Today is the time to ask the moderate non-Muslims to please stand up and let themselves be counted.
"I don't mean to sound harsh or anything but I don't like what the Muslim people believe in, according to the Koran. Because I think they preach hate."
This is what one of the many ordinary Americans interviewed by the Washington Post said as a part of a joint Washington Post-ABC News poll about the image of Islam and Muslims in America.
This growing anti-Muslim, anti-Islam sentiment is not just restricted to the US. A similar poll conducted by officials in the UK earlier in 2002, the results were confirmed 2 years later in the findings of a national commission into Islam in Britain that found that the aftermath of 9/11 had certainly made life more difficult for Muslims, and that "persistent and un-tackled Islamophobia in the UK could lead to 'time-bombs' of backlash and bitterness".
Right here at my blog, many comments actually declared Islam a "fundamentally incorrect" religion, not only this, they actually suggested all religions were "irrational", "brainwashed" people, followers of a "murderer" Prophet, "an evil religion", etc..
Then we also have people like Daniel Pipes, who label all individual Islamists as being part of "a totalitarian movement", adding that they must be "considered potential killers". Yet despite this he dismisses Islamophobia as a "baseless" phenomenon. What's more, he even has advice for us; "instead of presenting themselves as victims" he argues "Muslims should address this fear by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighbourly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of "infidels".
This fits Stephen Schwartz' definition of Islamophobia as "the condemnation of the entirety of Islam and its history as extremist, denying the existence of a moderate Muslim majority, regarding Islam as a problem for the world, treating conflicts involving Muslims as necessarily their own fault, insisting that Muslims make changes to their religion, and inciting war against Islam as a whole" just about perfectly, doesn't it?
Ironic, isn't it, that despite the extreme nature of some of these comments, it will always be Islam at the end of the day that will be seen as the villain in the eyes of the majority. It never crosses most people's mind that declaring Islam as a fundamentally incorrect, evil religion is just about as extreme and radical as al-Qaeda urging all Muslims to do Jihad against America.
What the al-Qaeda and other anti-West, anti-American voices do is forget, and very conveniently, that you cannot put a same marker around what is a very large group of people, because for every Daniel Pipes out there, there is sure to be a Juan Cole as well.
Is it really that hard to see how indiscriminate hatred for any faith or its followers is much more likely to entice yet more response from the extremists than it is to encourage the moderate ones to come out and make them selves counted? What good does breeding hate achieve any way?
Worse when hate voices comes from within the Arab world (this one from Syria). Look at this example (Hat tip: Sean):
She's no longer a Muslim, has never connected with progressive Islamic groups and does not know the writings of Islam's most respected voices of reform.
So why is Wafa Sultan, a 47-year-old Southern California woman, suddenly in the news as a fresh voice of reason and reform about Islam?
In a blunt interview on Al Jazeera television last month, Sultan harshly criticized Islam as violent and unfavorably compared Muslims with Jews.
In remarks Sunday at her Corona home, Sultan, who said she left the faith after witnessing an act of religious extremism, went even further, saying Islam was beyond repair with teachings that exhorted Muslims to kill non-Muslims, subjugate women and disregard human rights.
…
Sultan's Al Jazeera remarks have been widely circulated by such groups as the Middle East Media Research Institute, a Washington-based translation service founded by a former Israeli colonel, and the American Jewish Congress. She made the New York Times front page and is being plied with interview requests from CNN, Fox, "Good Morning America" and public radio. Her e-mail in-box is filled with messages from well-wishers around the world – mostly non-Muslims – praising her "courage," offering donations and pitching proposals to make a documentary about her life.
What makes people think that blaming Islam as being the real reason will stop the extremists? It riles them further if anything, and if anything it unsettles even the moderate Muslims. A while back, I was asked, "Will the moderate Muslims please stand up and make themselves counted?" Perhaps today is the time to ask the moderate non-Muslims to please stand up and let themselves be counted.
{ 195 } Comments
As a moderate individual, I would suggest that these results are in line with the fact that Moslem nations have allowed the likes of Ussama Bin Laden act as their spokesman in the West for years now.
Instead of taking to the streets to protest the actions of Islamo-terrorists, thousands have decided to shout "Death to America" while setting fire to American flags.
All the while, children are being named after noted terrorists.
The religious leaders of these nations have remained mute about (or worse, have endorsed) terrorism in the name of Islam for far too long to now complain about not having a favorable image in the West.
What has been sewn is now being reaped, I'm afraid.
Reputations are earned, not gifted.
After reading a biography of the life of Mohammed written by a professor from Al Azhar University in Cairo, and understanding the differentiation between Meccan and Medinan Qu'ranic verses, it is difficult to understand how followers of Islam can claim that Islam is a religion of peace. The life of Mohammed is a poor model of a religion founded on peace. Many moderate Muslims claim that Islam is a religion of peace. I wonder if this is true, or a more accurate claim would be that some of the followers of Islam are people of peace, and that they only ascribe to the peaceful aspects of their religion, as those tenants are the ones they most wholly agree with. Perhaps it is the people who are peaceful, and not the religion, for even the founder of Islam was guilty of countless atrocities.
I think that the outcome of this survey is really good, considering the political events in the past 20 years, and the fact that there is lots of hatred in the USA. I think americans are by faaaaaaar better than europeans when it comes to the views about islam and muslims.
Haitham wrote:
You yourself said that you can't place the same marker around a large group of people yet you then go on to put your own marker, 'Islam', around the very same group. The extremists that you warn against characterize Islam as violent and you say it isn't so but there is no single definition of Islam. Lots of groups claim to practice 'Islam' some are quite violent others are not. Yet they all claim to speak for 'Islam'. Right now it is the radical Jihadists who are seen as the villain. To the extent that 'moderate Muslims', 'peaceful Islamists', or 'anti-Jihadists' are unwilling or unable to neutralize or eliminate that villainous minority, non-Muslims will have a hard time figuring out who belongs to which group.
Another booh hooh blog entry about how misunderstood Muslims are :(
Seriously, who gives a shit about how many moderate Muslims there are? Moderate Muslims are completely useless as partners to deescalate the conflict between the Muslim world and the Western world.
Face the facts, Islam IS seen as a violent religion by a lot of people in the West, but instead of just crying over it you (as in ALL Muslims who think that Islam has any value as a religion whatsoever) should do something about it. Stop being a bunch of whining wimps. DO SOMETHING!
It is not the West that is ruining 'the good name' of Islam, it is the Muslim moderates themselves, because they are just sitting on their asses and letting Islam be desecrated by the Muslim extremist minority.
Personally, I have nothing against Islam, but I have something against a majority of Muslims (both extremists and the silent majority) and it has only grown by visiting this blog. The "a Muslim should not criticize a Muslim" just doesn't fly. This is a taboo that you MUST break if you want respect, because RESPECT IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO EARN and not something you can just ask for or demand.
Fine, let's do some counting! If you analyze all the posts on this site you will easily find Muslim contributors saying "I don't agree with Muslim extremists", but you will find next to none saying "I am actually doing something to stop Muslim extremism".
There is a huge, enormous, monumental difference between saying "I don't agree with racism" into empty space and saying "Jack, I don't agree with your racistic views because they represent a primitive view on other people" directly to a person (if there is a Jack on this blog: Sorry, your name is an example).
The only vocal Muslim criticism of another Muslim I can find is centered around judging the corrupt personality of Osama bin Ladens' niece based on her looks, but I guess that is because she is not a 'real' Muslim since she has become a bit 'too Western'. How tolerant an impression do you think that makes?
The numbers of moderate Muslims or moderate Westerners are irrelevant; it is the number of progressive Westerners and progressive Muslims that count. Sorry to break it to you, but progressive Muslims come in such small numbers that it is like looking for a needle in a haystack if you want to find one. Please note, I am not talking about Progressives as in politics, but about progressives who seek to move things forward.
It is Muslims who have created the catch-22, because they will not criticize Muslim racism and intolerance, but when the West criticizes Muslim racism and intolerance then it is the West that is racistic and intolerant!
In my opinion, this blog is more of a virtual Wailing Wall where Muslims can cry over how misunderstood they are rather than a discussion forum about how to change the negative perception of Islam that is promoted by Muslim extremists and supported by moderate Muslims. Inaction is also a form of action!
If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem!
…
By the way, here are the results of some counting done in Denmark.
"Are the Imams most frequently shown on Danish TV representative of Muslims in Denmark?" 75% of Danes say NO.
"Do you agree with burning Danish flags and destroying Danish embassies in the Middle East?" 11% of Danish Muslims say YES.
This is an interesting post Haitham. I was wondering is there any views of how the Middle East, North Africa, and other Muslim countries view Christianity, Judaism, Hindu, and/or Buddishism. Anyone can answer. Thanks all.
I am sorry but for once I agree with Thomas, a Dane.
You can say anything you want, but if the "moderate Muslims" don't say anything against radicals they are just as guilty by association.
At least here in NA we are telling Bush, he is wrong.
One voice telling us that OBLadin is wrong is not enough.
"Today is the time to ask the moderate non-Muslims to please stand up and let themselves be counted."
What's new from America? they conduct polls everyday…i just laugh it off…because to me it's tabloid..and that danish cookie is shooting all over again…pathetic.sigh..that's the problem with so many like him…a toad in a well with his so called panoramic view of the world. Go fly a kite..thank you.IF we are going to conduct a poll(in asian countries including China, India.etc) on whether Denmark is stupid to publish those cartoons..i guarantee u it will be a resounding YES! But we rather spend our valuable times to do something more worthwhile.
blackfeline
Please don't include me in your remarks.
The west is not innocent. Bush is guilty as hell.
But I am on a mission to understand your religion. Because I don't know both sides of the story.
I only judge when I know both sides.
I don't have a religion to fall back on to make my opinions.
Please don't judge me until I know the whole story.
Hi Everyone,
This subject is so coincidental. This morning my mom called me from Texas to read to me an article in the Dallas Morning News about Wafa Sultan (mentioned in the box above). I immediately googled her anme and found the full text of her interview that is so contraversial. You can find it here http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1050 – 12k
I even e-mailed Haitham with it (smiley face) because I thought, "Uh oh, this is SURE going to cause trouble" because as it turns out her interview is being talked about everywhere. (Haitham just said, look at the home page, it's there) Well now all I can say is that if it's in the Dallas Morning News that is NOT a good thing. You see, all those Baptists down there are going to stand up and say, "See, there you go, an Arab female psychologist says Islam is the cause of the problem" and not hear the rest of her statements. You see what I think is the problem with ALL of the three connected faiths is that they hear what they WANT to hear because too often religion is used to JUSTIFY one's actions rather than teach justice.
Thomas, I don't think that this is a boo-hoo blog at all. The fact that Haitham discusses it means he is doing something.
Haitham, I am surprised these figures are what they are. I am actually astounded that 34% of the people think that Islam is just as violent as other religions. Where is consistant on-going violence happening at the hand of Christianity? Maybe people are paying attention to Israeli violence Palestine after all.
Sean, I will give you my perspective as a white female 'extremist' Christian who has lived in Jordan awhile. Until I found Jordanplanet, I was pretty disgusted with how I was treated as a Christian by Muslims.
Haitham, forgive as I rant…I guess I want you to know how it feels.
For the most part, there was a lot of condecension. Many, many Muslim friends did (and still do) say this "When you are enlightened, and really study Islam, you will see it's superiority and convert. Everyone does. You will make such a good Muslim. How can you be such a good person and not be a Muslim?" I try and take it as a compliment…
There is no room for discussion about my faith because my book was 'changed' along the way, although no one can seem to say when that was.
The more outwardly pious Musilms I have met, even neighbors who visit at Eid, etc., won't shake my hand or greet me. I am Kafir, unclean.
Many assume I am immoral. I can't tell you how many times someone has offered to pay me sums of money to divorce my husband and marry some relative so they can get a visa. As if I would be ok with that.
Now that I am older, they ask for my 4 year old daughter to marry their sons. I tell them that as Christians, we only marry within our faith. They say "Oh, but the Koran says your Christian daughters are permitted to marry Muslims, it is better then teh children will be Musilms". Um, hellllo? That is the point!
Because I can understand Arabic and people don't assumeI do, I hear many things not intended for me ears, about me and my faith.
Most Arab Christians will say "We are all one, Muslims are good to us" in the presence of Muslims, and then behind closed doors the stories will come out. But no one wants to rock the boat, teh status quo.
I know a couple of people in our church that were born Muslims and have become Christians…and their stories make mine look like a cakewalk.
This is why, when I found Muslims who actually dialogue, I actually began to like livign here again, and had hope which keeps me strong and patient in light of the junk I hear.
That's my rant, on Haitham's bandwidth again. Sorry! :)
Kinzi,
My point is that if all we do is discussing something and agreing how unfair or terrible it is, then it is a futile sobbing exercise. If a discussion does not result in any changes to current actions or future directions whatsoever, then it is only intellectual masturbation at best.
There is a good reason why the windshield of a car is much much larger than the rearview mirror. In addition to giving an occational perspective on what is behind it is most useful when backing up into a parking space. People who drive their cars by exclusively looking in the rearview mirror are dangerous to everybody around them.
I came to this blog to find progressive forward-looking Muslims to participate in bridge building; I am still looking :(
Thanks kinzi,
I have to admit what you said, this is a fact and no one can/should deny it.
Just one correction for you (and all). You said:
Actually that's not true. Muslim men's do not shake hands with anyone except with another man. Not even with Muslim females. So it has nothing to do with you as Christian or as you said "Kafir, unclean".
As for Thomas, he asked similar question before and I answered him, so I'm not going to repeat it all here. But just as a reminder, Moderate Muslims are doing their best, on TV, Radio, Newspapers and now in blogs. Unfortunately, they don't have the power in their hand to make the changes fast and sound. The problem is that Moderate Muslims are fought in two fronts, internal and external.
Therefore, if the externals like to see our Moderates do something, non-Muslims moderates should stand up and let themselves be counted. Don’t preach, do something to help, thats if you want to see things better.
Blackfeline,
My post was not directed towards you and the other mono thinking Muslims sitting in their own little myopic world, but towards respectable Muslims who actually practice the peace and tolerance they preach.
If I based my view on Islam exclusively on your messages and the impression you give of yourself, then I would see Islam as a primitive and intolerant religion. But I do not.
Haitham,
You can count me in, I would like to help you, but your answers have not yet given me anything of substance. Maybe it is my misunderstanding, but the way I receive you message is that you tell me to shut up and not criticize Muslims for doing nothing.
Is isolation the answer? Should we build a wall between the West and the Muslim world?
In that case I can imagine a sign at the borders of Euorpe saying:
Attention all visitors!
We are currently trying to contain an outbreak of myopia within our borders. If you are carrying myopia we suggest that you turn around and go back to where you came from immediately, becase at the first sign of myopia you will be rejected and expelled faster than you can say "I come in peace!"
If Muslims may not be critizised at all, how should Denmark deal with the 11% of Muslim immigrants who clearly do not respect the country that has given them refuge? The only alternative to trying to influence their opinion that I can see is to hunt them down and put them on the next plane out of Denmark!
What do we do with the Muslim extremists that may already hold Danish citizenship? Denmark is ruled by law, so it would violate their rights if we expell them from the country. Should we just ignore their human rights and follow what is the model in many countries of the Middle East and just jail them for 'thought crimes'?
I am not interested in ignoring a problem and hoping it will go away on its own, so what is it actually that you suggest?
kimmy,
rest assured :)u are not on my list…just do me a favor..do not assume that Im a muslim ok..the referred cookie is rattling away with the same ad nauseam baloney…what i called flogging a dead horse…like an armchair critic. What does he knows? NOTHING..ZERO…just a bag of hot air! I have no patience with such creature…kindly clean your own danish backyard before u teach others how to suck an egg..so i will save my breathe not to engage him at all..
Blackfeline,
I would appreciate if you saved your breath and did not engage me at all. Do you suffer from some sort of short term memory disorder? If you scroll up the page just a little bit, then you will see that you were the one who started attacking me. If you had attacked my opinions with argumentation then I would probably take you seriously and maybe even respect you as a person, but you go directly to a personal attack which says more about you than it does about me!
Name calling isn't helping. Polls are designed make or break opinions. You're all wrong, and you're all right. So step down. Talk is cheap. You want to break the cycle of violence, bigotry and hatred? Point it out wherever it exists. Stop "other"-ing people. Stop holding the 11 percent as the model for everyone else, poll or not. You can only hit someone on the head with a hammer so many times before they raise a fist against you. Understanding that, disarm as many of the hammer-wielders as you can. Please get over yourselves, those of any faith or practicing atheists, agnostics, none of the aboves. Step down and pitch in.
Raymond,
Sorry, but I really do not understand what you are saying.
What is "other"-ing people?
It is pretty clear that 11% is a fraction of 100%, so what do you mean by holding 11% as a model for everyone else?
"Step down and pitch in." I don't get it! To me it sounds a bit like the rhetorical question "why can't we all be friends?"
I am really not trying to offend you in any way, but I have received your message without being able to decipher its contents.
Haitham wrote: "Therefore, if the externals like to see our Moderates do something, non-Muslims moderates should stand up and let themselves be counted. Don’t preach, do something to help, thats if you want to see things better."
But this is the very thing that is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
Because moderates within these Moslem nations seem unable to make any sort of recognizable changes by way of rhetoric, non-Moslems have decided to do something.
It is just as you have wished it.
If you do not agree that what is being done is proper, perhaps more action and less talk ought to be required of those who blog and talk about thier own inability to make change.
One cannot have it both ways, I'm afraid.
You cannot express self pity about your inability to combat extremism and then get upset when someone comes in to take care of your problems for you.
Hi Thomas and Ali,
Please note I am NOT trying to start an arguement here.
Thomas, remember over on A&M you told me to plant seeds? Well I think blogging is one small way of doing that. People from all over the world can log on and become aware of what moderate Moslems believe and that within itself contributes to an effort in de-escalating the backlash against Islam from outside entities. I guess it's just me saying that I abhor all the name calling without getting to dialogue with eachother respectfully and understand. What do YOU think the moderates should do? I absolutley love your posts so can you give one here adressing this? (no I'm not flattering, I am sincere)
Ali, You are telling moderate Moselems to stand up and fight radical Islam. Could you provide some suggestions on how to do that? I read somewhere here where Haitham addressed this to someone and said to the affect, "the very term 'moderate' means that we do not use their tactics. What do you think the moderates should do bedsides whine.(again, I'm with you not against you)
In short, I do NOT know what the answer is which puts me in the class of being unconstructive myself and the arguement I am making come full circle. Any true concrete suggestions are welcome by anyone who wants this cycle of violence to end.
Haitham, thanks for listening. I'm not all that encouraged that is my gender that is keeping my hand from being shaken! At least I'll know to put my hand over my heart and bow slightly if our families ever meet!
So, as a non-Muslim moderate, what can I do to help? What I usually do is go to Christian blogs and quote things about Islam and Palestine, and watch some of them go ballistic. But based on the amount of email I get, others are influenced. I think it is a one-by-one deal…I usually remind Christians that if they have hate in their hearts toward Muslims or Palestinians, it's their problem with God. Anyway, looking forward to your opinion.
Robin…I didn't forget to email you, just had a writing deadline!
Haitham, thanks for listening. I'm not all that encouraged that is my gender that is keeping my hand from being shaken! At least I'll know to put my hand over my heart and bow slightly if our families ever meet!
So, as a non-Muslim moderate, what can I do to help? What I usually do is go to Christian blogs and quote things about Islam and Palestine, and watch some of them go ballistic. But based on the amount of email I get, others are influenced. I think it is a one-by-one deal…I usually remind Christians that if they have hate in their hearts toward Muslims or Palestinians, it's their problem with God. Anyway, looking forward to your opinion.
Robin…I didn't forget to email you, just had a writing deadline!
If I may add to my last post.
I see the current struggle between Moderate and Radical Islam as more a "political struggle" than a religious one. Let me offer this analogy, the way I see it is that it's kind of like asking Quakers who are consciencious objectors to go fight abortion clinic bombers. Just a thought from my own perspective totally.
Kinzi,
Haitham IS right on this one. But even then, depending on the circumstances completely, a male-moderate Moslem WILL shake your hand. In my own case it occured in mixed gender mixed nationality business situations. It took a while to catch on to where I might extend my hand to a man safely and even then I sometimes got it all wrong.
You're right about that again, it's "their problem with God" Unfortunately those are the very people your statement falls on deaf ears with. You are such a wonderful ambassador between the two and I personally applaud you for that.
Glad to see you back!!
Thomas,
Writing in this blog and defending Islam is taking a stand against extremists. Maybe it sounds like whining to you but it is not.
Islam is a really ambiguous religion. It's tough to really get to the heart of the religion. If you take certain passages in the Quran and just read them at face value, you most certainly would think Islam was a violent religion. I honestly would not blame you because I was guilty of thinking the same thing. However, if you read carefully, you will see that that is not the case. The fact is, many muslims are guilty of not understanding Islam correctly. They think that to harm westerners is justified because they are not muslim. This is wrong because God has specifically written that Christians and Jews are people of the book as well. Even athiests have been given protection by God.
The fact is that you want moderate muslims to stand up and take a stand against the extremists. You are right. However, extremists don't listen to moderates. They are brainwashed. They don't listen to anybody.
Extremism is spread by people who don't take the time to truly understand Islam. People like Osama Bin Laden, and even some local Imams contribute in the spread of extremism. The way moderate muslims can stop extremism is to teach their children true Islam. Teach them the importance of analyzing the text of the Quran so they can see that violence is NEVER justified in our religion.
On another note, the policies of some western governments, especially concerning Isreal, do nothing but help the agendas of extremists. I think that taking a stand against them is also taking a stand against extremism.
I wish we all lived in a world where there was no violence. But humans are naturally flawed. Therefore, we are obliged to fight our shortcomings and do the right thing. To find a solution to this problem is the common goal of everyone. Throwing blame around is not going to solve the problem.
Dena,
I would like to thank you for a "positive" response.
I would like to add a little history here.
We all know that Saudi Arabia has funded the radical madrasas. That is an indisputable fact. Having said that, and not making excuses, here is a partial history of this phenomenon.
Back in the late 1960's King Faisal wished to bring a small piece of the modern world to Saudi Arabia. One of these modernizations he implemented wwas television. This was seen by the fundamentalist Wahabis as not such a great idea. In order to quiet their protests, King Faisal allowed schools in Saudi Arabia to start hiring radical extremists from Egypt (the Moslem Brotherhood). Before this had not happened, the MB was considered fringe and "haram". As modernity slowly arrived in Saudi Arabia, the Royal family which sought to neutralize the extremist forces, gave them even more leeway. Well we all know what happened next. When the television station opened, some very fundamentalist group of Wahabis rioted to keep it from opening. The National Guard opened fire and several protestors were killed. Why is this important you ask? Because it was the brother of one of the slain protestors who assasinated King Faisal in 1975. In fact the day this occured was the day I left the US for Beirut to marry my husband. Since this time the Saudi royal family has continued to appease the radicals in exchange for protection. But now we have Osama and the tables have turned. I know as a fact that Saudi Arabia is in an internal crisis not seen since it's founding. Note here PLEASE, I am talking about the Royal family, not about all of the citizens (though some) of this country.
To ask a moderate Moslem to solve this problem is not the answer. Dena is correct, the answer for the moderate Moslem is to do what they can to sew the seeds of peace which Islam offers. The fight against "radical Islam" is a political one and can only be begun by discontiuing appeasement on a POLITICAL level and to stop blaming the average citizen moderate Moslem for the problem
Day by day, I'm getting disgusted by the extremist that my blog is attracting, both from Muslims and non-Muslims. Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to reply all, plus you can't imagine the hate and extreme comments that get posted but I don't allow, so you all don't see.
Some see that I'm not doing anything, and that I'm just posting here but not taking any steps to fight extremist. For those, I just want to tell you few things:
1. Do you know what risk I'm taking by posting here in the first place? I don't live in a world the respect "freedom of expression", so I'm at risk of getting arrested any moment if the authorities wish to do so.
2. Do you know what threats emails and comments I receive on daily bases from Muslims and non-Muslims, Arab and Westerns? I guess you don't. I never complained, nor allowed any of these attacks to be published here, not even as a comment. But at least I'm getting indirect confirmation that some of my words are reaching somewhere.
I'm not asking anyone for anything but tolerance, even if I commit a mistake. However, you all have to understand that when I speak the truth (my truth), which might be hurting to someone, I don't intend to attack anyone, but I have the right to speak my feelings as I see it and live by it. Some see that as hate, other say that as anti this or that, but the truth is, this is "my truth", just like "your truth".
Reminder… This is not a public forum. This is a personal blog, and I'm practicing my right of "freedom of speech", but that does not mean I have to allow anyone and everyone to speak here what they want. No. If you feel offended, feel free to write your attack or counter post in your blog.
This is an interesting post and discussion. If I may say, we can all play the blame game, who is moderate and who isn’t and who is doing something about extremism and who is just blabbering. I think Muslims, including myself, should admit that there is a violent and destructive streak in the Islam that we are witnessing today and that it has to stop. I don’t believe that it is part of the religion’s teaching, but the perpetuators of hatred and violence do. And a lot of Westerns depend on mainstream media which is mainly biased and selective in its coverage of Muslims and what they do and don't do. So how can we reclaim our dignity and defend ourselves in the eyes of our own people and a world that views most of us as inherently evil? I think that most of the responsibility lies on Muslims shoulders, it is time to clean the house!
Aya,
Of course you are correct to point to a bias in the media. All forums providing information (including this one) are slanted one way or another.
But you must admit, the biggest stories originating in the Moslem world in the last few years have been the terrorist attacks of 2001 and the riots/killings over cartoons.
These stories have been huge not only in the West but in Moslem nations as well, so you should not be surprised to learn that they have a massive effect on the way Islam is perceived in the West.
The fact that the stories are unfavorable is certainly not the fault of those who are reporting them. Again, many groups earn their reputations.
One way to look at it is this: If one were to murder his parents, he should not expect compassion because of the fact that he is an orphan.
And yes, you are right to suggest that most of the responsibility rests within the Moslem world itself. I can only hope others from within that culture share your view.
Haitham,
I am not going to say that I understand the situation you are living in because I do not and I will probably not be able to even if I tried.
Please let me know if you feel that I am asking too much from you when I ask you how I can help you, but I am still interested in your reply.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I am getting the feeling from the selection of "your truths" that you are trying to trick yourself into thinking that all Westerners and their governments are only out to hurt Palestinians and the Muslim world in general.
From my side of the table it seems that every time anybody tries to reach out to help you and Palestinians in general it is met with an insult or something worse. If it is so, why? Have Palestinians become so paranoid that they see enemies around every corner or is everything so blurred that you cannot tell friends and enemies apart any longer?
When I was a kid I thought it was so sad that all the stateless Palestinians I saw on TV had to live in refugee camps. That was before I was old enough to understand what the conflict was about and before I was able to see the link between Palestinians and terrorism. What I did understand back then was that kids just like me were living without all the nice things that I had around me and that their parents were being hurt by other people.
As I grew up, I got a much broader perspective on the situation. My sympathy remained with the stateless Palestinians, but what was now making me sad was that there were small groups of Palestinians who managed to play all the aces and face cards directly into the hands of the Zionist extremists as soon as the cards had been dealt.
I am now in my mid thirties and I have almost twenty years of defending the 'cause' of Palestinians whenever I meet somebody who only listens to the Zionist propaganda. Believe me, it has not been easy to defend 'terrorists', because that is how the Palestinians have positioned themselves in the minds of a growing number of people.
I am now in my third (and probably last) phase of defending the stateless Palestinians. Last phase? Well, what makes me sad now is that I can no longer see Palestinians as 'kids just like me', because it appears that Palestinians are just too stupid to help themselves and that they are doing everything they can to ensure that they do not get the state they deserve. I am getting tired and my support is wearing out at the same pace as the hole the Palestinians have dug for themselves gets deeper and deeper. I am not saying this to offend you; this is "my truth" and I am just being honest with you.
In NLP (a new age tool for personal development) there is a very central sentence: "If what you are doing is not getting you what you want, then continuing doing what you are doing will continue not getting you what you want!" For as long as I have been alive Palestinians have been trying to change the system to get their state, but they continue trying to change the system so they will continue not getting their state.
Instead of trying to change the system you would be much better off if you figured out how to 'work' the system, because while Palestinians have been trying to change the 'rules of the game', the Zionist extremists have been 'players' – and very good players I may add.
I am very stubborn, so I am not very good at giving up. The reason why I have been trying to provoke you and others into action is that I am not willing to give up just yet, because with the right marketing and if you start playing the game you still have a chance of getting the state that you deserve (and I will not have wasted my time on discussions through a couple of decades).
International politics is a dirty game that you have to accept for what it is instead of ignoring it. The cold facts are that nobody cares how good you are at playing the victim (and as long as Hamas has political power and supports terrorism at the same time you are not even good at that) or how just your cause is; if you really want to win the game you have to show that your opponent is much worse than you are. As things are currently, the Zionist extremists are playing you like a fine tuned instrument and are very successful at using you to make themselves look good in comparison.
If I had a shitty product and a growing number of people would recognize it as a shitty product I would either discontinue it or sell it under a new name and in a different color. In marketing that is called repositioning and I believe that is exactly what we are seeing Olmert doing at this very moment (probably based on plans made by Sharon). I hope Hamas will realize that they need to do some repositioning themselves, because that would really take the Zionist extremists by surprise (and piss them off that Palestinians are no longer predictable).
If you are interested in inspiration for the basis of a good Palestinian marketing campaign, then you should look at Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, who both successfully used the principles of 'Satyagraha' (civil disobedience) and 'ahimsa' (total non-violence) pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi in his fight against the tyranny of the British Empire in India. It may be counter-intuitive to fight back by not fighting back, but the score is 3-0 in the Gandhi vs. Terrorism game!
Haitham, I honestly do want to help you get your state, so please let me know how you think I can help you or if you don't want my help, then feel free to tell me to fuck off!
Dena,
I understand what you are saying, but I would like to make a couple of comments.
Teaching you kids may be a good beginning, but it would take generations before it precipitated out into society in general. That would take way too long before any measurable results would show up.
With my Atheist background I cannot agree that it is better to teach 'true' Islam. Not because I believe religion is bad, but because I believe the essence should be to teach the kids tolerance of people who have a different opinion (often this message gets lost in all the hub-bub around religious teachings). When they understand that, then it may or may not be time to dive into the wisdom of religion or any other belief system.
I am not asking you to go up to the first and best extremist Imam you meet and start telling him off. I disagree with the methods and ideologies of the Neo-Nazis and the Mafia, but I would never dream of knocking on their doors and try to play the righteous missionary.
I know which places to avoid in order not to run into those kind of unsavory personages, because I do not want to ask for more trouble than I can handle (I had a run-in with a couple of Neo-Nazis once, but they were not very big compared to me, so they told me what a bad foreigner I am without getting physical). However, I still stand up for tolerance and tell my friends, colleagues, neighbors or whoever I run into that I do not appreciate their racist remarks if they say something stupid about Gypsies or Jews (the favorite 'bad' people in Hungary).
You are probably right that by the time the extremists have been brainwashed then it is too late, that is why I think we need to bring intolerance into the open whenever we meet it, because just maybe we can prevent someone from taking the path towards extremism.
Thomas,
I don't mean to interupt, but I've been searching links to links here. On the CFL site I linked onto the orange thing that says Send your prewritten letter now. This is an American site used for American citizens to send in letters to the White House. I realize this does you absolutely no good except for the information it gives. We've talked about media alot and not getting the news. This site gives you so much information about what the Palestinians are going through by just giving the BIG items that they want to be adressed by our congress here. If you log onto the "alerts" listed there it will hit you like a ton of bricks. Mind you please, I have absolutely no answer to how the Palestinians should come up with an advertising campaign because especially after reading what I saw on the "alerts" it just made me come to the conclusion that the desperation is so absolutely deep that I know "I" would be paralyzed if put in the same situation. If only. If only there was an MLK or Ghandi. But what is being perpetrated against the Palestinians so very much outweighs what our blacks in the South or India under the Raj EVER was. To top it off, there is the BIGGEST BUTCHER KNIFE country in the world backing up Israel. This problem as I understand it is intractable without the US change in policy.
Again, I am NOT making suggestions OR excuses but I know this information threw me for a very big loop. If you would like to see it, here it is http://www.cflweb.org/. You may need to navigate a bit, but it's fairly easy to do. Hope I didn't offend with my interuption. Thanks
Haitham,
I have tried to e-mail you but my server says you don't excist.
Censorship?
Some links are not accessible.
Censorship?
I am in Canada and I shouln't have this problem.
Censorship?
It is amazing how far governments will go to protect their own views.
The more I visit your Blg the more I learn.
Thank you.
Kimmy,
mine didn't work by useing Haitham's thing either. This works for me: haitham.sabbah@gmail.com Hope that helps. Censorship?
Kimmy,
I rather doubt that there exists in Canada a vast conspiracy keeping you from seeing all there is to see online.
I would respectfully suggest that you have jumped to a convenient conclusion here.
After all, these imagined shaddowy figures in the dark have "allowed" you to come to this blog time after time.
Kimmy,
Wait a minute here. When I typed it in it came up as a link for you to use. I take it back. Just type his email above in on your own email and then save it in your address book. For some reason there seems to be a glitch, so try it the way I just suggested to see if it works for you. Hope it does
Ali,
Kimmy's from Canada and I'm from the States. I get VERY paranoid with all the unwarranted surveilance being practiced in the so-called "war on terrorism". All overseas calls to "suspect" nations are now monitored. I can't even call my ex in Saudi Arabia anymore to talk politics because HE refuses and my daughter refuses also. There was NEVER anything worth listening into but now we both feel it's not even safe to discuss these matters. Off topic, but thought I'd tell ya. The shadowy men are casting bigger shadows and blocking out my sunlight.
Haitham, so sorry for the junk your blog is attracting! Thanks for reminding people again of the reality of teh danger of being a 'moderate Muslim'. May God protect you.
If it gets you down, remember you have a big fan club out there too!
Robin,
Regarding support for Palestine, my issues in Europe are very different from the issues you have to deal with in the US.
Here, we have a lot of information available so there is already a high awareness of what is going on in Palestine. I terms of shaping public opinion, the biggest challenge is to counter the bad publicity the Palestinians are so good at creating for themselves. A lot of energy has to be spent on reminding people that Palestinian terrorism and the abuse of Palestinians are two different issues and that they still deserve their own state even though they act in a stupid manner and though there is no justification for terrorism.
On a government level, the challenge is not to 'force' our politicians to support Palestine. Though a lot of Palestinians are too thick-headed to recognize it, most countries in the EU and the EU itself is on the side of the Palestinians. The big challenge, and the most difficult one, is to apply enough pressure on our politicians so that it is more 'uncomfortable' for them to defy the wishes of their constituents than it is to defy the wishes of the United States.
I support the domestic politics of the Danish government, but it makes me angry that they gave in to the pressure from the US to join the War on Iraq against the wishes of a large majority of the Danish population. The only consolation is that though the Danish government was too weak to withstand the US pressure they were strong enough to ensure that the Danish participation in the war is more of a token nature. Not that it justifies the Danish soldiers being in Iraq, but at least it is better that they are a little in the background than out on the streets and shooting at everything that moves side by side with the US soldiers. And the same thing goes for the 'forced' participation of Hungarian soldiers.
Robin, I am very angry with your government, because they are encroaching my democratic rights to be heard by forcing my elected representatives to choose between my wishes and the wishes of a group of assholes sitting thousands of miles away in Washington D.C. My anger may not be as physical as it is in the Middle East, but just because you do not readily see it does not mean it is not there.
Apartheid in South Africa is the same thing as apartheid in Palestine. How sadistic the tormentors are doesn't change the facts that both black South Africans and Palestinians were/are denied their rights to freedom and democracy with the aid of the United States. The only difference is that one atrocity is past and the other is present.
I fully understand that it must be paralyzing and desparing for the Palestinians. Actually, I would probably also participate in an ilconsidered action or two if I came in the same situation. I think that is understandable, but ilconsidered actions through more than 35 years in a row is not understandable.
Actually, a couple of years ago I did send an email to the White House telling Bush and his gangbangers that I think they suck for weasling out of the Kyoto agreement. A couple of months later I went on a business trip to the US and I was 'randomly' picked out for extra scrutiny in all five US airports I went through. It may be a coincidence, but it was definitely not random. Since I am not with the US environmental policy I must be against it, so I guess I am now considered to be some sort of eco-terrorist.
Good Morning Thomas,
(I'm up at 3:30 am, have alot to do today but am glad to see you here)
You're mad with my government:):) I'm MAAAAAAAAAADER. Oh who cares who's mad or madder. If you reread my post #35 you will see that I say nothing is going to change until US foreign policy changes. In fact, much of what is going wrong in the world today is not going to change until we shift (Iraq etal) It makes me absolutely physically ill to know what our government does. I thought you might have picked up on that by now.:):)
Now I've got Denmark to worry about, thanks for piling it on!
Thomas, I understand what you are saying. And I have no excuses for anyone. But let me suggest that the Zionist strategy from the very beginning was ALWAYS based on victimhood, even from Biblical days. Whereas the Palestinians have only been victims since the victim state of Israel came to being and then the occupation.
I hope you also understand that I do NOT think that suicide bombings are a good public relations technique. NOT NOT NOT!
But if you look at the numbers, Israeli victims vs. Palestinian victims (I don't have them, maybe someone could offer them) in THIS case, the Palestinians win the prize for victimhood. The only problem with saying that is that they DON'T want to win that prize because their culture is NOT a victim culture. We here in the US are famous for our support of the underdog (NOT) but that's how it's sold to the average American citizen. So hand in hand, Israel plays the victim, we support the underdog, and a FEW suicide bombers take matters into their own hands and there you've got it, an impasse. While the 99.9999%of the Palestinians live their lives saying, "What the HELL do you want us to do" Until this unholy alliance between the US and Israel is broken, and we here realize that WE ARE BEING CONTOLLED by a bunch of victim brutalizers, nothing IS going to change. I'm rambling in the wee hours of the morn, but I hope I made some sense. Happy St. Patty's day Everyone!
Thomas,
Top o'the mornin to ya agin!
Let me add to the above.
I hadn't thrown out my old newspapers yet and I just picked up Wednesday's front page. There in bold color is a picture of the half naked Palestinian prisoners being escorted out of the Jerico jail. Where have you seen it necessary to strip prisoners down to their underwear in order to make sure they are unarmed? The headline reads "Unarmed and Under Siege". The Israeli's, the victims of Palestinian terrorism, are using HUMILIATION in order to portray them as less than humans. It's a cultural difference again. Zionist/victim vs Arab/proud. But again, who's doing the victimizing here? Throughout their history the Zionists have had God on their side. They are the descendants of Isaac the better son who will inherit the earth, and the Arabs are the children of Jacob and oh, well, they are not God's favorite. This has been the dynamic for millenium. This superiority complex has played out as their justification to commit the atrocities in Palestine. It is the essence of Zionism and it makes me puke!!
Robin,
Finally the Zionist extremists make a mistake. This time, their attempt to provoke Palestinians to go nuts (in order to gain a media advantage) has backfired. This headline is the kind of trump cards the Palestinians need to change public opinion in their favor.
Imagine if there was a Palestinian organization called e.g. 'Naked Palestinians'. A headline like "Israeli military beats up 12 Naked Palestinians during sit-down protest against incursion into Gaza". If, at the same time, there would be no more "Palestinian suicide bomber kills X Israelis in a bus" headlines then Palestinians would be the ones with the upper hand on the media induced public opinion.
P.S. Maybe 'Unarmed Palestinians' would be a better name, but it is the principle in it!
Thomas,
There you go again making me laugh. But on a serious note, even my daughter who knows the other half of her culture so well looked at the half-naked Palestinians on TV and said, "Why are they naked?". I said, "Honey, think about it, what do YOU think the IOF is trying to do?" It took her a few moments because she hadn't had her second cup of tea yet and she replied, "Oh my God, I didn't think about that". Here in the good old US of A we (but not people who know) think this is the Palestinians just reward for their actions. After all, weren't they in jail for SOMETHING?
I don't care to know EXACTLY what that something is, but I'm sure it was for something REALLY REALLY BAD.
To add to my above analysis of the Zionist vs. Arab millenium long strife, I would like to add this: I wonder if any anthropologist/sociologist/possible atheist/smart person has ever proposed that Islam was a reaction to Judaism. Remember, the sons of Jacob were the outcasts. Perhaps if they come up with their own religion to say they are the chosen ones in order to trump the other two, it becomes THEIR justification. (Haitham, this is purely for the sake of discussion) Then you've got the Christians sandwiched between the two. We have our messiah which trumps Judaism, but as Christians we have Judaic roots. How dare Mohammed PBUH come along and say we're both wrong? This is the root I believe of the extremism that we are experiencing in the world today. But as usual, religious differences tend to play themselves out in the political arena. As for the US, EVERYONE should know we have God on our side. Just look at our Constitution, "One nation under God" which was NOT in the original pledge but was added later. Now we have atheists trying to remove it. Oh God, and on and on and on.
Perhaps a half-naked Palestinian sit-in is a good idea. But check out the site about the Arab artist in the US who tried this.
She got ALOT of flack from Arabs. Why? Again it's a cultural and religious thing.
To make myself clear,
Yes I do know that Islam is supposed to be the unifier of the three and accepts the others as "people of the book" and that their history after conquest in Spain was a glorious time of toleration (for the most part). The record is clear that Islam claims to be the last and final word. But the extremists have done just that, taken it to the extreme, while the extremists of the other two are more than willing to join the fracus. Oh my God, is this really what the message was intended to mean? Somewhere in there those of moderation need to remind us all of that and reclaim the glory of humanity.
Robin (re: 40),
As long as you recognize your perception to be based on paranoia you'll be fine. It's when you don't see the irrationality of it that you need to be concerned. ;)
Honestly, I would suggest that monitoring your international activities and preventing them are far different.
If an imagined government entity were to evesdrop in the hopes of preventing terrorist acts (and I think we can agree that this is a noble goal), it would naturally be inclined to have you communicate freely in order to get a clearer picture of what's going on. (And it shoould be stated here that such monitoring is considered extremely rare and specific.)
You see, it would be counter-productive to keep you from doing what you want to do, despite how long you imagine any sort of shaddow to be getting.
You're free to bask in the sun all day of you wish to. But be aware of the dangers of getting burned by such activity, that's all.
Ali,
"If an imagined government entity were to evesdrop in the hopes of preventing terrorist acts (and I think we can agree that this is a noble goal), it would naturally be inclined to have you communicate freely in order to get a clearer picture of what’s going on. (And it shoould be stated here that such monitoring is considered extremely rare and specific.)"
Why should my government, "be naturally inclined to let me communicate freely in order to get a clearer picture" of what I am saying". They have ABSOLUTELY no business listening in on my conversations to my ex-husband in the first place!!!! There is absolutely no reason and that instead of going to FISA they have skirted around them and said "Hey, that American housewife, mother of three, Girl Scout leader, PTA member must be doing something wrong SIMPLY because she is calling Saudi Arabia, so therefor she is suspect and we better listen in to get a "clearer picture". It reminds me of the time I had an emergency apendectomy here in the states and I called my then husband in Saudi Arabia. The doctors shot me with THORAZINE because I must be crazy if I'm calling Saudi Arabia. Mind you I thought the shot was more demerol because I was in agony. When my mother who is a nurse came to see me she raised HELL. Go figure. As for basking in the sun, I am rather fair skinned so I am always sure to put on my sunscreen.
Peace.
Ali,
I hate to post again, but this monitoring is NOT "rare and specific" Our government here in the US is listening in randomly to ALL overseas calls to suspect nations. Aren't you aware of this? I have no idea where you hail from but this is one of the biggest rucuses going on in Congress right now. And yes I think catching terrorists is a "noble goal". In fact I think it is much more than "noble" I just want them to get their darn noble noses out of my darn business because I AM NO THREAT! ( unless you consider me speaking my mind threatening).
This is more important than all the comments that you all post here.
I love all of you. No matter of your religious beliefs, your gender, your race.
That is more important.
I am trying to understand. But love of your fellow (person) man is more important.
If you have a problem. Let us talk. Can we not work together?
We all bleed red. We are all the same!
Kimmy,
Beliefs are intangible and do not accept eachother.
People are concrete and can choose to accept
Despite another's beliefs
Respect is the acceptance of another human being
For the beliefs they hold dear
Out of the love of humanity
And all that we share
hate to post again, but this monitoring is NOT “rare and specific” Our government here in the US is listening in randomly to ALL overseas calls to suspect nations. Aren’t you aware of this? I have no idea where you hail from but this is one of the biggest rucuses going on in Congress right now. And yes I think catching terrorists is a “noble goal”. In fact I think it is much more than “noble” I just want them to get their darn noble noses out of my darn business because I AM NO THREAT! ( unless you consider me speaking my mind threatening).
is this for real? i suggest the person gets a grip of herself…or alternatively can we have Batman back please..this is getting bizarre to say the least.I suggest u and that danish cookie from lalaland get together and put up a standup comic act!What crap..give us a break!
What I was saying back in post 20, two days ago, wasn't "can't we all just get along?". It is clear that we cannot, as some ideologies, politically, religiously, or otherwise motivated, do not agree with each other. So we are left with this sesspool of a world. What I was saying can be said in a more direct manner, which is let's shut up and do something.
I'm all for talking, adding to the debate, pointing out injustice on all sides. I'm also for action. Few people take action, most only talk, some not even that, for a multitude of reasons, probably motivated by fear, and who can blame them, especially if they have a family to protect, or just want to live as peacefully and inconspicuously as possible.
For those of you inclined to speak out, I'm saying take the extra step and do something. I've also sent letters to the Pres of A, all to no avail. He's not listening, nor are any Senators. They're too busy saying the right things to the right people and impressing the right lobbies to get money into their campaign hoppers and keep themselves in office.
So you go down to the local soup kitchen (assuming that you are of some means because there's a computer in front of you), and you stir a pot for an hour or two every week. Or you go into the Muslim neighborhoods, if you're not already living in one, and you befriend the Imam and some of his flock and get to know what they stand for. Or you get on a plane and visit the West Bank and Gaza and spend some time seeing how people there are living, and how the vast majority of them are not manufacturing explosives in their apartments, but merely doing all they can to put their kids through school and food on the table while managing their way through checkpoints, roadblocks, and unprovoked detentions.
That's what I mean by step down and pitch in. Spending some time on this blog and others has done a lot to make me more aware, and I've felt a part of a community of people talking and sharing and sometimes yelling, and sometimes humbly whispering. Talk is good, dialogue is great, so now I urge that we all do something that realises our words, puts them into practice and makes a difference for someone.
It's that simple. Don't solve world hunger… just feed your hungry neighbors. Don't solve world peace… just shake hands with that "other" person. (the "other", btw, is someone who is not like you. "Other"-ing someone is stating that they are outside my circle and therefore inferior. Sometimes we practice it overtly, sometimes subconsciously.) I'm not accusing anyone of anything, and I hope that everyone here is already doing something, but if they are not, why not?
Please refer to the following concerning the NSA's sping on American citizen's overseas calls.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/ 12/23/wiretaps_said_to_sift_all_overseas_contacts?mode=PF
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_ warrantless_surveillance_controversy – 101k – Mar 17, 2006 –
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1216-01.htm – 34k
https://www.mega.nu/cm/cm0.html – 15k
http://www.stateofnature.org/countermeasures.html – 22k -
For the Congressional enquiry refer to the following
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5248955 -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/30/national/30cnd-inquire. html?ex=1293598800&en=5e5926c58be87717&ei=5090&…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030306D.shtml – 14k -
I am an American citizen who does not believe my government has the right to use domestic spying methods to listen into my own personal calls to my ex-husband who is NOT related in any way shape or form to nefarious entities.
The topic of this site is "Breeding Extremism" and I believe my own government is using the "war on terrorism" to justify it's own extremist measures including the wiretapping of it's own citizen's calls.
sorry, haitham for the long speech. just clarifying the content of my previous post. stepping down myself, now. peace.
Hey Raymond,
I do work at my local food bank each week. I work the window feeding the homeless because for the last 25 year the homeless situation here in the US has been something I have tried to address by my own personal actions. The letters to the White House and our representatives, especially the form letters, more than likely end up in the trash bin. Once in a while you hear about them, and that helps us all know that we shouldn't stop trying. I think talking is a personal way of getting it off our chests so to speak and MAYBE, just maybe, someone will listen. My own personal desire is that by hearing us and others talk, those listening will take it upon themselve to learn as much as they can on their own and then be able to make their own well-informed decisions. Curiosity is a human instinct, and if you and others at least can picque it in those listening in then you have done a good job.
Robin-
glad to hear. anyone else?
Raymond,
Sorry, I had not refreshed and missed your post #57. It's funny you should say that because that's exactly what I do. I have a certain sense of humor about it while deploring it at the same time. On the other hand my daughter and ex don't share my sense of humor on this matter and we have converstions OFF the telephone where they chastise me for inviting further scrutiny. Let them listen all they want, they're going to do it any way. But it does not keep me from deploring their actions, considering them illegal as many agree, all while freeing myself and telling them just where to go!
For All,
"The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 prescribes procedures for requesting judicial authorization for electronic surveillance and physical search of persons engaged in espionage or international terrorism against the United States on behalf of a foreign power" This is taken from the website of FISA.
Yesterday, several Republicans sponsored a bill which would allow for warrantless wiretapping for the period of 45 days before being subject to obtaining a warrant from FISA. In December of last year, Judge Robertson, of the FISA court, resigned over the very issue of our government not seeking warrants for the monitoring of overseas calls. The bill that the Republicans are sponsoring is in conjunction with their not allowing a probe into the matter of warrantless wiretapping proposed by the Democrats. The Democrat's proposal did not even make it out of committe for vote due to the majority of Republicans on the committee.
In that case, let me start my 45 day period and let them listen in and be done with it. The only problem with that is that the US has the technology, and uses it to scan ALL calls to pick up on certain words which again would trigger further wiretapping. http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_you_can_run.html – 101k – Mar 16, 2006 -
I am in no way saying that wiretapping is not a real means of stopping terrorism in it's tracks. But if Bin Laden and his crew were seeking to limit our freedoms such as the Bush administration has posited (but I do not agree) then Bin Laden achieved his goals by disabling myself and others from feeling free to offer my opinions on international calls. This is made so further by this method used in other countries (such as Saudi Arabia in this case) who are even less free to offer their opinions. Recently a ruling came down forcing Google, the last holdout, to turn over its'records of internet searches. Again, this is done in the name of the "war on terrorism" Note Haitham's own statement saying that his speaking out is dangerous to do. My only statement is this: In order to fight the extremism of terrorism, our own governments are using extremist acts in order to make those of us who are wanting to speak out leery at the least and endangered at the most.
Again to all,
I will here take the risk of beating a dead horse with further information for those who suggest I "get a grip"
The NSA' spy program is code-named Project Echelon. Information on this is readily available on the internet and has been reported to the public by a few reporters willing to take the risk of bringing it to our attention. For those who are interested, here are some links you can use:
http://www.flash.net/~bob001/echelon.htm – 27k -
home.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html – 80k -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON – 49k –
Please note that the Wikipedia article states that this program is used to intercept about three billion items per day. This is certainly a very wide net the US government is casting in our "war on terrorism"
As for Blackfeline and Ali:
I prefer to address facts with facts rather than to suggest one is either paranoid or that they "Go find Batman" I have attempted to refrain myself from attacking "people" rather than "ideas". I would appreciate it if in the future you would address me in the same manner in which I am attempting to address you. Thank You
And All,
Use these links or ignore them, that is totally up to each individual. I am only attempting in my singular manner to give you my own "ideas" backed up with fact. Thank you
Haitham, I have no problem with you as a person. You are a brave man. Any Muslim that has a blog like this and is willing to give and take ideas – even ones you do not like – has my support.
I have a problem with Islam. As an infidel I see a religion of hate and anger. I have read the accounts of the life of your dear prophet – and believe me, it is not a pretty story. If this is the kind of man that Muslims admire (and they do) and if this man is consider a great moral example (he is!) – then there is going to be plenty of trouble – and there will be. The problem is that a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt.
The recent "Cartoon Wars" are so typical of this issue. I saw the pictures of those young men holding signs with words like "kill" "exterminate" and "behead". Is this a religion of peace and goodwill? Does this cause Muslims to ponder the implications of this type of behavior? Do Muslims ask where those men get these ideas? Maybe, just maybe, it all goes back to their dear prophet and his message. Maybe they want to do to the infidels what Mohammad did.
I have no hope that things will change. Neither do I believe that "moderate" Muslims have any real voice in Islam or any idea of what to do to change things. Radical Muslims kill, moderates make excuses.
John Kactuz
I am not going
Extremism is fed by:
1) social injustice & the accumulation of wealth in a few hands in Islamic countries.
2) the adoption of western values and customs in Islamic countries such as new year celebration etc.
3) Undemocratic government systems…
Tamim,
Perhaps a 4th for your list would be:
4) undereducated masses made radical by corrupt religious leaders who maintain their power by restricting education and information while replacing it with hyperbole and outright dishonesty aimed at keeping the masses interested in things other than how low their own standard of living really is and the real, internal reasons for it.
… In Moslem countries Islamic Fundamentalists recruit the majority of their partisans among the poor and the hopeless populations and among the young belonging to disadvantaged neighbourhoods, in big cities most of the time. They take advantage of people’s Islamic background and their dissatisfaction with the corrupt existing social and political options of their countries’ governments altogether with their strong belief in Islam with the feeling of being Mislead away from its right path and deliberately being lead into a way that is not theirs.
Most of the times the extremists get help from the governments themselves for circumstantial political reasons.
In many cases the educational system facilitates the job for fundamentalists as it provides them with the suitable profiles they need. When the system of education is open to modernity, they use their partisans among school teachers and university professors to “brainwash” young students who themselves do the same when they get jobs in government offices. Another tactic is used they use their positions in government offices to assist people and make administrative procedures easier by comparison to the other officials most of which are corrupt.
In many Arab “democratic” countries the Islamist movement take advantage of the liberties and gets stronger by fulfilling the vacant role of opposition parties…/…
Tamim,
Your discussion here is very interesting. If I can, let me compare the US. Social injustice here is also bread by the lack of education to the lower classes AND government collusion. Just a short factual example: During the Iran-Contra affair, it was found by Congressional inquiry into this matter, that our own government was peddling crack cocaine to the inner cities via drug dealers in order to fund arms being sold to the Contras in Nicaraqua who were fighting the Sandanistas who were fighting for the implementation of a sociaalist regime. It was a very big deal here when it happened for some of us who thought this was wrong. You might remember Oliver North and some others. But where is Ollie North now? He's on Fox News as a commentator!
I really have little knowledge as to what type of socio-economic policy Islam supports. Here in the US, our Calvinist roots and leanings definitely support capitalism. It's sort of the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" and "each man for himself" ideology. Are you saying that "true" Islam has been infiltrated with capitalistic ideology?
On the education front, that one is obvious to me, keep the masses "dumb". But here in the states, we're not resorting to international terrorism, but we do have "terrorism" within our inner cities where it is not safe to live. As a former teacher who taught in a high school where a loaded 9ml gun was brought into my classroom, I know the danger of this.
Could you tell me if you think that true Islam has gone by the wayside and been replaced with something else and what type of economic system would demonstrate true Islam? (One that would not breed terrorism) Sometimes I think we're only talking ideals and it's too late now.
Tamim and others,
One of the things I DO know is this: Prior to the state of Israel coming into existance as a "Jewish State", Jews lived and prospered in Arab countries. An example: My ex's grandfather was a pearl merchant in Bahrain. His partner was Jewish. In 1948 in reaction to Israel's declaration of statehood and their atrocities against the Palestinians, both Christian and Moslem, the Moslem masses rose up against the Jews within their countries and drove them out. My ex's grandfather protected his partner and made sure he had safe passage out of the country. He ended up in Israel due to the mass shifting of populations at the time. The two remained in contact whenever possible til the day they died. It's just one example, but it was two men, who loved eachother, who were both victims of the circumstances of the time. We all know that Islam does not allow usury whereas Christianity does to a limit and Judaism does to a much greater degree. This is but one example of the capitalistic ideologies of Christianity and Judaism vs. Islam. One of the things I find so baffling is how our "Christian nation" stands behind a country that has mistreated ALL Palestinians, including Christians and that we support this. Of course they're all lumped intogether as "Arabs" and there you go, the justification of our support.
I'm sorry for rambling, but if anyone has comment that can clarify my rambling thoughts I would truly appreciate it.
Ali,
You might remove the word "religious" from your post in 66, and you have the United States. You might even keep it in and still have the US.
Robin
…Islam supports free trade with social solidarity. It doesn’t exclude wealth. Profit-making is legitimate and fraud is prohibited and you have the right to do trade and earn money as far as you don’t cheat or lie or hurt anyone for profit. Private Property is protected and freedom of thought is guaranteed.
People have obligations towards one another and the poor is assisted. The “ZAKAT” is proportional amount of money 2.5% of the capital one has during a year period and that is distributed to the poor.
In Islam parents and children have mutual rights and obligations towards each other. In marriage husband and wife have mutual rights and obligations. A Moslem is judged by his creator for his acts and for his intentions as well. Society can punish him but doesn’t exempt him from God’s judgment and punishment for his wrong doing. God also rewards people for their good behaviour and pardons those who repent.
True Islam is safe as far as it is considered as a way of life and a tradition anchored in the culture of Moslems.
Islam has indeed been infiltrated by values of modernism that give the individual freedom of action regardless of his religious beliefs and origins and Islamic traditions and obligations. In modern society (which fundamentalists see as corrupt and blasphemous and anti Islamic) though the laws are copies of colonialist western laws, there is much of it that is relevant to Islamic traditions and customs. However, there are very few laws that oblige the individual to be a good Moslem.(This is the point where fundamentalists disagree most) There are quite a lot of so called Moslems (by name and birth and origin) but who behave in a way completely contrary to Islamic teachings. And the state does not interfere (Here too fundamentalists see it as the state responsibility to preach Islam and to see to its good practice and respect by every Moslem). The Jews and Christians are not included and have the right to practice their own religious rituals freely)
Islam is made to be the religion of all times and places. It’s not a static religion. It’s open to (L’IJTIHAD) which is the possibility of finding solutions to new questions according to the spirit of Islam.
Islam also advocates consultation and collective decision making; “OUA AMROUHOUM SHOURA BAYNAHOUM” “ their(Moslems) affairs are subject to their own consultation” The holy Koran.
For moderate Moslems Islam runs no risk as it adapts itself to different situations and to different locations and has solutions and answers to all questions. It’s up to every Moslem to decide to what extent he is ready to fulfil his duty towardsGod, but fundamentalists see it threatened and call for its defence (AL JIHAD ) the threat for most of them comes from inside as from outside. It’s threatened by local corrupt governments allied to the west. And it’s threatened as well by people themselves who are lead away from their fundamental practices of Islam.
Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Islam organizes everything in society. Economy, Politics, education, law, trades, the family, food, drink, dressing, human relationships, etc. and ALJIHAD is a ‘saint war’ to defend the territory and the nation (AL’ OUMMA) and Islam from aggressions. HERE the context can be manipulated and be given different interpretations to serve fundamentalists political purposes…
Tamim,
Let me thank you profusely for your excellent response to my question. From my own experiences, I knew most of what you provided but it was "scattered knowledge". But just so my now "unscattered knowledge" is more complete, are you saying that capitalism IS compatible with Islam as long as it is practiced in moderation with social conscience? I think that IS what you are saying but I want to be absolutely clear.
See the one thing that most Westerners do NOT understand is that Islam has it's laws codified in the Sharia. Somewhere here (another point of my scattered thought processes) I saw someone, I think it was Sumeyya over on Burqua (but I'm not sure) said that there are different Sharia's. What was she referring to? Does it have to do with the schism between Sunni and Shiia? And is the Sharia compatable with the times of today? (I'm only asking this because the arguement is that it was written so long ago that it couldn't possibly be) Another twist on my question, Is the Sharia similar to our Constitution (not a good comparison I know, but I'm comparing law to law) in that it is a "living breathing thing" as we like to refer to our Constitution here? (in the end your answers serve my own purpose in my continued defense of Islam) Thanks!
I actually enjoyed this blog entry a lot when I read it. It is well thought out and Haitham did an excellent job in connecting dispariate articles, creating a narrative. Excellent job once again Haitham, your skill in writing is unquestionable.
The only thing I think that might be lost in this article is that a majority of people in America do see Islam as a peaceful religion and have not heard outwardly racist, disrespectful comments against Muslims. Yes yhere is a large minority that is very vocal on T.V. about how "evil" or "violent" Islam is, but I find the great number of people on the street are much more vocal against these bigots. Many Americans see this in terms of everyday folks; friends or colleague or merchants, that are diffrent but American nonetheless. I would propose if this poll was extended to include another question that says should the government limit Islams practice in public or private, the vast majority would say no.
It is sad that so many people have a negative view of Islam, but remember, much more people have a negative view of the government that decided to wage war on the Islamic world.
Robin
…That’s right, capitalism is compatible with Islam as long as it is practiced in moderation with social conscience.
The Sharia is a code of law based on the Koran; holy laws of the Islam which cover aspects of day-to-day life
The holy Koran is often described as the constitution for Moslems. Sharia and the holy Koran are almost the same thing.
There is one sharia as the source of the sharia is the holy Koran which is unique and authentic. However, Along the history of Islam 4 different schools holding slightly different interpretations of the holy Koran.They are named after their religious leaders(Imams)
1. Abou Hanifa Noâman ??? ????? ???????
2. Malik Ibnou Anas ???? ?? ???
3. Mohamed Ibnou Idriss Echafiîi ???? ?? ????? ???????
4. Ahmad Ibnou Hanbal ???? ?? ????
Shiaites are the second largest branch of Islam, by opposition to the Sunni. Shiaites currently account for 10%-15% of all Muslims. Shiaite Islam originated as a political movement supporting Ali as the rightful leader of the Islamic state.
Sunni Islam represents the vast majority of Muslims. In principle, Sunni Moslems' relationship with God is direct and is not mediated by anything like a priest or rabbi. Some religious figures may exercise a great deal of political or social power, but committees of socially important believers in each community are generally responsible for the management of the mosque and its land…/…
Tamim,
Thank you again for clarifying my scattered thoughts. The committees you refer to are what I know from my own experience in Saudi Arabia as the "Mutawa". Unfortunately, depending on just how liberal a citizen of SA is, the "Mutawa" are seen as long bearded men with sticks chasing the women through the streets for improper dress and herding the men to mosque at prayer time. They also spend a whole lot of time on TV reciting verses from the Koran. Please excuse me if I seem to be mocking them, but they really do "rule the roost" so to speak in SA. This of course is due to the fact that SA is a pure theocracy and they have been given the power by the SA royal family. I don't want to get into details but I'm sure you know what I mean. Since the only Moslem countries I have resided in have been Lebanon(not a real good example due to their colonial roots in France and the large percentage of Maronite Christians) Saudi Arabia and a short stint in Bahrain, I ask you this question: How much power do these "committees" have in say Morocco or other countries. Are they called "Mutawa" there also? And do you see these "Mutawa" depending on which country they hail from as the possible breeders of extremism? I'm asking because as a fact I know that this is the case in SA. They were basically bought off by the royal family in return for silence against them. But like I've said other places on this blog, it came back to bite them in the shape of Osama Bin Laden who has certainly tipped the tables. Let me preface all these questions by letting all the readers know that even within the Sunni sect there are different subsects such as the Wahabis in SA. Again, I'm sorry if I ramble a bit but the questions just sort of keep on coming.
Sean,
I also believe the media plays an important role…in a recent online poll conducted by CNN during the wake of the P & O takeover by Dubai….the question posed was:
Will u prefer an arab company or a mafia gang in America to manage the ports?
63% (translated to 30,000) preferred the latter…yes mafia gang to run their ports!
I am not surprise…but my issue of contention with this particular poll is how mischievous the question was..go figure out!
Raymond (Re: 70).
I have carefully considered your point.
At the end of the day, I would disagree in so far as the educational and quality of life standards in the United States far exceed those of most nations. Most certainly, they exceed those of most nations centered around this discussion. Indeed, of the fortunate who are able, many prospective students leave there to become educated in the United States every day. It would not be accurate to suggest that the reverse occurs in any equitable fashion, I'm afraid.
Certainly you recognize this to be the case.
So there would be very little gained by distracting the American people concerning their standard of living. In fact, many in power there would be wise to highlight it as a means to deflate potential extremism. No real motive.
Also, there is very little in the way of information suppression in the United States. What little might exist pales in comparison with that of other, more totalitarian (boarder line fascist) nations given to instigate unbridled hatred of the West.
And, of course there is one other obvious distinction to be made. The political leadership (and "political" as opposed to "religious" is key here) of the US must answer to its electorate and that electorate is free to question them openly and without fear of mortal retribution.
In fact, not only is such questioning allowed, it is encouraged and considerd a duty by many.
So no, I do not see the parallels that you have devised here.
Not even slightly, in fact.
ali,
you utilise your own hyperbole to obfuscate the issues. it is clear that you are profusely aligned with the notion that the US is fair and justified in all of its actions, and that the current administration is a benevolent benefactor not only of its electorate, but also to other nations. I find no use in challenging the ideals that you are selling, as you have your teeth firmly sunk into them. I merely offer my rebuttals to other readers that question your words. good day.
The US electorate may be free to question its government openly without fear of mortal retribution, but in the end the only electorate that matters are those aligned with the lobbies that support the candidates in question. All other members of that "free" society are bound to the policies of their "elected" officials, and these policies do their best to not only uphold rising inequalities between the classes, but to support the financial interests of the upper elite. Unfortunately, the government has been successful in systematically "dumbing down" the greater portion of the working classes, to the extent that they favor funnelling billions of tax dollars to Israel, war in Iraq and other "interests" abroad, rather than using these revenues toward improving their social, economic, and education systems domestically.
This is not to say that the countries where foreign university students hail from are not at fault for either not providing or not allowing opportunities to their own nationals. But this alone does not provide a license for the US to justify its neglect of its own citizenry.
As for repression of information, you needn't go further than an analysis of coverage of Israel and Palestine. For every story that covers Israel's interest in the matter, there are 10 suppressed for being either too anti-Israel or too pro-Palestinian. As the London Review of Books report on the Israel lobby outlines, any coverage considered not to be in the interest of Israel is rebuked for being anti-Semitic, and therefore racist. And since Israel indeed has the US wrapped around its finger, and the US does not want to be considered racist or bigoted (even though it refused to address the conference in Durbin), or otherwise be held accountable for its actions, it quickly suppresses any stories that do not tow Israel's line. This is only one of many issues that are either slanted or neglected by order from the government to the media. In fact, I recall that in 2001, after September 11, the governor of New York issued that university professors were disallowed from speaking of the event in their classrooms. Of course that was ridiculous, and not adhered to on large part, but it is exemplary of the kind of nonsense that becomes the status quo in the dissemination of information in the US.
So, whether you consider it "slightly" or overtly, the US government is very much involved in "maintain(ing) their power by restricting education and information while replacing it with hyperbole and outright dishonesty aimed at keeping the masses interested in things other than how low their own standard of living really is and the real, internal reasons for it."
It may be a matter of wording, but capitalism with social conscience would be Liberalism (with/without social conscience). Liberalism is theories about freedom (personal rights), democracy (collective rights), and economics (generation and distribution of wealth) based on reciprocity and respect for the individual. However, as all theroretical models they are 'images' of a 'perfect' world.
Capitalism is a perverted form of liberalism, because it is a fundamentalist view on Liberalism by people who 'forgot to read the chapter' about responsibility and social conscience.
Capitalism is absolutely not synonymous with freedom and democracy, because the only way to reach a 'perfect' world is to accept that oppression and ellimination of dissidents are means that serve the end.
Regardless of whether we are talking pure economic models, pure belief systems (religions/morals), or any hybrids of both, Capitalism, Socialism, Islamism, Christianism, and other totalitarian isms are all based on the fallacy that the world will be 'perfect' the day that all people will submit to a uniform way of thinking. It will never happen and that is why these utopian concepts are the greatest dangers to humanity, because a lot of people are willing to fight to reach a state of utopia.
The paradox is that one cannot reach a 'state of democracy' without at least a minimum of freedom, but once democracy is established it can easily become a 'danger to freedom' in itself. If one accepts that democracy is based on rights and obligations, then it is as close to the 'perfect' state as it can be in the real world, but if one forgets the obligations part, then democracy can easily turn sour; the 'tyranni of the majority'. To be a real democracy, the majority must be conscious about protecting the minority and its rights to be a minority.
Dictatorship is an infringement of personal rights regardless of whether it is dictatorship of an individual, an 'elite', or the majority.
That is why Islam is incompatible with freedom and democracy, but freedom and democracy is not incompatible with Islam. A democratic state based on Islam is a fallacy, because it can only be democratic if 100% of the people in the country are Muslims. If there is just one person who is Christian, Atheist, or of any non-Muslim faith, then it is not a democratic country but a dictatorship. There is no country in the world where 100% of the population is Muslim and if there was to be, then it would only be possible through very undemocratic means (ethnic cleansing through genocide, mass expulsion, or religious conversion at the end of a gun). In other words, a democratic Islamic state is utopia and a conflict of terms.
If Islam (or any other religion) is applied for personal moral and spiritual guidance only then it is a peaceful religion, but if it is applied to dictate norms of behavior for everybody in a society/the world, then it is a gross violation of human rights.
Fascism based on Islam is not more righteous or 'correct' than Fascism based on nationalism, ethnicity, or any other religion.
An Islamic country can only be a dictatorship, but a Muslim country can easily be a democracy. If the constitution is based on human rights and respect for individual freedom and the population recognize the obligations that comes with democracy (accepting other groups' rights to be different without condemnation, intolerance, and bigotry) then a Muslim country would be a democratic country where the majority of the population happens to be Muslim.
To illustrate my view on Capitalism, I have 'invented' a description of the distribution of wealth under Capitalism, Socialism, Liberalism, and Liberalism with social consciousness (the model I prefer):
If you have dog (a bitch) with 8 puppies, but there are only 6 tits, then;
Under Capitalism you would drown the two smallest puppies and treat the one or two strongest puppies with favoritism (actively promoting 'survival of the fittest').
Under Socialism you would prevent all the puppies from reaching the tits, milk the dog and fill 8 bottles of equal size and bottle-feed all the puppies (trying to 'remodel' nature and disregarding their individual needs for nutrition).
Under Liberalism you would watch and observe. Regardless of whether one or two puppies die or are malnourished you would appreciate that 'nature has taken its course' (real 'survival of the fittest').
Under Liberalism with social consciousness you would milk the dog to fill one bottle and bottle-feed the one or two weakest puppies to ensure that they are not malnourished (ensuring a minimum level of 'living standard' without trying to completely 'remodel' nature).
Maybe these are stupid examples, but they make sense to me :)
In 1944, Friedrich A. Hayek warned us about the 'Coming of the Neo-Cons', the 'Coming of the Taleban', the 'Coming of Likud', and the coming of all other fascit regimes we have, are, or will be seeing in the world. Though one has to consider the social and political context of the time period, we cannot say that we were not warned.
Here is an extract from the chapter "Why the worst get on top" (from "Road to Serfdom"):
"…Once you admit that the individual is merely a means to serve the ends of the higher entity called society or the nation, most of those features of totalitarianism which horrify us follow of necessity. From the collectivist standpoint intolerance and brutal suppression of dissent, deception and spying, the complete disregard of the life and happiness of the individual are essential and unavoidable. Acts which revolt all our feelings, such as the shooting of hostages or the killing of the old or sick, are treated as mere matters of expediency; the compulsory uprooting and transportation of hundreds of thousands becomes an instrument of policy approved by almost everybody except the victims.
To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state, therefore, a man must be prepared to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. In the totalitarian machine there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. Neither the Gestapo nor the administration of a concentration camp, neither the Ministry of Propaganda nor the SA or SS (or their Russian counterparts) are suitable places for the exercise of humanitarian feelings. Yet it is through such positions that the road to the highest positions in the totalitarian state leads.
A distinguished American economist, Professor Frank H. Knight, correctly notes that the authorities of a collectivist state ‘would have to do these things whether they wanted to or not: and the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation’.
A further point should be made here: collectivism means the end of truth. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the ends selected by those in control; it is essential that the people should come to regard these ends as their own. This is brought about by propaganda and by complete control of all sources of information.
The most effective way of making people accept the validity the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language.
The worst sufferer in this respect is the word ‘liberty’. It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said that wherever liberty as we know it has been destroyed, this has been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people. Even among us we have planners who promise us a ‘collective freedom’, which is as misleading as anything said by totalitarian politicians. ‘Collective freedom’ is not the freedom of the members of society, but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society that which he pleases. This is the confusion of freedom with power carried to the extreme…"
It's just too bad that too few listened :(
US style 'Liberty'? No, thank you very much!
Thomas,
I don't know where to begin to make my response because when we people here put our "posts" on paper, the reader cannot necessarily infer tone. But let me assure you the best I can that your post is absolutely brilliant and that I for one appreciate it and recognize it for it's value. I am NOT trying to flatter you one bit, but it IS brilliant.
My personal problem with "flag wavers" is that they have absolutely no idea what they are waving their flags for. They have been brainwashed, as you mentioned, from kindergarten on that the US is the greatest nation on earth. Even those who want to "take back our country" wave their flags and seek to "own" them for their own purposes. They shout, "Hey! Those other people over there have 'stolen my flag'" and I'm here to take it back!" These people are still espousing nationalism, just their brand which they happen to think is superior. Although I know you are an atheist (and you know I respect that because my dad is also an atheist) I would like to offer a story straight out of the Bible: Jesus told his followers to be humble about their good deeds, not to boast about them like the Pharisees. (You've got to admit there IS some good stuff in there). I think what you are saying is that any "ism" is boasting like the Pharisees.
The proof as to the effectiveness of any "system" is the outcome. How many persons of the whole benefit WITHOUT having to meet a standard criteria set by the system. Some systems are better at this than others, but in the end, all must conform to the basic standards in order to be treated as a member. This is just a fact. Your last puppy example, liberalism with social conscience, is indeed the best choice for puppies. But don't forget, it is a human filling the bottle and that they are all puppies. (what if some kitten comes in there and upsets the balance of puppies) If that human gets distracted by let's say, going away for the evening, who is going to bottle feed the puppies? Hopefully, the human has a neighbor kid come do the job while he is gone. Thomas, I absolute agree that this is the best model. You know as a fact I am NOT a big fan of my country's policies either foreign or domestic. But sometimes it is humans (neighbor kids) that fill in the gaps. That is the one thing I DO love about my country. And no, don't think that I think everyone is a "neighbor kid". And yes I know neighbor kids grow up and become the grouchy old man next door to someone else (hopefully not me) But when they are neighbor kids, they the shining examples of humanity which is impossible to capture in any "ism"
Now I just realized that I am depending on neighbor kids, and that's not such a good idea either!!!!Maybe I better not go out for the evening after all, because my puppies need me!:)
Thomas,
I just read my last post and I realized it might seem like I am disagreeing with you. I am NOT! Humans, puppies, any creatures, Liberalism with conscience is the best ideal IF you can get to the point of accepting every person, no matter what creed or lack thereof into your fold. Hope that makes more sense.
Raymond (Re: 78/79),
Your attempt here to discredit me on a personal level is unfortunate, but I can fully understand your intent. Strategically it would make sense to try and attack a source of a valid perspective rather than that perspective itself. Everyday, it seems that I watch tactics similar to this play themselves out in the arena of ideas, though I am rarely persuaded by those who employ them.
Moving on: There is very little to support the idea that the United States government actively suppresses media accounts which are slanted for or against any nation.
Certainly the elected (no quotation marks are needed here, by the way) President and members of Congress do engage in rhetorically advancing their own ideas and ideals on any manner of topics bot domestic and international. That is, after all, the function of politics. That is how men and women in the United States gain and maintain their employment as elected officials.
But, and this is the important bit, the media outlets there do not work under the editorial authority of the state. Every day editorials are written which support the Palestinian perspective. And, you will also find editorials in support of Israel here and there as well. The same goes for domestic spending issues, public figures, etc.
Some days are good for President Bush in the newspapers, some are not. In fact, you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that the prominent newspapers of that nation (The New York Times, Washington Post, et al) serve the current administration in any real political capacity.
Culturally, there exists a dynamic in the United States which is very pro-democracy and anti-fascist.
As such, democratic nations such as Israel are conspicuous in the Middle-East and given moral and financial support. Particularly given the fact that Israel exists in close proximity to nations which are both anti-American and anti-democracy (two ideas which in many ways go hand in hand).
So do the people of the United States complain about financial and diplomatic capital going to Israel? No, not to any significant degree they do not.
Indeed, while the current administration is dealing with approval ratings at or below 40%, support for Israel remains strong. As should be the case with our discussion, this is not about personalities, but about ideas.
And the idea of maintaining a democratic Israel in the Middle East is appealing to a vast majority of people in the United States. The more vituperative the attacks on that nation (from Iran and others), the stronger that support will get, naturally.
So again, the United States houses an educated population which enjoys an exceptional standard of living, even among its lower classes. Given this, I can see no benefit for their government to distract the population away from these facts. It still doesn't make sense to me that they ever would. And even if that were the intent, the free press in the US would devour them for having tried.
And these are among the reasons that extremism, such as that being discussed here, is rare in democratic nations such as the United States.
Obviously, other reasons include that fact that the people have jobs, are free to worship as they wish and sense their military security.
Very little there to blow one's self up over really.
Robin,
Yup, I get it ;)
I agree, that Jesus (is supposed to) have provided some great principles and so have Mohammed, Freja, Odin, etc. etc.
I have plenty of room for 'words of wisdom' and they fluidly move up and down on my personal 'list of principles'. However, principle 1 and 2 are cast in iron, so they will not move anywhere :)
1: "Every man has freedom to do all he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." (the "Law of Equal Freedom" by Herbert Spencer)
2: "Be excellent to each other and party on, dude!" (the 'ideology' of Bill & Ted)
Thomas,
Yup, I get you too!:)
As a LIBERAL (cast in my own blood) Catholic I wholeheartedly agree that one need not rely ONLY on the teachings of their faiths. More than often (quite more than often) ordinary human beings have every bit as much to offer without using religion as a platform! Even Bill and Ted!!!! I always say, be open to others thoughts and offerings, adopt them as your own or discard them as you please. But in the end, humanity prevails. Just make sure you take care of the "kittens" of the world.
Ali,
Please provide a few examples of how the US culture is "very pro-democracy and anti-fascist".
No offense, but to me a two-party system is closer to a totalitarian state than to democracy and "the greatest nation in the world", "either you are with us or you are against us", "US interests abroad" etc. are rhetoric that sounds very familiar to fascist slogans.
It is a fact, that Israel is an apartheid state, so I challenge your notion that "anti-American and anti-democracy (two ideas which in many ways go hand in hand)." because, if you turn it around, then the fact that Israel is pro-American does not make apartheid into democracy.
"the United States houses an educated population which enjoys an exceptional standard of living, even among its lower classes." Sorry, but I cannot help being sarcastic because that is my way of communicating.
I really doubt that a homeless American has a better standard of living than a homeless Hungarian – if it is even possible to talk about standard of living. Besides, even without knowing the numbers, I am quite sure the proportion of homeless people and people living below the 'poverty line' is quite a bit higher in the US than in Hungary and definitely higher than in socialist Denmark. Btw, I know everything is supposed to be bigger and better in the US, but in terms of homeless and poor people, more is not better ;)
I don't suggest that you blow yourself up, but you might want to recognize that your country has a lot of domestic problems and that your country is imperfect just as every other country. If you do not see an issue the you cannot deal with it in an effective manner.
Ali,
The majority of the so-called educated population of the US can't find Iraq on a map, yet they support a war against it, and think Iran and Syria should be next, though they would be hard pressed to be able to discuss why. I blame the educational system, the political system, and the people themselves for this utter lack of intelligent decision-making. They are mostly happy because, like every other citizen, they are allowed the freedom to go to McDonald's and order a Big Mac and fries, then go to the Gap and buy themselves blue jeans from the clearance rack. And they can binge drink on Friday night and go to church on Sunday. And then they can say, "George Bush is a big fat idiot!" after they cash their tax refund.
Support for Israel remains strong because the pied piper is playing a quite palatable tune that shows next to nothing of the crimes that Israel commits daily. It affects the average US citizen in no noticable capacity to say, "Sure, give the Israelis guns and nuke the Palestinians", while they sit in their recliners and catch a glimpse of Janet Jackson's cleavage during the SuperBowl half-time show, or another Nascar crash, or Oprah.
And the people who say, "I'm taking my country back!", the people who oppose the current (or any other) administration, have about as much say in US policies as the protozoa living in the stagnant pools of water in their backyards.
"For the people and by the people" has become meaningless rhetoric used to get people to stand up and take their hats off at the start of baseball games.
Thomas (Re: 86).
Of course every nation is imperfect. To argue against that principle is to invent an easy point to refute. It's not unlike building a man of straw just so that you can burn it down with ease. It's a showy theatric, but amounts to precious little in the end.
At no time have I suggested that the United States is without any faults, nor have I suggested that it is "my" country, only that I am able to see past much of the anti-American sentiment here as the most powerful are often the most tempting targets.
Also, your points regarding the homeless situation are interesting, though not altogether germane. Particularly because comparing statistics of a nation the size of Denmark to one the size of the US is to compare apples with oranges. Certainly one would hope that even the most fervent anti-American sentiment in Europe (much of which is indeed rooted in a kind of regrettable envy) could be dampered by the realisation that Europe would be a far different place today were it not for the actions of the United States 60 or so years ago. I suggest that it would be worse off.
Perhaps some might argue that Europe would be better off today without the United States, I've no doubt. I would suggest that to be a flawed analysis based on the convenience of selective memory and perhaps curable only in the advent of future reliance on the United States, unfortunately.
But such is the reality for powerful nations. Often they are besieged by accusations from all sides of having done too much or too little, and the timeline of their activities always serve as fodder for critics (ie. Sure you did the right thing, but I demand faster results form you!). It's a difficult situation and one that cannot be won where a strong sense of entitlement exists, spawned in part by culture of entitlement rampant in socialist philosophy. The "where's my free ride?" mentality is a difficult one to deal with, but certainly not impossible with patience and good humour.
I will return the favour, of course, of not suggesting that you blow yourself up either, Thomas, and will go further to suggest that you always try and look both ways before crossing the street.
Safety first, and all that.
Raymond (Re: 88),
Your portrait of the United States reveals much about the way you see that country and serves to explain many of your contributions here.
It's quite imaginative and helpful and I sincerely thank you for offering it.
Thomas and Raymond, if I may
The homeless situation IS horrendous here in the States. It is mostly left to faith organizations to deal with who have their own agendas. Case in point, the Salvation Army which most Americans think is the absolute best entity to donate their money to. They are in the news everywhere (if people actually take time to read it) about using their largesse to preach to it's benefactors their own "Onward Christian Soldiers" brand of Christianity. Even the St. Vincent de Paul Society of the Catholic faith which deals with the downtrodden and homeless preach Christ to their benefactors. Just like ZAKAT, which is such an integral part of Islam, and one of the five pillars, is distributed through the mosques.
Using one's faith in a humanitarian fashion is an ideal. But when someone bases their humanitarianism on adherance or at least listening by the donor, this is not so great in my own personal opinion. Yes, take care of your own, but as a human I personally think we need to reach out to the downtrodden irrespectant of their own personal beliefs.
Yes, it is a fact born out by numerous polls that the average Ameerican cannot find Iraq, or even their own states on a map. They were taught these things in Geography (all teachers in CA must take geography for teachers in order to include it in all subject matters) but even many of the teachers find it tedious and not necessary to teach except when the course is titled "geography". It is absolutely embarassing the level of education in our schools. Our educational system focuses on giving skills to it's students (at it's best) which will allow them to get by in their everyday world. Unfortunately for the others of the world our kids getting jobs at a retail store does not help them to get our citizens to listen to what OUR foreign policy is doing to them (hope that made sense)
As for the former topic of religion. I "personally" think that religion is at it's very best when it is used in it's moderate form to set perameters at a personal level. But this is true of any ideal which teaches the "golden rule" We are not a homogenious world, we ARE a cesspool. Thomas, before a ways back you offered up MLK and Ghandi and alluded to Mandela as role models for the Palestinians. I "personally" don't think the Palestinians need this. "I" think what the WORLD needs is more like the model of the Dali Lama. Peace for all parties with personal journeys towards enlightenment for all. Maybe I'm throwing a whole different subject in here and I apologize for doing so. It's just when everyone thinks they've got the solution (even myself which I am fully aware of) somewhere along the line we need to all step back (even me) and hope for the best.
Raymond, maybe I'm an amoeba :) (can't figure out how to make those happy faces) but I don't want to take my country back for anything because what most people mean when they say this is about domestic issues, although many are getting on the bandwagon (albeit too late) about Iraq I want my country to stop what they are doing and our current two-party political method gives me very little choice. Everyone here, including the Democrats support Israel and I can only be an amoeba :) It makes me sick. But what I do take from this blog is a whole lot of information that I can carry on to others. Just wanted to let you know I appreciate that and what others also are providing.
Ali,
"Envy"? Who are you trying to kid here. This statement reminds me a 13 year old spoiled brat girl saying, "You're just jealous because I have a better cell phone and cuter clothes and don't you remember that time I stood up for you when everybody else was picking on you and you were SO sad". I really DO not like posting in this tone but I wish to take distance from your post's
88 and 89 "As an American". (not that you don't have the same right as myself or others in voicing your opinion) This superiority complex statement of accusing Europe and others of envy completely refutes your opening statement of "Of course every nation is imperfect. To argue against that principle is to invent an easy point to refute. It’s not unlike building a man of straw just so that you can burn it down with ease. It’s a showy theatric, but amounts to precious little in the end." Don't you agree?
Robin,
Thank you for your interesting and unique perspective. It does not remind me of that of a 13 year-old girl in the least.
ALI-"Certainly one would hope that even the most fervent anti-American sentiment in Europe (much of which is indeed rooted in a kind of regrettable envy)" post #88.
Websters definition "envy": "Painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to posess the same advantage"
I believe Ali, that what you are referring to when you refer to Europe's envy of the US is of our power, militarily as a nation. I am getting my understanding from your use of the word "envy" in the same sentence you are referring to our military aid to Europe during WW1 and WW11. No one ever said here "HEY! idiots over there in the US are idiots because they helped us out back then"
On the contrary, it is very much in the historical recollection of European's minds that it was the US who came to their aid. But that is NOT the point here.
What Thomas (excuse me for including you) and myself and others are saying is that right now, right here the US is acting in a most horrendous fashion in Iraq as WELL as in their continued support of Israel since it's statehood in 1948. The United States is in one BIG PICKLE of a mess on both of these counts and the acid of the vinegar has discredited us a "moral authority" to much of the rest of the world.
Yes you are right, we ARE big. But I always say, "The bigger the toad, the more the warts" In this case we don't only have a big toad we have a PICKLED BIG TOAD. Now anyone who is a conossieur of frog legs knows that one needs to choose the smaller, more delicate frog legs both for texture and taste. No fine restaurant ever offers "pickled big toads" on the menu because they are not edible.
As for offering up our democracy as a shining example, Democracy came from the Greeks. Maybe you should be thanking them. Our own Constitution was based to a large extent upon the Magna Carta of 1215 (Britain) and the writings of several others of the Enlightenment period of Europe. As history goes, civilizations borrow from eachother and nations seek the defense of others when in need. I don't think anyone anytime soon besides Israel is going to be asking for our help because currently our armed forces are undermanned and seeking to start another confrontation in Iran. Then we have China who is sitting back and licking their chops as our deficit due to the war and the trade imbalance soars. The fact remains, the US is at a very dangerous point of decline, both economically and militarily as other nations seek nuclear arms. Nations rise and nations fall. And for you to suggest that Europe is envious is pretty well unfounded. After WWII they got smart and decided to use their might to take care of their own with socialist policies. Europe has had ENOUGH warfare on it's soil and does not wish to visit that part of their history again. THIS is what they choose to do with their money, not fritter it away on pre-emptive useless warfare and supporting a nation such as Israel. We here in the US can cry FOUL about 911 and sit back in our easy chairs while our young men are put in harms way just so we can be BIG PICKLED TOADS!
You might not think you are spoiled, but if you are living anywhere here in my country you are.
Thank you again, Robin.
Your observations concerning pickled toads was of particular interest to me.
Ali,
I don't know where you have picked up the funny notion that we, in Europe, are envious of the US and how you can come to the conclusion that it can be linked to anti-American sentiment.
Wrong. A lot of Europeans, and in growing numbers, are tired of the stupid shit of your administrations. While you are celebrating yourself as the greatest democracy the world has ever seen, we are loathing the way your administrations force and manipulate other countries to do what you want with no regards to their rights or wishes. In casy you have failed to figure it out, your notion of democracy in the US is very different from what we understand of democracy in Europe. And we are laughing our asses off every time you start the one about how free you are (last part of #80 may give you hints as to why).
You may think that you are doing the world a favor, but we see that your administraiton is shitting on every principle of democracy regardless of the costs that others have to bear (e.g. the abuse of US veto power to water down or prevent any UN Security Council resolution going against Israel). Your scumbag is president of the USA, but he has not been elected as president of the world by anybody outside the US.
I am not comparing apples and oranges, PROPORTIONALLY you have a higher rate of homeless and people under the poverty line PER CAPITA. As mentioned, I do not have any numbers at hand, so it is my guess that PROPORTIONALLY there are more poor and homeless in the USA than in Hungary based on that I have been to both countries. However, I am pretty sure the homeless get better soup here in Hungary, because Hungary is famous for its soup culture and, in general, European vegetables taste of much more than US vegetables as our farmers focus on quality while yours focus on size and quantity.
I really resent the arrogant notion of a large part of you Americans when you come out and claim that WWII could only be won because of you. It is disrespectful of the sacrifices of all other nations that did their part in fighting Germany/Italy/Japan and it also shows that you know very little of the history of WWII.
Basically, your administration was asked for assistance three-four years before you entered the war, but you were happy with things as they were with good markets for your military hardware. For your information, WWII was not triggered by Pearl Harbor! By the time you got sucker punched by the Japanese, it was only a question of time before Hitler would be defeated in Europe.
Actually, Hitler's actions played a larger part in Germany losing the war than your entrance did. If he had not opened up the East Front then he might have had a chance to defeat the UK and its West European allies. That he underestimated his own abilities and sent his forces to Russia with only 'summer equipment' (he thought he would be able to break Russia in three-four months) ensured his path to defeat and the Russian winter sealed the fate of the Third Empire!
Don't get me wrong, I am not ungrateful for your country's sacrifices in WWII, but if right has to be right, then you should not talk to loud about selective memory. Of course, I am also grateful for the US helping Europe to get back on its feet with loans and grants, but you should also be aware of the full story, because it was just as much in the interest of the US as it was in the interest of Europe.
Think about it, you got through the war without having your country destroyed to rubble, but your most important trading partners did no longer have the means to buy your products. In addition, it was in your military interest that there would be a counter-balance to Russia in Europe. This was before the nuclear race had really begun and most people realized that if there would be a WWIII then it would more likely involve conventional warfare. And in that case it would be convenient that Russia could not just 'steam roll' over Western Europe and be able to attack the USA from both the Pacific and the Atlantic ocean sides.
Thank you for the help, it is appreciated though it is not as self-less as you would like it to sound. But, most importantly, that you helped us defeat the fascistic regimes in Germany and Italy does not oblige us to support you in your own fascistic project for world domination. Sorry, dude, that is a ride we do not want to get on with you no matter if it is free or not.
Robin,
I am going to bed, but I will chew on your Lama concept and get back to that :)
Thomas,
Read this first: http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/dlm.html – 5k -
It's the basic teachings of the Dali Lama. Now don't get me wrong, MLK and Ghandi and Mandela are all three excellent examples of peaceful protest used to obtain a means. What I was trying to say was that it is not just up to the Palestinians to try to obtain what they are seeking on their own. What I instead was suggesting by offering up the Dali Lama, is that if ALL the parties, Israel, the Palestinians, the US and any other Mideast nations use the Dali Lama's philosophy to achieve peace I think that is a better solution. Basically I am just pointing out that ALL the parties need to change their tune and the Dali Lama is a great leader to look to for guidance. I'm not aware of his techniques, but he sure has some beautiful ideas that can benefit everyone. (a little meditation and yoga wouldn't hurt either, and I am only being half funny when I say so.)
Thomas,
Read this first: http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/dlm.html – 5k -
It's the basic teachings of the Dali Lama. Now don't get me wrong, MLK and Ghandi and Mandela are all three excellent examples of peaceful protest used to obtain a means. What I was trying to say was that it is not just up to the Palestinians to try to obtain what they are seeking on their own. What I instead was suggesting by offering up the Dali Lama, is that if ALL the parties, Israel, the Palestinians, the US and any other Mideast nations use the Dali Lama's philosophy to achieve peace I think that is a better solution. Basically I am just pointing out that ALL the parties need to change their tune and the Dali Lama is a great leader to look to for guidance. I'm not aware of his techniques, but he sure has some beautiful ideas that can benefit everyone. (a little meditation and yoga wouldn't hurt either, and I am only being half funny when I say so.)
Thomas,
Read this first: http://www.wisdomofsolomon.com/dlm.html – 5k -
It's the basic teachings of the Dali Lama. Now don't get me wrong, MLK and Ghandi and Mandela are all three excellent examples of peaceful protest used to obtain a means. What I was trying to say was that it is not just up to the Palestinians to try to obtain what they are seeking on their own. What I instead was suggesting by offering up the Dali Lama, is that if ALL the parties, Israel, the Palestinians, the US and any other Mideast nations use the Dali Lama's philosophy to achieve peace I think that is a better solution. Basically I am just pointing out that ALL the parties need to change their tune and the Dali Lama is a great leader to look to for guidance. I'm not aware of his techniques, but he sure has some beautiful ideas that can benefit everyone. (a little meditation and yoga wouldn't hurt either, and I am only being half funny when I say so.)
Thomas,
I have read everything you have said. Makes me proud to be born a Dane.
I do not have the linguistic capabilities you or Robin do. I believe in simple English. The KISS method. "Keep it simple stupid."
I find that democracy is falling by the wayside because of governments and big business.
Free speach, a joke over here. "You are free to do as you are told."
And I am a Canadian!(born in Denmark)
We are slowly being put in our places by governments and big businesses to further their causes.
Eventually we will be no better than the Palestinians.
The homeless have already given up trying to get anywhere.
We will be next!
Everyone: This site is an absolute must read. It is a study done of the coverage of deaths in the conflict. Not only do Palestinian deaths FAR outnumber Israeli deaths, but also, Israeli deaths are reported at up to 180x the acutal numbers while Palestinian deaths are reported by as low as 35% of the total. This site is called "If America Knew"
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html – 58k -
Kimmy, your communication is great. It's not keep it simple stupid! It's keep it simple smart! and it can even still be called KISS!!!:)
Killing innocent lives in the name of religion, is an act of madness. Religion is a way of understanding the Absolute truth of existence. Any religion that preaches hatred is never religious.
Let us not waste time thinking about relgions, but instead let us love each other as children do.
My love to all the departed innocent lives.
Hate is to be hated, afterall.
Ali,
I would also like to offer you thanks, not for your enlightenment, but for your lack thereof, as it provides only further evidence of the willing ignorance of the masses, educated or not, and encourages me to further investigate, uncover and expose the true nature of the world we live in.
Thank you, danka, merci, gracias, arigato, xie xie, tak, shukran, and ma salemi.
Robin,
Now American's know. Thanks for the solidarity.
Sorry… Americans know (not possessive). Thanks again.
Raymond,
Some of us know, some of us care. The sick part is those who know and don't care. Here is the states we have our own fundamentalist movement (please Kinzi, this does not involve you and others who do care)which actualy believes so deeply that the state of Israel is fulfilling Bible prophesy. Not only is it fulfilling prophesy, but they need to help it along by supporting it to the max. Haitham points this out in the long report he posted over there out of Harvard. There is a neo-con think tank (just one of the many) here in the states called the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). This PNAC has members who are both zionist and high-ranking fundamentalist Christians (Gary Bauer being one of them). PNAC is one of the leading policy makers for the Bush Administration. It is their manifesto from 1997 which everyone alludes to when they say the US had plans to invade Iraq and surrounding oountries from long ago. It is this joining of forces, zionist and fundamentalist Christian here that is the reason why it is so bad. Yes the fundamentalist Christian(FC) faction has always supported Israel, but now they have gained power politically and have their own man in the White House along with other top-ranking FC's and zionists. So since this site is called "Breeding Extremism", I just wanted to point out that the extremism of this policy is now masquerading itself as the administration we have in control. This is very very scarey stuff to me.
As for solidarity, prior to marrying my ex at age 20, I along with millions of other Americans cheered out of ignorance during the Yom Kippur (that's what it's reffered to here) war as the Israeli's kicked butt. It's just ingrained in our consciosness that our nation is founded on Judeo-Christian principals. Shortly prior to meeting my ex I was REALLY pissed off when I had to stand in line for gas rationing as the result of the OPEC embargo on us. Go figure, shortly after I met my own "camel jockey" (as my friends called him) and started to learn more. He very gently urged me to look at the other side of the issue. One of the first things I looked into was the massacre at Dir Yassin. Over the years I learned more and more. Raymond, facts are facts and the facts speak for themself. Zionism is not a glorious thing which God meant to be. It is evil. When one people seek to exert power over another using brutality to accomplish their delusions that is not what any God that I am aware of wants. And if it were, then I would be an atheist too because this is just wrong, so very very wrong.
Thomas,
I got your message about the Dali Lama, even if it was on the wrong thread! :) No, I was not suggesting entirely that the Dali Lama is a better approach model. It's hard to put in words. I "think" there's something about him using his methods in the problem of Tibet (I'm not an even close to expert on this). I just know that NOBODY doesn't respect him (very poor English). It is more that I was saying that his message of peace for the "world" is so relevent to this topic. MLK, Ghandi and Mandela are all roll-models for the progress they made in specific situations. People like us say, look at those methods, they worked there, they worked REALLY well, let's model them. The Dali Lama on the other hand offers a different "mindset" to model, not necessarily a technique as you pointed out. IF, and only IF, all the parties adopted this mindset THEN peace would be available through conventional political means and marketing by the Palestinians would be unnecessary. It's just the "spiritualist" in me saying this, not the "pragmatist". There is also a movie called "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". Have you seen it? It's about a couple who have broken up. The man finds out about a "program" that can erase all memories so he doesn't have to feel the pain. They both use it, but in the end he fights so hard to regain the memories which are good. He then goes on to try to win his girlfriend back who has totally forgotten him. Now I'm saying this with partial tongue in cheek, but it there was only a way to knock out the memories, use the Dali Lama's message of peace for the world, then I think there would be even a greater chance. No, I am not crazy or delusional, just praying (something I do in private which gives ME peace of mind but does not necessarily affect others) that this Mideast crisis could find an answer, any answer. Again, I'm sharing my private thoughts, not at all what I think is a viable answer, except for the Dali Lama's mindset approach.
Raymond,
If I have encouraged you to further investigate the world in which we live, that is all the thanks I require. :)
Best of luck in your noble quest.
Ali,
It is YOU and others like you who need to do the investigating instead of resorting back to your own smug ways:(
Thomas (Re 96)
You have joined others in seizing on an aside in my commentary which I did not think would evoke such responses, but perhaps I ought to have considered that possiblity more. It was certainly not the focus of my post but it does seem to have touched a nerve.
In any case, I do think it's true that much of what the American Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, unadvisedly called "Old Europe" does indeed regret that they are no longer the players on the world stage that they were in former times.
Certainly this relatively recent epiphany that one nation ought not dictate the actions of another has only come to light since the older European nations have become weakened in their ability to do so.
France serves as a good example of this brand of hypocrisy. There is true resentment evident in the remarks and actions of their leadership. The fact that they once held sway in international affairs but are less able to do so today is a truly chaffing reality. It is not so much that they are ideologically opposed to the idea of a "hyper power" (they were one long ago after all), just that they are opposed to the idea that a younger, more dynamic nation such as the United States exclusively holds that title rather than themselves.
So yes, resentment and envy do play a regrettable role in the dynamic between the United States and parts of Europe. Human nature and national(ist) pride have conspired to forge that unfortunate reality.
It's probably the obligation of the United States to incorporate even more graciousness when dealing with those who covet their power and influence. After a while though, inflating the esteem of those who are constantly deriding you (known otherwise as "diplomacy") can become a tedious chore. But it is a needed one.
Your point about the Germans having lost the war (rather than the US-led allied forces winning it) is…interesting. A convenient revisionism such as that is par for the course, I suppose. Not to dignify that sentiment, but were it not for the actions of the United States in WWII, Hitler would never have been in a position to make the mistakes he did (and those mistakes were of less consequence than the activities of the allied forces, of course). But yes, you are free to re imagine the war in any way that helps to rationalize your conceptions. The imagination is a wonderful thing.
Certainly you do not suffer from a lack of nationalist pride, Thomas. And I think that's great as far as it goes.
I've no doubt that you proudly enjoy the wonderful vegetables that Europe produces.
Ali,
I for one would rather be proud of "wonderful vegetables" (amongst other things) like Thomas than be proud of our military might that is reeking havoc in this world. I also would rather continue to eat my "French fries" the way the French fry them rather than McDonalds fries which are processed and horrible after five minutes. And as for this one "It’s probably the obligation of the United States to incorporate even more graciousness when dealing with those who covet their power and influence. After a while though, inflating the esteem of those who are constantly deriding you (known otherwise as “diplomacy”) can become a tedious chore. But it is a needed one." Your "graciousness" is pitiful and you are NOT speaking for this American who does not wish to be as condescending towards others as this statement exemplifies. I buy my vegetables from the supermarket that offers the best, and depending upon the time of year, they are usually imported!
I just had a friend over to inspect my computer because it was running slow.
He is a computer expert for the Canadian Military in the reserves.
His scan using a DVD disc that he brought back with him from service in the Middle East found interesting spyware.
One for sure was NSA. One pretty sure was CSIS. One most likely was Mossad.
Haitham, you must be a threat to Bush because you are my main connection to the Middle East.
This should tell our American friends that Bush is still lying!
Kimmy,
From one paranoid (not) to another paranoid (not) North American, I just called my computer expert neighbor. He has discs to scan also but his discs would not be looking for the same things that your discs are. I am absolutely sure my phone is being bugged (It's called Project Echelon that has Memex technology that picks up on certain words, no this is not science fiction, look it up) so today I had a few choice words between talking to my eldest daughter about stuff here on the Blog (excuse me but this is how it went) Fuck you, all we are saying is, Fuck you give peace a fucking chance, Imagine there's no heaven, imagine theirs no Bush, only peace among us and so on and come on over for some oleander tea and cowdung crumpets! It's a very good way to let off steam, even if they AREN'T listening! The powers that be are picking up on "chatter" and then zeroing in. Just don't open your door to men in black suits!
Haitham, I hope you're not mad and you are welcome to delete me on this one if you are. Peace!!!!!!
Robin & Kimmy,
I know this is not a security forum, but I hope Haitham will allow me to share these suggestions as they may be useful to everybody, regardless of whether 'the Man' or 'Big Brother' is called Bush or anything else.
If you, like me, are on a Windows platform then I can recommend that you look into:
'ProtoWall' & 'Blocklist Manager' (www.bluetack.co.uk) ProtoWall is a very effective IP filter which does not eat a lot of resources. If you keep you blocklist current with Blocklist Manager, then you can ensure that a high number of 'enemies of privacy' will not be able to connect to your computer. It is actually a program from the P2P crowd, but it blocks a very high number of government IP addresses, known hijacked IPs (spyware or hijack 'launch pads'), and companies known to snoop around (ad servers and companies who would like to track your movements on the Internet for a profit) in addition, of course, to blocking recording companies. And the IPs are from all over the world! Make sure you read the install notices, because it can be a bit tricky to make it work. Currently I am blocking more than 1.2 billion IP addresses that have no business connecting to my PC.
SpywareBlaster & SpywareGuard (www.javacoolsoftware.com) SpywareBlaster provides 'static' prevention of spyware installation while SpywareGuard provides real-time protection.
Of course you should not forget the 'normal' protection measures like a good firewall, anti-virus program, Spybot Seach & Destroy (www.safer-networking.org) etc. And…any alternative to MS Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, Real Player etc. are better alternatives.
All the applications mentioned are freeware/donationware and provide free periodic updates of their databases. I have spent a lot of time researching user opinions and evaluations of them, but just because I trust them does not mean they are trustworthy!
Hope you find this useful.
Hey Thomas,
Short. Genius neighbor who builds computers says NOTHING will work due to changing encodements. Thanks, I will continue singing!(and expressing my opinions and voting and writing letters)The answer is blowing in the wind,,,,
Robin,
Protowall will not 'cover your tracks' on the Internet (for that you need an anonymizer service), but it will ensure that a 'bad IP' will not get any response if it tries to contact your computer and your computer will not be able to contact the 'bad IP' (as if your IP address was not connected to the Internet).
Sure, the 'bad guys' can change to new IP addresses that are not blacklisted, but that is cumbersome for them if they have to do it on a regular basis and it is only a question of time before the 'new bad IPs' end up on the blacklist. 100% security does not exist!
Robin,
By the way, ask your neighbor to check it out, because PW is not an application, like a traditional firewall, that can easily be bypassed. It is sitting as a network card driver, like a network protocol, which makes it much more difficult to bypass.
Thomas,
I am so new at this. It wasn't too long ago I was literally afraid if I pushed the wrong button my pc would melt down in front of my own eyes (remember my age 51) No I'm not an old geezer, just have a lot of respect for new fandangled technology and know that I don't know a thing about it. My whole family thinks of me affectionately as a dinosaur, albeit a herbivore. My neighbor actually knows about all this stuff of "spy ware" so I WILL ask him. Thank's for letting the powers that be know what I am up to from post #118!!!!. Let's see, I really like U-2's One, it's actually my favorite song, brings tears to my old eyes.
"Is it getting better, Or do you feel the same? Will it make it easier on you now, You got someone to blame, You say, One love, One life,,,,,,,,,,,,,Peace
HEY TAMIM, are you out there?
Haven't seen you since post #74 and I was wondering if you could come back and give us some more answers about Islam. We got side-tracked (as humans do) but I still have my questions. Earth to Tamim, come in come in.
Hi Robin
Hi, everybody :)
Thanks, for inviting me. Nice to be back among you all again. I really find the discussion interesting, but with your permission, I'd like to respond to Robin, post # 75 and take you back into Islam & Extremism. I think democracy is compatible with Islam as far as Islam is moderate. There is no harm if Moslems enjoy freedoms. Of course nothing is absolute even in a democratic system. Everything is relative. Even The holy Koran speaks about degrees of belief and about sins and repentance, and distinguishes saints and prophets from ordinary people and God's power to pardon those who repent. At the same time the Koran being Allah's word to his prophet Mohammad is very well balanced about Moslems' rights and duties. One must not forget that the Koran was addressed to Prophet Mohammed to help him with certain situations and give him guidance as to the right way of running Moslems affairs. That does not forcibly mean that Islam excludes human creativity and progress towards the best as it doesn’t mean that Islam is static wants Moslems to act exactly in the same way as they used to in the 6th century AD. God also judges people's intentions and pardons them when their intentions are good and righteous Islam can coexist with democracy within a modern state with separate powers legislative, executive and judicial authority and political pluralism. It can be an element of stability and unity rather than one of discord. In Morocco there is no religious police as in SA. And women are free to dress the way they wish. They have the right to vote. People of other beliefs are free to practice in churches and synagogues. However nobody has the right to preach any other religion than Islam openly in public. The system of government is multiparty democratic with a bicameral parliament. The head of state is King Mohammed the 6th who has certain constitutional powers. But the good side of a democracy is that it’s open to development and progress…
Thomas, a Dane
I use Firefox. It is faster than IE and fewer viruses and adware affect me.
Ali
You may or may not be American, that makes no difference, though your name or nickname being Arabic and Islamic arouses my curiosity about the extent to which Arabs and Moslems, who are considered suspects of terrorism and guilty until proof of the contrary by US administration, can find any plausible excuse for Bush’s administration not only for their anti Arab and anti Moslem hostile actions and measures, but also for their unjustified cruel warfare in Iraq and their unconditioned blind support to Israel in their cruel undistinguishing warfare against the Palestinian population .
Kimmy,
My neighbor computer genius informed me there is absolutely NO anti-spyware on the market which will filter out your above entities. Think about it, do you think that our government would allow such a thing to be marketed? Your friend had a very special program which my neighbor said could be put on a disc and forwarded as a program via email for all of us to install, but that would just give us the ability to see who's watching, not block them because no such program exists. There's something called (I think)Project Lantern or something or other that allows them to spy and there are lawsuits against it. But the fact remains, we are all peaceful citizens talking. They know that and I'm not afraid of them. It just bugs me (pun) so I scream at them every once in a while and chatter all I want. (again no pun).
Relax and keep on talking to us 'cause we all love you!!
Ali
The moral and financial unconditioned US support to Israel is no secret or surprise to anyone any more. Not for the simplistic reasons you mentioned, of course, when you portrayed Israel as a democracy caught up in the midst of “anti-American and anti-democracy” nations.
The very fact that US are supporting Israel makes them undemocratic for democracy and injustice are incompatible. And US are committing injustice by supporting an aggressor against a nation that is struggling for freedom of their land which is illegally occupied by Israel as a so called “democracy”
Being a democratic nation doesn’t justify aggression and the killing of innocent civilians. In what way can US fight of Palestinians through Israel serve democracy?
The bad example of democracy is illustrated in a clear way to those nations you call anti-democracy and anti-American, that surround Israel by the atrocities committed by the Israeli army in the occupied Palestinian territory and by the US army in Iraq.
Hey Tamim or Marhaba!!!!
As usual, whenever anyone posts I get curious. In this case I got curious and started looking up freedom of religion in Morocco which is part of what we're talking about. The first site I looked at was this http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24458.htm – 41k – It is our own state department's record of freedom of religion in Morocco which clearly states, "Morocco's constitution allows for freedom of religion with some restrictions". As I continued to read, I realized that the "restrictions" sited was evidence I already knew, Islam recognizes people of the book (Judaism and Christianity) I also read that the population of Morocco is 99% Sunni Moslem with about 5000 Christians and 5000 Jews living there. Further evidence was stated that the Jews and Christians are allowed churches and synagogues BUT that prostelyzing is against the law and that Moslem converts to Christianity are socially ostracized. Don't get me wrong, prostelyzers are not on the top of my list of favorite people but I DO think that this is (From my own frame of reference) an enfringement upon their civil rights. I read on further to find that some Christians have been arrested and deported for such activities. Now again, from my own frame of reference, this is not exactly democratic unless one thinks that decocracy is "rule of the majority" which as Thomas pointed out, again from my own frame of reference, is "tryrany of the majority" because it is not allowing one entity, the Christians to have the same rights as the majority 99%Moslem population. There was some good news in my reading though, coming from my own perspective again. I read about your king inviting Jews from Israel for and ecumenical meeting and that although he was highly criticized, he did it any way. I also read that a small group of Buddhists were allowed their own burial site. Most of what I read held Morocco up as a very good example of an Islamic state also because they do NOT allow extremist Moslems to spread extremism. Thank the Lord!!!So I think what you are saying is that as a good example of what a "moderate" Islamic nation would look like, one need look no further than Morocco. As one with a "moderate" amount of knowledge about other Islamic nations, I would agree. But I would not agree that this is better than the model of other Arab "secular nations" which allow for more religious freedom of ALL parties. Again, from my own perspective, religion and politics do NOT mix because it is forcing all citizens to abide by the laws of one religion, even if it does give them some leeway. My basic thought is this, every single citizen of any nation should have religious freedom with all other factors of freedom also being equal. So while I think Morocco is a very good example of a moderate Islamic state, I don't think it is an example of a moderate state. I think a "moderate state" allows for all parties to enjoy equal rights under the law. Having said all this, I am not saying that Islam does not offer very good laws to abide by, I am simply saying that if you're not a Moslem, it isn't so great. I also realize that using an umbrella of Islam in order to preserve a culture is Morocco's right as a nation. Just some thought from "my own perspective"
PS to my above post,
I also do not think that Lebanon, a predominately Moslem state is a good example at all. Their constitution states that the president must be a Maronite Christian, their prime minister a Sunni Moslem and their speaker of the Parliament a Shiia Moslem.
This is really screwy because the majority of the population is not Maronite. The Maronites are only 30% of the population. The Constitution by specifying what religion a person must be to hold a post is "undemocratic" It is especially true in this case because the president holds powers to undo certain powers of the parliament. The fact remains that religious strife in this part of the world is everywhere. If you recall I was in Beirut during the civil war and it was NOT fun. It was a big awakening to me a 20 year old American going to a warzone and they were fighting about religion and the imbalance of power associated with it. Again, from my own perspective and my own experience (Beirut) I think it is a much better idea that politics and religion don't mix. But again, I give respect to all those of a different mindset who can offer me an example of when they do. Perhaps what Morocco and other Islamic states are attempting to do is to keep their populations "homogeneous". That is a goal that could certainly lead to "group-think" and cooperation amongst the citizenry, but what about the few or sometimes many who don't share that "group-think" I think that's what Thomas(sorry Thomas for using your name) myself and others are alluding to.
Hi, Robin, :)
You should know that the majority of Christians and Jews living in Morocco, if not all, are not interested in converting young Moroccan people into Christianity. They are absolutely free to practice their faith within churches and synagogues not only because it's their constitutional right but also because people spontaneously respect other faiths. Campaigns preaching Christianity among school kids and underprivileged populations are forbidden because it's against the teachings of Islam. If one cannot be a good Moslem. At least he must not convert into another faith. And if one can not preach Islam at least he has to keep others from converting Moslems into other religions, as a sort of keeping Moslems united. On the other hand this can be qualified as a kind of Invasion and invasion is not only military it can be cultural as well and the latter is worse. If we allow people from other religions to come and invest money in teaching Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism to our kids in the name of freedom of faith and freedom of minorities then we would be fools allowing division and separatism and sowing the seeds of future civil wars. I think no democracy would allow this. I think there is another right that should not be neglected which is the right to protect one’s identity and one’s culture and heritage.
And after all Moslems generally don’t feel the necessity of converting into other religions.
Tamim,
Exactly my point. I agree wholeheartedly. Believe me Tamim, I know what so called "religious freedom" can wreak. Here in the states our Christian Fundamentalists are not only prostelyzing from every street corner, they are also trying to change our laws according to their own beliefs. Your "future civil wars" is a circumstance I actually lived through and it was NOT pleasant. It all has to do with nationhood and the right of every nation to act in ways foremost which preserve their own identities. The only problem is that we live in a global world. I personally would have NO problem abiding by the laws of Morocco. I would not be out trying to convert anyone because my religious beliefs although I practice them by attending church are "personal" Heck, I didn't have any problem in SA either. My husband smuggled in a Bible if I wished to read it. (this of course was out of his "true" Islamic beliefs as opposed to the Wahabis). Tamim, I honestly do NOT know what the answer is to religious strife across the world. The minute you say "Let's sit down and talk so we can all be friends" SOMEONE starts an arguement over religion. In this case, I started it. I just have this basic gut feeling, even before I formally chose Catholocism, that we need to accept each other for their good deeds and not worry about their beliefs until their beliefs infringe on my freedom.
That's all I am saying. I'd rather live ANYWHERE in the world where religion was NOT a problem.
Tamim,
Let me offer this story as an analogy:
When I was in Beirut, my grandmother-in-law died and we needed to leave. The war was going full bore at the time and we needed to plan an escape route. We would be going through areas controlled by different religious factions (militias)so we needed a very strategic plan that wouldn't get us all killed. Our family driver was a Christian (I don't think he was Maronite), my inlaws were Moslem of course and I as an American was presumed to be Christian. We would all have to assume different identities to make it safely through the different zones. The first zone where we lived was Moslem controlled, no problem, our driver could pass as Moslem. The second zone was Christian: very tense as the teenage militia member pointed his uzi in the window at us. The third zone again was Moslem, no problem. The last zone surrounding the airport was Christian. At that point in time when we came to a checkpoint we all had to get out of the car. Our driver spoke for all of us for quite a while. We were all scared to death that they would kill us all. My mother in law ended up paying a handsome bribe for our safe passage. I give this story to my Christian friends who insist Islam is NOT right and add this "Five women, an infant and a driver, all different nationalities, different faiths, in a car, facing peril, but yet protecting eachother". OK, now I know that is what Islam teaches with the "people of the book" belief. I would just like to think that if a Buddhist were to try to jump in the car with us to escape he would not be put in the trunk. I would also like to think of us as all equals, with none of us being superior to the next with more rights. (I am not referring to prostelyzing) That's all I'm trying to say. Here is a question, can a Christian or a Jew hold public office in Morocco? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I just want to know. Peace!!!
Tamim :)
The "trunk" statement was obviously a metaphor concerning what I read that it was only recently that a small community of Budhists was allowed a burial site. One more thing, the ONLY way I was able to accept Catholocism as my faith was because when I was having some personal trepiditions my priest said this "You cannot personally convince me that any person of any faith who lives their life by doing good deeds and serving humanity is not going to inherit heaven". OK, maybe Catholocism DOES say it's the truth, but this one man who I have come to love dearly offered me an opportunity to accept Catholocism on these terms. That's all I needed and it was really so simple. So even now, I don't accept all of my church's teachings whatsoever. But I do accept it as a means to worship God, your Allah PBUH and the god of all humanity. How did we get off on this tangent anyways? Oh yeah, it was me. Sorry!!! :)
Robin :)
I don't want to be in a position to defend anyone and, believe me, I'm just portraying reality as I see it from my own perspective, which may not be 100% complete, without any intention to show my country's positive points and hide negative ones. I have no obligation towards anybody and I'm just trying to share knowledge about what's going on around the world with you and with others on this blog who share the same motivation. I’m convinced that Islam is a religion that allows solidarity between nations and between humans in general without regard of their origin or their faith or the colour of their skin. I also believe that nowadays religion should play a secondary role in our every day life and I think it’s the case in Morocco. I believe the majority of Moroccans are moderate Moslems who are very open-minded and have no prejudices against any nation or any faith. On the other hand other people abuse our hospitality and our openness to other cultures. Imagine Tourists from Europe taking advantage of poverty and the difficulty of finding jobs in some underprivileged areas to sexually abuse teenage girls and boys and go back to their countries where they publish stories of what they did in magazines or on their personal blog or even on public TV just to say “look what one is allowed to do in a so called Moslem country”. This is an example about the Belgian journalist Philippe Servaty from "le soir" visit the link:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/66
Tamim,
Before you even responded back, I knew what you were going to say.
Why, because I went back and reread your posts between the lines so to speak and all of a sudden I thought: "He's trying to tell me that Morocco is a very tolerant state, is Islamic by law and majority of population, that they allow others to practice their faiths without prostelyzing as they please, AND, this is a very important AND, they do it this way because it WORKS! Everything that I read even from my own state department gave Morocco a good report on religious tolerance. The few reports of abuse which were sited involved individuals breaking the law. I just wish sometimes that here in the states it was the same, here are our laws, you are allowed to do what you desire within the law, and you know the consequences. I say this particularly in the case of religion. Shouting out over the airways may be a right here in the US, but the deeds are so very much more important. Also, if one is NOT tolerant and tells me what to think it drives me NUTS! The bottom line is this, Islam does not have a problem with Christianity, but most of Christianity sure has a problem with Islam. The problem comes when one tries to change another's beliefs. On that we both agree. Even in SA I NEVER had a problem being a Christian and NO ONE told me I should convert. There were even services allowed in Aramco that I went to a few times with a friend. The key to your above post also is that religion has become secondary. I "think" what you were saying is that Morocco has very little natioinal insecurity about their beliefs. In the end, it is insecurity which forces one to shout from the airways, because I think we both agree, our religious beliefs should lead us to our own moral lifes, and there isn't the need to shout about it to others. BTW, everything I read also held up Morocco as an example of an Islamic state working.
Yes there are a few glitches, but those are called "humans".
Robin,
I really don't care anymore.
The lies covering lies covering breaking law are making me angry.
Send the men in black to my house!
What can I lose? Nothing but my underwear. The government has taken everything else.
Robin and all, I love this site because I am now seeing another world that has been hidden from me. The world with two sides to every story. This side has to be told. Bush won't let it!
That is why I love Haitham, Robin and all of you because I am learning every day about the other side of the story.
Did I sound like Paul Harvy?
Robin, Tamim,
Nothing is so bad that it is not good for something! No, I have not joined the apologetics, but in many respects I am an 'optimism extremist'.
As I see it, Marocco and Maroccans (of all faiths) are much better off than those living under 'real' dictatorships. Sure, a 'Relatively Moral Democracy' (like Marocco or Malaysia) is not optimal, but it is much better than a 'Fundamentalist Moral Dictatorship' (like Iran or Saudi Arabia). On the other hand, a 'Relatively Immoral Democracy' (like Denmark and Hungary) is sub-optimal as well, but better than a 'Fundamentalist Immoral Democracy' (like Cuba and former USSR).
I dream of the 'Ethical Democracy', because I believe it is least imperfect form of democracy, but it does not yet exist anywhere, so in the meantime I have to seek comfort in relativity and appreciation of 'the lesser evil'.
Hungary is a new and not completely stable democracy, but though its major flaw (financial greed) is opressive, it is not killing people (nobody dies from starvation, but every 'Dollar' lost to corruption is doing the most damage to those in the lowest layer of society). Like Hungary, Denmark's major flaw (ideological greed) is not killing people either (nobody dies from having their ambitions and dreams downtrodden, but every 'Dollar' lost to ideological socialism is sentencing those with honest ambitions for a better life to live in mediocrity). Yes, you probably gessed it, in addition to my wife, there is another good reason why the 9 months I planned to stay in Hungary is now 7 1/2 years and counting!
The most difficult mountain to cross is the threshold, so even though Marocco may not be a 'real' democracy its major flaw (religious greed) is 'only' killing dissidents in small numbers, which is 'the lesser evil' compared to the evil of the predominantly dictatorial states in the Arab world (no, dictatorship is not an Arab phenomenon) who are more opressive and killing their own people in higher numbers.
Though the USA is flawed by both financial greed and ideological greed, I did not mention it as a 'Fundamentalist Immoral Democracy' because the increasing power of the Born Again Christians is rapidly turning it into a 'Fundamentalis Moral Democracy' as well. On top of that, it may be a democracy internally, but if you see it in the world setting then it is a dictatorship. In terms of killing people, the USA is killing a lot more people (those in the lowest layer of society are used as cannon fodder -literally and metaphorically- in the name of financial greed, and people around the world are killed in the name of both ideological and religious greed).
Note, that I am not using the word 'Moral' as meaning 'correct' but in the 'moralizing/restraining others' sense.
In my world of relativity I am more in favor of 'Hungarian style' democracy over 'Danish style' democracy over 'Maroccan style' democracy over 'internal style' dictatorship over 'USA style'/'external style' dictatorship. (Robin, I know you are not the reason for the USA being on the 'ass end' of my list!)
Tamim, I have a relatively good impression of Marocco and its democracy :)
Kimmy,
Your post is related to my post above, so I will interject a comment on 'Big Business' here.
Monopoly or 'Big Business' is not a flaw in the market mechanisms, but is only possible with government support. A 'Large Business' is big because it serves its customers better than the competition (supply/demand) while a 'Big Business' is big bacuse the government serves it with overt/covert subsidies, and favorable legislation and policies (corruption). So a big company is not necessarily a bad thing; only if it lives in symbiosis with the government.
I don't know if you are a socialist, but believe me, ideological socialism sucks big time. The core problem is that when a government does not mind its own business (creating the foundation for a decent standard of living for everybody) it will either mind 'Big Business', 'Big Socialism' or 'Big Religion' at the expense of the weakest group(s) in society regardless of whether they are a minority or a majority!
Good Morning all, Saba'al'kher and Jo reggelt,
What are we all talking about here? We're trying to talk about the "ideal government" and the "ideal economic system". Then we throw in a bunch of examples coming from our own knowledge or experience,and what do we come up with? No ideal can exist. I think maybe we have all been missing one critical element. All "ideal" models seem to be doable on the surface but upon implementation tend to fall apart. Some are in the process of just coming fresh off the loom (Morocco) some are fraying and tattered (socialist) and others are mere rags enshrined in glass display boxes (the US). The deciding factor in all of these cases are the humans/business who are in charge of implementing the "ideal". This is the juncture where morality is supposed to play the monitoring role. Morality as I see it is very simple,
do unto others as you would have done unto you. The problem with implementing morality is that the "system" whichever one you choose, claims the collective role of responsibility in taking care of the citizens. This is what is known as the "bureacracy".
Now when anyone conjurs up the idea of "bureacracy" it does not bring to mind any sort of "ideal" But the definition of bureaucracy is :"government specialized by specification of functions, adherance to fixed rules and a heirarchy of authority"
ANY system in order to function MUST have a bureacracy, every system must have leadership, and every system must have followers in order to exist as a system. It is at the "human" level that all systems fail no matter how "ideal" or "fasciastic" they were in nature. "Big Business" is not necessarily a bad thing (unless all competition has been removed) "Big Business" with social consciousness can be a force for good. What is the downturn to any system is "MONOPOLY". When any one system or individual operates with greed and irreguard to the welfare of others then it is immoral. And hence we come back to the "ideal" as I see it, do unto others as you would have done unto you, a matter of personal responsibilty
Kimmy,
I didn't mean to leave you out, God morgen! Just wanted to toss you some additional info. Raymond over on "30 Israeli soldiers" posted an Excellent link http://wwwconcert4palestine.org/ It is a site about a plea to Bono of U2 to use his influence for the Palestinian cause. It might seem odd that I am bringing this up but this is why: It is an excellent clearing house of information about the crisis and it is really simple (KISS) but really smart (KISS). IF you need some answers to questions it is a very good place to start. Just wanted to let you know (and others) that it's a good source of information. See Ya!!
Robin,
Jó estét! (Good evening)
I'm impressed with your Hungarian :)
To make the confusion complete, I think what you seem to define as moral I define as ethical ('do onto others…' is like the liberal key sentence with a 'friendly' twist), because to me moral means moralizing and condemning which I find unethical ;)
Big Business/Conservatism, Socialism, and Theocracy are ideologies that, in essense, ‘justify' an uneven distribution of power which is unethical. The first is oppression of the masses by a minority while the two other are oppression of the minority by the masses, so they are ideologies based on 'state sponsored oppression' and therefore undemocratic even if they are chosen by the majority in a democracy!
The economic models of the Capitalistic and Socialistic ideologies are based on 'ideals' and are therefore not scientific. As their justification are based on moral (unscientific perception), these models, like their ideologies, cannot be ethical.
Free Market Economy, Liberal Economy etc. (a dear child has many names) is based on economic science and can therefore not be an ideology nor can it be ethical in its own right. The principles are scientific observations and not perceptions.
To add to the confusion, Liberalism, although an ism, is not a real ideology as its principles are based on scientific models (and is not a market model based on ideological principles). What makes Liberalism different from the other isms is that it is not based on dreams of the ideal, but is based on the observation that any ideal about a society is unattainable. The 'dream' ideologies ignore the 'human factor' because their premise is that when everybody follows the ideal moral or principles then society will be ideal. As humans will always have different hopes, dreams, and aspirations the ideal (idealistic) society will never happen in reality. As the 'best' society is an utopic goal, Liberalism is based on the largest common denominator i.e. the minimum principles for the 'better', but imperfect society.
The ideology of Liberalism is that it is not an ideology, but a set of scientific observations and principles that offer the foundation for making ethical decisions. In my terminology, ethical means a decision or action that is intended to maximize the benefit for everybody affected (regardless of whether it is decided by the majority or minority). As possibilities are almost infinite, it is not possible to spell out regulations (moral ideology) that will be optimal for every situation or society, so the 'better' ideology is a non-ideology based on scientific minimum principles with the highest probability for resulting in ethical decisions.
That everybody will always make ethical decisions is scientifically improbable (the fallacy of the ideologies). Therefore, expecting a bureaucracy to be ethical is a naive (read: unscientific) hope for something impossible (highly improbable). As unethical decisions unquestionably will be made in the bureaucracy, the only way to limit the 'abuse' of bureaucracy is to limit the bureaucracy itself.
The 'do to others what you want them to do to you' concept cannot be scientifically proven to function, but it can be scientifically proven that it is so improbable that it will work that it is almost impossible. Therefore, the ethical company or Big Business with social consciousness (what I called Large Business in my post to Kimmy) guaranteed by law or restrictions is wishful thinking. If a lot of regulations are set up then there will be the need for a lot of bureaucracy for control and enforcement and that will increase the risk of unethical enforcement of the regulation (corruption) and then we are back to promoting unethical business, because they will have a market advantage over the ethical business.
The optimal solution is not laissez faire or a lawless society, but a society that only regulates what needs to be regulated to ensure that everybody is free to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others.
In a real free market economy without economical or political intervention, but with requirements regarding e.g. fairness in information then the most profitable course of action for a company is to produce something in the most ethical manner that meets a particular need of consumers. If nobody can be as ethical or more ethical in meeting the particular need, then monopoly is justifiable. However, scientifically speaking, a monopoly is improbable in a real free market (monopoly is only possible with government 'blessing' or favorable policies).
If I treated my friends in a way I would not want them to treat me, then I would either be punished by law (if I infringed on their rights) or, if it was not unlawful, then I would probably loose one friend after the other until I realized that I need to treat my friends as I would want them to treat me. The same thing goes for a company in a real free market economy, because if it cannot hide behind a dirty bureaucrat, then the customers would realize that something is foul or a competitor would bring the truth out (a profitable action unless it results in a libel suit). The unethical company would either be punished by law or more likely be punished by the consumers.
I got the discussion on quite a detour from the topic, but I hope I did not manage to confuse you (too much) :)
Jó éjszakat! (Good evening/good night)
Thomas, :)
You are making my pre-alzheimers brain work at it's maximum capability :) The following is what I wish to focus on first:
"The optimal solution is not laissez faire or a lawless society, but a society that only regulates what needs to be regulated to ensure that everybody is free to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on the freedom of others." You are saying in a slightly different manner what I was saying with this:" And hence we come back to the “ideal” as I see it, do unto others as you would have done unto you, a matter of personal responsibilty" I compare the two as being similar because the "do unto others" in my mind is the same as allowing people there freedom without infringing on others. For instance, I will give a religious example (even though I know you don't like them too much). I think we both agree that every religion claims to be the "truth" however, when one's "truth" starts interfering with my right to my own "truth" that is infringing on my freedom of my "truth". (or even a so-called non-truth such as atheism) In the personal realm there are no laws in existance to control infringement of one truth against another. But in the public domain there must be laws to ensure non-infringement (did that make sense?) In the personal realm however, we must use our own "personal responsibility" in order to not infringe on others (again, did that make sense?).
On to point two: "In my terminology, ethical means a decision or action that is intended to maximize the benefit for everybody affected (regardless of whether it is decided by the majority or minority)." You and I are in total agreement on this one. I looked "ethic" up in the dictionary and every single definition, except one included the word "moral" I think what you might be confusing is "religious morality" with "secular morality". I believe that "religious morality" should be personal, and apply only to the group to which it belongs, whereas "secular morality" allows for multiple "truths" to coincide without infringing on each other (hence the need for personal responsibility as well as laws) There is a fine distinction I agree, but I hope I am making myself more clear. The only problem with liberalism (which I happen to agree is the best policy) is that it also requires all of the affected people within it's jurisdiction to agree. Once you can get them to agree amongst themselves that it is in their own best interest to select "liberalism" then I think you've got it made. The problem is that fly-in-the ointment that wishes to insist on non-acceptance.
Oh heck, I am getting very confused. Here's the best model of all. Allow everyone to pick which way they want to live, redraw the map, and then let them all move to where they think they would be happiest. Until then, do unto others as you would have done unto you! :)
Here's a thought,
As you would have done unto you, do unto others different than yourself, taking personal responsibility for your actions.
Here is how I look at it.
When I started my own business I told my wife that I would not have any customers, I would have friends that I would work for. She thought I was nuts.
I now have many friends. What is better? Friends or customers?
Everything is personal. We all get along and we talk about saving money.
Now that my wife is unemployed my custommers call me Kimmy because she is answering the phone. My wife is the only person who has called me Kimmy for 33 years. I love it because they treat her as a friend as my original idea.
Kimmy is a girls name over here. I use it with pride because my wife calls me that.
Kimmy,
How do you kill extremism? You kill it with kindness. This thread is called "breeding extremism" Extreme measures breed extremism. It is a vicious cycle of violence. Today I was listening to Air America (very liberal radio) and the commentator was reminiscing about Herr Bush saying "We're going to fight them over there so they don't come here to fight us". Can someone please explain the rationalle of this statememt? Can you really stage a war and invite people to come to it and think that is going to make you more safe? It absolutely baffles me that some people actually believe this nonsense. Iraq has only bread more contempt for the US, including our former allies who think we've gone berserk on loco weed. What breeds extremism? Inequitable treatment of others and beating them down to the point of desperation, THAT is what breeds extremism. Ask any Arab, Christian or Moslem what they think the root of Moslem terrorism is and they will tell you that our inequitable treatment of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. This has been going on too DAMN long Kimmy and we have sown the seeds of hatred towards us (the US). If we were to change our policy I could almost guarantee you 100% that terrorism would lessen dramatically. They are mad at us about other things too, our business interests infringing on their culture for instance and our support of puppet regimes. This also needs to change. The US is NOT the center of the universe and at some point we are going to have to realize that. I think it was Thomas who said "I didn't vote for him and he is not MY president". That says it all. If a parent beats a child continuously, that child has a much higer chance of himself becoming an abuser, sometimes even committing patricide at the extreme. Bush is NOT the president of the world and we are not the "parents" to the world either. It takes a whole lot of gaul to think differently.
And BTW, you breed kindness with kindness, working for your friends is a very beautiful thing. Even if one can't just work for their friends, they can surely take the time to be friendly!
Robin,
I agree that Ethics and Morality are overlapping, but I still think it makes sense to use them to differentiate between subjective and objective evaluations of 'right or wrong'.
Here is part or the article about Morality from Wikipedia:
Morality:
"Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. The term is often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, secular (e.g. Humanist) and philosophical communities who share concepts and beliefs, by which people subjectively determine whether given actions are right or wrong.
These concepts and beliefs about right and wrong are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behavior of its members….."
According to Wikipedia there are 3 branches of ethics (Meta-ethics, Applied ethics, and Normative ethics):
Meta-ethics:
"Meta-ethics is the investigation of the nature of ethical statements. It involves such questions as: Are ethical claims truth-apt, i.e., capable of being true or false, or are they, for example, expressions of emotion (see cognitivism and non-cognitivism)? If they are truth-apt, are they ever true? If they are ever true, what is the nature of the facts that they express? And are they ever true absolutely (see moral absolutism), or always only relative to some individual, society, or culture?…"
Applied ethics (sometimes Descriptive ethics):
"One form of applied ethics applies normative ethical theories to specific controversial issues. In these cases, the ethicist adopts a defensible theoretical framework, and then derives normative advice by applying the theory.
However, many persons and situations, notably traditional religionists and lawyers, find this approach either against accepted religious doctrine or impractical because it does not conform to existing laws and court decisions…"
Normative ethics:
"Normative ethics is the branch of the philosophical study of ethics concerned with classifying actions as right and wrong without bias, as opposed to descriptive ethics. Normative ethics regards ethics as a set of norms related to actions."
"Normative ethics bridges the gap between meta-ethics and applied ethics…"
"Moreover, because it examines standards for the rightness and wrongness of actions, normative ethics is distinct from meta-ethics, which studies the nature of moral statements, and from applied ethics, which places normative rules in practical contexts…"
So even though Moral and Ethical are related they are not 100% synonymous. In the distinction I was using, maybe I could have talked about Moral and Normative Ethics, but I think my distinction between a subjective and objective view on 'right or wrong' is more descriptive than using the two words 100% interchangeably :)
Robin,
Robin: "Herr Bush saying “We’re going to fight them over there so they don’t come here to fight us”. Can someone please explain the rationalle of this statememt?"
According to Mono Thinking (if everybody adopts this term, then it will show up in Webster's one day) this is rationally (meant ironically) argued in the way that: If the war is fought THERE then it cannot be fought HERE!
That is probably why, in the mind of Mono Thinkers without relativity at all, 9/11 is not related to US actions elsewhere in the world (outside New York, USA) but is a sign of that the world is angry about the 'freedom and democracy' in the US (N.Y. is in the USA; the USA is 'freedom and democracy'; 9/11 was an attack on the USA; and therefore, an attack on 'freedom and democracy').
Simple minds are relatively easy to decode, but that just make them the scarier!
Do you think I got it right or at least come close with my 'pocket psychology'?
Thomas,
Yes I think you hit the nail directly on the head with a big old WHACK in post #145. If I were to come up with a definition of "mono-thinking" using this particular case of 911 as the example, I would have a few choice words in my thesaurus. A few would be, SELECTIVE reasoning, manipulation of the public, coverup for one's own complicity, LIE and last but not least, meant for the absolutely ignorant retarded citizen! The statement we are referring to I believe had a very specific audience: the fundamentalist supporter who thinks that Iraq is the prelude to the rapture and perhaps is busy converting family and friends to join. Yes, throw a few "non-believers" in the mix too that think this is a great idea and you've got it made. Honestly Thomas, that some people here in the US actually fell for this one, which is REALLY the most stupid excuse for the war he ever gave, is absolutely the scariest thing I have EVER heard "as an American" But remember, in addition to "fighting them over there" Herr Bush is going to make sure he keeps us safe at home. That is why it is OK with a large percentage of the public that our phones are tapped, it's ok to keep prisoners at Guantanamo for years without hearings, we continue to support Israel as the lone democracy in the Mideast and why we have a deficit large enough to choke a camel (how'd you like that one?).
Herr George is FIGHTING TERRORISM! It's ok with so many citizens because as you can witness here on this very blog that many believe that people such as myself and Raymond say anything against it they should just leave on the next plane outa Dodge.
That is why I used both terms, "morally and ethically" on post
#1 on "The logic of Freedom, Torture them", if you noticed I made that post prior to our discussion of the distinction between the two words. I believe there are some universal truths (normative ethics) and "thou shalt not kill" is one of them. It's just "kill" can apply to many things, one can "kill" another's humanity without actually "killing" them. Besides that Thomas, I'm a woman so give me a little break, I do get emotional! :)
Thomas,
I hope you know I was being silly in that last sentence.
Back to basics: Morals and ethics ARE different entities but more than often overlap. "Morals" are the "beliefs" whereas "ethics" are the actions. Some of the most "moral" people I know are atheists who are "humanists" (my dad) An atheist without acceptable morals is a monster. But the converse is also true, a religious "moralist" can be an "ethical" monster. This is what I believe we are talking about when we refer to "extremism" in this post. I think what we are referring to also is "hypocracy", that is when the so called "moralist" commits acts of terror (a disconnect) The problem with many "religious" moral systems is that they are used to excuse "unethical"behavior. A fine example currently here hot in the news is our Senator from Pennsylvania. He was the senator out in front of the Terry Shaivo case wanting her to be kept on life support as a vegetable. He is also in the forefront of the anti-abortion movement. Recently we have found out that he is only allocating 20% of the total charity funds of his NGO to actual charities, the rest is going to political and various other entities. He is also a major supporter of the war in Iraq. What a VERY MORAL person this is (NOT!) In the case of Israel and Bush, they hold themselves up as beacons of morality, while their acts are those of terror, both domestically with underfunding domestic programs and financing the war in Iraq and other arenas of US involvement and the Palestinian crisis. So what do I think breeds extremism, it is when the so-called "good" morals of ANYONE do not coincide with behavior. That is why I believe that both our (US) current foreign policy and Osama's acts of terror are synonomous with each other. They feed off of each other and the innocent victims (or maybe complicit victims) suffer the cost. I hope that makes more sense and I am being "less" emotional ( I just had to put on another "hat")
BUSH led international condemnation of Afghanistan yesterday over the case of a Muslim who converted to Christianity and now faces the death penalty under the country’s Islamic laws. He criticised the Afghan authorities, saying that liberated countries needed to respect democratic rights. “I am deeply troubled when I hear that a person who may have converted away from Islam may be held accountable,”he added.
What strikes me here is the fact that Bush is now defending one individual in a whole country where many die every day under Us fire!
What do you call that?
Hi Tamim,
I call it wrong on all sides. I personally don't think anyone should be put to death for changing their religious affiliation.
I also am very surprised Herr Bush read the news that day. Oh I forgot, he has his advisors do that for him! There is a much deeper problem at root here though. Though much of the world was behind the US invasion of Afghanistan, we have abandoned to a large extent our support there because we are too busy in Iraq. But since we do lay claim to the "birth of democracy in Afghanistan" and that is "supposed" to mean bringing human rights to a country which was at the top of the list (along with North Korea and a few others) of human rights abusers, where were we when this happened? I read about this case several days ago on Saudi Jeans blog. My first reaction was Huh? how is this happening (snicker snicker) because we are not doing what we are saying we are doing in Afghanistan. Much of the reason we went in there was also the pipe line through the country. It is a blight on the US, pure and simple, that this happened under our supposed watch. Something went wrong so Herr Bush had to do SOMETHING to clear himself of the responsibility. As for defending one person while bombing the heck out of the country with depleted uranium bombs, well that is hypocracy. But he got his terminology wrong if he referred to "democratic rights" rather than "human rights". So I also call it an embarrasment.
Tamim,
It's early morning and I just reread the quote from Bush saying he is"deeply troubled" My kid's favorite expression when anywone says something they deem rediculous is "ARRRRRE you kidding me?"
This particular wordage is such a stock answer coming out of this jerk's mouth. Anytime anything happens this is what he says, from the dead soldiers coming home to Katrina. Quite frankly he is starting to look really wierd too. I never could stand his demeanor but he is starting to look downright strange as he wobbles his head even more and gives his smirk. This man doesn't get "troubled" over anything accept for a moment when he is told to be troubled. Remember him on the aircraft carrier? "Mission accomplished"? He is just so STUPID I think he actually believed this. But my thoughts are this: Bush is ONLY a frontman for the cabal behind him. Cheney and others, with their shotguns are the REALLY evil ones. Bush is just slow and retarded. This whole administration has orchestrated a plan to take over the world and one man being put to death for becoming a Christian is not going to slow them down except for the time it takes to mention it in a press conference. Sure there might be a little more to it than that. But America does NOT stand for the rights of the individual anymore, it stands for the rights of big business (Kimmy) and power. It is so damned complicated and if the average American knew what was really behind this administration cloaked in the guise of "Christianity" I would hope deeply that they would not put up with it. Our citizens here actually do not know that this war is putting HUGE amounts of money into the hands of our big business war machine. So "troubled"? Only in the sense of public opinion, but even then, public opinion in the US only, not the rest of the world who got this guys number a LONG time ago :)
Yes, "deeply troubled" barely describes this administration's psychological state.
Raymond,
(On a personal note aside from the conversation.
I needed a birthday card for my husband last week so I went to Target. They have a HUGE selection of cards for every occasion making fun of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield. One was a birthday card with Cheney holding a double barrled shotgun, the inside read
"Have a BLAST on your birthday" I spent a long enjoyable time reading every card for every occasion. They were hysterical. You certainly won't find these same cards at Walmart or Hallmark!
I love Target, but now I love it even more!! (Please don't tell me they have a Zionist connection, I don't WANT to know tehetehe)
:) :) :)
Sorry Haitham for going off subject. If you need a card for any occasion, maybe Raymond and I could help you out!! Masalama
Thank you Robin. I'll keep that in mind ;-)
Haitham,
LOLOLOL You are welcomed! :)
Tamim,
Bush is "deeply troubled" over a Christian convert potentially being put to death because this man has seen the light (sarcasm). According to Bush and other Zionist Christians, Muslims are sinners and are hell-bound. Only the Christians who believe in Jesus are guaranteed heaven. Therefore, he doesn't want to see this convert who, according to Bush, has found the true religion be executed.
And yes, the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan has killed, and continues to kill many innocent Afghans on a daily basis, but they are not worth defending because they are Muslims. Fundamentalist Christians and Jews don't acknowledge Islam and view it as a false religion.
That is why Bush will stand up and say don't kill this Christian, but he won't stand up and say the same for Muslims in Afghanistan, Palestine, Iraq, or anywhere else.
By the way, this website has a lot of information on the beliefs of Christian Zionists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionists in case you are unfamiliar with their way of thinking.
Dena,
Here's another good site thewitness.org/archive/march2003/zionism.html
There's even a particular lobby but I can't find it at the moment
Thank you Robin,
I really leaned a lot in this article and through Michael Prior's viewpoint. Thanks for sharing it.
Thank you Robin, :)
Thank you Dena, :)
I really didn't know about the existence of zionist christians before.I remember one day I was surprised when seeing Bush on TV wearing a Jewish small hat (I think during his visit to Israel)as I'm familiar with this sort of religious small hats Jews wear especially on saturday,and when they go to synagogues to pray. I wondered If that symbolized something for him.Bush being member of Cristian Zionists explains his connection to Israel and his blind engagement in its defense.Dena, Tamim and All,
About two weeks ago I responded to something Haitham posted by saying I was on the brink of an epiphany. What I meant was that all the pieces I knew existed were suddenly coming together to form a puzzle. There is a think tank here in the states called Project for a new American Century (PNAC) It's members include Jeb Bush, Wolfowitz, Perle, other Zionists and GARY BAUER. I first heard about this on Nightline about three years ago. It is their "manifesto" written in 1997 that everyone talks about when they say we were planning to invade Iraq and that there needed to be a "Pearl Harbor" type event to trigger action. The original manifesto is hard to find but here is a good article:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm – 23k -
I rant about this "thing" all the time because all the major players in the Bush Administration are connected to it. Another person, William Kristol is the current head of the TT and is also a regular commentor on Fox News. Dick Cheney is the founder.
Skip forward to Gary Bauer http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Gary_Bauer – 16k – This right wing slimy fundamentalist is also the cofounder of American Alliance of Christians and Jews
http://www.towardtradition.org/american_alliance.htm – 22k – and
http://www.towardtradition.org/pr_aajc.htm – 14k – There is also another alliance of Jews and Christians called "Toward Tradition"
http://www.towardtradition.org/ – 31k – Mar 25, 2006 – whose members include Rabii Daniel Lapin, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and are you readdy, Jack Abramoff. (For those non-Americans he is BIG TIME in the news for bribery, arranging murders and lobbying on the part of the Indians and stealing their monies to you guessed it, finance his lobby interests)
Lest I sound like a conspiracy nut, this is all starting to make sense to me. Add to all the info I just gave you this, there are ongoing excavations under the Temple Mount. There's just one small problem with this, the Dome of the Rock Mosque sits on top!
Here is a good site to see the massive drive of these nuts to hurry up this project so that Christ will return:
http://www.bible-prophecy.com/temple.htm – 58k – Please don't send the men in white coats for me quite yet. Read for yourself how CRAZY these people all are and downright evil. Bush might say this isn't a war against Islam, but there sure is alot of evidence rebutting him. This thread is "Breeding Extremism" as I recall.
Just because these crazies are not flying planes into buildings or strapping bombs onto themselves, does not make them any less extreme. Dena, I want to thank you in particular for bringing this up because at least I know I'm not alone in my conspiracy theory! :) Haitham: I'm trying really hard to laugh about this but it's NOT FUNNY!!
Sorry, in all my cross referencing I realized the American Alliance of Christians and Jews is the same entity as Toward Tradition. These are the ones preaching to us all about how to be good moral people. HAHAHA!!
Robin,
When there is evidence that the conspiracies are the reality, then they cease to be theories. ; )
Raymond,
I guess what I was trying to say in my above post is this:
The neo-con agenda is the Zionist agenda is the whacko Christian fundamentalist agenda. When we have politicians who are supposed to be doing what is best for our country (HA) and supposed to be upholding our Constitution (HA), but instead they are implementing their OWN agenda, this is a very dangerous situation.
That this is being sold to the average Joe Blow American citizen as the "war on terrorism" is fascism. My dad is an avid reader of politics, and an atheist. When I try telling him that this stuff is going on he hints that I'm off kilter because the agenda itself is so crazy and he does not see how a whacked out religious agenda could have any power at all. But the fact of the matter is that it DOES have power because it's adherents are the ones IN power. It is one thing to think a "red heifer" being born in Israel is the sign of the end days (this is REALLY crazy stuff but part of Apocolyptic theory), it is another to paint a heifer red so that the end days come sooner. This is just an analogy of course, but I am trying to say that these crazies are looking FORWARD to this and are helping it right along as best they can. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read "The rapture is not an exit policy". While this referred to the war in Iraq, I think it has even greater meaning. Since this administration is so in to a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments, I think there should be a litmus test for all our politicians concerning this issue. When anyone believes such crazy stuff as this, I don't think they are fit to be the leaders of anything except maybe their own church council or the ward of the mental hospital they might be in. I think it all started a very long time ago though, when the Jews were the favored descendants and the Arabs were sent to roam the desert. That this is playing out in the Palestinian issue in modern days is one of the greatest tragedies on our earth today. It is ethnic cleansing, pure and simple. And to do so with religious conviction and justification is the most sinful of all.
Here are two good sites for PNAC:
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/pnac.htm – 77k –
http://www.thefourreasons.org/pnac.htm – 73k -
Happy reading anyone if you want to have a nightmare tonight.
To me, the conspiracy theory label is very worrying, because if it had been complete nonsense then it would result in a defamation law suit or a strong rejection with proof of the opposite from the people involved.
When something is labeled as conspiracy theory it seems to be 'propaganda speak' for "Shit! They are getting close. Good thing they do not have everything figured out yet, because that gives us time to ignore the subject and position the protesters as loonies long before they find the truth!".
Of course, strong objections are not a guarantee that a theory is wrong, but ignoring accusations and trying to dance away from them makes me think that there is pretty good likelyhood that something fishy is actually going on.
Thomas,
Throw in the Carlyle Group and make even more connections. The problem with this one is that Dubai World Ports and other Arabs such as many Saudis are sucked in. Then of course let's not forget Hallibuton. Remember, Grandpa Bush's company was bought out and became part of the Halliburton group. (a side note of course is that Grandpa Bush'e arms company sold directly to the Nazis) Then we've got Cheney AKA Darth Vader who get's on FOX news and tells us everything is just peachy keen, our government has a handle on the situation. It's all about two things, MONEY and POWER with a little bit of religious justification thrown in.
For any one not wanting to log on, here's a touch of PNAC's view of how the world needs to go concerning space control and information control: (This is PNACs own statement in their own manifesto)
"• Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new “international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership."
This applies to us folks, us bloggers who just want to talk.
Robin,
Re #143- You mentioned about the US not being the centre of the universe.
The centre of most galaxies has a black hole. Don't you think then that the centre of the universe might be the biggest black hole ever?
This would make the US the centre of our world. Biggest black hole where everything goes in but nothing comes out.
Kimmy,
That is a VERY good point about being a "black hole" I'm going to share something totally off topic, but after you read it I hope you understand why I am sharing it.
Here in California, and in some other states, developers are creating "all inclusive planned communities" What does that have to do with anything you ask? Stay with me for a moment or two more. Yesterday I was reading a huge article about a new planned community in what was before an open area of Orange County. This community has it all, open areas where you don't need to go far to be in the "common area" that all the residents share. The trees are all newly planted, the houses cookie-cutter perfect, schools and shopping all closeby and shiny new, with planned events each weekend at the lake for the residents. Orange County is a MAJOR Republican stronghold and mostly WASP. One interviewed resident said, "This is the community of my dreams, we have everything within a short distance that we need, and the planners took care of all our entertainment needs too. I live a ten-minute drive to work, so I've cut down on my gas consumption and my children are safe to play within the community" The article HORRIFIED me. Have you ever seen the movie "Pleasantville"? It's about this very sort of thing in a spoof sort of fashion. But this planned community in Orange County IS Pleasantville and developers are racing to plan more and more across the country.
So what do I think about your "black hole" statement? Not only is it true on a national level, it is now true on a personal level with people wanting to isolate themselves even more, in their Pleasantville Black Holes. Of course this absolves the fascist state from any responsibilty, because the populace is happy in Pleasantville and they can get away with whatever they darned well please. Americans helping those in need? Of course that occurs and that IS one of the best thing about America. But when Katrina hit, that shook the very base of American "morality" as a nation. Black Hole, absolutely, but I prefer to live in the light of day just as you and many others do. (My friends from around the world, thank GOD you don't have to live in Pleasantville or anywhere near it)
Robin, I was joking, but I now see that the elite have their own world. This will make our world just a little less than theirs.
Maybe more than a little less!
The more they isolate themselves the more they will be out of the loop of actual condemnation of their government.
Sorry, But I just realized that they will be working for the Democrats.
Kimmy,
Hey :) Maybe you WERE joking, but I think your black hole statement was very pertinent to the conversation. Think about it this way, like you said, "everything goes in, but nothing goes out". Isn't this what our (I know you're in Canada, but close enough to relate)government is doing both domestically and with our foreign policy? Domestic issues aren't really the subject here but suffice it to say, we pay our taxes and in they go, into the pockets of the Halliburtons, Bechtels and arms manufacturers while social programs are being cut. As for our foreign policy, we are sucking in and racking up spheres of influence with our military bases (while exporting democracy, NOT!) and giving back civil war. I would really like to think that some good came out of our venture in Afghanistan but then again, we got military bases, a clear run for the pipe line, and another notch in our belt of conquest. Who is really benefitting here? Are we really safer because of this? Or have we created more enemies with our actions? Therefor, as we create a bigger black hole, those who want to can shoot down into from above. I don't know Kimmy, this whole mess this assinine jerk of a bush (no, I meant to not capitalize) got us in to the more I think "How are we going to get out of THIS one"? The other day I heard him say that this problem will be left for the next administration to deal with because it cannot be done in 21/2 years. Wasn't it him, Rummy and Darth Vader who told us they would be rolling out the red carpets for us and invite us all for tea? I remember watching them saying this with my oldest daughter and thinking, "who do they think they are kidding? This is Iraq, an Arab country, what makes them think this is going to be a cakewalk? Now they've set their crosshairs on Iran. I'm sorry, but they are some BAD you know whats in Iran. If they think Iraq was bad, wait till they try invading Iran. Iraq was a secular state under the full control of Hussein with the people downtrodden from years of sanctions. That is NOT the case in Iran and they are in for a very rude awakening if they think these people are going to roll out anything but a long line of road side bombs and worse. You want to know what breeds extremism? Greedy black hole pickled toad nations breed extremism. As for the Democrats, you are absolutely correct, they are NOT doing what they should be doing. It seems everytime one of them opens their mouth in protest the others distance themselves. This whole situation sucks big time and you and I and others are left in our NOT Pleasantville state of every day living. Do you want to move to Pleasantville? From what I can ascertain from you here on the blog I sure don't think so. So maybe you were kidding, but once again, I think you hit on something very true. We are not the center of the universe, but we better watch what we wish for, because centers tend to implode into black holes.
Robin,
I have an uncle in Cal. dying of cancer of the throat. I understand. Thank you.
Bush is an ignoramus on a good day. (the capital letter was needed because it was at the start of a sentence.)
The black hole is the pork barrel that both parties eat at.
We have the same problem up here.
I am right, you are wrong is the mantis in NA.
Dear Robin,
I am extremely saddened to hear your news. From everything you have stated about your father, he sounds like an awesome person. You will be missed terribly. Your intelligence, your kind words, and your ability to put yourself in the shoes of another human being to see there side of the story. This blog really needed you.
Thanks for everything you have shared with us. You taught me so much through your life experiences and your wisdom and I am greatful to you for that.
I will keep you and your father in my prayers. I hope God gives you strength in this difficult time.
I wish you nothing but the best in life and I definitely hope to see you again on this website.
Take care Robin.
Robin (Re 68),
Your post here confirms much of what I have gathered for some time.
There are political opponents of the current American administration who will gladly come to blogs such as these to advance their own domestic political agendas.
And I think that's wonderful.
It is a testament to the freedoms enjoyed in your nation that you are able to voice such partisan opposition.
Though I might suggest that you refrain form oversimplifying your contributions here to be those of an "American" and instead present yourself with the more honest "American Democrat" or "anti American Republican" tag so as to more accurately be received.
Just a thought.
Perhaps your party of choice (whichever it may be) will be more successful in the upcoming American elections.
Best of luck.
I will never be able to express my views as well as Robin.
Ali,
I would like to point out that your reasoning is seriously flawed.
Robin is out on personal business, but if she was here, then I am sure she would strongly object to your post.
Regardless of her political opinions, she is an American (US American) just as much as you are.
Think about it for a second! Why does it matter whether she declares herself a Democrat, Republican, black, white, hispanic, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Atheist? Would that validate or invalidate her opinions?
Your label suggestion is not just a matter of rhetoric, but is holds and promotes an anti-democracy bias.
Disagreeing with the political party/parties in power is NOT a threat to democracy, it IS democracy!
If you replace a rational thinking process (personal evaluation of what is being said) with Mono Thinking (is the person 'sanctioned' to have the 'right' opinion or not) then you are the one who is in trouble.
I encourage you to read the article in Wikipedia about groupthink ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink ). Just like groupthink, Mono Thinking is also a pathology, but it is one step further, because it is not based on flawed reasoning; it is completely void of reasoning!
In a company, groupthink is likely to lead to a string of poor decisions that ultimately will result in bankruptcy and dissolution of the company. In a society, groupthink/Mono Thinking is also likely to lead to a string of poor decisions, but the ultimate result is the end of democracy.
It is very simple, the larger the number of Mono Thinkers in a society the more 'ripe' the society is for dictatorship!
Hey Thomas and all my other "kitchen friends",
I am actually still here, I'm not leaving til Saturday but I have alot of business to take care of. I've been keeping an eye on what's going on, but quite frankly, the "oomph" has gone out of me for arguing or defending my opinion.
I've got a name for all of you who talk to me, I call you my "kitchen friends". There is a saying in English, "the kitchen is the heart of the home". Since you might have already guessed that I like metaphors (just because they bring sense sometimes to what you are trying to say) I call you "my kitchen friends" because it just so happens my computer is in my kitchen and it's very easy to just walk over to it while I'm taking care of other things. But there is more to it than that in my mind. The kitchen, the "heart of the home" is also where the family gathers.
Haitham has provided this forum for all of us to share, it is our "kitchen". When a family gathers, we don't label each other, we are all members of the family with respect for eachother. If some of us have been willing to state what nationality we are, that still does not label us in my opinion, it just gives us all a chance to get to know eachother a little better, a risk so to speak that we have all taken, something we have added to the conversation. I personally don't want to be a part of any group that would want to tell me how to think, it's just not my nature. Haitham has given us a chance to be part of his "family" though in that we are all members with equal voices. And like any family, sometimes we spat. The bigger "family" that we are a part of is the "world family". Lables might be useful for personal reasons, but in this conversation I find them totally unnecessary. In fact, if we are engaged in a hot and heavy conversation, a lable can just be used as a means to dismiss a person's point of view.
I am an American. You know alot about me personally because I don't mind sharing it. If Ali read through carefully, he would know I am a Democrat, a liberal Catholic Democrat. SOOOOOO, what does that have to do with the cost of tea in China when we are meeting here in Haitham's forum as "kitchen friends"? If I could reach into my computer and yank you all out I would. I might make a meat loaf for dinner with mashed potatoes and gravy and ask you all to share the dinner and dessert and stay around for some roasted marshmellows. OR, we could have a pot luck, you could all bring your own dish and we could share some new tastes.
Like I said, I'm still here for two days, and I would like to take this chance to thank you all for being my "kitchen friends"
To think, at my old dinosaur age of 51, I could get computer savvy and make friends from around the world. Thank you everyone, and thank you HAITHAM for bringing us altogether in your kitchen. (just one way to counter EXTREMISM)
Thank you, Robin. That was the nicest thing I've read all day. Beats cubby holing and labelling hands down. I'll bring the dessert. Atayif or knafeh? (I know it's not eid, but it's just sooo good)
Raymond,
Can you bring both? They're both too good to decide which one.
Yum Yum YUM! Thank you
Ali
I’d like to point out that Robin is not conducting an American election campaign and does not need to be conducting one to be able to express her opinion openly about her opposition to the current policy of the American administration. She, therefore, does not need a tag to be accurately received. We are all grateful to Haitham for giving us the opportunity to communicate our concerns to one another about what’s going on around the world and to exchange views as human beings with disregard of borders.
I just noticed today is yoom il ard. My Arabic is rusty, but I remember that ard means land. So it IS a holiday, but like Haitham said, everyday is yoom il ard, so we can celebrate that everyday. Maybe it's not eid, but I say lets celebrate altogether any old way we choose any day of the year. Solidarity.
Thomas, aD (Re: 174),
My only effort here is to point to the fact that by positioning herself on this forum as "an American" and then follow that up with harsh negative critiques of the current administration, Robin has painted herself in the image of one whose making concessions to particular views here despite the fact that she is from that nation, rather than the more accurate image of a person who, given here admitted political allegiances (to the American Democrat party), has never held any fondness for the current American president or his policies and is unlikely to in the future.
In other words, by punctuating her perspective by wrapping it in an American flag (rather than the more precise Democrat banner) Robin risks a false perception. Namely something along the lines of "Hey, I'm an American here and even I don't like what Bush is doing.." implying that she is objective in her perspective due to her citizenship.
And while this half-accurate presentation might provide comfort for those international contributors who share her view (ie "Even Americans don't like Bush") it probably should not as all domestic politicians have there detractors, especially in mid-term election years. Save for Saddam, of course, who alleged to have been "elected" by 100% of the Iraqi electorate :) .
The American band called "The Dixie Chicks" (I'm reasonably certain that was the name, at least) were appropriately criticised some time ago, not for their anti-Bush perspective, but for waiting to present it until they were out of the country. It was received as an act of political cowardice and a dubious method of generating an international following. While these cases are not identical, of course, it could be argued that some parallels exist.
If, at any time, I have positioned my perspective in a similar way by inferring that I was either an American or represented the perspective of an American, I would be quite surprised Thomas, as I cannot ever recall having done- or feeling the need to do so. It would be rather…unusual if I had, in fact. ;)
Again, when domestic partisanship is presented to an international audience, confusion can ensue and clarification can be of use.
I hope this has helped to clarify my motivation for you.
When one believes in democracy and lives under a true democratic regime, one feels free to call things by their names whether in a domestic or in an international context.
"Freedom – only a word?
There are only few people who speak in favour of civil liberty, although most people speak openly of freedom, and the few who follow this path and consider human rights as belonging to people in general, are themselves considered by most people as defenders of self-indulgence and political free-thinkers. Others speak much of freedom but take this to mean the freedom of certain groups of people or individuals, and forget the humblest who have not had the advantage to have sought refuge in the entrenchments of the others, but the more these entrenchments are extended to the others, then naturally the humblest become more crowded and homeless on our earth."
Anders Chydenius: "Thoughts on the Natural Rights of Servants and Peasants", 1778.
Thomas,
I'd like to thank you for your wise contributions on this blog.
I recognize I have always admired your convincing method of analysis as much as I have always agreed with your enlightening views. :)
Good Morning Tamim and Thomas and my other Kitchen Friends,
Please let me begin by saying to you all as I have said briefly in #169, I truly value my conversation with all of you here in "Haitham's kitchen". The banter, the exhange of thoughts and information is utterly fulfilling to me on a very personal level.
I feel safe here to opine and for that I am truly greatful. What I have larned from all of you, from your own personal offerings to news events and news sources has nudged me to truly examine my own "comfy existence" in my own physical kitchen.
Ali is correct in saying that I state firmly that I am an American. I don't choose to wrap myself in a flag because a flag is a meaningless piece of cloth which if idolized is just that, idolotry. I state that I am an American partly because I am proud of the "ideals" which America stands for, partly because I am saying "Hey I'm an American and I realy hate what my government has done in their foreign affair policy", an to the most extent, because I just am upfront about it. None of us should think we should hide our nationalities. As some of you may know who have been on long enough, I am a former government teacher. In my former "teaching days", it was my responsibility to impart to my students knowledge concerning our constitution. While no "human" document is ever perfect, I do feel our constitution is an example of a "human" framework ideal for a secular society with religious freedom and other human rights stated. But that is just it, it is a "framework" and therefor is open wide to interpretation. Our Constitution does not give details for everyday living, it leaves that up to humans to propose, legislate and interpret law. While we here in the US revel in our free speech, others from around the world fear to speak in even private circumstances of their dissent. I do not wish to drape myself either in a flag or any other banner. I am speaking my conscience, as all of you are here meeting in "Haitham's kitchen". Wherever our conscience comes from, whether it be a higher power or our own human intelegence, that does not matter for we are still at the end of the day speaking our own knowledge and conscience. Where is the border of our own conscience? Is it only within our own existence, or is it part of a larger existance of humanity? If we are only concerned with ourselves, why bother talking at all unless it is to further our own personal benefit. None of us here in this conversation purport to be anything more than ourselves speaking as ourselves. This forum is the perfect stage for this type of conversation because people from all walks of life can meet and exchange ideas. But this is not true of the countries from which some of our fellow bloggers speak. Even here in the states, there are daily stories of investigations into people such as ourselves who dare to speak out against their government. Dissenters are "suspicious". They must be watched. They could be dangerous. They are challenging authority. They could have ties to terrorism. They are not patriotic. They do not love their country. They are traitors.
Here in Haithams kitchen, we are not "Extremists". We are individivuals speaking our own minds for whatever the subject may be.
I suppose, Thomas aD and Tamim, that I might want to allow for a bit of skepticism when it comes to an individual who purports to reject the idea of labels while, in the very same instance, labels him- or herself as a "Liberal Catholic American Democrat Teacher", perhaps achieving a high-water mark here for self-labeling in so doing.
These two acts seem rather mutually exclusive to me and, though not "suspicious" as it were, certainly worthy of some consideration when the ideas of consistency, accuracy and perhaps even extremism are concerned.
But then, that's just one person's view and I've little doubt that defenders of inconsistency abound.
Peace.
Within any "lable" there is the individual with the freedom of choice of thought given to us by our creator, our higher power, or simply our own humanity. These are simply things about me, they are not the core of my inner consciousness. Just as the Extremists of whom this thread is speaking, they have their own interpretation of the "lables" they wear. That is precisely why lables can be misleading yet often times a matter of personal pride. Dismissing me or others of any lable is of no purpose other than to serve one's own personal need to dismiss. At the end of the day it is our deeds which affect others, not our thoughts if kept inward and not directed to harm. When there is a disconnect between outwardly preaching consciosness and humaniy yet acting in a way to harm others, this is evil. If our deeds do not speak to promote humanity, then all is lost and no matter what we profess, religion or patriotism, we have ceased to exist as persons kind to eachother.
Ali,
It seems to me that you want people here on this blog to be more concerned with what somebody labels themselves as, rather than be concerned with the actual topic of the blog.
Who cares if Robin is an American Democrat. And who cares what your nationality is or what your religion is. That shouldn't have anything do to with it because if you let your nationalistic pride or your religious devotion cloud your judgement, you will never be able to see the truth even if it is staring you in the face. Instead of acknowledging the faults of any given administration, you will let your love for your country take precidence and therefore, you will turn a blind eye towards the administrations crimes. And you will be the first one to call out a dissenter and tell them they are free to emigrate.
Therefore, you should be more concerned with people on an individual by individual basis. Forget about their nationality, their religion, their gender, etc.
By the way, your kidding yourself if you seriously believe that the Democratic and Republican parties are that different. They are only slightly different. Maybe Robin doesn't belong to any of the two parties. Maybe she is on the extreme left and therefore has no parties that she can support. (How democratic).
Dena (Re: 187)
Thank you for your perspective.
Ali
If you think we are inconsistent or defend inconsistency (which is not true) that's your problem and that does not matter at all even if you think we abound. Inconsistency is an attitude everyone is free to adopt, the same as labelling.
However; what you are attempting to do here is trying hard to convince everybody that one of us is wrong which is quite possible and quite human, but one thing is sure; your definition of right and wrong relies on your own narrow perspective that restricts people’s opinions and conditions them.
Hey Dena,
I wanted to take the opportunity to personally thank you for your sweet #171. Unfortunately here in the US we are basically a two-party system with no viable alternatives. I am a registered Democrat but it certainly isn't because I support their foreign agenda which stinks as much as the Republicans. They are however my party of choice in domestic matters. I'm a firm believer in voting and since our primaries require a party affiliation in order to vote, I am a registered Democrat. I don't think any one can bitch even a little bit if they don't vote so that is why I try to do my best, and basically choose the lesser of two evils. Like Tamim noted, I'm not running a campaign, but on the other hand I'm upfront about my own affiliations, even if they do not serve my purposes completely. I actually would MUCH prefer the multi-party parliamentary system of Europe because then a vote is cast much more directly therefor actually having a chance of making a difference. In the meantime, I am also very passionate about domestic affairs and social programs which equitably serve our citizens. THIS administration fails miserably on both fronts, domestic AND foreign and no matter what my affiliation I am not afraid of stating my nationality or making myself clear about how I feel. No one is speaking here in an extreme manner whatsoever, at least I don't think so. If someone wants to call me extreme left, who gives a darn. They're not in the voting booth with me and they also don't have much to say about what I choose to share. Haitham's kitchen is sure a wonderful place to be able to do that. Thanks Haitham again! And thanks again Dena for #171
Tamim :)
First in #172 I am asked to unsimplify my simple statement of "American" and more accurately present myself as a "Democrat or and anti-American Republican" Did anyone else besides my self notice that this statement is equating Democrat with anti-Americanism? Oh well, it's just a small part of this whole equation. When I attempted to give more meaning to my own self labeling (which is at it's best only a loose lable) I was then told I had reached the high-water mark of self labeling. Gosh, I can't win for loosing here. Here's some more, I'm 5foot4inches, slightly overweight and have too much gray hair. Is this even a higher water mark or have I just shared some more personal information? When one cannot undo a message, one attempts to undo the messenger.
Ali, get back to basics here. If we share personal information, our religions our party affiliations or our blood type, it has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. But since this blog is not censored to bleep out personal things we wish to share, don't use them to discredit anyone, myself or others simply because you think the tactic might work. If you want to share your opinion, I for one am up to a heary debate, AFTER I return from my own personal business. I'm not going to follow this path of lable yourself don't lable yourself HA I got you you're drowning in high water. Respect in any discussion comes from forging a good debate, not trying to discredit an opponent.
Robin, Haitham, Thomas and all.
My main belief is that we are all together on this earth.
We have to live together. We have to accept each other as to who we are.
Religion has become a crux that everyone has to bear.
I am not religious, so I don't have that problem.
If your religion tells you to love your neighbour. Then do it!
If your religion tells you to forgive. Then do it!
What is the problem here? I love everyone, why can't you all love everyone else?
Robin, etc.
Why are we arguing about this shit. We are right and they are wrong. (Wrong includes Bush and Osama Bin Laden.)
Hey Kimmy and other Cocina Amigos :)
I'll be gone for three weeks. I'll miss you all. Have a great conversation. When I get back it will be fun to see went on. Take care everyone, and thank you all again for all your kind thoughts.
Bye Haitham!! Hate to take up space with personal stuff, but my email is out of order. Keep the fire going in your kitchen, your feast is MOST delicious.
Kimmy,
I agree, they're both wrong (Bush and Bin Laden)!!!!!!!!!!
Have fun!!!
Hey all my friends here,
It's early Saturday morning and I'm leaving for the airport in three hours. I want to leave you all with one last "personal" story.
A long long time ago, 1975 to be precise, I was a very young (20)
newly married bride in a very strange land, Beirut during the civil war. The shops were mostly open during the day (even though it was extremely dangerous to venture out) but at night the sounds and sites of the rocket fire kept you awake. One day my sister in laws asked me to make an "American" dinner. They thought that since I was an "American" I could make a meat loaf.
Needless to say, I had never made a meat loaf in my life. We searched the fridge and the vegetable bin for ingredients. As you may know, an "American" meat loaf is made with ground beef. Well, all we had was ground lamb. No problem I thought, it doesn't matter what goes into a meat loaf, each cook has their own special recipe. We chopped and smooshed and popped the meat loaf in the oven anxiously awaiting an "American" dinner. All was going well until the butane ran out. Disapointingly we took the meat loaf out and came up with a brilliant idea, "lets put it in the fridge and finish cooking it tomorrow night" (Mind you, my sister-in-laws were 19 and 21 and thought this might work) The next day our Christian driver (I'm making distinctions because the war was between different religious factions) arranged for a butane delivery and we popped the half-cooked meat loaf in to finish for a belated "American" dinner. When we sat down to eat our meat loaf, it was absolutely AWFUL!!!!
Here goes one of my metaphors again. The "Beirut" meat loaf did not fail because of the ingredients, it failed because the butane ran out!! I say that whenever you get a group of people together from very different walks of life, religion, political party or culture, it doesn't "fail" because of the ingredients, it fails because the "butane" (energy source) which makes it a delicious meat loaf runs out.
All of us here come from different perspectives. Some have stated up front what their perspective is, and others have participated in a more "anonymous" manner. That does not matter.
We are all meeting here to form a "delicious meat loaf" and it is up to us, both here on the blog and in our own daily lives to keep the good energy going so that the meal is at least edible, and at best perfectly cooked.
I wish for all of you here and those elsewhere to not be "EXTREME" or harsh in their judgement of eachother. We have all been put in this big pond of life and are all our own individual "toad" selves. We all have warts because we are toads. Play nice with each other, don't splash too much and be "EXTREME" in your play and certainly, don't reach over and "pick" at each others warts so they become infected. We're all in the same pond. Let's make it a pleasant one so that we can all become the best toads that we can be.
I've grown very fond of you guys and your input. I won't be around a computer for three weeks so I'm going to have to go "cold turkey". Tamim :), Thomas :), Raymond :), Kimmy :)
Dena :) Haitham :) and Ali :) and all others :) enjoy your "meat loaf" and put your best positive energy into making it a "delicious" if not "quirky" meal! Arevaderci!!
Dear Robin,
You've been the 'Master Chief', and we will never run out of butane, but we will wait for you return to finish the dish. Until then, we will keep stirring :-D
All the best!
Extremism has always existed through human history in political and religious behaviour around the world. And it has always proved to be disastrous. Today extremism is devastating the world , though it is most apparent under Islamic turbans,it is also a characteristic of various religious and political groups going from extreme right to extreme left.And one cannot deny the fact that the American administration is extremist, but the danger lies in the way this administration is transforming Americans into extremists by lying to them through propaganda.
I quote :
“Little by little the minds of the people have been poisoned by propaganda and it is called nourishment. As a result the more noble traits of our culture are incrementally dying. Through the judicious use of lies and distortions the people are deceived into supporting the atrocities of war and conquest that are committed in their name.”
“Who but a fool or a madman would volunteer to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for the sake of increasing the already obscene profits of defence contractors and oil companies? It is precisely because the agenda of those in power conflicts with the interest of the people that governments lie and distort.”
“The lack of historical perspective leaves one vulnerable to the lies and distortions that have always characterized our government. Of course, this historical context is not taught in our schools for reasons that should be obvious.”
from: Ignorance by Content and Omission
by Charles Sullivan; American photographer, social activist and free lance writer.
Robin,
You are just a young girl.
I am an old person here.
Meat loaf? I will give you recipies.
Being born a Dane I will give you recipes of eating raw meat.
I am learning about Islam.
I am learning because of you.
Thank you.
Islam and Christianity are starting to become the same religion.
I am still a non-believer.
But your beliefs and Haitham's are starting to make sense.
I still don't believe but your sincerity make me believe that there is a truth for all to accept.
On my frequent navigations on the internet I have come across this text that I find very close to my own view and relevant to the topic of the blog. I see it could contribute to the understanding of the current situation in America as it is seen from an American perspective.
Muslim & Christian extremism
« Right-wing nationalists eagerly point to the frequency of terrorism in Israel and Iraq as evidence that Muslims are basically insane. This is important, because if you accept that premise then you can also accept the idea that Muslims are incapable of civil discourse, including negotiation. If you follow the chain of reasoning up to its real (not just logical, but real) conclusions, you find that people who believe this line also believe in shooting or bombing all Muslims “into the stone-age”.
There's no meaningful difference between the morality or sanity of Muslim extremists and the morality or sanity of Christian extremists. There's no difference in principle between the extremists in the Middle East and America's militia movement, America's white-supremacists and America's abortion-clinic bombers. In fact, we may have just as many militant extremists in the U.S. as a proportion of the population as Muslim countries have in their countries.
The meaningful difference that does exist is not a moral or sane difference, but rather the fact that Muslim extremists have become ignited whereas America's extremists have been placated. Of course, occasionally American extremists do become united, but so far the incidents have been infrequent enough that we can afford to ignore them. We can pretend that they don't exist, and we can conveniently forget about, for example, the 168 people who died in Oklahoma City. After all, 168 isn’t a large number on a worldwide scale of violence, is it? But these things are obvious. Are they good arguments for bombing us “into the stone age”? Of course not. We have as much of a right to exist as anyone does. But none of this makes Islamic terrorists any better. So what’s the point?
The point is that the people in Muslim countries are people like us, so we probably can find common ground if we look for it. I’m not saying that we should appease terrorists; that would do more harm than good. What I am saying is that we should try to address the complaints they have that are valid. That will give us something to work with, and it will give us a chance to achieve peaceful relations.
That’s supposed to be what we want, right? Peace? »
–
Apollo
Has anyone looked at http://www.proof911.com/
Kimmy
Your link is not working
{ 1 } Trackback
[...] or further action to stop the blood shed. In other matters, Sabbah draws our attention to increasing Islamophobia which is taking the West by storm. If this is not all, fund [...]