Skip to main content

View Diary: Muslims are the New Jews: Bigotry courtesy of the NY Times (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let's be realistic (4+ / 0-)

    Right now the Muslim religion does have a problem with violent extremism. That's not saying the Muslim religion as an entity is bad, nor is it saying all Muslims are bad. It's true that many other mainstream religions have their checkered past as well. Many wars were fought in the name of Christian based religion. I certainly don't view Catholics or the Catholic religion as bad. But recently (they) had a problem with sexual misconduct.

    Recognizing the Catholic religion had a major problem that needed to be dealt with was not bigotry. It was reality. I would like to see more leadership in the Muslim world speak out against the extremists.

    Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

    by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:11:51 PM PDT

    •  hm (17+ / 0-)

      Right now the Muslim religion does have a problem with violent extremism.

      Bush is a fundamentalist Christian.  His base (the remaining 30% who support him) are as well.

      They're violent extremists, or they condone it, or both.

      Just something to keep in mind.

      Almost every religion has its violent extremists.


      Voting Republican? Not voting at all? Well, thank you for saying "fuck you" to the environment.

      by Page van der Linden on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:18:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush claims Christianity (4+ / 0-)

        IMO for political reasons.

        What I'm talking about are many thousands of Muslims willing to blow themselves up in the name of religion.

        As I said, at one point or another many major religions has had issues. Are you saying Muslims don't have a waaaaay disproportionate number of violent extremists?

        Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

        by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:22:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  christians are good? (12+ / 2-)

          Which part of the history of the Muslim world should I recall for the benefit of Mr. Friedman? I will not begin with the Crusades or the forced conversion of the Spanish Muslims and their eventual expulsion from Spain. That is not the history behind the "jihadist death cult." I could begin with the creation of a Jewish state in 1948 in lands inhabited by Palestinians; the 1956 invasion of Egypt by Britain, France and Israel; Israel's pre-emptive war of 1967 against three Arab states; the meticulously planned destruction of Palestinian society in the West Bank and Gaza since 1967; the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, stretching from 1982 to 2000; the massacre of 200,000 Bosnian Muslims in the 1990s; the devastation of Chechnya in 1996 and since 1999; the brutalities against Kashmiris since the 1990s; the deadly sanctions against Iraq from 1990 to 1993 which killed one and a half million
          the deadly sanctions against Iraq from 1990 to 1993 which killed one and a half million Iraqis; the pogrom against Gujarati Muslims in 2002; the US invasion of Iraq in April 2003 which has already killed more than 200,000 Iraqis. Clearly, there is a lot that Mr. Friedman has to forget, to erase from his history books.

        •  I would say that Christians (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Inky, unterhausen, Noah in NY

          have a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay disproportionate number of violent extremists.  

          Or maybe I should say AMERICAN CHRISTIANS.

          They got to be the most blood-thirsty people on the planet right now.

          I have been saying that Muslims are the world's next Jews for a while now - and again, that is thanks to the blood thirsty Christians.

          Kos: Bush won't cancel the next round of elections to remain in power. Me: I am not so sure.

          by dancewater on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:14:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Use teh Google (11+ / 0-)

        and check for 'Army of God'. I'm frankly more scared of fundamentalists who call themselves Christian than those who call themselves Muslims. There's more of the former, they're a lot closer to where I am, and some of them run my government.

        "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

        by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:24:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are you for real? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          leftynyc, Eric S, Shane Hensinger

          Muslim extremists are responsible for the attacks on 9-11, Spain, the UK, a HUGE number of what's going on in Iraq, etc. The list goes on and one.

          But yeah, websites on Army of God scare the shit out of me!

          Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

          by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:31:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Point being (4+ / 0-)

            that hardcore Christian fundamentalists - Timothy McVeigh comes to mind - are present here in this country, and while Muslim terrorists don't set U.S. policy, Christian fundamentalists do so here.

            There's an obvious difference in the level of violence, sure. Then again, our fringe has less to be violent about, given that they wield actual power. That's the key difference.

            "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

            by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:37:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Timothy McVeigh is NOT an example (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric S, Shane Hensinger

              Of Christian extremism. He claimed to be Agnostic and his motivations were more political than anything else.

              There ARE issues that can be raised about many different religions. But violent extremism on an extremely large scale happens to be the current problem with Islamic religions.

              Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

              by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:42:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  now, if i read that comment... (0+ / 0-)

                ...as you read shrekk's, i could say that you are 'justifying' mcveigh's attack, or somehow raising it above the crass religious extremisim you find so offensive, no?

                so, one could ask you, as you asked shrekk:

                so, do you justify tim mcveigh's actions?

                how does that feel?  not that good, right.  well, then don't do it to shrekk.  he explained himself...

                •  The difference is... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  james risser

                  HE claimed they were justified. And unfortunately it looks like his comments were removed.

                  Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

                  by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:17:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  you can't see them? (0+ / 0-)

                    ....well, you need tu status which i am surprised you don't have yet.

                    anyway, i understand why you so dislike muslims and radical islam, but, i don't think you can assume that people who are making efforts to understand their motivations are, by definition, being apologists for them.

                    we can disagree on the person's use of language a bit carelessly.  i sincerely think he meant the word as in 'justifications were given for...' and not 'they were justified...' as in correct or right.

                    i wish 'through our enemies eyes' were required reading for this site and involvement in these threads...

                    •  What's your problem? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      USArmyParatrooper

                      Nowhere does this poster say, suggest or even slyly hint that he has the least little drop of animus towards "muslims [sic]."

                      I'm one tough gazookus which hates all palookas,
                      What ain't on the up and square....

                      by Eric S on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 01:10:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Do NOT put words in my mouth (0+ / 0-)

                      It's rather childish. Never once did I say I don't like Muslims. Quite the contrary. I specifically said (over and over) that I don't think as a religion Islam is bad. But (right now) it has a major problem with violent extremism.

                      Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

                      by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:51:43 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  my mistake.... (0+ / 0-)

                        ....i thought when you attempted to cover for the person who said:

                        So, maybe all Muslims are not extremists but all extremists are muslims.

                        you were.

                        well, great!  an allah uh akhbar to you!

                        •  It wasn't a cover up (0+ / 0-)

                          It was my personal opinion. He didn't strike me as someone to say something that stupid. So I thought he probably meant that figuratively.

                          Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

                          by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 07:16:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Now I can see them (0+ / 0-)

                      Seems to me the attacks in Spain & the UK were justified as retaliation for the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq.  Why shouldn't the war be brought home to the attackers?

                      Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

                      by USArmyParatrooper on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 06:53:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Are you really MBNYC? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, Shane Hensinger

              For one whose opinions I have come to respect, I am more than baffled at your arguments in this string, though not surprised by the knee-jerk defensiveness towards USArmyP... by a number of other kossaks here, for a rather reasonable and mild concurrence with a rather innocuous and undeniable statement that Islam has a rather extreme problem with its extremists.

              Rather.

              I'm one tough gazookus which hates all palookas,
              What ain't on the up and square....

              by Eric S on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:23:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Completely consistent (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Shane Hensinger

                I think, with my oft-repeated aversion to religious fundamentalism. See below.

                "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:18:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not really apt. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Shane Hensinger

                  Your aversion to fundamentalism is not remotely the question, nor hardly relevant to it.  And one needn't care a whit for Friedman to accept his simple statements regarding Islam's problem, which has become a problem for so many.  

                  While it is absurd to suggest that all extremists are Moslem, it seems perfectly clear, the most pervasive, violent and dangerous religious extremists in the world today are by and large Moslem, such that the secular governments of majority Moslem states are constantly forced to confront these forces themselves.  

                  The other fundamentalists groups you mention below certainly exist, but their existence does not alter the point being made by either Friedman or USArmyParatrooper.

                  I'm one tough gazookus which hates all palookas,
                  What ain't on the up and square....

                  by Eric S on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:57:58 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  and the US is responsible (5+ / 0-)

            for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq which has likely killed a million people.

            We have bombed or invaded something like 40 countries since WWII - now surely we don't have that many real threats to the security of the USA.

            Kos: Bush won't cancel the next round of elections to remain in power. Me: I am not so sure.

            by dancewater on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:19:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That would be a fantastic argument (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              leftynyc, Eric S

              If it was even remotely on topic.

              Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

              by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:23:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's precisely on target: (4+ / 0-)

                it's called blowback.  Why do you think there was an Islamic revolution in Iran?  Because we overthrew their democracy in 1953, installed a very brutal dictatorship, and trained their secret police (SAVAK) in torture techniques.  That's a great way to win friends.  We didn't do that because a democratic Iran  - a country which hadn't attacked anyone for 200 years - was any kind of threat to the US.  We did it for oil and cold war politics.  And it took religious fundamentalism to finally expel the US.

                That religious component is true whether it's occupied Iran, occupied Ireland, occupied Iraq, or occupied Palestine.

                The same comment about blowback could be said about many of our brilliant foreign policy blunders - be it Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam, Israel, Lebanon...the list goes on & on.

                Sounds like you've been watching way too much Faux News.

                •  Oh, so you're admitting (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eric S

                  that Muslim extremism is a problem. You just think it's justified?

                  Sounds like you've been watching way too much Faux News.

                  But thank you for falling back on tired, weak minded arguments such as this. What's next? Calling me a straw man? Accusing me of being a Republican? Troll maybe?

                  And how about Muslim extremists killing EACH OTHER. I'm going to use my psychic powers to determine you'll say that's our fault, too.

                  Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

                  by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:08:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  in other words... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skrekk

                ...you completely disbelieve that there is a concept named blowback?

                or, are you suggesting that there is, but, it is irrational because it is based on islam, or what???

          •  Seems to me the attacks in Spain & the UK (2+ / 4-)

            were justified as retaliation for the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq.  Why shouldn't the war be brought home to the attackers?

            I could say the same about much of what you call "Muslim extremism": it's not principally a religious but rather a political motivation.

            •  TR'd for justifying terrorism (5+ / 0-)

              Your comment is gross, insensitive and in violation of TOS. You should be ashamed.

              "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

              by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:43:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

                So do you also think the 9-11 attacks were justified? I notice you didn't mention that, but I would like an answer.

                Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

                by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:45:06 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Very inappropriate TR (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Justina, james risser

                I said:

                the attacks in Spain & the UK were justified as retaliation for the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq

                Which is EXACTLY true.  That's what the perpetrators said, and what both the UK & Spanish investigatory commissions concluded.

                I personally think that with the vast majority of the world's population opposed to the Iraq invasion (90% in Spain alone), it would be foolish not to expect some blowback.

                You need to learn how to use your TU status better.

                •  You never did answer the question (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MBNYC, heineken1717, Shane Hensinger

                  Do you think the 9-11 attacks were justified?

                  Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

                  by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:09:29 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  hold on... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    kaleidescope, Eternal Hope, skrekk

                    ....lets use the language carefully here.  were justifications given for 9.11--meaning did those who are alleged responsible give reasons, i.e., justifications? yes.  there were three: iraqi sanctions that killed 1.5 million innocent iraqi civilians; the behaviour of america towards israel; and, the use of saudi arabia by daddy bush in 1991, and the persistent existence of aircraft in their holyland.

                    was the attack 'justified' in the sense of being normatively correct, that is a completely different question.

                •  No (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MBNYC, heineken1717

                  I think you need to learn that killing innocent people, the majority who probably opposed the invasion of Iraq, is no more justified than the US invading Iraq because of what happened on September 11th.

                  You didn't say "that's what the perpetrators said," you wrote that and then followed up.

                  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:10:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You seem to be the type who supports (1+ / 2-)
                    Recommended by:
                    james risser
                    Hidden by:
                    MBNYC, Shane Hensinger

                    the senseless murder of others, but is outraged when it happens at home.

                    Even the mayor of London said shortly after the 7/7 attacks that it was likely the direct result of Britain's involvement in Iraq.

                    I would ask you why, if the US & UK are going to attack Iraq without cause, you seem to think there should not be retaliatory attacks?

                    •  You (5+ / 3-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MajorFlaw, MBNYC, heineken1717, zemblan, LynneK
                      Hidden by:
                      gobacktotexas, litho, skrekk

                      seem like a total douchebag who casts aspersions on others because you can't defend your heinous statements applauding terrorism.

                      There are sites for people like you. This isn't one of them.

                      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

                      by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:28:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                        •  Calling a kossack (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          skrekk

                          a "douchebag" stands in my book as an unacceptable personal attack.

                          I request you remove your uprate from a comment that clearly deserves to be hidden.

                          The notion that not talking to people is somehow punishment to them is ridiculous. Barack Obama, July 23, 2007

                          by litho on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:07:32 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  no thanks (6+ / 0-)

                            The comment justifying terrorism against Madrid and London was horrific and deserved everything it got.

                          •  That comment is hidden (0+ / 0-)

                            but Shane Hensinger's offensive and inappropriate comment is not.

                            Why is not hidden?  Because user 95669 apparently thinks it's ok to stoop to base and demeaning language to insult fellow kossacks.  And user 95669 is willing to overrule two other trusted users so that the entire world can see Shane Hensinger in all his offensive glory.

                            Please tell us what it is about the word "douchebag" that makes it acceptable discourse.  Or remove your inappropriate uprate.

                            The notion that not talking to people is somehow punishment to them is ridiculous. Barack Obama, July 23, 2007

                            by litho on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:46:03 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  way to bring out the user ID card (6+ / 0-)

                            a big fat "whatever" on that. As far as the rest of your comments, the original comment defending terrorism is hidden because I TR'd it along with Shane. It was still there when you chose to ignore it and TR Shane instead. Calling a terrorism-defender a "douchbag" isn't even in the same stratosphere as actually defending terrorism. I can't understand how you could TR Shane but not the defender of terrorism. Hence, the uprate to Shane and the TR to Mr. Madrin and London Deserved It.

                            It is much more embarassing for this web site to have a post that defends terrorism than have a post with the word "douchebag"--I've seen much worse here. Period.

                            Personally I wouldn't want to be a "kossack" if the category includes people who defend terrorism, as you seem to be implying, so the demeaning language, not a big deal to me.

                          •  Interesting. (5+ / 0-)

                            Claim that someone supports senseless murder = no trollrating.

                            Responding to said claim with the word douchebag = trollrating.

                            Can we have a sense of proportion here, please? Considering the provocation, 'douchebag' is a mild response. You're engaging in ratings abuse, and I request you remove your TR, now.

                            "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                            by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:01:47 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  the shrekk person.... (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            litho, skrekk, MBNYC

                            ...has explained his statement and, to be honest, the way i read it was as he intended it, and not how some have read it...

                            the iraqi issue was used as a justification of the attacks in madrid and london.  it is quite a leap to say they were 'justified' as in 'right and correct'...  if the shrekk person had not cleared it up, i would agree that i was wrong in my reading , and you were right; but, he has cleared it up.  unless you know something about this person that isn't immediately apparent...

                          •  Not really. (4+ / 0-)

                            Check it again.

                            Seems to me the attacks in Spain & the UK were justified as retaliation for the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq.  

                            'Justified' can be read both as a noun and an adjective.

                            Why shouldn't the war be brought home to the attackers?

                            ...suggests that it was an adjective describing the view of the person speaking. Either sentence is trollrateable in my book.

                            "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                            by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:42:36 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  well, we can disagree... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MBNYC

                            ...it seems he corrected himself, and had i not read it the first time through agreeing with him and his use of it as i understand it, i might be more inclined to agree with your reading...

                          •  Maybe my language wasn't clear enough: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            james risser

                            I'm not taking a stance on the issue of whether the 7/7 & Madrid bombings were "justified".  I said the perpetrators justified their attacks as retaliation for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

                            However, I do think it's willfully blind NOT to expect retaliation for that invasion.

                          •  I do take a stance. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MajorFlaw, zemblan, Shane Hensinger

                            The murder of civilians isn't justified. That applies when it's done by the U.S. or anyone else.

                            I wouldn't have thought that to be a debatable proposition.

                            "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                            by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 07:19:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How strange (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            MajorFlaw, MBNYC

                            that someone would refuse to "take a stand" on whether setting off bombs in trains, buses and subways and killing civilians is "justifiable."

                            We certainly agree that it's not justified when done by US forces or Blackwater. Why would we even have a debate on whether such attacks are "justified" when done by Al Qaeda?

                            The logic is bewildering.

                            "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

                            by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:01:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I guess we're having this debate because (0+ / 0-)

                            you chose to read something in to my initial comment that wasn't there, and immediately chose to troll rate me for it rather than asking me to better explain myself.

                          •  The reason I don't take a stance is this: (0+ / 0-)

                            I don't know what's in the minds of the perpetrators, or what they or their families have been through.  I'm very much of the opinion that a car bombing is the poor man's air force, and until we're willing to give the "terrorists" our advanced weapons in exchange for their IEDs, I think there is an equivalence to be drawn.  Nor do I have any illusions that our military kills just "combatants"; the vast majority of those killed in any war - be it WWII, Vietnam or Iraq - are civilians.  Remember our use of white phosphorous against the population of Fallujah, all because four Blackwater mercenaries were killed?  Or napalm in Vietnam (and again in Iraq)?  I'm also quite aware of our own government's sponsorship and use of terrorism around the world, so I think we have a very hypocritical stance on this issue.

                            I almost lost a brother in the WTC on 9/11, so I have strong feelings about that.  But I also grew up with several Iranians whose families were killed by the Shah, and who were tortured by the CIA/SAVAK before they fled Iran in the 1970s, so I can understand the rage on both sides.

                            The London bombings are more complex: none of the bombers were Iraqi, and all were born in the UK.  To me that means that their rage was not due to losing a family member in Iraq, but something more complex and less easy to solve: it says something more about the lack of integration of Muslims into British society.

                            Why do you think the US has been so slow to allow Iraqi collaborators to immigrate to the US?  Because we know that many of those Iraqis who have helped the US are really, really pissed at us.  That will come back to haunt us.

                          •  Listen dude (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arielle, Eric S, Shane Hensinger

                            you have a problem with language, more specifically, an inability to use it in a way that isn't fucking offensive. Case in point, above, where you say - and contrary to James, I don't believe your feeble protestations that you didn't mean what you said - that terror attacks are justified. Then you go on to say that other people condone murder. Now you're babbling lurid tripe about the reasoning behind fucking car bombs.

                            What's at issue right here is not U.S foreign policy or the means and ends thereof. Whatever foul means we use for whichever ignoble ends, are irrelevant to London, Madrid and the WTC.

                            Rather, what's at issue here is your depraved belief that U.S. or UK or Spanish government actions provide a rationale for terrorist action against civilians of any of those countries.

                            Dead civilians = wrong, no matter who's doing the killing. Too bad you don't seem to grasp that.

                            "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                            by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:50:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then try to read more closely (0+ / 0-)

                            I said I don't take a stand on the morality of those acts.  You might have a problem with that statement, but I'm clearly not supporting acts of terrorism.  However, I vehemently don't support our illegitimate invasion of Iraq: that is without any moral justification whatsoever, and was clearly done to control strategic resources.  You have to be incredibly naive not to expect retaliation for that...unlike our initial attack on Afghanistan, which was widely seen as justified.

                            Somehow you seem more upset at the dozens or hundreds of people killed in London & Madrid than you are at the hundreds of thousands (at least) that we've killed in Iraq.  Are you thousands of times more outraged at that?  Or is it simply that London & Madrid are strikes closer to home?  Or that the perpetrators chose a soft civilian target rather than an impenetrable - and useless - military one?  I'd argue that by choosing to participate in the invasion & occupation of Iraq, that the leaders of Britain & Spain dragged their countries into that war.  Too bad it's not as antiseptic as you'd like.

                            If you don't believe that "government actions provide a rationale for terrorist action"
                            then you should watch "The Battle of Algiers" sometime.  It's usually precisely government actions that are used as the rationale for those reactions.  Terrorism isn't just violence against civilians - it's violence to gain a political end, and it's used by all sides in a conflict.  You might not agree with the violence, the rationale, or the end, but that's reality, dude.

                          •  Sure. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            arielle, Eric S, Shane Hensinger

                            I said I don't take a stand on the morality of those acts.

                            I do. It's immoral to kill civilians. Too bad it's not as fuzzy as you'd like, eh?

                            "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                            by MBNYC on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 10:32:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  This comment does not deserve a TR. Uprated. (4+ / 0-)
                    •  the mayor of London is insane (3+ / 2-)
                      Recommended by:
                      zemblan, LynneK, Shane Hensinger
                      Hidden by:
                      gobacktotexas, litho

                      He has made several anti-semitic remarks. I wonder what he said when there was a protest in London where nutjobs carreid signs reading "7/7 will be 24/7"

                      •  I know nothing about any anti-semitic (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        litho, james risser

                        remarks Mayor Livingstone might have made, nor do I understand how that would be relevant.  He condemned the 7/7 attacks, and he wrote an insightful column one month after the 7/7 bombings which state:

                        Acceptance that the invasion of Iraq increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on London now extends far beyond the usual suspects - from Guardian writers to MI5, Douglas Hurd, the Daily Mail, the Spectator, and a majority of the British public. Jack Straw has also acknowledged this debate. If the invasion of Iraq had been justified, it would be possible to argue that we must bear the sacrifices necessary to achieve a just outcome. However, it is evident that the war in Iraq was not justified. It has made the situation worse. The illusions with which it was launched are collapsing.

                        Tony Blair of course denied that there could be any link.  However, several commissions and reportslater, it is clear that Iraq was the primary motivating factor.

                      •  You are just covering yourself in glory tonight (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        james risser

                        Along with abusing your tu status to uprate trollish comments and trollrate comments unjustifiably, now you stoop to slandering a major political figure in an allied nation.

                        Unless of course you have proof that Ken Livingstone has made "several anti-semitic remarks."  When you produce the links, I'll remove the tr.

                        The notion that not talking to people is somehow punishment to them is ridiculous. Barack Obama, July 23, 2007

                        by litho on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 07:52:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  He was suspended for a month (0+ / 0-)

                          because of anti-Semitic remarks.  Do you not remember this?

                          Peace through superior firewater! - MBNYC

                          by arielle on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:05:34 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  And the there are his comments (0+ / 0-)

                          to the Reuben brothers.

                          Peace through superior firewater! - MBNYC

                          by arielle on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:16:32 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I'd give you the link (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          arielle, zemblan

                          but your trollrating of me here is so abusive and ridiculous, I'm not going to give in to your blackmail, so forget it. If you had simply said, "please produce the links," I would have gladly provided them, but to trollrate and then say "I'll only remove the TR if you produce links" is childish and petulant, and I'm not going to dignify that behavior.

                          And anyways, arielle below already identified the most obvious Livingstone case of antisemitism(if you aren't aware of that incident, you're knowledge of global politics is very poor).

                    •  No. (5+ / 0-)

                      I'm pretty sure Shane doesn't support the senseless murder of others. You need to take a class in what's fucking appropriate.

                      Trollrated.

                      "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                      by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:57:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I agree about the blowback. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skrekk, MajorFlaw, james risser

                  But you could have made your point a lot better if you said that the people who committed the attacks on Spain and the UK justified them with Iraq. As opposed to saying that, "the attacks were justified." The latter statement made it sound like you were defending terrorism, which you did not intend to do.

              •  when i read it... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skrekk

                ...seemed as if what he is saying is true: the iraqi occupation was used as a justification for the 7.7 attacks and the madrid bombing.  i don't think this person, shrekk, is saying they were 'right' because of the iraqi invasion and occupation, but, simply that the fact of that event was used as justification.

                if you have a source that says otherwise, please send it along; otherwise, i don't see why the comment is troll-rated, unless this person has shown himself to be a terrorist and i am late to the show...

            •  disgusting comment (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, Shane Hensinger, ratador

              justifying terrorism will turn this site into a disaster, comment must be removed.

              •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

                Unfortunately some don't.

                "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

                by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:52:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  unfortunately... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skrekk

                  ...some can't read, or rather choose not to understand the distinction between saying something is 'justified'--assessing a normative value of 'good' to the that being discussed; and saying 'justifications were given'--explaining that, without stating whether 'good' or 'bad' justifications were given.

                  i wonder why some jumped all over this guy and continue to do so even after he explained himself??

                  •  Oh James (0+ / 0-)

                       the attacks in Spain & the UK were justified as retaliation for the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq

                    Which is EXACTLY true.  That's what the perpetrators said, and what both the UK & Spanish investigatory commissions concluded.

                    Now, saying the perpetrators said the attacks were justified is different than what he said. He said:

                    "the attacks in in Spain & the UK were justified as retaliation for the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq. Which is EXACTLY true."

                    and followed that with this gem:

                    "and what both the UK & Spanish investigatory commissions concluded."

                    He was TR'd for:

                    1. Justifying terrorism
                    1. Lying by saying the investigatory committees in Spain and Britain concluded the same. As anyone with half a brain in their heads knows the investigative committees said no such thing.

                    Care to tangle any further?

                    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

                    by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:31:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  wrong and wrong.... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      skrekk
                      ...first, the comment does not justify terrorism

                      and, second, i don't tangle with people with an agenda to re-write history to fit his own worldview.  only a fool would argue that iraq and its illegal occupation had nothing to do with the attacks in spain and london...

                      Zawahiri's comments, made nearly a month after the event, suggest an attempt by al-Qaida to claim credit, if not direct responsibility, for something it may have had little to do with. Evidence from the London attacks is still being gathered, though there is no sign of any foreign "mastermind". Most experts say little is left of the pre-9/11 al-Qaida as a coherent, hierarchical organisation after the losses of the war in Afghanistan.

                      Nevertheless, beyond any bandwagon or propaganda effect, this latest videotape provides cruel confirmation of what this newspaper has long argued: that the disastrous war in Iraq has supplied new motivation for Muslims angry at western policies in the Middle East. Last week the government reacted with outrage to a report by the Chatham House thinktank which made precisely that point, though only days later Jack Straw edged towards the truth by admitting that the British presence there was "part of the problem".

                      http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

                      and, i am not going to dignify your world-view by finding a similar source for spain because you simply aren't worth the time...you are incapable of not holding your own tiny little view of the world where muslims are evil and others are just so much better, and others are just the best!  

                      no source is good enough, no source is PURE enough unless it comes out of the mouths of, i presume the one or two periodicals with which you agree, and the handful of hateful anti-muslim zealots that you subscribe to...

                      •  :-( (0+ / 0-)

                        Ad-hominem attacks are always the last refuge of someone who can't back themselves up with facts.

                        The single key phrase is "were justified."

                        You disappoint - I thought you were better than that.

                        "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

                        by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:54:08 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  i have seen this movie.... (0+ / 0-)

                          ....too many times, and i am not going to jump through hoops for you or with you.  life is much better without having you and your arguments in it than it was when arguing with you was a daily happening.

                          i don't disappoint you, you hate me, so cut out the shit.

                          the writer of 'were justified' explained his meaning, and i agree that that is indeed what he meant to say.

                          bye bye...

                    •  Are you ever on a bender (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      james risser

                      My comment did not justify terrorism, but you've chosen to read it that way.

                      Please provide a link to either the UK or Spanish or reports where it states that Iraq was not one of (if not the primary) justifications used for the attacks.  I provided links to the reports & summaries up thread to support my statements; can you do the same?

                    •  And if you had any doubts still... (0+ / 0-)

                      At a Baghdad jail for prisoners who have attacked U.S. forces, everyone — to a man — says it was the U.S. occupation of Iraq that drove them to violence.

            •  Uprated Because of TR Abuse (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skrekk

              The comment isn't saying that it was just for terrorists to attack Spain.  He/she was talking about what the justifications for the attack were -- that they weren't justified on religious grounds, but on secular grounds.

              Keep in mind the inappropriately troll-rated comment is in a thread where on commentator is arguing that Muslims have a violent religious extremist problem and that commentator rationalizes the argument based on the fact that violent Muslims are violent, explicitly, for religious reasons.  As opposed to, say, the U.S. Army which murders and terrorizes people too, but does so based on (what the commentator argues) are secular grounds.

              The comment I just uprated is debunking that argument, by presenting evidence of what the perpetrators actually used to justify their attacks on Spain. That their motivation wasn't religious, but rather, like the U.S. Army, secular.

              I also uprated the comment because the thread that follows it is interesting and should not be hidden.

              This aggression will not stand, man.

              by kaleidescope on Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 08:06:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Michael (0+ / 0-)

          That reasoning is wrong - don't fall back on that.

          "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

          by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:00:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry - not you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MBNYC

            Don't know why I called you that - I don't know your first name from Adam!

            Anyway - I disagree with the reasoning.,

            "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

            by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:01:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The point I'm trying to make (4+ / 0-)

            perhaps inartfully, is that the problem we secular Western liberals face with violent religious extremism isn't confined to Muslims. What we're seeing, and I submit that it's little different in intent regardless of which religious tradition gives rise to it, is a violent reaction to modernity on the part of disaffected fundamentalists.

            That's why you have radical fundamentalist Christians - such as the Army of God, referenced above, that bombs clinics, gay bars and shoots abortion providers - as well as murderous Muslims, Hindus and even, God help us, Buddhists, in Sri Lanka.

            The problem of violent fundamentalism isn't confined to Islam, is my point.

            "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

            by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:50:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You seem to be be growing n/t (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Noah in NY, james risser

              The notion that not talking to people is somehow punishment to them is ridiculous. Barack Obama, July 23, 2007

              by litho on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 01:55:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  The problem with extremism (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              MBNYC, Eric S

              is a problem in all religions (which is why, as Chris Hitchens says" "Religion ruins everything). But its impact has been felt more strongly in Islam. We can argue about the reasons for that - whether they be cultural, tribal, political or religious. But I agree with the point made by the paratrooper guy - burying our heads in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

              "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

              by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:27:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yes and no. (0+ / 0-)

                Sure, there's plenty of violent Muslim extremism at this point in time. Meanwhile, militant Hindus in India are massacring Muslims in their hundreds and thousands, the same is happening in Chechnya, happened recently in Bosnia, and so on and so forth.

                If the point is that right now, in late 2007, violence by adherents of Islam is more widespread or more at the forefront of our consciousness, sure. If the point is that this is because of something intrinsic to Islam, I think that argument is invalidated by the bloody history - and in many cases, bloody present - of all religions or more specifically, their adherents.

                "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:42:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The point is - now n/t (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MBNYC, Eric S

                  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:44:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not saying it's because (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MBNYC, Eric S, Shane Hensinger

                  "Islam is bad" or anything like that. Heck, when taken literally, there are verses in the King James Bible that claim slavery is OK, and women should obey their husbands. (I need to have my wife read the latter!).

                  Many good and bad things have been done in the name of religion. Historically religion has motivated people to take large scale actions, both positive and negative.

                  (Right Now) mass violence is a huge problem in the Muslim religion. And I would like to see more done about it from within.

                  Think about this: What if a group of extremist Seventh Day Adventists blew up a Catholic church and killed hundreds of people. Their reasoning, "Saturday is the day of rest!". Almost universally the SDA church leaders, and its member would be outraged. There would be mass efforts to separate themselves from these terrorists.

                  I would like to see the same among Muslim leaders and members.

                  Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

                  by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 02:56:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your not seeing it... (4+ / 0-)

                    I would like to see the same among Muslim leaders and members.

                    ...doesn't mean it isn't there.

                    To see these condemnations, you will need to go to foreign and alternative news sources.

                    Now, ask yourself why the MSM have trouble locating these people although I found them by googling?

                    They ain't looking for them. It just might interfer with the idea that Islam is problem.

                    "That killing of innocent civilians is absolutely forbidden in Islam and anyone who contemplates or commits any such act, does so against the teachings of Islam."

                    The statement adds action has been taken to regulate the activities of every mosque to ensure worshippers are given a message of "calmness and civic responsibility responsibility".

                    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world She didn't exist.

                    by callmecassandra on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 03:25:10 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Some things are intrinsic to specific religions. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  skrekk, MBNYC, Shane Hensinger

                  One relevant example is the lack of a central authority in Islam, not that I care for the central authorities in any other religion, but this empowers many otherwise marginal factions.  There is presently an acknowledged "fatwa problem," with too many ostensible authorities issuing too many edicts.

                  Another is the limitation that Koran only be used in the original Arabic, so that many followers are actually unaware of the actual or precise content of their own holy book - a true "reformation" problem.

                  Another is the historical singlarity of church and state, as well as the present desire of many to return to that condition.

                  Islam is unique in many ways.

                  I'm one tough gazookus which hates all palookas,
                  What ain't on the up and square....

                  by Eric S on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 07:17:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Myth #278 of Islam (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sofia

                    Another is the limitation that Koran only be used in the original Arabic, so that many followers are actually unaware of the actual or precise content of their own holy book - a true "reformation" problem.

                    This is one of those odd myths of Islam that has little relationship to reality. Yes, the Qur'an is only the Qur'an when it's published in Arabic.  Yes, formal prayer (salat) is performed only in Arabic.  No, we Muslims do understand what is in the Qur'an.  For one thing, there are such things known as "translations." ;) And even in those places in the Qur'an where there can be multiple meanings to a particular word (fairly commonplace in a language that is highly metaphorical), some of the translators will provide the other possible meanings in the footnotes to clarify matters.  And then, of course, many (if not most) Muslims learn Arabic anyway, if only to understand the Qur'an in the original language.

                    The real reformation is in trying to remove all the ignorance and misunderstandings from the minds of non-Muslims and providing a true knowledge of Islam in its place.

                    •  Catholics said the same thing before vernacular. (0+ / 0-)

                      Sorry, but I don't think the little boys memorizing their Koran in Pakistani madrassas are so aware as you suggest.  At minimum, the necessity of a conduit to the words themselves reinforces outside authority - as it did prior to Luther in Germany.

                      And the imported imams at European mosques in the likes of Hamburg and London are not always reliable interpreters of subtle concepts to their second generation immigrant followers; teachers for whom German or English may be a second or barely understood language.  

                      I know as well, Jewish boys learning their Bible in Hebrew at yeshiva, are far from the level of comprehension that would permit them their own individual understanding.  

                      And on understanding one's holy books generally, that is a swamp all by itself, and I doubt that the world's Muslims have a special leg up.  Learning a "highly metaphorical" book, if even without language problems is rather challenging.

                      And I didn't mean to suggest anything I didn't explicitly say, but to the larger issue - you don't think Islam is unique, as I said... or are you just trying to pick a fight?

                      I'm one tough gazookus which hates all palookas,
                      What ain't on the up and square....

                      by Eric S on Tue Oct 16, 2007 at 11:15:39 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  No, not trying to pick a fight... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        sofia

                        ...just trying to give some straight dope to a topic that's often misunderstood.  You are not the first person who's raised this particular - and IMO, erroneous - argument before.

                        Yes, of course, when kids are learning the Qur'an at a very young age, they are often taught by rote.  But little boys eventually become big boys, and most of them learn the meaning of the Qur'an, either in their own language or by having learned classical Arabic.  I wouldn't expect little kids to have comprehension necessarily of any particular religious text, but I would expect this of adults.  

                        As for "imported imams," what you said may be true for some, although the "imported imams" that I've met have all been fluent in English.  Even so, there are many other educational resources available worldwide besides imams, native or imported.  One of the things that has struck me in my travels and in meeting other Muslims from around the world (from about two dozen countries so far) has been the similarity of understanding about Islam.  It hasn't really mattered how one has learned about Islam (from one's parents, from an imam, from a madrassah, from the Internet, and so on), most Muslims have very similar understandings about Islam.  Of course, there are disagreements on particular details, but considering the potential for confusion that could result, the disagreements are, for the most part, not that common.

                        What I'm trying to say is that, you've made this assumption that Muslims don't understand the Qur'an very well, and that this assumption doesn't correspond with reality.  But don't take my word for it; go talk with Muslims in your neighborhood and see what they have to say.

    •  Me, Too (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      unterhausen, Proud SW FL Lib, dougymi

      I am of the opinion that Islam -- as practiced, not as it potentially can be -- is less compatible with the modern world and its needs than other major religions (for example, Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism).

      If Islam is to live at peace with the rest of the globe, it's going to have to reform itself.

      We can see that, by looking at the history of this religion, Islam is in fact quite versatile and has the ability to adapt itself to different times and different cultures.  The flowering of the Islamic "Renaissance" in Spain, North Africa, the Middle East and Iran during the Middle Ages is instructive of this ...  As is its history of (relative) tolerance during the Ottoman Empire.

      The question of "what to do with Islam" probably doesn't have an answer.  It's just going to take time for this religion to resolve some of its bigger problems with the way that the rest of the globe wants to live.

      The way Friedman and Brooks operate -- under the belief that we are in the middle of an epoch-defining culture war and clash of civilizations -- is reflected even in news reporting in the paper.

      Neither this kind of talk -- nor such a war itself -- is going to reform Islam or "stop jihadists" or "keep us safe from terror."

      We're just going to have to wait this one out.

      For one thing, we can stop running around like chickens and ridiculous cowards.  Friedman and Brooks smell when it comes to this.

      Second, we can focus on harm reduction and patiently building bridges while we wait for the next generation to come.

      I think Sen. Clinton would make a very good president.

      by bink on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:19:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great insight (6+ / 0-)

        Thank you.

        I want to touch on something you said:

        Neither this kind of talk -- nor such a war itself -- is going to reform Islam or "stop jihadists" or "keep us safe from terror."

        We need to stop calling terrorists "jihadists". A jihad, by definition, is a "holy struggle". It is NOT specific to a "holy war" against non-believers. Even in the context of moderate Islam, a Jihad is a good thing.

        That's just one of many examples of how our lack understanding manifests itself.

        How many times have you heard of us saying, "we want to kill the Jihadists"? Both extremists and moderate Muslims are hearing, "we want to kill those who strive for God"

        Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

        by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 12:27:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Religion, a good tool for extremists ! (0+ / 0-)

        As being obvious from his 2 last posts, USPara is not playing propaganda, but ask a genuine question about Islam.

        One of the difficulty is that there is no Pope in Islam, no official ruler of the whole Muslim world. So it shouldn't be a surprise that such non existent chief did not condemn terrorists or extremists uses of Islam.

        BTW a kind of similar situation exists between Catholics and Protestants. When a priest is outed as a child molester, one blame Catholicity as a whole, because there exists a hierarchy. But when a pastor, like famous evangelists, turn out to be closet gay and drug abuser, one just blame the bad apple —cause no precise authority could denounce him for good.
        Indeed Protestant, as Muslims, and Jews, often have a hard time disassociating themselves from their own extremists !

        Some say that the problem of laicity in Islam was set centuries ago, when Ali was assassinated, meaning that the politic rationales of the empire trumped the purely religious side of Islam.
        It is a paradox of recent history that some openly progressive and marxist states did appeal to Religion in order to appease its people and consolidate their power with yet another feature. But almost everyone of those states took the beat in return : Algeria, Somalia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and why not also the USA as far as they started promoting jihad against the agnostic Russians in Afghanistan.
        Reagan maybe thought that any religion would be an ally against the "ungodly materialist Soviets".

        The fact is that Islam is a dangerous leg for politician. This not because of jihad, but because of the Hegyra model. So if a head of state pretends he follows Islamic law, it is only a matter of time when an other brand of believers will hold him as a treater and an infidel who turned God law for his tinny interests, and start fighting him out of power.

        Bink..., you speak of "The Modern World" as if you knew exactly what it was or should be. But the actual world encompass Muslims, Buddhists and every body, third-world states as developed ones, poor and rich, blacks and whites. All the "actual" countries, including a bunch of occupied countries by some other invading ones. We should know where we speak from !

        I think you're right to only want to wait. But the idea of a lost generation is dangerous —because many say the civilization conflict of their dream should last "for generations"!
        If only the political landscape and pressures would ease a bit, that mean radically away from present trend, the appeasement could go much faster.

        But is peace interesting ? Sometimes one feels that having a "designated enemy" is much more precious to lot of us.

        I agree with the main post that the Press is biased against Muslim, by fear and to tune to a revered accepted behavior, to draw a dolly circle of good men, inside witch evil of the time (terrorism) doesn't occur.
        I don't know if USParaTrooper is too learned to be a good soldier (if he is) but his intellectual approach is remarkable. If only we could keep that kind of thurst ( of truth, of study) open; we could be amazed how rich a dialogue can be, even with a designated arch-enemy.

    •  What Do You Mean? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skrekk, Noah in NY, State Department

      The Blackwater guys are mostly Christians.  And the Americans who perpetrated an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq -- a fucking war crime -- mostly consider themselves to be Christians.

      Salvador, Guatemala, Columbia and their right wing death squads and paramilitaries -- they are all considered Christian nations.

      Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib -- those crimes were perpetrated by Christians.

      George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell -- they are all Christians.  Wolofowitz, Rubin, and Perle are Jews.  Henry Kissinger is, at least ethnically, Jewish.  None of them are Muslims.

      This aggression will not stand, man.

      by kaleidescope on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:05:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Put down the shuvel (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Proud SW FL Lib, leftynyc

        And start using a backhoe if you really want to dig that hard.

        I'm talking about violent extremist organizations that exist in the name of religion, and carry out violent actions in the name of religion.

        But you're saying our military is an extremist, Christian organization? And that makes perfect sense, and I'm sure the Muslim Chaplains currently employed by our military would agree.

        And the Americans who perpetrated an unprovoked war of aggression against Iraq -- a fucking war crime -- mostly consider themselves to be Christians.

        So soldiers following deployment orders are guilty of a war crime? Where did you get your law degree again? I didn't think so.

        Basically you're making completely retarded arguments.

        The US Military is NOT a religious based organization. There is absolutely no basis for calling it such. There's certainly no basis for comparing it to religious-based terrorism.

        Looks to me like every bit of your investigative work has occured on the internet. That's. Not. Investigative. Journalism.

        by USArmyParatrooper on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:26:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site