babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » "Pandering" to Muslims?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: "Pandering" to Muslims?
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 12:41 AM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
Click!


quote:
Had some ‘Christian fundamentalists’ slaughtered thousands of civilians in the name of their faith, I doubt whether Bush and Blair would be worrying whether they’d swung by enough Methodist chapels and Baptist vestries.

[I edited the title of this thread to make it less offensive - audra]

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: audra estrones ]


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 04 December 2001 12:50 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 December 2001 01:10 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rocky, I don't suppose you're kin folk to Pat Robertson or something like that.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 01:19 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is a reason to all the pandering. It is to discourage all the racist rednecks that would blame all muslims for what happened. None of those here, though. Is there?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 01:23 AM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
Not at all.... No religious leanings what-so-ever. Are you kin to Lenin perhaps?

Forgive me if I feel queezy at the sight of Bush and Cretien basking in the glory of allmighty Allah, venturing inside a mosque for the first time in their lives. Giving lip service to their respect for Islam, while Muslim clerics and scholars have barely acknowleged or condemned Sept. 11th.


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 01:47 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In another thread you criticize meades for being insulting for your disagreeing with him. And here you are insulting me just for pointing out the reason for all the pandering. Tsk, tsk.
quote:
while Muslim clerics and scholars have barely acknowleged or condemned Sept. 11th

If you read the news rather than those nasty columnists you would know a great many muslim leaders and clerics have condemned the attacks.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barney the Dinosaur
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1504

posted 04 December 2001 03:20 AM      Profile for Barney the Dinosaur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey everybody, I found a troll!

*chomp*


From: MYOB! | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 03:34 AM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And here you are insulting me just for pointing out the reason for all the pandering. Tsk, tsk.
WN

I did no such thing. My comment was directed at the good Dr. (who took an unprevoked scapel to me in a prior post) and it was made in jest.

quote:
If you read the news rather than those nasty columnists you would know a great many muslim leaders and clerics have condemned the attacks.

WN

Oh?

quote:
In the Ottawa Citizen’s coast-to-coast survey of Canadian imams, all but two refused to accept that Osama bin Laden was responsible for 11 September, even though he himself has said he did it. Imam Yahia Fadlalla of the Hamilton mosque is convinced neither bin Laden nor any other Muslims were involved.

I have read the news and the reaction from the Muslim community has been luke-warm at best.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: RockyMcCracken ]


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 04 December 2001 03:54 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have read the news and the reaction from the Muslim community has been luke-warm at
best.

Because TWO Imans refused to condemn him? Geez, you're worse than I thought


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 04:07 AM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
ALL but two Meades. There were 38 surveyed. So simple subtraction (38 take away 2 = 36.00000) , would suggest 36 did not condemn bin Laden or admit his complicity or involvement. (So I guess I'm actually a lot BETTER than you thought, huh?)

No, I don't think that merits the outpouring of warmth, good wishes and phony understanding we're hearing from our leaders.

As for violence against Muslims being a reason for this display of one-sided butt kissing...99% of the non-Muslim population didn't have any anger or hatred towards Islam in general. It was the other 1% that were the idiots that caused intimidation and trouble for about 2 days.

I'm no great fan of Christianity, or organized religion in general for that matter, but I can guarantee you if a Christian whacko murdered 4000 people ALL church leaders would distance themselves in hurry. This hasn't happened in any large scope.

Wouldn't Muslim leaders help themselves out a lot if they condemned
the attacks and sought to weed out the perpetrators themselves? Terrorism has been a plaque in the Arab world for umpteen years. Where were the clerics condemning it then and getting their houses in order? (ie. "Yes we have grievances (but who doesn't), but killing thousands of civilians is not the way to do it, how can we help to stop extremists and prevent this in future")

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: RockyMcCracken ]


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 04 December 2001 04:36 AM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First of all, considering they misspelled "imans", I'm left to question the validity of this "coast-to-coast survey".

Second, all people are deserving of our respect- just because several imans "refuse to condemn Bin Landen" (by the way, you'll have to do better than that- I'd like to hear their explanations, rather than a simple survey) doesn't mean all muslims feel the same way. If you can't see people as individuals and get passed the guilt-by-association trash that's being thown at you (and at us, by your recycling of the trash) then that's your problem, but don't come whining over here seeking sympathy for ignorance.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 05:14 AM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Second, all people are deserving of our respect- just because several imans "refuse to condemn Bin Landen" (by the way, you'll have to do better than that- I'd like to hear their explanations, rather than a simple survey) doesn't mean all muslims feel the same way.

When did I speculate about the feelings of the majority of Muslims,all Muslims or anyone other than those in positions of leadership? Hmmmm . I don't "respect people" because, in my opinion, Muslim leaders haven't condemned/shunned the perpetrators of mass murder and terrorism, historically and at present? Highly Odddd. I would suggest that you do not respect the intelligence of the Muslim world if you believe that Bush et all, pretending to know and care about Islam, is making their hearts flutter!

quote:
f you can't see people as individuals and get passed the guilt-by-association trash that's being thown at you (and at us, by your recycling of the trash) then that's your problem,

I would guess anger-management, mild delirium and a persecution complex would be your major problems (in no particular order). Guilt by association? Failure to see people as individuals? Are you even reading my posts or just making it up as you see fit?


quote:
but don't come whining over here seeking sympathy for ignorance.

Who's whining ? (a reflective surface of some kind may aide you) ....and who's ignorant? I have an opinion just like you do, sweets. Sympathy might be in order if you dimiss everyone with a differing opinion with a roll of the eyes. It's awfully easy to be arrogant and self-assured in such friendly territory huh?

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: RockyMcCracken ]


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 December 2001 05:36 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Democracy 101: First, it is deeply anti-democratic to require loyalty oaths (under whatever euphemism) of any citizen of a democracy.

Second, to demand that members of any single ethnic or religious group denounce other members of that group who also happen to be criminals is essentially to require a loyalty oath from all members of that group, thus violating their standing as full citizens. It is, in other words, a demand that is both anti-democratic and discriminatory.

Canadian. Muslim. Criminal. There is no necessary connection among those three terms. An individual may live himself into such a connection ... or some other individual may fantasize such a connection; but we properly call the first a criminal, and we properly call the second either paranoid or prejudiced.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 04 December 2001 07:15 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
As the attacks were a result of a completely distorted view of Islam, expecting the entire Muslim community and especially its leaders to express regret (and loudly) is rather like demanding the whole nation apologise en masse for the killing and enslaving of the native Indians all that time ago...

If I am a Catholic, should I be expected to show my regret for the IRA attacks in Northern Ireland?


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 04 December 2001 08:33 AM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If I am a Catholic, should I be expected to show my regret for the IRA attacks in Northern Ireland?

Short answer: yes. You do have a responsibility to condemn the attacks. Your responsibility would become even greater if the IRA were claiming that they were performing their actions in the service of Catholicism, citing Biblical passages and papal pronouncements.

Also --

quote:
Entry printed from Oxford English Dictionary Online
© Oxford University Press 2001

imam, imaum SECOND EDITION 1989
(mm) Forms: 7 eemawm, imman, 8 emaum, 9 imawm, imám, 7- imam, 8- imaum; also 7- iman. [a. Arab. imm leader, president, etc., f. amma to go before, precede. The form iman is that used in F. and Sp.]
1. The officiating priest of a Muslim mosque.

1613 PURCHAS Pilgrimage (1614) 301 Then ariseth another Priest of another order called Imam, and readeth a Psalme aloude. 1625-6 Pilgrims II. 1609 Immediately after euery one is cleansed and come into the Moschea, the Eemawm which is the Parish Priest beginnes to pray. 1687 A. LOVELL tr. Thevenot's Trav. II. 102 The director of the Prayers, who says the Prayers, and makes the rest say them;..in Turkey he is called the Imam. 1717 LADY M. W. MONTAGU Let. to Abbé Conti 17 May, The outside of the mosque is adorned with four towers, vastly high, gilt on the top, from whence the imaums call the people to prayers. 1775 R. CHANDLER Trav. Greece (1825) II. 59 The Turks..had erected a pulpit..for their iman or reader. 1815 ELPHINSTONE Acc. Caubul (1842) II. 278 The Imaums of towns have fees on marriages, burials, and some other ceremonies, and are maintained by them and the gifts of their congregation. 1884 F. BOYLE Borderland 257 The chief imam condemned such an interpretation of the law.


2. A title given to various Muslim leaders and chiefs.
Applied to a. the Caliph, as sovereign of the community, and (now or formerly) to other independent princes, e.g. the chief of Oman; b. the twelve chiefs of Islam recognized by the Ithnashari Shiites, of whom Ali, Hasan, and Husain were the earliest; c. the founders of the four orthodox sects of Muslims; d. the author of the leading treatise on any subject.

1662 J. DAVIES tr. Olearius' Voy. Ambass. 373 On these twelve Saints they bestow the quality of Imam, or Prelate. 1698 FRYER Acc. E. India & P. 220 The Prince of this Country [Muscat] is called Imaum, who is Guardian of Mahomet's Tomb, and on whom is devolved the Right of Caliphship. 1728 MORGAN Algiers I. vi. 171 The Khalifa of Bagdad..the legitimate Successor of Mahomet, and Sovereign Imaum or Pontiff of all the Mussulmans. 1753 HANWAY Trav. (1762) II. X. iv. 241 The Mascats are a tribe of Arabians..they are subject to an Iman, who has an absolute authority over them. 1804 W. TENNANT Ind. Recreat. (ed. 2) I. 220 Hossein.This holy Imawm is believed not only to have been a saint, but a martyr. 1883 C. J. WILLS Mod. Persia 108 Where are buried the imams, or saints, of the Sheahs, Hussein and Hassan, one of the greatest shrines of Persian pilgrims. 1899 Daily Chron. 7 Mar. 7/3 By the treaty of 1862 France and Great Britain entered into a mutual engagement to respect the independence of the Imam of Muscat.


Hence imamate [cf. F. imamat], imamship, the dignity of imam.

1727-41 CHAMBERS Cycl. s.v. Imam, The Mahometans do not agree among themselves about this imamate, or dignity of the imam. 1860 J. GARDNER Faiths World II. 120/2 A number of the Schiites..denied the right of Moussa to the Imámate. 1895 Pall Mall G. 2 Dec. 2/2 The man who has given the trouble is the claimant to the Imamship of Sanaathe titular ruler of the country before the Turks occupied it in 1872.



From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 04 December 2001 08:51 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wayne MacPhail
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 119

posted 04 December 2001 09:19 AM      Profile for Wayne MacPhail   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi gang:

I've read through this discussion topic and I have to say that IMHO, the characterization of Rocky as a troll just because he's raising concern about the Muslim community's lukewarm response to Sept 11 is unfair. It's a legitimate, though uncomfortable topic for debate.

Islam (like many organized religions) has a checkered past when it comes to violence. And, there is an issue about the lack of clear renouncement of Sept 11 from the Islam community. It was even raised very bravely by a member of the Toronto Islam community at CBC's town hall about the issue.

And, I've found Rocky's responses, especially given the inhospitable welcome he's received, calmer than mine would have been.

I'm a bit disappointed in the community's reaction on this one. We could all learn from this discussion instead of kneejerking to crush it.

All the best,
Wayne


From: Hamilton | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 09:53 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

If I am a Catholic, should I be expected to show my regret for the IRA attacks in Northern Ireland?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short answer: yes. You do have a responsibility to condemn the attacks. Your responsibility would become even greater if the IRA were claiming that they were performing their actions in the service of Catholicism, citing Biblical passages and papal pronouncements.



The short answer is "No." First you begin by apologizing for every wrongful act of your faith, your race, your nation. Asuming you are white and christian you have a great deal to atone for and the list is growing.

And Wayne McPhail, did you read the article beginning this debate? It was clearly hateful. And then there is a Ottawa Sun ... er ... Citizen poll to support such statements. Yeah, that would be scientific.

Attempting to raise anger against an entire group is hardly something to be proud of. And why would she not remain calm? The arsonist seldom panics.

"Canadian Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We offer our heartfelt condolences to all those who lost loved ones and join with all people of conscience in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."

Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2001 09:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
First, Imam is correct, not Iman - but I think that dictionary definition has probably already established that. Iman is a model who (alas!) is married to David Bowie. Be still my heart. It's just so wrong that he's not married to ME. But I digress.

Rocky, is it possible that those Imams, when they answered that survey, were expressing their concern that a case hasn't been PROVEN against bin Laden? Because while many of my Muslim friends and neighbours thought the attacks were atrocious and would never justify them, at the same time they believed (and many still do) that a case has not been proven against bin Laden. Even that supposed confession (which I was so excited about when I heard about it) disappointed me because it was basically like anything else he's ever said: speaking in generalities and no admission of guilt for anything specific.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy was probably involved. But nothing has been proven (bin proven?) to the satisfaction of a court of law to me yet, and guess what? I don't like the idea of killing hundreds or thousands of innocent people - or even bin Laden himself - with vigilante justice like the kind we've seen.

Anyhow - without completely going into that debate again since it's been debated many times on other threads, and we all know what everyone else's opinion is on the subject and none of us are going to change our minds, obviously - I am just putting that forward as a possible reason why Imams might be cagey with a reporter and not actually convict bin Laden of this crime in the press.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 December 2001 10:10 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
there is an issue about the lack of clear renouncement of Sept 11 from the Islam community. It was even raised very bravely by a member of the Toronto Islam community at CBC's town hall about the issue.

Wayne, do you not hear the paternalism of those lines?

How very generous of you and Bob Fulford, Canadians with Celtic and Anglo surnames, to praise someone whose only connection to an atrocity is a religion and ethnicity different from yours for stepping up to a mike and saying just the words you want him to say right when you want him to say them ...

And what a condemnation of those who don't snap to your demand for a little sectarian-ethnic confession-denunciation -- so cleansing for the soul.

Sorry, Wayne. You try demanding that I say just the words you want when you want them about my loves or loyalties, and I will walk away. My dad taught me when I was about nine years old that no citizen of Canada ever does that on command. And then I read King Lear.

Walking away now, permanently, from this offensively titled thread.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 10:13 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have searched for that Ottawa Citizen survey without success. Anyone else know of it or can link to it?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 04 December 2001 10:15 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I am a Catholic, should I be expected to show my regret for the IRA attacks in Northern Ireland?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Short answer: yes. You do have a responsibility to condemn the attacks. Your responsibility would become even greater if the IRA were claiming that they were performing their actions in the service of Catholicism, citing Biblical passages and papal pronouncements.



Why? As the illustrious leaders have said this is not a war on Islam, why should members of that community have to show regret for the actions of another - its like expecting all train operators to show their remorse about a train crash.

The implication behind expecting regret/remorse from the Muslim community is because they are the ones we are at war with and only a definitive statement of denial will acquit them, whilst no-one in the nonMuslim community is expected to show the same...indeed, the nonMuslim community is allowed to discuss, however unpatriotically, the rights and wrongs of ths situation and they are not all expected to show their regret.

If you follow this logic, I demand an immediate and complete apology for all the innocent lives lost in Afghanistan...but no, the governments won't apologise for those, so why should unrelated other than by religion people have to make good for the sins of their fellow followers???

In fact, if we follow the logic that they must show regret, as if they are inextricably interlinked, then we should understand them wanting to fight alongside their Muslim brethren in Afghanistan.

Sorry, but I think expecting anyone other than terrorists to apologise, show regret shows a complete ignorance of what terrorism is, and what it is about...


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wayne MacPhail
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 119

posted 04 December 2001 10:17 AM      Profile for Wayne MacPhail   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl:

I agree the thread's title is unfortunate. So's your assumption that the Islam speaker I mentioned said what I wanted to hear. I had no opinion one way or the other when I heard the remark. I called it brave because he was clearly bucking the general trend.

All the best,
Wayne

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 04 December 2001 10:20 AM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I called it brave because he was clearly bucking the general trend.

In that case, I presume you applaud people who buck the general trend among the population for wanting the Muslim community to apologise/express remorse and who say that they have nothing to apologise for.

And all those who buck the general trend and say that they think the war is wrong...


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 04 December 2001 10:25 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Truce, Wayne. I'm sorry I lost my temper. At you. Peace.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wayne MacPhail
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 119

posted 04 December 2001 10:27 AM      Profile for Wayne MacPhail   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi gang:

Interesting [audra had to remove the link because it wasn't working, and was making the thread unreadable.]

And yes, Apemantus, I think it's admirable that someone speaks their mind despite the social consequences, yes - whether or not I agree with them.

All the best,
Wayne

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: audra estrones ]


From: Hamilton | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2001 11:34 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, the URL didn't work and it didn't only screw up this thread, but the Today's Active Topics thread (although Today's Active Topics will go back to normal after I post this message).

Wayne, do you think you could edit out that URL so we don't have to side-scroll? Side-scroll is of the deepest, darkest reaches of Hades.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JonnyHaggis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 651

posted 04 December 2001 11:51 AM      Profile for JonnyHaggis   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Had some ‘Christian fundamentalists’ slaughtered thousands of civilians in the name of their faith, I doubt whether Bush and Blair would be worrying whether they’d swung by enough Methodist chapels and Baptist vestries.

Oooh! How courageously un-PC!

What kind of lame-ass argument is that? This is a right wing favourite line of attack on so many issues (see www.frontpagemag.com, my favourite website for a good giggle session), and it's absurd. Baptists and Methodists are totally integrated into North American society. No one is going to go on a rampage and shoot Baptist convenience store owners, or beat up Jehovah's Witnesses by accident because they kind of look like Baptists ( http://www.zmag.org/shahrevenge.htm and this is only by Sept 24).

Muslims are not nearly as accepted, and they tend to be recent fairly immigrants, not to mention the West's atrocious foreign policy in the Arab world of aiding dictators that crush their own people. Muslims obviously need reassurance from the greater society, and especially the powers that be, who decide who the police will or won't protect, and the white people need clear signals that it is not acceptable to go beating up sikhs andd shooting Pakistani store owners.

Even if the majority of muslim clerics were rabid pro-Osama anti-amreicans maniacs, political leaders should still be trying to extend a hand to the arab and muslim communities.

Stupid, jealous whining about bending over backwards for Muslims when us white folks don't get the same treatment, and it's not fair boo hoo hoo, is some of the most childish immature, idiocy I can think of, and it reaveals a serious insecurity complex.

Listen to how Steyn rages about how people have to spell Koran as Qu'ran etc, and then he compares that to how we don't spell Munich as 'Munchen' to be PC. Munich is a word that is familliar to english speakers and has been for hundreds of years. PLus, Austrians really don't give a shit how you pronounce or spell it. 'Koran' is a word that most people don't use, so it shouldnt be a big deal if the spelling is changed. Most importantly if muslims want that it should be spelled a certain way, then what kind of neurotic, barbarian, penis-size-complexed adult-sized infant is going to insist on his little baby right to spell it how *he* wants it?

I know this family who adopted a 12 year old cousin when his mother died, and the kids of that family were in their twenties, and they were all jealous because their parents bought the boy a new bike, and they didn't get one. That's very much in the same spirit of the article quoted above.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: JonnyHaggis ]


From: Montreal | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331

posted 04 December 2001 01:08 PM      Profile for vaudree     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Seems to me that when we hear the word "Muslem" we tend to see everybody practising the same faith the same way. If we had similar views of Christians all you Protest-ants would still be Catholics. The problems with fundamentalists (regardless of whether one is Muslem or Christian) is that they believe that, not only can they interpret the book better than any one else, but that no one else is even close.

I`ve met english professors like that and ADHD researchers like that - so it is not just a part of religeon this fundamentalism, but part of science and english lit. I hate fundamentalism because I can never survive it. If there are two ways of looking at something - I`ll find the third. Even as a child (probably more so, because now I`m old enough to fake it a bit) I would be considered an abomination, I would be the first to die in a war between fundamentalists, since both would find me dangerous, a potential threat to their world order.

Fundamentalists hate Mongrels, they hate mixed blood, and minds that think outside the box. They hate go betweens, since it is illogical that one could go between two solid entities.

The other definition of panderer is matchmater - check the dictionary.


From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 04 December 2001 02:20 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I edited the title of this thread. I'm sure y'all can figure out why. Congrats, for keeping this as civil as it has been. Good work!
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 04 December 2001 02:29 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I would think that had Christian fundamentalists been responsible, George Bush and Tony Blair would both be going to great lengths to try to disassociate the fundamentalists from mainstream Christian denominations in their countries. George Bush would probably be rather less successful at this, but that's another discussion. So they've done the same with Islam? What's the problem with this?
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Twilight-Cedar
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1685

posted 04 December 2001 02:45 PM      Profile for Twilight-Cedar        Edit/Delete Post
I agree with Wayne McPhail -- the initiator of this thread is being jumped on from a very great height. If Muslim clerics, residing in the geopolitical area generally known as The West, are somewhat shy in vigorously denouncing terrorism originating from Islamic based cultures ... well, then it's fair game to call bring attention to this "shyness".

Like it or not, clerics, be they Muslim, Christian, Judaic etc. are not just like regular folks. They CAN wield a certain political power within their communities.

That being said, they have all the rights, freedoms etc. of everyone else. But it is silly to think that their words would not attract a certain scrutiny .... This is not a loyalty test. This is just common sense.


From: Gabriola Island | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 04 December 2001 03:02 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
I don't seem to remember all the anti-government crowd coming out and cooing all over television when Timothy McVeigh committed the atrocity at Oklahoma, and there is no reason why they should have - their views may have been similar to his, but they would no more have done a terrorist atrocity than I would.

So I see no reason why anyone other than the terrorists themselves need to express regret...


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 20

posted 04 December 2001 03:24 PM      Profile for Nic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We madmen on the Right dislike this identity-politics business
Somebody better tell the sensible right wingers out there who realize that there is a difference between battling the straw man of political correctness and being outright uninformed and illogical, that this ignorant ass is pretending to be one of them.
quote:
Meanwhile, our airports have been told to look out for ...evildoers. How will we know who they are? When they do something evil, like running up an escalator to retrieve a forgotten Palm, as one poor boob did in Atlanta last week, causing a four-hour evacuation of the airport and the grounding of half the planes on the continent. The guy didn’t fit the profile of the suicide bombers, but neither does your 88-year-old granny, and that’s why we’re emptying out her underwear on the conveyor belt. Under our new high-alert procedures, security personnel demonstrate their sensitivity by looking for people who don’t look anything like the people they’re looking for.
Oh of course! We should only search the bags of men with dark hair and beards. That wouldn’t open up a hole in our security at all.
But then again all of those terrorists could just slip their bombs into granny’s apple pie. I know we can lock them all up in camps! Surely Bush would go along with that
quote:
Last time round, FDR interned Japanese-Americans. Not only has Bush no plans to intern Muslim Americans; it wouldn’t surprise me if he interned himself, just to ‘send the right message’.
That Pinko!!

Mark Stein is a total idiot and I feel like I need a shower after reading that tripe. Mark has a bad case of intellectual diarrhea; although I’m sure he’s romanticized it into thinking he has dysentery just like the good old boys in the trenches back in WW2. He appears to be looking at the world through Saturday morning cartoon x-ray glasses. He is very frustrated that in real life unlike Harry Potter the “bad guys” are not just bad guys but…wait, complex human beings who are arranged in complex societies which creates contradictions, confusions, differing allegiances and interests and people have reasons for thinking the different things that they think. I’m sure this won’t come as a surprise to most people reading the boards since we came to realize that people are complex some time after puberty. Poor mark though is frustrated by his lack of understanding and he has chosen to take it out on us.


From: Incheon, Korea | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
agent007
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1189

posted 04 December 2001 03:44 PM      Profile for agent007     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Mark Stein is a total idiot...

Careful, Nic. He is a Halifax realtor.

From: Niagara Falls ON | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 03:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you, Apemantus for raising the issue of Timothy Mcveigh. Not only did so-called militia leaders not apologise on behalf of all militias, but neither did any president apologise for white and/or christian domestic terrorism.

I have yet to hear any christian fundamentalist apologise on behalf of all christians for the killing and maiming of abortion doctors.

But why should they?

Timothy McVeigh and christian fundamentalists represent a group within a larger group within a larger group. They speak and act for themselves. They do not represent all whites, all militias, alll christians. Just themselves.

Yet, when the attackers are muslim, all muslims must apologise. Why?

White society sees itself as ethnically diverse. There are Italians, Poles, Brits, Scots, Germans, etc, etc, etc ...

But for whatever reason we do not see the same ethinc diversity among non-white peoples. So there is the Islamic community. What community? Islam is almost as fractured as christianity and moslems, like christians come from every part of the globe.

Or there is the black community. How nice that your rich Carribean or South American or African or North American culture and heritage is suddenly reduced to the lowest common denominator of skin colour.

There is no defence in demanding that every muslim apologise for the actions of other muslims as much as there is no defence for every Chinese apologising for the actions of their government in Tibet. It is simply a ludricous argument.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 04 December 2001 03:50 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mark Steyn is an idiot, of course. He's paid to piss people off, and it's obvious that he's succeeded. Don't waste your energy on him.

But there are plenty of reasonable people who believe, along with Wayne MacPhail, that this is an issue that can be discussed reasonably. I remember watching the service at Washington's National Cathedral on TV, and being sickened by the message from Muzammil Siddiqi, imam for the Islamic Society of North America: "Those that lay the plots of evil, for them is a terrible penalty; and the plotting of such will be not abide." He had 3 days to prepare this message, and he couldn't even be bothered to condemn this attack explicitly as an evil act. Instead, he seemed to leave open the possibility that the WTC attack was justifiable -- a "terrible penalty" for plotting evil acts. This was the same man, keep in mind, that refused to say back in 1989 whether he believed Salman Rushdie should be killed or not: "that would have to be determined in the due process of Islamic law."

It's not just idiots like Steyn who have raised the issue. Salon.com -- no friend of conservatives -- ran a
fine article on this very point.

Of course, I've already stated my disagreement with Apemantus. He says --

quote:
I see no reason why anyone but the terrorists themselves need to express regret.

The next time an abortion clinic is bombed, I'd like people to respect that principle when dealing with anti-abortion activists. Will we hear all about "root causes" then? About how Catholic opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily "implicate" the church in these crimes?

Or will we call for the arrests of protesters, the denunciation of the Church, the passage of harsh laws against protesting a women's right to an abortion? (A right I support passionately, by the way.)


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 04 December 2001 03:55 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'll just advocate paying women 300 bucks every time they have to get an abortion as compensation for dealing with idiotic sign-waving anti-abortion protesters who have, as far as I know, never put their money where their mouths are and adopted any "unwanted" children.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 441

posted 04 December 2001 05:40 PM      Profile for MJ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think it's useful in this discussion to acknowledge that we're not talking about a monolithic community. Any ethnic or religious group is made up of individuals with a hugely divergent range of opinions.

Certainly, some overly cautious or 'political' Muslim religious leaders may not have seemed appropriately condemning of the attack. However, the leadership of the Catholic church has never issued a public denunciation of the IRA, so far as I know. Although local Catholic leaders in Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, and the UK may have. Other instances of non-muslim terrorism in the last 50 years:

- Basques (Spain)
- Italy (red army)
- Israel (zionist militia against British administrative personnel, pre-founding)
- Quebec (FLQ crisis)

Does anyone think it necessary for all Basques, all Italian leftists, all Jews or all Francophone Quebecois to denounce their own specific instances of terrorism?

Similarly, anyone who says the 'muslim community' hasn't been overt enough in its public statements clearly hasn't been getting out much. In the first few weeks after September 11, I attended several multi-faith vigils, each of which had an Imam from one of Toronto's mosques, each of whom condemned the violence in no uncertain terms.

It's quite easy to set up straw men and then knock them down, especially when making generalisations drawn from mass media. Unless one can cite a convincing and thorough body of research at the same time, however, those generalisations are likely to be wrong.


From: Around. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 04 December 2001 05:45 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, yesterday wasn't a terribly good day for me, so first off, I'd like to retract calling Rocky a troll, and also, and the imam/iman thing, one of three possibilities: 1) it might be different in French, and grade 8 geography was taught in French, so...woops!
2) my memory sucks, so again... woops!
3) my grade 8 French teacher may have been dumb- I don't think so, but maybe, so once more...woops!

Well that's pretty much it, so have a nice day, y'all

[edited to add that I just noticed I never explicitly called Rocky a troll, though it was certainly implied at the time- but not anymore also I stand by the statement that the article was leaning towards hate, and that every Muslim should not be held accountable for the actions of other members of their faith)

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: meades ]


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 05:46 PM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
WingNut wrote:

quote:
Not only did so-called militia leaders not apologise on behalf of all militias, but neither did any president apologise for white and/or christian domestic terrorism.

Garbage!! If some Militia leaders didn't speak out about McVeigh, they were doing one better and completely disbanding. How's that for distancing themselves? Since 95, the movement has been off the radar as far as a terorrist threat goes.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center:

quote:
Anti-government groups, particularly the loose network of militias, drew considerable attention after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, which killed 168 people.
Convicted terrorist Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice, Terry Nichols, shared the anti-government views of militia organizations, and Nichols attended militia meetings.
The militia movement reached its peak in 1995, when there were 858 such organizations across the country. By 1999, there were 365.

WingNut wrote:

quote:
There is no defence in demanding that every muslim apologise for the actions of other muslims as much as there is no defence for every Chinese apologising for the actions of their government in Tibet. It is simply a ludricous argument.

I certainly haven't made that arguement and don't think anyone else here has either. My original arguement was focused on whether world leaders should be glad handing Muslim leaders that either aren't condemning or are turning a blind eye to mass murder? It's bad acting anyway. Is it to much of a stretch to infer that some sects of fundamentalist Islam encourage militarism and terrorism on a global scale?

If Bush et all are encouraging peace and understanding towards those of the Islamic faith is it too much to ask Muslim leaders to advocate peace and decry terrorism in return?? Guess so!! I'm a racist and a bigot for even attempting to ask the question apparently..


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 04 December 2001 05:55 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
Whassup said:

quote:
Or will we call for the arrests of protesters, the denunciation of the Church, the passage of harsh laws against protesting a women's right to an abortion?

No, we won't because most of the people on this board I assume and myself definitely believe in the freedom of speech, the right to protest and that is the same whether you are an ignorant neoNazi bigot or a pro-Capitalist, or an anti-abortionist. Freedom of speech, even nasty speech! Expose the idiotic ideas for what they are.

And anyone who uses the Church to justify their opposition to abortion is fine, but those of us who are secular obviously fail to see their argument! But if they bombed a clinic, they are not speaking for the Church are they? Nope. They are using violence to achieve an end, and I don't need a priest to tell me the Church condemns that. I know it does already, just like I know Islam condemns terrorism.

If all these Imams apologised, people would just say it was words and not actions. If they spent days crying outside their mosques for the dead, I suspect people would call them crocodile tears. Whatever they do, people will find a way to criticise, I suspect, because people ARE doing guilt by association, with a touch of racism.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
MJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 441

posted 04 December 2001 06:01 PM      Profile for MJ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
RockyMcCrakcen wrote:

quote:
There is no defence in demanding that every muslim apologise for the actions of other muslims as much as there is no defence for every Chinese apologising for the actions of their government in Tibet. It is simply a ludricous argument.
---------------------------------------------

I certainly haven't made that arguement and don't think anyone else here has either. My original arguement was focused on whether world leaders should be glad handing Muslim leaders that either aren't condemning or are turning a blind eye to mass murder?


But, from earlier posts:

quote:
while Muslim clerics and scholars have barely acknowleged or condemned Sept. 11th.

I have read the news and the reaction from the Muslim community has been luke-warm at best.


Vague language, but it contains implications that *all* Muslims and Muslim clerics believe/act a certain way, not just the "leadership".


From: Around. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 06:03 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
American loose screws losing interest in militias is a far cry from aplogising. If the interest was still there they would be growing. As well, was there a war against militias? As a white, christian, did you apoligise? Which of course, if you read my post, there is no need.

In an earlier post I pointed out that Bush et al, were meeting with leaders of the Islam faith and urging restraint because in the days following the attack there were shootings, killings and arson attacks committed against brown people most of whom were sikhs and hindus. Because, you see (or maybe you don't) the bigots and rednecks don't know a muslim from any other brown skinned person or a mosque from a temple.

quote:
Is it to much of a stretch to infer that some sects of fundamentalist Islam encourage militarism and terrorism on a global scale?


Certainly not. But they do not represent all muslims. Just as some western organizations do the same. Do you apoligise for them? Do you feel a need to speak out and distance yourself from them?

When a synagogue is attacked or defaced do you apologise to the jewish community? Do you announce publically you are not a skin head and you denounce all such acts?

Again, the argument is ludicrous.

quote:
I'm a racist and a bigot for even attempting to ask the question apparently..

Thos would be your words.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
David Kyle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1530

posted 04 December 2001 06:07 PM      Profile for David Kyle     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have read the news and the reaction from the Muslim community has been luke-warm at best.

Meades, "This Morning" on CBC One covered this a few weeks ago. I hadn't realized there was a great deal of criticism within the Muslim community towards the poor response of their religious and community leaders. I haven't seen much coverage of this in the Canadian media.

From: canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 06:25 PM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As a white, christian, did you apoligise? Which of course, if you read my post, there is no need.

If I were a Christian leader and the Prez was visiting me encouraging peace and understanding towards my religious persuasion in the face of a horrific event....ummm yes.. I think I could muster a denunciation of mass murder.

quote:
When a synagogue is attacked or defaced do you apologise to the jewish community? Do you announce publically you are not a skin head and you denounce all such acts?

If I were a Jewish leader and the President were visiting me urging peace and understanding towards my religious persuasion in the face of a horrific event....ummm yes.. I think I could muster a denunciation of mass murder.

quote:
Because, you see (or maybe you don't) the bigots and rednecks don't know a muslim from any other brown skinned person or a mosque from a temple.

And you think these "bigots and rednecks" (that can't tell a Muslim from a Native American) are going care about how Bush or Cretien pay phony homage to a religion that 3 months ago they new nothing about?
Violence against Muslims post-Sept. 11th did happen, no question but it was commited by idiots and extremists on a very small scale.


quote:
Vague language, but it contains implications that *all* Muslims and Muslim clerics believe/act a certain way, not just the "leadership".

Nice hair-splitting MJ.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: RockyMcCracken ]


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
MJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 441

posted 04 December 2001 06:31 PM      Profile for MJ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Violence against Muslims post-Sept. 11th did happen, no question but it was commited by idiots and extremists on a very small scale.

That may be true. But, on what do you base such a claim? Have you seen studies, the results of investigations, polls? Are you basing it on the lack of stories in the media? What is the source? And what is a very small scale?


From: Around. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 06:41 PM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rock: I'm a racist and a bigot for even attempting to ask the question apparently..
Wingnut: Thos would be your words.


Dr. Conway: Rocky, I don't suppose you're kin folk to Pat Robertson or something like that.

WingNut: (imagine!!) It is to discourage all the racist rednecks that would blame all muslims for what happened. None of those here, though. Is there?

Meades: If you can't see people as individuals and get passed the guilt-by-association (vaguely but unmistakably labellng me as a racist)

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: RockyMcCracken ]


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
MJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 441

posted 04 December 2001 06:50 PM      Profile for MJ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Nice hair-splitting MJ.

What you call hair-splitting, Rocky, I call pointing out fuzzy language discrepancy. I generally take the word 'community', particularly when prefaced with an adjective, to refer to an entire group and not just a sub-section of that group.

From M-W.com:

"com·mu·ni·ty: a unified body of individuals

d : a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society"


From: Around. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 06:57 PM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What you call hair-splitting, Rocky, I call pointing out fuzzy language discrepancy.

I apologize profusely for our "fuzzy language discrepancy" then. I erroneously referred to Muslim leaders as a community, by your definition, apparently.

(walks out of the room backwards with his head down)


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 20

posted 04 December 2001 06:58 PM      Profile for Nic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Nic ]


From: Incheon, Korea | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 04 December 2001 07:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh Nic, that's so wrong. Don't post a rant and then delete it. That's no fun at all! (I'm assuming it must have been a rant or you wouldn't have deleted it)
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 04 December 2001 07:16 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
first off, as a Muslim, and as somebody who is studying Arabic, the correct term is "Imaam"--"Imaan" means "faith". as an English major, i'll also say that "Imaan" is indeed listed in the English dictionary as an alternative to "Imaam," but it is the legitimized product of a typically Orientalist slip-up. also, it's archaic, like saying "Mohammedan" instead of "Muslim". its use would indeed make the ignorance of the user clear.

as to the 36 out of 38 Imaams who don't decry terrorism, i'd like to point out that there are *a lot* more than 38 Imaams in this country. the fact that only 38 were surveyed skews the figures just a little bit. the survey is therefore questionable at least. whether or not its results are correct, Rocky, why don't you ask your Muslim friends what *they* think about September 11th, rather than blasting Muslim "clerics" and "scholars," as though they were representative? why is it that the act of stepping into a mosque has to do with clerics rather than with people?

i assume, Rocky, that you're smart enough to know, at least, that *Muslims* in Canada, the US, Egypt, Palestine, etc., *have* condemned the attacks, have given blood and money to NYC, have held candle-light vigils, and have written desperately about taking Islam back from the fundamentalists while the US is busy creating more of them.

in any case, as for George Bush's message of "peace"...Rocky has characterised it as "phony," and i certainly agree.


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 07:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Rock: I'm a racist and a bigot for even attempting to ask the question apparently..
Wingnut: Thos would be your words.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Conway: Rocky, I don't suppose you're kin folk to Pat Robertson or something like that.

WingNut: (imagine!!) It is to discourage all the racist rednecks that would blame all muslims for what happened. None of those here, though. Is there?

Meades: If you can't see people as individuals and get passed the guilt-by-association (vaguely but unmistakably labellng me as a racist)



So the only quote you have from me is both altered by you and taken out of the context to which it was provided. Hmmmm. Still, please do not allow me to prevent you from hanging upon yourself a label. Just don't claim I put it there.

It is so safe and easy to claim you would apologize when there is no fear you will ever need to. And it is interesting, also. You say 3 months ago Bush and Chretien knew nothing about Islam. Isn't Bush and Chretien, while visiting all these mosques and meeting with all these religious leaders claiming to both domestic and international audiences that their's is a war NOT against islam? Could all that pandering that has you so personally aggreived be simple propaganda to maintain a coallition that contains nations which are primarily islam?

No that couldn't be. Because if it were it would render your argument yet more ludicrous.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 07:24 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
as to the 36 out of 38 Imaams who don't decry terrorism, i'd like to point out that there are *a lot* more than 38 Imaams in this country. the fact that only 38 were surveyed skews the figures just a little bit.

I would like to add we are yet to actually see that survey.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 07:31 PM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
Nic wrote:
quote:
Oh of course! We should only search the bags of men with dark hair and beards. That wouldn’t open up a hole in our security at all.

No, but let's use a little common-sense instead of "woosifying" security to placate political correctness and the sheer idiocy that's passing for tightened security in our airports. Does it make any fricken sense that we're confiscating nail clippers or tweezers or knitting needles from Grandma while we serve dinner on planes with knives, forks and wine bottles?? If someone really,really,really wanted to highjack a plane they could do it with a sharpened credit card or martial arts training for crikey sakes.

El Al in Israel, replaces "everyone's an equal threat, so strip search everyone" b.s, with a "secret service" of the airports approach. A few, highly trained, highly skilled and highly experienced personnel use the old detective approach to preventing highjackings and bombings ...... awfully effectively too. The know what questions to ask, what the responses should be and WHO they should search.


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
RockyMcCracken
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1903

posted 04 December 2001 07:49 PM      Profile for RockyMcCracken        Edit/Delete Post
WingNut:
quote:
So the only quote you have from me is both altered by you and taken out of the context to which it was provided.

Taken out of context... You sound like an athlete that blasts his coach or his teammates, then backtracks with the old "out of context" cliche to cover his butt.
I edited your post for space not content.

WingNut:

quote:
There is a reason to all the pandering. It is to discourage all the racist rednecks that would blame all muslims for what happened. None of those here, though. Is there?

What context should I place that in dear sir? Was that a compliment mistaken for a rallying cry of "racist on board!"? I know you weren't refering to anyone else since it was the 3rd post of this discussion.....Commence squirming..

quote:
I would like to add we are yet to actually see that survey.

I'm sure if you did it would be dismissed as biased, racist, unreliable or some other such conveniant fire-phrase. The original article I posted refered to it, but I saw it in print, not on-line. Im sure if you contacted the Ottawa Citizen, they would be happy to oblige.

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: RockyMcCracken ]

[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: RockyMcCracken ]


From: Sk. | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 07:56 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was a rhetorical question and directed at the content of the article which you posted, Rocky. If you wish to read a personal reference in it, that is up to you. But, again, you are labelling yourself. And you seem so determined to have me do it for you.

Could you provide the date and title to the Ottawa Citizen survey you cited? I can't find it on-line.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 20

posted 04 December 2001 08:04 PM      Profile for Nic     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was a joke...have you ever seen a picture of Mark Steyn? (not Mark Stein, who is selling Halifax )Maybe there is another Mark Steyn who wrote this article.

I was talking about the idiotic article you posted. Mark wasn't talking about psychic airport sleuths, he was talking about racial profiling. My joke was that Mark Steyn fits the racial profile if you squint. I also wanted to point out that if one is really serious about racial profiling, which Mark Steyn appears to be, it actually opens up a huge security hole since the best way to avoid being caught becomes not fitting the profile. I never said that everyone should be strip-searched or anything like that. Mark Steyn is the one who implied that if we were to only search Arab looking people we would all save plenty of time and we would also be safer. He of course didn’t say that outright because if he did he would have exposed just how much crap he is full of.

Michelle, my earlier delegated post was unfortunately not a rant. I just wanted to clarify what exactly the debate here was over, but then I decided that my questions weren’t very helpful so I nixed them.


From: Incheon, Korea | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 04 December 2001 10:25 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you can't see people as individuals and get passed the guilt-by-association trash that's being thown at you (and at us, by your recycling of the trash) then that's your problem, but don't come whining over here seeking sympathy for ignorance.

That is the whole quote from which Rocky selected the words "If you can't see people as individuals and get passed the guilt-by-association...", and used that phrase to suggest that I was calling her a racist.

Not only does that comment NOT label Rocky as a racist, but I also stand by it. The comment could be construed to mean that I think of Rocky is ignorant, but not racist. I'm sure we can all agree that there is a big difference between being ignorant, and being a racist.

Also, Mohamad Khan- sorry about the Imaam, thing- I got a little confused as I explained in my last post ...good post, might I add!


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 04 December 2001 11:07 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm reading this post and everybody seems to be making excuses for muslim clerics who do not denounce the violence on Sept. 11 claimed to be done in the name of islam.

Sounds like rubbish to me.

Lets move on to the next step. Any school that teaches children to hate should be shut down. Any muslim in a position of authority that not only states death to america, death to israel but gets children to chant along should be dealt with.

This war is turning into a war on a part of the muslim population, those who teach and preach hatred and death and the authorities who continue to allow them to do this to innocent children.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 11:28 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you include Christian and Jewish schools in there, markbo?

What about the Rev. Ian Paisley and his church? He has been in Canada? Do we arrest him and shut down his churches? And do we arrest the parishioners?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 04 December 2001 11:36 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Any classroom that has children chanting "Death to ......" should be shut down. I don't care which religion it is peverting. Jewish, Christian or Islam.

Last weekend I saw an article about how several mosques in Toronto also preach hatred to Americans.

We have Hate laws in Canada, I support them. I think that Muslim countries should also have them.

I think that when governments claim to support Israel's and Palestines existance, while at the same time allowing their schools to teach people to hate is hypocracy.

Pakistan seems to be guilty of this, but we know its government is trying. We need to see this effort made by Palestinian authority and Saudi Arabia.

Otherwise this will become sort of a religious war. Its the war against those who pevert a religion.


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 04 December 2001 11:42 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about Israel? You do not think Jewish religious students are being taught to hate Palestinians?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 December 2001 12:31 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hypocrisy, folks.

WingNut: Shucks, no. Religious schools are just there to teach the Judaic Manifest Destiny. No built-in assumption of superiority there, nossir.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 05 December 2001 12:37 AM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm reading this post and everybody seems to be making excuses for muslim clerics who do not denounce the violence on Sept. 11 claimed to be done in the name of islam. Sounds like rubbish to me.

listen, man, let me be reasonable. i, for one, am not making excuses for imaams who do not denounce the violence of September 11th. what i'm saying is that if there are imaams out there who do that (and i'm sure there must be), they do not represent moderate muslims. if they can plausibly be prosecuted under the same laws used against fascists, haul their asses to jail. they're threats to Islam as well as to humanity. but if the prosecutions uses the same kind of decontextualising logic used to condemn Sunera Thobani, i won't have any of it.

what worries me about statements like Rocky's and Markbo's is that they don't present a balanced view of the situation--at least, not in their posts. if you condemn people for filling the minds of children with Anti-American hatred, well, i condemn them with you. if you condemn Hamas, the Talibaan and others for killing children, i'm on your side. but if you then turn around and refuse to condemn the murders that have been committed and that continue to be committed by the United States gov't and *their* allies, such as the Israeli gov't, the Northern Alliance, the Turkish gov't, the Saudi gov't, etc.

so, Markbo, i agree with you completely, as long as you have the guts to stick to your argument, and to add that the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hatred voiced by members of the Knesset should be punished with equal severity, and that the US's killings of innocent men, women, and children in Afghanistan should not go uninvestigated or forgotten.

if you do that, i couldn't agree with you more, my friend.


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 05 December 2001 12:57 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

What about Israel? You do not think Jewish religious students are being taught to hate Palestinians?


quote:

hypocrisy, folks.
WingNut: Shucks, no. Religious schools are just there to teach the Judaic Manifest Destiny. No built-in assumption of superiority there, nossir.

[/QUOTE]

quote:

Any classroom that has children chanting "Death to ......" should be shut down. I don't care which religion it is peverting. Jewish, Christian or Islam.

I think that when governments claim to support Israel's and Palestines existance, while at the same time allowing their schools to teach people to hate is hypocracy.


I don't think I could have made it any clearer that I wasn't being a hypocrate.

Teaching that your religion is better is different from teaching people to hate other religions and wish them death.

quote:

listen, man, let me be reasonable. i, for one, am not making excuses for imaams who do not denounce the violence of September 11th. what i'm saying is that if there are imaams out there who do that (and i'm sure there must be), they do not represent moderate muslims.

I understand that, I'm saying that dealing with them will show the world that they do not represent moderate muslims.

If Canadians publicly preached and instructed death to all muslims, our leaders and community would stop them.

quote:

if they can plausibly be prosecuted under the same laws used against fascists, haul their asses to jail. they're threats to Islam as well as to humanity. but if the prosecutions uses the same kind of decontextualising logic used to condemn Sunera Thobani, i won't have any of it.

Sunera Thobani chose her words carefully, the mainstream populations disgust with those words shows the U.S. that the majority does not feel the same way. If Muslim clerics and leaders would assert that same disgust with Muslims who preach death to america and israel, that would be great.

quote:

what worries me about statements like Rocky's and Markbo's is that they don't present a balanced view of the situation--

The other side is represented fine. I am for shutting down any person who peverts a religion. Christianity, Islam or Judaism. None of those religions preach killing innocent people. Only the assholes who pevert them. Read the Onion article regarding this.

quote:

at least, not in their posts. if you condemn people for filling the minds of children with Anti-American hatred, well, i condemn them with you. if you condemn Hamas, the Talibaan and others for killing children, i'm on your side.

Great, thats all I'm saying, HOWEVER

quote:

but if you then turn around and refuse to condemn the murders that have been committed and that continue to be committed by the United States gov't and *their* allies, such as the Israeli gov't, the Northern Alliance, the Turkish gov't, the Saudi gov't, etc.

We may just disagree on what you consider murder and defense. I condemn anybody that targets innocent civillians for death. all those countries have been guilty of this and deserve condemnation for those actions. However, America's attack on the Taleban in afghanistan is not one of those situations.

I'm not familiar with the teachings of Knesset but I will wholeheartedly condemn and denounce anybody who is against the Islamic faith. Although I still have a problem with the muslim faith when dealing with apostacy.

Curious, what is your position on apostacy, and would you condemn islamic countries who make it a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death?????


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 December 2001 01:23 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know, markbo, I don't disagree with you on this issue. I just wish you could learn to replace Islam or Muslim with any religion or any person all the time. Should you do that, then I think you are being fair. But when you single out one faith or one group, then I am not sure.

Finally, I am watching the news here. I see dead Israelis from suicide bombers and I see dead Palestinians from Israeli rockets. Terrorism? War? The definition seems to balance on the manner in which the explosives are delivered. Such a fine line. And utterly meaningless.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 December 2001 01:28 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I don't think I could have made it any clearer that I wasn't being a hypocrate.

I wasn't calling you one. I was correcting your spelling.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
QuikSilver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1470

posted 05 December 2001 02:46 AM      Profile for QuikSilver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Finally, I am watching the news here. I see dead Israelis from suicide bombers and I see dead Palestinians from Israeli rockets. Terrorism? War? The definition seems to balance on the manner in which the explosives are delivered. Such a fine line.

How can you, with a straight face, equate a bomb in a mall filled with teenagers to Israeli rockets hitting a helicopter hangar and a near vacant state office? Unbelievable..

quote:
murders that have been committed and that continue to be committed by the United States gov't and *their* allies, such as the Israeli gov't, the Northern Alliance, the Turkish gov't, the Saudi gov't, etc.

"Their allies"..that's a pretty vague term, intentional I'm sure. Is the U.S responsible for the actions of every nation/group it has cooperated with in the 20th Century? This is the kind of abdication of responsiblity and finger pointing that breeds the hatred we have on our hands now.
The U.S has NEVER sent troops to defend Israel. Israel has been attacked mercilessly, from the time of it's inception, often by 5 or 6 or 7 nations at a time. Do you really think that in the face of several nations whose goal it is to push Israel of the map they have no right to make war and defend themselves? Can you say "second holocaust" if they hadn't/didn't? The U.S HAS sent armed forces three times in the past ten years to prevent the further slaughter of, primarily, Muslims. (Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia) Yes they "senselessly slaughtered(?)" in the thousands those whose goal it was to kill Muslims in the millions. What a bunch of bastards...
As for the Saudi's, as currupt as the royal family is, please explain the favorable alternative? Personally I cringe at the thought of the clerics in Saudi, who are widely supported, coming to power. I mean, don't they behead an infidel every Friday? These people that finace the foreign schools of Wannabism ,which are basically technical schools for terrorists, putting a gun in one hand and a Koran in the other... is that the answer? Enlighten me.
The Northern Alliance.. Are they wonderful people? Of course not. If the US had used it's own ground troops in Afghanistan, the anti-war crowd would be wailing as loud or louder. I'm sorry but the Taliban was a murderous and oppressive regime that deserved to be toppled one way or the other. The lives of the Afghanis will be infinately better in the future as a result of military action. Do I, and everyone else, wish we live in a Utopia where this could be accomplished peacefully and bloodlessly? Of course. But does the end justify the means? Bet your ass it does.

AS for the U.S killing civilians. If it can be proved that it targetted civilians and civilian targets, they deseve to be condemned and punished. (I can't for a second imagine why they would do this, seeing as they have pledged to rebuild the country afterwards) I'll also bet you my house that this is the most bloodless conflict in the history of Afghanistan, and that fewer civilians have died than any other armed conflict of this scale.
And don't give me this b.s that all death is equal, no matter how or why it happened. An unfortunate, accidental civilian death in a bombing raid versus the inevitable thousands of deaths under the Taliban. It's like parking your car on a street, not setting the e-brake and having your car roll over an old women...vs..... bludgening an old woman with a basebal bat. Same result, same crime right?

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]


From: Your Wildest Fantasies | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 December 2001 02:55 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The U.S has NEVER sent troops to defend Israel.

Actually, Reagan ordered troops over to Lebanon and yanked Israel's leash as the IDF was in the middle of stomping all over that country.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 December 2001 02:56 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How can you, with a straight face, equate a bomb in a mall filled with teenagers to Israeli rockets hitting a helicopter hangar and a near vacant state office? Unbelievable..

Perhaps the news you watch doesn't provide the dirty details. The first victim of the rocket attacks was a 15-year-old school boy. The target struck was right next door to a school. How do you deny terror with a straight face? Incredibly unbelievable.

You remind me of the combatants in this mess. Their own losses are a tragedy and demanding of revenge. The losses on the other side are unfortunate but necessary. And so the cycle continues. And Satan laughing spreads his wings ...


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 December 2001 03:17 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
(off-topic alert)

Speaking of pandering, you know what totally redefines the meaning of the word "pander"? Try back when the Republicans rammed through a provision in tax law called "neutral cost recovery" back in 1995. That alone gave new meaning to the word pander because it gave corporations accelerated tax write-offs to the point where if you wrote off a million bucks worth of machinery the government would cut a check for $2 million.

Now THAT'S what I call PANDERING.

Not some wussy-assed imam who didn't say what some smart-mouth thought he should have said.

(end off-topic alert)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MJ
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 441

posted 05 December 2001 01:59 PM      Profile for MJ     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How can you, with a straight face, equate a bomb in a mall filled with teenagers to Israeli rockets hitting a helicopter hangar and a near vacant state office? Unbelievable..

As Wingnut said, 2 people were killed in the rocket attack, one of them a 15-year old. In addition, dozens of children at a school nearby were injured by shrapnel from the explosion.

And, what about the fact that, according to the Red Cross/Red Crescent Society, as of June (sorry, I don't have more recent data) 150 Palestinian children 17 or under had been killed? Of those, 26 were less than 12 years old. Sure, maybe they weren't killed by a suicide bomber, but does that make the deaths any less sad and tragic?


From: Around. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 05 December 2001 02:34 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The U.S has NEVER sent troops to defend Israel. Israel has been attacked mercilessly, from the time of it's inception, often by 5 or 6 or 7 nations at a time. Do you really think that in the face of several nations whose goal it is to push Israel of the map they have no right to make war and defend themselves?

Ever wondered why? And don't forget about the Zionist terrorism that accompanied the run up to the birth of the state of Israel. So they have historical prerogative from x000 years ago, and guess what, the Palestinians historical prerogative dates from before theirs. That particular land was Palestinian LONG before it was Israel, so when you wonder why they get so pissed, it might have something to do with the fact that they are occupied, settled on, abused, accused of terrrorism and ignored by the rest of the world, especially America, who refuse to follow/enforce UN resolutions yet are happy to do so in Afghanistan.

quote:
accidental civilian death in a bombing raid versus the inevitable thousands of deaths under the Taliban

Source for deaths under the Taliban (or was it just gleaned from the myriad of news reports about how nasty, mean and oppressive the Taliban were whilst not giving figures) - from the news reports I have read I would say the US and the Northern Alliance have been responsible for the 'unintentional' deaths of many many more people in the past two months than the Taliban were. Yes, the Taliban were a bunch of oppressive bastards and yes, it is great to see them go, but let's wait for a bit and see the FULL cost of their departure, the full extent of the lives that were lost before we start jumping for joy!

quote:
We may just disagree on what you consider murder and defense. I condemn anybody that targets innocent civillians for death. all those countries have been guilty of this and deserve condemnation for those actions. However, America's attack on the Taleban in afghanistan is not one of those situations.


Its just words. You can twist the words till your blue in the face and say that they never target civilians, they are just collateral damage in a bigger picture and you can then say that Bin Laden was targetting civilians who had no say in what their country did and had no effect on their country's actions, but it is just twisting words and their meanings. Are we really saying that people have no power over their governments in a democracy? That any policies abroad are a result of some ruling elite with maniacal world domination views.

Bush claims to be fighting a 'crusade' against terrorism. Terrorism is about creating terror, and the WHOLE intention of the campaign is to create enough terror in the world that people will not attack the USA again. You call it defense of your nation.

Well, guess what, so does Yasser Arafat!

"A plague on BOTH your houses!"


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 358

posted 05 December 2001 04:34 PM      Profile for Adam     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"A plague o' both your houses!" (III,i)

Love,
The Shakespeare Police


From: MurderHouse Nation | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 05 December 2001 05:24 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
FAO The Shakespeare Police


Which folio?



From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 05 December 2001 05:28 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We have Hate laws in Canada, I support them.

That's not what you said a few months ago! Back then, you were crying about how Canada along with the UN were pushing the US to introduce similar laws, which would limit freedom of speech. If I'm not mistaken, I believe you suggested that Canada should not only defend the US's position, but follow in their path (I'm not so sure about that last bit- my memory is a bit foggy concerning this)

So which is it? Freedom of speech (or lack thereof, in this circumstance(and by the way- where did you get the impression that those Imaams who were not condeming the attacks of sept.11th were getting others to chant "death to america"?)), or anti-hate laws?

quote:
the mainstream populations disgust with
those words

No, what the mainstreme was disgusted with was the exerpts that the media reported which were taken out of context and distorted- quite a big difference.

quote:

How can you, with a straight face, equate a bomb in a mall filled with teenagers to
Israeli rockets hitting a helicopter hangar and a near vacant state office? Unbelievable..

Because a 15 year old boy was killed!!!! 15 years old, dammit! That's MY age!!! You all know that I'm pretty neutral on the Mideast conflict, but this is unacceptable- I now consider the Israeli army to be a terrorist organization (or at least the senior military planners), and Ariel Sharon is the sniper that killed the mid-east peace process! Don't you remember? He's the one that triggered the Intifada! That bastard should be brought to the Hague, and left to rot in jail for the rest of his life! With any luck, Avoda and Meretz will expose the lies of his administration and sweep into power next election.

quote:
Israel has been attacked mercilessly,
from the time of it's inception, often by 5 or 6 or 7 nations at a time. Do you really think
that in the face of several nations whose goal it is to push Israel of the map they have
no right to make war and defend themselves?

Oh wake up!!! No neighboring countries "have it in for Israel" any more! Syria has a grudge and a border dispute- Lebanon isn't a problem anymore- THANKS TO EHUD BARAK AND AVODA!!! They occupy the Gaza Strip and West Bank! Ariel Sharon started the intifada out of his own greedy self interest and hawkish lust for the Prime Ministership, which is the only reason Ehud Barak isn't PM today! Violence begets violence- this kind of war does NOT EVER result in peace! In this situation, only peace can change anything and save lives!

quote:
If Canadians publicly preached and instructed death to all muslims, our leaders and
community would stop them.

This may be hairsplitting, but Markbo- I believe you mean "If non-muslim Canadians publicly preached and instructed death to all muslims, in Canada and abroad, our leaders and community would stop them."


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 05 December 2001 05:28 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
Couldn't help noticing:

quote:
Had some ‘Christian fundamentalists’ slaughtered thousands of civilians in the name of their faith


They have haven't they, all across the world, in the name of civilisation (and colonisation) and at the conference in Durban, they were asked to apologise but all they did was express regret, and that was pretty half hearted, for fear of law suits.

And will we see apologies for the many civilians that are dying in Afghanistan or Palestine as a result of two 'crusades'?

Hmmm...


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 05:36 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I read this thread through and have to say that I agree with some of what Rocky is saying, that is, that muslim leaders have been reluctant to denounce the attacks and at times seem to not to be able to even reason that muslims committed them.

I don't have a problem with Western leaders deliberately and publicly courting the muslim leaders, because this in and of itself fosters good faith among the masses, most of whom get their daily political opinion from "HardCopy" or their local newspaper.

The thing is that Islam is a far-reaching and more openly devotional religion that Christianity - by that I mean that most muslims will tell you that any other muslim, of any race, is a brother, and that Islam comes before country.

So essentially we have a incredibly huge, mobile and dedicated following, who put great stock in the official stance of their religious leaders. It becomes very important for clerics and imams to denounce terrorism in principle, anywhere, even if they themselves (and they mostly do) feel the US has brought havoc upon themselves by virtue of their foreign policy. To openly say that this cannot be the work of muslims is to perpetuate the conspiracy theories that have floated around. (One heard firsthand from an Arab friend is that Israel's Mossad, in cahoots with the US, flew the planes into the towers to shift world hatred and anger onto muslims and Arabs).

Anyways, that my 2 cents...


From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
judym
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 29

posted 05 December 2001 05:52 PM      Profile for judym   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The thing is that Islam is a far-reaching and more openly devotional religion that Christianity - by that I mean that most muslims will tell you that any other muslim, of any race, is a brother, and that Islam comes before country.

How does this fit into the Iraq/Iran war? Tensions between Iran and the Taliban regime? Between Iran and Pakistan? The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?


From: earth | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 December 2001 06:05 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I appreciate your comments Chickenbum. Intersesting name, by the way. I am afraid to ask of the origin.

In any case, I would point out most Americans found it very hard to believe Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma building. Some believed he was a patsy for some government conspiracy. And again, it is no more important for islamic leaders to distance themselves from the work of extremists who call themselves islamic then it is for Americans to distance themselves from extremists who call themselves American.

Can you not see the double standard?

And to suggest that Islamic peoples are one who follow their leaders as one is to be totally unaware of the deep divisions that exist within islam, itself.

Iran, for example supports the Northern Alliance while Pakistan, up to now, have been supporting the Taliban. And interestingly, these divisions tend to match ethnic and tribal lines. Does islam really come first?

Followers of Islam are like followers of any other faith. There are fundamentalists, evangelists, believers, those that just attend the mosque on Friday and those who are islam in name only.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 06:09 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How does this fit into the Iraq/Iran war? Tensions between Iran and the Taliban regime? Between Iran and Pakistan? The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?

Hmmm. Well, this broadens the topic quite a bit, to say the least. First I would have to separate those conflicts for which the root is the fundamental differences between the Sunni and Shi'a muslim groups. Then I would have to say, as a factual statement, that just as the Christian Orthodox empire was riven by countless versions of it's faith and countless wars, the Arabs and muslims through history have found no shortage of reasons to war with one another.

It seems over the last thousand years that the only thing to unite the factions is a holy war against one of the two other religions.

In the case of the Taleban, I believe we have a group who are driven by what they consider a divine guidance to impose the "true" nature of Islam on whomever they can -- and it gets uglier when the rhetoric of some of the extremists surfaces, to the point where "eradication of the infidels" is bandied about like the minutes of last week's PTA meeting. So in essence, if I'm the Taliban, and you are a muslim but you don't subsribe to my version of "pure" Islamism, then you are not a true muslim, not my brother, and thus a non-believer.

I think the main point about this thread deals more with the muslim population of the Western world, who more or less share our social customs and processes.


From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 05 December 2001 06:10 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
To openly say that this cannot be the work of muslims is to perpetuate the conspiracy theories that have floated around


But what if that is what they believe? There are many people who have doubts about the authenticity of the 'official' version of events. There are so many questions that arise and you seem to be saying that they should denounce a crime that has not yet been proven as committed by Muslims. Sure, we may feel confident in the official version, but in a community that maybe has felt threatened before 9/11, and when they see a response that seems to back up their worry about a war on Islam, it makes it hard for them, perhaps.


Another thought that occurred. As the attackers were extremists, whose actions were not genuinely Islamic, why should the Muslim community have to express remorse? The hijackers died as infidels surely for the horrendous sin they had committed, so why should Muslims denounce them? They weren't Muslims, they were terrorists. The two are completely separate.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 06:20 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good point wingnut. I can only agree to disagree on this point. I think Americans who enjoy the fruits of their economy and way of life should, at least in spirit, denounce the views of an extremist like Mcveigh.

And that is true about the many streams/conflicts within Islam, like any religion.

I guess my impression has been that spiritual leaders of any faith are important to it's followers -- and if the muslim masses are beholden to one entity only, and that is Allah, then the rest of us better hope that Allah's pre-ordained mouthpieces aren't advocating widespread destruction of the West (hyperbole, to be sure). If a percentage of muslims the world over believe in Bin Laden's cause and have not been educated to the possibility that there may be much more to the story than Americans and Jews storming the Rock of the Dome, then it becomes extremely important for the more critical (sane?) leaders/imams/what have you to provide intelligent and rational stances based on critical understanding of the facts.


From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 05 December 2001 06:22 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Apemantus: Ever wondered why? And don't forget about the Zionist terrorism that accompanied the run up to the birth of the state of Israel. So they have historical prerogative from x000 years ago, and guess what, the Palestinians historical prerogative dates from before theirs. That particular land was Palestinian LONG before it was Israel, so when you wonder why they get so pissed, it might have something to do with the fact that they are occupied, settled on, abused, accused of terrrorism and ignored by the rest of the world, especially America, who refuse to follow/enforce UN resolutions yet are happy to do so in Afghanistan.

Excellent point. I've never heard a satisfactory response to this observation. Any efforts by babblers welcome.


From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 06:30 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow, this should be an entertaining can of worms.

How bout this to start off: Palestine was not a state before it was the land of the Jews, it was the land of the Philistines around 1000 BC, then subsequently conquered by umpteen nation-states before being known as Judea around 500 BC. Then conquered by the Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians, re-asserted by the Babylonain Cyrus, then the Roman's attempted to subjugate them, they revolted, beginning in 75 BC and in 135 BC the Romans had had enough, shipped the Jews out to the far reaches of the Empire to do labour, trashed the Temple in Jerusaleum, banned the word "Judea" renamed the town and renamed the land "Palestine" after the long-conquered PHilistines.

Phew. Throw in some more conquering here, more slavery there, an deeply symbolic Arab temple on holy ground in the 7th c. and we have the basis for a grand debate on historical relativism.


From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 05 December 2001 06:33 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Simple question: who was living there in the 1940's and for how long?
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 December 2001 06:39 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And as a descendent of the Philistines I demand the right of return and that everyone else leave. Failing that, I will accept a large sum of cash.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
QuikSilver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1470

posted 05 December 2001 06:43 PM      Profile for QuikSilver     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They have haven't they, all across the world, in the name of civilisation (and colonisation) and at the conference in Durban, they were asked to apologise but all they did was express regret, and that was pretty half hearted, for fear of law suits.

Gawd.. If I hear about one more contemporary leader being forced to apoligize for a historical injustice, I just might ralph. Doesn't it go without saying that everyone is regretful, sorry, shameful about historical oppression of women/slavery/murder of natives/(insert your injustice here)? Lets take a poll on this board or even across the country. Right, left, center..we all feel the same way. But getting hung up on world leaders mouthing the words for something that their ancestors did? If we follow that logic shouldn't Cretien also take credit for allowing women to vote, Clinton for freeing the slaves, Blair for defeating the Spanish Armada?? We truly live in an phony, Oprah-fied culture, where everyone has to vent and heal in front of everyone else. And if you don't, your an insensitive a-hole.
Lawsuits for filed for your great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather? Thats anouther story. My ancestors were slaves in Egypt for 2000 years, King Tut's lineage can expect a bill from me!

quote:
Oh wake up!!! No neighboring countries "have it in for Israel" any more!

I assume you are joking, sadated or intoxicated..haha

quote:
Violence begets violence- this kind of war does NOT EVER result in peace!

Explaining warfare, to acheive a greater good, to an avowed pacifist is a bit like explaining an orgy to Mother Theresa. They'll never get it and they'll never accept it, so I wont bother. (ie. if one civilian unfortunatley dies, no matter how favorable the ultimate outcome, the mission is shot!)
The Israeli response to violence and terrorism, in the past two years (over a dozen attacks killing hundreds of Israeli's, by my count) has been REMARKABLY "peaceful" and restrained.
One of two scenarios exist; Either Arafat and the PLO are complicit in the terrorist attacks or he has absolutely no control in reigning in his people, apprehending and HOLDING (!!) the guilty. In either case, action is necessary.
Your comments about Sharon derailing the peace process are a few months to late...14 to be exact. Arafat had the deal of the century and a real shot at a Palestinian state, and walked away..(note walked away, not took a ten minute break ,not slept on it and returned with a counter offer, but walked away and continued the violence) Barak meet him WAY more than halfway. I know, only 20% of the original Palestinain lands blahblahblah...perhaps advocates of this position planned the Israeli to float on a barge in the Mediteranean?

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: QuikSilver ]


From: Your Wildest Fantasies | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 06:47 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, so history as a weapon is out. I thought so. Now the debate shifts to whether Israel has a right to exist or not.

And to answer your question, an religiously diverse group of folk led in numbers by Arab muslims but including: Jews, Christian Arabs, non-Arab muslims and non-Arab Christians.


From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Apemantus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1845

posted 05 December 2001 06:49 PM      Profile for Apemantus        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Hebrews were Semitic nomads who invaded Palestine from the East around 1500 BC. They secured no more than a foothold against the Philistines and spent the next 500 years confined to the hill country around the River Jordan.

Source - No Nonsense Guide To World History by Chris Brazier (Verso)

Anyone with more information about this period and this area please quote sources. I would be interested.


From: Brighton, UK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 05 December 2001 06:54 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Once the precedent of creating a state through terror is established, then what? You have some solutions to the mess the brits and the americans created 50 years ago, that will heal all wounds, satisfy all? As a pragmatic person, I expect that we havn't seen the end of violence coming out of this issue, because both sides are convinced that theirs is the ethical position. Who among us is Solomon? Yes terror visits us, buy why? Its worth considering. This is akin to a Greek tragedy, with no happy outcome that I can see. Too bad for us all, but greed knows no bounds anywhere you look.
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 07:17 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For Apemantus:

Just found this at www.infoplease.com (Columbia Ency, 6th Ed.):

quote:

History
Ancient Palestine
The earliest known inhabitants of Palestine were of the same group as the Neanderthal inhabitants of Europe. By the 4th millennium B.C. Palestine was inhabited by herders and farmers. It was in the 3d millennium that most of the towns known in historical times came into existence. They became centers of trade for Egyptian and Babylonian goods. During the 2d millennium, Palestine was ruled by the Hyksos and by the Egyptians. Toward the end of this period Moses led the Hebrew people (see Jews) out of Egypt, across the Sinai, and into Palestine.

[bold]Around 1200 B.C., the Philistines (“Sea Peoples”) invaded the southern coastland and established a powerful kingdom (see Philistia). The Hebrews were subject to the Philistines until c.1000 B.C., when an independent Hebrew kingdom was established under Saul, who was succeeded by David and then by Solomon. After the expansionist reign of Solomon (c.950 B.C.), the kingdom broke up into two states, Israel, with its capital at Samaria, and Judah, under the house of David, with its capital at Jerusalem. The two kingdoms were later conquered by expanding Mesopotamian states, Israel by Assyria (c.720 B.C.) and Judah by Babylonia (586 B.C.).[/bold]

In 539 B.C. the Persians conquered the Babylonians. The Jewish Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians, was rebuilt (516 B.C.). Under Persian rule Palestine enjoyed considerable autonomy. Alexander the Great of Macedon, conquered Palestine in 333 B.C. His successors, the Ptolemies and Seleucids, contested for Palestine. The attempt of the Seleucid Antiochus IV (Antiochus Epiphanes) to impose Hellenism brought a Jewish revolt under the Maccabees, who set up a new Jewish state in 142 B.C. The state lasted until 63 B.C., when Pompey conquered Palestine for Rome.


Also, from "The Middle East, 2000 yrs of.." by Bernard Lewis:

quote:

After the revolt of Bar-Kokhba in 135 CE the Romans decided once and for all to rid themselves of this troublesome people. ... the historic nomenclature was destroyed ... Jerusaleum was renamed Aelia Capitolina, and a temple to Jupiter built on the site of the destroyed Jewish temple. The names Judea and Samaria were abolished, and the country renamed Palestine [="Land of the Phillistines"], after the long forgotten Phillistines.


This is largely irrelevant at this point, in my opinion, though it quashes the "indigenous peoples" argument for Palestine...its largely moot both ways. I'm not for one or the other, just objective discussion..

I agree with your last statement Pankaj...there is no easy answer and no moral high ground...I take slight issue with the barb thrown the Americans and Brits, cause the Jews were headed back to Palestine long before 1948 and more so after the holocaust. In fact, the allies tried to turn this tide without success because it wasn't strategically beneficial at the time (see second source above).

Anyhoo...


From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 05 December 2001 07:19 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I really wonder about is why is folks like Quicksilver see the terror of the Palestinians but not the terror of the Israelis?

While Sharon claims Arafat does not stop Hamas, how many settlers have been charged with the assualt and murder of Palestinians? Why can't he stop the expansion of the settlements? Why can't Sharon stop Israeli extremists?

This is a two way street.

I have said this before and I will say it again: Sharon needs Hamas and Hamas needs Sharon. They are two sides of the same coin. They both depend on hatred and war for their political power.

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 05 December 2001 07:35 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do we agree that whatever its current legitimacy, Israel was founded on terror?
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 07:40 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, you're right, the jews probably were terrified of just about every country in Europe and elsewhere right about 1948.


From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 05 December 2001 07:46 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your answer is a bit off center, Chickenbum. Many jews remain in Europe, no? But what European country would slice itself in two for the jews? The European made mess was made to cross its own shores, just like its been made to do for a long time. Maybe, that will wipe the smile off your face. But, who knows; perhaps you're not actually interested in an objective disscussion. If I've misread you, then I apologize in advance. Ball's in your court.
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 December 2001 07:52 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Soviet Union actually kicked around the idea of setting an SSR for Jews, specifically.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 05 December 2001 07:58 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quiksilver first.

regarding Israel, let's turn the clock back a bit to the period before Hamas' massacre. please read the following synopsis by Ramzy Baroud:

quote:
Let us quickly pass by the last ten days prior to the suicide bombings.

On November 22, five Palestinian children from the same family were blown to pieces by the Israeli army while in their way to school in the Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis.

Western condemnation of the killings was hardly reported.

On November 23, 15 year old Wael Radwan was shot by Israeli troops in his way to the local graveyard with a crowd of Palestinian mourners to bury the five children.

No condemnation of the killing was reported in the Western world.

On November 23, Israeli tank shells exploded on the Beit Iba road near Nablus, killing two cousins, both named Mohamed Samaineh.

No condemnation of the killings was reported in the Western world.

More murders in November 23, when Mohamed Hinawi was killed when Israel shelled a taxi cab filled with passengers near Rafah.

No condemnation of the killing was reported in the Western world.

On November 25, Kifah Ebied from Dihisheh refugee camp in Bethlehem was killed by an Israeli sniper near a mosque.

No condemnation of the killing was reported in the Western world.

On November 28, 80-year-old Mousa Galami was intentionally run over by a settler’s car in Nablus.

No condemnation of the killing was reported in the Western world.

Rami Mansour from Gaza was killed by four Israeli bullets on November 29.

No condemnation of the killing was reported in the Western world.

Rashad Mhna and Hassan Zbeidi were both killed in their cars near a checkpoint when Israel opened fire toward Palestinian vehicles near the Jordanian border on November 29.

No condemnation of the killing was reported in the Western world.

Mohamed Shahlah, 10, and Rami Asous were killed on December 1, Mohamed was in his house when an Israeli shell claimed his life and Rami was in a taxi cab returning home.

No condemnation of the killing was reported in the Western world.

The murder of Palestinians at the hand of an invading army, backed by a racist government policy that legitimizes the murder of innocent people, managed to escape us, as if such news was as routine as weather and sports.


i'm guessing that you would (correctly) deny that Hamas' killing of 25 innocent people is an act of Palestinian self-defense. please tell me how Israel's murder of the Palestinians listed above, as well as approximately 160 others since October 17, is an act of self-defense, and how it helped to prevent the suicide bombings. also, let me know how it is that the deaths of these people prevents attacks from "5 or 6 or 7" nations at a time. your assertion that America has never sent troops to Israel overlooks the fact that America has given a great deal of aid to Israel--$92 billion--and to think that a large portion of this does not go into the army, and into weapons, is naive. finally, raising the specter of a "Second Holocaust" is quite clever (though i have Jewish friends who would recoil at the way you use it) but please tell me, who's in the ghetto this time?

quote:
"Their allies"..that's a pretty vague term, intentional I'm sure. Is the U.S responsible for the actions of every nation/group it has cooperated with in the 20th Century? This is the kind of abdication of responsiblity and finger pointing that breeds the hatred we have on our hands now.

well, the "cooperation" that you've cited is a good working definition. indeed, i do believe the US is partially responsible for the actions of its allies if it turns a blind eye to them, and continues to cooperate with them despite their human rights abuses. and just how does taking responsibility for these things breed hatred? hatred, i would think, is what you foster by *not* taking responsibility.

quote:
The U.S HAS sent armed forces three times in the past ten years to prevent the further slaughter of, primarily, Muslims. (Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia) Yes they "senselessly slaughtered(?)" in the thousands those whose goal it was to kill Muslims in the millions. What a bunch of bastards...

well, i won't even get started on Nicaragua and Honduras, and as for Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia, Quiksilver, we both know that in the aftermath of those wars, there have been a great number of refugees who have come to our continent. rather than presenting an argument in this case, i'll just draw your attention to the number of Bosnians and Somalis attending anti-war meetings and demonstrations, providing eye-witness accounts of civilian deaths caused by the US bombs, and the subsequent ruin of their countries. i'm sure you'll agree that the opinions of the "saved" matter just as much as the opinions of the saviour.

quote:
As for the Saudi's, as currupt as the royal family is, please explain the favorable alternative? Personally I cringe at the thought of the clerics in Saudi, who are widely supported, coming to power. I mean, don't they behead an infidel every Friday? These people that finace the foreign schools of Wannabism ,which are basically technical schools for terrorists, putting a gun in one hand and a Koran in the other... is that the answer? Enlighten me.

LOL! well, i can enlighten you on one matter at least: there is no such thing as "Wannabism"--members of the sect you are referring to are known as "Wahhabis". that little comedy aside (i don't mean to mock, you, man; i know it's a typo), you create a false dichotomy between the Saudi princes and the "much worse" Wahhabi clerics, without remarking that the royal family aids and abets those clerics themselves, so that the two groups are inextricably bound up with each other. it was the Saudi regime, for instance, that recommended Osama bin Laden to the CIA in the Afghani war on Communism. what can the Americans do? it's a big mess, i agree, but the least they can do is pull out of the region, and support the non-violent democratic resistance (which does, by the way, exist).

quote:
The Northern Alliance.. Are they wonderful people? Of course not. If the US had used it's own ground troops in Afghanistan, the anti-war crowd would be wailing as loud or louder. I'm sorry but the Taliban was a murderous and oppressive regime that deserved to be toppled one way or the other. The lives of the Afghanis will be infinately better in the future as a result of military action. Do I, and everyone else, wish we live in a Utopia where this could be accomplished peacefully and bloodlessly? Of course. But does the end justify the means? Bet your ass it does.

Quiksilver, your assertion that "the end justifies the means" is rather disturbing, because it fits in very well with the ideology of the Sept 11 terrorists. they apparently wanted, among other things, better lives for the Palestinian people, and an end to the US military presence in Saudi Arabia. some of their ends weren't so bad. it was precisely their means that marked them as murderers, and it should be no different in the case of the US, whose stated goals are civilised, but whose means are barbaric. your assertion that there was no alternative but to kill civilians is also disturbing. how do you know? make a list of all the peaceful alternatives that the US followed through and exhausted, before they started bombing. the view that Afghanis will be better off in the long run is questionable. which Afghanis? the King, the Northern Alliance, and Taliban moderates will certainly be better off. the people whose houses, parents, children and livelihoods have been wiped out by US bombs will not. children blown up by "food parcels" AKA cluster bombs may be better off in heaven, but are you going to get their parents to wave an American flag in appreciation? time and time again, groups such as Amnesty International, UNICEF and Human Rights Watch have warned the US about these things, yet the most destructive non-atomic weapons of war have been unleashed upon Afghanistan, not to mention illegal strategies such as cluster bombing. personally, i side with human rights agencies, and not with human rights violators.

but what's done is done. i'm glad the Taliban is gone, and i *hope* the Afghans will be better off; time will tell. but the ends does NOT justify the killing of civilians. i only hope that the innocent victims of these attacks are given some kind of compensation, and that the criminal negligence of the US is at least recognised by sane people. saying that these deaths are "unfortunate" is not enough. why must we play Wheel of Fortune when it comes to human life? steps must be taken to ensure that this will never happen again.

finally, Quiksilver, there is your comparison of the US attacks to having your car accidentally run over an old woman. that's ridiculous, because your analogy presents a very unlikely situation, and one in which the owner of the vehicle has no idea regarding the consequences of her or his negligence. when America began bombing Afghanistan, Washington knew that innocent people were going to die. it's more like drunk driving--Americans who would otherwise have recoiled at the thought that their government was going to fight a war in which civilians like themselves would die, were blinded by their rage, as a drunk is blinded by alcohol, and were consequently willing to play Russian Roulette with the lives of people on the other side of the world.

[ December 05, 2001: Message edited by: Mohamad Khan ]


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 08:21 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, fair enough. My point was that the word "terror" is bandied around quite a bid these days, and to single out the mix of people living in the slice of land known as Palestine as having experienced "terror" is a bit much to ask, given the circumstances. I'm not losing my objectivity, but I am refusing to sign off on your convictions. What does it mean when you say "there are still Jews in Europe?" Well, yes, adjusted for population growth there is probably a quarter of what there would have been if so many hadn't been killed. What's your point?

The Palestinian people (~500,000 Arab muslims, 75 000 Christians and 50 000 Jews)were subject to the forced repatriation of state lines such that the state of Israel was created. Just about every group and country had self-serving interests, including the Palestine mufti who sought alliance with Hitler. Sure the jews are, and were, irritatingly agitative at times and have shown an inability to take the high road when it could have helped the greater cause of peace. So what is one to do about this?

Should the Hebrew people be dispersed far and wide, or do we allow them some right to live in the land of their ancestors, side-by-side with the Palestinians, who surely share some blood with the Phillistines of millenia ago (not to mention mixed with every bloody race in the Arabian subcontinent, which is the way it is for most people in many geopolitical regions, i.e. the UK, the fertile crescent, the ancient Hebrews..reality check)

Do you agree that at this point in time, the here and now, that the Israeli people have a right to exist? Just as the Kurds of Northern Iraq have a right to exist,as the Kurdish oppressors have a right to exist?

History is chock full of people being displaced, exterminated and put into slavery. Will Palestine forever be the one flashpoint where by principle alone war will be eternal?

I'm not going to be drawn into an argument about whether Britain and the Allies were justified in setting up a Jewish state within Palestine, because I don't know the answer (that's the age-old question, isn't it?). If you stick to your mantra about the slighted Palestinians in some sort of mixed-up existentialist right to destroy Israel, war will never cease.


From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pankaj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1040

posted 05 December 2001 08:39 PM      Profile for Pankaj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am a student of human nature and behaviour. I have no solutions to offer. Just observations which I hope are clear. The rest is up to the people which are actually involved.
From: London, ON | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mohamad Khan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1752

posted 05 December 2001 10:13 PM      Profile for Mohamad Khan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Markbo, regarding Sunera Thobani and whether or not she is a preacher of hatred, here is the full text of her speech: http://www.casac.ca/conf01_thobani.htm. if you haven't already, please read it, and if you still take issue with it, we will debate it in the Ask Auntie section.

as for your question regarding the way some Muslim countries deal with apostasy, let me tell you a bit about my religious beliefs:

i am a proud Muslim, easy to spot in public due to my beard and pancake-like pakol (Afghani hat). on my top bookshelf, you will find a copy of the Qur'an. beside it, you will find an authoritative Life of Muhammad, as well as the Bible, the Principal Upanisads, the Bhagavad Gita, and my favourite novel, The Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie...along with all of Rushdie's other novels from Midnight's Children up till The Moor's Last Sigh. i came to believe in God through Hinduism and Sikhism, which naturally led me to Sufism, which is a particular version of Islam. i believe that all religions are equally valid pathways to Allah/YHWH/God/Brahman/Waheguru or whatever you want to call Her. my real "scripture," is not the Qur'an, the Torah or the New Testament, but the Sufi corpus, mainly the poems in my mother tongue, Punjabi, such as the following:

masjid Dhaa de, mandir Dhaa de,
Dhaa de jo kujh Dhendaa,
par kisii daa dil naa Dhaawii~--
rabb dilaa~ wich rehndaa.

Destroy the mosque, destroy the temple,
destroy whatever is destructible,
but do not destroy anyone's heart--
for the Lord lives in hearts.

Sufism, however, is associated more often with Persian poetry, like this 13th-century specimen:

banii aadam a`zaa-e-yek paykar and / ke dar aafreen-ash za yek guhar and
chu `azrii be dard avord ruzgaar / digar `azarhaa nahaanad qaraar
tu kaz mehnat-e-deegaraan bee`amee, / nashaayad ke naam-at nahand aadamee

human beings are organs of a single body / for they have been created from a single essence
if one organ ever feels pain / then other organs cannot remain in peace
you who feel no pain at the suffering of others / you should not be called a human being

you should, i hope, be able to infer my opinion from that account.

quote:
Should the Hebrew people be dispersed far and wide, or do we allow them some right to live in the land of their ancestors, side-by-side with the Palestinians, who surely share some blood with the Phillistines of millenia ago (not to mention mixed with every bloody race in the Arabian subcontinent, which is the way it is for most people in many geopolitical regions, i.e. the UK, the fertile crescent, the ancient Hebrews..reality check)

Do you agree that at this point in time, the here and now, that the Israeli people have a right to exist? Just as the Kurds of Northern Iraq have a right to exist,as the Kurdish oppressors have a right to exist?


yes, of course they have a right to exist! did anyone on this board say that they didn't? the state of Israel, whatever its origins, is well-established by now. where the hell are you going to expel the Israelis to? so, at least we agree on this one. the point is not that the Israelis *don't* have a right to exist, but that the Palestinians *do*. any Palestinian demanding the return of the entire land is a dreamer, but, to be frank, the occupation isn't going to soften their views.

quote:
The Israeli response to violence and terrorism, in the past two years (over a dozen attacks killing hundreds of Israeli's, by my count) has been REMARKABLY "peaceful" and restrained.

i can't believe you wrote that. more than 600 Palestinians have been killed, and more than 15 000 wounded since Sharon paid his infamous visit to Haram Al-Sharif a year ago (surrounded by 1000 bodyguards). four Palestinians murdered to every Israeli murdered, and twelve Palestians wounded for every Israeli. is that "peace"?!

quote:
One of two scenarios exist; Either Arafat and the PLO are complicit in the terrorist attacks or he has absolutely no control in reigning in his people, apprehending and HOLDING (!!) the guilty. In either case, action is necessary.

right. today, it seems that most, if not all of the militants Arafat arrested in compliance with Israeli orders have gotten away. why? the prison was being evacuated due to Israeli air strikes! Arafat is as big a prick as Shabra-and-Shatila-Sharon, but, unlike Sharon, he has little control over what Palestinian murderers do. Israeli "action" is only exacerbating the situation. or, if not, how is it helping? you tell me.

i'm sick and tired of hearing people tell me that Israelis are the only victims in this war. but, everything else aside, i want to ask any Torontonian Jew out there a question:

i pray for the Palestinians, the Afghanis, the Iraqis, the Chechnians and other Muslims as a matter of course. i have also prayed, in the past few days, for innocent Israeli civilians. the recent murders may have been perpetrated in the name of beliefs that i uphold, but not in my name, for i believe, unlike Quiksilver, that the ends do *not* justify the means. the thing is this...i've always prayed in the Islamic way, but i somehow feel that that's not enough in this case, because they were Jews. i was wondering, how could i pray for them in a Jewish manner? could i go to a synagogue, and would they tell me how? or is there a ritual i can observe at home, in private? if you can tell me, please email me at mohamadkhan@hotmail.com. salaam alayk.


From: "Glorified Harlem": Morningside Heights, NYC | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chickenbum
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1917

posted 05 December 2001 10:25 PM      Profile for Chickenbum     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice point. My comment about the dispersal of Jews was meant, of course, as counterpoint to the Palestinian (is it naive to say only extremist?) belief and support of the extermination of Israel. In my reading and research I have gotten the distinct impression that yes, Israel is belligerent and shoulders 50% of the responsibility for peace (stop settling, withdraw to originally drawn borders, etc), but Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and PLO, which all have the support of the people, do not accord Israel its right to exist. This was my point...no matter what Israel gives, until this paradigm is shifted there will be no peace. And no amount of argument will undo the Balfour Declaration and the reality of what exists today.
From: happily functioning in society | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 05 December 2001 11:06 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Closing a long thread.
From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca