From Gateway Pundit, looks like this guy's the Danish version of Captain Hook. Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, the man behind this whole Danish cartoon controversy, not only faked obscene cartoons on his trip to the Middle East, but also:
* Entertained the "Blind Sheikh" behind the first World Trade Center attacks
* Praised Osama Bin Laden after 9-11 Attacks
* Preached he "Shed no tears" after 9-11 Attacks
* Accused of giving Political support to Osama bin Laden's network
* Accused of giving Financial support to Osama bin Laden's network
* Joined with 225 Islamic Radicals to form Global Jihadist Group in 2003
* Said that Theo van Gogh - "Had it coming!"
* Called on his flock to Give Their Lives to Global Jihad for Palestinians
* Met with Sheikh Qaradawi in Saudi Arabia who has legalized the murder of American soldiers in Iraq
Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, the leader of the Islamic Society of Denmark toured the Middle-East to "create awareness" about the 12 cartoons that were published in Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, on September 30, 2005...
As far as most Western news services are concerned, the cartoons are the ones creating all of the uproar. However, the truth is that Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, brought at least 3 additional images, which HAD NEVER been published in any media source. They included a cartoon of Muhammad as a pedophile demon, Muhammed with a pig snout, and a praying Muslim being raped by a dog. The drawings in Jyllands-Posten were harmless compared to these: Evidently, the originals were not offensive enough for the trip! The spokesman for the Islamic Society of Denmark, Ahmed Akkari, claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when a reporter asked if it could talk to these Muslims, the spokesman refused to reveal their identity.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
02/09/2006 02:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Lengthy article about Yon and in the LA Times -- EFL
Lone Gun in War Reporting
Michael Yon's blog made him a hero among backers of the effort in Iraq. As his profile grew, so did debate on the quality of his work.
By James Rainey, Times Staff Writer
More than one U.S. senator endorsed him. So did retired Lt. Col. Oliver North and platoons of American fighting men and women. Actor Bruce Willis called him the only correspondent "telling the truth about what's happening in the war in Iraq."
Michael Yon may not be a household name, but he emerged last year as the reporter of choice for many conservatives and supporters of the war. His blog inspired so much buzz that by last month only 83 other blogs, out of about 26 million on the Internet, received more links from other websites.
Yon's emergence from obscurity is emblematic of Internet-age journalism, in which a lone writer with little experience can build a significant following by deeply mining a specialized niche. In the blogosphere, opinions fly with abandon. Unconventional characters thrive who would make the mainstream media blanch.
What big newspaper or television network, after all, would have taken a chance on a self-taught war correspondent who once killed a man in a barroom fight, and whose last venture had him pursuing an American cannibal around the globe?
Would the mainstream media have kept him on the job after the day he grabbed a soldier's rifle (during an alley fight in Mosul) and fired off several rounds at the enemy?
Even Yon, a 41-year-old former Green Beret, can't quite put a name to the job he created. Part journalist, part entrepreneur, part soldier of fortune, he sometimes infuriated his military handlers with his blog (www.michaelyon-online.com), even as it gave American soldiers a robust new voice. Worth the read --snip
Here is a name he deserves (and certain others don't): War Correspondent.
How about 'Journalist'.
Very few mainstream reporters deserve either title IMHO. Certainly not 'Peter Arnet' certainly not Dan 'fake-but-accurate' Rather. Certainly not 'tet-was-a-disaster' Cronkite. Those are, at most, propaghandist (sp?).
#2
You have to understand the dichotomy that the MSM is trying to foist off on us.
Firstly, they have to present real NEWS to us. They have to dig for it, look for it, separate out the wheat from the chaff, write/film it up, and publish/broadcast it. That's an achievement, especially when the news actually matches reality reasonably enough. They get awards for that, and they should.
Secondly, they opinionate: these guys are clever, since they got someone else to pay for the megaphone that they are using to broadcast THEIR OPINIONS AND SPIN.
It takes TALENT, SKILL, and HARD WORK to do the first.
It takes NO TALENT, NO SKILL, and NO HARD WORK, to give one's opinion. ANYONE can give their opinion, publish their spin. No talent whatsoever.
Not surprisingly, the guys who give their opinion are paid higher than the ones who write up the facts, and the latter know it, which is why THEY try to slip THEIR opinion into what, obstensibly, are supposed to be factual articles.
Here's the thing: The opinion givers know that a paper or news broadcast without facts and stories is NOTHING. NOBODY would buy the NYT or watch CBS if it was all opinion and no news. YOU MAY AS WELL GO TO A BLOG.
And this is what the opinion givers are afraid of: their stature comes from them CLIMBING ONTO THE BACKS OF THE FACTUAL WRITERS. Their reputation is not direct, but derivative: Mike wallace doesn't do ANY of the REAL groundwork of the stories at 60 Minutes: when he got into trouble with any of them, we quickly find out he has a lot of gumshoes doing the hard work, and when the story is run, he runs in, shoves the guy out of the way, gets in front of the camera, and HOPES that the reputation of what that guy did rubs off on him, SO THAT HIS OPINION COUNTS FOR SOMETHING. What fakes.
When some MSM opinion giver tries to contrast a blogger with the NEWS division of his own organization, he's drawing a facetious comparision: you must compare the opinion giver to the blogger, not the news division to the blogger. When compared to this own news division, the opinion giver would come off just as pathetic.
AND HE KNOWS IT.
The thing the opinion giver fears is that some other opinion giver frames his opinion in more attractive terms. With the advent of bloggers, the sap has more competition. And since when did liberals like more competition?
By Fazal Amin Beg (M. Phil, Social Anthropology),
Researcher/Consultant
For everything, though entails both positive and negative facets, there is a limit and within the limit there is normality and guarantee. When the limits are crossed in either direction, whether upward or downward, to the right or to the left, that reaches to the extreme point and finally comes to the negative ends. For instance, if a bottle is filled with any liquid or gas, it will accept it within its capacity or size, and obsession will cause it got out and will waste. Second, if a car has the capacity of carrying three persons; but, in contrast, eight persons are seated and driven, this will definitely cause it to damage. When we exemplify and focus the limits on the human beings, it becomes obvious that in twenty-four hours period, without any interval or rest, a person cannot frequently talk or speak, walk or drive, eat or drink, sleep or awake, and read or write. By the way, if anyone does so, he may not be deemed or termed a normal person rather an abnormal. If there is logic in this argument, can there be then any limit for the so-called freedom of expression: to its extreme level, I call freedom of ignorance?
Limits to freedom of expression in free that is, non-Muslim and non-authoritarian societies are imposed by social pressures. They aren't a matter for government policy. There are occasional limits imposed by law, for instance in the case of child pornography, but these are required to prevent physical harm to someone.
Freedom of expression says that you have the right to say what you want, no matter how stupid it may be. This is why the West has so many stupid opinions expressed, and why we have a lively civil discourse. Purely as a matter of statistics, some of the opinions expressed are not stupid. Once one has picked through the chaff to find the wheat there's something to talk about. Social pressures might involve actual argument, to whit, hollering back at the person who's offended you or it might involve refusal to associate with them. Riot, rapine, murder and arson aren't appropriate responses. They are practiced in societies where the government or the local holy men or both presume to tell their fellow citizens what they might and might not think. The cartoons mocked Islam's ready resort to violence, and the Islamic response was to become predictably and hysterically violent.
In the name of satire, the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) published firstly by the Danish newspaper, Jylands-Posten last September, and recently being published in the media of the European countries, clearly indicates crossing the limits of cultural universals and reaching in satire extremism.
Crossing "cultural universals," even if the proposition is accepted, doesn't involve a death penalty, nor even damage to property. Nor are "cultural universals" quite as "universal" as we might like to believe when they're our universals. Making fun of my wife or my mother or my children might irritate me no end, but you won't feel a thing. That applies to religion, as well. I don't like seeing religious symbols trashed, which is why I disapproved strongly of a cross in a beaker of urine, but the Muslim world ignored the phenomenon. You'll notice that Americans called each other names in that case, but didn't riot. Likewise, when Hindus or Jains or Buddhists have some falling out that gets them all worked up it means nothing to either Christians or Muslims.
Through such mechanism, it sounds that these media-persons intended to promote and intensify harsh differences and different sorts of extremism among the Muslim communities.
The harsh differences were already there, and they were the genesis of the cartoons. Since Muslims have been demonstrating a penchant for violence and a wide streak of unreason, the Danish press took it upon itself to make fun of them for it. I find the results perfectly predictable, and the efforts to excuse the behavior of the rioters to be specious.
These hatred behaviours would not turn only towards the concerned media-people (to get international exposure, or otherwise), but rather the abhorrence will certainly generalize also towards their concerned governments, countries and their faiths because in the developing Muslim world, the views of the media and the governments can hardly be distinguished.
But where is it written that Muslims have a right and a duty to become incensed at the smallest provocation, while the West has an obligation to remain polite? What would happen if Westerners decided to riot and beat up all the Muslims they could find? If there's an obligation to civilized, polite behavior, the obligation would seem to extend to both sides. When one side breaks that pact, why should the other side remain constrained?
On the other, the counter-reaction of hatred could come up by the communities of these media-persons for the Muslims. So what is the need of such satire?
To make fun of the Muslims' habit of rolling their collective eyes, making faces, shouting slogans they heard in the mosque, and setting things on fire. If you and I were social acquaintances and you exhibited nasty habits, I might well make fun of you.
Is the role of media to divide the communities of our little globe through such malignant and naïve thoughts and actions?
The communities are already divided, as witness the violence that was being mocked, followed by the violence in response to the mockery. That's not a very wide repertoire.
Were the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), Jesus the Christ, Moses, or other prophets so funny like these cartoonists and their cartoons or like any president or Prime Minister or Chancellor of the countries?
They've been mocked and derided many times. Since they're not your prophets you've ignored it. I cited one example earlier...
In atheistic (and/or agnostic) perspective, these Holy Personalities can be like ordinary persons or any political dignitaries in Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, Holland, Italy or other countries, but it is wise to also keep in mind the perspectives of vast majority of global population who are tied in faiths like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and others. For the Muslims, all prophets are not only reverent but rather are part of their faith.
But not the most important part. Otherwise you'd have been incensed at the cross in the beaker of piss.
Regarding the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the editors of the concerned media first should have adequate knowledge about his emergence, contributions and the messages that were not only to the Muslims rather to the entire humansbeing blessing to the humanity (rahmat-al lil-aalameen) termed by the Almighty Allah. Such naïve persons in the West should not forget that when they were in the dark-age (ignorance), it was this great Prophets teaching that took them out from the darkness.
Actually, it wasn't. Mohammad had nothing to do with our shaking off our Dark Ages. Our Dark Ages started with the fall of the Western Empire and ended around the time of Charles Martel. They were followed by the Middle Ages, which were even more priest-ridden but where human progress was made in response to the competition Europe received from the Islamic world. The Middle Ages ended with the Reformation, when we ceased kow-towing to the priests. Man's relationship with God became a personal thing, rather than a matter of state policy a slow, but productive progression. Islam remained priest-ridden, with societies not that different from our own Middle Ages, only with turbans. Once we were done being ruled by theocrats Europe had a fine time, exploring and later ruling the world, innovating, and mocking the Turks.
The followers of this prophet carried ahead and greatly contributed to the humanity through advancement in knowledge, whether it is the field science or technology, philosophy or astronomy, arts or architecture, anthropology or sociology, music or spiritualism, and others.
We've heard all those arguments before. Islam also ceased developing because it had no Reformation. Even in the Middle Ages, it managed to miss out on things like chivalry that redefined the obligations of the strong toward the weak, of men toward women.
So how come a prophet of such followers be satirized or depicted as terrorist whose life and conducts have been termed rather endorsed as perfect and model for the humanity by God in the Holy Scripture (Quran)?
The Koran's not our holy book, and we regard Mohammad as rather less than perfect. The mere statement that he was doesn't make it so, and the record included in the Koran in fact says that he wasn't. Perfection, in the Western mind, doesn't include lies, dissimulation, brutality, and despoiling entire peoples. We won't even mention his sex life.
It was this Holy Celebrity who, being human, had holistic personality, possessing all encamping knowledge, wisdom and command, who taught his followers monotheism/mono-realism, knowledge and wisdom, peace and tranquility, affection and philanthropy, universalism and fraternity, tolerance and patience, equality and equity, spirtualism and spirituality, caring for oppressed and suppressed ones and orphans, and the like.
The while despoiling large parts of Arabia, followed by his supporters despoiling and enslaving much of the world.
Through such exemplary deeds and character, he won the hearts, and so far there are more than 1.5 billion Muslim in the world who have highest attachments and love, reverence with depth and breadth, who love him more than any of their immediate kinspersons or other revered humans, and for him the followers sacrifice their lives.
There are rather more Christians in the world than there are Muslims, just under 2 billion by most estimates. Christians make up about 33 percent of the world's population, Muslims around 20 percent.
Doctrinally there cannot be any imaginary photo, or otherwise, of the any Prophet, which is deemed blasphemous.
But they've been produced, and in many cases produced by Muslims.
Being a believer, one cannot imagine that someone satirizes the Prophet Mohammad or other prophets. It is a pity that in such circumstances, is it wise to satirize the Holy Prophet? The idea-conceiver, the cartoonist, the editor of Jyllands-Posten (Carsten Juste), editors of other newspapers, and the related media-personswho knew such sensitivitiesneed to further and fully open their eyes, broaden the avenues of their minds, analyze such subtle points and come to logical conclusion with regard to the negative effects and long term impacts of such phenomenon.
Or they need to be left alone to their own opinions. Their depiction of Mohammad injures you in no way. There aren't any scars on you from the pictures, and if there's a sin it's upon their heads, not yours. The fact that it's forbidden to you doesn't mean it's forbidden to them, or even of the least concern to them.
Let me ask a question. If someone, for instance, abuses or negatively satirizes in public the father or mother, son or daughter of the cartoonist or the editors then what may be the reaction? Shall we call it a freedom of expression?
Hmmm... I used that example dealing with myself earlier. The fact that my feelings might be hurt doesn't give me the right to burn your house down.
The Muslims are also human beings. It is not fair and is more than enough to play with the faith and sentiments of these people. What sort of freedom of expression is it that disheartens, divides, creates hatred and violence rather than pleasing, bridging, and promoting human love and affection? Due to individuals malignant act, for the sake of their so-called freedom of expressions, the entire global communities have been pushed into the strong fire. The motives seem now somehow varying.
Personally, I doubt that the publication of a few cartoons disheartened you all that much. Islam has already divided itself from the West listen to the rantings of Hizb ut-Tahrir for five minutes to convince yourself of that. Hatred and violence? Read bin Laden's declaration of war against us, then take a look at the accounts of 9-11, the Bali bombings, the Nordost Theater, Beslan, 7-11, 3-11, and a host of other outrages. Prior to 9-11 most of us never gave the Islamic world a second thought, except for when they invaded someone or blew something up. Since then we've been looking at Islam much more closely. We're becoming more and more impatient with Islam and its practitioners. It's not our obligation to please you. We'll be happy to reciprocate polite and considerate behavior, but that's the best you're going to get, because that's what we extend to each other.
In political term, one may apprehend or perceive that such acts can never be of individuals rather through such individuals great games could be played by the great powers in order to further test the sentiments of the Muslims: thus, identifying, planning and striking them not individually rather strategically. This can be a test on Iran, Pakistan, Syria and other countries to examine the reactions of these respective communities, who are already in the lists of the great games for economic gains (the natural resource) and other interests.
Those natural resources are sold, and at considerable profit, I might add. They're not confiscated. If you don't want to trade, don't offer it for sale. The fact that your leaders make off with the money isn't our problem. Maybe you should consider rioting against them?
It is essential, however, to take into accounts not only the economic interdependence of the nations but rather the core value of humanity and freedom of religion. Freedom of religion does not mean that such individuals are free to satirize or make fun of the founders or prophets of the religions but rather to show and act for the religious pluralism.
Ummm... No. It means you're free to believe or not believe and I'm free to believe or not believe. Freedom is an individual matter, not something that accrues to the state.
However, the Muslim communities, being true followers of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), and having the lions heart, need to be cautious in their actions and keep in view the great doctrines of Islam and the teachings of the Holy Prophet by bringing into exercise the lessons of peace and tolerance, taking revenges not by violence rather by forgiving, praying for blessings to non-believers instead of cursing them, as the true examples are found in the conducts of the Holy Prophet with his opponents and enemies are the clear cut guidelines during such worse occasions.
And when do they plan on starting this program of forgiveness and blessing? It's been notably absent until now.
At the end, coming towards the solution, the cartoonist, the respective editors of the newspapers and others (including the heads of governments) should apologize, if there is a big claim for great civilizations, opposed to the ignorance, from the victimized community for such malignant action and thoughts.
And it's my opinion that they should not, despite the fact that they have by now. Your community's no more victimized than any other, and considerably less than many. Every time the West backs down and tries to conciliate violence and brutality it comes back in a few months, bigger and uglier than before. Today's cartoon riots are the same as the Koran riots of a few months ago, only on a larger and more coordinated scale. The riots that will come six months from now will be even bigger and more widespread. Eventually they will be big enough and obnoxious enough that Islam will get its collective head conked, at which point the ummah will go back to forgiving and blessing while plotting Dire Revenge.
It is imperative to note that attacking on and playing with the emotions, sentiments and faiths of any community through such means is never lesser or equal rather greater than the terrorists who attack physically on peoples and their assets. So, it is imperative to take the moderate approach, remain within the limits and come out of the Freedom of Ignorance.
I deny the existence of such a thing, though I do acknowledge that ignorance may indeed be bliss. The only question is which of us is blissful.
#1
"Doctrinally there cannot be any imaginary photo, or otherwise, of the any Prophet, which is deemed blasphemous." So he's saying that every Crucifix in every Catholic church, most church murals, most of the Vatican's artwork is blasphemous (and by implication punishable by death.) Hoo boy, these Muslims are more vicious and crazier than anyone has imagined up until now. Better get Mom to get rid of her holy cards and rosary....
#2
Actually, FW that position was one taken by many of the Protestant off-shoots of Christianity. They viewed Rome's ever growing use of imagery as idolatry. IIRC, the Puritans [Anglo-American]were in that same frame of mind. Though they were not noted for killing people for violating that tenant, but as Salem demonstrated, they did have instances in which they indeed believed in a death penalty.
"It is imperative to note that attacking on and playing with the emotions, sentiments and faiths of any community through such means is never lesser or equal rather greater than the terrorists who attack physically on peoples and their assets"
e.g., infidel cartoons are a worse crime than Moslems beheading infidels
I wonder whether he learned this in philosophy or social anthropology
#4
Sound like a back in college play Risk and a buddy lost it. you just move one particle too far, one atom too far... then he threw the risk board against the wall and tried to kill himself with some hand full of pills...
We responded in the proper way to his abuse of "Black Label" by grabbing him, holding him over the toilet and sticking our fingers down his mouth. Then we punched him out so we wouldn't have to deal with him till he was sober. After all that's what friends are for!
So somebody do this Fazal guy a favor and punch him out and keep him that way until he is sober. After all, Black Label will do that too you.
#5
It is imperative to note that attacking on and playing with the emotions, sentiments and faiths of any community through such means is never lesser or equal rather greater than the terrorists who attack physically on peoples and their assets.
mhw caught the ENTIRE summary of this article in the above statement correctly. Worse cartoons than these are daily shown (of the Christians and Joooos) in Arab dailies. Where did he learn this moral relativism? And, we all know now, that the average Muslim in the ME (where the riots occurred mostly; at least the ones turning violent) can't even read, much less has a daily subscription to a Danish daily newspaper. This was all coordinated by the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood, 4-5 months LATER, and is being used by them to further distance the mythical moderate Muslims from the West. This is what happens when you believe full-tilt in a religion that's being explained to you (you can't question anything) by madmen.
Posted by: BA ||
02/09/2006 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Piss off. I'll draw pictures of whatever I please.
You want limits to "free expression"? Try limiting the Wahabi/Salafi freedom to express their rage and hate of all mankind, why don't ya?
#7
#2, as I recall Muslims of the 7th through 21st centuries have customarily used accusations of blasphemy the way the Puritans of the 17th century used accusations of witchcraft, both are efficient ways to kill off deviants and terrorize the rest. The issue in the Cartoon Jihad is not about respect for religion, freedom of expression or iconoclasm, but about power, i.e., "Do it my way, or you will be killed."
#1
Does the author of this article work for the Bush-Cheney administration or the RNC? These talking points of Republican propaganda on Iraq have been repeated to the point of being nauseating.
Every Bushite knows them and can repeat them by rote. Maybe if they keep repeating them enough, even THEY will start to believe them.
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And good morning to you too, Not Micheal Moore.
#4
VDH is a Democrat. The kind that used to make up the party before the Democrats decided to commit suicide and take the nation with them.
Posted by: ed ||
02/09/2006 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Seafarious:
I really dont care who he is..all i know is the article he published is nothing more than bush-cheney-rnc "talking points on Iraq" that have been repeated a million times by people like you.
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Common Sense:
Then don't ask questions you don't want the answers to.
#7
CS:
Go to your local bookstore and buy a copy of VDHs incredibly relevant A War Like No Other. The man is arguably our nations greatest living military historian. His comparisons between the current world situation (America vs. Islam) and the Second Peloponnesian War (Athens vs. Sparta) strike me as particularly valid.
#8
CS adds nothing to any conversation here - just an immature DNC talking points fool.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/09/2006 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Secret Master:
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out.
according to Wikipedia, VDH is a Democrat, however he has very conservative views on Iraq, etc.. He is a supporter of Bush on Iraq and it comes thru in his viewpoint the article used here.
If he is a democrat, I question his motives for doing something like this:
AT WAR: DOCUMENTARY
Victor Davis Hanson: "Why We Fight" is nothing more than leftist propaganda. 02/09 8:08 a.m.
from NRO MAGAZINE
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Frank G.
I havent read anything from you in here that I have found to be particularly "profound"..
your definition of "immature", means one who isnt brainwashed by and parrots repub/con propaganda.
lol
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#11
This was posted yesterday on page 4 as "VDH on the War". I guess No Sense missed it because the short headline didn't hit either of his/her hot buttons: "Iraq" and "Bush".
When moderate democrats can't call leftist propaganda what it is, then No Sense will be our overlord and the cartoon page will be blank.
#12
..bush-cheney-rnc "talking points on Iraq" that have been repeated a million times by people like you.
If someone can repeat talking points for a million times, then it's not all that hard to refute them for an equal number of times. Care to give it a whirl?
#13
Fred, is there any way you could install a "Bozo filter", or at least put the name of the poster at the head of each response? It would save some of us time and attention.
#14
Continued dominance of the country by the Republicans depends on having Dems like Common Sense around telling moderate Dems like VDH to go to hell and marginalizing them.
Somewhere, in his bunker/dungeon, Karl Rove is chortling.
Apparently you havent been looking at poll#s of
President Bush and the Republican led Congress lately..the majority of the country has a negative opinion of them. Republicans up for re-election are running away from Bush like he has the plague. Republican "dominance" of the government is hardly permanent..not in the least.
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#16
No Sense and Bill Clinton live by polls instead of principles.
Gallup: President Reagan, 42 percent approving in October 1982 poll. President Truman, 32 percent approving in 1946 poll.
#17
No sense, while you're talking polls, did you see the one on Hillary (I refuse to call her Hitlery, as the comparison to Hitler is WAY overused these days)? Seems that 43% of this country would vote AGAINST her now, but less than 27% would vote for her. Not that I (or most free-thinkers here) believe in governing by polls, as Clinton I did. I'm glad President Bush, for that matter, could care less about polls too.
Posted by: BA ||
02/09/2006 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Course the the Rovian/Rethuglicans have GerryMandered the whole House of Representatives and Senate to such an extent that it's likely that the Real Americans for Love Peace and Bunnies will only regain 4 seats in the house and perhaps 1 Senate seat.
BTW I understand Karl Rove is considering a redistribution of Senate seats in selected States east of the Mississippi. Rhode Island will be represented by Dade County Florida and Delaware will revert to Lord De la Ware's family estate and be joined to Maryland. This is all hot news, but this is what the lizard people are talking about.
/Peace, love, freedom and crew manned weapons if the first two don't work.
Yeah, I saw it..But I dont believe for one minute that Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee for Prez in 2006. Republicans are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of that happening. Why give them what they want? I dont think she can win and there
are other viable candidates out there for the dems.
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#20
It's much tougher being a wartime president than being the Jerry Springer president. As for elections: As members gather for the second half of the 109th Congress, already attention is turning to the 110th. The Republicans have 55 seats in the U.S. Senate vs. 44 for the Democrats and one independent, who usually votes with the Democrats. In the House, there at 231 Republicans, 201 Democrats and an independent who also usually votes with the Democrats. The Washington Post reported Monday each party is targeting six Senate seats held by the opposition while in the House as few as 25 seats could be called into question.
In other words status quo, while at the same time the Democratic leadership refuses to take a position on the most important issue facing the USA: Nancy Pelosi says that the Democrats will have an "issue agenda" for next year's Congressional elections, but it will not include a position on Iraq: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq, calling the war a matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.
Confirming the Democrats are spoiled children playing games with the fate of our nation.
Posted by: ed ||
02/09/2006 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Well, Common Sense, I don't think anyone's running for Prez in 2006, lol!
Posted by: BA ||
02/09/2006 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#22
CS:
I would guess - and, let me reiterate that it is only a guess - that VDH is a Democrat largely because he is an agriculturalist. VDH is a working farmer (no ivory towers for him) as well as a historian and, in my experience, many farmers gravitate to the Democratic Partys economic theories even if their social views are significantly different. Money talks, as they say.
One of VDHs unique strengths as a scholar of the ancient military world is his intimate understanding of how food production and rural populations effect history. It is his view that certain distinct patterns are discernable in the history of world conflict. For example, much like the ancient Athenians, we Americans are aggressively exporting Democracy. Our Islamic opponents belong to an eccentric, militant culture with deeply conservative views (I am not referring to the uniquely American conservative vs. liberal paradigm here) that trend toward oligarchy, in some ways like the ancient Spartans. In their pursuit of liberation the ancient Athenians often stumbled into acts of oppression, while the ancient Spartans occasionally fell into the roll of liberator even as they fought to protect oppressive oligarchy. Which doesnt mean that the Athenians were completely wrong in their goals (nor are we), but that in reality the pursuit of such ideals are a messy, tricky business with many pitfalls and no guaranteed results.
I guess the real question, CS, is do you try to aggressively export democracy, whether into Iraq or the ancient Peloponnese, or do you leave the oligarchies alone? Is it worth the cost? Even if you leave them alone will they leave you alone? Sparta attacked Athens out of fear combined with a deep misunderstanding of the evolving warfare of the period. Sound familiar? Athens had been spreading social unrest (democracy) into Spartas sphere of influence. The two of them had been staging proxy wars between the minor Greek powers for years. Sparta had enormous contempt for the soft Athenians. They expected negotiation and humiliation to be the result of their military adventure, not 27 years of world war stretching from Italy to Asia Minor.
The past invariably shows us the future, or at least what the future might be.
I dont buy it that democrats DONT have a unified postion on Iraq. I think what they are doing now is very smart politics.
If Bush is taking a negative hammering on Iraq by the american public,why take the focus of off that by giving an alternative that republicans would jump on like a piece of red meat at this time?
I dont think that the dems are playing with the fate of the country no moreso than Bush is.
He keeps making bad decisions that are causing more problems than they are solving.
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#24
typo error. sorry about that b.a...my bad..lol
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#25
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): said yesterday that Democrats should not seek a unified position on an exit strategy in Iraq
Common Sense: I dont buy it that democrats DONT have a unified postion on Iraq.
You just called Pelosi a liar. At least we can agree on that.
Posted by: ed ||
02/09/2006 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Secret Master:
Let me ask you this:
Yesterday I sat down and read the a fatwa that Osama bin Laden wrote calling for a jihad against
the U.S. People are calling this person a madman, but I dont see him like that. I thought it was interesting.
I am not a expert on the history of the middle east, but there seems to be some historical precedent in what he is saying. In so many words he is saying that the U.S. is a "imperialistic interloper" in the middle east,using military force in representing the interest of Isreal and the U.S. alliance to attack the Muslim people and take over their holylands.
do you think there is any validity to that viewpoint?
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#27
ed:
I dont think Pelosi is a liar.
Let me rephrase my statement.
Lets put it like this. By the time midterm elections 2006 and prez election 2008 roll around.
The Democrats WILL have COALESCED into a unified position on Iraq. comprende?
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#28
US military interventions wrt muslims:
Spoiled British, French, Israeli occupation of Suez Canal
Supplied Afghans fighting Soviet invasion
Defended Arab shipping from Iranian attacks
Forestalled Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia, liberated Kuwait
Fed million of Somali starving
Rescued Bosnian muslims from certain defeat
Rescued Kosovo muslims from ethnic cleansing
Muslims were the beneficiaries of all theses actions, at the expense of our treasure and blood. And what was our reward, demonization, constant attacks, 3000 dead and southern Manhattan gutted. From now on, Sharia for the muslims, of course from our vantage point, they are the infidels.
Posted by: ed ||
02/09/2006 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#29
fracture and internecine warfare is the Donk future - get over it, losers don't make for good lecturers.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/09/2006 14:17 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Ed:
For republicans, arrogance and overconfidence can quite certainly lead to defeat.
Dont you think that it is quite odd that, republicans who control the white house, both houses of Congress and now the USSC are constantly on the DEFENSIVE and striking out from DEFENSIVE positions due to their policies?
Shouldnt it be the other way around?
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Wrong CS. While the Republicans have a hostile press (94% of the Washing DC press corps voted Democratic), the administration is controlling the board. Having a hostile press does not equate to defensiveness. All the Democrats and press corps can do is complain, while the White House implements Defence, intelligence, diplomatic, health, legal and trade policies.
Who is deciding the end game for Iraq? Not the Dems (No Position Pelosi) or the press.
Who is locking up and trying terrorists? Same again.
Who is tracking terrorists and blowing them away?
Who is preparing the next battlefield?
Who is remaking the military?
Who is sweeping out the intelligence agency deadwood?
Who is reorganizing the diplomatic corps?
Who is appointing judical nominations?
What are the Democrats policies? What do they propose? Nothing, because the Republicans have the votes and they are on the offensive in all fronts. Sure Dems can piss and moan, but just like Bagdhad Bob, having a loud microphone does not mean you are winning the war. Watch the hands, not the mouth. What is the Democratic vision to protect America and how do they propose to do it? "Im against doing anything and I can be better at it." don't cut it.
Posted by: ed ||
02/09/2006 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Ed:
Bush and the Republican Party are on the defensive because of the failure of their
policies. Sure they are implementing their policies and yet a majority of the american people are against them. It has nothing to
do with the press or msm as so many on the right would have you believe.
Why should dems implement any alternatives while
this is happening...its smart politics to just let the repubs twist in the wind of their incompetence. lol
btw: Bush's State of the Union Speech was just one long DEFENSE of his failed policies...
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#34
On the contrary. Bush is implementing his policies and Democrats and the press cannot stop them. The democrats wish they could be in that position (and twisting according to you). Complaining is not a solution or defense. Remember the press boasting that their partisanship was worth 15 points for the Democratic candidate? And guess what, he still lost. As was posted earlier, both Senate and House seats should stay as current levels after the midterm election. You claim gloom and doom, but political watchers are claiming staus quo, i.e. complete Republican domination. Get ready for another two years of total republican domination, then President Rice, just in time for Justices Ginsburg, Souter and Kennedy to retire.
Posted by: ed ||
02/09/2006 15:41 Comments ||
Top||
#35
EM>Yesterday I sat down and read the a fatwa that Osama bin Laden wrote calling for a jihad against the U.S. People are calling this person a madman, but I dont see him like that. I thought it was interesting.
Oh, I never thought that Bin Laden was insane. Hes something of an egomaniac but, hey, so is your average B-grade Hollywood movie star. Being an egomaniac is neither insane nor does it inherently make one inherently wrong in ones beliefs. I dont have the text of his call to Jihad in front of me but I think I remember a couple of his points. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
1) The West has meddled in Arab affairs for far to long and should now be thrown out. This has some validity to it, at least in the sense that Western powers have exercised considerable influence in the region since the post-WWI fall of the Ottoman Empire. While this initially was a spoils of war situation, it rather quickly developed (or devolved, depending on your prospective) into an oil situation. We Americans are less guilty of meddling than most in that our meddling is considerably more recent, as the dubious mantle of Leader of the Free World was dumped on us by fate (or the British and French) a little more than 50 years ago. It could fairly be said that we have stuck by Israel through good and bad; a definite sore point with most Arabs. But any superpower that doesnt stick by its allies doesnt stay one for very long.
At this point in history, CS, large oil corporations that are really beholden to no particular nation-state exercise the single largest single influence over the Middle East. Often they are at least partially owned by non-Westerners and Muslims. As a son of oil wealth privilege Bin Laden knows this very well, but usually ignores it as ideologically inconvenient.
2) The West has grown corrupt. I agree with Bin Laden. You probably agree with Bin Laden. Unfortunately, I doubt that the words corrupt means exactly the same thing to me, you, and Bin Laden! In the end our society will always be corrupt to men like Bin Laden precisely because it embodies the various traditions that you and I (as conservative and liberal) both presumably value. Freedom of expression, for example, is unacceptable to much of the Muslim world.
I am not a expert on the history of the middle east, but there seems to be some historical precedent in what he is saying. In so many words he is saying that the U.S. is a "imperialistic interloper" in the middle east,using military force in representing the interest of Isreal and the U.S. alliance to attack the Muslim people and take over their holy lands.
do you think there is any validity to that viewpoint?
Well, it depends on how you define words like imperialistic. In my opinion the word probably needs to be either redefined or abandoned. Traditionally, imperialism implied the aggressive creation of some sort of land empire in which the economics are based on the mercantile model of colonies creating raw materials for the mother country, which supplied finished products in return. That is defiantly not us. Now, if you consider Israel to be a colony (and Bin Laden does) of the West in general, and us the leader of the West (an arguable notion), then that idea gets a definite maybe. On the whole, I think that we are looking our for our economic and military interests which may, or may not, coincide with those of the Arab world at any given time. Again, the sticking point here is Israel, which has military value but little comparative economic value. It also has a great deal of symbolic value for everyone involved, a situation which Bin Laden is attempting to exploit.
Honestly, almost nobody wants to attack the Muslim people and take over their holy lands. We want them to A) stop trying to kill the Jews, B) evolve from oligarchies into democracies, C) reform their antiquated 7th Century religion a little, and D) sell us a lot of the black crap that you pump out of the ground. Now, this is a pretty tall order (except for D it appears), especially considering that the Muslims (or Radical Muslims if you prefer) are another imperialist power who would like to conquer the world, or at least dominate it. Well, this is what they have been telling anybody who is willing to listen, anyhow.
Heres the real problem: the world has gotten mighty small. Some would say uncomfortably small. In a cultural sense we cant avoid one another anymore. The real problem that most Muslims have with America is that they cant avoid our culture anymore. Nor apparently can we avoid theirs. Our cultures are mutually incompatible: one is going to win, the other is going to loose. I would like to make sure that the guys who chop homosexuals heads off dont win.
Which is why this thread started. VDH is a Democrat who sees that the long-term gains of exporting liberal democracy outweigh the short term pains.
#36
Absolutely not. We did not invade Saudia
Arabia, we were invited...and the same with any other place that was blessed with our presence.
Osama Ben Laden is a skinny little spoiled rich boy [and if he REALLY believes the religious garbage he spouts then he is not only dangerous, but stupid as well. I think he just manipulate those brainwashed into giving more or their hard earned to cons[or is it khans?].
The real argument is will or will not the suppression and oppression of women be...THAT IS WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON...
Thanks for you response. You know its funny but when 9-11-01 first happened, the first thing that went thru my mind is WHY did they do this?
I think a lot of americans, particularly those on the right, have not examined those reasons. They believe that the U.S. is consistently on the right side of every issue and that our actions dont have any consequences of negativity, particularly in the middle east. What I am finding out as i research these matters is that a lot of these underdeveloped nations do view the U.S. negatively as a "Imperialistic Interloper".
In that viewpoint 9-11-01 was a retaliatory action cause by U.S. malfeasance toward the Muslim world as explained by bin laden.
I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I think there is validity to the argument.
this is from wikipedia:
Motive
According to official US Government sources, the September 11th attacks were consistent with the mission statement of Al-Qaeda. The group's involvement in the bombing of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania is widely suspected, and Al-Qaeda had declared responsibility for the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen.
The motivation for this campaign was set out in a 1998 fatwa [16] issued by bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman. The fatwa states that the United States:
Plunders the resources of the Arabian Peninsula.
Dictates policy to the rulers of those countries.
Supports abusive regimes and monarchies in the Middle East, thereby oppressing their people.
Has military bases and installations upon the Arabian Peninsula, which violates the Muslim holy land, in order to threaten neighboring Muslim countries.
Intends thereby to create disunion between Muslim states, thus weakening them as a political force.
Supports Israel, and wishes to divert international attention from (and tacitly maintain) the occupation of Palestine.
The Gulf War and the ensuing sanctions against and bombing of Iraq by the United States, were cited, in 1998, as further proof of these allegations. To the disapproval of moderate Muslims, the fatwa uses Islamic texts to explain violent action against American military and citizenry until the alleged grievances are reversed: stating "ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries".
Statements of Al-Qaeda recorded after 9/11 are suggested to add weight to this speculation. In a 2004 video, apparently acknowledging responsibility for the attacks, bin Laden stated that he was motivated to "restore freedom to our nation", to "punish the aggressor in kind", and to inflict economic damage on America. He declared that a continuing objective of his holy war was to "[bleed] America to the point of bankruptcy". [17]
The 9/11 Commission Report determined that the animosity towards the United States felt by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the so-called "principal architect" of the 9/11 attacks, stemmed "by his own account ... from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel." The same motivation has been imputed to the two pilots who flew into the WTC: Mohamed Atta was described by one Ralph Bodenstein - who traveled, worked and talked with him - as "most imbued actually about... US protection of these Israeli politics in the region." Marwan al-Shehhi is said to have explained his humorless demeanor with the words: "How can you laugh when people are dying in Palestine?" However, bin Laden's 1998 fatwa against the United States (see above) was issued during the highpoint of the Israel-Palestine Oslo agreement era, when all parties believed the conflict was rapidly vanishing.
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#38
So on 9-11-2001 your initial reaction was to try an understand why someone would fly planes into buildings and kill 3000 of our fellow citizens?
I started cleaning my rifle.....
Which is why your Dems will never be in power again...
Oh dems will be in power again because we think before we act.
Posted by: Common Sense ||
02/09/2006 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#40
CS, refer to post 28: US military interventions wrt muslims:
Spoiled British, French, Israeli occupation of Suez Canal
Supplied Afghans fighting Soviet invasion
Defended Arab shipping from Iranian attacks
Forestalled Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia, liberated Kuwait
Fed million of Somali starving
Rescued Bosnian muslims from certain defeat
Rescued Kosovo muslims from ethnic cleansing
Muslims have been the number one beneficiary of American largess in the last 30 years. Both in diplomatic, military and economic transfers. Not even Europe has benefitted so much. Yet, by virtue of not being muslim, we can never do enough for them or be equal. Face it, Islam is a Arabian Superiority ideology thinly disguised as a religion. Peace, as defined in the west, does not exist under islam. Your choices are dhimmitude, death or fight. I choose to fight and place them under Sharia. Don't think they will like it so much when they are on the receiving end of it.
Oh dems will be in power again because we think before we act.
That's some mighty powerful thinking Dems must be doing. Us bubbas ain't seen no action yet. Democrats had 8 years of terrorists attacks to respond. Nada. Zip. Only emboldened muslims to mass murder in New York and Washington DC.
Posted by: ed ||
02/09/2006 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#41
Thanks for you response. You know its funny but when 9-11-01 first happened, the first thing that went thru my mind is WHY did they do this?
I think a lot of americans, particularly those on the right, have not examined those reasons. They believe that the U.S. is consistently on the right side of every issue and that our actions dont have any consequences of negativity, particularly in the middle east. What I am finding out as i research these matters is that a lot of these underdeveloped nations do view the U.S. negatively as a "Imperialistic Interloper".
In that viewpoint 9-11-01 was a retaliatory action cause by U.S. malfeasance toward the Muslim world as explained by bin laden.
You are mistaken - but I do not blame you, as the concepts behind what Bin Laden does are both complex as well as alien to the American mind. 9-11 was, first an foremost, performance art enacted for the benefit of the Muslim Street (as it is known). There is nothing at this juncture in history that the American public could do, short of mass conversion to fundamentalist Sunni Islam, that would have prevented 9-11. We were props in Bin Ladens drama, not actors. His message was not intended for us but for the Muslim world, which he hopes (or hoped, at this point) to rally behind his banner.
Many of us here have examined the reasons behind 9-11. Some of us simply dont care: the hated enemy is the hated enemy. The right is an awful large and diverse bunch at this point, so please dont generalize. Very few of us think that the United States is always correct. I would say that our nation is usually correct, with the occasional tendency to be extremely wrong. Imperialist? Mainly, we just want to sell you stuff.
#42
TomAnon, Word! I had retired just 13 months earlier and my first reaction was "Can I lose the 20 pounds I gained and get back into my uniform?" Fortunately for me and the country my services were not asked for or needed. Trust me I would have gone in a second if I was asked.
#43
ed, you are absolutely correct with respect to the dem's 8-years of navel gazing while Clinton was president.
CS, don't forget that 9/11 was not the first time that the twin towers were targeted by muslim fanatics. And there were a whole string of other attacks during Bill's presidency. Yet there was no credible response.
If you call that thinking before acting, then I am curious what your definition of action is.
But your reaction to 9/11 is telling. You seem like a college cub who has been trained by lots of lib professors to have a reflexive "America Wrong" position. Something happens and the response is "what did WE do wrong". That reflects a lack of critical thinking. It is nothing to brag about.
Wise up. People like Bin Laden and his ilk want you dead or converted. They don't give a rats ass how sensitive you are to their feelings. They don't give a rats ass about the Palestinians other than to use them to scapegoat the Israelis. They want nothing less than world domination.
#44
"Why should dems implement any alternatives while
this is happening...its smart politics to just let the repubs twist in the wind of their incompetence."
However,as an U.S. citizen I would hope that in Time of war both parties would act together. Each offering ideas and tactics that work for MY safety. Not just playing politics because its easier.
As a Citizen I can vote any way I want and I vote for whomever offers the best plan of defense. Therefore if the dems had any plan I might listen. But they don't:( They just have an army of moonbat trolls to spread dissent and lies.
Same fate as the whigs! I say
#45
"...VDH is a Democrat, however he has very conservative views on Iraq, etc.."
His views are those of a Patriot that accepts the reality of the world as it actually is. Not some whining Leftoid dreaming of a non-existent Utopia.
You bring no value to any of the discussions you participate in. In fact, your arguments are nothing more than verbose representations of the school yard classic: "Nuh uh!".
you aren't an expert on anything. But please, keep it up you. We look forward to the day that your party will achieve the power and influence of Air America - not viable anywhere.
The reaction to the religious riots epitomises an increasingly enfeebled West, writes Miranda Devine.
THE insane violence of riots over religious cartoons is a flexing of muscles by those men of the Islamic world who have long felt emasculated and insulted by the West's economic superiority. Empowered by Osama bin Laden's September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, they have also been emboldened by the West's internal divisions and its feeble response to increasing acts of intolerance and provocation.
Similarly, a semi-official policy by NSW authorities of not antagonising groups of young Arab-Australian men behaving criminally or antisocially in Sydney has enfeebled police, while emboldening law-breakers to ever more audacious behaviour, such as the revenge attacks after the Cronulla riots.
The institutionalised weakness of the West is epitomised by its reaction to the riots over the cartoons: the apologies from governments, the sacking of an editor in France, the ready acceptance by newspapers of a limit to free speech, despite the fact the cartoons are so tame by the standards of Western satire. Two of the cartoons are comments on the "reactionary provocateurs" at Denmark's Jyllands-Posten who had commissioned the cartoons.
The most provocative cartoon is probably one that shows a Muhammad-like figure with a fuse coming out of his turban, or one with a queue of smoking suicide bombers on a cloud with an Islamic cleric saying "Stop. We ran out of virgins".
But the global over-reaction to the publication in a privately owned newspaper in a Western secular society shows that there are increasing numbers of Muslims who expect to be able to control what non-Muslims do in their own countries.
The murder of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 by a Muslim extremist enraged by his documentary about violence against Muslim women was just the start.
In Australia all but one newspaper has refrained from publishing the cartoons because of the uncharacteristically sensible desire not to inflame the madness, which has so far resulted in nine deaths.
But while we accommodate the intolerant, we seem ever more determined to ferret out any whiff of intolerance in ourselves. Witness the calls this week by a Victorian teachers union for cultural re-education of children after a survey of 551 high school students found a majority had negative attitudes towards Muslims.
An editorial in The Age even attempted to excuse the inexcusable, saying of the survey results: "Little wonder many Muslims see the 'war on terror' as a war on them. Their community is besieged by hostility and suspicion, which helps explain why they want to make their hurt felt "
Civilised people don't usually make their "hurt felt" by torching other people's embassies, stoning churches and waving the sort of banners reported at a protest over the cartoons in London last week: "Massacre those who insult Islam", "Europe, your 9/11 will come".
This creeping acceptance of intolerance in our midst is what Daniel Pipes, the director of a US think tank, the Middle East Forum, has warned about as the second prong of a radical Islamic attack on the West: a relentless demand for cultural change. This non-violent but incremental encroachment on Western secular society curtails freedoms and accords the Muslim minority special privileges.
For instance, during a visit to Australia after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Pipes warned against allowing driver's licence photos with faces obscured by veils.
Militant Islamists believe their totalitarian ideology is superior to our liberal democracy, he said at the time. "When there's a difference between their approach and the Australian approach, they want Australia to become like them and not vice versa," he said.
It was the hate-preaching imams of Denmark who were said to have ignited the controversy over the cartoons, four months after their publication in September, when they travelled to the Middle East with a dossier of cartoons aimed at bringing attention to Danish insensitivity and inflaming attitudes against the country they had made their home.
In Australia, a new generation of Islamic leaders who are antagonistic to their moderate elders (such as Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly, who has fought to keep extremists out of the Lakemba Mosque) have also been preaching the evils of the mainstream culture they live in and the need for "good Muslims" to disengage.
The now infamous Bankstown sermon last year by the Sydney-born Sheik Feiz Mohamed, in which he said rape victims have "no one to blame but themselves" because they dress provocatively, is but one example.
The American Sheik Khalid Yasin, a regular visitor to Australia, betrayed similar intolerance when he said last year: "There's no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend." He also said homosexuality should be punishable by death.
But antagonism to Western culture appears in more subtle forms. In Melbourne recently the first training course for home-grown Islamic religious leaders was launched at the Minaret College in Springvale, funded by a reported $1.8 million of taxpayer money.
While it says it embraces a moderate 21st-century form of Islam, the college features on its website a fatwa, or official ruling, from Sheik Yusof Al-Qaradawi, professor at the University of Qutar, who is banned from entering the US and Germany because of his support for terrorist groups. The letter calls for donations because educational institutions for Muslims outside the Muslim world are "castles for jihad and shields of protection from surrounding evils".
Teaching young Muslims that Australian society is evil is not a recipe for cultural harmony.
#1
head-cracking says "we aren't your f*cking dhimmis, assholes" - I encourage good baton work by all our authorities on the miscreants
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/09/2006 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Special privileges" is what nuts like "Common Sense" want for themselves, so they push the multi-culti gig while helping and aiding those who have, as their enemies, this opponents.
As my regular readers know, I've long been skeptical of the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Muslims for at least 3,000 reasons right off the top of my head. I think the evidence is going my way this week.
The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian's statement, paraphrased by the New York Times, "that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran."
So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.
But three cartoons made political points.
One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop we ran out of virgins!" which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.
In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.
Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.
The little darlings brandish placards with typical Religion of Peace slogans, such as: "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," "Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." They warn Europe of their own impending 9-11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9-11 attack.
The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.
The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad.
But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.
Other interpretations of the Quran forbid images of humans or animals, which makes even a child's coloring book blasphemous. That's why the Taliban blew up those priceless Buddhist statues, bless their innocent, peace-loving little hearts.
Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.
Making the rash assumption for purposes of discussion that Islam is a religion and not a car-burning cult, even a real religion can't go bossing around other people like this.
Catholics aren't short on rules, but they couldn't care less if non-Catholics use birth control. Conservative Jews have no interest in forbidding other people from mixing meat and dairy. Protestants don't make a peep about other people eating food off one another's plates. (Just stay away from our plates that's disgusting.)
But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
02/09/2006 15:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Barbara, I've noticed the amazing similarity between Islamists and Liberal/leftists when it comes to certain patterns of behavior and their prediliction to specific illogical argument structures. Maybe Ms. Coulter will write an article about it, but I do believe that the lefties love the Islamists because they are at some level that overcomes the differences in religious belief and attitudes toward sexual liberation.
Our traditional values have been trampled on and we are offended. A wake-up call. By Sonia Mikich
I feel offended.
Zealots are nailing veils onto the faces of my sisters in Afghanistan and Pakistan and are busy hanging women, homosexuals, adulterers and non-believers.
But human rights, women's rights and the right to liberty are the most exalted in the history of humanity; this is the tradition in which I was raised. Values that make the world better and more peaceful.
I demand that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Indonesia and Egypt apologise to me. Otherwise I am unfortunately forced to threaten, beat up, kidnap or behead their citizens. Because I am somewhat sensitive about my cultural identity.
I feel offended.
Fanatics are blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan, marvellous cultural monuments.
But art is an expression of universal beauty and innocence to me. It is a value that makes the world better and more peaceful.; this is the tradition in which I was raised.
I demand that Hamas, the spokesman of the French Muslims and the Director of the Al-Azhar-University apologise to me. Otherwise I will never spend a holiday at the Taj Mahal, I will call for a boycott of Palestinian fruit and I will set the embassies of Tunisia, Qatar and Bangladesh on fire.
I expect understanding for this at the very least my feelings are absolute and must be expressed globally.
I feel offended.
Videos show journalists, truck drivers and NGO workers having their throats slit or their heads chopped off. Jews see themselves represented as cannibals and pigs, Western women as decadent sluts. Apolitical engineers have to fear for their lives.
All in the name of God.
I demand that all the editors in chief of newspapers and television broadcasters in the Islamic world apologise to me, because they do nothing to prevent these obscenities.
Many people are concerned that the clash of civilisation is near. Oh please, it has been going on for a while now, not only manifest in the monstrosities mentioned above but part of everyday life. How fragile, how superficial must Muslims' religious values be. How can cartoons in an unknown newspaper in a little European country cause such an upset and allow a handful of organised agitators to be able to drive many thousands onto the streets.
Joking how the prophet Mohammed is running out of virgins because so many suicide bombers are standing at the gates of paradise is dark and mean. And, given the reality of global attacks, lamentably effective (just as a side note). But I did not find it especially funny that the misogynous Taliban availed themselves regularly of prostitutes. Or publicly "executed" video recorders and televisions in order to watch pornos in privacy.
Just a reminder: the earth is not flat. It should go without saying that individuals in a secular democracy have every right to caricature and mock authorities, even religious ones. They should be prepared to meet criticism but not punishment. Freedom of expression has to be understood broadly and there are sufficient laws and rules that can be employed to prevent abuse.
The film "The Life of Brian" annoyed a lot of Christians and provoked letters to editors, calls for boycotts and quarrels within families. But nobody in New Zealand suspected a conspiracy against Christianity, nobody in Malta felt compelled to burn the Union Jack. Nor do political authorities have a natural right to protection. Margaret Thatcher was chopped to bits by British journalists, comedians and screenwriters and then put back together in a ghastly way; it was good for the mental sanity of that era and did not kill anyone.
Everyone had the right to turn it off, look away or toss the newspaper in the bin. Freedom of opinion was the Siamese twin of freedom from fear.
The fact that fundamentalists of all persuasions are completely incapable of self-reflection, self-criticism, and self-irony would not warrant a mention, were it not for their practice of imposing their issues on me and my world. They assume that we will kowtow to them as soon as we recognise who they are: "Look out! Religious feelings! We're leaving the private sphere."
In the self-referential world of God or Allah or Jahwe warriors, feelings are increasingly used as weapons and honoured as the highest authority. Readily summoned, merciless.
In the debate over the cartoons, the prohibition of pictures is being presented as a compulsory principle of belief. To be respected everywhere, even in the state of Denmark.
It gives pause to think that those who claim to be offended are so proficient with the Internet and other modern communication technologies but know little about their own cultural history. In Islam's heydey, pictures were made of the Prophet. Mohammed lightly veiled, for instance, on a horse riding to heaven a wonderful Persian miniature in the Chester-Beatty-Museum in Dublin. (more)
What next, bearded one? Boycott Irish butter?
I do not have to concern myself with the sales figures of Danish yoghurt. I am not easy to blackmail and I am free to find Immanuel Kant's "sapere aude" more conducive to successful communal living than a Fatwa.
I hereby refuse to feel badly for the chronically insulted. I refuse to argue politely why freedom of expression, reason and humour should be respected. I do not want to continue to have to provide creationists scientific proof that the earth has been around for more than 10 000 years. And I am going to stop waiting for them to say on Al Jazeera, "Did you ever hear the one about the Prophet's beard?"
She has the brains in one part of her article to grasp the utter lack of VIOLENCE when it comes to creationists or Christians, and then TOTALLY FORGETS THAT a few paragraphs later. Stupid. Stupid. STUPID.
Why cite "Life of Brian"? Why not "piss Christ"? or "Last Temptation of Christ"? Because "Life of Brian" was out-and-out humor, but the latter two didn't have even THAT, and Christians still didn't riot. What's with that? Reluctant to credit More restraint to Christians when she FORGES illusions of violence from CREATIONISTS? The Pro-life movement has a handful of nutters that we've repudiated and are glad to see in jail or DEAD, and which repudiation is barely registered in the MSM because it contradicts their propaganda. Compared to the religious wars of Europe, the persecution of the Mormons was penny-ante. BAd, of course, but like all liberals, she's innumerate because Papa Stalin said the death of one was a tragedy, but the death of millions wasn't.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, the man behind this whole Danish cartoon controversy, not only faked obscene cartoons on his trip to the Middle East, but also:
For everything, though entails both positive and negative facets, there is a limit and within the limit there is normality and guarantee. When the limits are crossed in either direction, whether upward or downward, to the right or to the left, that reaches to the extreme point and finally comes to the negative ends. For instance, if a bottle is filled with any liquid or gas, it will accept it within its capacity or size, and obsession will cause it got out and will waste. Second, if a car has the capacity of carrying three persons; but, in contrast, eight persons are seated and driven, this will definitely cause it to damage. When we exemplify and focus the limits on the human beings, it becomes obvious that in twenty-four hours period, without any interval or rest, a person cannot frequently talk or speak, walk or drive, eat or drink, sleep or awake, and read or write. By the way, if anyone does so, he may not be deemed or termed a normal person rather an abnormal. If there is logic in this argument, can there be then any limit for the so-called freedom of expression: to its extreme level, I call freedom of ignorance? 
