Saturday, June 23, 2007
The Queen and the Taliban: "Insults" as a measure of morality
The Taliban -- literally, "students" -- have apparently decided that Islam authorizes the deployment of suicide bombers as young as six years old. The Guardian:
Children as young as six are being used by the Taliban in increasingly desperate suicide missions, coalition forces in Afghanistan claimed yesterday.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), to which Britain contributes 5,000 troops in southern Afghanistan, revealed that soldiers defused an explosive vest which had been placed on a six-year-old who had been told to attack Afghan army forces in the east of the country.
The boy was spotted after appearing confused at a checkpoint. The vest was defused and no one was hurt....
"They placed explosives on a six-year-old boy and told him to walk up to the Afghan police or army and push the button," said Captain Michael Cormier, the company commander who intercepted the child, in a statement. "Fortunately, the boy did not understand and asked patrolling officers why he had this vest on."
Now, the Taliban claim they are strict adherents to Islamic law, and would not have engaged in this action if it did not comply with their interpretation of Islam. In effect, when they strapped the bomb vest on this boy they claimed the authority of Islam as their justification.
Since, I take it, few Western Muslims would agree -- even among themselves -- that their religion justifies compelling kindergardeners to act as weapons of war, it must be slanderous of the Taliban to imply that it does. Indeed, it seems that in their actions the Taliban have gravely insulted Islam.
But if that is true, why are Western Muslims bothering to demonstrate against the knighting of Salman Rushie? Is it really possible that Queen Elizabeth II insulted Islam more profoundly than the Taliban do every day? Since it is obvious that at least some Western Muslims think that she did, I respectfully suggest that their own moral compass is, well, FUBAR.
CWCID: LGF.
20 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Jun 23, 04:39:00 PM:
You have to actually own a moral compass before it can be 'fubar'.
By 
Purple Avenger, at
Sat Jun 23, 05:23:00 PM:
This is the original NATO press release. No need to be sending the commie Guardian any traffic ;->
By Christopher Chambers, at
Sat Jun 23, 06:12:00 PM:
It's not hard to understand from where I sit, when I see the way you right wing "wingnuts" respond when your pre-set buttons are pushed. Turn that around and try to friggin' empathize (I know you were never taught that as children--too "commie/faggish" no doubt) but try. You have a whole dumbtruck of crazy and delibitating things going on throughout the Muslin world, some general and pervasive, some specific to a nation, tribe or area, from poverty breeding utter hopelessness, to other forms of massive inferiority complexes. (and come on guys--it doesn't help when you wingnuts regard them as subhuman...these pissing and crapping and blodletting contests only lead to what--more blood and effluvia). All we get is the rabid extremes fighting each other.Ironic it is that you all are conservative and so are they...funny how, say Abbas' Fattah Party is the progeny of the PLO which was more a Marxist/Nationalist crew than fundamentalist Islamic...but of course fight me on all that stuff because, like the scorpion stinging the frog rescuing him from the flood, you can't help yourselves. Well, neither can they. And these loud extremes, unyielding, insane, have two effects, both calculated ( and I shall accuse you of helping create this milieu with this blog, TH): (1) it demoralizes, demonizes and cows anyone in the middle, anyone trying to find a solution, and (2) even better, demoralization garners you and them more recurits either directly (i.e., "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em") or indirectly, by omission (i.e., "shee-it...I'm not gonna stick my m-fing neck out and challenge or debate anyone, and risk getting it chopped off, literally or figuratively, so I'll keep my mouth shut and let these loud folks do the screaming").
Their craziness begets your craziness, begets your counter craziness, begets craziness all around. We have to create an environment where theirs less volume. Maybe electing a President with a nonEuropean sounding name and double the IQ of the current one might help. LOL. Oops...I was guilty there of taking up the volume. I apologize. But seriously, there's work to be done that doesn't entail sniping or acrimony. "Can't we all just get along?" ;-)
By Purple Avenger, at
Sat Jun 23, 07:18:00 PM:
Turn that around and try to friggin' empathize
That you apparently empathize with people using 6 year old kids as suicide bombers I find not surprising at all.
By antithaca, at
Sat Jun 23, 08:23:00 PM:
So, this is "track two" at best...but, I actually think it brings you (TigerHawk) credit link to a diverse set of media sources. The Guardian included.
Gotta break out of your comfort zone as some in the BBC might say...recalling their recent report.
By , at
Sat Jun 23, 08:31:00 PM:
Re CC.
“Loud extremes.”
One extreme is the muslim demonstrators against Rushdie in the UK. These demonstrators, while partaking of the economic abundance and social freedoms of the West, do not wish to grant freedom to others, such as Rushdie, and want to impose sharia law on us. (Consult various polls. There IS a correlation.) It would also appear that these same demonstrators would not be upset at the Taliban’s using children for suicide bombers. These demonstrators are symptomatic of the sicknesses in the Muslim world, which CC has elucidated.
Who is the other extreme? Who are “rabid extremes fighting each other?”
Who is in the middle on this? Who is on the middle ground with regard to Muslims who are upset about Salmon Rushdie but who are not upset about the Taliban’s using a children for suicide bombing?
There are some issues for which there is no middle ground, empathizing or not. While one might have empathized with the Germans’ supporting Adolf in response to the Versailles treaty, to hyperinflation etc., such empathy without a firm response to Hitler’s madness led to disaster. ( See Rhineland, 1936.) Four decades ago, there was no middle ground with the Klansmen who bombed black churches nor the Bull Connors who beat up peaceful demonstrators. Yes, Bull Conner was upset at outside interference. The proper response was neither “dialogue” nor “empathy” with Mr. Conner, but to roundly condemn Bull Connor’s brutality and pass the laws that the beaten up demonstrators were advocating.
CC equates “conservatives” in the US with muslim “conservatives.” Unfortunately, this attitude is widespread among the “wise.” Ivy League graduate Al Gore, in an interview with the New Yorker, had a sneering reference to Christian fundamentalists being the equivalent of Muslim fundamentalists. Yet no Christian fundamentalist threatened his life, as what happened to Rushdie. If someone leaves a Christian church, his or her life is not in danger. If a Muslim leaves the faith, his or her life IS in danger.
I live several blocks from a storefront church. Church people knock on my door several times a year. While my agnosticism does not agree with what goes on in fundamentalist churches, I can live with them. I disagree with them, but they are my fellow Americans. My fundamentalist grandmother and I disagreed on religion, but we loved each other. We can live in peace. I could not live in peace in Sharia-land, and I doubt that neither sneering Al Gore nor CC could either. Whom can you live with?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jun 23, 09:09:00 PM:
"I know you were never taught that as children"
You know exactly shit about the childhoods of anonymous strangers on the Internet.
"Can't we all just get along?"
No.
By , at
Sat Jun 23, 10:10:00 PM:
Well said, Chamberpot! ;>)
You forgot to mention anything about the six year-old child in your post. I guess that's beside the point for you. Even better, you think it's George Bush's fault! It doesn't get any better than that.
There's a movie coming out that you might like– National Lampoon's "72 Virgins- How far would you go to get laid?"
The plot? "Two idiot college students unwittingly join an Al Qaeda cell in order to get the 72 virgins promised to terrorists when they die?"
But seriously, if you go to any of the suicide bomber websites, or view their videos posted on Youtube, you will see these guys are in a state of near religious ecstasy when they make their final statements. Many of them mention that they will soon be in paradise with the 72 virgins. The 72 virgins reward is a great recruiting device for for these young men who are likely virgins themselves.
Do you really want to stop this phenomenon in its tracks? Do massive air drops of inflatable dolls over Muslim countries.
Stuck in the middle with you,
Otto
By , at
Sat Jun 23, 10:46:00 PM:
Now I'm going to have to pick up one of Chambers' novels (from the public library, of course) just to see if his novels are as incoherent and poorly written as his feverish internet posts.
By , at
Sun Jun 24, 01:08:00 AM:
No wonder the Mulsims treat their women so poorly. They need an excuse to kill them off so there are enough virgins for the ratbags. After all. 72 to one takes some doing.
By , at
Sun Jun 24, 03:32:00 AM:
I agree that it looks bad for any Western Muslim who says he condemns Rushdie. If you are really committed to free expression, you must support his right to say the things that he did. Whether or not you think what he said was a good idea is another matter, but you cannot in good conscience "condemn"
him for making trouble when trouble so clearly needs to be made if there is going to be any change in fundamentalist Islam.
"Yet no Christian fundamentalist threatened his life, as what happened to Rushdie."
Not so fast. Granted abortion clinic bombers are the fringe the way militant Muslims in many places are not, but Christian extremists who kill or condone killing DO exist in our society. Ultimately, religious fundamentalism is the problem and should be combated in all its forms.
By David M, at
Sun Jun 24, 07:19:00 AM:
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 06/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
By , at
Sun Jun 24, 01:03:00 PM:
"Yet no Christian fundamentalist threatened his life, as what happened to Rushdie."
”Not so fast. Granted abortion clinic bombers are the fringe the way militant Muslims in many places are not, but Christian extremists who kill or condone killing DO exist in our society. Ultimately, religious fundamentalism is the problem and should be combated in all its forms.”
Let us place things in perspective. According to the National Abortion Federation Violence and Disruption Statistics, from 2001-2007, there are the following violent crimes against abortion clinics from 2001- present: 0 murders or attempted murders, 1 bombing (in 2001), 10 arson, 13 attempted bombing/arson. A recent bombing attempt this year in Austin is not recorded. Recall what happened on September 11, 2001: some 3,000 killed.
From the website Religion of Peace, here are the numbers for killed or injured by Muslim extremists in the last THREE MONTHS: 6262 killed. 7595 injured. Some might say that statistics for Iraq and Afghanistan should not be included, as we are “provoking” Muslims there. So, we shall take out Iran and Afghanistan out of the statistics for the last three months. We shall ignore such acts as “female head of a girls' school is shot to death” in Afghanistan. Taking Iraq and Afghanistan out of the statistics, for the last THREE MONTHS we find that Muslim extremists have killed 1313 and injured 1624.
Compare these numbers to the NAF statistics on crimes against abortion clinics for the last 6 ½ years. They are equivalent only if one considers a harassing phone call the equivalent of murder.
Anyone who believes that “Ultimately, religious fundamentalism is the problem”, is ignoring the facts. If the author really believed that statement, then give the author the choice between living in Possum Trot Alabama, or Qom. Which would the author choose? Who would find it difficult to choose? How would one characterize someone who found it difficult to choose?
By , at
Mon Jun 25, 03:03:00 AM:
Boludo: I agree that Islamic extremism is more dangerous at this time since there are more Islamic extremists. This naturally means that we should devote more of our time and energy toward combating them rather than some other extremist groups. But just because one group of murderous fanatics is bigger/more successful than another doesn't make the smaller fanatic group any better.
"If the author really believed that statement, then give the author the choice between living in Possum Trot Alabama, or Qom. Which would the author choose?"
A more intellectually honest question would be, "would you rather live in a place ruled by Christian fanatics or Muslim fanatics?" Perhaps a state run by abortion clinic bombers and their supporters would be less noxious to live in than Qom, but I think it is valid to categorize both of them as places I would under no circumstances want to live, run by groups who deserve equal measure of condemnation, regardless of their size.
By , at
Mon Jun 25, 07:40:00 AM:
"A more intellectually honest question would be, ‘ would you rather live in a place ruled by Christian fanatics or Muslim fanatics ?’ ”
I am not sure what you mean by “Christian fanatics.” Lacking any further information, I assume you mean evangelical Christians. After all, you equated Possum Trot as a place ruled by “Christian fanatics.” I am an agnostic who lives in a part of the country with “Christian fanatics” all around me. As the “Christian fanatics” are much more numerous at the polls than I, it could be said that I DO live in a place ruled by “Christian fanatics.” The life isn’t bad. To reply to your “more intellectually honest question,” I would much rather be ruled by “Christian fanatics” than “Muslim fanatics.” For that matter, I would rather be ruled by “Christian fanatics” than by the Harvard faculty. At least the “Christian fanatics” by and large leave me in peace.
This country was founded by Christians. Many of my ancestors- perhaps you consider them “Christian fanatics”- came to the US so that they could practice their religion without the state interference they endured in Europe. The first amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Nor was this separation of church and state a contradiction of basic Christian doctrine. As my bible-thumping grandmother quoted to me, “render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
By contrast, in Islam, religion and the state have been much more intertwined. Religion has often been the state. “Muslim fanatics” are attempting to institute a government ruled by sharia law and the Koran. They can find ample support in history, sharia law, and the Koran for the claim that what they are trying to do is a manifestation not of extreme Islam, but mainstream Islam. After all, Muhammad was both a religious and a political leader.
“Perhaps a state run by abortion clinic bombers and their supporters would be less noxious to live in than Qom, but I think it is valid to categorize both of them as places I would under no circumstances want to live, run by groups who deserve equal measure of condemnation, regardless of their size.”
Deal in the actual, not the hypothetical. There IS a Qom, there IS a Mecca, etc. etc., ruled by Muslim fanatics. Countless millions live in places where Muslim fanatics have the upper hand. As regards your hypothetical “state run by abortion clinic bombers”, bear in mind that from 1992-2000 to 2001-2007, we find a downward trend in violence against abortion clinics: murders from 7 to 0, attempted murders from 15 to 0, bombings from 13 to 1, arson from 81 to 10. Deal with the actual, not the hypothetical.
In summation, someone who fears a bible-thumper as much as an Islamofascist is barking up the wrong tree. It is also interesting that my original question was very simple: would you prefer living in Possum Trot or Qom? You then equated Possum Trot, i.e., a small town in the South, with “Christian fanatics” and with “a state run by abortion clinic bombers and their supporters.” You are stereotyping.
By , at
Mon Jun 25, 08:56:00 AM:
"I am not sure what you mean by “Christian fanatics.” Lacking any further information, I assume you mean evangelical Christians."
Well, you obviously didn't read very carefully then. What I mean by "Christian fanatics" is abortion clinic bombers as I clearly said, not garden-variety evangelicals.
"For that matter, I would rather be ruled by “Christian fanatics” than by the Harvard faculty. At least the “Christian fanatics” by and large leave me in peace."
I guess that's true, as long as you aren't, you know, gay, or living with a woman and not married, or anything like that, where the bible says that it isn't alright. Be a shame for you if you were, now wouldn't it.
"Deal in the actual, not the hypothetical." OK, sure. You seem to have ignored the whole first paragraph of my previous post, so I'll just repeat it here:
"Boludo: I agree that Islamic extremism is more dangerous at this time since there are more Islamic extremists. This naturally means that we should devote more of our time and energy toward combating them rather than some other extremist groups. But just because one group of murderous fanatics is bigger/more successful than another doesn't make the smaller fanatic group any better."
Once again: obviously Islamofascism is a bigger threat than violent Christian radicals, and merits our full attention right now. But, again, that doesn't change the fact that there exist religious extremists of other stripes (including Christians) who use terror and coercion to accomplish their aim; their ultimate aim is to take away some of the same freedoms that Islamic fascists want to take away. That makes them scum.
By , at
Mon Jun 25, 11:30:00 AM:
"We have to create an environment where theirs [sic] less volume...."
Could we first learn the difference between "their" and "there"?
By , at
Mon Jun 25, 11:39:00 AM:
“Well, you obviously didn't read very carefully then. What I mean by "Christian fanatics" is abortion clinic bombers as I clearly said, not garden-variety evangelicals.”
On the contrary, I read too carefully. I previously stated that in contrast to Islamofascists with regard to Rushdie, no Christian fundamentalist threatened Al Gore’s life. You replied : “Granted abortion clinic bombers are the fringe the way militant Muslims in many places are not, but Christian extremists who kill or condone killing DO exist in our society. Ultimately, religious fundamentalism is the problem and should be combated in all its forms.”
By standard definition, garden-variety evangelicals are fundamentalists. Therefore, when you equated “abortion clinic bombers” with “fundamentalism”, and later equated “abortion clinic bombers” with “Christian fanatics”, you equated garden variety evangelicals with “Christian fanatics.” Q.E.D.
“But just because one group of murderous fanatics is bigger/more successful than another doesn't make the smaller fanatic group any better.”
Contrary to your claim, I previously read this statement. I did not previously directly respond to it because I found the statement silly. Neither I nor anyone I know would make the claim that the “smaller fanatic group” is better. I support the right to an abortion and do not know anyone who does not condemn abortion clinic bombings. Maybe I am naive, but I thought that the statistics showing a drastic reduction in violence against abortion clinics showed that American society is winning the fight against violence against abortion clinics. I reiterate my position that in view of the fact that there has been one abortion bombing in 7 years, to compare abortion bombers to the thousands that Islamofascists have killed the last THREE MONTHS, is an absurd comparison. You initially made the comparison; I did not.
Do we have to go through a politically correct litany before we sign on with each other? Yes, I condemn the Islamofascists. Do I need to also condemn the abortion bombers, and the wind energy fascists who are trying to ruin Ted Kennedy’s view, and the Mormons and Wal-Mart (such déclassé people shop there), and global warming ( but not someone whose home uses 20 times the average annual household use) before you will sign on with me?
On many domestic issues I do not agree with the evangelicals, but we are in agreement on Islamofascism. Some people have a problem with a temporary alliance with someone as déclassé as an evangelical. I hope that you do not. My Buddhist sister has no problem being on the same side as the evangelicals with regard to the Islamofascists. BTW, the electricity in my home comes 100% from wind energy.
In my original posting, commenting on Chambers’ posting, where I brought up Al Gore, I was replying to a theme many adhere to: that “our extremists”, i.e., those who are “conservative” or who are active Christians, are as bad as “their extremists.” This claim is absurd. As I previously stated, if this were really the case then one would find it difficult to choose between living in Possum Trot or Qom. Not the hypothetical Possum Trot ruled by abortion bombers, but the actual Possum Trot. I rest my case.
By , at
Mon Jun 25, 08:21:00 PM:
Boludo: I'll admit you made me laugh with the wind energy thing. Me, I'm all for more nuke plants.
We think the same thing, but disagree on the definition of "fundamentalist." For you, "garden-variety evangelicals" is the "standard definition" of a fundamentalist. I guess my definition, which is someone who takes their holy book literally and is willing to act with violence on its directions, is non-standard. I'll try and make my usage more clear in the future.
By , at
Mon Jun 25, 08:59:00 PM:
From Merriam-Webster online…"Fundamentalism: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching."
And so the story ends, I'm told.....
