<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Saturday, December 30, 2006

The pilgrims are outraged. But how outraged? 


Preparing, as they are, for the "symbolic stoning of the devil," Muslim pilgrims are allegedly "outraged" at the hanging of Saddam on the eve of an important holiday. No doubt. However, by recent standards the intensity of the outrage seems almost muted. In an age when a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper or a couple of lines from the Pope at an academic conference can set the Arab "street" ablaze, mere "outrage" doesn't really seem to warrant press coverage. You have to hand it to Reuters, though -- they always find some real fruitcake and hand him their global megaphone:

But many Arabs said if anyone should be put on trial it was the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government that backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which overthrew Saddam.

"They are American collaborators, those in Iraq. They should be executed, not Saddam Hussein." said Mohammad Mousa, on haj from Lebanon. "Saddam Hussein is the most honorable of all of them. He is the most honorable Arab. They will go to hell, he will go to heaven."

That's quite an idea, that Saddam Hussein is the "most honorable Arab." Since Mr. Mousa is saying this on the record for transmission around the world, he obviously does not believe either that the idea is ridiculous or that he has slandered all Arabs. Neither, apparently, does Reuters. Either that, or Reuters is mocking Mr. Mousa, or all Arabs. What could be the fourth explanation?

51 Comments:

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Dec 30, 06:14:00 PM:

Who mourns for the slaughtered Kurds from the Anfal, and since then? You can find pictures of fields of dead men, women and children from the use of various War Gases.
Who mourns for the Marsh Arabs? An ecological wonder inhabited for thousands of years, wrecked by Saddam and his thugs in a few years.

Who mourns for the Shia Arab Iraqis slaughtered by Saddam's Baathist army after the Gulf War in '91? Whole towns were defenestrated.
Who speaks for the hundreds of thousands buried in mass graves in Hilla?
Who speaks for the million plus casualties of the Iran-Iraq war?

The list could go on and on, but Saddam had his fingers all over all these events. Reuters is a joke in the whole process, as if the man mentioned really exists (no doubt) but how many Arabs does he really speak for? You could also have no problem finding old Russians speaking up for Stalin and "the good old days".

How God Almighty meets out His justice, and where Saddam spends eternity is beyond my judgement and wisdom, but human retribution for a very bad man is the best that we can do in the name of all who suffered under him.

-David  

By Blogger Assistant Village Idiot, at Sat Dec 30, 08:23:00 PM:

The fourth possibility would be thinking from the neck down - Just saying stuff to show what side you're on and how upset you are, rather than monitoring it to see if it makes any sense before you say it.  

By Blogger Consul-At-Arms, at Sun Dec 31, 12:06:00 AM:

Given how chock-full-o' holidays the Islamic "lunar" calendar is, it would be hard to do anything that's not "on the eve of," during, or following some date of "religious significance."

Nobody ever complains about things taking place on Catholic's "saints days," do they?  

By Blogger Purple Avenger, at Sun Dec 31, 12:33:00 AM:

Fits right in with the treason being the highest form of patriotism theme the media pitches ;->  

By Blogger allen, at Sun Dec 31, 01:05:00 AM:

Obviously, the Muslim Iraqi government was not overwrought.  

By Blogger Purple Avenger, at Sun Dec 31, 01:10:00 AM:

Parsing media "news" these days is a real exercise.

"many" can mean a million or as few as two.

"some" can be one or up to a million  

By Blogger Tom Gara, at Sun Dec 31, 03:40:00 AM:

Perhaps you guys don't really care, but it was a major unforced error choosing to execute Hussein on the first day of Eid. Stupidly provocative, pissing off plenty of otherwise friendly people and pleasing no-one who wouldnt have been just as pleased if it was done a week later.

The level headed Muslims I know are saying two big things - one, there is no way this is just a coincedence, and two, this is the kind of thing that independant Iraqi authorities would never do. Would Americans execute on Christmas day? If there was US influence in the timing of this, it was a big, stupid, unnecessary mistake.  

By Blogger Tom Gara, at Sun Dec 31, 03:49:00 AM:

Oh, and Consul-At-Arms, this isnt just the equivelant of a random Saints day - Eid Al-Adha is probably the second most important religious time of the year for Muslims - the two Eids (one at the end of Ramadan, plus this one) are kind of like Islamic Christmas and Easter.

Eid Al-Adha is meant to celebrate the sacrifice of Abraham, when he was prepared to kill his own son to obey God's command. It is all about sacrifice etc, and it is the holiday where most Muslim families kill a sheep. Definitely a bad symbolic day to choose to execute one of the most infamous Muslims of the century.

Would you agree it wouldnt be smart for a Muslim country to execute a Christian on Good Friday? At the least, I imagine you guys would look at it as savage Islamic provocation etc....  

By Blogger Purple Avenger, at Sun Dec 31, 04:03:00 AM:

pissing off plenty of otherwise friendly people

Saddam fans are people we really need to listen to. Right.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Dec 31, 04:10:00 AM:

Hey Tom,

Definitely a bad symbolic day to choose to execute one of the most infamous Muslims of the century.

Since when has Sodom been a muslim? Oh yeah, as soon as we pulled him out of his rat hole. How convenient. Meanwhile, why not ask why the following people were executed on Christmas day, and ask yourself why you are not expressing outrage about it: Sgt. John T. Bubeck, Sgt. Jason C. Denfrund, Pfc. Andrew H. Nelson, Spc. Aaron L. Preston, Pfc. Eric R. Wilkus

Check this link and see what the supporters of the most "infamous muslim" would love to do to you and your family, and everyone you know. You are lucky that the war is being waged far away from your comfortable home. Ingrate.  

By Blogger USpace, at Sun Dec 31, 04:40:00 AM:

..
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
admire brutal dictators

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't kill the poor dictator

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
mourn evil tyrants...
..  

By Blogger TigerHawk, at Sun Dec 31, 07:09:00 AM:

A couple of points. One, I have seen nothing to indicate that the United States picked the execution date.

Second, speaking as a Christian, although not (admittedly) a devout one, I would have no objection to the execution of a monsterous dictator on either Christmas or Easter anywhere in the world. Indeed, I think it is a fair bet that very few Christians would be "outraged" by such an execution, unless (perhaps) it were by crucifixion.

Now, in fairness, the point of the post is that reaction in the Muslim world has (so far) been extremely muted. At least compared to the cartoons rioting (which only occurred after organization and agitation) and the Pope's remarks.  

By Blogger Tom Gara, at Sun Dec 31, 09:29:00 AM:

Tigerhawk - the muted reaction is probably a sign of how unpopular Saddam was. Plus, this just isnt that serious, in terms of the level of offensiveness. It is just another stupid unforced error in a long list of unforced errors, particularly the long list of ways in which Muslims have been unnecessarily pissed off since 911.

I am an atheist from a pretty heavily secular country (Australia), so maybe my prediction of Christian reaction was wrong. I can imagine that very few executions take place on Easter anywhere though, for a bunch of obvious and fairly logical reasons.

Purple Avenger - the people I am talking to are not Saddam fans in the slightest. A few of them were actually looking forward to the execution. I am living in Egypt and plenty of Egyptians got screwed by Hussein, mainly when he invaded Kuwait and caused hundreds of thousands of egyptians to have to flee the place.

They arent angry that he was killed, and they arent even hugely angry with the timing - my feeling is that it is more of a shoulder shrugging, reinforcing-the-clash-of-civilisations style dissapointment that the authorities in Iraq could be so clueless.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Sun Dec 31, 10:08:00 AM:

So Tom, do we consult the oracles before making a decision? Take the trip to delphi?

As was pointed out elsewhere, the choice of dates is not a big deal, the fact that he's dead is.

You are now asking us to be mindful of the feelings of people who inhabit a grievance based culture. Over the last several years we have witnessed an endless parade of irate muslims. As noted the Danish cartoons lead to paroxyms of anger. Do you recall the Koran Flushing? It seems to me that these people are just permanently pissed off. So today, tomorrow, the next goddamned day, it matters not. There are now two new universal facts:

Anything done with American involvement will automatically give rise to criticism from faux intellectuals and pompous gas bags (feel free to include yourself here tom either category will do nicely for you)

Everything, and I mean everything,in this life pisses off the muslims.  

By Blogger TigerHawk, at Sun Dec 31, 10:29:00 AM:

Everything, and I mean everything,in this life pisses off the muslims.

I would say some Muslims.

The question is, what proportion? The Western press -- and, I think, the controlled press in most Muslim police states -- focus on the people who are loud about their grievances. I honestly still can't figure out whether the loudmouth arsonist rioters are 10% of the population or 60%. You can't even figure it out from reading the Pew surveys. Indeed, I find it amazing that this far into it no non-expert (and perhaps not the experts) can figure out this basic point.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Sun Dec 31, 11:32:00 AM:

TH, as to the proportion of outraged people, I think it is difficult information to find without taking a poll. We have our own inane moral outrages. Remember Janet Jackson’s boob? That led to a bloody FCC crackdown. All for a boob! Apparently, some Americans were “outraged” about that, for reasons that are an utter mystery to me. Again, we have no idea how outraged they were or how many people were actually outraged. But there was outrage, promoted by the usual outrage pimps and immeasurable in nature. However, even I, who don’t care, hope no boob is ever shown on TV again because I just don’t want to hear about it for weeks, nor do I want another FCC crackdown. This is what’s known as leaving the morally outraged reactionaries alone for your own practical purposes.

This strategy is even more important in the MENA region, especially for us, as non-Muslim outsiders. As fun as it is sometimes to say to hell with them, it does not help if you want to get things accomplished. Tom’s interesting observation from Egypt (for which skipsailing, characteristically, rewards him with insults) reveals not outrage on the part of most he’s encountered, but a mere shoulder shrug. I would guess this is because Egyptians are as familiar as anyone with the moral outrage patrol in their own lands. The difference is that they have long since learned that it is less trouble for everyone if you avoid prodding the hornet’s nest. Contrast that with certain opinions expressed here which seem to indicate the better strategy is to keep beating that hornet’s nest because the hornets have no right to be outraged in the first place.  

By Blogger allen, at Sun Dec 31, 11:47:00 AM:

TigerHawk,

Re: I would say some Muslims

What, then, are we to make of the fact that much of the agitprop comes directly from the governments or from their sanctioned mouthpieces?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Dec 31, 12:08:00 PM:

Are they pissed off like I am every time I have to take off my shoes I wish to fly somewhere?
Did Sodom's American jailers shit in the Kabala like the Paleostainians did in the Church of the Nativity?
Remeber the rioting after that?
Just another 'blame America firster'!  

By Blogger Tom Gara, at Sun Dec 31, 12:23:00 PM:

Chill guys, I think you're hyperventilating a little.

If you are seriously so disconnected from reality that you cant see anything unusual with a high profile execution on the equivelant of Good Friday, then hooray for you. Come up for air in the real world some time.

It just seems like a complete no-brainer that you hold off the execution for a few days. Doing it at a time when 2.5 million muslims are gathered in the same place celebrating a holy day just seems pointlessly provocative - and if pointing that out makes me a blame america firster or whatever, then so be it.

allen, tigerhawk and all - re the number/% of muslims annoyed by this, i have no idea - but from immediate reactions and people I consider friends, it seems like:

1 - This isnt a huge deal

2 - This pissed off all the people who get pissed off about anything

3 - This pissed off plety of people who are otherwise "friendlies" in the overall struggle in the Middle East

4 - This didnt make anyone happy who wouldnt have been just as happy seeing Saddam executed a week later

All up I think this is just a basic, ground level operational screwup. Assigning truly sinister motives (ie that it was intentionally done during Eid to piss off Muslims / symbolically "sacrifice" Saddam Ishmael style) seems pretty insane, but then again insane decisions havent been completely out of the ordinary during the Iraq war....  

By Blogger allen, at Sun Dec 31, 12:42:00 PM:

Somewhat off-topic but instructive, nonetheless –

Minneapolis Muslims Support Somalia Islamists  

By Blogger Andrewdb, at Sun Dec 31, 01:03:00 PM:

Sometimes is it NOT all about the USA.

Somewhere I saw (sorry, I cannot find the link now) that the Shia celebrate Eid on what would be our Sunday, the Sunni on our Saturday. Maybe it is like the Orthodox versus Western Easter?

So the execution was on the eve of the Shia Eid and ON the Sunni Eid. If this is the case, it sounds more like a poke in the eye to the Sunnis from the Shia.

I don't think waiting a couple of days works, because then it is The Holy Month of Ramadan (TM) and everyone knows that one cannot do anything (except for Moslems attacking non-Moslems) during that time period.

I don't disagree that tactically it seems like a bit of an "own goal."  

By Blogger Miss Ladybug, at Sun Dec 31, 01:22:00 PM:

Ramadan is over (it was mostly the month of November). Can't say why it was done without waiting a few more days (like they are doing with Saddam's co-defendants from that trial).

However, WRT "poking the hornet's nest":

When is it going to be more than don't take an action knowing it will likely offend Islamic fundamentalist, and then become, actively taking an action to avoid pissing them off? A slippery slope to dhimmitude, if you ask me...  

By Blogger Tom Gara, at Sun Dec 31, 01:24:00 PM:

Andrew, Ramadan was back in October. There is two Eids, Eid el-Fitr which happens at the END of Ramadan, and Eid al-Adha, which happens about 10 weeks later. We are talking about Eid Al-Adha here.

And the Shia Eid / Sunni Eid thing is ridiculous - like saying Protestant Christmas versus Catholic Christmas.

My thoughts on all this at tomgara.nomadlife.org  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Sun Dec 31, 01:47:00 PM:

"When is it going to be more than don't take an action knowing it will likely offend Islamic fundamentalist, and then become, actively taking an action to avoid pissing them off? A slippery slope to dhimmitude, if you ask me... "

That's why slippery slope is a logical fallacy. I enjoy pissing off the religiously sensitive of all stripes. I think it's an intrinsic good. However, pissed off fundamentalists cause us additional problems, which is why it is rarely worth it to piss them off for entertainment's sake. In calculating whether any action or inaction is worth our while, the outrage brigades are simply another factor to take into account. I don't think we should avoid offending people because doing so is somehow bad. Again, I think causing offense is generally good. It brings much needed harassment to silly religious mores. However, that must be balanced against things like U.S. soft power in the region, which is one of our greatest assets and ought not be tossed aside lightly.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Sun Dec 31, 01:54:00 PM:

"Somewhere I saw (sorry, I cannot find the link now) that the Shia celebrate Eid on what would be our Sunday, the Sunni on our Saturday. Maybe it is like the Orthodox versus Western Easter?

So the execution was on the eve of the Shia Eid and ON the Sunni Eid. If this is the case, it sounds more like a poke in the eye to the Sunnis from the Shia."

That actually makes a lot of sense. It explains why the Iraqi authorities were in such a hurry, too.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Sun Dec 31, 02:22:00 PM:

Please accept my apologies. It was not my intention to be insulting. On sober reflection I can easily see how someone might be insulted by my comment.

No, I honestly did not intend to be insulting. I did however intend to be scornful. Heaping scorn on those who demand "sensitivity" to members of a culture that clearly doesn't acknowledge or even understand it is simply an exercise in self flagelation. At least the hair shirt wearing acolytes of days gone by kept their self imposed punishment to themselves.

If it is your desire to hit yourself in the forehead with a hardbound copy of "The Koran for Dummies" feel free to do so. Please don't admonish me for engaging in some other more fruitful endeavor or pointing out the futility of your efforts.

Today, we have to whip each other simply because we live as we do and the Arabs don't like it. I don't like everything about my culture, as the next bit describes. But it seems to me that the Muslims like NOTHING about life, even their own.

Mr John, you completely missed the point. My guess is that you have no children. Those of us with children spend an enormous amount of time seeking refuge from the filth that is America's popular culture. In many ways I understand the muslims revulsion at what we've become.

With all the piety that gets slung about around here, I would think you'd understand that protecting INNOCENCE is something laudable.

The superbowl, MR John, was one such refuge. A place to take the kids that was safe from the onslaught of sex, drugs and shitty music that is most of America's hip new life.

Janet Jackson and that other ass Justin whoever made a unilateral decision to demonstrate that their preferred way of life is all pervasive. "There is no escape from our madness" they told us.

Be damned to that. It was inappropriate Mr John.

What do we have here on a gloomy sunday? An atheist who has stooped to explain people of faith to us? And a slogan toting cooler than thou american who reminds us of the culture war being waged in our own country?

It seems to me that many people residing in the west are more than a little hopeful that the muslims win. Not because they admire the muslim's way of life, but because they detest their own. (see above)  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Sun Dec 31, 02:31:00 PM:

I have house work to do, but I cannot let this pass:

I think causing offense is generally good. It brings much needed harassment to silly religious mores. However, that must be balanced against things like U.S. soft power in the region, which is one of our greatest assets and ought not be tossed aside lightly.

This must be decoded from "cool speak" to actual rhetoric. Here's Shochu's logic:

(1) Only piss off people who can do NOTHING in response. If it is determined that the target of insult cannot respond effectively, then insult them at will. Shochu John no doubt has a large collection of Amish jokes, for example. I eagerly await S. John's attempt at defaming the quakers.

(2) Bullies, defined as those who can in fact respond strongly to insult, should NEVER be insulted. If the potential insultee can kick your ass if you offend him, well then don't offend him.

(3) Yes, Shochu John is assuring us that cowardice is like, fully cool.

My goodness.  

By Blogger Tom Gara, at Sun Dec 31, 02:46:00 PM:

Skipsailing, if you can find somewhere where I demanded "sensitivity" to Muslim beliefs, then please let me know. I think you are projecting your own stereotypes onto me rather than actually reading what I said.

My point was this was a bad and counterproductive action. Your point seems to be that bad and counterproductive things are still good ideas if it manages to offend people of an enemy religion.

Theres an uber-difference between bending over backwards to accomodate the beliefs of intolerant fundamentalists (ie removing bacon from menus, taking down Christmas trees etc) and avoiding needless mockery of other people's sacred things.

This is also the difference between Janet Jackson showing a bit of tit at the superbowl, which only weirdo's like yourself take offense at, and idiots like Madonna strapping themselves to giant crusifixes for visual effect during pop concerts.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Sun Dec 31, 03:28:00 PM:

OIC, somehow Tom, you have annointed yourself as the ultimate arbiter (is that uber-arbiter?) of all that is right?

I have no right to be insulted by Janet Jackson but I SHOULD be insulted by Madonna? Who the f-word are you that you believe you may "should" on me with impunity?

I'll decide for myself what is unacceptable to me, much like muslims you are protecting.

I didn't bring up Ms Jackson Tom, Johnny did. I didn't percieve John's comment as open invitation to deliniate all that is offensive is crushing detail. I said enough to make my point. Was I offended by Maddona? No, I knew enough to shelter myself and my children from her stupidity. You too missed the point. Who, exactly, should be surprised by that?

And what, exactly is sacred to the Muslims? Samarra? Any mosque with a strategic value in thier effort to kill anybody with which they disagree? Thier children who they use as combantants or simply gun down in the street? Themselves?

Those people have almost no sacred things. I wonder how much the KSA spends to safeguard thier holy shrines in Mekkah. It would seem unnecessary by your lights, but I'll bet they keep thier rock under 7/24 surveilance.

Sacred? At this point I doubt that many of these killers could rationally describe their value system.  

By Anonymous BIRD OF PARIDISE, at Sun Dec 31, 03:28:00 PM:

And this is ther eligion of peace and i understand that the day hitler commited suicide was a significant day in certian places  

By Blogger Tom Gara, at Sun Dec 31, 04:01:00 PM:

Skipsailing, you have every right to be insulted by seeing a breast in public, and in excercising that right you become a weirdo. A dad who "shelters" his kids from Madonna, sounds like tons'o'fun.

I did miss a point in comparing a private Madonna show to the very public Superbowl though. Apologies.

You are very comfortable lumping "muslims" together into one big happy family. "They" all behave badly so "they" all deserve what they are getting?

As a Christian, are you OK with being put side by side with the "God Hates Fags" crowd? Or the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda?  

By Blogger Gabriel Hanna, at Sun Dec 31, 07:46:00 PM:

Tom, perhaps you should explain to the Muslims in the Iraqi government that it was unacceptable for them to hang Saddam on Eid. I'm sure they'd be interested to hear you explain their faith to them.

What is missing from this discussion: is there some Islamic prohibition of executions on Eid? If there isn't, Tom, then you don't have a leg to stand on. It may well be that in the Muslim world people are executed on Eid all the time.

The Muslims criticizing the execution of Saddam do not necessarily hold themselves to the same standard they hold everyone else to--remember the calls for some kind of Ramadan "truce" when we were in Afghanistan? Muslims themselves fight during Ramadan all the time--only Westerners, it seems, were obliged to respect Ramadan with nonviolence.

Or remember the Danish cartoons? In the Muslim world they have jokes and cartoons about the Prophet all the time, and have for a thousand years--it's only when Westerners do it that they get mad.

This sounds to me just like one more of those things.

Not that it matters. It was Iraq that decided when to hang Saddam, not the US. They are Muslims, presumably they know their faith better than you do.

Oh, by the way, comparing someone who didn't want their kids to see Janet Jackson's breast to headhackers and cannibals in--class act. Obviously there is a moral equivalence.

That is unfair even to Fred Phelps, to be put in that company. He may say "God hates fags", but he doesn't put them to death in barbaric ways, like is common in Africa and the Muslim world.  

By Blogger Tom Gara, at Sun Dec 31, 08:00:00 PM:

I love how right wingers pull the moral equivelance card at every opportunity, like some king of magical red card - on this one, gabriel, you are missing by a mile. My point was exactly the opposite - I was saying that it is totally wrong to compare the average Christian to Fred Phelps or the Ugandan LRA.

You, on the other hand, had absolutely no qualms in directly linking any Muslim who called for a Ramadan truce to the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Thats some breathtaking moral equivelance right there, but it doesnt seem to bother you in the slightest.

How about, judge every person by what they think, say and do, rather than the religion they belong to. You'll quickly find that 99.999% of Muslims who dont like the idea of bombing villages during Ramadan or executing people on Eid Al-Adha aren't busy burying roadside bombs in Falluja - they are doing what most people do - making a living, raising families, practicing the faith their parents passed on to them, etc etc.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Sun Dec 31, 09:48:00 PM:

“Mr John, you completely missed the point. My guess is that you have no children. Those of us with children spend an enormous amount of time seeking refuge from the filth that is America's popular culture. In many ways I understand the muslims revulsion at what we've become. With all the piety that gets slung about around here, I would think you'd understand that protecting INNOCENCE is something laudable.”

Ahh, skipsailing, I see we have touched a nerve. I should have figured you were one of our own outrage brigadiers. Seeing as a boob is so psychologically damaging, I suppose you think it is only OK to breastfeed a baby with an intervening screen so it cannot see the boob, wither perhaps a latex nipple cover so it does not make physical contact with it. Physical contact with bare breasts can damage a baby for life. It’s a destruction of innocence.

“(1) Only piss off people who can do NOTHING in response. If it is determined that the target of insult cannot respond effectively, then insult them at will. … (2) Bullies, defined as those who can in fact respond strongly to insult, should NEVER be insulted. If the potential insultee can kick your ass if you offend him, well then don't offend him. (3) Yes, Shochu John is assuring us that cowardice is like, fully cool.”

Yes, it’s totally, like, cost-benefit analysis. There are things we are trying to get accomplished in Iraq. Pissing off the locals is counterproductive. You could call it cowardice, but I would call it logical. Similarly, if I wanted to avoid another silly FCC crackdown, and I knew someone who felt like flashing some boob on prime time, I would advise them against it, because however silly the outrage, it would be pointless to incur it. I would want to avoid pissing off the outrage brigade because as fun as it is, we would all have to deal with negative consequences.

Calling people out individually for being easily offended and prudish has relatively little downside. I’m enjoying myself immensely right now, for example. However, when you get enough morally outraged reactionaries in one place, it, at some point, just stops being worth the price to make them uncomfortable. I guess that makes me a coward.

“It seems to me that many people residing in the west are more than a little hopeful that the muslims win. Not because they admire the muslim's way of life, but because they detest their own. (see above)”

Now this is an interesting line. Who are these many people? Do you know any? Further, we’re at war with “the muslims”? Is it some sort of worldwide religious holy war? Does this mean that I have to fight any Muslim friends I have. “Sorry old chap, have to kill you. World religious war and all that. That will teach you to have terrorists invoke your faith. If you had found Osama and taken care of him yourself, I wouldn’t have to do this.”  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Mon Jan 01, 02:12:00 AM:

"Is it some sort of worldwide religious holy war?"

Yeah. It is. That's what 'global jihad' means. Just because there are still noncombatants doesn't mean there isn't a war on...  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Mon Jan 01, 09:18:00 AM:

Well, well, well,

Let's get it on:

Tom, I'm glad I was able to pierce your shield of smarmy self righteousness. You understood my point about a private, and therefore easily avoidable, function and a public ambush. Good for you.

It is clear that you don't have children. Or if you do have children that you are uninterested in their innocence. YOu seem to think that we have no need to shelter our youngsters from filth. I suppose you'd have no problem popping up some movie time and enjoying an x rated film with your eight year old, eh? Tons of fun, eh?

Actually johnny boy I did call it cowardice. Because that's what it is. You sir are a coward.

You cannot now retract your obvious admission. That you would gladly insult those who will not or cannot engage in reprisal is cowardly enough. Then to admit that even though you enjoy insulting people (talk to your therapist about that) you won't insult people who can engage in reprisal.

John, you are a coward. All this nonsense about "cost benefit analysis" is pure sophistry.

Let me recap:
you enjoy insulting people.

You arrogate to yourself the position of arbiter of all that is silly

YOU clearly state that you will insult those whom you do not fear and won't insult those whom you do.

Of all the foregoing, the second point is the most valid. You john, know silliness. You've expressed it quite clearly here.

So john, tell us an amish joke. Come on, the amish won't kick your ass, so I'm sure you're fine insulting their silly little mores, right? Here's what I expect from you: "What's up with those hats the guys wear? Do they want to look like hasidic jews or what?" Is'nt that how it goes for you john, in your silly, empty little world?

My goodness john, I sincerely hope that puberty strikes you soon.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Mon Jan 01, 11:01:00 AM:

"You sir are a coward...John, you are a coward...you enjoy insulting people..You....YOU..You john"

That's right. Let it all out. "You enjoy insulting people," is my favorite, especially coming from skipsailing. Anyway, I see I have once again reached the point maximum devolution of any conversation with you and that means its time to get off. I can only hope that this discussion has demonstrated to you that the Muslim version of the outrage brigades should look very familiar to you. You're outraged at a bare breast. You're outraged at me for making fun of you for being outraged at a breast, and yet you don't understand how anybody could be outraged at conducting an execution on a holy day. If you cool down and think about it for just one momement, do you see the similarity? If any understanding can come from the feces-slinging contest we've been conducting, I hope that's it.

Now, on to Dawnfire,
"'Is it some sort of worldwide religious holy war?'

Yeah. It is. That's what 'global jihad' means. Just because there are still noncombatants doesn't mean there isn't a war on... "

So because al Qaeda has decared it to be global, they get to rope their entire religion in, no matter how much mainstream Muslims disagree with and detest them? That hardly seems fair. To use one of Tom's examples, I would hope that the Lord's Resistance Army's invoking of a worldwide Christian struggle would not create the expectation that all Christiains worldwide are brought in on the side of those vampires. Starting with the presumption you are a Chrisitan (correct me if I'm wrong, of course), would you consider yourself merely a noncombatant on the side of the LRA or would you consider yourself a non-party to their campaign?  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Mon Jan 01, 11:43:00 AM:

Conspicuous in its absence John is any defense of your cowardly behavior. I'm hardly surprised.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Mon Jan 01, 04:21:00 PM:

No, I'm not Christian.

I think that 'noncombatant' and 'non-party' is an artificial distinction that mean effectively the same thing, but I get your point; just because some in the LRA (it's not a purely Christian organization in the first place) and some individual in Montana both identify as Christian they don't necessarily empathize with one another or share the same goals.

"So because al Qaeda has decared it to be global, they get to rope their entire religion in, no matter how much mainstream Muslims disagree with and detest them?"

You've deluded yourself into thinking that pro-jihadist attitude is somehow rare or unpopular. It isn't, it's been on the rise since the 50s. Recall that Zarqawi was something of a folk hero in Jordan, usually regarded as a relatively progressive and friendly Arab nation, until he blew up a wedding party there. Tens of thousands of people wear Hezb Allah baseball caps and T shirts and fly their flags from their homes and cars and pay taxes to them. Mosque imams repeatedly and openly call for the death and maiming of infidels, sometimes in the infidels' own countries. (Australia and England, for instance) Or how about the Muslim 'youth riots' in France this last year?

Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafist Group for Call and Combat, Abu Sayyaf, the Thai terrorists whose name I don't know, the Chechnyans, Hezb Allah, the Taliban, Hamas, the Army of Muhammad, Ansar al-Islam... There are plenty of Islamic terrorist organizations to choose from. And let's not leave out the unnamed groups, cells, and plots that have popped up in Britain, Germany, the US, and Canada. Some of these groups are decades old, and they're not all Al Qaeda. Have all of these groups, ranging from North Africa to the Levant to the sub-continent to the Far East, come together in some grand Al Qaeda conspiracy to hi-jack Islam?

No, they're independently developed and organized. They don't even speak the same languages. The only things that they all have in common are faith in Islam and a willingness to kill for that faith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_groups

For comparison, there are 7 Christian terrorist organizations on that list, 1 Jewish one, 10 Sikh ones (almost all in the same area), and 1 Other (Aum Shinrikyu). There are 40 listed under Islam including 2 which are now defunct. There are twice as many Islamic terrorist organizations as all of the other religions listed combined. (19-38)

But I'd like you to realize that the theology that fuels Islamic terrorism is not uncommon, and is actually becoming mainstream. Terrorist organizations tend to hurt for money and equipment, not recruits. There are way, WAY more Muslims who think like Hamas or Hezb Allah (they run entire countries you know, like Saudi and Iran and Palestine and formerly Afghanistan, and are very influential in others like Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, and Indonesia) than there are Christians who think like the Ku Klux Klan. The equivalence that 'well our extremists are marginalized and few in number so theirs must be too' is... well, a lie.

This simple fact that all of these groups all over the world (global) share the same religion and use that religion (religious) to justify the perpetration of violence (war) against, by no coincidence, the same categories of enemies (Zionists, Imperialists, and their agents) demonstrates the existence of a global religious war. And because it's assymetrical and fought in the proverbial shadows, no one wears uniforms. Anyone can sign up. And they do. Your nice Muslim neighbor might be a nice Muslim neighbor... or they might be a zealot planning a massacre of their co-workers.

They use that term too, on the Internet. Global jihad. Globes pop up fairly often in iconography, too. They sure seem convinced that there is a global religious war going on. Why aren't you?

http://global-war.bloghi.com/2006/04/08/join-the-jihad-wagon.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-01-20-pakistan-protests_x.htm
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP29601
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0725/p07s01-woeu.html
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370147
http://www.al-jinan.org/  

By Anonymous K-Dog, at Mon Jan 01, 04:50:00 PM:

"The difference is that they have long since learned that it is less trouble for everyone if you avoid prodding the hornet’s nest. Contrast that with certain opinions expressed here which seem to indicate the better strategy is to keep beating that hornet’s nest because the hornets have no right to be outraged in the first place."

And others may hold yet a third opinion: That it's obnoxious to have hornets around in the first place, and the even better strategy is to go after them with a can of RAID.

I'm just sayin'...  

By Blogger Gabriel Hanna, at Mon Jan 01, 09:15:00 PM:

Reason is clearly not your forte, Tom. Three strikes in one post:

I love how right wingers...

First strike--I'm not a right-winger, and there is nothing in my post that could have indicated that I was. In fact, like you, I am an atheist. You don't know my position on abortion, or free trade, or gay marriage, or anything else except specifically what I commented on--the differing standards that Muslims hold themselves to from those they expect of Westerners--and that is not a left-wing/right wing issue, but a question of fact. You chose to assume I was one without evidence, because it suited your rhetorical convenience.

You, on the other hand, had absolutely no qualms in directly linking any Muslim who called for a Ramadan truce to the Taliban fighters in Afghanistan. Thats some breathtaking moral equivelance right there, but it doesnt seem to bother you in the slightest.

This made me laugh out loud. They linked themselves to the Taliban by calling for a truce on their behalf! We know this because they never called for a Ramadan truce when Iran was fighing Iraq, or when Chechnya was fighing the Russians, or when the Taliban was taking over Afghanistan, or the Palestinians killing Jews--this was something they made up specifically for the US fighting the Taliban. Consider as well that the only nations that even recognized the Taliban were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan--and where did these calls for a Ramadan truce originate? Oh yes, they wanted to help the Taliban. They showed that by their actions. That's strike two.

How about, judge every person by what they think, say and do, rather than the religion they belong to. You'll quickly find that 99.999% of Muslims who dont like the idea of bombing villages during Ramadan or executing people on Eid Al-Adha aren't busy burying roadside bombs in Falluja - they are doing what most people do - making a living, raising families, practicing the faith their parents passed on to them, etc etc.

Strike three is arguing with a straw man, and not me. I never said 99.999% of Muslims were any different from what you described. You assumed it for rhetorical convenience; you seem to be incapable of understanding what I actually said, so you assumed I must be some kind of bigot. But I associate with far more Muslims, on a daily basis, than most Americans do--in my town of 25,000 there is a mosque, which I can and do visit freely, and have always been made to feel welcome--I already know that most of them are just like anyone else. It's just that 0.001%--which I have encountered even this little town.

If you can't argue with what people actually say, then quit wasting everyone's time.  

By Blogger Gabriel Hanna, at Mon Jan 01, 11:09:00 PM:

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/01/world/middleeast/01iraq.html?hp&ex=1167714000&en=85dae91ed8178e3a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

American officials in Iraq have been reluctant to say much publicly about the pell-mell nature of the hanging, apparently fearful of provoking recriminations in Washington, where the Bush administration adopted a hands-off posture, saying the timing of the execution was Iraq’s to decide.

While privately incensed at the dead-of-night rush to the gallows, the Americans here have been caught in the double bind that has ensnared them over much else about the Maliki government — frustrated at what they call the government’s failure to recognize its destructive behavior, but reluctant to speak out, or sometimes to act, for fear of undermining Mr. Maliki and worsening the situation.

But a narrative assembled from accounts by various American officials, and by Iraqis present at some of the crucial meetings between the two sides, shows that it was the Americans who counseled caution in the way the Iraqis carried out the hanging. The issues uppermost in the Americans’ minds, these officials said, were a provision in Iraq’s new Constitution that required the three-man presidency council to approve hangings, and a stipulation in a longstanding Iraqi law that no executions can be carried out during the Id al-Adha holiday, which began for Iraqi Sunnis on Saturday and Shiites on Sunday.


So, you see, Tom, it was the Americans who wanted Saddam's execution delayed.

Now you tell us what Americans should have done when the Iraqis wouldn't listen, okay? Seized Saddam by force? What?

Don't you think that would have been a little worse than "inflaming the Muslim street", which is always perpetually inflamed by everything?  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Tue Jan 02, 11:59:00 AM:

Dawnfire,

You go through quite a bit of trouble to demonstrate that Islamic terrorist groups are more mainstream than in other religious populations. Even if your point is correct, this does not make it proper to impute the extremism onto all Muslims. I object to calling it a fight against "the Muslims" including them all in the camp of the enemy. Firstly, it's simply not true. Secondly, we're doing the extremist groups for them. They would like to recruit people to their point of view. They would like to become as mainstream as possible. By insisting that they are mainstream, by insisting as treating them as mainstream, and by assuming their beliefs universal amongst everybody in their same community is not only incorrect, but counterproductive from our point of view.

"They use that term too, on the Internet. Global jihad. Globes pop up fairly often in iconography, too. They sure seem convinced that there is a global religious war going on. Why aren't you?"

Because they want a global religious war. This benefits them. It pushes more people onto their side, as you seem eager to help them with. Look at what is happening in Chechnya. This is not a religious conflict. It is a nationalistic one. The Chechen independence movement is run by former Soviet officers, hardly a religious group. However, they have given their struggle a more religious bent because they think it makes victory more likely. Chechnya v. Russia gives them terrible odds. Turning it into Islam v. Christianity is far more advantageous. By the same token, al Qaeda v. the United States presents terrible odds for al Qaeda. Once again, Islam v. Christianity is far better. Naturally, they want to inflate their cause as much as possible and pull as pany additional people onto their side as possible. I am mystified as to why you want to buy into their sales pitch. We should be working to make them as marginal as possible. If they are becoming more mainstream in Islamic-majority countries, which I agree they are, we need to work to buck this trend and re-marginalize them. What we don't need to do is help them mainstream themselves by implying that our war is against Islam as a religion or Muslims at large.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Tue Jan 02, 01:31:00 PM:

What is missing in your analysis is a discussion of the choices the muslims themselves must make.

the standard lefty pap is that the problem isn't islam, it's a small percentage of radicals.

Yes, I'm sure that's true. But what difference does this distinction actually make?

Not all germans were nazis, but they fought us all the same.

Not everyone in Russia agreed with Kruschev when he told us he'd bury us.

Not every Japanese was steeped in the bushido culture, either.

so not all muslims are radicals, so what? You seem to think that we can somehow influence the choices that fence sitting muslims make. Perhaps we can but I strongly doubt this. Your analysis leads to two places:

(1) If people join the jihad, your analysis permits a "blame America" response. "If we did X or Y or Z then there would be fewer jihadis." I doubt this. We can do little to offset the nonstop propaganda with which these people are beset.

(2) Your analysis leaves the muslims blameless in this. According to you they are blameless for picking up an AK and shooting at our soldiers. "It's not thier fault, this is happening because people in America think ALL muslims are bad."

If the non belicose muslims don't want war, they need to stop it. If they chose not to, and that seems apparent at this juncture, then they will be lumped in with the radicals when we retaliate. Let's make this less about what WE must do and more about what our enemy is doing.

I don't believe all muslims are jihadis, but all jihadis are muslim. It is my opinion that you've demanded we make a distinction that makes no difference at all.

Your analysis of chechnaya is also flawed. In his round up of the global jihad, Bill Roggio offers this:

Al-Qaeda had a very bad year in Chechnya. Shamil Basayev, the leader of the Chechen jihad, along with a large contingent of the Chechen leadership, was killed by the Russian FSB in July. After Basayev's death, large numbers of Chechen rebels defected and accepted a government amnesty.

Is there a chechen independance movement? What's that got to do with Al Quaeda?  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Tue Jan 02, 02:03:00 PM:

"You go through quite a bit of trouble to demonstrate that Islamic terrorist groups are more mainstream than in other religious populations."

I felt that I needed to. The idea that all religions aren't the same is heresy nowadays. (ironic choice of words intended)

"Even if your point is correct, this does not make it proper to impute the extremism onto all Muslims."

I'm pretty sure that I never said that all Muslims are in the camp of the enemy, seeing as how I work with quite a few who get their paychecks from the US Army.

What I did say was that so-called 'radicalized' Islam is *becoming* mainstream. At some point, not treating these ideas as common will be counterproductive... because we'll be lying to ourselves. Anti-semitism, for instance. Did you know that Muslim politicians in Indonesia, (Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, for instance) with no Jewish population to speak of, make anti-semitic remarks fairly regularly and almost always in the context of supporting fellow Muslim brothers? And their contituents are ok with this, because it represents their views.

'Why? They're in the freaking Far East!' A kernel of anti-Semitism is actually built into Islam; little rants against Jews exist in the Quran, plus one fairly long one somewhere in Suras 2-4 (I forget), and a number of the Hadith (whether false or not, they are believed) are used as anti-Jewish material. You see, the Jewish tribes of Yathrib rejected Muhammad after he tried to unite the two religions (Muslims prayed towards Jerusalem for a while because of this) and this made him (or God; you know, however) angry. Plus, in this kind of atmosphere, thinks like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and such circulate as fact.

So 'all Muslims are anti-Semites,' which you'll notice I didn't say here either, would be as false as all other such generalizations. But 'many Muslims tend to be anti-Semites because of events concerning the denouncement, banishment, enslavement, and execution of Jews (I glossed over those parts) in the early days of Islam' is perfectly reasonable, and true to boot.

I recall one conversation I had with an elderly Egyptian woman that somehow turned to the topic of Hebrew. I mentioned that Hebrew and Arabic are closely related and at one time in history were the same language. (which is a linguistic fact) She vehemently disagreed. So I rattled off a couple of words in both languages that are similar, like 'yom' (day) and 'yawm' (day) and 'markava' (chariot, and also the name of an Israeli tank) and 'markaba' (vehicle). She insisted that I must be mistaken, which anyone even passingly familiar with linguistics knows that I'm not, because she didn't want to be associated with Jews. A wonderfully nice little old woman.

"Turning it into Islam v. Christianity is far more advantageous."

I've never heard Al Qaeda or anyone else say anything about Islam v. Christianity; only 'Crusaders' which they then defined in a list of countries. Synagogues have been bombed, as well as governmental, social, and infrastructural targets, but I don't recall any Churches or Cathedrals or Monasteries. Perhaps I should explain further the idea of religious war. See below.

"If they are becoming more mainstream in Islamic-majority countries, which I agree they are, we need to work to buck this trend and re-marginalize them. What we don't need to do is help them mainstream themselves by implying that our war is against Islam as a religion or Muslims at large."

It's a good intention, but it's naive, and I don't mean to be rude with that.

According to strict theology (which religious Muslims adhere to, of course) if an outsider attacks one Muslim then it is the religious duty of all other Muslims who are able to come to his defense. What is considered an 'attack' is open to interpretation, and is often interpreted liberally. Recall the furor over the Danish cartoons? (some of which were manufactured by other Muslims in order to whip up a greater frenzy) So any attack, however defined, against any Muslims anywhere is justification for any other Muslim to take up arms against you and no amount of our blustering is going to convince them otherwise. This explains why mujahidin travel considerable distances to remote corners of the world to fight for foreigners whose language that they don't speak and for causes they don't understand; they feel it's their religious duty. "We're not fighting against Islam! Only these certain Muslims..." doesn't wash.

As for defeating this 'mainstreaming' trend, if you want people to abandon an ideology then you have to show how it is a failure. (like Communism, or Pan-Arab Nationalism) The best way to do that is to defeat them, a la Tigerhawk's 'discrediting' theme. Let them sign up for glorious jihad and put on their little masks and charge into combat against the evil Imperialist US and get slaughtered. For years. Without driving us away or collapsing the government. (which they are absolutely convinced they did to the USSR) At some point they'll realize, 'hey, this isn't doing any good. Is God not on our side after all? I'm not going to throw my life away on a cause that isn't holy. I won't go to Paradise.' This is somewhat simplified (Islamists often have plenty of local issues to pursue also, and that's not really our business) but it's what we can do to help. In essence, don't roll over.

The second best way is to let them take over their countries and starting fucking up, like Hamas, (and Communism, and Pan-Arab Nationalism) but that's inherently dangerous. And probably bloody too.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Tue Jan 02, 03:43:00 PM:

Yes dawnfire, I recall stories of palestinians reaching the conclusion that the intifada was no longer worth it. A vist from the Iranians may have changed some minds.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Wed Jan 03, 12:24:00 AM:

"According to strict theology (which religious Muslims adhere to, of course) if an outsider attacks one Muslim then it is the religious duty of all other Muslims who are able to come to his defense."

This proves precisely nothing. According to strict Christian theology, there are a multitude of things we have to do (stone people who work on the Sabbath) and not do (eat shrimp). Few people actually do, in practice. By the same token, some Muslims ally with us when we attack other Muslims. I cite not only all the loyal Muslim Americans, but the Iraqis working with us over there. In addition, far from defending Iraq in the first Gulf War, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar sent troops to aid us. Syria even showed up on our side. Your logic appears to be that because the strictest theological interpretaion calls for Muslims to defend each other against outsiders reflexively, and some do so, it automatically makes all Muslims presumptively our enemy. This, and I don't mean to be rude, is asinine.  

By Blogger skipsailing, at Wed Jan 03, 09:57:00 AM:

I attend services in the catholic rite on a regular basis, i.e. weekly. I cannot honestly recall the priest exhorting us to stone anybody.

I know that jews who keep kosher eschew shell fish for example, but again I cannot recall anything in the catholic rite urging me to avoid shrimp. In fact my trips to the very catholic country of mexico generally resulted in the purchase of some very nice shrimp. Who knew that those guys selling prawns out of the trunk of their beat up old chevy were apostates?

John, you keep demanding that we not lump all muslims together and that's a noble approach.

for myself I divide muslims into three groups:

(1) the muslims that are trying to kill us.

(2) The muslims that are doing nothing about the group described in (1) above.

(3) The muslims who actively oppose the group described in (1) above.

Sadly it is my firm belief that the most muslims fall into group (2). Group (1) makes up the next largest category with group (3) consisting of numbers so small one may be able to count them with the digits of one's fingers.

The dynamic that dawnfire describes is very clearly illustrated in an article concerning the danish cartoon controversy found at the Middle East Forum.

here's the addy:
http://www.meforum.org/article/1437

This article not only supports the thesis that muslims, even those who are luke warm about their faith, will rally to the defense of their faith, it also clearly outlines the means by which self aggrandizing opportunists use this for personal gain.

Again, you position is laudable, just not practical.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Wed Jan 03, 02:17:00 PM:

No. The fact that thousands of Muslims from all countries travel great distances to fight as mujahidin DOES prove something. Is this the only way that you can debate, John? Altering my words into some caricature that you can just dismiss?

"Your logic appears to be that because the strictest theological interpretaion calls for Muslims to defend each other against outsiders reflexively, and some do so, it automatically makes all Muslims presumptively our enemy."

I SPECIFICALLY SAID 'So 'all Muslims are anti-Semites,' which you'll notice I didn't say here either, would be as false as all other such generalizations,' which as you might tell if you read it, says that such mass generalizations are false. (or, yes, even assinine) At worst, it makes all practicing Muslims *suspect* in the same way that a Communist was suspect in 1960. Maybe they were patriotic Americans who would follow only legal channels to try to change the country, but there were many of their comrades who were traitors and all that the traitors shared was a belief in Communism.

As for theology (which you demonstrated that you don't grasp, insofar as Christianity goes) Skipsailing got it right. Again, I specifically said 'which religious Muslims adhere to.' Islam as practiced in the middle east is an orthpraxy religion. Muslims do what Muslims do without any outside analysis or judgement of morality; if it's in Islam, it's commanded by God and is moral. God commanded that jihad is a religious duty. So they do it.

Are you familiar with Puritanism? That harsh and austere theology that overran England and spread to American in the 16th and 17th centuries? The Puritans legally forbade fires and work on the Sabbath. They hung suspected witches. They banned Christmas. They had possibly the strictest religious-moral code in modern history.

Puritanism is roughly analogous to Salafism, write down to literal interpretations of the holy text. However, Puritans wanted to escape and isolate themselves from the corrupt world. (after they were kicked out of England for trying to institute a theocracy) Salafism wants to change the world by force. And Salafism is the primary moving force within Sunni Islam from Pakistan to Algeria and most if not all Sunni terrorist groups ascribe to it.

So, in sum, if you live in a society where the dominant faith is strictly interpreted and says that holy war on behalf of the faith is a religious duty then chances are you will either try to become a jihadist (especially if your family wishes it) or look favorably upon those who do.

That they don't do it much in America is a function of our culture, I think. We live in an individualistic, not a communal, society where people ignore things that they don't agree with or like all the time. One really has to truly and personally believe to become a jihadist here. It's not socially acceptable or supported by 'charities.' But even here it still happens. A day or two ago some Canadian jihadists were picked up trying to escape from Somalia.

Since I suspect that you're just going to skim that and pick something out to try and prove that I'm some simple bigot again; *ahem*

Islam is inherently Evil and practicing Muslims ought to be locked away for the safety of society. That they are not to be executed is simply a msnifestation of our goodwill.

Cheers.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Wed Jan 03, 02:18:00 PM:

I swear, sometimes it seems like Blogger goes back and mis-spells my words after I type them. Write down? Bah.  

By Blogger Shochu John, at Wed Jan 03, 07:47:00 PM:

dawnfire,
I'm not twisting your argument in the least. I said, "it automatically makes all Muslims presumptively our enemy." Note, this is different than saying that you think all Muslims are our enemies full stop, which I did not say, as you generously allow there may be some Muslims that are not enemies. The purpose of the word "presumptively" is to indicate that we presume all Muslims are our enemy. As you suggest that Islam is itself an enemy theology, it would seem logical that those that ascribe to it would be presumtively our enemies. Let me know where I depart from your opinion, here.

"Since I suspect that you're just going to skim that and pick something out to try and prove that I'm some simple bigot again; *ahem*"

Simple? No.

"Islam is inherently Evil and practicing Muslims ought to be locked away for the safety of society. That they are not to be executed is simply a msnifestation of our goodwill."

Well that just about sums it up. So, here's another question. If Iraq's violence were to rage on and cause a regional sectarian conflict, wouldn't you consider that a good thing? After all, if you have an inter-Islamic grudge match weakening all parties, would that not be a victory for the U.S.?  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?