ultimately to blame, but even he says that "terrorism is completely unacceptable, nothing can justify the kind of violence we have seen in London and Sharm el-Sheikh". One Mosque - Tablighi Jaamat - refused to come to the meeting. To conspiracy theorists, this proves that Oslo has 2 honest and 10 dishonest imams. To me it indicates that, despite their other flaws, most Muslims in Oslo do not support terrorism. Which was also the result of a recent British survey. It's the minority that do support terrorism that is our enemy, and their numbers are more than large enough without us picking a fight with each and every Muslim on earth for no good reason.

But though I'm ignorant, I'm always eager to learn. Perhaps you could list the major Islamic schools of thought for me, and explain how each of them preaches hatred of the West and sympathy for terrorism, (as I in the statement you objected to claim they don't).

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 14:09 | Link

Cossack got it exactly right and in one short pithy sentenc: "What worries me is that those "moderate" Muslims go to great lengths to fight the negative image of Islam among non-Muslims, but do nothing to convince their fellow Muslims that their moderate interpretation of Islam is correct." That is exactly correct. Where are the marches by Moslems condemning terrorists? Where are the demonstrations? Where are the "leaders" speaking out? NONE and NO ONE. All we hear are comments like "this was not the act of a true Moslem," and, in the same breath, "you have to understand why they do this" -- followed by some long winded monologue usually incorporating words like "Zionist or "imperialist."

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 14:14 | Link

* * *
"Now, I ask myself: “What do you say, what do you have to say, about what happened in London?” They ask me face-to-face, via fax and email; often scolding me because up until now I have remained silent. Almost as if my silence were a betrayal. And each time I shake my head and murmur to myself: what else should I say?!? I’ve been saying it for four years--that I fight against the Monster that has decided to eliminate us physically and, along with our bodies, to destroy our principles and values. Our civilization. For four years I’ve been talking about Islamic Nazism; about the war against the West; about the death cult; about European suicide. About a Europe that is no longer Europe, but Eurabia, and that with its feebleness, its inertia, its blindness, its servitude to the enemy is digging its own grave. For four years, like another Cassandra, I’ve been shouting until I’m hoarse “Troy is burning! Troy is burning!” and I despair of the Danaids for whom, like Virgil in the Aeneid I weep for a city entombed in its torpor. [A city] that, through its wide-open doors receives fresh troops and joins complicit parties [inside]. For four years I’ve been repeating to the wind the truth about the Monster and its accomplices; that is, the accomplices of the Monster who, in good or bad faith, open wide the doors--who, like [those] in the Apocalypse of John the Evangelist, throw themselves at his feet and allow themselves to be stamped with the mark of shame.

* * *
Oriana Fallaci
Posted and translated at http://mysteryachievement.blogspot.com/2005/07/enemy-we-treat-like-friend-part-i.html

Sara | 2005-07-26 14:45 | Link

Anonymous, Oslo
...
We didn't eradicate christianity because of it evils. We modified it.

No, that is a common misunderstanding, but it is still wrong. What we did was to stop abusing Christianity and the word of Jesus. Islamic terrorists are not abusing the teachings of Islam and the word of Mohammed, they are using them.

If Islam was being abused instead of used by the terrorist, my view on the whole matter would have been entirely different.

Sara | 2005-07-26 14:47 | Link

Anonymous, Oslo
...
We didn't eradicate christianity because of it evils. We modified it.

If Islam was being abused instead of used by the terrorist, my view on the whole matter would have been entirely different.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 14:52 | Link

Excerpted from today's London Times:
From the Times of LondonThreat of Islamic extremism that stretches across Europe
By Anthony Browne
* * *
Security analysts, particularly in France and the United States, say that Europe has let itself become a breeding ground of Islamist terrorism.
* * *.
Robert Leiken, director of national security at the Nixon Centre, wrote in the latest issue of the influential journal Foreign Affairs: “Jihadists’ networks span Europe * * * immigrants or their descendants are volunteering for jihad.”
A study by Leiken of 373 jihadists in Europe and America found that a quarter were EU citizens. Matthew Levitt, director of terrorism studies at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, * * * Europe has served as a launching pad for terrorists plotting attacks elsewhere.”
There are about 15 million Muslims in Europe, or 3 per cent of the population* * *. The Muslim population is still growing fast — by more than 7 per cent a year in Austria, Italy, Spain, Sweden and Denmark — and * * * Europe’s Muslim population will double by 2025.

The first to confront its Islamic terrorist threat was France, home to Europe’s largest Muslim community,* * *The French Government clamped down on radical Islam in a way that no other country has. No mosque or Islamic prayer hall is off limits to police. Imams preaching hate are regularly deported. France stopped giving asylum to Islamic extremists wanted in their home country, and was disgusted when many of them were given refuge in Britain. As a result of France’s draconian anti- terror laws, the country is thought to be comparatively free of terrorist networks.
Germany has Europe’s second-largest Muslim population, but they are predominantly from Turkey, a more secular and Westernised country. German Turks, as with Turks elsewhere, have integrated better and been less tempted by religious extremism than the Muslims of Arab descent living in ghettoes in France. Instead, concern about Islamic extremism in Germany has focused on its tiny Arab community, many of whom were Muslim activists who arrived as refugees.
* * *.
The Hamburg cell that plotted the September 11 attacks on the US comprised Saudi and Egyptian students. The Netherlands’ largest Muslim group are of Turkish origin, but again it is the North African community, particularly Moroccan, that has fuelled home-grown jihad.
* * *
Dutch intelligence services caution that there are hundreds of Islamic radicals in the Netherlands prepared to wage holy war. The Spanish Government paid little attention to the threat from Islamists because it was confronting other terrorists.

Spain’s Moroccan community made it easy for the terrorists who planted the March 11, 2004, train bombs to operate. It acts as a trunk route for North Africans entering Europe. Many pass on to Italy, whose small Muslim community based around Milan is renowned for its forging abilities, providing jihadists with visas and funding before they head off to Iraq.

In Britain, the Muslim community is different from anywhere else in Europe, mainly South Asian in origin — particularly Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi — with very few North Africans. Indian and Bangladeshi Muslims, like Turks, have been little tempted by extremism. Although many Arab extremists have been given refuge in Britain, it does not have France’s and Spain’s alienated underclass of Arab and North African youths.

However, many young British Pakistani men, who often maintain close contact with their parents’ country, have been influenced by the rise of Islamic militancy in Pakistan.

Despite the different backgrounds of Europe’s Muslims, they have often presented their governments with the same problems of ghettoisation, poverty and radicalisation.

* * *

Cossack | 2005-07-26 14:57 | Link

Bjorn Staerk: "Now what do you think she thinks of jihad?"

I have no idea, that's why I'm asking. Her views on pork, polygamy, headscarves, or whatever give me no suitable proxy for her views on jihad. We just cannot assume somebaody's views on one subject based on that person's view on other subjects. An in any case, you're paying too much attention to one letter from one person. If you could demonstrate a large and growing movement within Islam that persuasively and forcefully rejects jihad, works hard to convince the rest of Muslims, not non-Muslims, and fights terror, that would be another matter. Otherwise, every religion has its fringes, and that woman's views are clearly a fringe (just ask any imam what he thinks of them).

"I'm curious why you bring this up"

I bring this up because we do not want Muslims who claim to be "peaceful" to convince us that Islam is peaceful; we need them to convince the violant guys. That's why your Norwegian imams don't pass the test: they must fight those who promote violence, not issue general-language public statements aimed at the Westerners. The phrase that "terrorism is completely unacceptable, nothing can justify the kind of violence" looks like a smokescreen. Al-Zarqawi, bin Laden, and like-minded preachers quote Koran, Hadith, and Muslim scholars extensively, but what's the basis for that imam's statement?

"then Islam is not necessarily evil, it is what Muslims make it"

In the views of one particular woman, it's probably not evil, but these are just fringe views. Look at the practical applications of Islam in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan under Taliban, to name just the most recent and obvious examples. Can you give me an example of a peacefule and tolerant rule, which was based on Islamic teachings?

"It's the minority that do support terrorism"

In Britain, perhaps, but what about other places? And as you correctly point out, this minority is quite a large one. Anyway, it was also a minority that was actively fighting in the conquest of VII century onwards, but that did not reduce the practical consequences of those conquests.

"Perhaps you could list the major Islamic schools of thought for me, and explain how each of them preaches hatred of the West and sympathy for terrorism"

That's too huge a topic for an online discussion. You may consult some online sources, for example:

www.jihadwatch.com (run by Robert Spencer, an American expert on Islam, and you can find lots of references to other sites and books there)

www.faithfreedom.org
www.apostatesofislam.com
www.knowislam.info

The latter sites are run by people who abandoned Islam, and again, you can find lots of further references there.

Stuart | 2005-07-26 15:47 | Link

Bjorn, what you seem to forget is that islam is a cult, and muslims are its members. The story from that young muslim girl is therefore nothing but a cult member's story about the cult she is a member of.

Now, with almost every other cult, people will not uncritically accept its members' stories about how wonderful that cult is. Instead, they will try to find out what the foundation of that cult is as well as listen to stories from people who have successfully left the cult to find out what is really going on within it. So why are you not willing to do this with islam, Bjorn?

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-26 16:08 | Link

Or, as one person replied to this Muslim in Dagbladet, "she is in practice rejecting Islam by interpreting it as she does. The fact that she continues to call herself a Muslim becomes a contradiction in terms"

Being a muslim means that you believe that each and every word in the quran has been revealed directly from allah through mohammed, and that the contents of the mentioned book therefore are absolutely truthful and correct ad infinitum. This notion is as critical for a muslim to believe in as believing in Jesus Christ is for a Christian.

Consequently, if the girl in question believes that parts of the quran can be rebuffed with a reference to the fact that we live in a modern time in a modern society - then she is de facto rejecting her islamic faith and can in accordance with sharia lawfully be butchered.

We need to realize that we are pro tempore in a war with an evil, absolute and totalitarian ideology which always has dreamt of our destruction. For Norway, Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, et cetera - that is, the Western civilization which I love and cheerish - the question we have been asked is whether to be or not to be. Let us answer it together, friends. Loudly.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-26 16:29 | Link

Shame on me. I forgot to include Israel on my quickly assembled list above. Judaism, like Christianity, is one of the great pillars on which our civilization rests. Furthermore, many of our best and brightest people have been and are Jews. This small minority has made and makes an incredibly impressive contribution to our civilization.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 17:17 | Link

Interesting analyis

Europe's Angry Muslims, By Robert S. Leiken
From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2005

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 17:50 | Link

I think this about says it all:
From the Wall St. Journal today

Why Not a 'Million Muslim March'?

By AHMED H. AL-RAHIM

* * *
Mr. Qimany, an outspoken critic of Islamism whose many writings have been banned by al-Azhar University (Sunni Islam's most revered institution of higher education), recently received a death threat declaring him an apostate. "We have individuals," the message read, "who are willing to cleanse their sins with your blood." The individuals threatening him wished to make an example of Mr. Qimany in the same way they had of his fellow secular writer Farag Fouda, assassinated in 1992.

If Mr. Qimany did not retract his statements and writings against the Islamists, his fate was death. * * * So to spare his family the fate that befell Fouda's, Mr. Qimany recanted all his writings, promising never to write again. He knew that he was alone in his battle against the dark forces of Islam; his only weapon was his pen, which alas he surrendered to the Islamists as others before him surrendered their lives.

The silencing of Mr. Qimany could not come at a worse time, when there are so few Muslims speaking out against Islamism and the recent spate of bombings. Sadly, only the voices of Western political leaders constantly remind us that Islam is a "religion of peace." Where are the Muslims, especially those living in the West, who have the freedom to organize and make their voices heard? It seems that the only time we hear from the Muslim masses is when there are alleged desecrations of the Quran, or of prisoner abuse in Iraq. Where is the Muslim outrage, the mass protests to defend Islam, in whose sacred name murder is committed nearly every day, against what Western leaders describe as a "perversion of its true nature"?

Alas, the battle against Islamism -- and also for the heart of Islam -- has become a battle for the West to fight. As a Muslim, these acts of terrorism committed by fellow Muslims -- and yes, they are Muslims, from whom we cannot distance ourselves by the sophistry that asserts that their version is but a perversion of Islam -- are a great source of shame. But what is more shameful is that there are no mass Muslim protests to speak of against terrorism that is committed in our name. In the same way that Muslims have protested against alleged desecrations of the Quran, they now should be out in full force in the streets of Cairo, London and New York, sending a clear message to the Islamists that Enough is Enough. Why not a "Million Muslim March" on Washington, of law-abiding Muslim citizens clamoring to reclaim their faith from those who would kill innocents in its name? Muslims must no longer stand by while murder and suicide bombings are committed in their name.

Mr. Rahim, an Iraqi-American, has taught Arabic and Islamic studies at Harvard University

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 20:08 | Link

Sara: No, that is a common misunderstanding, but it is still wrong. What we did was to stop abusing Christianity and the word of Jesus. Islamic terrorists are not abusing the teachings of Islam and the word of Mohammed, they are using them.

I admire your willingness to give Christianity the benefit of the doubt. A lesser person would have exploited the past transgressions of Christians and made some cheap point about the inherent danger of a belief that can be used to justify war, oppression and torture, and so much of it, but you have decided to show forgiveness and mercy. I'm humbled by your example, and will do my best to copy it. By the way, you didn't say which (if any) religion you follow yourself. Please let me know, for I would very much like learn more of a faith that inspires such virtues.

Cossack: Her views on pork, polygamy, headscarves, or whatever give me no suitable proxy for her views on jihad. We just cannot assume somebaody's views on one subject based on that person's view on other subjects.

That's unusually cautious of you. Do you apply this principle both ways? When you hear of a Muslim who talks about the need to cleanse the West with blood in the name of Islam, do you remain open to the possibility that he eats pork, doesn't care what women wear, and goes out to party two times a week? The world is complex, after all, and we wouldn't want to make hasty judgments about people based on superficial things like the ideological foundation of their worldview.

If you could demonstrate a large and growing movement within Islam that persuasively and forcefully rejects jihad, works hard to convince the rest of Muslims, not non-Muslims, and fights terror, that would be another matter.

Ah. My bad. I thought we were discussing the inherent and necessary evil of Islam, that .. what was your phrase .. hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology. And I thought that by giving you an example of a Muslim who clearly wasn't motivated by a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology, I had demonstrated that there was nothing inherent or necessary about it. But now I see that what you really meant to say was that there are many Muslims who seem motivated by a hateful, aggressive ideology. Which of course is different. Hey, I just got an idea: What about if we encourage all those hateful, aggressive Muslims, wherever we find them, to switch to that non-hateful non-aggressive non-totalitarian kind? They could remain Muslims and not blow people up at the same time! How about it?

Seems to me there's a flaw in my argument here somewhere, though. Oh yes. Most Muslims already go about not blowing people up. Which is kind of odd considering the majority of them are motivated in their daily lives by a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology. I can't make heads or tails of this, perhaps you can clear it up for me.

That's too huge a topic for an online discussion. You may consult some online sources, for example

Thanks, but I'm afraid I couldn't find anything on the sites you linked about the major schools of thought in Islam and how each of them promote hatred of the West and terrorism. The articles I found didn't say anything about schools of thought at all. I'm sure my poor research skills are to blame. Would it take too much of your time to point me to the articles you were thinking of?

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 20:47 | Link

Stuart: Bjorn, what you seem to forget is that islam is a cult, and muslims are its members. The story from that young muslim girl is therefore nothing but a cult member's story about the cult she is a member of.

That's a good point. Another way of seeing this is from a memetic point of view. Imagine you're an idea in search of a brain to inhabit. You must not only compete with millions of other ideas, you must also find a way to bypass the often highly developed mental defences of the brains available to you. Let's say one of those defences is a requirement that an idea should conform to certain standards to be accepted, like being true, or reasonable. One way of making it past such a defense is to actually be true or reasonable. But it many cases, like religion, that is very difficult. Another approach is for the idea to hook up with another idea that specializes in undermining those mental defenses, creating a hole for the first idea to enter through. Kind of like the way Luke teams up with Obi Wan in Star Wars. "These aren't the droids you're looking for." Now you've got one powerful and seductive pair of ideas.

For instance, think of the way successful holy texts tend to include the idea "this holy text is True and if you doubt it you'll burn in hell", thus creating a hole in the barrier for "give your money to the priests" to follow through. Or the way successful conspiracy theories tend to include the idea "this conspiracy is so good that we can't even find any evidence for it". Or the way you define self-proclaimed tolerant Muslims as brainwashed cult members, thus turning facts that weaken your case into a powerful demonstration of the Evil of Islam.

The brain is a marvellous thing.

Nomen Nescio: she is de facto rejecting her islamic faith and can in accordance with sharia lawfully be butchered.

It was about time a real Islamist showed up around here. There has been too much wild speculation about what you people really stand for, and I hope that you have time to stick around and explain a few things to us, inbetween your Quran studies and your bomb making training. Personally I find your worldview hard to comprehend. For instance, I don't get why you insist on having people butchered all the time. Can't you just live and let live? Sure, this woman rejects your interpretation of Islam, but insisting that she gets killed seems so hateful and pointless. What makes your interpretation so much holier than hers?

Oh, and another thing, I've been told that most Muslims actually agree with you at heart. That there really is no difference between Islamism and Islam. This confuses me a little, for why then do you Islamists go around butchering all those other Muslims? I mean, you're all just one big group of people who essentially agree about everything, and differ mostly in your ability to hide your true beliefs. Shouldn't you be killing infidels instead?

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-26 21:11 | Link

Bjorn: I think you are just playing with word games. Islam teaches that the Koran is devinely inspired and literal. Concepts such as logic and relativism went out with the Mu'tazilite's in the 8th century. Whateve one on oneconversations you may have had, there is almost no Moslem commentary whether by Mullahs or demonstartions against a) terror or b) allowiong the free practice of religion in areas controlled by Moslems. To the contrary, Islam id clear that its one supreme goal is the ascedency of the Dar-al-Islam over Dar-al-Harb and death and fear is a proper means of attaining that goal.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-26 21:20 | Link

Bjørn Stærk:

The above attempt to ridicule me does not come as a surprise. I expected a more fierce argumentum ad hominem attack to be the next logical step in what appears to be a negative development on your part. Seemingly, you are unable to refrain from name calling, mental diagnoses as well as primitive acts of ridicule.

I will no longer participate in this discussion.

Anonymous | 2005-07-26 21:27 | Link

Sara answered me such:

No, that is a common misunderstanding, but it is still wrong. What we did was to stop abusing Christianity and the word of Jesus. Islamic terrorists are not abusing the teachings of Islam and the word of Mohammed, they are using them. Their actions are more than justified in the Quran.

Bullshit, and I'll explain why:
Leviticus (as an example) 20:13 says:
"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Now, christians will argue that this is the old testament, and the new testament dispells the laws of the old testament, which of course is utter bullshit:

Matthew 5, 17-18:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Jesus said it quite clearly: "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen".

The which-hunts were more than justified in the words of the bible! One can always pull out more laws of the old testament and compare it to that statement from Jesus.

Still think I'm wrong? Maybe it's time to read that good old bible with all its horrors again. Maybe you'll come to the same conclusion - namely that it's just as evil a book - but that it has been watered down by the believers.

.. which I'll argue is exactly what needs to happen with the evil book of the muslims.

Anonymous | 2005-07-26 21:33 | Link

Nomen Nescio said:
"The above attempt to ridicule me does not come as a surprise. I expected a more fierce argumentum ad hominem attack to be the next logical step in what appears to be a negative development on your part. Seemingly, you are unable to refrain from name calling, mental diagnoses as well as primitive acts of ridicule."

He was quite right, though - as the girl he quoted from Dagbladet has the same view on Islam as the one mirrored by most Imams in Norway.

You claimed that most Imams in Norway could be lawfully butchered under Sharia.

... which borders on the utterly ridiculous, and deserved ridicule.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-26 22:04 | Link

Nomen Nescio: I will no longer participate in this discussion.

Fair enough, but may I ask a favor? I'm serious. No joke. Do not go around saying that some Muslim who interprets Islam differently from you "can in accordance with sharia lawfully be butchered". Somebody might listen to you.

Sara | 2005-07-26 22:33 | Link

Bjorn Staerk wrote: "The above attempt to ridicule me does not come as a surprise. I expected a more fierce argumentum ad hominem attack to be the next logical step in what appears to be a negative development on your part. Seemingly, you are unable to refrain from name calling, mental diagnoses as well as primitive acts of ridicule.

I will no longer participate in this discussion."

This is a silly argument, nursing a grievance. I recommend you read today's posting by Daniel Pipes at the Frontpagemag.com:

"What the Terrorists Want"

I think it may fill inn something.

Carmen | 2005-07-26 23:53 | Link

First of all I have to say I've found a very interesting debate on this blog, congratulations.
Well, my idea about the islam is that it can't be evil itself, neither any other religion. I think religions are, first of all, something spiritual that help people to keep on living; though in fact religions are a source of power and they're used to manipulate people through interpretations of holy texts. So I don´t think muslims are bad for our society because they're muslims, but I agree that nowadays they represent a danger for us because a lot of them take their religion to an ideoloical extreme.
Apart from that, I see the link between Irak war and terrorism; I don't think the war can be a "cause" of terrorist attacks, but Irak is more unstable today than 2 years ago, and it has become a place where terrorism grow. But for me it doesn't mean anything but we shouldn't do wars without being sure that at the end we're gonna be able to take control of what's happening.
I think Al-Qaeda's terrorism is not because the world is not fair, I believe their only reason is to destroy our way of life, our freedom, and our political system to impose their morality and their rules.

I'm sorry because my english is not as good as I wish, so if there are any mistakes in the comment it's because of that.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-27 07:59 | Link

Meanwhile, more and more Americans are converting to Islam !

Latino Muslims Growing in Number in the US

Islam is one of the fastest-growing religions in the United States and Latinos represent one of the fastest-growing minorities. Increasingly, the two trends are meeting in the form of Hispanic converts to Islam.

http://author.voanews.com/english/2005-07-13-voa49.cfm

It really amazes me that with all this 'bad' hate-filled publicity Islam is getting, more and more people are embracing this great religion !

Islam never ceases of stunning the world, it is truly, the ONLY true religion on earth.

Nomen Nescio | 2005-07-27 08:48 | Link

Fair enough, but may I ask a favor? I'm serious. No joke. Do not go around saying that some Muslim who interprets Islam differently from you "can in accordance with sharia lawfully be butchered". Somebody might listen to you.

The justification of killing a murtadd is found in the islamic ideology per se, and not in me stating that fact. Even thought I sincerely would like things to be different, I, for one, feel obliged to relate to reality.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-27 09:08 | Link

Nomen Nesico: The justification of killing a murtadd is found in the islamic ideology per se, and not in me stating that fact. Even thought I sincerely would like things to be different, I, for one, feel obliged to relate to reality.

You don't get it. If you say, "according to this or that interpretation of the Quran, it is right to kill that person", that's fine, that's a descriptive statement, one that is objectively true or false. But if you say "according to the Quran, it is right to kill that person", that is a theological statement, an interpretation, and an encouragement to pious Muslims to commit murder. You're not describing reality, you're telling Muslims how they must behave if they want the right to call themselves Muslims.

Of course they're not going to take you seriously. Most of them. But what if one person does? What if somebody comes across your statement and is convinced by it? What you and others are doing here is essentially theology, and theological arguments work equally well whether you apply a plus or minus sign to them.

Just be careful what you say, ok?

Sara | 2005-07-27 11:10 | Link

Albert Einstein said: "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Sir Winston Cgurchill said: "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."

Bjoern Staerk, I think you are a thoroughbred d'himmi.

Cossack | 2005-07-27 11:53 | Link

Bjorn Staerk: "When you hear of a Muslim who talks about the need to cleanse the West with blood in the name of Islam, do you remain open to the possibility that he eats pork, doesn't care what women wear, and goes out to party two times a week?"

Yes, of course. But, honestly, I don't really care. These are the former views that are important to me, not the latter.

"by giving you an example of a Muslim who clearly wasn't motivated by a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology, I had demonstrated that there was nothing inherent or necessary about it"

First, you didn't give an example of such a Muslim. You failed to demonstrate her views on jihad and treatment of non-Muslims, which are the ones that really matter. Secondly, her views on other issues are clearly a fringe, and that is the mainstream, not fringe, that we are talking about.

"What about if we encourage all those hateful, aggressive Muslims, wherever we find them, to switch to that non-hateful non-aggressive non-totalitarian kind? They could remain Muslims and not blow people up at the same time! How about it?"

That's a commendable goal, and it seems to be the only key practical issue that divides us; everything else is theory. If you think that there is a realistic way to do that, please demonstrate it. My major point, however, is that there is no workable way to achieve the goal that you state. First, I challenge you to produce this "non-hateful non-aggressive non-totalitarian kind" of Islam. Not in the words of one Muslim, but in the teachings of at least one comprehensive, coherent school of Islamic thought. Secondly, whatever arguments in favor of such peaceful kind of Islam we may offer, jihadists will still be able to cite Koran, Sunna, the teachings of Islamic scholars, and the examples of Muhammad and his followers to rebuff our arguments.

"I'm afraid I couldn't find anything on the sites you linked about the major schools of thought in Islam"

You may then start with Wikipedia, which provides backgrounds on the major schools of thought. Links to these articles are in the lead article on Islam there.

Stuart | 2005-07-27 14:56 | Link

I'm impressed with your rhetorical skills, Bjorn, if nothing else....

Now, let's look at the topic we're discussing.

Bjorn Stark: "Or the way you define self-proclaimed tolerant Muslims as brainwashed cult members, thus turning facts that weaken your case into a powerful demonstration of the Evil of Islam."

The point is that e.g. this young muslim girl in question may be blissfully unaware of the inherent evil of the cult she is a member of. In fact, that can be an asset to the cult itself, because this girl can serve as a useful idiot (your favourite expression) by convincing naive fellows such as yourself that it is really up to each and every member of the cult to interpret the strict guidelines of their cult as he or she wishes. Sadly, this is not how it works - at the end of the day it is the cult that makes the calls and decides what is right and what is wrong.

As this girl is a muslim, she lives at the mercy of the cult of islam. So she can decide to be tolerant and peace-loving all she wants, but only until the day the cult decides to inform her that she is breaking the rules. She can then decide to change her behaviour according to the rules, or she can choose to break the rules. And, as we all know, breaking the rules of the cult of islam can have severe consequences - it may even prove to be fatal.

What should be done is of course to diminish the power of the cult. This can be done by reducing the number of members it has. In other words, encourage the cult members - especially the tolerant and peace-loving ones - to leave the cult and fight against it. Of course, leaving this particular cult is actually breaking its rules, which, as I mentioned, can be rather dangerous. But maybe that is where we can make a difference and support those brave individuals who choose to follow this route.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the cult itself isn't really such a bad idea - you just want a lot of its members to slightly re-adjust the cult's ideology, and everything will be OK. That is of course noble and sweet of you, Bjorn, but alas, I don't think it will work, and in the end you just end up as a useful idiot for the cult as you continue to justify its existence.

I am soon going on a vacation, which means that I probably won't have time to reply to your answer.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-27 17:12 | Link

Nomen Nescio,

Shalom, Shalom !!!....שלום !! שלום!!!!

Yes indeed the jews have contributed much to world civilization.

If you recall ex-kkkristian in his recent rantings were challenging us blogistanis ( or at least we in the US ) to show him how many women prime ministers we have produced ? I do not recall too many female head of states in islamic countries ( other than pakistan and bangladesh - token head of states). I do know that israel has produced lots of women scientists. Even patriarchal India has managed to produce a few women astronauts. I'm still waiting for a muzlim country to produce a female astronaut ( no...burqa and hijab would be a major hindrance for space exploration LOL ).

At any rate here is an excellent web-site by Victor Mordecai , who is of the opinion that Islam is a dire global threat to humanity and civilization ( gasp! reaaallly ???)

check out his web-page on the latest on ISLAMOPATHY:

http://www.vicmord.com/

Shalom again
and Toda Raba /Gracias

שלום, תודה רבה

Sister Joodith Kim Goldstein

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-27 17:46 | Link

Judith Weiss, said: Geronimo, your statements show you know nothing about Judaism and the Jewish people. Judaism was always a nation, a people, and a religion. but not a race. Anyone can convert to Judaism, and many do, but when they do they explicitly make a commitment to join the Jewish PEOPLE, as well as take on the practices of the religion. This is true of all branches of Judaism, and always has been.

Geronimo says: Your partially correct. However, there has never been a nation call Judaism. There has been a house of Judah, and a province of Judea, and people who are Judean’s, a city called Jerusalem, and a religion called Judaism, prevalent in all the above which was located in the Southern Kingdom called the Kingdom Judah about 650 BC. The Northern Kingdom called Israel, often called “The House of Israel”, for the most part did not embrace Judaism. I know my history quite well, but again this is not the forum for this discussion.

Judith Weise said: Zionism in its many permutations (read transformations) has always been the desire of the Jewish people to have its heart's center in its ancestral homeland, just like any other ethnic group. Zionism didn't start in the 1800s. Don't lecture me about what various rabbis think. I know the history and theology of my people better than you do.

Geronimo says: Again, partially true. You maybe able to enlighten me on your knowledge of Jewish customs and fill me in on certain aspects of Jewish history. But, as a Hebrew who does not embrace Judaism, I’ve got a pretty good grip on history and the form of Zionism prevalent within the Israeli government that embraces the philosophy of Ze’ev Vladimir Jabotinsky and the Likud Party. The current form of politicalzed Zionism was high jacked from an early philosophy associated with Judaism. Also, are you suggesting there is no disagreement between Rabbis regarding their involvement within Zionism, I would strongly disagree. That would be like saying my understanding of Christianity is no different than Jessie Jackson’s.

Judith Weise said: This totally ahistorical sentence illustrates your ignorance. Looks like you are getting your "facts" from Justin Raimondo or Electronic Intifada or somebody similar.

Geronimo says: I don’t know anything about Justin Raimondo, other than (thanks to Google) he ran as a Republican candidate in California's 8th district against Nancy Pelosi. I’m a student of history, which can be compared to putting a large puzzle together. I’ll only comment on those pieces of the puzzle that already fit perfectly. Isn’t in interesting as you get closer to understanding certain facts, the opposing views often begins their defense with name calling? Infitada? Simply because I understand the struggle for Palestine and the lies perpetuated on both sides does in no way suggest I embrace the bankrupt philosophy of Infitada.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-27 17:56 | Link

Howdee doo Geronimo,

I'm a korean jewess , and i say you and Judith are both right ( yes you can be hawaiian and become a jewish too ...o.k. judith refute that)

A toast to you both with a cup of kosher korean kimchee tea...and lets get on the business of dissecting that thing kkkalled izzzlam, o.k.

United we stand , together we foil !

Toda Raba and Shalom again
Sister Joodith Kim Goldstijn

שלום, תודה רבה

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-27 20:08 | Link

From the London Times today:
By Jenny Booth, Times Online

* * *
Shocking new images have emerged of unexploded bombs, some packed around with nails, which were found in a car left behind by the July 7 London bombers.

In total, 16 bombs were found in the red Nissan car parked at Luton railway station. It is is believed the car was rented in Leeds by Shehzad Tanweer, one of the four bombers who killed themselves* * *

The sheer number of devices has raised fears that the scale of the July 7 bomb plot was much larger than originally imagined.

The presence of nailbombs graphically illustrates that the bombing cell wanted to inflict the maximum possible pain, injury and risk of death on innocent London commuters, security analysts say.

"You see what is bulging on the sides of the bottle are nails * * * said Robert Ayers, a security expert * * *.

"And the nails are put there so that when the bomb goes off, the nails will tear tissue and kill people in the area. Bombs don't kill by concussion. Small bombs, they kill by the blast effects of fragments * * * and this is designed to kill people."

* * *

Ex "C" says "Islam never ceases of stunning the world, it is truly, the ONLY true religion on earth." From this I conclude he is a nut. I further conclude that he reprersents Islam and the West have every right to now target and respond in kind.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-27 20:35 | Link

The sheer number of devices has raised fears that the scale of the July 7 bomb plot was much larger than originally imagined.

The presence of nailbombs graphically illustrates that the bombing cell wanted to inflict the maximum possible pain, injury and risk of death on innocent London commuters, security analysts say.

"You see what is bulging on the sides of the bottle are nails * * * said Robert Ayers, a security expert * * *.

* * *

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-28 01:34 | Link

Bjørn man,

what has happened to you? You seem completely disconnected from Reality. You warn Nomen that she should be careful about what she says? This is the religion where clerics have issued fatwas against hundreds of people, including huge groups of people. Remember Rushdie? Rushdie's publisher was assasinated in Norway I believe.

You are so undermining what little argument you had. By this warning, you are admitting that what she says is plausible. If someone claimed that the Torah or Bible commands us to kill people, would it be believable?

Of course it's plausible, because the Koran does authorize it in explicit terms. That's why such a large percentage of most devout muslims support it. Even Cat Stevens said that killing Rushdie was ok.

X-Chrisitan | 2005-07-28 03:33 | Link

Meanwhile, more and more Jupiterians are converting to Islam! Last year 50 gabillion of Jupiters finest citizens turned to the teachings of the late Great Prophet Mohammud, of the late great plant Earth. Unfortunately most of the original inhabitants of the Giant Planet had to be killed and the rest were enslaved.

Fatino Muslims are also growing in size and weight in mid-space, which has expanded to accomodate the growing numbers of growing waistlines of growing Muslims in the growing Asteroid belt.

Islam is also one of the fastest-growing religions in the United States of Saturn and Fatinos represent one of the fastest-growing minorities of fast growing religions in the fast growing region of the fast growing galaxy, which is - as is well known - a scientific miracle predicted in one of the two non-abrogated verses left in the Holy Ku-ran (a portuguese joke!).

It really amazes the majority of gentle citizens of Saturn that the kind, gentle 'peaceful' Muslim citizens of Jupiter are fleeing to Saturn to escape the chaos what has mysteriously engulfed Jupiter since the mass conversion to Islam. The poor Muslims on Saturn then are forced to turn to rape and other crimes because of the intolerant Saturians were late on their welfare payments to the Jupiterians - and the Saturnian women were 'asking for it'. Even so, Jupiterian immigrants to Saturn have declared that Islam is peace and plea not to be sent back to their home planet. Anybody on Saturn that suggests that there may, just possibly, be some sort of problem with Islam is immediately labeled 'hate-filled'. The wave of recent bombings that have hit Saturn are understood to be a direct response to Saturn moral imperialism. Even so, Islam on Saturn is getting more and more people as criminals and low life fools find and gladly embrace a great religion that lets them lie, cheat and hate - without remore and without shame.

Islam never ceases to stun the galaxy. It is, truly, the ONLY true religion founded by one of the great slavers on earth. It will not stop until the horror and misery that it has inflicted on Islamic countries is shared by the West, all of planet earth and even the WHOLE galaxy. As Almud Raphem Killem, companion of the prophet (PHFASS) said: If Muslims cannot be happy, at least they can make others more unhappy!

As soon as the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn submit to Islam, plans will be made to conquer Venus, which as everyone knows, is full of virgins just waiting to be deflowered by brave Muslim Jupiterian Jihadists. The only unresolved issue is how to 'get it up' - because, as everyone also knows - the first 72 virgins received for their 'good works' are still virgin.

X-Chrisitan, now Jupiterian Muslim.

(this is Kactuz signing off. Sorry, it has been a slow day!)

daniel, japan | 2005-07-28 04:38 | Link

If you take the time to read the Quran and interpret it according to the times we live in, it is nothing more than a moral book with rules that encourage us to be good people, make good choices, see the difference between right and wrong.

I took the time to read the Qur'an, and saw that it calls for readers to "kill the infidels" wherever they may be found.

Is that what "good people" are supposed to do?

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-28 07:18 | Link

For X-Christian: From what continent did you find whatever your smoking? Does it always allow you to visit Jupiter? What are the interest rates on Saturn and how do the neighborhoods compare with those on Jupiter. Will you be moving there soon? Are you bored? Do you post often? Why?

Bjorn: How many of X-Christian’s posts do we have to endure before they are blocked?

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-28 08:26 | Link

Re:
daniel, japan

''I took the time to read the Qur'an, and saw that it calls for readers to "kill the infidels" wherever they may be found.

Is that what "good people" are supposed to do?''

I am sorry but you are lying, the Noble Quran does not say kill the infidels, I CHALLENGE you to show me where in the Quran it says 'kill' the infidels !!

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-28 08:33 | Link

More ' bad ' news for the mindless Islamophobes:

More Americans See Islam in Favorable Light: Poll

WASHINGTON, July 27, 2005 (IslamOnline.net) – The percentage of Americans having a favorable opinion of Muslim Americans is on the rise, while the number of Americans believing that Islam was a violent religion is declining, a new poll has showed.

The percentage of Americans viewing Islam in favorable light rose from 45 percent in March 2001 -- before the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States -- to 51 percent in July 2003 to 55 percent today, according to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, MSNBC reported.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/27/article04.shtml

I truly believe when people get the chance to know about Islam by themselves without the mindless hate and lies propogated by well known christian evangelical and zionist jewish haters, people will look at Islam in different lights.

CAIR ( the council of american Islamic relation ) is doing great job by giving away free copies of the Noble Quran to the American public and asking them to judge by themselves !

It is your chance too to explore the Noble Quran by YOURSELF and make up your mind:

ORDER YOUR FREE COPY NOW:

https://www.cair-net.org/explorethequran/request.asp

You can never curtail the truth by thin tissue of lies.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-28 08:57 | Link

Gunnar: You warn Nomen that she should be careful about what she says?

I'm not sure I see your point. We all know that some Muslims go about killing random civilians because they think their God commands them to. We also know that other Muslims do not think their God wants them to kill random civilians. Both of these interpretations - and a myriad of variations on them - exist in the real world. There is no either or. There are a lot of ways to read the Quran and apply it to modern life. Some of them very very bad, and for you to imply that I'm denying that is surprising.

My point is merely that when people go around and say "Allah wants faithful Muslims to go on a killing spree", people who themselves don't even believe in Allah, they should be prepared for the possibility that people who do believe in Allah, and who care very much about how he wants them to behave, might actually listen to them and do what they say.

What makes it worse is that that statement is meaningless. Because only a believer can read the Quran and interpret it as the word of God - the rest of us can merely observe the believers. And I think what puzzles me most is that all these people know that there are different traditions in Islam, not only Sunni and Shiah but a large number of variations. And still they claim there is One True Interpretation of the Quran, which they themselves have magically stumbled on. Don't they know how to count?

Daniel: I took the time to read the Qur'an, and saw that it calls for readers to "kill the infidels" wherever they may be found.

Uh-huh. Good thing you don't believe in Allah, then. But what about Muslims who read the same book and came to a different conclusion? Are they false Muslims, lying Muslims or as genuine as any other Muslim?

Geronimo: How many of X-Christian’s posts do we have to endure before they are blocked?

That was obviously a parody by someone else, (the nicks were subtly different). Oh, and you will endure all his posts, and if that's a problem to you I don't want to hear about it.

Cossack | 2005-07-28 10:03 | Link

Bjørn Stærk: there are different traditions in Islam, not only Sunni and Shiah but a large number of variations.

Bjørn, I am deeply dismayed that you keep talking about "lots of variations" of Islam, but consitently fail to demonstrate at least one variation that clearly prohibits Muslims from killing non-Muslims and denounces the spread of Islam through violence and warfare. Until you show us that specific variation in Islam that you're talking about, your words will ring hollow.

And still they claim there is One True Interpretation of the Quran

I'm not sure who claimed that; I, for instance, never did so. What I say, however, is that all the mainstream interpretations of Islam support jihad clearly and unambiguously, in word and deed. They may differ in details, but not in substance.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-28 15:19 | Link

Cossack: I am deeply dismayed that you keep talking about "lots of variations" of Islam, but consitently fail to demonstrate at least one variation that clearly prohibits Muslims from killing non-Muslims and denounces the spread of Islam through violence and warfare

Unlike you, I don't pretend to know Islamic traditions in detail. I'm deeply ignorant about Islam. I know the broad outlines, but I also know that you can't understand a religion in depth by reading a few books, or a few pages at Wikipedia. The day I've read fifty books about Islam and the many cultures its followers are spread across, and perhaps visited some of them, then perhaps I'll feel confident describing the internal differences of Islam, and the specific teachings of its thinkers.

Part of what offends me about the scores of Islam "experts" who hang around here is that they remind me of the kind of college student who discovers Chomsky, reads a few of his books, and think they're an expert on modern history. (I should know, I've been one.) I have no doubt there are genuinely knowledgeable people here who also think Islam is thoroughly evil, but I hesitate to place you in that category. You argued previously (or it seemed so to me) that all schools of thought in Islam are extremist and support terrorism, and when I asked you to expand on that you sent me to Faith Freedom and similar sites, all of which document extremism in the Quran as they interpret it, but ignores schools of thought. Then you sent me to Wikipedia, which summarizes Islam's major schools of thought, but says nothing about their extremism.

As for my own view, it is not based on studying the Quran, nor on knowing much about any strains of Islam, but on a couple of more general observations. 1) There are a lot of Muslims, covering a lot of ground, and they clearly have strong internal disagreements on a lot of issues. So any analysis of Islam that ignores internal differences is unlikely to be valuable. 2) The one Islamic school of thought I know the most about is the one that motivates terrorists. Their ideas are usually traced back to specific groups and thinkers, indicating that the actions of terrorists do not follow directly from mainstream Islam, but from a specific interpretation of it. 3) Whenever there is a terrorist attack, there is no shortage of Muslim leaders who are willing to condemn it. The one major argument used against this, that all these people are lying, is one I recognize from conspiracy theories. It's such an obvious memetic trick that I don't have much faith in the reasoning of people who are fooled by it. 4) Very few Muslims become terrorists. In fact, very few people, anywhere, care strongly about anything beyond the daily welfare of themselves and their families, and nothing I know convinces me that there is an exception for Muslims. Only ideologists care about abstract ideals such as global religious purity, and ideologies are never adopted by the masses.

I can expand on this, but the point is that it's mostly meta-knowledge. I don't believe you're wrong because I have such an extensive wealth of knowledge about Islam, but because I recognize your fallacies: The eagerness to simplify, the conspiracy mindset, the shortcuts and generalizations. I know those fallacies intimately, in many cases from personal experience, and their signature is imprinted on that entire idea structure.

Meta-knowledge is of course inferior to specific knowledge. Which is why I'm still interested to learn why you're so confident that all schools of thought in Islam somehow support terrorism. As long as your facts conform to my standards. For instance, "because the Quran says so" won't make it past my bullshit detector. There are so many flaws with that kind of argument - flaws I've detailed elsewhere - there's no way I'll take you seriously. You might as well say "because the easter bunny told me so". If you instead say "x, the leading modern thinker of the y school, argued in book z that the murder of infidel civilians could be justified if part of an attempt to bring about the global Khalifat", then I'll take you seriously.

If you can't, well, I believe in cause and effect. I believe that by looking at how people behave, you can tell something about what kind of beliefs they're motivated by. Your hypothesis that Islam is a hateful, aggressive, totalitarian ideology can be tested by observing whether the world's one billion Muslims act in a hateful, aggressiv and totalitarian way. They don't. So here's some more meta-knowledge for you, (perhaps better known to you as the basis of modern science): A hypothesis without predictive power is worthless. Drop it, and make a new one, then we'll test it and see if it's any better.

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-28 19:54 | Link

It is really amazing hearing some people here talking about Islam ordering its followers to kill the infiedels !! this is outrageous outright lie.

The Noble Quran was the first ever holy text to come up with the concept of religious freedom, in fact, there is a whole chapeter in the Noble Quran called THE INFIDELS, let us read this chapeter together and see what is says:

Surah 109. Al-Kâfirûn or the infidels

In the Name of Allâh, the Most
Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

1. Say (O Muhammad )to these Mushrikûn and Kâfirûn): "O Al-Kâfirûn (disbelievers in Allâh, in His Oneness, in His Angels, in His Books, in His Messengers, in the Day of Resurrection, and in Al-Qadar, etc.)!

2. "I worship not that which you worship,

3. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

4. "And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping.

5. "Nor will you worship that which I worship.

6. "To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâm)."

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

It is very important to note ayah 6 of this surah ( chapeter ):

''To you be your religion, and to me my religion (Islâm).''

This is how Islam looks at the infidels, the quran does not ask us to kill them !

it is worth to note that the word SWORD was never ever mentiond in the Noble Quran while it was mentioned more than 400 times in the
'peaceful' bible !!!

http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/the_pacifism_of_islam.html

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-28 20:07 | Link

Ok I get it he was just horny and al of the other homicide bombers just misundertood what they were taught and read:

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/27/nbomb227.xml

The suspected terrorist accused of trying to bomb a tube train at Warren Street * * * [tried to convert] Miss Scott, 23 * * * to Islam and had told her 80 virgins would be waiting for him if he died loyal to Allah. "I have known him since I was about 11," she said. * * * "He told me he was going to have all these virgins and he got to have them if he prayed to Allah.
* * *

A friend of Ibrahim, who would give him name only as Kawser, praised the actions of the suicide bombers. Speaking yesterday outside the flat Ibrahim and Omar shared in New Southgate, he said: "As a Muslim I believe it's one of the most honorable ways to die, defending your beliefs.

"You shouldn't do it because people will think you are brave but for Allah.

"It depends on the situation, but if someone gave me a bomb and said, 'Go and do it', I would have to consider it. If I was in a situation, at a time of war, to go and blow up civilians, I don't think I would do it. But to go and attack the Houses of Parliament or Downing Street, they are military targets. I hope the bombers go to paradise after giving up their lives as martyrs."

* * *

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-28 20:13 | Link

Quotes from the Koran

"O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed." (Koran, 9:73)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Koran, 47:4)

"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and his messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be to be killed or crucified, or to have their hands and feet chopped off on opposite sides, or to be expelled out of the land. Such will be their humiliation in the world, and in the next world they will face an awful horror." (Koran, 5:33-34)

"When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them who have the good things in life and yet sin. So that Allah's word is proven true against them, then we destroy them utterly." (Koran, 17:16-17)

"In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Koran, 8:37)

"How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples." (Koran, 21:11)

I can now see how Islam got a reputation fpr tpolerance and being peaceful

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-07-28 22:36 | Link

“You'd think the vast majority of decent, law-abiding Muslims (about whom we hear so much, but whom we never see taking action against the jihadists) would be coming up to Lieuwe van Gogh, son of the murdered Theo van Gogh, expressing their sorrow, and offering their condolences. Instead, this. * * *

Since the murder of Theo van Gogh, last November, his now 14-year-old son Lieuwe has twice been physically attacked by young Moroccans, or (more likely) Dutch citizens of Moroccan descent.

* * *

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

Gunnar, MD | 2005-07-29 01:17 | Link

Bjørn,

This is what makes me say you are anti-ideological. You are concerned that criticising an idea/philosophy/religion is criticising the people who believe in it. That may or may not be true, but a critical thinker can't be concerned with that. When analyzing ideas, you have to deal with the ideas. You openly admit you have not looked into Islamic teachings at all, yet you believe you can discuss it intelligently.

You seem oblivious to the fact that ideas are what propel the human being. You state how many people "call themselves" muslim, as if that's an unalterable fact of nature.

It's like discussing the pros and cons of samurai war-lord worship, but insisting that there must be something good about it, since 100 million japanese subscribe to it.

It's like discussing the pros and cons of nazism, but insisting that there must be something good about it, since half of europe subscribe to it. Yes, your statement about there not being any nice nazis is completely false. Europe had millions of true believers in the 30s and 40s.

Thank goodness we're giving our kids a course in "critical thinking".

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-29 08:16 | Link

RE: Herbie, NY NY

Let me refute what Herbie, the mindless Islamophobe, is cutting and pasting:

Quotes from the Koran

"O Prophet! Make war against the unbelievers [all non-Muslims] and the hypocrites and be merciless against them. Their home is hell, an evil refuge indeed." (Koran, 9:73)
__________________

It is very dishonest to change the words to suit your hatred and Islamophobia, this is what verse 9:73 in the Noble Quran says:

9:73. ''O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be harsh against them, their abode is Hell, - and worst indeed is that destination''

The verse says STRIVE, not make war as some mindless haters and liars put it !

Again and as usual with the mindless Islamophobes, they play with words in the Noble Quran to make it look very evil, let us read what surah 47: 4 from the Noble Quran exactly says:

47:4. ''So, when you meet (in fight Jihâd in Allâh's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost''

The verse is talking very clearly about WAR, and in this war Allah Almighty is commanding the believers to be harsh with the oppressors and the evildoers, I think it makes sense to be harsh with those who cause evil and injustice in the world, what's wrong with this verse ? or are you expecting muslims to surrender in war ???

This verse serves to show that Islam is really a religion of Peace, the punishment for waging WAR is very very harsh, it means Islam is by nature ANTI-WAR.

Thank you for making that clear to our readers :)

This verse is explaining the natural disasters and how they are a form of punishment against the sinners !

Very clear warning to people like you, mindless Islamophobes, to be on guard to and stop being ' impure' hater...what difference is that from what the bible or the torah say about those who dont follow the scripture ???

"How many were the populations we utterly destroyed because of their sins, setting up in their place other peoples." (Koran, 21:11) '
========================
What's wrong with that ???? how many old civilizations were destroyed ?? it only confirms the authenticity of the Noble Quran.

"Remember Allah inspired the angels: I am with you. Give firmness to the believers. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: you smite them above their necks and smite all their fingertips off of them." (Koran, 8:12)''
==========================
This verse starts with REMEBER, it is about events happened in the past, in the OT times.

''
I can now see how Islam got a reputation fpr tpolerance and being peaceful''
===========

You got it right:

More Americans See Islam in Favorable Light: Poll

http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/27/article04.shtml

Now, let me play your same game and quote some 'peaceful' verses from the Bible first and then from your ' peaceful' Torah:

FROM THE BIBLE:

Death for adultery (Deut 22:22-24, Lev 20:10). But Jesus forgave one adultress (John 8:1-11).

Death by stoning to a bride who is not a virgin (Deut 22:20-21).

Death by fire to a harlot whose father is a priest (Lev 21:9).

Death to a witch (Ex 22:18 ).

"Cut off" for consulting a witch (Lev 20:6, Deut 18:11).

Death for blasphemy (Lev 24:16).

Death to a non-Levite for approaching the tabernacle (Num 1:51).

Death by stoning to a child who curses a parent or is rebellious (Lev 20:9, Ex 21:17, Deut 21:18-21; affirmed by Jesus, Matt 15:3-9).

Death by stoning for cursing (Lev 24:14, 23).

Death to the owner of a goring ox (Ex 21:29).

Death for disagreeing with a judge's sentence (Deut 17:12).

Death for not "hearkening" to a priest (Deut 17:12).

Death to a false prophet (Deut 13:5, 18:20).

Death for teaching a different religion (Deut 18:20, 13:1-10;also Gal 1:8-9).

Death by stoning for apostatizing from the true religion or practicing a different religion (Ex 22:20, Deut 17:2-5).

Total destruction to any city if any of its citizens apostatize (Deut 13:12-17).

Death to male homosexuals (Lev 20:13).

Death for bestiality, both to the offender and the animal (Lev 20:15-16).

A woman who assists her husband in a fight by seizing his opponent's sex organ shall have her hand cut off (Deut 25:11-12).

Sex during a woman's period: both shall be "cut off from among [the] people" (Lev 20:18; but cf. 15:24).

Death by stoning for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, or any work on the Sabbath (Ex 35:2, 31:14-15, Num 15:32-36).

God will cause cannibalism as a punishment for sin (Jer 19:9, Lam 2:20, Ezek 5:10, Lev 26:29, Deut 28:53-57, Isa 49:26, Rev 16:6).

God will cause adultery as punishment (Deut 28:30).

God will cause drunkennes as punishment (Jer 13:12-13).

God will "spread dung upon your faces" as punishment (Mal 2:3).

Illegitimate children and their descendants are stigmatized, not allowed into the congregation (Deut 23:2).

Abortion: punishable only if accidental, caused by a fight, and only by fine; i.e, it is not the same as killing a human being (Ex 21:22-25).

Whipping, up to 40 stripes, for losing a lawsuit (Deut 25:1-3).

" Cut off " for mixing perfume for yourself according to God's special formula (Ex 30:37-38 ).

"Cut off" for eating fat or blood (Lev 3:17, 7:23-27, 17:10-12).

"Cut off" for eating leaven, or even having it in the house, during Passover (Ex 12:15, 19).

For a description of hell, see Rev 14:11, 16:9 For a long and descriptive list of God's punishments see Deut 28:15-68, Lev26.

God uses his chosen people to punish other nations (Ps 149:5-9).

God will punish "seven times" (= sevenfold? Lev 26:28 ).

God punishes many for the sins of one, the innocent are punished for the guilty, especially their guilty ancestors (which punishment is "forever," Deut 28:41; Gen 9:24-25, 20:7,18, Ex 12:29, 20:5, 34:7, Num 16, Deut 5:9, 23:2, 28:32, 41,Josh 7:8-26, 22:20, 2 Kings 5:27, Isa 14:21, Ezek 23:25, 46-47, Mal 1:2-4, Jer 31:29-30, Hos 2:4-5, Rom 5:14, also Adam's Fall generally in NT).

God will punish the men by causing their wives to be ravished and their children to be "dashed to pieces" (Isa 13:16, 18, Zech 14:2, Nah 3:10).

God's punishment of entire nations or cities by destroying every living thing naturally includes the destruction of babies and unborn embryos (e.g. Isa 34, the Flood, the plagues on Egypt, Sodom; Jesus also: Matt 11:20-24).

An eye for an eye, etc. (Ex 21:24, Lev 24:18-20, Deut 19:19, 21, Matt 7:2; contra: Matt 5:38ff, 7:12, Luke 6:31).

God will punish any animal that kills a human (Gen 9:5), although God sometimes punishes humans by having animals kill them (e.g. 2 Kings 2:23-24, where 42 children are killed by bears; 1 Kings 20:35-36, where a man is killed by a lion for disobedience to a prophet).

Slavery for stealing (Ex 22:3).

Marriage is the punishment for seduction of a virgin (Ex 22:16).

Whoever divorces his wife and marries another or who marries a divorced woman commits adultery (Matt 19:9, Luke 16:18 ).

FROM THE TORAH:

Evils, Atrocities and Injustices of the Torah

God now commands that all women must have health hazardous labors for Eve ate the fruit. In no way shape or form is it just that I must pay for the sins of my ancestors. Genesis 3:16

God caused sibling rivalry by favouring Abel over Cain, with absolutely no attempt at justification. This act of favoritism led to Abel’s death. Genesis 4:3-5

Genesis 7:23 He killed, intentionally, every man, woman, and child on the planet save eight of them.

God commands Hagar go back into servanthood and bear children for her master though she does not want to. Genesis 16:7-9

Genesis 19:23-25 God burns down a whole city (women and children included) simply because they were supposedly homosexual.

Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and that the Lord slew him. How was Er wicked? The Bible doesn’t give us this bit of information, only that Er was wicked in the sight of the Lord. Genesis 38:7

Genesis 38:10 God murders Onan for refusing to commit incest with his sister in law.

Exodus 12:29 God repeatedly tells Moses exactly what calamity he will next visit upon the Egyptians if the Pharaoh does not allow the Israelites to be set free from slavery. Then he tells Moses (also repeatedly) that he will harden Pharaoh’s heart, so that he will refuse to allow the Israelites to go, thus bringing a calamity upon his own people, as well as showing him the awesome power of the Israelites’ Lord. This occurs over and over, bringing calamity upon calamity upon the Egyptian people. What is troubling about this verse is that when god “hardens the pharaoh’s heart” he is interfering with the Pharaoh’s free will and ultimately bringing punishment on the Egyptians for something they are not responsible for. As a final punishment god decides to kill all the first born of Egypt. The lord reduced himself to murdering innocent kids when he could have simply freed the Israelites himself with his “omnipotent” power.

God punishes children for the sins of their fathers, unto the third and fourth generations. Punishing a child for the sins of their ancestors is not very just. Exodus 20:5&34:7

God endorses slavery. He even set up laws as to how slavery was to be carried out, and goes as far as Okaying beating them. Exodus 21:2-6

God sanctioned the selling of ones daughter. How can any being tell another to literally sell their child into slavery? Disgusting! Exodus 21:7

Exodus 22:18 God orders the death of witches, sorceresses and anyone who practices magic. Sadly enough, this verse was justification for the Inquisition.

Exodus 32:27 God ordered to be killed, 3,000 Israelites for no greater crime than worshipping a golden calf. I don’t know about you but death is a pretty harsh F%#& punishment.

Leviticus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents and death for adultery. Gee, with these types of laws the population should be almost nil by now.

Once again god is a homophobe, or at the very least, a bigot. Leviticus 20:13

Handicapped people must not approach the altar. Leviticus 21:16-23

Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shill ye eat.”

Leviticus 27:28-29 God ordered and allowed human sacrifices.

Numbers 16:27 God buries alive Korah and his family.

Numbers 16:35 God killed 250 Levite princes who disagreed with Moses’ leadership. He was so bloodthirsty that he wanted to slay more until he was talked out of it. Later he put a plague upon 14,700 Jews who thought there was something wrong in killing 250 princes.

Numbers 21:1-3 God utterly destroyed the Canaanites at Hormah as a favor to the Jews.

Numbers 21:27-35 God abetted Moses in utterly destroying the Amorites at Heshbon - “…the men, the women, and the little ones.”

Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people including children and women. To top it off he commands that the virgins be saved for later raping by Moses’ soldiers.

Deuteronomy 3:3-7 God ordered Moses’ army to “utterly destroy” 60 cities, killing all the women and children within!

Deuteronomy 7:12 God ordered the Israelites to kill all the people of seven nations. He even adds, “show no mercy unto them”.

Deuteronomy 20:16 God orders that we kill everything that breathes in the cities that he gives us for an inheritance

A bastard can’t attend church “even to his tenth generation.” Deuteronomy 23:2

As if denying an innocent child rights to worship isn’t cruel !!!

Waiting your comments on the above verses !!!

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-07-29 09:12 | Link

Gunnar: You openly admit you have not looked into Islamic teachings at all, yet you believe you can discuss it intelligently.

I don't believe I can discuss the details of Islamic teachings. But that's just it: Nobody here is discussing the details of Islamic teachings. They're merely presenting their own personal interpretations of the Quran. What I'm writing about is something I know very well: The qualities a study of something complex need to have in order to be useful. I see the words "lazy thinking" imprinted in large letters on that whole set of ideas. I can't stay silent about that. I don't understand Islam, but at least I am aware of this, unlike many other people here.

It's like discussing the pros and cons of nazism, but insisting that there must be something good about it, since half of europe subscribe to it.

You're assuming that Islam is equivalent to a political ideology, which I disagree with. I don't get this need for "greedy" theories, theories that span over far more than they can hold. Islam is the religion of a billion people. Based on that religion, various political ideologies have been built, one of which is Islamism, which is often extremist and sympathetic to terrorism. That's a factual description of how what the Islamic world looks like. Why this need to pretend that Islamism and Islam is the same? What then should we call all those Muslims who aren't Islamists?

kim sook-im | 2005-07-29 13:13 | Link

Islam is a political ideology ....to say otherwise is to exhibit depraved ignorance of Islam per se !

Ahem........"What then should we call all those Muslims who aren't Islamists? = Islamites/ Islami(s)tes or potential islamists !

....they are just one 'ass' (!) short of becoming islamists -- tee hee.

MEANWHILE ANOTHER INNOCENT HUMAN BEING HAS FALLEN VICTIM TO THE TERROR INSPIRED BY EX-KKKRISTIAN'S ONE TRUE RELIGION OF PISS ---al Sirat-ul-mustaquil :

Click this link to look at the face of an innocent victim of this KKKilling KKKult of KKKhaos ------>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1535565,00.html ( from O Globo Television, Brazil )

Irmã Raquel Pereira de Camiões
أخت راكل بيريرا كاميونز

Especialista em religiões e seitas perigosas

David Elson, Cairns | 2005-07-29 13:53 | Link

Geronimo,

This ones for you, going on about how converting everyone to christianitys gonna solve the violence. You know what, there's been plenty of dumbass violent murderous christian types about the place, both now and throughout history -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1211215,00.html

I personally have nothing against anyone believing whatever the hell they want, and if that takes the form of religion, hell that's no skin of my nose. However if some clown advocates forcing his religion upon as us all, willingly or not, then he's no better than an islamist facism/terrorist.

If you take offence at this attitude - I don't care, or better yet check out these humours jokes.

http://www.atheistalliance.org/humor/gravity.html

http://www.atheistalliance.org/humor/god_questionnaire.html

Well if you like mumbo jumbo crap I recommend you read this book "How mumbo jumbo conquered the world" by francis wheen.

Cheers
David.

kim sook-im | 2005-07-29 15:13 | Link

Also uhsayd from ekkks-kkkristian, awl of U fohks aut thair hoo ahr intu awrgenaized relijun asspaishuhlee the abrahamikkk relijuns, pleez reed this link en it weel shawk U !:

7 GRAIT LAIZ OF AWGENAIZED RELIJUNS !

----->http://religion.coffeehousetheology.com/

Seestah Mateelda Kim
Bawn Agin Kristchun
Chuhrch of the Pentakost
Intercourse, Pennsilvanee

kim sook-im | 2005-07-29 15:32 | Link

Bjoern in 2005-7-29 wrote:

"....you're assuming that Islam is equivalent to a political ideology, which I disagree with......"

Well here i disagree with you and here are ample arguments by others that mirror my thinking :

===============

( check out all these links)

Asia Times - Asia's most trusted news source
I shall argue that Islam is both a religion and a political ideology. Religion is
what makes Islamic political ideology so dangerous. ...
www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH10Aa01.html - 40k

Islam, a Dangerous Political Ideology! -part one Persian Journal ...
Islam, a Dangerous Political Ideology! -part one - Persian Journal Iran news
article Iranian News Iranians Tehran shiraz news paper of iran, irani newspaper ...
www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/ exec/view.cgi/1/718/printer - 20k

Islam, a Dangerous Political Ideology! -part two - Persian Journal ...
Islam, a Dangerous Political Ideology! -part two - Persian Journal Iran news
farsi Iranian News Iranians Tehran shiraz tabriz esfahan news paper of iran, ...
www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_719.shtml - 63k

World Affairs Board - Islam: Religion or political ideology?
This is a discussion forum powered by vBulletin. To find out about vBulletin, go
to http://www.vbulletin.com/ .
www.worldaffairsboard.com/archive/index.php/t-2731.html - 43k

Jake London | 2005-07-29 18:20 | Link

When my first daughter was born, my wife shared her room with another mother whom I greeted when I first entered the room. The woman was obviously uncomfortable, and I thought she was simply tired out. I asked her how she was feeling, and after another uncomfortable pause, she told me that she wasn't allowed to speak to me. Seeing my astonishment, she explained that her husband was an orthodox Jew, she was Jewish herself, and had chosen to live by his principles. She went on to tell me that she was not allowed to speak to men while menstruating either, including her husband. After this, out of respect for her, I simply nodded when I went to visit my wife and daughter.

I know little about the Jewish faith, but I have spoken to Jewish people who are convinced that Jews are truly the "Chosen People" and superior to all other races on earth. Their claim is apparently based on the writings in a book written thousands of years ago by Jewish men, but I've been unable to discuss this with them for reasons of excessive emotional reactions.

Most of the Jews I know, including many of my good friends, do not subscribe to this point of view, and as a European, I am not afraid of being bombed by Jewish terrorists any time soon. However, if I lived in Gaza or any of the "occupied territories" in Palestine, I would not feel so safe. The violence visited upon the people living there is a constant and daily occurence, and perpetrated in total contempt for any form of international agreement. Despite this, Israel receives the unconditional support of the US government, not only politically, through immediate UN vetoes of any resolution requesting corrective action by Israel, but also through massive supplies of money and weapons. Much is heard about "Arab" or "Muslim" terrorism, but little is ever said about the state terrorism of Israel, a nation which was built on terrorism. In fact, anyone who does mention it is immediately labelled racist, anti-Semite, leftist, etc. The Jewish cause, supported by the majority Jewish-owned Press and media, has cornered the victim market. Anyone these days who makes sweeping generalisations about Arabs or Muslims and the dangers of terrorism not only gets away with it, but gets front-page confirmation.

My point is this: I believe that terrorists who kill innocents to further their goals are evil people. But the same must be true for all terrorist actions.

The story about the orthodox Jewish mother at the beginning was to indicate that apparently
"extremist" views are held by all sorts of people. The colonisation of Africa, South America and Asia proceeded on the certainty that the people living there were "untermenschen" rather than real human beings. Not so long ago, Catholics believed that if they ate meat on Friday, they could be condemned to Hell. They also believed (some still do) that the only way into Heaven was through baptism in the "one true Church".

There are violently insane Muslims who seek the destruction of Christian society, this is unfortunately no longer in doubt. But their anger and hatred is not a natural state, and is not fuelled only by their "fanatical" religious beliefs. It is without doubt fuelled by decades of anger at one-sided Western manipulation where justice is trumpeted world-wide and applied only to the chosen few, where humanist priciples are brandished as a banner behind which inhuman agendas are advanced at the expense of all human rights. Iraq and Afghanistan are no exceptions.

There is a fanatical religious power base driving Israeli state policy also, with similar results. This you can't talk about. Half a million dead Iraqui children is "worth it" according to Madeleine Albrecht, then Secretary of State for the United States of America, although no state of war existed between the USA and Iraq. Nor does it now, incidentally.

There should be no bombs in London, Madrid or NYC, or anywhere else, including Baghdad. But avoiding this is not as simple as just "crushing the Muslims", a solution advocated more or less subtly by the power structures of the Western world. Actions like these will only cause more anger and hatred and lead to a worse state of violence. This is clear to anyone who is not blinded by partisan unilateralism or busy working for the commercial interests which seek unilateral control over the world's ressources by manipulation of world opinion.

The lady in hospital, subjugated (by her own choice) to an archaic law which sees female existence as secondary and totally accessory to male domination, is no different from millions of Muslim women. To our Western eyes, this is one of the most obvious faults with the Muslim religion. How can women be relegated to the level of animals or utilities? There is understandable reason for anger on the part of women. But if you investigate Jewish texts, you can find any number of similarly racist dogmas in which not only women, but also all non-Jewish humans, are seen as "untermenschen". How much of this "fanaticism" drives Israeli policy? What is the part of responsibility of this merciless policy on anger in the Muslim world?

Let's get out of this hateful "us against them" mentality which can only lead to greater violence and destruction. Hypocrisy can solve nothing. It will be neccesary for ordinary reasonable people to convince their respective governments, first of all, to apply the will of the people, and to make serious and genuine efforts to work towards real solutions for the problems which are now beginning to kill us in our cities. They've been killing innocent people in other cities for decades.

Sandy P | 2005-07-29 19:12 | Link

No, Jake, centuries.

What's you line in the sand when you say enough is enough?

What are you willing to give up for "peace?"

Sandy P | 2005-07-29 19:48 | Link

Ummm, we stopped buring witches centuries ago. Can't say the same for stoning.

Geir | 2005-07-29 23:02 | Link

Hello all

Well, well, well. What can I say? It seems as if our old friend BS is becoming less and less progressive by the day (the "liberlist" Norwegian party, PS the correct translation WOULD be progressive party BS, but that's another debate ENTIRELY). So, talking about European xenophobia are we? I say welcome to the real world folks. There is no left-wing conspiracy, not even in the media or academic circles. It is possible, and quite reasonable that the reason we see such attitudes in these circles is the mere fact that left-leaning people are drawn towards these professions whereas other ones, myself included, choose to be shown the money.

Now, WHO CARES WHERE THE ANTI-ISLAMIC DEBATE IS HEADING???????? Ms P. (I still assume u'r a woman unless your parents were unusally cruel to you) you are a tad uninformed and slightly delusional, but what can you expect from a flaming righty? Ah, that felt gooooooooooooood some right-wing bashing! But seriously folks, what's wrong with you? we cannot 'solve' terrorism, nor xenophobia for that matter, it will exist until the end of days (depends on the definition I guess, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter). Aw fuck it, we're all going to die anyway. And to all of those who've seen Donnie Darko (or star wars): fear is the path to destruction, choose child pornography.

Listen, I am sick and tired of this self-rightheous "debate". BS, just how are you going to defend your statement: "If you ask me today what Norwegians think about Islam and terrorism, I'll answer that I don't know, but I'm trying to find out. And if my advice is good enough, you should do the same". Are you a sociologist as well as a computer geek now? Be serious, be real we're all xenophobic, it's called humanity. Of course the west is not 100% guilty, just as the gun is not 100% guilty of killing someone. But let's face it, a bullet in the hand is much less destructive than one in a gun yes?

The point is of course, we MUST be willing to take some of the blame. You see, I don't believe that the extremeists hate our society, hell, I don't even think they hate us. But I DO believe they hate us interfereing in their politics and business. Let's be sensible, no matter how many anti-terrorism meetings you go to NOTHINGS gonna change. It's like the stupid "stop the poverty" bracelets, I don't have to wear one to be against poverty do I? what difference does it make if I wear a badge saying: "I dislike terrorism?". For an example of how bad things may become when people overreact, look at the Israli-Vatican situation. Here's some advice: don't throw rocks if your house is made of glass (unless you are outside and throwing at Muslims of course, that's ok)

G-52

Geir | 2005-07-29 23:04 | Link

By the way Sandy, my rant about you was not meant as a personal attack I just made a sweeping statement about you as a represenatative zealot. I hope this does not lower your self esteem.

Sincerely yours

David Elson, Cairns | 2005-07-30 00:40 | Link

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Geir,

Nice one dumb one, you've just finished explaining to us why exactly 50 yrs of social progress means nothing, because all "xenophobic" behaviours are an inevitable result of being human, before you start slapping in a bit of the ole victim as perpretrator. Make up your mind Geir, which simplified bigoted view do you want to go with? I think you'll find they are mutually exclusive!!

Wow! I feel so relieved that Gee doesn't believe that the west, and all its diversity of nationality & ethnicity, is not 100% collectively guilty of the individual actions of extremist terrorists. What figure is it supposed to be 80%? 99%? of guilt for islamic extremists placed at the door of the West for the murders of innnocent civilians on subways, in bars and office buildings across the world.

And what reason does Geir give for all this? Interfernce? Well I hate to say but America is THE world power, they interfer in partically every nation on earth, but you don't see Norwegian suicide bombers blowing up buses with rucksacks. Yes I'm as sure as anyone that the reactive American response to Soviet incursions in the middle east during the cold war is the to blame for all the world's problems.

Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.
-Bertrand Russell

Sandy P | 2005-07-30 05:14 | Link

I'm an American, Geer, I can handle it like my forefathers have been handling it for 230 years. I'm not gay, how can I be flaming?

Doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what they believe and I think it was answered before your comment:

---

...Thus [you are ordered by Allâh to continue in carrying out Jihâd against the disbelievers till they embrace Islâm (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], ....

Just embrace Islam, Geer, all will be fine, you'll be able to live in peace.

Kim, Susan and others will be happy to discuss it w/you.

Sandy P | 2005-07-30 05:34 | Link

And I think she doesn't agree w/you either:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/22/AR2005072201629_pf.html

After London, Tough Questions for Muslims

By Mona Eltahawy
Post
Sunday, July 24, 2005; B07

The July 7 London bombings did it for me. Perhaps it was because my parents moved us from Cairo to the British capital when I was 7 years old, and so London was my childhood "home." Or maybe it was because our route to work and school every morning crisscrossed those same Underground stations that were targeted.

I'm sure it was also those dog-eared statements that our clerics and religious leaders read out telling us that Islam means peace -- it actually means submission -- and asking us to please forget everything they had ever said before July 6, because as of July 7 they truly believe violence is bad. Their backpedaling is so furious you can smell the skid marks.....

... never bought the explanation that U.S. foreign policy had "brought on" the Sept. 11 attacks, and I certainly don't buy the idea that the Iraq war is behind the attacks in London. Many people across the world have opposed U.S. and British foreign policy, but that doesn't mean they are rushing to fly planes into buildings or to blow up buses and Underground trains in London.

I was against the invasion of Iraq and would not have voted for George Bush if I were a U.S. citizen, but I'm done with the "George Bush made me do it" excuse. We must accept responsibility for this mess if we are ever to find a way out.

And for those non-Muslims who accept the George Bush excuse, I have a question: Do you think Muslims are incapable of accepting responsibility? It is at least in some way bigoted to think that Muslims can only react violently.....

Ex-Christian, now Muslim | 2005-07-30 07:43 | Link

Re: Jake London

Well said !! sadly, your wise words will fall on deaf ears and dumb heads, this blog is infested with mindless Islamophobes !

Geir | 2005-07-30 08:09 | Link

Dear David and person P

Which bigoted view I choose? Whichever baby, you decide. I'm a flip-flopper and darn-tootin'happy to be one. Why do I have to decide? I reserve the right to be inconsistent, inspired by Amreican foreign policy. The fraction of blame is not really relevant tho David. It's an ordinal measure, the point is we DO have SOME responsibility, not you and I personally (unless you're holding back on us) but the west collectively. I seem to remember a little country gaining independence from Britain 4 July 1776. Are you saying that Britain was blameless in the uprising?

This is not about taking the blame for some lunatic deciding to blow himself up alongside innocent civilians. This is about recognising that the muslim extremists are not angry at you and I David, rather they are probably angry at what they percieve as oppression. Now, why young britons all of a sudden decided to become human bombs is a mystery to most people.

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Unless you're crazy, which they all are Friedrich thought, disgusted at the deprivaty of humanity. Why oh why must we suffer such unbearable cruelty? and so on ad infinitum
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Why the quotes? Are they clever? Am I supposed to be impressed? kudos to you for not being religious tho. Oh, yeah the American interference in Norwegian affairs is just a teeny-weeny bit dffierent to the PERCIEVED injustness of the Arabic situation.

Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines (at least in Europe he added with an afterthought).
-Bertrand Russell

Person P, a little freudian slip perhaps? Did I make ANY suggestion that you were gay? I think not, why must one be gay to be flaming? is a flaming fireplace gay? Well, ok it IS joyous, so maybe you are right. A pun is as good as the sun.

But nevertheless, the issue remains the west collectively IS somewhat to blame for the state of the world as it today, case in point; Africa. Take a quick look at a map, compare with the american map. Do you see a similarity? maybe the straight lines dividing states (in both senses of the word). Now look at the middle east, esp. Iraq. See the similarity? Dare I say it, CONSTRUCTED nations. Why embrace Islam? will that make me safer? what about the muslims who are killed everyday in Iraq? Or recently in Egypt? Now, now person P, it is said

'tis easy to point the finger, more difficult to accept responsibility.
-Geir E. A.

But this was supposed to be about the Norwegian attitude towards Islam and muslims. I'll sum it up for you we really, REALLY dislike the buggers, enjoy their kebabs but dislike them nontheless. Why do think FrPs share of the vote plummeted when they decided to drop the immigration issue?

"Nice one dumb one, you've just finished explaining to us why exactly 50 yrs of social progress means nothing, because all "xenophobic" behaviours are an inevitable result of being human, before you start slapping in a bit of the ole victim as perpretrator."-David

50 yrs of social progress? what, social progress began in 1955? this is news to me, well dad was born in 1955 so to a certain extent you are right, as far as I am concerned.

Lots of luv in the room today

kim sook-im | 2005-07-30 15:50 | Link

Hi ex-cretin ;)

"Well said !! sadly, your wise words will fall on deaf ears and dumb heads, this blog is infested with mindless Islamophobes "

will you stop using that damn mindless term 'mindless islamophobes' indiscriminately... is that the best you can offer for a rebuttal to any criticism of that retrograde bedouinisch tribal Cult which you are passing off as a religion.

How come you never answer my blog personally??? are you too chicken to take on a non-burqa wearing asian female???. Joleh (iran) and Zainab (pakistan) and Jeltje ( holland) my girl-friends and I are planning a trip to europe this December or January. Would you care to join us for an impromptu coffee-klatsch or afternoon tea or even dinner??? Oh don't worry we won't flash our boobs at you, and honest if it makes you feel comfortable we'll even carry a gold embroidered Quran in our hand bags.Oh don't worry we don't need a male chaperon, we're big girls and are all martial art experts :).

Now are you in Finnland or Sverige? You could well be an immigrant Turk - bu odadaki hava lenderma cok saug? passing off as a finn or swede - you sly wolf ..you....Think you are man enuf to engage us four girls in an animated evening of dialogue and debatte on why Eeeeeklam is the best and the one true 'religion' for the world hmmmmmmm????.

Be a good boy now and answer your sweet korean jewish sister when she talks to you ;)

Jeremy | 2005-07-30 17:08 | Link

Kim Sook-Im

What cities are you Fantastic Four visiting on your European tour? Love to meet you.

Geronimo, USA | 2005-07-30 19:56 | Link

In referring my comment: “How many of X-Christian’s posts do we have to endure before they are blocked?”

Bjorn said: That was obviously a parody by someone else, (the nicks were subtly different). Oh, and you will endure all his posts, and if that's a problem to you I don't want to hear about it.

I say: you are absolutely correct; any sane person should be able to recognize these words of creative warning as a parody. How foolish of me to respond otherwise. I’ll bit my tongue and attempt to restrain my nimble fingers, next time.

David Elson, Cairns wrote: Geronimo, This ones for you, going on about how converting everyone to christianitys gonna solve the violence. You know what, there's been plenty of dumbass violent murderous christian types about the place, both now and throughout history.

I say: Nice job of using your spell checker! So you really think this example of the Christian Tarok and Christian militia in Nigerian exemplifies the teaching of Jesus Christ? I’m not familiar with the struggles in Nigeria, but we are all aware that history is full of wars started by zealots in the name of Christ, Who, by the way, needs no defense, only brave men and woman willing to present the Gospel of Good News. On the other hand, Christian’s have been known to take up arms in defense of family, friends, and country. Unfortunately, this is often view as unfair and aggressive, especially in the Sudan. By the way, what are your thoughts regarding the atrocities inflected on the Sudanese Christians? My point here is I see no effort by peaceful Sudanese Muslims to intervene on behalf of Christian Sudanese…quite the opposite. Also, don’t fall into the trap of equating every offensive action by so called Christians as acceptable righteousness by all the faithful.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-07-31 00:11 | Link

You're assuming that Islam is equivalent to a political ideology, which I disagree with.

In every way, you're wrong on this. First, by definition, Politics, as part of Philosophy is necessarily based on the foundation of Metaphysics, Epistemology and Morality. Most religions answer the basic philospical questions, and therefore, have some political implications.

Even philosophies which appear to be secular, may have religious elements. For example, some may make a god out of nature. Some may make a god out of a fuhrer. Some may make a god out of an emperor.

Some religions are more compatible with liberty and democracy than others. For example, Judaism and Christianity are basically compatible with any society that follows a few of the 10 commandments.

Islam, however, is the most political religion of all.

Sharia (also Shari'a, Shariah or Syariah) is traditional Islamic law. Like most religious cultures, Islam classically drew no distinction between religious and secular life. Hence Sharia covers not only religious rituals, but many aspects of day-to-day life.
The main sources of Islamic law are the Qur'an and the Hadith

Devout Muslims cannot help but support Sharia.

Sharia, by contrast, is based on the premise that Islamic laws are inspired by the Koran, Islam’s sacred text. Since their origin is divine, they cannot be revised or amended by humans.

The 10 commandments can't be revised by humans either, but there are fundamental differences between the commandments and Sharia. Unlike Sharia, the Judeo-Christian focus is that punishment is God's job. As such, Christians don't object when laws forbidding adultery are repealed, since Christianity doesn't require punishment by humans. Jesus said "Let those among that is without sin, cast the first stone" and "Render onto Caesar what is Caeser's". The whole Christian philosophy greatly reduces it's impact on politics. Therefore, only those moral principles that everyone agrees on are required, like murder, stealing, etc.

Contrast that to:

As a result, Sharia became, and remains, a closed legal system locked in an ancient era. Modern post-colonial efforts to reform Sharia have mostly failed. Instead, militant Muslims have demanded full implementation of Sharia rulings.

Unlike Judeo-Christianity, Islam's Sharia specifies punishment by humans, and so is fundamentally political. Even without the punishment, Islam is not compatible with human rights:

But even putting aside such brutal punishments, Sharia’s --directions--for family matters show how incompatible it is with the values of our era. The inherent problem here is the sanctification of gender inequality. Sharia rests on the Koranic verse, “Men are in charge of women” (4:34). Consequently, any IICJ ruling in an arbitration panel on marriage, divorce, child custody, guardianship, income and property settlement, if it is to be consistent with Sharia requirements, would—by definition—be in violation of the equality rights

Islam's political implications are even felt in societies where they are clear minorities:

The answer, as even a cursory reading of the IICJ’s Web site shows (muslim-canada.org), is that the group seeks to incrementally win recognition for the idea that Muslims should be permitted to live by their own laws, separate from every other Canadian.
The argument that Sharia and ... secular laws may coexist harmoniously is either a vain wish, or a cynical ploy

http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/columnists/index/writergroup/sharias_underclass/

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Islamic-law

Your point, small as it is, seems to be that this traditional view of religious law is opposed by modern liberal movements within Islam. Of course this is is true, but irrelevant:

In modern times there have been a number of liberal movements within Islam (sometimes called in Arabic: الإسلام الإجتهادية or 'interpretation-based Islam'; also الإسلام المتقدمة or 'progressive Islam'). These generally denote religious outlooks which depend mainly on ijtihad or re-interpretations of scriptures. Liberal Muslims interpret the Qur'an and Hadith from their personal perspective rather than the medievalist traditional Muslim point of view. Liberals generally claim that they are returning to the principles of the early Muslim community, arguing that the medievalists have diverged from true Islam through their focus on the literal word rather than the ethical intent of scripture

This is a straw man because neither I nor anyone else is claiming that such movements don't exist. The idea that such movements could ever change the orthodox view is ridiculous. It's impossible since a watered down version of an idea can never defeat the original idea.

It's been 2000 years, the Catholic church has been challenged many times, but has not conceded any fundamental point. Similarly, as Newt Gingrich realized in the 80s, when voters were given a choice between real democrats and watered down democrats (pre-newt republicans), they always chose real democrats. Put more precisely, in an argument, if one party asserts a fundamental point, and the other side argues about small details, the other side concedes and reinforces the fundamental point.

Watered down muslims can never have any real impact, because they agree with the fundamentals. Individuals seeking to be more devout can easily be convinced to become more traditional.

But why do you make these specious arguments? Well, you have to. You are impotent to tackle the bigger issues, since you have rejected your own Christianity. Your philosophy cannot answer the big questions of life, so you don't ask them. For example, you cannot begin to explain how reality works. That's alright for you, but you can offer nothing to the vast majority of people who do want these answers and aren't afraid to ask.

PetraClaudine | 2005-07-31 00:49 | Link

"A vast majority of Norwegians say they'd like to see limits placed on the constitutional freedom of extremist groups, like neo-Nazis, to express themselves. They'd also favor a ban on public meetings of racist groups or Muslim or Christian fundamentalists." from English Aftenposten

Can someone please tell me what is being publicly discussed by the Muslim and Christian fundamentalists in Norway?

Sandy P | 2005-07-31 06:29 | Link

Agreed we're somewhat to blame about Africa, that's why I support no more money and IMF and World Bank interference.

Time for them to get their own houses in order, starting w/Bob.

Sandy P | 2005-07-31 06:35 | Link

Geir, your DAD was born in '55?

No wonder you're clueless. Son, have you got a lot to learn.

Welcome to the blogosphere, you can start your education w/Charles Martell - 732 A.D.

---

Don't worry about anything, Geir - just give them back Spain for starters.

Sandy P | 2005-07-31 07:23 | Link

Timing is everything, Geir, via LGF:

A Kenya-based economist begins to see the way out of Africa’s self-reinforcing tragedy: Economist Blames Aid for Africa Famine.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050731/ap_on_re_af/why_africa_goes_hungry

kim sook-im | 2005-07-31 13:17 | Link

Jeremy | 2005-07-30 17:08 | Link
Kim Sook-Im

What cities are you Fantastic Four visiting on your European tour? Love to meet you.

Salaam alaykum wa shalom aleichim Ya Jeremiah:

Oh you flatter us LOL...we're just a four-some ,but hardly phantastisch.

We're contemplating the 'museums of western europe tour' in the footsteps of Zechariah Sitchin. The itinerary is in the following links:

http://www.sitchin.com/

Sitchin and vatican and other theologians have discussed UFO's,extraterrestrials, angels and the creation of (Wo-)Man. This is not a far-fetched ideology and many of us in the sciences consider this very highly plausible, probable and possible scenarios.

check out

www.xfacts.com
www.ancientX.com
www.davidicke.com

Sook-Im
Denizen of 3rd rock from the Sun
행성 지구의 시민

P.S. It would probably overwhelm and shock some mindless IslamoBorgs in this blog to find out that their slavish and mindless devotion to some retrograde Cult has been orchestrated by some alien forces masquerading as Injil Jibril/angel Gabriel and God !

Jeremy | 2005-07-31 15:12 | Link

Kim Sook-Im

Truth is indeed much more beautiful than politics and remains the only force that will set you free. It is invisible only to those who are looking elswhere, and waits patiently for all.

Islam is a long way from being the only stone under which serpents lurk. Certain current versions of "Democracy" are too - you may prefer to spell these "Demonkkkracy". I've read some David Icke and don't find him anywhere near as strange as some people. I'll check out the links.

By the way, I'm serious about seeing you in Europe when you arrive. Good conversations. Keep me posted.

mika. | 2005-08-01 16:36 | Link

Bjørn Stærk said: Only ideologists care about abstract ideals such as global religious purity, and ideologies are never adopted by the masses.

So why is it Bjørn, are you so hesitant and afraid to directly attack the ideology of Islam? If you attack and discredit the ideology would it not be easier the get that 90% that is not ideologically active to drop their tacit support and affiliation? It seems to have worked in defeating Nazism and Communism, why not Muhammadism?

kim sook-im | 2005-08-01 17:11 | Link

Shalom Shalom och Salaam Salaam alaykum !

More damning evidences that Islam is a dangerous Cult and that Islamoborgs that subscribe to this dangerous ideology have no brains ;)

"Up to 75 percent of Americans believe an act of terrorism in this country is likely in the near future according to polls conducted by Associated Press, CNN/USA Today and Fox News. But most are not overly concerned.

What the overwhelming majority of Americans seem to sense, that a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is inevitable, is confirmed by former a FBI consultant and author of "Osama's Revenge: The Next 9/11." Paul Williams said that attack could be nuclear.

"Intelligence agencies throughout the world have come to a common consensus," he said, "and it was voiced by Warren Buffet, an attack of nuclear terrorism is imminent"

click link below and read the article by Barbara Stock - America's Hiroshima???.

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=8457

Also read what Bill Wilson, Washington D.C. correspondent says - 'experts say that pieces are already in place...up to 75 % of Americans believe that the next act of terror may be nuclear...'

http://www.family.org/cforum/news/a0037238.cfm

Sister Aishah Njanjaponika Kim
Specialist in irrational adamic cults

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-01 19:12 | Link

Well according to Ex C my previous quotatations from the Koran were all taken out of context and Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religon. I guess that is correct if you ignore: 9/11, the Sudan, the bombings in London, the bombings in Israel, the bombings in Chechnya, the killings of the Baiis in Iran, the bombings of churches in Pakistan, the bombings of civilians in Iraq, the killing of Van Goegh, the bombings in Indonesia; the refusal to allow Christian s and Jews to practice their religion in Saudi Arabia. Yes; I now see how mistaken I was.

mika. | 2005-08-01 19:54 | Link

Herbie, not to worry:

"I will repay them according to their deeds and the work of their hands."

And they have a 1400+ year history to pay for.

mika. | 2005-08-01 20:14 | Link

Kim,
Thanks for those links. Excellent stuff. Keep em coming.

la bona | 2005-08-01 21:41 | Link

In the name of justice, I am obliged to help to disseminate story of a religious persecution ... My apologies for irrelevance.

Breaking News!
Barbaric persecution of an apostate …

The Malaysian authorities are persecuting an ex-Muslim fondly known as Ayah Pin and flattened his religious commune dubbed as Sky Kingdom, which is a quasi-religious commune located in north east Malaysian.

Once Muslim, Forever Slave!
Ayah Pin has publicly renounced his Islamic faith in 1998 but was REJECTED by the state (NB: Apostasy is a capital crime is Malaysia punishable by DEATH!)

The Persecution
In 2001, the Malaysian authorities jailed Ayah Pin for 11 months for attempting to renounce Islam. He is viewed as a security threat and they continue to harass him with all sorts of uncivilized threats befitting the low-life including smashing up the lovely giant teapot and flattening the commune, which they just did yesterday!

Prior to the destruction yesterday, the authorities raided the commune in July, 2005 and detained 45 faithful including a Kiwi, senior citizens and among others, 3 children of Ayah Pin and his 3 wives. I read somewhere; there are kids left behind unattended in commune and while some faithful have to pawn all they have to bail themselves out, the rest are still in custody.

Their crime: Being unIslamic!

As if the arrest was not good enough, mobs made up of some 35 unidentified assailants armed with Molotov cocktails attacked the commune and set the place ablaze …. Assailants attack Ayah Pin's commune with Molotov cocktails! ... I supposed mobs and Molotov cocktails are Islamic.

If you have a comment, please do not hesitate to email me at divinetalk@gamil.com. Alternately, you are welcome to do so at the forum at divinetalk dot blogspot dot com

Sandy P | 2005-08-01 22:31 | Link

Don't forget Thailand (must be those rampaging buddhists) and Iran 79 and what that thug and his minions did to the Iranians in the movie theaters, much less US, and what they're doing now to the Iranian youth.

They can't even build cities to minimal earthquake code. And with all that o....i....l.... money, too.

Sandy P | 2005-08-02 00:43 | Link

Via David's Medienkritik:

Erik Svane of No Pasaran just posted another stellar article on modern day terrorism and its fundamental objectives. Here an excerpt:

"The terrorist strategy may have changed, but the objective remains the same. Al Qaeda understands that in the end the United States is what matters. The United Nations is irresolute and corrupt, and important European nations are indecisive and vulnerable. So drive the United States from the Middle East, establish control of all its nations, and then force the Western European nations to appease and accept an Islamic, theocratic global society."

Hey, the world will be at peace when the world is under Islam.

Somehow I don't think the Chicoms and Indians will agree, but it'll be entertaining for the couple of minutes it'll take. Bright, too.

mika. | 2005-08-02 02:38 | Link

All religion, Franz Rosenzweig argued, responds to man's anxiety in the face of death (against which philosophy is like a child stuffing his fingers in his ears and shouting, "I can't hear you!"). The pagans of old faced death with the confidence that their race would continue. But tribes and nations anticipate their own extinction just as individuals anticipate their own death, he added: "The love of the nations for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with the presentiment of death." Each nation, he wrote, knows that some day other peoples will occupy their lands, and their language and culture will be interred in dusty books.
.
.
Islam seeks to prolong the life of traditional society indefinitely, by extending it through conquest. Islamic expansionism arises from religious motives, that is, a holy rage against the encroachment of death upon traditional society.
.
.
Traditional society will not go mutely to its doom and join the Great Extinction of the Peoples, blotting out ancient cultures and destroying the memory of today's generation. It will not permit the hundreds of millions of Muslims on the threshold of adulthood to pass into the world of sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll, and lose the memory of their ancestors. On the contrary: it will turn the tables upon the corrupt metropolis, and in turn launch a war of conquest against it.
.
.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH10Aa01.html

Sandy P | 2005-08-02 06:20 | Link

Via LGF and MEMRI:

MEMRI TV captured and translated this speech by Iranian President-Elect Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, broadcast on Iranian Channel 1 on July 25, 2005.

Ahmadi-Nejad: We want art that is on the offensive. Art on the offensive exalts and defends the noble principles, and attacks principles that are corrupt, vulgar, ungodly, and inhuman.

Art reaches perfection when it portrays the best life and best death. After all, art tells you how to live. That is the essence of art. Is there art that is more beautiful, more divine, and more eternal than the art of martyrdom? A nation with martyrdom knows no captivity. Those who wish to undermine this principle undermine the foundations of our independence and national security. They undermine the foundation of our eternity.

The message of the (Islamic) Revolution is global, and is not restricted to a specific place or time. It is a human message, and it will move forward.

Have no doubt... Allah willing, Islam will conquer what? It will conquer all the mountain tops of the world.

--- Charles' comment:

Now imagine this man with his hands on nuclear weapons.

---

At some point in time, Geir, Jack, others, when will you believe what they've been telling you for decades/centuries/Millenia?

And my question stands, what is your line in the sand when you say enough is enough? And will it be too late?

kim sook-im | 2005-08-02 10:48 | Link

Hi Mika, You're welcome

Here's an EYE OPENING article on

' the myth of moderate islam '

Islam is islam. A leopard cannotchange its spot.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2831

Sawadee-Cah

Sister Supaporhn DuagnPrapha Kimsookboon

kim sook-im | 2005-08-02 11:55 | Link

Sandy,

"And my question stands, what is your line in the sand when you say enough is enough? And will it be too late?"......

regretfully we have plenty of US citizens just like Geir and Jake et alias ...that are still blithely ignorant, complacent, apologist, revisionist,or still parroting the official govt. line/lies ....." islam is a peaceful religion"

"islam is a great religion"
" it is a few that has hijacked the religion"
" it is the wicked few that has distorted the religion"......

......etc. etc. ad nauseum.....like the emperor's new clothes....and then suddenly one day everyone will realise that the Emperor has no clothes and their 'pretend Islam' will collapse like a house of card and then by then it will be too late.

Even now as we speak 80% of all mosques in the US have been radicalized - probably offering refuge and orchestrating the mobilisation of doomsday weapons/ nukes into strategic locations ..abiding, awaiting for an opportune moment to ignite an Horishima on US soil.

Let us hope the pundits are all wrong, but given the malevolent nature of this superCult and the dangerous obsession of its adherents with their unholy Manifesto - an exquisite handbook of terror--the unthinkable is possible and the possible highly probable.

CNN.com - 'High risk' of WMD attack in decade - Jun 22, 2005
The chance of an attack with a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world
in the next ... US survey finds more nations will acquire nuclear weapons ...
www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/21/wmd.threat/ - 41k - Jul 31, 2005

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2005/0722.html ( american hiroshima )

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A365-2005Feb5_3.html

http://nuclearfree.lynx.co.nz/gonuclear.htm (fear that terrorism will go nuclear)

http://www.terrorismunveiled.com/athena/2005/02/nuclear_antiter.html ( nuclear terrorism )

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam
नमस्ते namaste
धन्यवाद thank you

जहां धुआं है, वहां आग भी है
where there is smoke there is fire too

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-02 15:11 | Link

At bottom Islam is the only religion, that glorifies death and martyrdom. In becoming a martyr you go to heaven and have wonderful food and sex non stop with 72 Virgins. Birth control does not seem to be a problem, nor does an enlarged prostate.

It would appear that young boys are also fair game.

Quote from Hadiths

Al Hadis, Vol. 4, p. 172, No. 34
Ali reported that the Apostle of Allah said, "There is in Paradise a market wherein there will be no buying or selling, but will consist of men and women. When a man desires a beauty, he will have intercourse with them."

YOUNG BOYS

Koran 52:24
Round about them will serve, to them, boys (handsome) as pearls well-guarded.

There is also plenty of, would you believe, wine

Koran 56:7-40
They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shalt wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine:

Also plenty of food -- apparently on the theory that with all that sex one needs lots of nutrition.

Koran 37:40-48
But the true servants of God shall be well provided for, festing on fruit and honoured in the gardens of delight...

Koran 55:68-69
In them will be Fruits, And dates and pomegranates: Then which of the favours of your Lord will you deny?

But the best is no waste disposal problem and toilets are not needed.

Sahih Muslim Book 39, Number 6798, Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah:
I heard Allah's Apostle (pbuh) as saying that the inmates of Paradise would eat and drink but would neither spit, nor pass water, nor void excrement, nor suffer catarrh. It was said: Then, what would happen with food? Thereupon he said: They would belch and sweat and their sweat would be that of musk and they would glorify and praise Allah as easily as you breathe."

In addition to which you also get a lot of wealth -- although it is not clear what you would spend it on since you don’t have to buy food or sex.

Koran 22:23
[] They shall be decked with pearls and bracelets of gold, and arrayed in garments of silk.

Sandy P | 2005-08-02 22:30 | Link

Herbie, the irony is that they can get a lot of it now, food is plentiful and loaded w/more nutrients than ever. We've come a long way, baby!

Only in heaven they can drink wine??? But they can't here?

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-02 23:07 | Link

Well the theory is that in "heaven" you won't get drunk, but what fun is that

Sandy P | 2005-08-03 05:32 | Link

Via LGF:

Ian Johnston, the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police, is taken to task by the human rights lobby when he says his officers won’t be wasting time searching ‘little old white ladies’ on the Tube.

Leaked guidelines from the Bedfordshire force say that when officers raid Muslim homes they should remove their shoes, not use dogs and not mount pre-dawn raids because at that hour people might by ‘spiritually busy’.

Ok, use pigs. They have good smell sensitivity.

kim sook-im | 2005-08-03 05:46 | Link

Ooooh Sandy,

What an excellent suggestion ! ;).....i'm sure you know that the french ( and others) use little porky to sniff out truffles - pretty expensive mushrooms - many islamites eat at fine fancy eateries and have ordered truffles hmmmmmm talk about halaal foods LOL.

The foolishness of the dh(u)mmi british authorities , don't they know that Islamites have nothing , but disdain for the sensitivities of everyone else non-islamikkk....why should any courtesy be extended them? you reap what you sow.

धन्यवाद Gracias
Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam

Sean | 2005-08-03 08:09 | Link

I would like to point out a couple of things in reference to a couple of the earlier posts: Tim McVeigh was not a christian (neither am I, by the way) and christianity had nothing to do with the bombing of the Ok Fed building. Second, fear of snakes is not irrational. Every primate is terrified of them. There's a good reason for this.

Big Ben | 2005-08-03 14:09 | Link

You're wallowing around in the racist cesspool again - Sandy P's favourite perfume - Herbie, of course, trots obediently behind. Muslims have become the 21st century's equivalent for the filthy Jews of Hitler's Germany. All this is used to lever increased control over us all, just as 9-11 was used to boost the "Coalition" of the greedy into imperial invasion, spending our money and our lives to do so. (Concerning which, look at this - www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/14/spain.block.fire/). Serious questions should arise about the WTC, although I doubt you'll dare to entertain them.

Who's read 1984? And Kim Sook-Im, if I read an earlier post correctly, declares that Islam is an alien religion. So this is Star Wars? Perhaps you're all just video-game freaks with too much time on your hands.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-03 14:49 | Link

I fear Big Ben has been indulging again

kim sook-im | 2005-08-03 16:03 | Link

Salaam wa shalom Big Ben

Perhaps you should read up more before you start dismissing us as islamophoibes. I worry about folks like you who unwittingly walk around complacent and fall for the propaganda of the islamites in your midst.

All versions of Islam are expansionist and rapacious superMemes - some strains seek to overrun the world quickly through violence and mayhem, others take the slow route , abiding their time and displaying a facade of tolerance and change ( to date none of the islamic authorities , at least the majority schools have disavowed violence or world hegemony - the minority Ahmadeyists and Qadiyanists have evolved a new theology espousing non-violence and 'tolerance' and 'respect' for other faiths - but they are considered non-muslims, worst , apostates by the rest of islamdom).

You really need a bit more thorough grounding in the history and evolution of Eeeklam as a superCult. Please refer to:

http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/women1.html

( now if you were a woman, i believe you would feel differently about an ideology that compares you to a donkey LOL )

here's 200 plus sites giving you alternative views of Islam

http://listislam.freeweb-hosting.org/

http://www.derafsh-kaviyani.com/english/ ( excellent persian site on Islam )

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam
Jay Jay Sri Sri MahaDevi Saraswati Jayyy !

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-03 17:11 | Link

Kim, don't get so upset with Ben; every blog has someone like him. The best response I ever read was by a former US Senator who got an off the wall letter from a voter. He wrote back that "I must inform you that some fool has gotten hold of your stationary and is signing your name to idiotic letters." :-)

Big Ben | 2005-08-03 18:19 | Link

Great grief! Humour! Never would have thought it.
Somebody else's, but nonetheless. Herbert, how do you find the time?

Kim Sook-Im, believe this or not, although I am not a woman, I can relate to female anger about the role allotted to women by integrist Islam. Women are not, can not ever be, second-class citizens, and covering you up in an attempt to avoid problems caused by male lust is ridiculous and insulting. This belittling of women is shared by the integrist currents of other major religions, though, not to mention the wide cultural affirmation of womens' inferiority by many apparently enlightened peoples. Have you visited some of the countries around the European Mediterranean coast? While apparently "free", women are still treated basically as household appliances. Spewing hatred about Christianity, Judaism or Democratic political doctrines won't help there either.

And Western women are of course free to become, amongst other things, porn stars - pornography being one of the most lucrative enterprises in the 'free' world. Is this Christianity's fault, whorehouses being built with the bricks of religion, as William Blake pointed out? Or perhaps it's the fault of the Godless. Dare we mention that there are Christians and Jews and atheists involved? How many Muslim porn stars?

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-03 18:46 | Link

Extraced from http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1721092005

Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister, last night told The Scotsman that extremist Muslims who see the Iraq war as a conflict against Islam should be considered as treacherous as Soviet sympathisers during the Cold War. * * *

Mr Howarth said * * * he is incensed by suggestions from Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, that Britain is "part of the problem" in Iraq - and said that the problem in the UK lies in fanatical Muslims living within our shores.

He is the first mainstream UK politician to suggest that extremist British Muslims should leave for Islamic societies. The government is looking at deporting foreign-born nationals and imprisoning British Muslims who incite or glorify terrorism.

"If they don't like our way of life, there is a simple remedy: go to another country, get out," Mr Howarth said. Asked what if these people were born in Britain, he replied: "Tough. If you don't give allegiance to this country, then leave."

He added: "There are plenty of other countries whose way of life would appear to be more conducive to what they aspire to. They would be happy and we would be happy."
* * *

Mr Howarth compared those who despised British values to the traitors who spied for Russia. The shadow defence minister also criticised his colleague, Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, who suggested the suicide bombings were "explicable" by the anger many British Muslims felt over the war and the state of Islam.

Mr Howarth stressed that the majority of Muslims did adhere to British values and described how the Union Flag had been flown at a meeting he had with Muslims over the weekend. However, his remarks were condemned as "arrogant" and "naive" by the Muslim Association of Britain.
* * *
Mr Howarth was criticised by Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem deputy leader, who warned the outburst risked inflaming religious and ethnic tensions.

However, Mr Howarth's views were backed by the leading Muslim politician Mohammed Sarwar, a Glasgow MP who chairs Muslim Friends of Labour. "When it comes to extremists, for example Omar Bakri and Abu Hamza and what they are advocating, then I agree with what Mr Howarth said. There is absolutely no room for people like them in a civilised, democratic society like ours," Mr Sarwar said.
* * *

Totoro, U.S. | 2005-08-03 21:08 | Link

Big Ben--

I don't understand what you are arguing. Are there too many porn stars, not enough porn stars? How many porn stars are there, and why should we care?

Maybe you should reformulate your arguments against whatever you're arguing against.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-03 22:52 | Link

What a crock of Sh--

An 18-point guide issued by Bedfordshire Police lists dos and don'ts when dealing with Muslims who are suspected of terrorist or drugs offences.
* * *
These include:

• Rapid entry needs to be the last resort and raids into Muslim houses are discouraged for a number of religious dignity reasons.

• Police should seek to avoid looking at unclad Muslim women and allow them an opportunity to dress and cover their heads.

• For reasons of dignity officers should seek to avoid entering occupied bedrooms and bathrooms even before dawn.

• Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises and may necessitate extensive cleaning of the house and disposal of household items.

• Advice should be sought before considering the use of cameras and camcorders due to the risk of capturing individuals, especially women, in inappropriate dress.

• Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station.

• If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not disrupt the prayer. They should be allowed the opportunity to finish.

• Officers should not take shoes into the houses, especially in areas that might be kept pure for prayer purposes.

• In the current climate the justification for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.

http://www.lsnmedia.co.uk/luton/

I see: "Excuse me, we have a photo of you trying to blow up a bus; when you are finished praying would you mind coming down to the station house for a chat? "I'll just wait outside with my shoes on and my dog." "By the way is your accomplice in the bedroom?"

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-03 22:55 | Link

To continue "Chairman of Luton Council of Faiths, Zafar Khan, welcomed the guidelines but said the police should deal with all faiths sensitively."

How about not calling Christians and Jews the sons of pigs and monkeys? How about volunteering to help find terrorists? Or is that too much to expect from the Moslem community?

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-04 02:10 | Link

Tim McVeigh was not a christian (neither am I, by the way) and christianity had nothing to do with the bombing of the Ok Fed building.

Not sure who said that Christianity had anything to do with McVeigh or OKC, but they were totally ignorant and are guilty of a nasty slander. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that OKC was connected to the mideast. As Davis, the first reporter on the scene has carefully investigated, the John Doe was of mideast origin. Nichols also went to the philipines to meet with other terrorists, most likely organized by an Iraqi agent.

The reality is that Clinton decided that facing this threat head on was too politically risky, and covered up the mideast connections, like the fact that Moussaoui, Mohammed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, two Sept. 11 hijackers, were in Oklahoma and inquired about renting a room with a kitchenette.

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 06:22 | Link

BB - racist - that's sooooo 60s. You'll have to do better, doesn't have the same cachet or weight it used to have. And it doesn't silence me, either. In print or in person, cos all it's used for now is shutting down conversation.

Besides, Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. Islamism is the political movement. And like Christianity, the religions are rainbow.

-- Muslims have become the 21st century's equivalent for the filthy Jews of Hitler's Germany.---

you wish, your moral equivalence would be easier. And I don't recall there being 1 billion Jews back then.

You don't like US hegemony? As I've written here before, Niall Ferguson wrote last year(?) in the WSJ 4 possibilities because if nothing else, history has taught us 1 thing, 1 major footprint to keep the peace in their little corner of what they knew the world to be:

Chinese Communist

Islamofascism

Armed camps

So, since you don't like liberty or what is really the most benign footprint in the history of the world, I would really like to know why you prefer communism, (islamo)fascism or a return to tribal/monarchy of millenias past.

Oh, wait, you're European. It's all you know, since Europeans have lived under all three, and communism and fascism were spawned from Europe's belly, not the US'.

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 06:29 | Link

This one's for you, BB, and Geir and Jack.

http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2005/08/profiling-mme-face-mme-race-6-of.html

The cartoon.

Big Ben | 2005-08-04 11:15 | Link

Sandy P you really seem to have a problem with the 60's. Was Daddy a hippy? Did he disappoint you? Since "racist" is unacceptable, let's try "bigoted".

The total number of Jews around in Hitler's day is not the point, of course, it was the role they were assigned in the society at that time - and the consequences of that course of action - that's the equivalent I'm pointing out, as anyone could see.

I checked out the cartoon link by the way. I'd say it was a remarkably accurate representation of the extent and finesse of your analysis of world affairs.

Here’s a cartoon link for you – see if you can find any similarities between it and yours.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/sturmer/ds2.jpg

You’ll probably find that difficult since, for example, the number of people depicted is different, but try and concentrate. It’s the message transmitted that’s important.

And Herbert, do try and come up with something original – it’s all very well passing on other people’s work, but you should understand that you won’t learn much that way – it won’t earn you much respect, either.

Big Ben | 2005-08-04 11:43 | Link

Totoro

It's not that difficult, it's an observation. I'm saying that the porn industry, currently one the most dynamic sectors of business enterprise in the "free world", is entirely based on the exploitation of women (with the obvious exception of male homosexual porn). Frankly, I can't see how this demonstrates the superiority of Western culture as opposed to Muslim cultures where women are forced or coerced into hiding their identity. It's just opposing ends of the same slave scale - and I'm not restricting this to the USA either, many European countries are also busy making easy money from porn.

Another booming "free world" enterprise of course is the armament business, currently being used at devastating cost to "bring freedom" to the oil-producing countries. Any survivors will no doubt be grateful. 1822 US deaths in Iraq since March 2003, and 93 UK. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - if you consider they count. What did they die all for? And doesn't it seem odd that these oil-producing countries are almost exclusively Muslim, and since the West has been grabbing at them, Islam has suddenly been promoted to the Main Threat to Civilisation?

All these efforts presided over by a man who stole his seat in the White House, as everyone knows. What sort of Democracy is it that is being exported?

nrg | 2005-08-04 13:46 | Link

Big Ben,

One of the first sane participants here in a while. I read and read with a mixture of awe and disgust at the thoughts and opinions my fellow humans have managed to express in print.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-04 13:50 | Link

BB says "And Herbert, do try and come up with something original – it’s all very well passing on other people’s work, but you should understand that you won’t learn much that way – it won’t earn you much respect, either." Hmm? and I always thought that reading was a way to improve yourself; which is to distingusihed from BB who apparently sits in a dark corner and keeps mumbling to himself, in a mantra like way, "I am right and they are wrong" Well as one wit once said: "hiding from the light does not make it dark"

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-04 14:07 | Link

BB says "All these efforts presided over by a man who stole his seat in the White House, as everyone knows." Well actually the NY Times, hardly a flack for the right wing, did a recount of all of the ballots cast in Fla. and concluded that Bush acutally won.

He then goes on to say "What did they die all for? And doesn't it seem odd that these oil-producing countries are almost exclusively Muslim, and since the West has been grabbing at them, Islam has suddenly been promoted to the Main Threat to Civilisation?" Putting to one side the fact that BB apparently does not have a grasp of how the economics of the oil market works, the suggestion that equation of Islam and oil is a convenience for Western imperalism is lacking in any evidence and the evidence appears to be just the opposite.

Big Ben | 2005-08-04 16:12 | Link

Herbert are you really a lawyer? 'Fess up, dude, no shame involved. It's only blogorrhoea.

Reading may be part of the way to self-improvement, depending of course on what you choose to read, but you will also quickly require the ability to digest the knowledge you accumulate, and also the courage to confront any opinions you may develop with other, even opposite, opinions, in your quest for a balanced view-point. If indeed this is what you're after.

Perhaps you're correct when you suggest that I have no grasp of how the economics of the oil market works. I assumed that, like any other commodity, it was sold to the highest bidder, and then again to large dealers who sell it again to smaller dealers who then sell it to you and me. Price hikes at every stage of the dealing, with, once again, you and me bearing the brunt. Dear God help us all it's what we do best. But please enlighten me, what is the information I'm lacking about the mechanics of the oil trade?

As for Islam/oil, in case you didn't get it, I'm making the point that when a gang of thugs (or coalition, if you prefer) conspire to steal someone else's property, it's a useful strategy to make the previous owner out to be a nasty horrible evil bastard - this stacks public opinion in your favour and increases your chances of getting away with it, or at least, avoids too much exterior flak as you chop your bloody way to dominance. Unfortunately, though, as we are tragically seeing, it tends to spark angry solidarity in those who feel kinship with the people of the first part. If this were just Chuck and Charlie, it would be a straightforward punch-up. In Sicily, this sort of stuff leads to vendettas, some of which have lasted generations, with whole families involved. In the case we're discussing here, though, we're dealing with entire nations, entire ethnic groups, billions of human beings.

In the wake of the atrocious and murderous London bombings, while war-loving nitwits the world over applaud the "Blitz" spirit of the British people - and as an Englishman, I can empathize with that spirit myself - it seems impossible for you to imagine that ordinary Iraqis may be possessed of the same human spirit, may feel the same about the illegal and immoral rape of their own country.

Be clear about the fact that, by this statement, I am not condoning the evil of bombing innocents. I do not condone the evil bombing of innocents by "Coalition" forces either.

This is the fundamental point of the "Islam / Islamism" debate, as far as I'm concerned. Why are they angry? Any creed that stops at the level of "... they're all just dumb brainwashed animals ...", "... they hate our freedom ..." is in my opinion contemptuous propaganda. It's also basically the tune whistled, with various degrees of subtlety, by such as Blair and Bush. They think we're stupid. Reading some of the stuff here and elsewhere, distressingly, it seems they're not wrong about some of us.

Finally, Herbert apparently does not have a very firm grasp of semantics, in that he makes the statement "... lacking in any evidence ..." and then immediately negates it in the same sentence "... the evidence appears to be just the opposite ...". Dodgy stuff Herbert. Lateral, to say the least, I'd go so far as pear-shaped. Is that a Scotch spin on that one?

With the oil economic gear, would you be kind enough to provide some of this apparent non-existent opposite evidence? Just to see if I can get my head round it. Love a challenge.

Big Ben | 2005-08-04 16:22 | Link

nrg

Cheers, man - by all means pitch in, where there's enough for one there's enough for two. Keep it lively. Some of these characters are tougher than others, but clowns are always fun.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-04 16:48 | Link

BB:
As for the mechanics of the oil trade, you have not the remotest idea what is going on -- like so much other of your blather. Oil prices today are set by the futures market. Suffice to say that more oil is traded on the futures market then exist at any point in time in the market place. Every company today hedges as a matter of price protection.

As for the US and the UK attempting to control Middle East Oil that is as absurd as the rest of your prattle. If the US were to control Iraqi oil, the natural economic inclination would be to a) buy it an artificially low price and b) stop buying from the Gulf states. That would leave the Gulf states with one option which would be to lower prices to find another buyer. The effect would then actually be quite good since energy costs are perhaps the biggest cost of the third world and the greatest impediment to growth except for graft.

The rest of your purported commentary on “Islam/oil” is so far off the mark that, it is simply not worth the time to repond to.

As for the statement, “This is the fundamental point of the "Islam/Islamism" debate, as far as I'm concerned. Why are they angry? I don’t care why they are angry. When they attack and kill civilians then they lose any basis for dialogue. We disagree. So be it. Under your analysis, the UK should have asked why the Nazi’s were angry.

As for “Finally, Herbert apparently does not have a very firm grasp of semantics, in that he makes the statement "... lacking in any evidence ..." and then immediately negates it in the same sentence "... the evidence appears to be just the opposite ...". I suggest that you re read the rules of logic -- something with which you apparently are not very familiar.
.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-04 17:19 | Link

Assuming you do not understand my last comment. The rule is “lacking any evidence” equals no evidence in support of proposition A. The “evidence is just the opposite” means that the evidence, as does exist negates proposition A and therefor it would appear to be false. You don’t need a challenge -- you already have enough to overcome as it is

Big Ben | 2005-08-04 18:04 | Link

Herbert you nit I'm challenging you on that. I'm saying you adopt a superior attitude, pretending to judge my comments as "... not worth the time to respond to ..." whereas in fact you don't have the minerals to do so. You're dodging. The WOT is a scam, Herbert, and you're running away.

Now, your explanation of the mechanics of the oil business was most informative but unfortunately not as clear as I'd hoped. This may bear out your assertion that I haven't a clue as to what's going on, but on the other hand, we must bear in mind that the information is being delivered by the man who invented apparent non-existent opposite evidence.

Your thoughtful second-thought clarification is, unfortunately, even more of the same. "No evidence in support of proposition A". Well ... OK so far. Then - "the evidence as does exist" (we just agreed it didn't) "negates proposition A, and therefore would appear to be false". Wow. Can we go back to proposition A? Incidentally, where did it come from? What you're saying is that there is no evidence other than stuff backwards? So if I sit in the dark mumbling (as I am sadly wont to do) "I'm right and they're wrong", I'm wrong? Does that make them right? Or left? No, of course, not left.

Holy shit Herbert. Prodigious. Do you work for the CIA?

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-04 18:09 | Link

BB I am impelled to assume that that your unsperevised furlough will be up soon, which will be a relief for all of us

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 18:41 | Link

No, BB, I was invited to the party only to clean up. I hate housework, and they left quite a mess.

Islam(ism) is "suddenly" the problem?

Somehow I think our ancestors wouldn't agree, especially around 9/11/1683. Was it for the O...I...L.... then?

Roger L. Simon was given a good lead:

...I am strangely heartened by this extraordinary essay by an orgonamist (yes, you read that correctly). Dr. Harman's analysis of the relationship of masochism (of a larger sort) and liberalism is just one of the many interesting facets to this brilliant article which I commend to the readers of this blog:

Thus, when his nation is attacked, the normally decent, true liberal is at risk for having the following masochistic reaction, particularly under the influence of vocal pseudo-liberals who occupy opinion-making positions (academia, the clergy, the media, etc.):

* He will criticize and may even blame his own nation.
* He will develop a guilt-ridden or anxious desire to "solve" the problem by being nicer to those who might hate or dislike his country.
* He will elaborate various disaster scenarios which he fears will occur if force is used aggressively. Usually the imagined disaster is a variation of "it will only make them hate us even more" or a feared dramatic escalation of violence which we will not have the will or the strength (so the liberal believes) to handle.
* He fears that his nation and its leaders (especially if they are not liberals) are stupid and clumsy, and he may insist on replacing a directly aggressive defense with half-hearted responses which actually would be clumsy and ineffective.

This type of masochistic reaction only increases the sadism of the terrorist, leading to new attacks which further increase the masochistic response, and so on in a vicious cycle. The September 11th attacks were the culmination of a decade of such a cycle of sadomasochistic interaction. (ht: Sheryl)....

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 18:43 | Link

Oh, and BTW, BB, my dad spent 2 years in Germany as part of the tripwire against the big ole' red bear who's ideology is wrong, it's just that the wrong people were in place at the time.

Your welcome.

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 18:52 | Link

--One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.--

Who's my group, BB? Was is the American race or religion BB?

What's American politics, BB?

You keep trying tho.

And yeah, call me "intolerant" of wanting to be killed. Since you're new around here, this is the way it is. When I can fly to Saudi Arabia, Pakland, other countries - on my own, rent a car and drive it - on my own, walk down the street not covered in a black cloth hefty-bag on my own - not get slapped by the "religious" police wearing what I want - wear my religious symbol openly and again not get slapped by "religious police" - and pay my respects to others' religions, then I'll be delighted to be as tolerant and enlightened as you.

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 18:54 | Link

BTW, BB, we never meant to take away your birthright, don't want it, most don't realize we have it.

Big Ben | 2005-08-04 19:22 | Link

This one just for fun. You don't care why they're angry, because when they attack civilians they lose all basis for dialogue.

Did the Coalition lose all basis for dialogue when they bombed civilians every day for ten years before sending the troops in to bomb more civilians? Of course, we're talking about Iraqi civilians. Do they count as civilians? Try not to dodge, Herbert. Focus.

Which of the five or six stated reasons for invading Iraq was the right one? What became of the priority hunt for Osama bin Laden? How many civilians died in the drive to "get Saddam"? Do you care? Now he's been got. So what's up with that? Iraqis were desperately eager for Democracy. So why are they resisting arrest so hard? If they hate freedom, why aren't they bombing free countries like Brazil, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Greece?

If all Muslims are more or less ticking time bombs programmed by their religion to attempt violent overthrow of all non-Muslim regimes, what should we do about them? What do you suggest? Careful on that last one, Herbert.

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 19:40 | Link

Well, that's what happens when we listen to "the world" and the UN for the sake of "stability." It's very important we pray to the alter of "stability."

And why are you limiting the argument to the "stated" reasons for invasion? Why such a narrow view?

You never did answer my question, BB. At what point does your tolerance end and you say enough is enough (for other than certain American POVs and beliefs, of course). Especially since you're in Britain and rules/regs/laws will be coming fast and furious.

You are in a prime position to educate us all.
After all, whether you blieve it or not, we are here to learn.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-04 20:22 | Link

I have never run across anyone with such a disorganized thought process as BB, except for the one time I was appointed to represent a man who was diagnosed as having serious mental problems and hence was found not guilty. BB keeps attempting to force a series of square propositions in round holes – all coupled with the view that he has insightful thoughts to propound. Much to sophomoric for me so I will go back to the real world for a while.

nrg | 2005-08-04 22:31 | Link

BB: careful, at the rate Denmark is going, they may get bombed yet...biogtry on the rise at phenominal rates from what I hear. They are most likely in contact with Sandy P and Herbie...

I was going to make the same comment to Herbie about the bombing of innocent civilians, but you beat me to the punch. Good on you.

People seem to wonder why so many Iraqis hate the west, Americans in particular...of course, were I an Iraqi male of fighting age (which unfortunately gets younger and younger)...I was a small child when Bush Sr. bombed the crap out of my country for the first time. Then my family and I were denied medicine and boycotted and treated like S--t by both the regime in power and the outside world for about 10 years. Then sept 2001 comes along and a bunch of guys, most of whom have Saudi passports, blow up the WTC which logically leads Bush Jr. to go after the leader of my country where his father failed, I'm bombed again, the family members they didn't knock off the first time around get it this time....I've been denied my childhood, suffered immeasurably, been labelled as evil by a great deal of the western world, the Americans still won't leave. I don't know, perhaps my hatred would grow.

BB, please do not question your sanity (not that I thought there was a real chance of you doing that). It seems to be a normal blog defense mechanism. When you are failing to convince your opponent and beginning to argue in circles, it seems very common to resort to discussing to what degree your opponent needs mental help. Don't take it personally.

Also, Sandy P. Did you just read the part of the article that Roger cut and pasted into his blog, or did you go in and read the whole thing? Like where Dr. Harman compares a liberal (which the dr. clearly is not)'s relation to a terrorist to a battered woman's relationship to her batterer. I can't make that connection as clearly in my mind. An analysis of why a terrorist might target the US cannot be equated with a battered woman blaming herself for getting beaten when she didn't fetch a beer fast enough for her anger-management challenged, sick, unprovoked, violent husband.

By the way, the Dr. title that Harman has doesn't make the opinions in the article fact. The entire article is without question skewed and subjective and the Dr. is unable to contain his opinions and stick to facts. He paints the US as a perfect little haven of democracy and freedom. I particularly liked this little excerpt:

"The free development of the individual in America has enabled a new form of social cooperation to develop, one in which individuals function together as a group with each person able to feel passionately about his own part in the work that everyone is doing. A good example of this is shown in the movie Apollo 13 where, when the lives of three astronauts are threatened by an accident in space, the technicians, astronauts and engineers involved are all free to find innovative solutions to unexpected problems. The movie was very popular with American audiences, many of whom left the theatre with tears in their eyes, which shows how deeply rooted is the principle of cooperating in vital social tasks by putting heart and soul into getting the job done by following one's own inspiration."

So, this is the same Dr. that used teary-eyed movie goers as proof of the American tendency to 'function together as a group with each person able to feel passionately about his own part in the work that everyone is doing'. It was a Tom Hanks movie, for G-d's sake... people cried because he and Kevin Bacon might have died, but their buddy who had to stay home with the chicken pox helped to bring them home safely. American's cry at sappy movies. I did. Great movie. I bet some Europeans cried too, would that mean the Dr. would conclude that they, too, by their reaction to the film, have adopted that American "everyone help one another" attitude.

Pardon me for not seeing the points that Roger Simon chose to print as valuable or based in anything but Harden's own psycho-babble evaluation of why we should stop all thought processes at "terrorists are evil". That complete and thourough understanding of terrorism and it's roots will certainly assist us all in combating it. Trying to understand why things happen is not the same as embracing the act or the perpetrators of that act.

Sandy P and Herbie, I will not stoop to the level of some bloggers and say that you need counselling or return to the asylum from which you came. But I am disappointed in your comments and I disagree with them strongly. And
Sandy, BB isn't disagreeing with American POVs and beliefs, he is disagreeing with YOURS.

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 22:53 | Link

And that's what makes the world go round.

You were sacrificed on the alter to the great god "stability" and enhancing bank accounts as UNSCAM has only begun to show.

We should have been allowed to finish the job.

The question is would you have been worse off if the UN/NGOs were allowed to get their tentacles in?

Bosnia's a mess and the UN is in charge. Absolutely no reason an electricity exporter should still be importing electricity. And look at the Palestinians, 54 years later still in "refugee camps."

Sandy P | 2005-08-04 23:27 | Link

I would love to go back to my dreamworld in my asylum, nrg, but that side of the world's loonies aren't letting me. There are a lot of others who wish the same.

It's been 4 years, and while there now is a teeny-tiny whisper, moderate muslims need to be shouting from the rooftops. They need to get a handle on them. The silence has been deafening. No more excuses.

bugmenot might work here, found this via Bros. Judd:

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/opinion/04brooks.html&OP=14b03d7Q2F(fgQ7B(-)upR))Q7ES(S,,Q24(,D(,2()kQ5EQ25Q5E)Q25(,2Q7BR))Npe!Q7EQ5DU

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Trading Cricket for Jihad
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: August 4, 2005

Totoro, U.S. | 2005-08-05 01:16 | Link

nrg--

Did I understand you correctly when you said that your family is from Iraq, or was this a hypothetical way of writing about the Iraqi point of view? Please advise.

If you read the article Sandy P linked to, you'll see that the "masochists" are the people who blame themselves and the "sadists" are the Islamofascists who are supporting terrorism. The point of the article is to try to explain why so many people--like yourself-- feel the need to defend the terrorists instead of supporting action against them (legal action, police action, warfare, etc.).

You are also a bit confused about the two Iraq wars. Gulf War 1 was in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. The current Iraq War is one of several responses to the terrorist threat to the United States.

The U.S. is defending itself by taking the war elsewhere. If the jihadists don't like that, then they will avoid further attacks on the U.S.

End of story.

Big Ben--

You sound like a petulant teenager when you refer to Herbie as "Herbert." Also, accusing him of working for the CIA is nonsensical. If you want your posts to be read and taken seriously, you'll need to write in a less childish way.

Big Ben | 2005-08-05 04:36 | Link

Herbert you pillock you’re not fooling anyone except your mama. You can't even spell. I am indeed unsperevised - I've never seen a sperevisor in my life, and would bite the bastard if I did. And you're still avoiding the issue, in case you're hoping I hadn't noticed - you're not going to answer any of it, are you? You’re going to keep pretending it's beneath you, is that about right? Talk tough and slimey out at the first opportunity. You transparent chicken-livered ninny.

nrg - go for it man, that was a damn good post. Take them to task.

Sandy P - so you're made to wear a black bag when you travel abroad? This is unusual. Do they help you on with the bag, or do you have to put it on yourself? And you get slapped? This can happen. But do they take you out of the bag first? And are you sure the slappers are "religious police" - did they show you any ID? Does it specify whether they are (1) policemen who are religious or (2) employed to police the religious or (3) another agency entirely? How offensive is your religious insignia? Is it hygienic? Is it even clean? If not, whose fault is it?

OK now, all joking aside – and that was a heads up for Totoro, who actually thinks I might entertain the idea that Herbert, who can’t tie his own shoelaces even when sober, could possibly work for the CIA. Lighten up Toto, sweetie, get happy. And how come you have nothing to say about what I wrote other than to complain that I call Herbert Herbert? Is it all beneath you too?

OK, I’m aware I’m now in ad hominem waters, incidentally, so I’ll reign that in, noting only that there’s been plenty of that in the other direction for quite a while.

So now, fast forward to – wait for it – 1683. Ottomans defeated at the siege of Vienna! Goodness me! This was indeed a momentous moment, when several European nations joined forces to repel imperial invasion by a foreign power. One can sympathise, can’t one? Citizens of any sovereign nation have every right to resist unjust invasion by a foreign power. Agreed? But perhaps it’s supposed to be of staggering portent that in 1683, Muslims were defeated by … a Coalition?

What happened next, of course, was that European nations immediately went back to being frantically busy mounting imperial invasions wherever the wind blew. And so on.

Innocent civilians murdered in cold blood by heartless thugs. Unfortunately true. True in NYC, although it is far from clear who was responsible for that, unless you feed only from the crusty tit of the mainline media. Even then, the story changes like the weather. But 3000 innocent civilians murdered in cold blood by heartless thugs, true. True in Madrid. True in London. True in Bali and Sharm-el-Sheikh. True in Baghdad. True all over Iraq for ten years before 9-11. Half a million dead children. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Madeleine Albrecht considers that it’s worth it. What do you think?

Everything I’m writing is what you theatrically call my line in the sand. It has to stop because human lives should be spent on something more valuable than destruction. And bombing won’t stop bombing.

One last chance. If all Muslims are potentials killers by virtue of their religion, what do you suggest we do about it?

nrg | 2005-08-05 09:08 | Link

Totoro, I wrote: "of course, were I an Iraqi male of fighting age..." that lead in meant that, of course, I am not. I just wonder what my mind set would be had that been my reality for 10 years. Does that clarify?

Also, if you read what I wrote, I understood exactly what the good dr meant in his questionable essay, I simply thought he was full of crap and lost all credibility with me when he uses American's reactions to movies as proof that they like to work together in some social way towards a common goal. It made reading anything else he had to say laughable. Especially his incorrect assumption that people who try to find the roots of terrorism are comparable to battered women. We are just looking for answers and aren't afraid to question the actions of both sides in order to find them. A superpower like the US is not a battered woman. Not helpless, not without power. I do not defend terrorists or their means, I do try to see where they are coming from and why they have chosen the horrible acts they have chosen (and against whom). And, Sandy didn't link to the article, she linked to a blog. I had to track down the article myself.

"You are also a bit confused about the two Iraq wars. Gulf War 1 was in response to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. The current Iraq War is one of several responses to the terrorist threat to the United States. " No, not confused. I said that both caused my hypotheical iraqi male to get bombed and lose family members. What information did I write that was incorrect. I merely said that Bush Sr. ran the first show and his son the second. No other info was provided, I didn't go into why the US invaded the first time, so unless you can tell me what was incorrect there, please don't say I am confused. Also, which Iraqi terrorists did they get who were posing an imminent threat to the US? Or was it all about those nuclear weapons? Where are those now?

"The U.S. is defending itself by taking the war elsewhere." I wonder if they randomly choose where to take it? Is "anywhere but the US" acceptable? Is that really defense? Sounds more like aggression to me.

Sandy P. I specifically did not say that you came from an asylum. I said I would not stoop to that level. I simply disagree with you with a passion that you only manage to fuel every time your hands hit a keyboard.

BB: you really went off on a rage there...liked the Ottoman bit.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-05 14:26 | Link

"Herbert you pillock you’re not fooling anyone except your mama. You can't even spell. I am indeed unsperevised [unsupervised] - I've never seen a sperevisor [supervisor] in my life , and would bite the bastard if I did.. . . .” * * *

“Sandy P - so you're made to wear a black bag when you travel abroad? * * *. Do they help you on with the bag, or do you have to put it on yourself? And you get slapped? * * * But do they take you out of the bag first? And are you sure the slappers are "religious police" - did they show you any ID? Does it specify whether they are (1) policemen who are religious or (2) employed to police the religious or (3) another agency entirely? How offensive is your religious insignia? Is it hygienic? Is it even clean? If not, whose fault is it? “
* * *
Innocent civilians murdered in cold blood by heartless thugs. * * * True in NYC, although it is far from clear who was responsible for that, unless you feed only from the crusty tit of the mainline media. Even then, the story changes like the weather. * * * Madeleine Albrecht [Albright] considers that it’s worth it. What do you think” * * *"

With due apologies to Ambrose Bierce, the opening and ending of BB’s post "are too far apart”

Scott in PA | 2005-08-05 15:23 | Link

Big Ben: "One last chance. If all Muslims are potentials killers by virtue of their religion, what do you suggest we do about it?"

They should be kept separate from Western societies. Peace through separation. Their immutable supremacist ideology makes them incompatable with Western civilization. But the West must overthrow the tyrannies of Multiculturalism and Political Correctness for this to happen.

Big Ben | 2005-08-05 16:30 | Link

Scott PA - thank you for an honest answer to a fair question. That's a lot more than I'm offered by some of the TV preachers on this site. I'll be back to you on that, though, because I don't believe your solution makes any sense at all.

Herbert what an inexhaustible source of entertainment you are. I shall miss you when you spontaneously combust in front of your laptop. So the "opening and ending of my post are too far apart?" This is truly a shattering verdict coming from a man whose eyes are too close together.

nrg - you're the man. Great to read you. Perhaps some of these denizens of the paddle-pool actually do misunderstand language that is self-evident. But until proof of the contrary, I'll go with benefit of the doubt - as you so well applied in your response to Toto. Others, like Guess Who and Thingy, feign incomprehension and use it as a sneaky gambit to slither out of trouble.

kim sook-im | 2005-08-05 16:33 | Link

Big Ben,

In an earlier post , you tried to juxtapose the issue of prostitution to the universal oppression of women in islamdom. This is a specious arguement...like comparing apples and oranges. Sure prostitution and pornography is a form of exploitation ( but hey porn and prostitution goes both ways...we have male gigolos and male porn stars ...some cater to women...see in your chauvinistic world view porn is only for men ..right??? Well i'll have you know we girls don't mind taking a peek at some macho stud's asset now and then so there haaaaaaaaah ;).......

....but what irks me terribly is that you are trying to denigrate western societies using the issue of porn and prostitution and making western liberal societies ( ex. Holland) comparable to the draconian societies of mullahdom !!!....

What is bloody wrong with you man, have you lost your moral compass , balls and bearings altogether eh? Do do a disservice to civilization when you constantly equate the pecadillos of modern western and other modern non-islamic societies to the depraved and immoral and draconian situation of Mullahdom. I urge you to inform yourself thoroughly about the situation of womenkind in islamdom/mullahdom before you embark on such superficial and untenable comparisons --------->

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352779&TOCID=2083225347 ( Dr. Homa Darabi foundation, exposing the oppression of women in Islam )

http://www.secularislam.org/women/ground.htm ( for secularism and universal women's rights in the middle east and islamic countries)

http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2389 ( excellent tool kit for exposing Islam )

http://www.ampbreia.com/ampbreia2_040.htm ( this site exposes how Islam 'honors' women world wide )

http://www.hvk.org/articles/1003/48.html ( islamic propensity towards violence )

http://www.eriposte.com/war_peace/other/muslim_violence.htm ( islam and militarism )

....by the way..islamites also engage in the white slave trade , here's an excerpt from Daniel Pipes article:

" On arrival in the West, Middle Eastern and African immigrants tended to specialize in one or another type of criminal activity. In the 1960s and 1970s, Eastern Arabs established the notorious "Mercedes Route," transferring stolen cars from Western Europe to the Persian Gulf via Spain and North Africa. They also recruited-and sometimes even abducted-women for prostitution in the Middle East, the so-called white slave trade. Both these trades then declined; the police took sterner action when car thefts got out of hand, while South and East Asian women took the place of European females...."

read the full article by daniel pipes:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/232 ( muslims in the west..can conflict be averted )

Sister SuphaPorn Duangprapha Kimsookboon
specialist in wicked and irrational adamikkk kkkults

มาเถิด

ให้พวกเราลงไปและทำให้ภาษาของเขาวุ่นวายที่นั่น

เพื่อไม่ให้พวกเขาพูดเข้าใจกันได้"

http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352779&TOCID=2083225347 ( Dr. Homa Darabi foundation, exposing the oppression of women in Islam )

http://www.secularislam.org/women/ground.htm ( for secularism and universal women's rights in the middle east and islamic countries)

kim sook-im | 2005-08-05 16:52 | Link

Ohhh one more thing Big Ben, let's say that we are able to transform your sex from male to female and you are now Big Bennie...:)

o.k. let's see you islam will affect Big Bennie Boob ;)

read on ---->http://www.homa.org/Details.asp?ContentID=2137352779&TOCID=2083225347 ( how islam affects women )

Sister SupaPorn Duangprapha Kimsookboon

Sufi Sex Specialist

إخصائيّ جنس صوفيّ

회교도sufi성 전문가

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-05 19:26 | Link

“Following the latest bloody atrocities in countries around the world, the debate is raging about Islam’s need for reform and liberalization. One small problem is that most of this debate is taking place among non-Muslims. When Islamic leaders examine the issue, they’re more likely to issue fatwas like this:

"JAKARTA (Antara): Thousands of people grouped in the Islam Followers Forum, representing 31 Muslim organizations, gathered at Al-Azhar Mosque here on Friday to voice support for the controversial fatwas recently issued by the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI).

* * *
The edicts issued by the MUI include a ban on liberal Islamic thought, which is defined as interpreting religious texts using pure rationale, and a prohibition of secularism and pluralism, which consider all religions as being equally valid and having relative truths."
* * *”
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16873

Big Ben | 2005-08-06 02:21 | Link

Hi Kim Sook-Im

Well, finally a full frontal from you. Enchanté, as our French brothers and sisters would say. I actually don't know that much about porn, apart from that fact that until very recently it was one of the fastest-growing and most lucrative businesses in the USA. In the 90's, it was making more money than Hollywood, and remains a major employer. Which incidentally raises serious questions about the AIDS scare, because if what they say about that is true, after 25 years, California should already resemble Death Valley, don't you think? Unless you actually believe that everybody uses a fully-functioning condom every time. I suspect that porn makes its money almost exclusively from the frustrated middle-aged male population, but probably makes a few extra bucks off adolescent curiosity. People like myself, who have a delightfully satisfactory sex life (heterosexual in my case), can't maintain any interest in porn at all. And whatever you say, it is fuelled overwhelmingly by the exploitation of women. It's a form of slavery, and slavery can't be passed off as a pecadillo. You know that.

My balls and my bearings are all comfortably in place, thanks, and my moral compass (though I'd prefer to call it common sense) keeps me from adhering to frenzied dogmas which obviate large percentages of humanity. Wherever these dogmas originate.

But before we go any further, please answer the question that only Scott from PA has had the courtesy (or the courage) to answer directly.

If, as you repeatedly claim, all Muslims are potential suicide bombers by virtue of their religion, what do you suggest we do about them all?

I shall be very disappointed if you do a Herbert on me.

Peace sister

mika. | 2005-08-06 05:36 | Link

People like myself, who have a delightfully satisfactory sex life (heterosexual in my case), can't maintain any interest in porn at all.

You lie.

If, as you repeatedly claim, all Muslims are potential suicide bombers by virtue of their religion, what do you suggest we do about them all?

Send these jihadi snakes over to China and have sister Kim stir fry them for dinner.

mika. | 2005-08-06 05:44 | Link

Starting with you.

Big Ben | 2005-08-06 12:39 | Link

Mika - I think you'll find that Sister Sook-Im is Korean. But - OK, so now you and Scott have answered the question. I can't really believe you're serious, though. Your answer reads more like an outburst of annoyance to me.

But what on earth has got into you? Do you imagine you're psychic? Since you claim I lie about my delightfully satisfactory heterosexual sex life and/or my lack of interest in porn, perhaps you could reveal the truth to all right here. Are you also suggesting that I'm a jihadi snake? Good name for a rock group incidentally.
But I'm not - as I said before, I avoid "... adhering to frenzied dogmas which obviate large percentages of humanity..." Can you follow that? It means I refuse to invest in mass hatred of any nature.

Looking forward to your revelations.

mika. | 2005-08-06 16:50 | Link

Mika - I think you'll find that Sister Sook-Im is Korean.

Really? I'm such a fool.

It means I refuse to invest in mass hatred of any nature.

Yes yes, I understand. I'm sure you were busying your self singing kumbaya with Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Arafat, Nasser, OBL, and the rest of them. You're a lovely specimen of unconditional love, Ben. Please tell me you're Jewish, or I'll feel like such a fool again.

kim sook-im | 2005-08-06 17:30 | Link

Hi Mika,

Ben is right, I'm from south korea, but I do some stir-frying with my flying pan now and then - hmmm I've never tried snakes, but many yrs ago did try eels...now I'm just plain vegetarian. I do eat halaal carrots and halaal corn on the kkkob .

When I can't find a halaal green grocer, I oftentimes cheat a bit and resought to kosher products...although frankly, I would rather have my KKKarrots slaughtered the halaal way- one sssssstroke of sharp Ginsu KKKnife to the throat of the poor Kkkkarrot aaaaaayeeee !!! and voila a frighteningly bloody mess of green blood oozing out of freshly slaughtered kkkarrots, zzzukkkinis,sssssspinach,tomatoes and iceberg-lettuce LOL.

.....I'm a terror in the kkkitchen and to think that... Ana akul khudrawaat faqat ..
.آكل الخضر فقط.... I eat vegetables only LOL LOL....

.....O.K. i'm just kidding --stir fried Jihadi-snakes (chinese = 油炸蛇) sounds like an interesting
new Chinese dish (I'll have to ask my chinese girl friend Linda about that one)....but for now I'll stick with Korean Kim Chee , Korean Sushi ( Kim-Bap)(korean = 한국 음식 ) and Hot Green Tea LOL.

Honest Ben... a lot of us do not subscribe to frenzied dogmas of hate that obviates a segment of humanity..I for one eat out at pakistani and lebanese restaurant all the time ( quite a challenge actually for a vegetarian - but there are items you can select that do not have meat or kebabs , I opt for fish and shrimp and vegetable dishes, falafel, houmis , taboolah etc.)...sorry , i can't help talking food, am famished Mika :)

There is a difference between blind phobia and measured and serious concern. I think majority of us in this blog falls into the latter category of 'concerned' citizens of free societies on planet earth. Islam is a superMeme - an intransigent and rapacious one to boot . It seeks to dominate the whole world by hookkk or by crookkk.

How do we confront the growing menace of jihadist Islam...that's the million dollar question...and i think no one has a perfect answer. In general two schools of thoughts prevail: complete eradication of this superMeme called Yssshlam ( see: www.geocities.com/scimah/memes.htm - 26k and

www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm - 62k)

the other approach is to pretend there is a 'good' islam versus and 'evil' Islam and that the current crop of jihadist murderers belong to the 'evil' Islam ( in reality pure adulterated Islam is a murderous hegemonistic ideology with misogyny as one of its central pillars - hence the urgent need to expose its misogynist nature as a means of undermining one of its main pillars if you are seeking reform or eradication ).

The US ( and here I am making an intelligent assumption) is taking the first approach of reformation...arguing that if Christianity which is the past was a murderous Cult could be defanged and reformed, perhaps the same can be done for Islam ( and there are pros and cons arguement for this approach).

Case in point we should support all the reform oriented clerics and islamists of the world who are working towards reform. Ijtihad - or reinterpretation/ exegesis of the islamic holy writings would do for starters. Oeyvind is quite an expert on this matter and perhaps he can comment further.

Recently quite a large gathering of US and related muslim scholars got together to issue a 'fatwa' of sort condemning violence in the name of Islam. The problem is the other factions of islam are not bound to respect this fatwa. Islam does not have a central authority of sorts comparable to the Vatican and therefore you have a lot of free-lance jihadist spinning off into some show down with the evil west LOL.

The following links will explain a bit more about this approach of progressive Islam ( although IMHO this is an oxymoron...but then we live in a fantasy world anyway and I can't blame Mr. Bush and Co. for tinkering with the idea of 'pretend Islam'...what else do you want the poor Man to say ? ...that Islam is an evil and violent religion??? especially if you are hosting King Abdullah or Prince Bandar at your ranch in Texas LOL ;)!!!!

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2005/04/what_is_progres_1.php ( what is progressive islam )

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00366.htm ( here william fisher argues that progressive islam is not an oxymoron , and he draws his arguments from comparative christianity in modern times...i sure hope he is right LOL )

http://www.uga.edu/islam/islamwest.html ( islam and the modern world/and the west...a must read )

http://www.liberalislam.net/ ( liberal islam discussions touching many important topics of concern to westerners and other non islamic societies)

http://nawaat.org/portail/article.php3?id_article=495 ( rooting for progressive Islam ?)

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/LiberalIslamLinks.htm ( excellent site with many links to liberal Islam )

on the Flip side there are those who opt for eradication rather than reformation. There are those like Dr. Ali Sina and other ex-muslims who argue that Islam is an intransigent monster, with a built in fail-safe loop of ilogic that disallow it to be reformed ie. islam is intrinsically evil...a poison ivy is a poison ivy to call it by any other name is to be disingenious.

see : www.faithfreedom.org

http://listislam.freeweb-hosting.org/ ( 200 sites hostile to Islam )

Perhaps there is a middle way??? Buddhist always opt for the middle path..... urgent education of the world's population regarding the ideology that is Islam and urgent pressure on the adherents of this 'religion' to embark on serious reformation of their faith to allow them to return to peaceful co-existence with their neighbours ?

More on this later... gotta run.

Jihadee Jane signing off
from her halaal kkkitchen

````KKKEBAB ANYONE ???? ;)

mika. | 2005-08-06 17:46 | Link

Stay away from the Hummus, or when the GF recovers from her cold, your relationship will be over, sister Kim.

Big Ben | 2005-08-06 18:30 | Link

Mika

I'm afraid you're incoherent. When you call someone out as a liar, it's advisable to have a minimum of information to offer as support for your accusation. Here, unfortunately, just like Herbert, you've simply done a Herbert. By this I mean that you've made a wild and personally derogatory statement and then ducked out as soon as you're called on it. This leaves you open to the interpretation that, apart from lacking any consistence in your backbone, all you intended in the first place was insult. This is born out by your comment about my being a lovely specimen of unconditional love. That's apparently intended as sarcasm, suggesting the opposite of what you say.

And what am I to make of your comment about Kumbaya and the choir of deceased tyrants? I've actually worked with choirs, and I'm pretty confident that cadavers wouldn't pass the audition. I suppose we could always ask Sandy P to get her religious policemen to try and slap 'em back to life, but I'm willing to bet that most of those evil bastards couldn't sing anyway.

And finally - here comes that foolish feelin' - I'm not Jewish.

And that's it from me Mika, I'm not interested in a spitting competition, so I'll reply to you when you come up with something worth while. We were trying to discuss the "problem of Islam" - perhaps it was my take on that which caused such an outburst of hokum from you. Relax, sweetie. Peace.

Big Ben | 2005-08-06 19:10 | Link

Kim Sook-Im

Thanks for your reply - as entertaining and as interesting as ever. I'll be online in more detail soon, my evening is rather busy and I don't have time to go into detail at the moment.

Same for Scott PA.

Later

mika. | 2005-08-06 19:37 | Link

I'm willing to bet that most of those evil bastards couldn't sing anyway.

I'm sorry Ben. But if only those that can sing can join your kumbaya, I'm afraid these efforts at world love and brotherhood are destined for failure.

And finally - here comes that foolish feelin' - I'm not Jewish.

Now I REALLY do feel foolish.

We were trying to discuss the "problem of Islam"

Let's start with those quotation marks. Why are they there?

And that's it from me Mika, I'm not interested in a spitting competition

Ha!

so I'll reply to you when you come up with something worth while.

Now I have to watch what I say. Thanks alot!

mika. | 2005-08-06 20:13 | Link

When you call someone out as a liar, it's advisable to have a minimum of information to offer as support for your accusation.

Ok. You write like a queer.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-06 22:28 | Link

explanation of the mechanics of the oil business was most informative but unfortunately not as clear as I'd hoped.

I think that Herbie expected you to be able to investigate the actual facts yourself. In reality, the US and Russia each produce more than Saudi Arabia. And both are being held back significantly. Russia is being held back by older technology and infrastructure. The US by environmentalists. My own Norway produces more than Iraq. Do norwegians feel like the US is about to attack them to get their oil?

I wonder if they randomly choose where to take it? Is "anywhere but the US" acceptable? Is that really defense? Sounds more like aggression to me.

nrg, Random? I think not:

1) Iraq was a Nazi regime that was humiliated by the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, and was in a state of war with US forces.

2) Iraq committed another act of war when it attempted to assasinate the president

3) Iraqi agents were found to be on the fringes of the 93 WTC attack. The FBI investigators concluded that Iraq was responsible, but couldn't prove anything. Clinton wanted the focus to be on individuals, not nations.

4) Iraq has always been a veritable nexus of terrorist activity, harboring numerous very dangerous terrorists, including those linked to Al qaeda.

5) Iraq was tied directly to support of the al qaeda chemical weapons factory in the Sudan, blown up by Clinton, thank goodness.

6) Al Qaeda emerged from the Sudan broke, with fighters deserting at an alarming rate. After high level meetings with Iraq, Al Qaeda was flush with cash, most likely from the oil for food program.

7) Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague just months before 9/11.

8) A article connected in Iraq prior to 9/11 predicted the attack in some detail.

9) The extreme importance of Iraq remaining a state supporting terrorism is confirmed by the fact that violent extremists from all over have gone to Iraq to fight the US military.

The Bush strategy of fighting and killing terrorists with the incredible US military, rather than to face the terrorists on US soil with fire fighters and paramedics and civilians is nothing short of brilliant. I'm just so thankful that the terrorists fell for it.

I skoff in your general direction...

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-06 22:32 | Link

10) the actual 9/11 attackers are actually unidentified. All we know is that they used fake Saudi identities. We do know that some fake identies used in WTC attacks could only have come from Iraq, since they originated from the time that Iraq occupied Kuwait. Other identities are from an ethnic group known to have ties to Iraqi intelligence.

mika. | 2005-08-07 03:50 | Link

Gunnar,
Your #10 is fascinating. Got some links you can share?

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-07 06:14 | Link

http://edwardjayepstein.com/nether_WWDK4.htm

Ramzi Yousef was a second key figure in that attack. Like Yasin, Yousef arrived in New York in early September 1992. At Kennedy Airport, Yousef presented an Iraqi passport, with stamps showing that his trip began in Baghdad. ... [Yousef's fake Karim passport] contains the notation that Karim and his family left Kuwait on August 26, 1990, and traveled to Iraq and Iran, crossing at Salamcheh, on their way to Pakistani Baluchistan, where they live now. Yet there was no Kuwaiti government on August 26, 1990: Iraqi authorities had to have put that information into Karim's file. ... only Iraq could have done so while it occupied Kuwait, for the evident purpose of creating a "legend" for one of its agents. -Laurie Mylroie

Here is one that makes a fairly detailed case that Pakistan had a significant role:

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/essaysaeed.html

Perhaps the most telling comment: "it is interesting to note that Senator Graham said "foreign governments" - plural, not singular - were behind 9/11"

I would speculate that these countries are: Iraq, Pakistan, Taliban/Afghanistan, private parties in Saudi Arabia. Iran and Syria were at least cheerleaders.

11) Iraq provided Salmon Pak to train the hijackers.

"First, Director Woolsey described the existence of a highly secure military facility in Iraq where non-Iraqi fundamentalists [e.g., Egyptians and Saudis] are trained in airplane hijacking and other forms of terrorism. Through satellite imagery and the testimony of three Iraqi defectors, [he] demonstrated the existence of this facility, called Salman Pak, which has an airplane but no runway.

"The defectors also stated that these fundamentalists were taught methods of hijacking using utensils or short knives. Plaintiffs contend it is farfetched to believe that Iraqi agents trained fundamentalists in a top-secret facility for any purpose other than to promote terrorism.

12) WSJ: Saddam's Files Show 'Direct' 9/11 Link

Newly uncovered files examined by U.S. military investigators in Baghdad show what is being described as "a direct link" between Saddam Hussein's elite Fedayeen military unit and the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001.
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who attended a January 2000 al-Qaida summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where the 9/11 attacks were planned, is listed among the officers on three Fedayeen rosters reviewed by U.S. probers, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
...
Saddam's Fedayeen has been identified in previous reports as the group that conducted 9/11-style hijack training drills on a parked Boeing 707 airliner at the south Baghdad terrorist camp Salman Pak.
...
Shakir was stationed at the Iraqi Embassy in Kuala Lumpur at the time of the 9/11 planning session.

Also in attendance were 9/11 hijackers Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were piloting American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon.

Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing, were also at the meeting, the Journal said.

When Shakir was arrested in Qatar on Sept. 17, 2001, he was carrying phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts
...
"He was last seen heading home to Baghdad," the Journal says.

13) Atta and Saddam

Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said in December that a document purported to be from Saddam's intelligence service that places lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks was indeed "genuine."

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," Allawi told the London Telegraph at the time. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-07 06:46 | Link

And nrg, as someone whose grandfather's house was used as barracks for Nazis, and a Nazi artillery is still right across the street from that house, I don't find fighting Nazis anywhere and anyplace controversial. And anyone who does feel that opposing Nazism is controversial is an enemy of mine and of all civilized people.

In 1937, Nazi Hauptschanfuehrer Adolf Eichmann and SS Oberscherfuehrer H. Hagen visited the Mufti in Palestine to discuss "the Jewish question." Following this meeting, the Mufti received Nazi military and financial aid, would go on to inspire a Nazi coup in Iraq in 1940, would declare a fatwa against the British, and would flee to Berlin after the collapse of the Iraqi coup where he spent the war years as head of a Nazi-Arab government in exile. Operating from Berlin, the Mufti would finance his anti-Jewish activities in the Arab world and the training of Muslim armies in Europe from the Sonderfund, which consisted of funds that had been confiscated from European Jews by the Nazis.
Yasir Arafat, a nephew of the Mufti, would carry on the Mufti's legacy in his goal of annihilating Israel. Saddam Hussein is also a protégé of the Mufti through his uncle and father in law Kharaillah Tulfah who, along with Gen. Rashid Ali and the so-called "golden square" cabal of pro-Nazi officers, participated in the Mufti inspired failed coup against the pro-British government of Iraq in 1941

More details:
www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0404/0404naziconnection.htm

David Elson, Australia | 2005-08-07 07:08 | Link

1) Iraq was a Nazi regime that was humiliated by the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait, and was in a state of war with US forces.

Really I was under the impression that Nazism (as charaterised in 1930’s Germany), was the belief that the Aryan race were superior to other races, and the promotion of Germanic racial supremacy. Where as Saddam’s Iraq was more like an age old tyranny espousing modernisation and secular socialism. Hitler would be turning in his grave!

2) Iraq committed another act of war when it attempted to assassinate the president

I’m not sure if further acts of “war” should be consider any more of a provocation, especially after you’ve just been definitively defeated in a costly war over oil fields, in part brought about by mixed signals from the US (about whether they’d stop an invasion of Kuwait), and the huge debts Iraq owed the US (and a few others) due to their earlier war against Iran.

Lets hear that again [paraphrased slightly this time]– “there was no proof”

4) Iraq has always been a veritable nexus of terrorist activity, harbouring numerous very dangerous terrorists, including those linked to Al qaeda.

I know that Iraq was bitterly opposed to international intervention in the region, but siding with Islamic extremists hell-bent on establishing a global Islamic state? Saddam abolished Sharia law courts and allowed women western style freedoms. Understandably this pissed off Islamic conservatives in Iraq and in other middle eastern countries such as the Kurds, and radically islamic Iran.

5) Iraq was tied directly to support of the al qaeda chemical weapons factory in the Sudan, blown up by Clinton, thank goodness.

I was under the impression that the 9/11 commission had determined that there was no direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda prior to the second Gulf War. Do you know something that US military intelligence does not?
Some sources allege that several meetings between top Iraqi operatives and bin Laden took place, but these claims have been disputed by many other sources, including most of the original intelligence agencies that investigated these sources in the first place - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-al_Qaeda_Connection

6) Al Qaeda emerged from the Sudan broke, with fighters deserting at an alarming rate. After high level meetings with Iraq, Al Qaeda was flush with cash, most likely from the oil for food program.

Saudi royal family more like:- http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/245.htm

7) Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi agent in Prague just months before 9/11.

The same Mohammed Atta who allegedly described Saddam and his government as America’s stooges in the middle east?

8) An article connected in Iraq prior to 9/11 predicted the attack in some detail.

Interviewer, Jan 31, 2003: "Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?" President Bush: "I can't make that claim." [76]

9) The extreme importance of Iraq remaining a state supporting terrorism is confirmed by the fact that violent extremists from all over have gone to Iraq to fight the US military.

No its merely an example of the way in which Saddam sought to endeared himself to the middle eastern world by invoking anti-westernism and pan-arab nationalist sentiment. He in short became the middle easts poster boy opponent of the US, even while many groups and leaders in the middle east had condemned him for his secularism and strong Iraqi nationalism.

The Bush strategy of fighting terrorists overseas with the military is certainly a good idea in theory, and one which I am quite particular to. However I am certainly a little reluctant to label it as a success just yet. It certainly won’t stop home grown terrorists from carrying out their attacks, case in point London. The likelihood of such attacks of future attacks occurring in American allied land far from the fields of battle in Iraq certainly seem to have increased somewhat.

David Elson | 2005-08-07 07:11 | Link

Re: Gunnar's 911 -Iraq links.

Statements
 "We could find no provable connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda." Senior CIA official, summing up conclusions of a 2003 report by the Directorate of Intelligence, 4 March 2004.[74]

 "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever" -- Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism official under George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, March 21, 2004 [75]

 Interviewer, Jan 31, 2003: "Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?" President Bush: "I can't make that claim." [76]

 "In my judgment, Saddam assessed Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential partner to be exploited to attack the United States. Bin Laden wanted to attack Iraq after it invaded Kuwait in 1990 rather than have the Saudi government depend on foreign military forces." Judith Yaphe CIA counter-terrorism analyst who specialized in Iraq during the George H. W, Bush administration, Boston Globe (3 August 2003).[78]

 Stephen Hayes's book, titled "The Connection", details this alleged link and is entirely based upon a report by the Undersecretary of Defence, Douglas Feith - which has since been characterised by the Pentagon as 'inaccurate'. It "is a listing of a mass of unconfirmed reports, many of which themselves indicate that the two groups continued to try to establish some sort of relationship. If they had such a productive relationship, why did they have to keep trying?" W. Patrick Lang, former head of the Middle East section of Defense Intelligence Agency [79].

 An article in the Times Online quotes a recently-leaked 'Top Secret' UK government memo: marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL," dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed meeting with the President, reads, "C {(head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove) states that} military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WDM. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." Times Online

 "In 125 separate appearances, they (Bush,
Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and Rice) made {...} 61 misleading statements about Iraq's relationship with Al-Qaeda" -- Report by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-07 07:27 | Link

I'm glad we agree. :)

David Elson | 2005-08-07 07:39 | Link

Gunnar,

I'm sure most of us here (at least I know I do) appreciates your opposition to national socialism and other forms of totalitarinism.

Just becareful not to go too far and become a nazi yourself through excessive opposition to differing opinions.

Col. B. Bunny | 2005-08-07 08:10 | Link

Dear Bjorn,

I'm glad to read that there's vigorous debate about Islam in Norwegian Blogville. I've missed your frequent postings, to say the least.

On the issue of islamophobia, I haven't a clue what that means. Presumably, if one hears any mention of the Koran or bumps into someone wearing a scimitar his hair will rise up like that on a freaked out cat.

I don't know many people who react like that to any kind of generalized threat (short of the gun in your eye).

What I can personally own up to is a complete lack of respect for the "faith." Everywhere it is practiced it comes across to me as narrow, petty, ridiculous, oppressive, hypocritical, and violent. And those are just the good parts about Islam.

As long ago as 1963 I had a Pakistani Muslim as a roommate in college and I recognize now what a traditionalist he was. Nonetheless, he was self confident in his abilities, a competent engineer, and possessed of perspective and a good sense of humor. A young lady exclaimed one time how he wrote backwards, to which, of course, he replied that, no, it was she who wrote backward.

He told me he would not have married his Pakistani wife (arranged marriage) had she worked even five minutes outside of the home. (She had a masters in chemistry, as I recall.) Yet he never went home with her and raised his children in the U.S. Still, I doubt that his mind was drawn to the kind of poisonous rhetoric disseminated by the Saudis today.

I suspect, but do not know, that it was not that prevalent at that time. I think my friend's not-too-serious ambition was to return to Pakistan and live amongst his people and play a role in bettering their lives as an educated man.

A lot of Saudi money has flowed under the bridge since then and it has watered many a black flower. The general climate of Islam is, I think, much different now and I wonder if my friend saw the problems looming in the Ummah.

From and after the events of the 80s, I think the burden of proof has shifted to Muslims. They can no longer be content to rely on Westerners to engage in endless introspection and soul searching about the reasonableness of their conclusions and impressions of Islam.

Not all Muslims are murderers but Westerners need not do much more than heed the fact that Muslims are involved in the vast majority of armed conflicts around the world and that terrorism has been virtually a Muslim monopoly since the demise of the Soviet Union and its vassal states.

The time for giving the benefit of the doubt to Muslims is long gone and it is they who must step forward and convince the West that Islam and secular government and society are not incompatible. Muslims need to step forward and hold each and every religious authority in Dar al-Islam to the renunciation of death as the punishment for apostasy, slavery as an acceptable institution, female inequality, temporary marriage, honor killings, jihad, revanchism, taqiyya, barbaric punishments, terror, special legal status as a minority, and the concept of the infidel as najis (filth).

Muslims themselves need to take steps to proclaim the equality of Muslims and kuffar and the absolute right to religious freedom. If Islam is the superior faith, let it be decided by voluntary comings and goings, not judicial murder and torture for apostates.

Right now I think Islam is a pathetic faith that cannot stand straight up competition with any other doctrine and must lash out in fury at the visible evidence of superior Western traditions and the complete inability of Muslim societies to gain traction in the modern world.

I could care less about the moderates because they do nothing. This excellent witticism says it all: Little Green Footballs.

Best wishes to you.

The Colonel.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-07 08:40 | Link

>> Really I was under the impression that Nazism (as charaterised in 1930’s Germany), was the belief that the Aryan race were superior to other races, and the promotion of Germanic racial supremacy. Where as Saddam’s Iraq was more like an age old tyranny espousing modernisation and secular socialism. Hitler would be turning in his grave!

No, Nazism is national socialism with jews as the unifying theme of hatred. Just because the most famous Nazi was german doesn't mean that only germans can be nazis. If so, how would one explain Quisling, french and american nazis? Not only is the Bathist party Nazi in nature, it features the same hatred of Jews and it has direct historical ties to the german third reich. You need to learn a bit more history.

>> a costly war over oil fields,

I would say a war about liberating Kuwaitis, with only a small amount of oil, but a whole lot of money.

>>Lets hear that again [paraphrased slightly this time]– “there was no proof”

Right, I guess that means you also believe that the mafia had nothing to do with Hoffa's disappearance.

>> but siding with Islamic extremists hell-bent on establishing a global Islamic state?

Actually, Iraqi documents confirm that Saddam dealt with all sorts of terrorists, including so called radical Islamics. Saddam is as muslim as the next guy. In fact, the 9/11 hijackers weren't particulary religious.

5) Iraq was tied directly to support of the al qaeda chemical weapons factory in the Sudan, blown up by Clinton, thank goodness.

>> I was under the impression that the 9/11 commission had determined that there was no direct link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda prior to the second Gulf War.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/sudan/cw.htm

>> prior to the second gulf war.

You are so biased, it's laughable. The lengths you will go to oppose Bush. I couldn't care less about Bush. In your twisted version of reality, the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda only begin --after-- the 2nd gulf war! Never mind that Atta came to the US with an Iraqi passport, comes to Baghdad 2 months before the attacks, and meets with Iraqi agent in Prague. Never mind that al qaeda was openly operating a training camp there. Oh, that's right, Saddam, a complete dictator didn't know they were there.

>> Do you know something that US military intelligence does not?

I know that it was not in the Bush administration's interest to make a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. It's a political calculation that you don't seem up to comprehending. That's the difference between me and you. You simply blindly take positions that are opposed to Bush, no matter how absurd. Bushies figured this out early on and are out manuevering the left at every turn. If Bush quietly said at sunrise that at some point, the sun will set, the lefties will scream that the sun will never set. If Bush quietly capitulates on some issue, the lefties scream that they won, while they walk into the trap. You're under an "impression" because you read the carefully constructed headlines, rather than the underlying reports.

>> The same Mohammed Atta who allegedly described Saddam and his government as America’s stooges in the middle east?

Nevertheless, he did meet with an Iraqi agent.

>> Interviewer, Jan 31, 2003: "Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?" President Bush: "I can't make that claim." [76]

First of all, it wasn't in Bush's interest to make the claim. Second, Read it from a Clintonian perspective, "I can't make that claim", rather than "I don't believe it".

nevertheless, 8) An article written in Iraq prior to 9/11 predicted the attack in some detail.

9) The extreme importance of Iraq remaining a state supporting terrorism is confirmed by the fact that violent extremists from all over have gone to Iraq to fight the US military.

>> No its merely an example of the way in which Saddam sought to endeared himself to the middle eastern world by invoking anti-westernism and pan-arab nationalist sentiment. He in short became the middle easts poster boy opponent of the US, even while many groups and leaders in the middle east had condemned him for his secularism and strong Iraqi nationalism.

Which supports my point.

>>The Bush strategy of fighting terrorists overseas with the military is certainly a good idea in theory, and one which I am quite particular to. However I am certainly a little reluctant to label it as a success just yet. It certainly won’t stop home grown terrorists from carrying out their attacks, case in point London. The likelihood of such attacks of future attacks occurring in American allied land far from the fields of battle in Iraq certainly seem to have increased somewhat.

I didn't say it would be successful in preventing attacks on US soil. I only said it was brilliant. It not only occupies the enemy, but also serves the long term by creating the one thing that undermines the enemies agenda more than anything: a prosperous, free democracy with freedom of religion.

The other quotes are embarrasing in their lack of potency. Since all of the parties quoted have an agenda, they aren't credible.

>> become a nazi yourself through excessive opposition to differing opinions.

Ridiculous and impossible. It shows that you really don't understand the true nature of Nazism. The fault of Eichmann was not that he disagreed with jewish opinions, it was that he wanted to kill them.

Strong belief in liberty, human rights, and justice does not lead to socialism and hatred. The left-right was invented to distance communists from fascists, when they are really two sides of the same coin. They just have a different unifying theme. The real spectrum is with freedom/liberty/life on one end and fascism/nazism/communism on the other.

David Elson, Australia | 2005-08-07 13:12 | Link

Gunnar,

>>Right, I guess that means you also believe that the mafia had nothing to do with Hoffa's disappearance.

Who could believe that? But what you don’t know about is the mafia’s secret links to Saddam. Man is there nothing that two headed secular nazi – religious fundamentalist tyrant wouldn’t do?

I sure am biased, and indeed I am also laughing. I don’t think I even mentioned Bush, except to quote him… Once! So for a person who couldn’t care less about Bush, you certainly sound rattled. I support that Texan on plenty a thing.

And Yes I did say that those links between Iraq (not Saddam) and Al Qaeda started after the second Gulf War. Prior to war – Saddan in Charge, after war Americans/New Iraqi Gov with Al Qaeda and other associated terrorist movements struggling to wrest control. As for Atta and his passport, I’ve heard of a number of incidents where people have crossed borders using passports where the nation listed is not where they’re really from, or that the country who’s passport they possess is somehow complicite in the crimes they may commit.

Al Qaeda has operated training camps in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia not to mention the bomb building, flight training that went on in Germany, France and London. Should we attack them also??

>> I know that it was not in the Bush administration's interest to make a direct connection between Iraq and 9/11. It's a political calculation that you don't seem up to comprehending. That's the difference between me and you. You simply blindly take positions that are opposed to Bush

Hardly, it looks like that while there is no evidence that the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda planned 9/11 or even established ties beyond one single recorded meeting in the early 90s, it certainly benefits the current administration to say that while “there’s no evidence”, there are links between Al Qaeda Iraq - Thus implying and making all the little Bushies believe that there is some secret link between September 11 and Iraq regardless of the facts. Sure helps provide further justification for a war failing in the US popularity stakes. But yes Bush’s democratic opposition are useless (like most lefties).

It’s not the agenda nor the “potency” of those quotes which was interesting to me, it’s the facts behind them.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3816699.stm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

“Strong belief in liberty, human rights, and justice does not lead to socialism and hatred.”

It does if you use it as a rhetorical justification for state led persecution of ethnic, political or religious groups (even national socialists are known to do this). Although I gather that your convictions are far more sincere!

Lets hope that the reality of terrorist/insurgent acts of violence don’t overwhelm the dream of a democratic Iraq.

Keep the dream alive Gunnar!!

Cheers,
David.

PS: Yes I to hold the belief that politics are a circle with fascism and totalitarian socialism joining at the top and liberalism (libertarianism for our Yankee friends) at the other end.

mika. | 2005-08-07 19:57 | Link

David Elson,
I read your last comment 3 times. I still can't figure what the hell you're trying to say. And a little advice, I wouldn't be linking to the BBC or CSMonitor if you want anyone to take you seriously.

nrg | 2005-08-07 21:47 | Link

My goodness, go to Hvaler for the weekend, and look what happens!

Just a few comments, as the kids are in bed and I'm too tired to take on the amusing opportunities that have been left to me...

first, David, thanks for the arguements. Enjoy your back and forth with Gunnar.

Gunnar, I'm so glad you and I have switched countries...you buy what they do in their global playground more than I ever have! I'll try to tackle your interesting Nazi-Iraqi link another time (perhaps while avoiding work tomorrow?)

BB...what happened to you, there is SOOO much good material here. And, I'm not the man, I'm the woman! :-)

Kim Sook-Im: I must admit that your post are all over the place. I have trouble keeping up! And why all the kkkkkkks??

Good night all...

Big Ben | 2005-08-07 23:23 | Link

Good grief! Regime change - the clowns have left the stage and the heavy artillery has moved in. Lovely.

Mika - that was a good shot, man, got a smile out of me. I write as clearly as possible, a lot of people have told me they appreciate my style, though some find it overly wordy - and you reckon I write like a queer. Noted. I shall continue to write as clearly as possible.

Scott PA - how are you going to separate Muslims from other Americans? I assume youre not bothered with Europe. But even with the tiny percentage in the USA, it would have to be an impossible task - are you going to create prison camps, like for the Japanese during WWII? Gitmo mainland USA? Ship them home? What about the Iraqi emigrees patriotic to their new home? Mind you, impossible or not, the Bush-pushers may try it anyway - after all, theyre apparently trying to stamp out terror wth more terror. Please advise.

Sook-Im - I have to say that requiring support from moderate Muslim clerics to help calm down the Muslim population seems like an intelligent and sensible idea, considering the present state of affairs. But I maintain that it can only have an effect if the Muslim population actually believes that the peace effort is genuine. I suspect that as long as US (or UK) policy - incorporating medieval seige tactics which decimated an innocent population, daily murderous bombing for a decade, followed by an overwhelmingly violent invasion, on false pretences, of a sovereign Muslim homeland - remains unchanged, theres almost no chance of that. So now what?

Gunnar Maryland - several members of my family fought Nazi Germany during WWII, one of whom was shot down and killed - Im not ashamed of that. Any form of totalitarianism is the enemy as far as Im concerned, religious or political. The Bush version benefits from an excellent propaganda machine which is pretty adept at juggling bullshit. But the smell always gives it away.

Dave Elson - nice job.

nrg - hello again - Im in a busy spell. Hope the kids sleep all right.

tabo | 2005-08-08 05:08 | Link

mika, mika, mika, congratulations for the last piece ""We sharpen the knifes. Kim, you got that recipe?"" i'm getting addicted to your sense of humor in this blog? in a talk-silly competition, no one can beat you, you're the best..
keep on being brilliant kid... the world is awaiting your sparkles... now here's one for you: they're desperately looking for mercenaries in iraq and they're paid up to $50.000 a month..good opportunity, so if you're old enough, pack your "knifes" and your friend's frying pan and go make some kasher muslim fries..
nrg, Dave Elson and Big Ben thanks for reminding me that hate has not corrupted everyone in this blog and that there's still some humanity in us..
good analyses folk..you already said most of what i felt like saying...

in what follows, Jason Miller is trying to answer the easy/difficult question bush asked after 9/11: why they hate us?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushknows.html

come on miiika i'm eager to read the silly comment of the day...i'm sure that you're going to find out that Jason Miller is gay...

Scott in PA | 2005-08-08 05:27 | Link

Scott PA - how are you going to separate Muslims from other Americans?

The first order of business is not to completely halt Muslim immigration, do not let anymore in the country. Secondly, those who are in country but not citizens will have to leave. Thirdly, those who have become citizens will be stripped of citizenship if they are found to be involved in jihad activities in any way.

Those Muslims who are native do present a special problem. They could be encouraged to emigrate and I would support financial incentives.

Also we must overthrow the idiocies of multiculturalism and insist on assimilation to American norms.

We should re-think the First Amendment free exercise rights. When it was written the Founders felt no need to define “religion”. For them, they were imposing a truce between the various Christian sects. I don’t believe they had anything like Islam in mind. In our postmodern, “anything goes” world, any set of personal beliefs can be considered a religion. How can one “freely” exercise their religion if it requires the extinction of all other religions, or at a minimum reduce others religions to second class or dhimmi status? Free exercise is unworkable under postmodern, relativist rules. So perhaps we should consider protecting Christianity and Judaism, and remove others from automatic civil protection. This would mean that if you don’t hire a Muslim, you can’t be sued for discrimmination or infringement of religious liberties. We need to create an environment where Islam would not prosper.

Kim suggested two other choices as if they were the only ones: reforming Islam or wiping them out. The first is not going to happen because the Quran is considered the received word of Allah, and you don’t mess with what Allah says. If Allah says fight the people of the Book (Christians and Jews), then you fight them. The second option is not morally acceptable, and for those with no moral qualms, it is not practical.

Separation is the peaceful choice. But even this is abhorrent to the Left because they hold tolerance as the summum bonum of society. But tolerance has its limits.

Scott in PA | 2005-08-08 05:31 | Link

oops. I meant "to completely halt Muslim immigration"

mika. | 2005-08-08 08:01 | Link

Tabo,

The graphic caricature is just my way of trying to be a nice guy.

You know, every joke has a grain of truth. I don't think my estimation is so far fetched -- particularly if the situation in Iraq turns out to be unworkable for our side, as at this moment it very much looks like it might be. A democratically elected jihadi government in Iraq or a jihadi constitution is not the reason $200 billion and counting was sunk into Iraq by trying to be nice guys.

As I see it, the problems with the Arabs (and Muslims in general, because they borrow so heavily from Arab culture) is that they don't know when to climb down. Given Arab culture, I'm not even sure they would know how to climb down.

The situation can't continue as is. People's patience will run out.

David Elson, Australia | 2005-08-08 11:34 | Link

Nrg, there is nothing so bad as conformity and group think, I can’ tolerate it in real life and I’m certainly not going to tolerate it online. Variety is the spice of life! So I look forward to reading more of your views on here in the future...

Mika, I’m aware that the BBC has had some dodgy calls in the past, but hey, its not as if I was quoting the Guardian, Der Spiegel, green left weekly or one of these little ring wing tabloids, they’re always a bit lose with the truth. What I was trying to say – Saddam is a bad little man. Al-Qaeda is a murderous group of terrorists. Non violent peaceful Muslims shouldn’t be treated with racism or persecution. Both Saddam’s Baath Party and Al-Qaeda’s terrorist network are enemies of America and possibly the entire developed western world, even though it appears there was no real formal alliance between the two. I could try and simplify it into a diagrammatic form if you want? Unfortunately clarity of thought is gift the god(s) have denied me.

As for socialism, national or not, check out the following link:- http://www.finlandforthought.net/temp/daily_show_swedish_socialism.avi

Big ben - your writing style is fine. I’m not sure that there is any such thing as a clearly demarcated queer writing style. Unless you feel like releasing an award wining “writers guide for the queer guy” novelette, in which case go for it! You’d be bound to make a truck load of money.

Scott I hope you know how much Bin Laden relies on the comments of people like you to stirr support for his cause. Are you for real, or a secret Al-Qaeda plant on this little blogg?

Finally I’d like to thank Gunnar for his earnest and worthwhile participate in this debate. He’s obviously a man of conviction, although one should never engage in a faithful suspension of disbelief

Well people, I’ve got to go, it’s exercise time.
Cheers,
Dave.

nrg | 2005-08-08 12:40 | Link

Dave,
Daily Show clip was a hoot! By the way, you write like someone who's lactose intolerant... ;-). Distinctly different from the queer writing style, yet equally skillful...

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-08 12:51 | Link

Hmmm, I said: Atta came to the US with an Iraqi passport, comes to Baghdad 2 months before the attacks, and meets with Iraqi agent in Prague.

And you respond: As for Atta and his passport, I’ve heard of a number of incidents where people have crossed borders using passports where the nation listed is not where they’re really from, or that the country who’s passport they possess is somehow complicite in the crimes they may commit.

The weakness of your argument is reflected by the fact that you address only the weakest of my 3 points.

mika. | 2005-08-08 14:22 | Link

Mika, I’m aware that the BBC has had some dodgy calls in the past, but hey, its not as if I was quoting the Guardian, Der Spiegel, green left weekly or one of these little ring wing tabloids, they’re always a bit lose with the truth.

It's not a question of "some dodgy calls in the past", but a question of a consistent and unrelenting bias -- a bias almost indistinguishable from that found in the 1930's Der Stürmer. For example, what does it take for the BBC to call an Islamofascist by name? Apparently, supporting suicide bombings (as long as they only kill Jews) doesn’t qualify: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16962

What I was trying to say – Saddam is a bad little man. Al-Qaeda is a murderous group of terrorists. Non violent peaceful Muslims shouldn’t be treated with racism or persecution.

These "non violent and peaceful Muslims" SHOULD be treated with racism and persecution precisely BECAUSE they are they non violent and peaceful towards these jihadi group and their sympathizers. Why are they quiet and peaceful to these things emanating from their side. Why are they not actively resisting these guys, why are they not turning them in to the authorities? Why are they voting characters such as George Galloway into office to represent their respective districts?

Both Saddam’s Baath Party and Al-Qaeda’s terrorist network are enemies of America and possibly the entire developed western world, even though it appears there was no real formal alliance between the two. I could try and simplify it into a diagrammatic form if you want?

Here, let me do it for you: http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000360.html

kim sook-im | 2005-08-08 14:40 | Link

Scott, Pa.

"....Kim suggested two other choices as if they were the only ones: reforming Islam or wiping them out. The first is not going to happen because the Quran is considered the received word of Allah, and you don’t mess with what Allah says. If Allah says fight the people of the Book (Christians and Jews), then you fight them. The second option is not morally acceptable, and for those with no moral qualms, it is not practical...."

O.k. Scott, i think you misread my post. I did not infer that those were the only 2 choices...i said Buddhists like to opt for the middle path.....uuuh there's a couple of other choices, you could marry a muslimah and convert LOL ;)...you'll have to be circumscised first though ..tee hee.

I agree with you that reforming is going to be hard if not impossible, partly because 'devout' ( key word is devout...we know there are a gajillion lip service muslims who bow and scrape 5x /day facing Mekka - but all the time harboring lustful thoughts about that girl or guy next door :)...something like Joe Blow going to church and listening to the drone of the good Reverend while day dreaming about having a quickie with that buxom girl next door while his wife is out shopping (!) ( Ave Maria, Dominus Tecum ......).

It is this lip service 'muslims' that we must make a concerted effort to reach and to convince them that they have been infected and duped by the evil superMeme EEKLAM 9/ll and that they can be decontaminated and returned to normalcy and rationality. The whole world must make a concerted effort to expose Eeklam for what Eeeklam is. Since Eeklam is a global phenomenon, the internet is an excellent tool.

Scott correctly indicated that muslims take the Quran as God's immutable words when in reality it is a handiwork of man. If you demolish the idea of divine origin of the Quran , then the whole foundation of Islam is destroyed.

check out :http://www.answer-islam.org/Science1.html ( does science prove the Quran )

also check out Buddhism and Science for comparison ( don't worry unlike ex-christian , buddhists are not interested in 'converting' nobody :)

http://www.beyondthenet.net/misc/science1.htm

and

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/Quantumphenomena.htm (quantum physics and mahayana buddhist philosophy )

Scholarship in studying the true origins and evolution of the Quranic texts can be a rather hazardous occupation as is evidenced by the pseudonyms and secrecy which orientalist scholars maintain in their kind of work....you just never know -the next frail geeky looking librarian or bibliographer may be a murderous islamist assassin in disguise ..just waiting to clobber you to a gory death with an extra heavy tome of the Holy Quran set in Kufic script.. ha ha. In this context muslims practise BIBLIOLATRY - blind reverence and adoration of an inanimate object - a book - a form of pagan idolatry !!!

Scott objected to the 2nd option of total eradication of islam on the grounds that it is morally untenable....i suspect he is confusing Eeklam for a living person or a particular race or nation ! Here we are talking about eradicating an ideology similar to say 'communism' , not violent blood-shed or genocide .Many muslims are arabs- not all arabs are muslims. The largest muslim country is non arab ie. indonesia.....Again i remind you Eeklam is an ideology, in this case it is murderous fascist, hegemonist ideology masquerading as a 'religion' or you could say it has elements of a 'religion' / more likely 'cult'. It is an expansionist, imperialist ideology utilizing the mechanics of religion to further its goals. It is not just 'another' religion to be added to the cornucopia of multi culturalism and any one in the PC camp that envisions 'Islam' as another cute ,foreign, exotic culture , faith, religion is in for a shock sooner or later....oh well it's happening already.

Of course you have a third way...we can threaten to ship out millions of carry-out pork fried rice to all the islamites and threaten them with death by bamboo-shoots if they do not kkkonvert to chinese buddhism ...I suspect they will opt for tibetan tantric buddhism as there is a bit more 'sexuality' involved in tantrism LOL ;) LOL LOL LOL

O.k. Mika and nrg.... i noticed you folks are getting hung up on the 'queer' word.... don't you know that Big Ben is english and english folks write like that, kind of flowery and shakespearianisch and does not reflect his sexual orientation whatsoever....and talking about orientation...Mika and nrg, you may both be surprised to know that a lot of gay folks out there do not fit any stereotypes !. I know, cos i have gay friends, one of them is my gym and martial art partner, he is ex-military all american guy, body builder - all man and i would not want to cross him LOL. Stereo-types can be deadly....not all jihadist are wild eyed mullah looking characters with a beard and a kafiyeh and iqal head-dress...they could be blond hair blue eyed swede ( watch out ex-christian faux finnish/swede mongrel...i'll be looking out for your kind in the air-ports ..hisssssssssss)

Sister Supaporn Duangprapha Kimsookboon
Thailand's premier cook specialising in spicy jihadee cuisine

มาเถิด

ให้พวกเราลงไปและทำให้ภาษาของเขาวุ่นวายที่นั่น

เพื่อไม่ให้พวกเขาพูดเข้าใจกันได้"

....just kidding ;)

mika. | 2005-08-08 15:00 | Link

.. don't you know that Big Ben is english and english folks write like that, kind of flowery and shakespearianisch and does not reflect his sexual orientation whatsoever..

Not quit.

I'd concede that his later education might have involved some English or the better American schooling, but he's definitely a cultural mongrel. Like I, btw. And he is a queer. Most likely an Iranian muslim queer. Which is why he's afraid to admit it.

mika. | 2005-08-08 15:05 | Link

not quit -> not quite

Sorry. But that's what happens when you recieve a Canadian education at university. :P

kim sook-im | 2005-08-08 15:42 | Link

Ohhh Mika,

You should'nt be using the 'q' word too much , that is unfair to gay people... remember Misogyny ,jew hating and homophobia are related pillars of the islamites...( well of fundamentalist christianoids too...related abrahamic tribes, people who claims to follow jesus but loves to hate everyone else LOL ).

In europe whenever you have a rise in hate crimes against jews and gays you better watch out for a rise in fascism. Anti-semitism and homophobia and misogyny are on the rise in areas in europe heavily populated by islamites. Ironically the islamites have hijacked the term 'phobia' and applied it to islam.

A phobia is an irrational fear of something. Islamophobia is a gross misnomer. There is genuine reason to fear Islam.. it is a rapacious and imperialist ideology that uses violence , intimidation, and fear to conquer others and punishment by death to control its adherents in a cult like fashion.

On the other hand Homophobia ( like arachnophobia - fear of spiders ( good critters that eat harmful bugs ) is an irrational fear suffered by bigots who are ignorant of human sexuality ( by its nature islam teaches ignorance regarding matters of human sexuality . In islam love between a man and women has been corrupted into 'lust'.

A woman's body is considered 'awrat' ie. pudenda, a private part. A devout muslimah would consider her whole body an equivalent of a 'walking vagina' ie. why she has to be covered from head to toe in a black cloth-sack / chaddor and burqa.Muslims will argue that it is for the sake of modesty --- false modesty...bunch of bull is what i say. It is degrading not only to the woman but to man. Islamites are assuming that a man is a ravenous wolf, unable to control his sex urge and that if he were to view a woman uncovered by a chaddor or burqa he would proceed to copulate with her in the middle of amsterdam straat/street???? LOL......

.......but then maybe that is why so many immigrant and devout muslim men find themselves in such horrible psychosexual conflict when walking down a street in americana. What would be a harmless and enjoyable stroll through an american mall window shopping would for a devout newly arrived islamite immigrant male be tantamount to walking down the red light district of the Rehperbahn or Hooker's lane. A harmless review of titillating undies in Victoria's Secret would be tantamount to shopping in Shaitan's shop of Sin LOL....all this pent up and distorted male testosteronic energy naturally will find an unnatural outlet in violence, mayhem and murder.

I say we export more Victoria's Secret Catalogs to all the islamoid countries and export more girlie arcades to those countries...maybe it would befuddle and occupy all those emerging jihadeenites with so much luscious sexual fantasies that they would not have time to absorb all those more harmful and violent quranic verses and translate them into bombs.....I say more boobs and less bombs ....eh what say you my good chap , Mr. Big Ben ????LOL LOL LOL...

Mika...for a canadian , i am surprised you are that bigoted towards gay people !..if you're a 'red blooded' american kid, i can understand ( no...i cannot , cannot understand..i will not tolerate bigotry , islamic or otherwise in any shape or form , comprendo...and kiddo if you don't shape up, i may just come to canada and clobber you over the head with my flying pan ....so there haaaaaaaaaaah ! now you are getting to be as bad as the islamoids. O.k. I feel better now that i have vented my quranic anger at you in cyberspace LOL ).

Ssssssssssister SuperPORN Duangprapha Kimsookboon
Thailand's premier Jihadee escort service
....Just kidding LOL :)

มาเถิด

ให้พวกเราลงไปและทำ

ให้ภาษาของเขาวุ่นวายที่นั่น

เพื่อไม่ให้พวกเขาพูดเข้าใจกันได้"

tabo | 2005-08-08 15:52 | Link

hey folks.

an essay that might cast some light on how the "war on terror" has now become a never-ending
"global struggle against violent extremism" we're discussing here.

http://www.alternet.org/story/23810/

eager to know what you think of that.

Scott in PA | 2005-08-08 15:53 | Link

kim: Scott objected to the 2nd option of total eradication of islam on the grounds that it is morally untenable.... Here we are talking about eradicating an ideology similar to say 'communism'.

I also said it was not practical. You can no more eliminate the ideology of Islam than eliminate Marxism. As long as copies of Das Krapital or Das Quran are extant then you will have communists and Muslims. You can’t eliminate bad ideas, but you can promote good ideas. That is why we must overthrow multiculturalism. America in the past, by a multitude of cultural persuasions, insisted on assimilation. Anyone who didn’t fit in was left behind: he did not prosper. A unitary culture, but one that was still broad by world standards, was maintained. I am not saying that it is impossible for a person from a different culture to become an American, but they must embrace the fundamentals of American culture: representative government, free speech, freedom of religion. And underlying this culture was once a healthy respect for Christianity, the common faith, even if non-established religion. America prospered despite the distinctive tensions between Christianity and Secularism. Now Secularism is poisoned by Marxism and is at war with Christianity.

Islam is at war with both Christianity and Secularism, but appropriately, it is not at war with Marxism. Islam is the now the main beneficiary of the demon child of Marxism: cultural relativism or multiculturalism, which must be overthrown.

David: Bin Laden doesn't rely on my words. Everything he needs is in the Quran and the hadith.

mika. | 2005-08-08 16:01 | Link

Mika...for a canadian , i am surprised you are that bigoted towards gay people !

uh? I don't care if he's gay or not. Actually, I'd love it if he was a she, and she was lesbian. I love that kind of a troika. :P

I do think it's sad he's afraid to admit he's gay because of his Muslim background. And it's even sadder that he doesn't have it in him to confront the Islamofascists and their ideology. Not even in cyberspace.

kim sook-im | 2005-08-08 16:19 | Link

Hi Mika,

....o.k. explaination accepted.. I shall retract my flying pan 'fatwa' against you ;) but you must still pay the 'ijyazaa' tax !

Sister Aishah Nyanaponika Kim
Ayahtolass

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-08-08 19:08 | Link

Somewhere Gunnar wrote that Saddams regime had "direct historical ties to the german third reich". I know, I know, it is not enough to be EVIL - you also have to be a NAZI. And preferably be involved in child pornography. I am still waiting for the evidence I am sure is out there that Saddam Hussein had contacts with Marc Dutroux.

And of course there are a few things that could make Saddam a Nazi, the ideas of baathism are definitely inspired both from nationalism and socialism - Sati al-Husri and Michel Aflaq both drew heavily on ideas from German nationalism. And Michel Aflaq was the man Saddam said the following about: It is he who created the party and not I.

Like quite a few Nazis, Aflaq was - by the way - a Christian.

As a political movement Baathism has many things in common with fascism. But I know. It has to be Nazi. It sounds so much better. And what better an opportunity to brand it as Nazi than to point out, like so many people do, that Kharaillah Fulfah, Saddams uncle, supported Haj Amin al-Husseini, the highly anti-Jewish Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (who did indeed have broad contacts with Hitler) and the took part in the coup attempt in Iraq in 1941.

This is where the problems begin though. For obvious reasons Nazi Germany gladly gave people who were resisting a pro-British regime both moral and financial support. I dare say, however, that most of the anti-British in Iraq and other countries did this mostly out of other reasons than supporting Nazism, mostly out of a hope for (increased) independence from European imperialists. The same thing applies for the Libyans, who to a large degree fought against their imperial masters, the Italians.

The Nazi support for anti-British groups went far outside the Arab world, by the way, for instance to India.

So, in short, what we have is:

a) a regime built on the ideas of Baathism, partly based on ideals from German nationalism, ideas that also inspired German national socialism.

b) a dictator who had an uncle that took part in an anti-British coup that was - not unsurprisingly - supported by the Nazis. It happened, after all, in 1941.

And by the way, Gunnar, would you not say that the Germans and even NATO also has "direct historical ties with the Nazi Third Reich"; some leading German NATO officers used to be Nazi officers.

Ø.

kim sook-im | 2005-08-08 22:58 | Link

....and Werner von Braun , the german scientist instrumental in the development of US rocket science...now was he a Nazi or was he a scientist ???.

Amd did'nt president Truman authorize a program to bring Nazi Scientists to work on behalf of this country, because it was felt that their expertise was too precious and there was fear that they could be exploited by powers that were hostile to the US?

Check out link:

http://www.heart7.net/paperclip2.html

Hmmmm what a complicated web we weave!

Sister Aishah N. Kim

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-08 23:35 | Link

Islamic theology states that a) the world is divided in to Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb (i.e. infidels); b) it is incumbent on every Moslem to see that Islam becomes ascendant and that other faiths are either subservient (Christians and Jews) or destroyed (polytheists); c) “Peace”, between Moslems and members of Dar al Harb, to the extent it exists, is a Hudna peace which is that it is acceptable only until Islam is strong enough to conquer; and d) the Koran is not a metaphor for action but a literal injunction from God to Gabriel to Mohammed. To the extent that there is discussion of peace in Islam it is in the earlier Hadiths and the later Hadiths which are much more aggressive are considered the more authoritative.

At bottom Islam maintains that man-made laws are illegitimate because only God make law and so secular governments are illegitimate and transgress the Koran. Indeed at the time of the founding of the UN, Moslem nations refused to sigh a universal declaration of human rights because it contravened the Koran and they still maintain that position.

Indeed, in contrast to western society, there is no real future tense is classical Arabic so that there is always added as a matter of form the phrase “God Willing.” This tends to reinforce the literal interpretation fo the Koran and also to preclude the adherent from taking an individual initiative

Contrary to some people writing here, the response of Moslems to Western culture has nothing to do with Western actions toward Islam and, instead, by a deep and abiding hatred and revulsion of secular western values. Perhaps the most eloquent spokesman for this point of view was Sayyid Qutb and his commentary on the Qur'an has been extremely influential; some see him as the central theorist of twentieth-century Islamic justification for rejection of any secular values and he is certainly a spiritual foundation for Al-Quada..

Many here are of the views that if only the West were more understanding or less aggressive that Islam would be much more open to a “live and let live policy”. The reality appears to be that they ignore both history and actual Islamic commentary and appear to prefer to substitute wish for reality. Unless Islam is prepared to re-examine it basic views, I, for one do not see, any lasting reconciliation. In every Islamic society that currently exists, the economy, except for selling natural resources, is a basket case and the plight of the people living under its precepts is a disaster in terms of jobs, human rights and education.

At one time Islam had a great dialogue internally in the form of the Mezalites (phonetic) who argued that the Koran was a metaphor. Their reign ended in the 8th century and literalism became ascendant and remains os today. It is hard to conclude, in such circumstances, that the West is not at war for the soul of civilation.

What makes tis quite scary is that The European population is literally imploding and today manufactures, as one wit once said, more coffins than cradles. No society can survive in such circumstances. In a short period of time -- perhaps 50-75 years --Europe will be too weak and will die with Islam ascendant; BB’s crowing about his satisfactory sex life not withstanding.

Big Ben | 2005-08-09 03:32 | Link

Tabo - thanks for the link - it’s a good article. Political terminology is a staple of propaganda - what is said in the article also goes for that other major dumb phrase ’The Axis of Evil’. Axis being carefully chosen for its historical resonance. The bad guys all wear black hats.

Bush’s presidency is surrounded by spin doctors, indeed I’d say they only let him out to whistle their tune. He can just about handle that as long as he follows the prompter. Same goes for Blair of course, though he manages to put more English on it. (Or talks like a queer, if you prefer.) Had Kerry won the last US election, though, I have no doubt that he’d have been whistling along with the best, since he’d have been working for the same company. These people are basically glove puppets used to distract attention from what’s really going on. In the USA and England, and also some of Europe, I believe, what’s going on is a severe and intensifying reduction of liberty - feasible only in a climate of ’terror’, where frightened people, will accept, even welcome, drastic limitations of their rights against the promise of ’being protected’. As I said before, who’s read 1984? Instead of ’Goldstein’, we have ’the problem of Islam’. That’s why the quotes are there, Mika.

There’s plenty I’d like to comment on regarding the recent posts here, but it will take a little time since I’m in a very busy phase. I’ll need to look stuff up, and I don’t have time at the moment - not even to pursue my incredibly fascinating and utterly prodigious sex life which has been monopolising so much attention lately.

The closest I’ve ever been to Iran is a working visit to Israel a few years back. I was born in Shakespeare’s home town but have since moved. And however much it may trouble some of you, while leaving others indifferent, I really am heterosexual, although I find nothing wrong with people being homosexual.

The only Islamofascist I’ve ever knowingly come close to is our mutual friend XChristian who I don’t reckon is really a fire-breathing zealot - though I may be wrong. He may only be exasperated to the point of retaliation by the reek of pudden-headed bigotry which pollutes the atmosphere on what sets out to be a space for open-minded discussion and exchange.

Goodnight all

BB | 2005-08-09 03:36 | Link

Sook-Im

Thank you for coming to my defence - you’re a sweetheart.

BB3 | 2005-08-09 03:44 | Link

Dave

Jon Stewart is a consistently funny character - I enjoyed the clip. Strong incentive to emigrate to Sweden, though - do you reckon he’s been sponsored?

BB4 | 2005-08-09 04:13 | Link

One last thing. More boobs, less bombs, quoth Sister Sook-Im, defender of justice. I’d say that until the wisdom of women is honestly integrated as an equal part of the decision-making process of our nations, we’re going to be stuck with the sort of excessively testosterone-driven solution to our problems which leads to shit like the ’War on Terror’. And I can say that because I have been loved, and am presently loved, by some pretty remarkable women. Centre of gravity for my absolutely wondrous and positively volcanic non-medically boosted sex life, by the way. Sorry. I’ll try not to mention that again.

And finally, all religions are written by men - none can claim to be the pure, unadulterated ’Word of God’. Whatever we call God, it communicates with us all - the first mistake and most dangerous mistake is to believe that only ’my’ God is the real one. Jews and Christians are still at it. I like Lao Tzu.

nrg | 2005-08-09 09:09 | Link

I am also much too busy with other things in my life to comment on what's been written here except to take serious issue with Kim Sook-Im's grouping me together with Mika!!! I was making fun of the queer comment...finding it to be a completely inappropriate thing to comment on in this blog. I don't think that sexual orientation can show through in writing style anymore than lactose intolerance, hence my comment. Being commented on in the same sentence with Mika gave me chills. So, please do not misunderstand the comment that I wrote above.

nrg | 2005-08-09 11:16 | Link

I couldn't help myself, had to read link provided by Tabo. Excellent article. The rhetoric of the spin doctors running the Bush Administration show will be continually changed to hide failures, bury mistakes, convince too many Americans that the government is working with their best interests at heart and, of course, to set the stage for justifying less freedom for Americans and less tolerance for anything that is deemed to be "extreme". My fear is that "extreme" is becoming more and more synonymous with "different".

And BB, I agree with you on the 1984 analogy. Scary...

David Elson, Australia | 2005-08-09 12:35 | Link

Scott

You can no more eliminate the ideology of Islam than eliminate Marxism.

Thank god you’ve given up on the idea that its either practical or desirable to eliminate opposing ideologies. And promoting good ideas, and leading through example rather than suppressing others is certainly a good start to promoting world peace.

Lets hear what scotty had to say next- That is why we must overthrow multiculturalism
Excuse me while I do a double take! You criticise socialism and the fascist Islam and than go on to declare that not only is one culture best above all, that all other cultures should be disallowed in America with only American culture (as you define it) allowed.

It’s the first but it is not the last time you contradict yourself. Next you go on to praise ”free speech, freedom of religion”, but it’s not long before you begin to criticise this freedom, declaring that secularism has been “poisoned” and the need for a common religious faith.

Secularism, the ability to see beyond the confines of superstitious dogma is the one thing that has consistently set aside much of developed world, much of the civilised world from the ignorant backwaters of today. Do you really want to throw that away?

Discard your rock worship, your reverence to the unknowable nonexistent and embrace your fellow man! Religious dogma, ideological beliefs and regionalistic tribal nationalism have no place in today’s globalised world. An inspiring picture http://www.cordair.com/Gaetano/selfishness.aspx

However since people apparently can't live without their little religious faiths, I propose to allow everyone to worship whatever in their own, rather than to fascistly suppress religion completely, Scott/Saddam/Laden/Hitler style.

I’m sure Bin Laden didn’t start his crusade based on something you said, but your words certainly aid him to recruitment more disenfranchised young muslims, god forbid if your plans were ever actually put into action.

Nrg That lactose statement really hurts
:-) I would sue you, but I am too busy choking on my milk, to which I am allegedly intolerant. If you ask scott or gunnar, I think you’ll find that lactose intolerance, is anti-American and/or possibly linked to Al-Qaeda led terrorism and WMD from Iraq.

Cheers,
Dave

mika. | 2005-08-09 13:07 | Link

Saddam, OBLaden, Hitler suppressing religion?

How did you come up with that? It's kind of scummy that you would resort to having group Scott with that crowd. I suppose you weren't thinking clearly again. Yeah, that's it.

Big Ben | 2005-08-09 14:16 | Link

Mika handing out lessons on thinking clearly! Wow - we're through the looking glass here, folks. And who's this Irish guy, O'Bladen? I must've missed an episode.

nrg - don't get too upset about Sook-Im's comments - she's admittedly bonkers, but good people often are - let's remember that she's on the right side of the Axis of Evil. Lactose comments don't worry me - only queers eat ice cream. You're right on about the busy little spin doctors round Bush, too - so much of their work is damage control - in other cultures, this would be known as revisionism.

kim sook-im | 2005-08-09 17:34 | Link

NRG: Sorry , my error - fifty lashes with very wet noodles for me :) I shall immediately cease issuing a Phart-wa against you !

BIG BEN : " Bonkers " eh ? why you.Qaffir..you.. mad dog and englishman

You., you...너 더러운 영국 개 @ #**%##!@**

and **%$# 영국 돼지

and also..영국 도둑 **#@!# (mild
spicy Qoreanic
imprecations ;)

...and furthermore , since you are such an Anglo-sax-ual prodigy , may Allah curse your SEQS life and cause your Qondom to break in mid-Qopulation....so there , jaaaaaaaaach !!!

But seriously... I worry about you harboring this idea about the west being culpable for all the intra and extra islamic violence. You need for grounding in your understanding of this Cult. Unless muslims make a serious attempt to reform thier 'faith' the future is indeed rather bleak. Go to all the links i gave you and do some home work.

Dave of australasia:

Try soy milk, and give the moo-slim cows a respite :)

Sister Aishah N Kim
resident Ayahto-lass
and specialist in irrational adamic cults

Big Ben | 2005-08-09 19:05 | Link

Sook-Im

Really no time now, but I don't consider the West uniquely guilty for Islamic violence - however we definitely share the responsibility for the mess we're all in, earthlings all, and therefore also for fixing it. Brutish Hollywood role-playing based on High Noon (for the officers) or Vin Diesel epics (for the grunts) will only make things worse. Perhaps you've already noticed?

http://icasualties.org/oif/Stats.aspx

http://antiwar.com/casualties/

US fatalities since Georgie's exciting 'I can climb out of an aeroplane all on my own - Mission Accomplished' appearance now approach the total they reached during 'war-time' combat operations.
Peace-time combat deaths? Is the Moral Majority pissed off yet? Not that the Coalition governments care.

Iraqi casualties are, of course, horrendously more numerous, estimated at close to 25,000 since the WOT started. But of course, as the emperor's fans will quickly point out, Iraqis aren't real people.

I still don't believe that Islam is the problem. I believe injustice is the problem - real and perceived.

BB | 2005-08-09 19:12 | Link

Sook-Im

You., you...너 더러운 영국 개 @ #**%##!@**

and **%$# 영국 돼지

and also..영국 도둑 **#@!#

My God, woman, you're attractive when you're angry!

nrg | 2005-08-09 20:46 | Link

Sook-Im, you are forgiven, no noodle lashings necessary.

BB, I'm sure you've seriously offended a dairy farmer somewhere...if they only knew where their ice cream was going...

David dear, intolerance isn't anti-American...it seems to be fast becoming the American way...with or without lactose! Sip that "milk" slowly, don't want to choke again.

mika: "Saddam, OBLaden, Hitler suppressing religion?"

Was that really a question?

Ed, Gothenburg | 2005-08-09 21:37 | Link

I want to know how many posters here second Prime Minister Sharon and would recommend applying his vow to all muslims.

Ariel Sharon (during an interview with General Ouze Merham in 1956) "I vow that I’ll burn every Palestinian child (that) will be born in this area. The Palestinian women and child is more dangerous than the man, because the Palestinian child’s existence infers that generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With one hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah in 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic girls as the Palestinian woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do"

nrg | 2005-08-09 21:48 | Link

Ed,

Interesting quote, I found this article, though, which disputes it's validity.

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=766

What is your opinion? You asked for the second from other people posting, but I'm curious as to what you think.

Big Ben | 2005-08-10 00:16 | Link

Ed - I do not second Ariel Sharon and do not recommend applying his vow to all Muslims.

The quote seems a little too carniverous to be real, although Sharon certainly has credentials -

'In 1982, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution describing the massacre of some 2,000 Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila as an act of genocide. No nation, including Israel, objected to the resolution. The Kahan Commission, an official Israeli commission of inquiry, found Sharon “personally responsible” for the massacre.'

http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/pubs/20020614ftr.html

The unrelenting policy of the State of Israel - which, like that of the USA and the UK, does not truly reflect the will of the people - together with its unquestioning political, financial and military support by the US government, certainly plays a large part in creating and maintaining the division between the West and the Arab nations.

I looked at the Camera site. Only a quick look, but it all seemed to work in favour of Israel.

mika. | 2005-08-10 00:58 | Link

Ed,
And that was the moderate Sharon talking! Too bad you didn't transcribe what he said during last Friday's salat. Anyway, I'm sure if you ask, the local Imam will be happy to repeat it for you.

Totoro, U.S. | 2005-08-10 02:15 | Link

Honestly, Ed and Big Ben . . .

You guys are amazing consumers of propaganda and bs. Try to vary your reading material a bit.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-10 02:22 | Link

>> a) a regime built on the ideas of Baathism, partly based on ideals from German nationalism, ideas that also inspired German national socialism.

ahh, But what are these ideas of Baathism?
Nationalism, socialism, dictatorship, jew hatred.

What is Nazism?
Nationalism, socialism, dictatorship, jew hatred.

>> b) a dictator who had an uncle that took part in an anti-British coup that was - not unsurprisingly - supported by the Nazis. It happened, after all, in 1941.

But what is the most important part? Absolute Dictator. Hitler=dictator, Saddam=dictator. I can't imagine how I thought they were similar. Wait, now I remember. Dictators with the same ideology. Right, you had me confused there.

Since many fools now break into a comparison of non essential details like nationality, success, or hair color, I would advise you to avoid looking like a non thinker by going down that road.

Btw, unlike you, I don't believe that Nazism is any more evil than fascism or communism.

>> And by the way, Gunnar, would you not say that the Germans and even NATO also has "direct historical ties with the Nazi Third Reich"; some leading German NATO officers used to be Nazi officers.

You seem unable to distinguish essential identifying characteristics from non essential attributes. I never said, and it's obviously not true, that merely having hitorical ties to the 3rd reich makes one a nazi. However, if one meets the essential definition, AND one has historical ties to the German 3rd Reich, well, war should not be controversial.

Except in Europe. The Nazi propaganda did better than everyone thought.

Sandy P | 2005-08-10 04:17 | Link

Geez, go away for a few days.....

Via LGF:

Bloggers from China are reporting that a suicide bomber has blown up a bus in Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, at around 2:30pm, August 8th. According to Peacehall.com, police have confiscated the cameras of those who took pictures. I first learned of this from Aaron at Hagganah Internet.

Bloggers in China have uploaded many pictures from the incident, though. Aaron, from Internet Hagganah, has archived many of the photos here. More pictures archived here and here and here. We have reproduced some of the photos below, some of which are graphic.

The official story is that only one person was killed, but from the 'unofficial' pictures, it is clear that at least three were killed--probably a lot more.....

nrg | 2005-08-10 10:22 | Link

BB: Yes, Camera was very Israel biased, but did point out that there was no concrete proof or publication of the alleged statements. Of course, The Jerusalem Fund link was very Palestine biased. That is one of the downfalls of the internet. Opinions are published as fact, quotes are passed from blog to blog and after a while, we accept that they must have come from a reliable source when they may have been an individual's ramblings at 3 am after too many cups of coffee and a really crappy day...

That's why I like links more than copied quotes and often have to track down where things came from originally.

I was not defending Sharon or claiming that he's peace loving or Palestinian friendly, I was just disputing the quote that Ed posted.

Don't get me started on Sharon. Or Arafat, May He Rest...

Ed: Where did you go? We never heard anything else after your post. Come on in...the water's fine!

Sandy P.: Was wondering where you'd run off too.

nrg | 2005-08-10 12:03 | Link

Gunnar, interesting article that I thought you might enjoy. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=print&id=16299

tabo | 2005-08-10 12:09 | Link

hey everybody
i'm not sure that what Sandy P wrote fits here unless it was bin laden who sent someone to china
to blow himself up... in that case, it's islamic fanaticism or islamism to blame, but if you're interested in another point of view, here it is,

http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/?p=886

in my opinion, i think that taking away ones life is a really hard decision... no matter what you believe in, or you don't believe in.. human beings hate and fear death.. it's a universal truth.. now, when one decides to do it, there may be various explanations, the easiest one is to say that the guy has gone nuts, that's superficial and immoral of course.. what institutions do in the civilized world is study the reasons that pushed him/her to commit suicide which can be emotional, social, financial, etc.. but what is common is that most people would try to understand rather than condemn.. same thing for suicide bombers, you may tell me that it's not the same thing here for the guy kills other people with him.. true.. but what if he considers that these people are responsible for his misfortunes, isn't he committing an act of war? of course he doesn't have the right to kill other civilians (for military, it's another story) but aren't armies all over the world killing people and committing atrocities daily? why must the world be conscious of and fight terror or violent extremism, which is responsible for the death of individuals or small groups, and not fight certain regimes responsible for mass murder?... what is the difference between hussein, bush, blair, milosevitc, sharone and the successive israeli governments and the dictatorships all over the world? i can see no difference.. all of them are responsible for the worst carnages and abominations the world has suffered from..

same as suicide bombers have NO right to kill innocent people, regimes and doubtful ideologies have NO right to preach hatred and intolerence among peoples of the world to guarantee their own durability and the stability of their systems through the instability of the rest of the world..
this is in my opinion what we should be discussing here, HOW TO LIVE TOGETHER IN PEACE ALLOWING NO ONE TO PROFIT FROM OUR FEARS AND WEAKNESSES... much of what i read in this blog (the suk im team)horrifies me and tells me that bloodshed will never end as long as some people (either on purpose or out of ignorance) promote hatred among others... BUT MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT NAIVE!

NO MORE HATE!!!

David Elson, Australia | 2005-08-10 13:13 | Link

nrg

I think Mika’s statement was a rhetorical question in agreement with our own. I mean its obvious to anyone with a brain, that each one of those infamous murders killed many people, and much of those for religious ideological purposes. Bin Laden had his infidels, Hitler his jews and O’Bladen the ficticious Irish man probably had a beef with the Protestant British.

Ed, Gothenburg

The only burning I want to hear about, is the crackling of red meat on my barbecue, all that racism can stay in the middle ages where it belongs. I was just reading a book called the logic of mass murder and they said many of the same things that you just did. Hell -“Kinderaktion”. Anyone who advocates the murder of innocent men, women and children is my enemy.

Gunnar

If you are still unable to tell the different between a nazi and your average joe dictator here’s a few clues.

http://www.dnash.org/fark/nazi-twins.jpg
http://www.rangerring.com/wwii/ww2_nazi1.jpg

Other miscellaneous dictators;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1745000/images/_1749088_mugabe150ap.jpg
http://scd.mm-c1.yimg.com/image/1206917875
http://www.screamingpickle.com/members/SaddamInsane/images/saddam_santa_sm.JPG

I almost shudder in disgust to bring you these pictures! All of them are of course undoctored and true to life. Gee you’d think just because somebody is a dictator that they are a Nazi?? I’m pretty sure that a guy like Boehme and a guy like Mugabe would go to bed with one another. The moral -> You don’t have to be a Nazi to be a nasty piece of work. Nationalists, Islamists, Socialists and (heaven forbid) even fundamental Christian conservatives have been known to get up to mischief. And no Gunnar I’m not going to play the blame game, where the horrific acts of fascists in Europe during the last war somehow eclipses or even excuses the violent excesses of other totalitarian regimes. So I’m certainly not going to stoop to the level of comparing numbers of casualties or some such. It’s disrespectful to the dead and it’s not worthy of this blog.

“However, if one meets the essential definition, AND one has historical ties to the German 3rd Reich, well, war should not be controversial.”

How is this any less true of Nazis absorbed by science programs or who changed their names and hide throughout the de-nazification program and now or have had successful lives in Western Germany (including some notable Nato generals), are these people any less Nazi? After all they have both the historical ties and meet the essential definition of actually being a Nazi.

And your last statement about the success of Nazi propaganda in Europe today, what rubbish! Surely the dominance of the left (comparatively to America) and the almost hysterical reaction of Europeans and European media to any moderately right wing policies and politics puts a lie to your blatantly absurd statements.

Try soy milk, and give the moo-slim cows a respite :)

That’s okay, I’ll stick to Cola. Caffeine over calcium every time.

Mikia for your difficulties in learning….

 totalitarians are bad.
 Dictators are bad (and almost hilariously funny)
 And to hold a belief so strongly that you can condemn innocents to death should be considered a mental illness (or it would be if some many people weren't afflicted be it, to make it appear as though normal).

Cheers,
David

David Elson, Australia | 2005-08-10 13:16 | Link

Tabo,

Hear Haer!! [Round of applause for Tabo]

I should have saved my fingers, Tabo just expressed everything I wanted to say, and far more emotively too.

Good work Tabo, Lets hope the bloggers here take your message or love to heart.

nrg | 2005-08-10 13:37 | Link

David and Tabo, well said as usual, but I fear that we will be labelled naive-peace-nik-crunchie-granola-eating-treehuggers (just thought I'd get a jump start on the comments that will no doubt come pouring in...).

As I wrote my first day on this blog: "I read and read with a mixture of awe and disgust at the thoughts and opinions my fellow humans have managed to express in print. "

tabo | 2005-08-10 13:47 | Link

hey again
less and less people in the states are fooled by the neocons' war on terror... it is interesting that americans are starting to develop a more realistically conscious and responsible attitude towards the atrocities committed by the bush/cheney regime... some thirty years after the vietnam disaster, it was the 9/11 shock that hypnotized the population into supporting the imperialistic ambitions of their leaders... another shock made them aware that it had not been a sane attitude to adopt; the testimonies of troops in and back from iraq and afghanistan, and the families of late ones.. 2 excellent sites to be consulted:

http://www.militaryproject.org/

http://www.traveling-soldier.org/

but then:

http://www.notinourname.net/index.html

and:
http://www.nowarforisrael.com/

tabo | 2005-08-10 14:11 | Link

David Elson and nrg

let's keep the faith... but never allow hate to prevail no matter what...

nrg | 2005-08-10 14:17 | Link

Not sure what your take is on that last link, Tabo. Can you clarify?

nrg | 2005-08-10 14:21 | Link

seemed a little too Israel-bashing for me, so I wasn't sure if you were recommending or showing an example of "non-excellent" site.

Big Ben | 2005-08-10 14:58 | Link

Tabo

Thank you for your excellent post, that's definitely the spirit - I am in complete agreement - I'll be looking at some of the sites you mention. Discussion of these questions should indeed proceed from a desire for peace, rather than an appetite for loutish and malevolent name-calling.

Perhaps a lot of people have trouble accepting the fact that figures of authority, like police, military, governments and the President, can be hypocrites - I'm not being sarcastic, this is a real struggle for some - admitting the failings of the father-figure may seem to threaten the stability of their entire world. Fearful, they will then go to any lengths to justify the unjustifiable. This is nowhere more apparent than among the ranks of the Emperor's fan club.

How many people, for example, still refuse to accept the possibility that JFK was assassinated with government complicity, despite all the evidence? (I got some flak here a while back on this one.) How many people still consider it tantamount to treason to state that there are way too many serious anomalies in the official myth about 9-11? Some will call you a jihadi snake for less. Not to mention the string of contemptuous lies proferred for invading Afghanisatn and Iraq. They think we're stupid. In fact, they're counting on it and doing everything possible to make sure we stay that way. And just in case, they also make sure we stay scared.

Only truth will set you free. That's been said before by better than me, but it's worth repeating.

Tabo's right about this, too - MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT THAT NAIVE!

Keep posting

tabo | 2005-08-10 15:10 | Link

more about american reaction to war:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=51471

"Operation Iraqi Freedom"
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

mika. | 2005-08-10 15:30 | Link

This is nowhere more apparent than among the ranks of the Emperor's fan club.

Could you numerate them for us. Who's in the club, who's against? For example, is Iran in the ranks of the Emperor's fan club? Is Saudia? Is Egypt? Is Russia? Is Israel? etc.

I want to know who, in your opinion. are the bad guys and who are the good guys.

mika. | 2005-08-10 15:33 | Link

Typo. That should read enumerate, not numerate.

tabo | 2005-08-10 15:54 | Link

nrg

forget about that. here's what i meant

http://www.nowarforoil.org/
and
http://www.culturechange.org/nowarforoil.htm

BB2 | 2005-08-10 15:58 | Link

Sook-Im recently did me the honour of springing to my defence here a short while ago. It takes a noble heart to defend an adversary from the standpoint of justice. I'm about to attempt to return the favour, although I'm aware she's perfectly able to defend herself. Even if she is bonkers.

Tabo, this is my take on Sook-Im's hatred of Islam, which I don't read as blind bigotry. First, she's a woman, and one of the effects of the integrist Muslim faith is that women are treated (with Qranic justifications of course) pretty much like beasts of burden. There is also the added inconvenience of their (Qranically) overpowering sexual potency and anarchically licentious nature, which justifies their being bagged, hobbled and surveilled. In short, this interpretation of Islam stacks the cards totally in favour of men at the expense of the dignity and freedom of women. I think female solidarity would be enough to exlain her anger.

I believe she is also outraged, like us all, by the planetary spread of murderous violence over the last few years.

The reasons for this violence are what we're discussing here - her sense of humour indicates a light heart, something which bigots don't possess. So I believe that she is operating from the same premise as yourself. I may be wrong, but that's what I had to say about that.

I refuse to comment on her sexual orientation or her inordinate appetite for Kim Chee, and ferociously resist the temptation of jealousy because she's got so many more keys on her keyboard than I do.

Peace

kim sook-im | 2005-08-10 16:10 | Link

NRG - i agree, one should be vigilant without being hateful or hate-filled.

Although a significant no. of conflicts world wide involve muslims/islam

(http://www.eriposte.com/war_peace/other/muslim_violence.htm )

...... we should not forget that our species as a whole is rather bellicose

(http://www.historyguy.com/new_and_recent_conflicts.html )

Sister Aishah N. Kim

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-10 16:14 | Link

BB,
Well: a) perhaps figures of authority are not hypocrites in general; b) perhaps JFK was not assassinated with government complicity; c) perhaps there are no serious anamolies in the official myth of 9/11; and d) perhaps there were no lies proffered for invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, perhaps you have a paranoid view of the world notwithstanding your incessant proclaiming about the quality of your sex life which -- perhaps -- might suggest that your “reach exceeds your grasp”

BB3 | 2005-08-10 16:33 | Link

Mika - fair question. First of all, I'm certain that good guys / bad guys can't be delineated by national, racial, religious or political borders. Obviously, there are going to be both everywhere. But of course, we'd need to define 'good' and 'bad', wouldn't we?

The 'Emperor' comment comes from the Hans Christian Andersen story, as you probably know. Great story, and biting comment about peer pressure and stupid conformity.

My belief, as I'm sure you've already perceived, is that the world has been led into tragic international conflict under false pretences. The cost is already, and will increasingly be, disastrous for us all.

As long as we, as citizens, refuse to inform ourselves, as long as we content ourselves with dumb obedience, or worse, sign up for what I call the Emperor's fan club, the situation for life on this planet will not improve.

I'm wary of the whole 'good guy / bad guy' concept, actually, because it too closely resembles the basic Hollywood / TV polarity that in my opinion badly pollutes the ability to think clearly.

Human life is unimaginably complex. There are those who try to live in harmony with their natural and human environment in a spirit of mutual respect and dignity, and those who don't give a shit. I try to encourage the first group and don't like the others. If possible, I try to have fun while trying.

Big Ben | 2005-08-10 16:54 | Link

a) I didn't say 'in general'
b) Oh yes he was
c) Oh yes there are
d) Oh yes there were

What is it about my having a sex life that bothers you so?

tabo | 2005-08-10 16:57 | Link

BB2

i agree with you that women in many muslim and arab countries do suffer from injustice.. (although not as much as one might think they do.. i'll be glad to discuss this with you some other time.) yet, such injustice exists in countries which have nothing to do with islam all over the world.. i think the problem is much about our awareness that what we are dealing with are human beings.. to me, it has always been the same thing: men vs. women, blacks or "colored" vs. whites, the haves vs. the havenots, christians vs. jews or muslims and vice versa... let's try to discuss our points of view but never ever insult, attack and/or hate, for it is of no avail.. at all..

one more thing BB2, i personally don't think that there has been a planetary spread of murderous violence (to quote you).. it has always been there since the dawn of times ready for use by any politician to move masses into what he/she wanted and history is full of examples.. but what's different this time is that it is much easier for people to see facts and know the truth.. one ought just to be perceptive and analytical.. that's why rulers are trying hard to conceal facts and dominate mass media.. they think it's gonna work as usual.. but they just deceive themselves..

please have a glance at this:

http://www.rense.com/general67/get.htm

anyway, BB2 no defence needed.. no hard feelings..

kim sook-im | 2005-08-10 17:01 | Link

Herrro Big Ben et alias,

BB - ooooh thank you... so chivalrous , so gentlemanly...you you anglo-sexy knight ;)

May Allah richly reward you for speaking up for all the voiceless and downtrodden infidel females from the land of the kaffiroons.

Uh uh I don't hate Islam...I'm a boddhisatta, we boddhisattas just meditate Islam into extinction :)

check out the following holy buddhist manuscripts ---->

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/memes.htm

und weiter

http://www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm

Kim Chee is good - it keeps your skin supple and your mind clear -- very necessary for waging mind wars against the superMeme of Eeklam.

...and if you think Islam does not discriminate on the basis of food, think again...check out the links below...

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001960.html

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=qw1123250761595B216

. the moooschlimes are opening their own buerger king- muslims in france ( halaal fries, chicken and infidel human heads decapitated in strict halaal fashion for the gastronomically finicky jihadist diner ...hmmm ra's ul kaffir(infidel's head) - seasoned with tomato paste, basil and thyme...hmmmm 'kaffir b'il foorn= baked infidel anyone haaaaaaaaaaah )...eeeek ,i've been watching too much mekka-bre gothic films ...Vincent Price revisited LOL ;)

BBen -- how did the issue of sexual orientation arise? Hmmmmphr... my last date was a brazilian guy - a fiasco of sort. Am waiting for a chivalrous Scheikh to sweep me off into arabian nights - thousand and one or two nites would be fine, but he better not be talking Eeklam, cos ah got mah trusty little Ginsu Knife handy hidden 'neath mah Chaddor :)

Well there's a couple of other epithets i could use ,but i will refrain, lest I transform Bjoern's Blog into a veritable bordello..tee hee.

Gotta run, got camels to milk, goats to slaughter halaal style, burqa's and dishdashahs to wash... truly Allah hath made us females beasts of burdens.

Ma'a Salaamah wa ila liqa'

Schehrazad Kim

.فتاة عبد كافر فقيرة

mika. | 2005-08-10 17:31 | Link

I'm sorry Hassan, but I'm going to have to press you on this a little further.

This is nowhere more apparent than among the ranks of the Emperor's fan club.

I want to know, in your opinion, who is among the ranks of the Emperor's fan club. And specifically, what governments are, or are not.

Please don't pull a Clinton on me. It comes off as ridiculous now as it was then. The great attribute of the human mind is that it always succeeds to perceive category and order, even among seemingly random occurrence such as an electron cloud distribution. If you don't want to to answer my question because you are afraid then just say so. Otherwise, I can only assume your insincerity has malevolent motives.

BB4 | 2005-08-10 18:32 | Link

Who's Hassan? Works for O'Bladen?

mika. | 2005-08-10 19:09 | Link

Hassan is a fictional character in a fictional plot created through a Reality Distortion Field within the echo chamber of reality.

But how about answering my question?

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-08-10 19:36 | Link

Gunnar:

My point here, Gunnar, is not that Baathism is not bad, nor that it is or was necessarily any better than Nazism. Both are undoubtably anti-democratic and totalitarian ideologies. My point is also not that war in Iraq was right or wrong.

If you are going to beat up all the bad guys in the world, you risk not only becoming known as a pretty bad guy yourself, but also to get acquainted with some of the not-so-nice allies of the West.

My point is that you - through equaling two ideologies that are not equal - make it impossible to understand either of the two ideologies, or their historical and social backdrop. The real world is not as simple that you can put together four "political" (or less political) categories, sum them up and draw conclusions like you do.

You might believe that Hitlers NSDAP was inspired by socialism. I could challenge this notion, but there is no need, and it probably would turn into a stupid discussion anyway. Even if the notion is accepted it is fairly obvious to anyone who reads speeches or works by the thinkers of each ideology that the ideas they might have been said to get from socialism are quite different from each other.

In fact, Nazism and Baathism have - in my opinion - more in common with each other in their anti-Marxism than in whatever socialist ideas they draw upon. As an example I will mention one crucial point. In Baath ideology - like in Marxism - social egalitarism was essential. Nazism was not socially egalitarian, it was based on the same corporative (or syndicalist) ideals as its Italian fascist counterpart.

This way we can continue. In its nationalism the Baath party has significant things in common with Nazism, it is no coincidence that Michel Aflaq translated Alfred Rosenberg. But Baathism was never as racist as Nazism. You will have to look for a long, hard while to find ideas equivalent of the Nazi ideas on the Aryan race, or the ideas on Lebensraum. Aflaq even called for a new concept of Arabism that included traditionally subjugated minorities; Assyrians, Armenians, Kurds; as allies in the fight for economic and social equality and justice.

Your point about dictatorship is the most meaningless one. First of all, your summarizing seems to imply that dictatorship is essential to Nazism; well, the idea about the führer is, but would it not be possible that someone believed in democracy (it is after all the best way to win power - as the Nazis themselves showed) and yet be a Nazi because they shared ideas more essential to Nazism than support for a dictator. Secondly, it is obvious that the world is full off dictators that are inspired by both socialism and nationalism and yet are no Nazis.

Saparmurad Niyazov, the dictator of Turkmenistan, leader of the "Democratic" Party and former Communist Party top comes to mind. He even has the slogan "Halk, Watan, Turkmenbashi", - People, Fatherland, Leader (Turkmenbashi referring to himself, meaning "Father of all Turkmen"). But still he has more in common with Kim Il Sung than with Adolf Hitler in my opinion. Amazingly he also manages to keep friendly with both the US and Russia. Who would have thought that it was this it meant when Bush said something about either being for or against us.

Obviously, having a dictatorship, does not mean that one has the same ideas behind that dictatorship or with that dictatorship. Importantly, Baathism in its roots does not have strong ideas about something close to the führer-principle at all. Instead, Aflaq does in his writings support both democracy and free speech. He never spoke of democracy as a rule of stupidity, of mediocrity, of half-heartedness, of cowardice, of weakness and of inadequacy.

While Aflaq had ideas - some elitist, some others - that can be blamed for the degeneration of Baathism into an essentially anti-democratic ideology he was not a pure anti-democrat himself.

Even when it comes to the last point; anti-Semitism, there is a difference. Like so many thinkers in the Arab world, the Baathist thinkers did not build their anti-Semitism up in the same way as the Nazis. While I do not challenge the fact that the anti-Israelism of Baathist thinkers and leaders do constitute anti-Semitic thought, I do challenge the idea that the anti-Semitism of Iraq is even close to the anti-Semitism of Germany.

The Baath regime in Iraq was, like its predecessor, to a large degree to blame for the death of one of the oldest Jewish societies in the world, including the atrocities around show trials against a group of mostly Jewish businessmen in 1969. Still, the Baath regime did not systematically kill Jews. The Nazi regime did.

Having discussed with you before, Gunnar, I know that you might say that these are not the essentials and then fall back on words you have not defined. But these are the essentials, Gunnar, the Baath party and the Nazis have very distinct ideologies - even considering their correlation on some central points.

To be able to understand the different ideologies you will have to understand two very different worlds; the Arabic world after the Ottoman empire fell to pieces and the European world after the WWI.

Sometimes explanations will be similar. Many times they are not. And that is where the problem with your nazification of Saddam Hussein comes in.

Furthermore, I do not really see the point. Saddam Hussein did not have to be a Nazi to be a cruel dictator, to bring his people in to a number of wars, to suppress the Shias, the "Swamp Arabs", the Kurds, to be accountable for a large number of human rights violations.

Evil is not patented. Yet.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-10 19:48 | Link

BB as to yuor points we disagree. As to your sex life, I have no interest in it and would not comment on it except that you keep bringing it up in message after message

mika. | 2005-08-10 20:58 | Link

I do challenge the idea that the anti-Semitism of Iraq is even close to the anti-Semitism of Germany.

Why? Did anyone make that claim. The claim was make that both Baathist Iraq and Nazi Germany share in their deep hostility to Jews. Something you seem to be in agreement on.

Baath ideology - like in Marxism - social egalitarism was essential.

That's nonsense for the idiots. If you don't belong to the Communist Party, or the Baath Party, or the Nazi Party, good luck to you in your quest for social egalitarianism. Of course, being an Arab ideology, belonging to the Baath Party apparatus became more about your credentials as a member of a certain clan than anything else.

nrg | 2005-08-10 21:24 | Link

Mika and somewhat Herbie: I don't think that BB is necessarily putting gov'ts into the Emperor's fan club. I think the whole thing was directed towards individuals. Individuals who have ceased to question authority, ceased to think analytically, who blindly accept what they are told because the message comes from a "leader". Because Bush is the leader of America (or at least the president), it does not automatically mean that he will always make good decisions, always be honest, always act on the behalf of and for the good of those he represents. It would be nice, but it's not reality. And realizing this is not paranoia. Also, Mika, BB Hassan O'Bladen (this name stuff is getting complicated) did answer your question in regards to who's good and who's bad by saying it isn't that simple. I think the dangers of putting large groups of people into "good" and "bad" categories are many, but mostly it will just prove to be incorrect. For example, in my opinion, Bush is "bad". This is an opinion to which I am entitled and I'm looking for neither agreement nor disagreement here. I'm sure he's a nice guy, good family man and all that jazz, but overall, I think he is a poor leader and I think he plays on fear and ignorance to achieve his political and personal goals. I would be rather upset if another person also saw Bush as "bad" and concluded that I, being American, was also "bad". I refuse to be grouped with him in that way because we share the same citizenship. I don't think America is bad, or that Israel is bad or that Iraq is bad. I think they are nations who have or have had frightening, power hungry leaders, but they are all also nations of human beings with families, goals, lives, disappointments, addictions, joys--the full spectrum that life has to offer. Good and bad is too easy and too incorrect to say about a nation. And a generalization like that makes it too easy to develop a hatred of the inhabitants of the "bad".

Tabo, thanks for clarification on the links.

BB, who was it who started on the whole sex thing with you? Ah, yes, it was Mika and his "Gay-dar". As I recall it wasn't you...you simply did some clarifying (and a wee bit of bragging) ;-)

Øyvind og Gunnar: Er dere enige enda? (I just asked if they were in agreement yet)...Øyvind, I must say that I am siding with you on this one. Dictator does not equal Nazi, neither does racism. There are many defining characteristics, as you have clearly explained. Evil certainly isn't patented. It takes on many forms and characteristics and is horrible adaptive...

Kim, always a pleasure to read your posts

Good night all!

Big Ben | 2005-08-10 23:17 | Link

Herbert - nrg is right - the sex life thing didn't become an issue until Mika weighed in saying I write like a queer. It was an amusing thrust, and I responded by doing a little bragging which was ridiculously jocular in tone, as everyone here understood immediately, apart from yourself. As I pointed out earlier, a sense of humour is entirely lacking in some. In fact, can't you do better than that?

Thanks nrg.

Now, Mika. 'Hassan is a fictional character in a fictional plot created through a Reality Distortion Field within the echo chamber of reality.' Hmmm, complex indeed. So now you'd like to know who the good guys and the bad guys are? One can sympathise.

I thought I'd been pretty clear, actually. For your benefit, I will repeat that I believe the 'War on Terror' is a sham, and that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were launched under false pretences for reasons very different from the ones stated. (Whichever one of the five or six reasons you choose to pick, by the way.)

I believe that Bush and Blair have lied, are lying and will continue to lie to the people they are supposed to represent in order to advance an agenda that is certainly strategic and certainly linked to the quantity of oil in that area. (But holy hydrocarbons, Batman, how did all that American oil get under all that Iraqi sand in the first place?) The agenda in question is costing inconceivable quantities of taxpayers' money, and also the lives of servicemen who, for the most part, certainly put themselves in harm's way for what they believed was a just cause.

It infuriates me that such noble human qualities as belief in justice, self-sacrifice, honour, and ordinary courage should be callously squandered in this way. And that's saying nothing about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives that have been destroyed.

I know some Americans who feel that 9-11 was an entirely unprovoked attack by barbarians who want to overthrow 'Democracy' simply because they hate freedom. I confess to feeling that people who hold this sort of opinion are thick as a six-pack. They might be seen in the crowd shouting gleeful appreciation of the Emperor's new suit.

Whatever 9-11 was, it certainly wasn't what the government's Public Relations Dept. - the mainstream media - says it was. It was, however, the required 'Pearl Harbor-type event' upon which Bush (followed obediently by Blair and others) hung the revenge-trip 'War on Terror'.

Sorry, I have to stop now, I'll try and get back into this later. If not tomorrow.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-11 02:41 | Link

>> are these people any less Nazi? After all they have both the historical ties and meet the essential definition of actually being a Nazi.

No, never said they were. Don't see the point, but whatever.

And your last statement about the success of Nazi propaganda in Europe today, what rubbish! Surely the dominance of the left (comparatively to America) and the almost hysterical reaction of Europeans and European media to any moderately right wing policies and politics puts a lie to your blatantly absurd statements.

Ahh HAA! I've got you. Your premise is the left-right political paradigm. That's a lie created to put imaginary distance between modern lefties and nazis. Nazism is national SOCIALISM. Socialism is the essential characteristic of modern lefties. Nationalism or by another name "patriotism" is not inherently good or bad. It depends on the nation that one is being patriotic about. If that nation is the 3rd reich or Baathist Iraq, it's a bad thing. If it's the USA or a european country like Norway, it's a good thing.

It's a complete logic fallacy to think:

premise: Nazis are patriotic about their country
premise: Abraham Lincoln was patriotic
conclusion: Abe was a Nazi.

That is essentially the logic people use when they claim that Nazis are on the right of this alleged spectrum and conservatives are on the right, so they are closer to Nazis. Especially since Hitler used nationalism only for political purposes, ie to gain support. In reality, a german nationalist who opposed Hitler was less Nazi than a vichy frenchman or a Quisling who supported Hitler.

Here is another exercise in critical thinking for you. What does an american conservative have in common with a soviet conservative? The answer: Nothing. Conservative is non idealogical by itself. It all depends on what is being conserved. In the american case, it's maximum freedom and human rights, with maximum protection from the government. In the soviet case, it's maximum violation of rights.

In order to convince people to agree that rights should be violated on a grand scale, you need a unifying theme for the people to rally around. In all these evil regimes, the unifying theme varies. A unifying theme is necessary, but the specific choice is not an essential characteristic. That's why communism, nazism, fascism, baathism, islamism, etc are all just different variations on the same thing. The essential characteristic is a complete violation of human rights. Some popular themes are: the commune, workers unite, fuhrer, fatherland, jew hatred, samurai warlord/emperor worship, arabic superiority, Muslim superiority AND European superiority.

Of course, some people (like Oyvind) have a difficult time with abstract thinking. By age 2, children can identify chairs in all sorts of different variations, and call them all "Chair". But when your ideology has been identified as evil, then you will do and say anything to maintain the moral high ground.

A telling editorial in France after Bush won the election said something like "I guess now we have no choice, we'll have to reform our economy as well". See what all the bush hatred is really about? So go ahead, say what you want, but jew hatred and socialism are remarkably popular in Europe.

Perhaps you need to read translations of what Hitler actually said in his speeches. Then compare to what people like Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney say. The only thing in common is patriotism. One is about socialist propaganda and the other is about freedom, democracy and human rights.

Gunnar, Maryland | 2005-08-11 03:35 | Link

>>Dictator does not equal Nazi, neither does racism.

Straw man, since I never said Dictator=Nazi. I said:

Nazi=Nationalism, socialism, dictatorship, jew hatred.

That dictatorship is essential is proved by reality. Referring to the writings of Aflaq is like referring to the writings of Marx when discussing communism. It's not authoritative. Dictatorship is an idea, and it's a necessary part as anyone who implements the other ideas find out. It was essential to nazism, and also to Baathism, which is centered around the idea of central arabic dictator: "Great Caliphate".

>> There are many defining characteristics, as you have clearly explained.

What are these other defining characteristics that Oyvind explained? What you don't know is that I completely beat Oyvind at this game before. He claimed that the PLO wasn't Nazi, claiming other essential characteristics. He named a few, but then I showed that the PLO had these as well. So, even by his own definition, the PLO were Nazis. He had no answer and skulked away. He can't deal with the fact that he has supported the PLO (by lack of opposition), and that they cannot be distinguished idealogically from Nazis. By Oyvinds lack of logic, Quisling was not a Nazi either. So, I'm waiting, what are the distinguishing characteristics of Nazi if they aren't what I said above?

>> Evil certainly isn't patented. It takes on many forms and characteristics and is horrible adaptive...

See, by Oyvinds distorted thinking, Nazi is a term even more evil than fascist or totalitarian dictator. In reality, it's no more evil. So, my point is proven by your statement above. If Saddam's Iraq was Evil, then what's the controversy in removing it? Of course, for evil people and apologists for evil, fighting and/or removing evil IS controversial.

Col. B. Bunny | 2005-08-11 03:51 | Link

"Your premise is the left-right political paradigm. That's a lie created to put imaginary distance between modern lefties and nazis."

Excellent, Gunnar.

Øyvind, Mechelen | 2005-08-11 10:16 | Link

Gunnar wrote: "What you don't know is that I completely beat Oyvind at this game before".

Rule number one when wanting to know something about a previous discussion - do not trust any of the parties involved. Instead, read the discussion yourself: http://blog.bearstrong.net/001500.html#010033

David Elson, Australia | 2005-08-11 11:30 | Link

We will be labelled naive-peace-nik-crunchie-granola-eating-treehuggers

For the record, I’m a card carrying libertarian, objectivisticly materialistic Machieveli social/economic liberal. :-)

Tabo
You’re right. I think it’s the hatred of (perceived) enemies that causes the real horrors in this world. If you don’t act with compassion in your heart – alternatively, if you’re going to kill a man you might as well be polite about it. Treat your opponents with compassion

I’m not saying these things as a cover, due to a secret hatred of Israel or the “evil” west – I love capitalistic globalism = true internationalism. The sooner we put aide these petty gang wars and regionalistic BS the sooner humanity can reach for the stars.

Happy warm feeling

I want to know who, in your opinion. are the bad guys and who are the good guys.

Mate, this isn’t a video game. There are no convenient monsters, no clean shaven straight as a blade heroes, and definitely no “bad” and “good” guys. I leave attempts at the absolute for the more simple minded.

Herbie/Big Ben

a) I have never meant an important member of authority who was not at least in part, self-serving ad/or hypocritical.
b) I don’t believe that JFK was assassinated by political opponents with government complicity, it seems a little bit too convenient.
c) Well as for the 9/11 conspiracy theories, all of the ones that I have examine in any depth appear to be quite hysterical and motivated solely by a blind ideological ration to Americans current disastrous and excessive policies.
d) As for Iraq, there certainly seemed to be a strong desire to invade that country regardless of the status of their WMD program, and regardless of whether he would cooperate with them.
e) As for your sex life, Its hard to believe that a Pommy would see such action. In between bouts of drinking sauces of tea that is :-)

Society is extremely complex, no one/group of people is capable of planning for every contingency and for making decisions in areas where the people on the ground, the people in each of their one individual no more about what they need then any statist government official. My point being, I’m not aware of an y ideology or lifestyle that would be suitable for all people in all sitations and have seen quite a few that seem suitable for none. A love and appreciation for nature is something that I’m sure we can all share. But those people who preach a return to the ignorance of the stone seem blissfully unaware of the effect that the constant migration of prehistoric man armed with nought but a stone and spiritualistic understanding of the world have had a significant impact on the world. Cases in point:-

http://www.whitehat.com.au/Australia/Animals/MegaFauna.asp
www.wildlife.ntu.edu.au/kctwm/downloads/buffalo.pdf
http://www.nzarchaeology.org/

My kind of environmental destruction ; -

http://www.maddox.xmission.com/nukeart2.jpg

As for this ridiculous idea often perpetuated by the media in regards to supposedly rising levels of violent crime in Australia and elsewhere in the world…..

http://www.johannorberg.net/UserFiles/Image/Video%20games.gif

Damn sensationalism!

To keep this post on topic... people should be free to practise the Islamic religion as they feel fit - without bein allowed to negatively impact upon other's lives.

Cheers,
David Elson.

PS: Hassan O’Shay, O’Bladen’s estranged brother!

kim sook-im | 2005-08-11 16:52 | Link

David Elson, Aussie-asia

Brother Dawood bin Elson,
Salaam and Shalom !

You wrote:

"To keep this post on topic... people should be free to practise the Islamic religion as they feel fit - without bein allowed to negatively impact upon other's lives.."

This is very confusing...although semasiologically correct, your statement sounds rather oxymoronisch!...esssspecially in reference to the Mu-slim(e) ReliGerm !

So if a muslim(e) decided to practise the murderous jihadist version of Eeeeklam it would be o.k. So if that son-of-a-bitchLadin were to follow the pure unadulterated dictates of his unholy Book and decide to blow himself up at the
Sydney Harbour bridge or the Sydney Opera House ....it would be o.k. with you and you would sit happily by , playing the Didgeridoo while Sydney burns to a crisp????

Eeeklam is an imperialist and segregationist Cult, tolerance and democracy are anathema to the tenets of Eeeeklam .

At the risk of going 'bonkers' over your comments here is a link to give you food for thought:

http://korematsu.blogspot.com/2005/08/sign-of-integration.html

( the mussel-ims want their own segregated BuergerKingMuslim, further increasing segregation instead of assimilation)

So now we have this oooh so tolerant muslim commmunity promoting a segregated establishment? I'm torn....separate BuergerKing-Muslim restaurants will serve to further segregate a community whose children sometimes seem to turn fanatical because they feel segregated against. At the same time however it helps fight the poverty that leads to and maintains the segregation !

...and if you don't think a separate muslim mcDonald or muslimBuerger King can happen in Australia, think again...what with your growing muzlim communities everywhere down under?

Hmmm pass me that halaal 'roo burger, mate !

Goo'day
Sister Monica Clare Kim
Wollongong, Illawarra tribe

Gunnar, MD | 2005-08-11 23:22 | Link

>> read the discussion yourself

It was a really long thread, so it was hard to find, but I did. After I claimed that the PLO was Nazi, you disagreed with my definition and said:

Nazism is not merely a totalitarian and racist ideology, it is also an ideology infested with a romantic view on the nation, a militarist world- and history view. In addition to its racism, attacking foremostly Jews and Gypsies, but also other non-"Aryan" people, Nazism was also sexist and anti-gay. I could go even further, but I see no point.

To which I replied:

Distinctions without differences. You mistake the unifying theme (which can be various things) as essential, when it isn't. Still, the PLO has everything you list here. So, I see no point here, since you made my point.

So, by your own definition, the PLO is Nazi, but faced with this fact, you try to get out of this by saying

Gunnar, I think it's totally uninteresting to quarrel about definitions of what the PLO is and isn't.

See, you want to use undefined terms out of context. You again claim that someone is or is not a nazi, yet you refuse to agree to a definition. With a big huge european blind spot for fascist tendencies all around, you pretend that since WW2 is over, Nazis no longer exist. With the fall of the soviet union, fascism rules the day. For example, China is transforming from communism to fascism. Certainly, Iraq was fascist, and with Jew hatred, it's definitely Nazi.

Totoro, U.S. | 2005-08-12 04:26 | Link

Gunnar, MD--

The Baathist part is a child and successor to Nazism, and the PLO is basically a Nazified child of the Soviet spy masters.

However, though the Baathists and PLO share many traits of the Nazis, I would reserve the term Nazi for the German variety, since it came with associated symbols like the swastika. There's really no point to confusing all the various violent antisemitic movements in the world even though there are many links between them.

Totoro, U.S. | 2005-08-12 04:28 | Link

The Baathist party (sorry)

mika. | 2005-08-12 05:15 | Link

The selective memory by some of the objectively pro jihadi here is truly astounding. But here's a refresh:

Big Ben | 2005-08-06 02:21 quote: People like myself, who have a delightfully satisfactory sex life (heterosexual in my case), can't maintain any interest in porn at all. And whatever you say, it is fuelled overwhelmingly by the exploitation of women. It's a form of slavery, and slavery can't be passed off as a pecadillo.

So now you'd like to know who the good guys and the bad guys are? One can sympathise.

No, I already know who the good guys and the bad guys are.

The question posed was very clear. Here it is again. I want to know who, in your opinion, is among the ranks of the Emperor's fan club. And specifically, what governments are, or are not.

Why the difficulty in giving a straight answer?

Huh yes. Bush regularly hangs gays in the public square, buries women up to their necks and stones them to death using perfect-sized rock for maximum effect.

Here's the latest infomercial btw, for the non-analytically blind of course:

"Oh people of the West, don't be fooled by the lies of Blair and Bush that you are free nations, for the only freedom that you have is the freedom to be slaves of your whims and desires. Your children are free to be deprived of their childhood and their innocence. Your women are free to be used as tools of business and entertainment, and all of you as a whole are the slaves of con men and women who rule you. They are your real enemies."

Now, where did I hear that before.

I see. So for us who are not "thick as a six-pack", we should understand that 9/11 was not an unprovoked attack. Can I ask what it was that constituted the provocation?

Scott in PA | 2005-08-12 05:20 | Link

people should be free to practise the Islamic religion as they feel fit - without bein allowed to negatively impact upon other's lives.

David: When you say “without being allowed to negatively impact upon other’s lives”, you are introducing a limitation against a religious practice, or in other words, establishing a cultural norm or standard. This is exactly what you criticized me for when I said that America should preserve its distinctly American culture and overthrow the nonsense of multiculturalism.

Your whole statement is nonsense because, what the Muslim considers a positive impact on other people you might consider a negative impact on other people. Whether they can practice Islam “as they feel fit” depends on whose standard is being applied.

nrg | 2005-08-12 08:42 | Link

Mika,

nrg (that's me) wrote: "Mika and somewhat Herbie: I don't think that BB is necessarily putting gov'ts into the Emperor's fan club. I think the whole thing was directed towards individuals. Individuals who have ceased to question authority, ceased to think analytically, who blindly accept what they are told because the message comes from a "leader"."

Mika replied: "Huh yes. Bush regularly hangs gays in the public square, buries women up to their necks and stones them to death using perfect-sized rock for maximum effect."

What does your response have to do with my comment? I was commenting, just to clarify, that I believe some individuals have ceased to think critically about their leaders and blindly accept what they do because of the positions the leaders hold. I did not mention Bush as a gay-hater, and have not accused him of hanging, burying or stoning anyone. What was it about my statement that you took issue with? Your comment does not directly comment on any of what I wrote in that quote. Or perhaps you copied and reprinted it because you were impressed with my eloquence? ;-)

David Elson, Australia | 2005-08-12 09:52 | Link

Scott the negative impact I mention is not to be defined by me, but more so by the people it impacts upon. Entailing that such people and all people be allowed to practice their religious beliefs in their own life. No wonder you take offence at this. Imagine not being able to use religious dictate to tell women what to do with their lives, or gays or foreign infidels. It’s difficult to trust someone who believes that this world is slight, and is followed by another “better” one and that all their actions in this one can be forgiven by believing in the metaphysical equivalent of fairies.

The issue is not whether the impact is defined by arbitrary fiat as being positive/negative, but that no impact should be allowed at all. The very concept of individuals practising their spiritual backwardness in their own way is that it doesn’t impact on any.

In your case it would require some form of centralised authority, government, church to force cultural compliance. Do you really imagine that the multi-ethnic peoples of America would just let you stand on them? Even with extremely stupid policies such as deportation and genocide you still wouldn’t be able to quash and remove all supposedly non-American cultures. You racist fuck.

What exactly do you define as distinctly American? Indian culture? Hell what part of that culture, born from a mish mash of other (arguably superior) cultures is supposedly distinct?

I got news for ya scott, ignorant god-lovin’ isn’t distinct to the US. They’ve even practised it in the middle east for years. But get this, they call her allah….

Bush regularly hangs gays in the public square, buries women up to their necks and stones them to death

mika

No, but he bans abortions, gay marriage, prohibits live saving medical research, has built upon US massive police state bureaucracy and is now waging a crusade. Go figure.

mika. | 2005-08-12 10:15 | Link

Your comment does not directly comment on any of what I wrote in that quote.

Yes it does.

Have you asked individuals to question their iranian leaders, their syrian leaders, their saudi leaders, their egyptian leaders, etc.?

Bush's foreign policy is set against and is meant to confront jihadis and their practices as noted above. Being highly critical of that foreign policy and calling on individuals to be highly skeptical of that policy can only be interpreted in one way. You even go further, and call on individuals to question the authority of the President, which is an act of treason. Doubly so at a time of war. Everything you've written so far, conforms to an objectively pro jihadi agenda. Therefore that reply addressed to your prior comment(s).

mika. | 2005-08-12 10:31 | Link

No, but he bans abortions, gay marriage, prohibits live saving medical research, has built upon US massive police state bureaucracy and is now waging a crusade. Go figure.

Bush is against allowing federal funding go towards these highly controversial activities. Not quite the same thing.

nrg | 2005-08-12 10:58 | Link

Mika, didn't do too well on those reading comprehension tests, hmmm?

No, your comments did not address what I wrote.

I commented on ANY individual and ANY leader. You have made the choice to make the individual an American and the leader Bush and you have chosen to interpret my comment as being limited to the American situation. I used the example of an individual believing all Bush does is correct as just that, an example. I think that any individual who sees their leaders as infallable is necessarily wrong. I encourage iranians, syrians, egyptians, israelis, hatians, hondurans and any other people you want to put in a group that has leadership to be critical of that leadership. I don't mean by critical that they should assume everything the leader does is wrong, but they certainly shouldn't assume that everything the leader does is right either.

As to questioning authority being treason, see link below:

http://adlusa.com/treasdef.htm

I would say that constructive criticism of a leader is necessary to the survival of a nation, you say that it is treason. My, we come from different worlds, don't we.

And, as for your last comment:

Bush is not against federal funding towards gay marriages.

How could he be? Has anyone ever requested federal funding to be given to the "highly controversial activity" of gay marriage? Perhaps you should have excluded that item from the others?

David, did you get a little irked back there??? Deep breath! :-)

I'm off on vacation for two weeks, have fun without me all!

mika. | 2005-08-12 11:38 | Link

I commented on ANY individual and ANY leader.

Here's that paragraph:

I would say that constructive criticism of a leader is necessary to the survival of a nation, you say that it is treason.

You said we should question the authority of our "leader". That's treason. I also take note in your use of that terminology. I'm guessing you were trying to sneak in a little Nazi imagery with that comment about the "leader", our Fuhrer.

Has anyone ever requested federal funding to be given to the "highly controversial activity" of gay marriage?

Yes.

nrg | 2005-08-12 12:10 | Link

Nope, no hidden nazi reference. I

As I have already said, and please listen carefully because I am making a clarification that you have not understood:

I feel all individuals should question leadership and not take it for granted that all leaders are always right! I don't care if it's a president or a girl scout troop leader. There is nothing else to read into that statement. Any other information that you try to squeeze out is your comment, not mine.

Questioning authority is not the same as undermining it. And it is not treason. If you feel still that it is, please give me a definition of treason and show me how questioning authority fits into the definition.

I don't think you really want to know what I meant by my original comment, Mika. I think you want to pick away at individual words and argue for the sake of arguing. Why must you continually tell me what I mean? Tell me what YOU think, I'll speak for myself.

Big Ben | 2005-08-12 13:18 | Link

Mika

The difficulty in answering you is directly related to the difficulty of being understood by you - first of all, your question really makes little sense, and any answer I try to give doesn't always make it down the thin end of your funnel.

You now label me a pro-jihadi, which I'm not - not long ago, with the same aplomb, you labelled me a Muslim Iranian - perhaps that was meant as an insult? - which I'm not. Would I be right in assuming that anyone who disagrees with you falls into the category of 'treasonous pro-jihadi'? It looks like it from here.

I believe that the people who run the US and UK governments decided quite a while ago that they needed to occupy that area of the world unfortunately populated by many people of the Arab persuasion. Since ragheads and dune coons are not considered real people, though, qualms about moral ownership were quickly dispensed with. All that remained was to convince the populations of the US and the UK that there was a viable reason for giving even greater, absolutely incomprehensible sums of their own hard-earned money (...still counting...)to the manufacturers of weaponry. Not to mention accepting the squandering of the lives of thousands (...still counting...) of their own sons and daughters to accomplish the occupation. For which they will receive nothing, by the way. This agenda has so far been accomplished, so I expect there's some satisfaction around the Emperor's swimming pool. It's an outrage. But it's not finished yet (...still counting...)

People who unquestioningly adopt the propaganda fed to them by the mainstream media - without checking, without entertaining the same minimum of critical thought you apply when you buy a pound of apples - are failing in their civic duties, basically. The Internet has made available information that was inconceivable a few years back, and good thing too. It's not difficult to look at both sides of a story and draw your own conclusions. And that's all I'm going to give you on that one, Mika, work it out for yourself. Read the story by Hans Christian Andersen, it's a pleasant ride.

As for governments, I've also been clear.

A person who questions the President is a sane person, not a traitor. It's a way of life. Hey, you're questioning me. Why not question Bush? Questioning may lead to the conclusion that he is right. Or not. It's the refusal to question that causes problems in my opinion.

People who don't question anything are one thing, but people who believe that questioning is treason are quite another. Such people often extrapolate on the Emperor's position and take it to extremes, perhaps because they feel this is loyalty. These also could be called members of the Emperor's fan club, if you like. Follow that?

Now, I hope the last comment about this - 'Big Ben | 2005-08-06 02:21 quote' - you're right on that of course - however, as anyone could see, it was not the crowing of an arrogant cocksman - in a comment about pornography in an exchange with Kim Sook-Im, it was my way of underlining the fact that pornography exploits sexual frustration (my preceding sentence should tell you that - 'I suspect that porn makes its money almost exclusively from the frustrated middle-aged male population, but probably makes a few extra bucks off adolescent curiosity.') I have no doubt that she, and most other people except Herbert of course, understood that immediately. No-one except you (calling me a liar...) came back on it, there was no need to. The sex life deal got started when you said I write like a queer. I was not hurt by this unfounded and inaccurate accusation, but amused, as I said then and again later. I thought it was funny and seemed to show a little unexpected flash. It may have been a flash in the pan, though. And please don't ask me what kind of pan, its dimensions, and how much it costs when you buy it from where?

The 6pack

It is not hard to imagine that the people of a nation that has been bombed every day for a decade might feel that the bombers are unfeeling, even evil, and must be stopped. The USA lost 3000 citizens and went to war within two months. Iraq lost hundreds of thousands, and is being clobbered yet again. We can all understand the concept of fraternal solidarity - it is not hard to understand that a Canadian or an Englishman might sign up for active military duty in Iraq because he is outraged at 9-11. Then why is it so hard to understand that an Iraqi may feel that he has the right to defend his own country? What we Westerners are used to calling 'the Middle Eastern countries' have no veto in the UN. The USA does, and has used it copiously in blocking any form of resolution requiring that Israel comply with accepted standards of human rights. Palestinians are maintained in the sort of non-state that African-Americans suffered until the 1960's in the Southern states. Like Africans in pre-Mandela South Africa.

I'm saying that in these times, a wilfully blinkered vision of the world is no longer acceptable.

None of this is said to encourage, condone or excuse violent actions by any person or group anywhere in the world. Like our friend Tabo, I believe that peace is the priority. If peace, freedom and democracy are what you wish to share, you need to try to be a good example of it. And bombing isn't the most convincing argument. But then I don't believe that the George and Tony show is about peace, freedom and democracy.

nrg | 2005-08-12 13:20 | Link

nrg said: Has anyone ever requested federal funding to be given to the "highly controversial activity" of gay marriage?

Mika said: Yes.

What type of federal funding would that be? I would really be interested in seeing whatever materials you can provide that show federal funding has been requested for gay marriages. I can find nothing to support that.

BB2 | 2005-08-12 13:22 | Link

nrg - I see we just basically told him the same thing - maybe it'll get through in stereo? I enjoy reading you - have a great holiday and forget about all us nerds.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 13:33 | Link

David Elson, Australia

I am having a very hard time following your argument, your personal commentary aside.

The reality of freedom is as one wit once said your ”freedom to swing your arm stops where my nose begins.” and then you say “The issue is not whether the impact is defined by arbitrary fiat as being positive/negative, but that no impact should be allowed at all. The very concept of individuals practising their spiritual backwardness in their own way is that it doesn’t impact on any.” I thikn the point that concerns most here, or at least me, very much, is that Islam is not and does not confine itself but is aggressive in attempting to foist its belief on whatever culture it exists in.
You then say.”Do you really imagine that the multi-ethnic peoples of America would just let you stand on them? Even with extremely stupid policies such as deportation and genocide you still wouldn’t be able to quash and remove all supposedly non-American cultures. You racist fuck.”

I do not know why deportation is stupid.
“What exactly do you define as distinctly American?” Well perhaps you might reread, if you have not, Detoqville or the books by Hacker. I think it fair to say that the US, as a culture, has the following characteristics: a deep distrust of government, a belief that governmental power flows up and not down, a feeling that different is good, a demand that you accept the central values of society as regards freedom, self help, mutual respect and protection and then you become a full participating member of the society as a citizen; a constant and conscious effort at experimentation with how to solve internal societal problems; the use of a court system that encourages an adversarial nature and a court system that is not used to hold down any particular group; a society that, at bottom, believes that in order for its acts to have substance that they be based on an agreement that the actions are moral; a society that is extremely truculent when attacked. and a society that in all its manifestations is religious in the sense of believing in a God. A society that has never been subject to an internal religious war (putting aside individual hatreds) and has been active in promoting mutual respect; a society where the political debates are furious and sharp, but at the end of the day it still proceeds forward as one. I submit that these are fair and accurate characterizations of the US. I further submit that, given all of our problems, we still attract more immigrants and more diverse immigrants that any other country in the world. So with all of our problems, we seem to be doing something right and yes we are a “culture, born from a mish mash of other . . . cultures”

nrg | 2005-08-12 13:47 | Link

BB, thanks for kind words. You, as usual, had many good things to say and succeeded where I failed in expressing excellent points that will unfortunately fall on deaf ears.

I'll check in at the end of aug and make sure everyone is behaving! Unless withdrawl sets in and I have to hit an internet cafe. Suspect husband and children would not appreciate that, however!

Herbie: Can I borrow what ever glasses you wear (or substances you ingest) that allow you to see the US in that particular light?

And we aren't nerds... we are engaged, intelligent, concerned citizens of the world!

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 14:10 | Link

nrg: Of course you may. Anything that I can do, to help correct your myopic views, I shall

Big Ben | 2005-08-12 14:31 | Link

Herbie

May I say that I thought that your last was a very fair and dignified post.

The list of characteristics you presented seems to me to be a reasonable, fair and accurate - though exclusively positive - list for the USA, at least judging by the numerous American people I know. With minor changes these characteristics could also apply to many European countries. And, of course, there are negative characteristics.

' ... a society that, at bottom, believes that in order for its acts to have substance that they be based on an agreement that the actions are moral; ...'

I think this is the point at which the USA runs into problems. Define moral.

Because '... your ”freedom to swing your arm stops where my nose begins.”

Also, despite the healthy '... deep distrust of government ...' indigenous to US citizens, I'm not sure that the US government, any more than the UK government, is truly acting in service of the people it is supposed to represent.

Probably because '... governmental power flows up and not down ...' Uphill flow has improved nastily of late.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 14:52 | Link

BB,

Thank you for your comment; however my sex life has improved as of late :-)

The list of characteristics I presented would not apply to most European countries. The only country in Europe that remotely has a similar tradition is the UK. The only exceptions I can think of, as regards characteristics, are concepts of the direction of power flow and the judiciary. Indeed, there was a wonderful headline years ago in the London Times when there was fog in the Channel: “Channel Fogged in Continent Cut Off” :-)
For the most part Europe’s views on these matters are only late acquired. That may be because Bentham, Locke, Hume and Smith have had a much greater impact in the UK and here rather then there.

I would define moral (internally) as a general agreement that the foundation for an action is just, neutral, the consequences for disregarding the rule are known beforehand and one is entitled to "due process to defend a different view". I accept that this leaves a lot of room for debate. Moral (internationally) is more complex and I am not sure that it makes much sense to talk about morality in that area except in the most egregious circumstances – certainly international law does not.

You say “I'm not sure that the US government, any more than the UK government, is truly acting in service of the people it is supposed to represent.” Perhaps, however it is then up to the citizens to change it

Big Ben | 2005-08-12 15:50 | Link

Herbie

Delighted to hear about your sex life

'... Perhaps, however it is then up to the citizens to change it ...'

On this we agree most definitely - the burning question is how? If the people we vote for persist in usurping Democracy, as I believe they do - we probably disagree on this bit - what is left to us in a climate where almost any contrary opinion can now be judged 'treasonous'? We become, by definition, though not by action, 'terrorists'.
(Let's not forget that 'terrorists' fought their way free from British hegemony and founded the USA.)

'... Moral (internationally) is more complex ... ' Agreed on this too - this would be a long and knotty discussion. From a standpoint placed almost anywhere outside the US, since WWII, there are far too many valid reasons to tax the US government with hypocrisy and imperial-style interference. Some of which has been, and remains, extremely toxic.

One point - criticism of the actions of the US government does not equal hatred of the American people. Any more than criticism of the actions of the State of Israel makes one an anti-Semite or a Nazi. That's why, for me, I make the point that today's governments, increasingly, are organised above all to serve the main financial institutions on which they depend, often at the expense of their own people.

I have to leave it here for now.

kim sook-im | 2005-08-12 15:56 | Link

mika. | 2005-08-12 05:15 | Link
The selective memory by some of the objectively pro jihadi here is truly astounding. But here's a refresh:

Big Ben | 2005-08-06 02:21 quote: People like myself, who have a delightfully satisfactory sex life (heterosexual in my case), can't maintain any interest in porn at all. And whatever you say, it is fuelled overwhelmingly by the exploitation of women. It's a form of slavery, and slavery can't be passed off as a pecadillo.

MIKA: I'm confused as to why we are revisiting Big Bens prodigious sex-life ( most likely veeeaagra-ically enhanced :).

Are you attempting to further humiliate him for his obstinacy in refusing to see Eeeklam for what Eeeklam is?

If so, you have successfully transformed him into a thoroughbred ANGLO-SAXIST PROSTI-DUDE

....tee-hee ;)

( uh....honest that is a 'halaal' term)

I agree with you that Big Ben can be infuriating ,especially when he so nonchalantly writes ".....I believe that Islam is not the problem...."

....as if all this brouha-ha about islam's complicity in all the violence and murder is

' much ado about nothing'

................to 'quoth' Shakespeare ( ahem !).

Great Scott! Bliminy !.... my dear fella' BB, wake up....Eeklam is THE problem - it is this nefarious ideology that is fueling all the violence ,mayhem and murder.

Perhaps a stout blow with a british brolly to your behind might rouse up your blinking brain !

Author Samuel P. Huntington wrote:

"Contemporary global politics is the age of Muslim wars. Muslims fight each other and they fight non-Muslims far more often than do peoples of other civilizations. "

see: http://www.hvk.org/articles/1003/48.html

According to the International Institute for strategic Studies 2/3 of all current wars involve muslims, yet muslims make up only about 1/5 of the world's population.

Author Huntington further wrote:

"...Muslim countries or people have shown the highest propensity for violence in relation to the conflicts they have engaged in. At least in later part of the 20th century, he cites data (below) indicating that Muslim countries have also shown the highest military force ratios in relationship to their population and wealth. He clarifies that the data does not mean that other civilizations do not indulge in violence (for instance he points out that "...In the past Christians killed fellow Christians and other people in massive numbers..."), but just that Muslim groups and countries engage in disproportionately higher violence...."

see: Islam and Militarism
http://www.eriposte.com/war_peace/other/muslim_violence.htm

Also MIKA -- closer to home ...my million dollar question to you is can TOLERANT CANADA TOLERATE SHARIAH?

Have you canadians gone 'bonkers'...what with your insane fascination with multiculturalism , you might as well have Camel Mounties instead of your fabled Canadian Mounties ;).

see:http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/08/can_tolerant_ca.php

and

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/relrpt/stories/s1293962.htm

Schehrezad Kim
your leettle Qor(e)an slave girl

شهرزاد - عبدة قليلة

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 16:30 | Link

BB you say
“From a standpoint placed almost anywhere outside the US, since WWII, there are far too many valid reasons to tax the US government with hypocrisy and imperial-style interference. Some of which has been, and remains, extremely toxic.”

* * *

“today's governments, increasingly, are organised above all to serve the main financial institutions on which they depend, often at the expense of their own people.”

The first point is, in my view, rubbish.

As regards the first half of the second point, governments should encourage economic activety. As to the second part I flatly disagree

Erin S. ~ Olympia, WA | 2005-08-12 16:31 | Link

DAVID ELSON-AUSTRALIA WROTE:

"prohibits live saving medical research"

Correction: He does NOT prohibit life saving medical research (i.e. stem cell). He's against GOVERNMENT FUNDING of "life saving medical research." Funding stem cell research funded by the private sector is A-O-K with him.

:o) Erin (o:

kim sook-im | 2005-08-12 16:59 | Link

MIKA: is it true that gays have requested funding for 'gay marriages'...hmmm do send me the links. A couple of my gay friends would be most interested in getting help for their 'honey-moon' trip and who knows maybe some ingenious gay person may even get fundings to campaign for Shariah-reform regarding gay marriages....

(especially in Canada..where i understand the current shariah ruling for gay weddings is to 'shower' the prospective grooms not with rice and flowers but rather with neat little 'pebbles' followed by rather large 'stones' and 'rocks'...

......and if the gay couples do not stand still for this interesting wedding 'reception' it is customary to bury them up to the neck while the wedding 'guests' finishes them off LOL !"

NRG: have a safe trip to wherever you are going...but do avoid islamic holy places like Mekka and Jiddah etc...funny I always thought that one would always be welcome at any holy places because we are all God's children...

.... anyone can visit the Marian shrine at Medjugorje, or the Buddhist holy place at Buddhagaya, or the Golden Sikh Temple at Amritsar, or a Taoist Shrine at Paek Hoon Suah in Taiwan...yet try going into the environs of the Ka'aba and i guarantee you ..them peaceful mush-lims will make sushi and sashimi out of you in no time... haaaaaaaah so much for religion of piss and what not ....you listening Big Benny Boy ? ;)

NRG go to Santiago de Compostela instead , you'll enjoy the pilgrims route .... but watch out for the Saracens !

Big Ben: It may interest you to know that quite a sizeable sector of porn and legal prostitution in Europe caters to the Saracens who usually don't get 'enuf' or ' can't get none' in their draconian homeland. God knows how many gajillion dollars in licit revenue has been transferred to the british coffers on account of 'bacchanal' propensities of millions of sex-starved Saracenes?

As the islamites try to undermine the structure of your liberal and enlightened society , british, european or otherwise, why not repay them in like manners. Concupiscence may yet be a handy tool in the fight against testosterone induced violence LOL.

.... to put it in a slightly vulgar manner - 'throw Boobs at them instead of Bombs' and watch Abdul Jihad melt in the luscious embrace of Jacqeline ( or Jacque .... well its not just all 72 virgins, but also 28 unblemished lads !)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...and i'll rather have it that way than to have our goose cooked the violent way.

Namaste!

Sister Prasad Meenachi Bhagavatam
Karma Sutree Adept

जी हाँ। मैं यह काम कर सकती हूँ।
यह काम बहुत अच्छा है।
आपकी दुकान यहाँ से कितनी दूर है?

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 17:53 | Link

Kim you don't have to throw boobs at them Here is a much better way:

As we all know, Islamic fundamentlists considers it a sin for a man to see a naked woman who is not his wife. So, next Saturday, at 2:00 PM Eastern time all American women are asked to walk out of their houses completely naked, to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists. Circling your block for one hour is recommended for this anti-terrorist effort. All men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their house to prove they are not Islamic fundamentlists, demonstrate that they think it's okay to see nude women other than their wife and to show support for all American women.

And since they also do not approve of alcohol, a cold six-pack at your side is further proof of your anti-Islamic sentiment.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 18:38 | Link

Scrappleface.com is one of the great news parody sites around.
"ACLU: Effort to Marginalize Indians Succeeding
by Scott Ott
(2005-08-12) -- The nationwide campaign to drum American Indians out of the public square chalked up another win this week as NORAD announced it would stop using Indian names to describe its air defense exercises. This follows last week's decision by the NCAA to ban Indian mascots from its college sports tournaments.

"Naming things after Indians gives these tribal people recognition that they don't deserve," said an unnamed spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "After all, we conquered them and occupied their land. Why give them the honor that comes from naming stuff after them as if they were brave, victorious warriors. They lost. Do you really want your children emulating a bunch of losers?"

In related news, the Indiana state legislature today will take up debate on a measure to change the state's name to Caucasia."

mika. | 2005-08-12 18:49 | Link

A person who questions the President is a sane person, not a traitor.

That's not what nrg said. He called on people to the question the authority of the President. And accordingly, should we not question the authority of our elected Fuhrer, we as individuals fall into the ranks of the Emperor Bush fan club. Of course, that line of argument is additionally subversive, in that it equates our elected and legitimate representative body of government to that of the illegitimate mafia at the helms of Iran, Syria, Saudia, Pakistan, and the rest of the islamic world.

Nope, no hidden nazi reference.

So you say. Just consequence of your impressive eloquence.

treason: disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness; sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion; high treason, lèse-majesté; apostasy; literary perfidy.

Questioning the authority of the President falls perfectly under that description.

Why must you continually tell me what I mean?

Because without clarification and even with, your original comments contain a sly pro jihadi advocacy in them. I believe this is a deliberate construct on your part. To expect you to own up it would be foolish.

And that's all I'm going to give you on that one, Mika, work it out for yourself. Read the story by Hans Christian Andersen, it's a pleasant ride.

I'm not interested in adolescent fairy tales.

Then why is it so hard to understand that an Iraqi may feel that he has the right to defend his own country?

So that's the provocation for 9/11? Is this an admission by you that the 9/11 perpetrators were Iraqi agents?

What type of federal funding would that be?

No one is preventing gay union if that's what they choose. I don't call it a marriage because gay union does not fall under the definition of that term. Giving gay union the legal recognition of marriage would in effect constitute a kind of funding to that activity since all kind of financial benefits flow from that status.

MIKA: I'm confused as to why we are revisiting Big Bens prodigious sex-life ( most likely veeeaagra-ically enhanced :).

Heheh. How could I not with the boner taking the handle of Big Ben? :)

mika. | 2005-08-12 19:02 | Link

Heheh, Scrappleface! Herbie, have you checked out Liberal Larry at:

http://blamebush.typepad dot com

mika. | 2005-08-12 19:05 | Link

Heheh, Scrappleface! Herbie, checked out Liberal Larry at:

http://blamebush.typepad dot com

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 19:14 | Link

Mika and NRG I am getting lost in the dialogue you are having and not sure with either of you stand. However ,I do not see it as suberversive or treasonous to question the authoity of an elected or appointed official. Far from it, I see that as the duty of an enlightened citizenry.

mika. | 2005-08-12 19:18 | Link

Also MIKA -- closer to home ...my million dollar question to you is can TOLERANT CANADA TOLERATE SHARIAH?

Unfortunately much of this has gone under the radar. The media refuses to this issue and the implication stemming thereof any prominance. Given the strong anti Semitic undertone found in most of the Canadian media this is hardly surprising.

mika | 2005-08-12 19:21 | Link

The media refuses to ^give this issue and the implication stemming thereof any prominance.

Gunnar, MD | 2005-08-12 19:23 | Link

>> However, though the Baathists and PLO share many traits of the Nazis, I would reserve the term Nazi for the German variety

This is tempting but incorrect. Of course, this is the definition that Oyvind has in his mind. There are two different contexts, and I acknowledge that in a non idealogical context, it would refer to the group of mostly germans who controlled germany in the 30s and 40s.

However, we are specifically talking about idealogy. As Oyvind knows however, the definition can't be be limited to germans (which is why he never suggested this), since an idealogy can't be defined by where the people lived who originated the idea. It's a non sequiter, it makes no sense.

That would mean that there were no french Nazis. That would mean Quisling was not a Nazi. That would mean that only german neo-nazis are truly neo-nazis. What about the neo nazis in america and elsewhere? Would a german member of the nazi party who changed nationalities still be a nazi, even though his beliefs hadn't changed? Would a non german nazi party member who lived in germany still be a nazi? Would Hitler even be a Nazi, since he was Austrian?

So, we can safely say that any definition that results in Hitler not being a Nazi has to be incorrect! (and don't you dare say that Austrians are really germans)

mika. | 2005-08-12 19:26 | Link

I hate to start this fight with you Herbie, but refusing the accept the authority of the President is treason. Questioning the authority of the President, pretty much amounts to the same thing.

mika. | 2005-08-12 19:31 | Link

I'll remind you that the President is the Commander-in-Chief.

I'm going to have to leave it here for now. Too many things my the plate right now.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 19:41 | Link

our proposed definition is truly scary and, so far as I can see, (and I am pretty conservative) does not differ much from those creeds espoused by various dictators and others of that ilk. To suggest that a citizen in a democracy is guilty of treason because he has the audacity to question authority -- my God -- the scales have fallen from my eyes you must be a Democrat.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 19:42 | Link

The post should read
Mika:
Your proposed definition is truly scary and, so far as I can see, (and I am pretty conservative) does not differ much from those creeds espoused by various dictators and others of that ilk. To suggest that a citizen in a democracy is guilty of treason because he has the audacity to question authority -- my God -- you must be a Democrat.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 19:55 | Link

Sometimes even bad papers publish a gem of an editorial and this is one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-11-muslims_x.htm

* * *

The time has come to issue a fatwa to excommunicate Osama bin Laden and his followers from the world of Islam. In fact, as terrorism rages, we need a stream of solid counter-fatwas - legal pronouncements in Islam — from the Muslim community.

Thus far we have heard fatwas, such as the one issued last month by the Fiqh Council of North America, telling us that Islam does not condone violence or that Islam condemns these actions. These types of words are not enough. We need to move beyond abstract condemnations and actually exclude those who give Islam a bad name.
* * *
That's right, excommunicate him. A clear fatwa should come from the centers of theology in the Muslim world * * *

And if a mosque is used as a place to plan attacks or to shield the perpetrators, Muslims should withdraw the name of that mosque, meaning it can no longer serve its holy purpose. It has been desecrated by such evil.
* * *

Unless extreme pressure is applied on Muslims all over the world to come up with counter-fatwas, little will happen in Muslim communities to fight terrorism. Unless we speak up, Muslims will appear in the eyes of the world as providing tacit support for terrorists.
* * *

Mamoun Fandy is a senior fellow of Middle East and Islamic politics at Baker Institute at Rice University.

Gunnar, MD | 2005-08-12 20:47 | Link

No, but he bans abortions, gay marriage, prohibits live saving medical research, has built upon US massive police state bureaucracy and is now waging a crusade. Go figure.

FYI, The United States of America is a democratic republic. The president of a nation, of the people, by the PEOPLE, for the people, simply doesn't and shouldn't have the power to ban abortions, ban gay marriage, prohibit life saving research, or build a police state.

Your comment is so ignorant and insulting, it's ridiculous. We believe in democracy. The people should decide all contoversial things, including whether abortion is banned, whether gays can marry, whether research should be funded by the govt and what type, and whether the country needs increased security against terrorists.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 21:06 | Link

Gunnar. Its a republic not direct democracy as in Calif. :-) That is why we have elected representatives. Once every 4 years we get to vote and lately -- thank God -- the Democrats lose.

Gunnar, MD | 2005-08-12 21:45 | Link

Herbie, I said "democratic republic".

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 21:48 | Link

Gunnar I still maintain my position: "every 4 years we get to vote and lately -- thank God -- the Democrats lose." :-)

mika. | 2005-08-12 22:02 | Link

Herbie,

If you were in the military you'd know that even so much as critiquing the Commander-in-Chief is considered treason. It is an egregious betrayal of trust. Though civilians are given a much greater latitude, actively trying to undermine the authority of the President is a similarly egregious betrayal of trust, i.e., treason.

mika. | 2005-08-12 22:03 | Link

Excellent post by Wretchard The Cat over at The Belmont Club:

Terrorism is a mode of combat which creatively uses privacy to cloak operations. Like the situations where a kidnapper uses a hostage cover, both shield and shielded suffer in a takedown.??The invention of uniforms historically permitted a separation between combatant and noncombatant. As long as the distinction was observed it incidentally made privacy possible. There was a Zone of the Front where anything went, and there was a Zone of the Rear where old ladies were helped across the street and civilities were observed. The abolition of the distinction between civilian and military, which the Jihadis thought so clever, provides only a short term convenience. What it actually does is revert warfare back to its pre-modern state, in which defeat was arbitrated not by the liquidation of armies, but of entire populations.??The Leftist practice of insisting that enemy combatants be treated as civilian criminals in regular court only makes matters worse because that stance is only tenable while terrorism can be endured. Once terrorism starts producing mass casualties the system of civil rights will be dragged down with the Jihadis to which it has been chained. By pretending enemy combatants are normal citizens, the rights of ordinary people will suffer the same fate as those of terrorists. It's already happening in a small way. Airline passengers are assumed to be suspects and are searched, poked and screened because Mohammed Atta once had the bright idea of passing himself off as an ordinary flyer.??I don't want to exaggerate the point, but I can't share the enthusiasm some on the Left feel for this wonderful terrorist method of warfare. The Jihad is spitting in the well of civility and we'll all have to drink from it.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 22:40 | Link

Mika says:

"If you were in the military you'd know that even so much as critiquing the Commander-in-Chief is considered treason." That is pure unadulterated Bullshit.

It is similarly bulshit to assert that "Though civilians are given a much greater latitude, actively trying to undermine the authority of the President is a similarly egregious betrayal of trust, i.e., treason."

I don't knoew what branchof service you may have served in, but it certainly is not any branch with which I am familier. Your views of the obligations of a citzen are the most absurd views I have ever read. Indeed, according to you the publication of the Pentagon Papers or attempting to have Nixon charged for crimminal conduct is treason. You have a view that has no basis in history, no basis in law and no basis in logic. Asiode from that, you might try reading the Federalist Papers, the Constituion and the Bill of Rights to understand what aI am talking about. You might even try and read some Surpeme Court decisions. In short your very peculiar views lack any support anywhere -- except perhaps in Cuba or Saudi Arabia.

Herbie, NY NY | 2005-08-12 22:54 | Link

Mika, the most astonishing thing about your view is that you make no attempt to reconcile with the U.S. Constitution which I quoted above. At any rate have a nice weekend all, I'm off

nrg | 2005-08-12 23:16 | Link

Wow, a truly interesting evening. On vacation, but checking this site anyway, as I always find things to make my pulse accelerate...

Herbie...you have suddenly become a rational thinking individual (ok, I admit, you were probably one all along, you just weren't sharing with me...). Thank you for your comments on treason. I can't imagine that our founding fathers wanted a nation built upon "elect someone and then let him do whatever the hell he wants--don't question his decisions or we'll charge you with treason".

And I must say that your comments about American women trying to find hidden terrorists by parading about naked at 2 pm next saturday while all the non-terrorists sit on lawn chairs with a nice cold brew made me laugh out loud! I am an American woman, but live in Oslo. If I do that next weekend, in solidarity with my countrymen, I wonder what reaction I would get...Quite certainly the suggestion that I resign from my position in the board of our neighborhood association...

Anyway, Herbie, thank you for some wise statements. I disagree with a great deal of your political points of view, but I can appreciate those differences and am glad to see that you can still support an America with citizens that question its leaders and strive to create the best nation they can.

mika: "Though civilians are given a much greater latitude, actively trying to undermine the authority of the President is a similarly egregious betrayal of trust, i.e., treason."
Didn't I just write that questioning authority is not the same as working to undermine it??? Why are you so afraid of opposing points of view?
And, I called on all people to question their leaders, not just the President...stop making this all about the US. And...yes, there's more, I'm a she, not a he. And that's all she wrote...to you, that is...

Kim: I'm going to my cabin and to Bavaria to drink good beer with dear friends, fear not!

OK, I'm really going on vacation now, honest!

mika. | 2005-08-12 23:48 | Link

Herbie,

We're going to have to agree to disagree. There's nothing wrong in calling into question, the wisdom of, or the unintended consequences of a particular set of policies. But calling into question the authority of Commander-in-Chief is a whole different kettle of fish. My sense is that even nrg, and bb understand this and therefore the attempt to backtrack a little.

Unless obvious criminality is involved and breach of the US constitution, calling into que