From Liberty Magazine, August 2006
by Tim Slagle

It's strange. Canadians have nationalized health care, a generous welfare system, and few Fortune 500 corporations. They refused to support the war in Iraq. I don't think Canada gives any aid to Israel. And yet, fundamentalist Muslims still wanted to attack the country.

I hope this is a wake-up call for the "why do they hate us?" crowd. What angers fundamentalist Muslims about the U.S. isn't our foreign policy, or our loathing of socialism, or our election of President Bush. It's that the American and Canadian governments refuse to force women into burqas, or men to kneel down on rugs five times a day. In the U.S. and Canada, we allow people to worship any god they choose, and publish any book, no matter how blasphemous.

The war against the Western infidels is not against capitalism, corporations, Israel, or the military-industrial complex. It is a war against basic freedoms--the same ones that the "why do they hate us?" crowd claim to cherish so much.

That's complete tripe, Fraggle straight from Karl Rove talking points. Muslim fanatics such as al-Qaeda have long been clearly spelling out their grievances (link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1030-05.htm)}:

Unlike what Bush says, that we hate freedom, let him tell us why didn't we attack Sweden, for example…. As you undermine our security, we undermine yours... The incidents that affected me directly go back to 1982 and afterward, when America allowed Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the help of the American 6th Fleet… As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

Could you please link the threats on Canada? I have been unaware of them.

Well I suppose the Lebanese Muslims are now going to attack the US because their Islamic way of life has been replaced by the "birth pangs of the new Middle East".

Really, Fraggle, you have a blind spot where Muslim fundamentalists are concerned.

Looks like Canada is truly very much like the US

Canada's "Terror Attacks" (http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_22217.shtml)

I don't think it is cut and dried. there are many who have legitimate reasons for disliking the US, but I think most pick-and-choose what they dislike. its not like changing anything will make them all be like "ohh, ok America is cool now." it will take a long time before they stop hating us.

...(link (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1030-05.htm)}:...I think you link/ reference is quite accurate except for:

"Al Qaeda rarely, if ever, synchronizes its assaults with a particular event such as an election or symbolic date."

Few in American know that 9/11 was already a well known “infamous date.” That was the day the CIA destroyed democracy in Chile, by killing the openly Marxist, but democratically elected president. The CIA supported replacement government, murdered, usually by months of torture, at least ten times more* people than were killed in NYC in a less than an hour on 9/11. That date could have just been chance, but the odds against it being only chance are 365 to 1.

I think the point of choosing the 9/11 date was to show that the CIA can not just kill democratically elected presidents that lean to left, resist the US dominance, etc. and expect that nothing will ever be done about it.
--------------------------------------------
*No one knows the total. Several times the 9/11 total of deaths were simply drugged and dropped alive into the sea, using the helicopters the CIA supplied. They are generally referred to as “the disappeared.” On Sundays, some of their mothers still stand silently in the public squares. The current president of Chile’s father was among those tortured to death. In ignorance of this and many other things, Americans wonder why much of the world hates the US. - This is a small part of why.

From Liberty
It's strange. Canadians have nationalized health care, a generous welfare system, and few Fortune 500 corporations. They refused to support the war in Iraq. I don't think Canada gives any aid to Israel. And yet, fundamentalist Muslims still wanted to attack the country.
Canadas military is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan however, alongside US troops.

Billy T -

I'm in need of some education here. I thought Los Desaparecidos were in Argentina, killed by the Argentine military (by helicopter drop technique as you mentioned). Is this another group, and if so, was it by the Chilean military with CIA support, or directly by CIA-funded operatives? This is not well known in the US. When did this take place, etc. Is it at all directly related to the Argentine massacre.

Canadas military is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan however, alongside US troops.
this is because if even a single part of the official september 11 story is true, it is a justified war.

however, more and more evidence is being uncovered to show that the official story is complete rubbish.

The current president of Chile’s father was among those tortured to death. In ignorance of this and many other things, Americans wonder why much of the world hates the US. - This is a small part of why.And it because a few honourable Americans are aware of this and are prepared to remind or teach the others of these facts that some of us in the rest of the world still have cause for hope.
Thank you.

Newsflash: It's not just muslims that hate the US.

No-one outside of the US is very keen on the US. That's the truth, Ruth.

I wouldn't bomb you though.

Could you please link the threats on Canada? I have been unaware of them.It was at the very beginning of June. They caught some guys planning to bomb buildings in Toronto, with materials to do it. Stories like this make the front page here in Washington DC, just across the river from the Pentagon 9/11 site in Virginia. I'm surprised it blew over so fast elsewhere.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/06/04/canada.terror/index.htmlReally, Fraggle, you have a blind spot where Muslim fundamentalists are concerned.No. It's a highly sensitive radar gun and it picks up all the followers of Abraham.

Every few generations one of the monotheistic, patriarchal religions, which keep metastasizing out of the Middle East like a cancer epidemic, goes on a rampage. Last time it was Christians in Germany. Muslims and Christians have obliterated three entire civilizations (Egypt, Olmec, Inca), the most unforgivable sin.

I am particularly alarmed by the violent, fundamentalist fringe of Islam because they have become textbook cases of clinically sociopathic. They truly believe that life in what to most of us is the real world is unimportant. And they would cheer the downfall of civlization and a return to the Neolithic because people who are obsessed with survival are more easily converted to religion.

I am not blind. I have a deep historical perspective on this and it scares the crap out of me.

I am particularly alarmed by the violent, fundamentalist fringe of Islam because they have become textbook cases of clinically sociopathic.

How?

They truly believe that life in what to most of us is the real world is unimportant.

I doubt that is their motivation, though it does mean that they are not afraid to die.

And they would cheer the downfall of civlization and a return to the Neolithic because people who are obsessed with survival are more easily converted to religion.

Thats an overstatement, in my opinion. Who has been converted by a fundamentalist?

I am not blind. I have a deep historical perspective on this and it scares the crap out of me.

I think you should be more concerned about the circumstances that give power to these fringe elements.

Sam do you realize that the people that you defend would keep you from following your medical career, that they would cut you off from your computer, and silence you from the world, and the world from the world, how many children would die under the enlightened ideas of medical care?

Sam do you realize that the people that you defend ......etc?Sam will doubtless correct me if I am mistaken, but she does not appear to be defending the fundamentalists. She is objecting to the process of placing all followers of Islam in the same category as the fundamentalists. This strikes me as an imminently sane objection to make.

A knee-jerk, reactionary, narrow minded, bigoted, predjudiced, thoughtless, uninformed, ignorant, insensitive, blighted perspective might cause one to reach a different conclusion. Do you reach a different conclusion Buffalo?

Sam will doubtless correct me if I am mistaken, but she does not appear to be defending the fundamentalists. She is objecting to the process of placing all followers of Islam in the same category as the fundamentalists. This strikes me as an imminently sane objection to make.

A knee-jerk, reactionary, narrow minded, bigoted, predjudiced, thoughtless, uninformed, ignorant, insensitive, blighted perspective might cause one to reach a different conclusion. Do you reach a different conclusion Buffalo?

I've given up on Buffalo; he sees everything through GWB-colored glasses :D

But all to often in her defense of the rest of the followers of Allah she ends up justifying the extremist, where are the endless post on the things that Hezbullah, Hamas, Fatah, the P.A. has committed, the children that they have killed after they have signed a peace treaty, or a cease fire, after Israel has given up land or the never fulfilled promise of peace, the Arab use of their children as guided bombs, the terrorist putting their fighting positions in their on homes, launching rocket from their own back yard with their families on the target with them, and then using their own dead children and wives as propaganda to try to put the fault with their enemies, which end up being anyone who doesn't believe in their exact interpretation of the Koran, and there fore should be relieved of their apostate, non- believer, worthless life.

This is a poem written by an Iraqi exile living in Canada:


The Birth Pangs of a New Middle East (A Poem)
By Nesreen Melek
Aug 6, 2006, 01:26


The world is witnessing "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"
Yet Abeer's voice will be heard
"I was fifteen when the American soldiers took turns and raped me."
"They burned my body, shot my parents to cover up their acts."
Another voice will be heard "who will revenge for the rape and the killing?"

The world is witnessing "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"
Ali will not be able to write the chapters of the history book
His limbs were amputated in the name of democracy
A voice will be heard "who will revenge for destroying Ali's future and the future of other children?"

The world is witnessing "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"
Children from Israel wrote notes on rockets which were sent to kill the Lebanese children.
The corpses of the Lebanese children are resting in plastic bags ready to be buried in mass graves.
A voice will be heard "what is the difference between Arab children and other children all over the world?"

The world is witnessing "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"
People in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine will remember the killers.
The scars will stay on their bodies and hearts in case they will forget.
A voice will be heard "we will never forget their atrocities and we will never forgive"

The world is witnessing "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"
Arabs are seeking refuge in other countries as their countries are destroyed.
But when they will blow themselves taking their lives and others
they would be called terrorists.
A voice will be heard "what would we call their atrocities against Arabs?"

The world is witnessing "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"
Palm trees in Iraq are burned, Olive trees in Palestine are cut, Magnolia and Jasmine bushes in Lebanon are burned.
The bombing and the killing will continue.
And the fertile soil will be saturated with blood.
A voice will be heard "will there be an end to their hatred"

The world is witnessing "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"
Hatred, anger, despair and agony will be flourishing in the heart of Arabs.
But it will be too late for the killers to ask "why do they hate us"

© Copyright 2006 by AxisofLogic.com

Sam form your poem, I guess I need to learn to hate all moslams, I need to revive the blood feud, and forever after remember every insult and injury against all of my race, the Arabs always cry havoc and loose the dogs of war because they never face their own contributions to the never ending blood price demanded for any perceived insult, and they will never settle for even.

Sam form your poem, I guess I need to learn to hate all moslams, I need to revive the blood feud, and forever after remember every insult and injury against all of my race, the Arabs always cry havoc and loose the dogs of war because they never face their own contributions to the never ending blood price demanded for any perceived insult, and they will never settle for even.

You seem to be confusing Arabs with Muslims. This is a clear indication of both your ignorance and your prejudice. Note the poem speaks of Arabs, not Muslims.

Lebanese suicide bombers in the period 1982-1986 were 71% Christian, 21% Communist/Socialist, 8% Islamist .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terro rism

Lost some friends and relatives recently, then BR? Or are we talking about a former life?
And let me get this clear. Who is your problem with? The Arabs, many of whom are not Moslem; or, the Moslems, many of whom are not Arabs? If you are going to revive your blood feud it's best if you are sure who you hate.

It's interesting from Sam's poem I got the sense that we had better take a long hard look at the persecution and bloodshed we have tacitly supported for some time. And that's true for both sides of the fence, and for those sitting on it also.

Not all muslims are crap like today's....look at the Ottoman Empire, all that harem shit gives me a massive hard on.

If I ever become an evil dictator, I will be sure to have a harem.

“Originally Posted by Fraggle Rocker: I am particularly alarmed by the violent, fundamentalist fringe of Islam because they have become textbook cases of clinically sociopathic.”

How?How??? I think my next two statements make my point. You could hardly come up with a more succinct definition of "sociopathy" than "disdain for life and antipathy toward the very concept of civilization."“They truly believe that life in what to most of us is the real world is unimportant.”

I doubt that is their motivation, though it does mean that they are not afraid to die.When it is not willingness to die for the one cause that is instinctive to all social species--defense against a threat to the survival of the extended family group--it becomes psychopathy. What elevates it almost to the level of sociopathy is the fact that they also don't care whether all the rest of us die too. What pushes it over the top into that diagnosis is that they actively seek death for everyone who does not agree with their worldview--a learned abstraction outside the realm of preprogrammed instincts.“And they would cheer the downfall of civlization and a return to the Neolithic because people who are obsessed with survival are more easily converted to religion.”

Thats an overstatement, in my opinion.That's fine. Reasonable people disagree and I'd certainly be relieved to learn that I'm wrong. But everywhere they go they reduce their own people to the bottom rung of civilization, always on the brink of descending into a Neolithic tribal, village lifestyle.

Take their proscription against socialization with dogs. As I have argued many times here--and never been disputed--our ability to feel kinship and create a community with "people" of an entirely different species with whom we cannot communicate verbally taught us that we might learn to coexist with other tribes. This was the very key to civilization.

And their proscription against music. Music as a formal art, a professional occupation with its own academia and technology, which is now available at any time and any place, is ranked by a huge portion of humanity as one of civilization's greatest gifts, one that enriches the humblest of lives and cheers the most sorrowful of circumstances. It has been said to rival religion in its ability to influence society.

The proscription against images of people. Portraiture as a formal art also goes back to the evolution of Neolithic villages into cities. In a village one sees all of one's family and acquaintances almost every day. In a city one does not. An accurate portrait or photograph of them maintains that link and assuages one of the first and deepest longings that civilization engendered: dislocation.

The proscription against drugs. The division of labor and economy of scale in city life create a substantial surplus. People choose to expend their surplus labor and capital in a variety of ways. Noble pursuits such as art enrich civilization directly. But even hedonistic ones which release the pressure of an "unnatural" lifestyle are safety valves that keep it running smoothly. No one complains about sports because of their salutary effect on physical health. The more or less Buddhism-based culture of Japan recognizes the salutary effect on emotional health of the weekly ritual of drunkenness as a vacation from its stultifying regimentation. Westerners seem less able to keep alcohol in its ceremonial shrine (as do the increasingly Westernized Japanese) but marijuana seems to do the job for many of them. In any case, to rule that "drugs are bad, m'kay" for all drugs for all people in all situations is the arrogance of the priest caste. Especially when caffeine is conveniently not defined as a drug because the priests like it.

These are examples of ways in which I see the lunatic fringe of Islam as running against the very grain of civilization.

Again, I can't exclusively single out Islam. Christianity was just as vile at the same point in its 600-year time-displaced track. Emphasis on afterlife over corporeal life, intolerance and forced conversion or outright genocide for infidels, rejection of many of the essential attributes of civilization such as banking, metaphors as art, and scientific inquiry. Judaism has followed a different course since its lack of an evangelical vector has not caused its ranks to swell so it has never achieved dominance even in a local area. Yet within its wacko fundamentalist wing--such as the Orthodox in Israel and the Hassidim elsewhere--the signs are all there. Militant intolerance, an unshakeable sense that everyone else in the world is wrong, retention of ancient traditions that are no longer necessary like eschewing grain-fed pork or even sensible such as grounding ambulances on Saturday.Who has been converted by a fundamentalist?You gotta be joking? If you're an American you must remember the "born again" craze in the late 1970s and early 1980s--that lapse in the national IQ that coincided amusingly with the disco era. Just now we watched the entire State of Kansas install a public school bureaucracy that mandated a thinly disguised version of creationism in its classrooms. Fortunately it was short-lived but it provides a frightening answer to your question.

As for Muslim fundamentalism, that growing network of terrorist training camps from Afghanistan to the Philippines to central Africa, financed by the Saudis, are thinly disguised as Islamic schools for boys, for parents without the money to provide an education anywhere else. The parents may be moderate or even secular, but the kids are converted to fundamentalism and militancy, and ultimately for many of them, to the sociopathy of suicide bombers.I think you should be more concerned about the circumstances that give power to these fringe elements.I am. What I see throughout the history of Abrahamism is a faith that inspires people to be noble... during good times, when they need it the least.

But Abrahamism's central flaw is it's binary, one-dimensional model of the human spirit. Everything is rated on a scale between good and evil, and the only two influences in life are a god and a devil. As every cultural expression from the pantheon of the Egyptians and Greeks to the dramatis personae of Shakespeare's plays to the archetypes of Jung's paradigm has discovered, there are something like 23 components to our spirit and each of us resonates to them in different proportions at different times. Some days we need our hunter or our healer to take over, other days our lover or our king, and they all have to wait their turn and contend for our attention in a healthty, constructive way, with a couple of them achieving general prominence. A paradigm that calls the things that would be wrong to do today, in a particular situation, evil, is shoving all of that personality down into the darkness of our soul, where it festers and eventually explodes out through the cracks.

When life turns really lousy--a famine, a plague, a depression in our country while some funny-looking booze-drinking foreigners are prospering--it's natural to get angry. That's when a religion is really needed to remind us that this too shall pass and we must remain good people even when we don't want to be good people. Instead, we have that huge well of suppressed spirits inside us to fuel the anger and give it direction. Our warrior becomes a mere soldier, killing everyone in his path. Our king becomes a despot, demanding power over those who have not accepted his authority. Our hunter regards people who aren't like us as animals and hunts them. Our healer and our parent conspire to create a nanny-state of safety-health-fitness-and-sobriety-at-any-cost fascism.

The "circumstances that give power to these fringe elements" are universal and cannot be avoided, because they are nothing more or less than the adversity that the universe throws at us regularly.

If there's anything we can do to disempower the fringe elements of Abrahamism, it's to adopt policies that improve the quality of life for everyone. Fundamentalist Christianity rarely gets a foothold in places where people feel safe, healthy, and prosperous. It took hold in America at exactly the time when we began to feel threatened by the political situation in the Middle East, highlighted by the capture of Americans in our own embassy in the capital city of one of our hitherto most dependable allies. It has now taken root throughout the Muslim Third World, where food, clean water, roofs, medical care, and basic safety are tenuous and people will latch onto any hope, no matter how irrational.

Recommendation and a bit of proselytism:

We all fight the darkness in our own ways. My wife and I do it by devoting our entire charity budget to the Central Asia Project in Bozeman, Montana. A regular feature in Parade magazine, this organization grew out of the dream of one man who, due to an accident on a mountain-climbing trip, spent several weeks living in an isolated village and getting a crash course in the sociology of the Muslim Third World. He makes the well-acknowledged point that frat-house, KKK-style lunacy is so easily winning converts in Islamic communities because women have almost no voice. His project is resolutely building schools for girls and coed schools that are required to accept girls throughout the region, including hot spots like Afghanistan.

So, with my final quotation of your question about "the circumstances that give power to these fringe elements," I reply with a quotation of my own, from a source whose attribution is long forgotten:

"Educating women is the key to peace."

As an athiest, I see all religions as being equally ridiculous.

However, I can see the dangers of Islam especially and know enough about its actual history to see past the propaganda of it being "the religion of peace" and extremists only being a "small percentage of the population". If extremists are such a small part of the total muslim population, then can someone tell me why the Hell Muslims are fighting with just about every ethnic/religious group that they come into contact with? Why did Indonesian muslims attack Bali? Why did they spanish muslims attack Madrid? Why did muslims attack the Indian parliament a few years ago? Why did "brave" muslim warriors slaughter 200 innocent CHILDREN in Beslan? Muslims can't even get along with one another!!! [shia-sunni conflicts in Iraq and Pakistan]


To claim that these world-wide attacks on non-muslims BY muslims aren't connected is folly of the highest order. And to attribute it to "terrorists" or "al queda" is ever worse - no, there is a much more simple answer, and that answer is Islam iteself.

And to hear all you America-hating leftist types defending this religion and its followers simply because it coincides with your agenda simply makes me laugh inside even more.

There's a word for people like you - dhimmi. Maybe you should look it up.

What kind of atheist are you?

What kind of atheist are you?

The Scientific Skepticist kind.

And why do you ask?

Are you an atheist in the sense that you don't believe in god, you completely deny any possibility of the existence of a god, or that you are completely without religion?

Are you an atheist in the sense that you don't believe in god, you completely deny any possibility of the existence of a god, or that you are completely without religion?

I am an athiest in the sense that I don't believe in an invisible bearded man up in the sky.

I take the intricate complexities of Nature and the Universe to be my "God" and actually find comfort in knowing how insignificant we, as sentient beings, are in this vast Universe - not insecurity or fear from the sheer immensity and randomness of it all.

EDIT:GAH! Universe, not University.

This happens when you've been writing a letter to the dean of your University all day :(

How??? I think my next two statements make my point. You could hardly come up with a more succinct definition of "sociopathy" than "disdain for life and antipathy toward the very concept of civilization."


Do the words "birth pangs of the Middle East" qualify on those grounds?

When it is not willingness to die for the one cause that is instinctive to all social species--defense against a threat to the survival of the extended family group--it becomes psychopathy. What elevates it almost to the level of sociopathy is the fact that they also don't care whether all the rest of us die too.

Again, does "Collateral Damage" ring a bell?


What pushes it over the top into that diagnosis is that they actively seek death for everyone who does not agree with their worldview--a learned abstraction outside the realm of preprogrammed instincts.

Maybe they are returning the favor of "democracy" as was bestowed on them?

Does it not seem too much of a coincidence to you that the rise in Islamic fundamentalism (post 1980) is directly related to US interventions in the region(s)?


That's fine. Reasonable people disagree and I'd certainly be relieved to learn that I'm wrong. But everywhere they go they reduce their own people to the bottom rung of civilization, always on the brink of descending into a Neolithic tribal, village lifestyle.

If you are talking about the Taliban, I agree. But you must remember that the people of Afghanistan themselves never wanted the Taliban; they were able to grab power only in the vacuum of post-war Afghanistan.

After the overthrow of the Soviet-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1992, Afghanistan was thrown into civil war between competing warlords that emerged from the Mujahideen forces that the U.S. had helped to bankroll. Out of this, the Taliban eventually built a miltary force capable of enforcing its order on the country. The rise of the Taliban helped the economy by eliminating the payments that warlords demanded from business people; it brought political benefits by reducing factional fighting (the Taliban fought aggressively against their enemies and their intolerance and relative hegemony led to a reduction of the number of factions) and brought relative stability by imposing a set of norms on a chaotic society. The radical ideology of the Taliban would later alienate many observers who initially considered its emergence as a positive development.

Take their proscription against socialization with dogs. As I have argued many times here--and never been disputed--our ability to feel kinship and create a community with "people" of an entirely different species with whom we cannot communicate verbally taught us that we might learn to coexist with other tribes. This was the very key to civilization.

I know many Muslims who have dogs. I do too. These are uneducated misinterpretations fanned by fanatics. It is not haram to own a dog, but it is recommended that it is not hygienic to keep it in the house.

Educated Islamic scholars do not share these opinions:
In the Holy Qur’aan (S4:36) we are advised to do good to “… what your right hands own …” According to the commentator Imaam Faghruddin al-Rhazi, this refers to all those who have no civil rights, including animals. Thus, the verse lays down the duty of being good toward animals.

All things “…have been created for you ...” for our benefit (S2:29). It thus becomes our duty to protect, employ with dignity, and promote the well-being of any animal in our care. In this way, we are expressing our thankfulness to Allah (swt) for His blessings in a practical manner. (Qur’anic Foundations and Structure of Muslim Society, Mawlana F.R. Ansari, vol. 2, pp. 125-126)



And their proscription against music. Music as a formal art, a professional occupation with its own academia and technology, which is now available at any time and any place, is ranked by a huge portion of humanity as one of civilization's greatest gifts, one that enriches the humblest of lives and cheers the most sorrowful of circumstances. It has been said to rival religion in its ability to influence society.

Again, not subscribed to by educated Muslims
http://www.freemuse.org/sw10914.asp

The proscription against images of people. Portraiture as a formal art also goes back to the evolution of Neolithic villages into cities. In a village one sees all of one's family and acquaintances almost every day. In a city one does not. An accurate portrait or photograph of them maintains that link and assuages one of the first and deepest longings that civilization engendered: dislocation.

The proscription is against the worship of images. It was the fundamentalists who came later on who made these changes. The Mughals were/are famous for portraiture and even today their work is distinctively recognisable:

http://www.umich.edu/~hartspc/acsaa/Acsaa/images/2645.jpg

The proscription against drugs. The division of labor and economy of scale in city life create a substantial surplus. People choose to expend their surplus labor and capital in a variety of ways. Noble pursuits such as art enrich civilization directly. But even hedonistic ones which release the pressure of an "unnatural" lifestyle are safety valves that keep it running smoothly. No one complains about sports because of their salutary effect on physical health. The more or less Buddhism-based culture of Japan recognizes the salutary effect on emotional health of the weekly ritual of drunkenness as a vacation from its stultifying regimentation. Westerners seem less able to keep alcohol in its ceremonial shrine (as do the increasingly Westernized Japanese) but marijuana seems to do the job for many of them. In any case, to rule that "drugs are bad, m'kay" for all drugs for all people in all situations is the arrogance of the priest caste. Especially when caffeine is conveniently not defined as a drug because the priests like it.

I don't agree with you on the drugs issue as I personally do not subscribe to recreational drug use. However, caffeine per se was not consumed by pre-Islamic Arabs and was hence not considered as part of the drug ban. It was a convenience of course, since the ban on drugs never stopped them from drinking wine either. Again, narrow interpretations, since the Quran recommeds abstinence from intoxicants because their harmful effects are greater than their benefits ( it also says that there are both benefits and harm associated with all intoxicants). Moderation is the key here, since the Arabic word for intoxication is the word for drunk (sukara, derived from sugar).


These are examples of ways in which I see the lunatic fringe of Islam as running against the very grain of civilization.

I agree with you.

I'll answer the rest of your post separately.

Its so good to see people moving.

I

I...actually find comfort in knowing how insignificant we, as sentient beings, are in this vast University - not insecurity or fear from the sheer immensity and randomness of it all.

Nice.

JPost.com » International » Article


Aug. 6, 2006 18:57 | Updated Aug. 7, 2006 13:57
Reuters admits doctoring Beirut photo
By SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL



Talkbacks for this article: 200

In the most recent in a series of online controversies to take on the mainstream media, a series of Web sites discredited a Reuters photograph of the fighting in Lebanon, forcing the news agency to issue an apology and remove the image from their archives.

The photograph by Adnan Hajj, which shows plumes of smoke rising from downtown Beirut after an IAF bombing, appeared to have been doctored to show more intense smoke and destruction over the city.

The Reuters news agency issued a statement acknowledging that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvenience."

Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said that "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."

JPost.com » International » Article


Aug. 6, 2006 18:57 | Updated Aug. 7, 2006 13:57
Reuters admits doctoring Beirut photo
By SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL



Talkbacks for this article: 200

In the most recent in a series of online controversies to take on the mainstream media, a series of Web sites discredited a Reuters photograph of the fighting in Lebanon, forcing the news agency to issue an apology and remove the image from their archives.

The photograph by Adnan Hajj, which shows plumes of smoke rising from downtown Beirut after an IAF bombing, appeared to have been doctored to show more intense smoke and destruction over the city.

The Reuters news agency issued a statement acknowledging that "photo editing software was improperly used on this image. A corrected version will immediately follow this advisory. We are sorry for any inconvenience."

Reuters' head of PR Moira Whittle said that "Reuters has suspended a photographer until investigations are completed into changes made to a photograph showing smoke billowing from buildings following an air strike on Beirut. Reuters takes such matters extremely seriously as it is strictly against company editorial policy to alter pictures."

glass house (http://www.americanprogress.org/AccountTempFiles/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/PRIRAQCLAIMFACT1029.HTM)

stones (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

democracy (http://www.james-glaser.com/2003/p20031014.html)

Yes don't start launching rockets when you live in glass houses, when bombs start flying, the extra shrapnel really makes hamburger out of you, it put a new quality to the photos you use for your emotional arguments, and adds questions to the reports from behind Hezbullah lines?

Yes its all a big conspiracy. Israel has been throwing flowers, not bombs, there are no dead in Lebanon and Beirut is the Paris of the Middle East.

Excuse me: wasn't the debate about whether or not Canada deserved islamic terrorism?

Sam, you seem to be excusing it somehow. Why?

Excuse me: wasn't the debate about whether or not Canada deserved islamic terrorism?

Sam, you seem to be excusing it somehow. Why?

The question was why do they hate us? (as in the USA)

And I'm explaining my thoughts on it.

I think in order to remove terrorism it is necessary to address the root causes of what causes it to be initated, propagated and established. Unless we understand what drives and motivates the terrorists, all we end up doing is using the same methods over and over, expecting different results.

What do you think?

And I suppose that all the land that Israel captured, land that they returned, gave them peace, I suppose that all those Qusam Rockets were just celebrator fire works for the return of Gaza, and all the Katyushas are just party favors and the warm up for the final event, that all the suicide bombers were just comedy relief or the warm up before the main event, the problem is the feature band couldn't deliver and now the Israelis have figured out that no matter what they do the terrorist Arabs and Moslems will just continue to kill them, and the cheer leaders from the side line will continue to cheer their deaths, are you on the side lines cheering?

Sam will doubtless correct me if I am mistaken, but she does not appear to be defending the fundamentalists. She is objecting to the process of placing all followers of Islam in the same category as the fundamentalists. This strikes me as an imminently sane objection to make.

A knee-jerk, reactionary, narrow minded, bigoted, predjudiced, thoughtless, uninformed, ignorant, insensitive, blighted perspective might cause one to reach a different conclusion. Do you reach a different conclusion Buffalo?

You do realize that by completely reinterpretating Buffalo's word, you have committed the very same "knee-jerk, reactionary, narrow minded, bigoted, prejudiced, thoughtless, uninformed, ignorant, insensitive, blighted perspective"!!!

At no point did buff say anything about all Muslims, he merely was pointing out that he believed sam to be defending fundamentalists.

Have a great day!!

Lost some friends and relatives recently, then BR? Or are we talking about a former life?
And let me get this clear. Who is your problem with? The Arabs, many of whom are not Moslem; or, the Moslems, many of whom are not Arabs? If you are going to revive your blood feud it's best if you are sure who you hate.

It's interesting from Sam's poem I got the sense that we had better take a long hard look at the persecution and bloodshed we have tacitly supported for some time. And that's true for both sides of the fence, and for those sitting on it also.

Though I can honestly I do not care about the distinction, but 85% of Arabs (http://i-cias.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct.pl?arabs.htm) are Sunni Muslims.

I did not even mention the obvious insinuation Sam made.

Yes its all a big conspiracy. Israel has been throwing flowers, not bombs, there are no dead in Lebanon and Beirut is the Paris of the Middle East.

Glad to see that buff's point flew way over your head. It is too late to call it back.

Excuse me: wasn't the debate about whether or not Canada deserved islamic terrorism?

Sam, you seem to be excusing it somehow. Why?

Because it does not fit the agenda!!!

Again, I can't exclusively single out Islam. Christianity was just as vile at the same point in its 600-year time-displaced track. Emphasis on afterlife over corporeal life, intolerance and forced conversion or outright genocide for infidels, rejection of many of the essential attributes of civilization such as banking, metaphors as art, and scientific inquiry. Judaism has followed a different course since its lack of an evangelical vector has not caused its ranks to swell so it has never achieved dominance even in a local area. Yet within its wacko fundamentalist wing--such as the Orthodox in Israel and the Hassidim elsewhere--the signs are all there. Militant intolerance, an unshakeable sense that everyone else in the world is wrong, retention of ancient traditions that are no longer necessary like eschewing grain-fed pork or even sensible such as grounding ambulances on Saturday.


Surely you realise that this does not include all members of the religion?
And surely you also realise that religion aside, there are differences of opinion even between countries and political systems that are not compatible?

You gotta be joking? If you're an American you must remember the "born again" craze in the late 1970s and early 1980s--that lapse in the national IQ that coincided amusingly with the disco era. Just now we watched the entire State of Kansas install a public school bureaucracy that mandated a thinly disguised version of creationism in its classrooms. Fortunately it was short-lived but it provides a frightening answer to your question.

I'm afraid I must plead ignorance here. I'm not familiar with the concept of "born-again"?

As for Muslim fundamentalism, that growing network of terrorist training camps from Afghanistan to the Philippines to central Africa, financed by the Saudis, are thinly disguised as Islamic schools for boys, for parents without the money to provide an education anywhere else. The parents may be moderate or even secular, but the kids are converted to fundamentalism and militancy, and ultimately for many of them, to the sociopathy of suicide bombers.I am. What I see throughout the history of Abrahamism is a faith that inspires people to be noble... during good times, when they need it the least.

Yes and if you read the link I gave about the origin of suicide bombings you will see that the terrorism in all these three places is related to occupation and/or oppression. Of course I agree with you about the madrasas being used as terrorist training camps. The Mujahideen used to kidnap boys from Kashmir and forcibly induct them into camps. That they are being funded by Al-Qaeda is significant, because the success of 9/11 followed by the widespread panic and the attack on Iraq (if you remember, Al-Qaeda made no offer to "help" Saddam as they did to help Hezbollah ) proved to them that they had finally got it. If you follow Osama's career from 1982 onwards, you can see that he has been trying for several years before 9/11 to get the attention of the US (embassy bombings, etc). Now that he has been "successful" his organization has become the sine qua non of terrorists worldwide. Everyone wants to get in on the action (including Australian teenagers with delusions of grandeur).

But Abrahamism's central flaw is it's binary, one-dimensional model of the human spirit. Everything is rated on a scale between good and evil, and the only two influences in life are a god and a devil. As every cultural expression from the pantheon of the Egyptians and Greeks to the dramatis personae of Shakespeare's plays to the archetypes of Jung's paradigm has discovered, there are something like 23 components to our spirit and each of us resonates to them in different proportions at different times. Some days we need our hunter or our healer to take over, other days our lover or our king, and they all have to wait their turn and contend for our attention in a healthty, constructive way, with a couple of them achieving general prominence. A paradigm that calls the things that would be wrong to do today, in a particular situation, evil, is shoving all of that personality down into the darkness of our soul, where it festers and eventually explodes out through the cracks.

Yes, but there are differences. I do not know about Judaism, but I have read a lot about Christianity on this forum and I can say with certainty that Islamic philosophy is very different. That is why there are allownaces for anger, for revenge, for defense in Islam, due to a recognition that human beings are not infallible, but they are always accompanied by the maxim that in all cases, it is better to forgive and forget. This is to show the difference between the acceptable and the ideal and to realise that the ideal is not always possible. Whatever else Muslims may be, they are not shy to speak their minds or act on their thoughts, no matter how provocative or controversial.


When life turns really lousy--a famine, a plague, a depression in our country while some funny-looking booze-drinking foreigners are prospering--it's natural to get angry. That's when a religion is really needed to remind us that this too shall pass and we must remain good people even when we don't want to be good people.

Yes and in Muslims we say, God is with those who are patient.

Instead, we have that huge well of suppressed spirits inside us to fuel the anger and give it direction. Our warrior becomes a mere soldier, killing everyone in his path. Our king becomes a despot, demanding power over those who have not accepted his authority. Our hunter regards people who aren't like us as animals and hunts them. Our healer and our parent conspire to create a nanny-state of safety-health-fitness-and-sobriety-at-any-cost fascism.

Perhaps this is the reason why some educated Muslims can become terrorists? Because they accept that the oppression and occupation gives them the right to express themselves as they see fit? I don't know. But some Muslims do believe that oppression must be fought against. They will fight between themselves if they consider themselves oppressed.


The "circumstances that give power to these fringe elements" are universal and cannot be avoided, because they are nothing more or less than the adversity that the universe throws at us regularly.

War and occupation is not an adverse occurrence thrown at us regularly, and if it is we should re-examine why.

If there's anything we can do to disempower the fringe elements of Abrahamism, it's to adopt policies that improve the quality of life for everyone.

I used to think like that before I lived in the ME. I'm from a mixed cosmopolitan society and my family is not religious at all. IMO, all that the Arabs needed was some exposure to the secular ideals of the West. After living there for 4 years, I realised that imposing my notions of secularism on a society not ready to accept it can have the opposite effect. The more I criticised their behavior or interpretation of religion, the more they defended it. It's instinctive to defend what you hold as a part of your identity. I agree that education and secularism should be the ultimate goal, but I doubt that democracy can be forced onto anybody. In India we have a large and diverse community. But when the British came in we were not one country, we were several kingdoms with different languages, customs, food habits, etc. 200 years of British rule could not eradicate the caste system or alter those customs and food habits. Sati is still practised in remote parts of the country; child marriages are still to be seen and we still primarily have arranged marriages( even in Muslims and Christians). How then can a few years of war change the culture of a society that has such limited diversity?


Fundamentalist Christianity rarely gets a foothold in places where people feel safe, healthy, and prosperous. It took hold in America at exactly the time when we began to feel threatened by the political situation in the Middle East, highlighted by the capture of Americans in our own embassy in the capital city of one of our hitherto most dependable allies. It has now taken root throughout the Muslim Third World, where food, clean water, roofs, medical care, and basic safety are tenuous and people will latch onto any hope, no matter how irrational.

Yes and the way out is through education and diplomacy, not war and prejudice.


Recommendation and a bit of proselytism:

Always welcome.


We all fight the darkness in our own ways. My wife and I do it by devoting our entire charity budget to the Central Asia Project in Bozeman, Montana. A regular feature in Parade magazine, this organization grew out of the dream of one man who, due to an accident on a mountain-climbing trip, spent several weeks living in an isolated village and getting a crash course in the sociology of the Muslim Third World. He makes the well-acknowledged point that frat-house, KKK-style lunacy is so easily winning converts in Islamic communities because women have almost no voice. His project is resolutely building schools for girls and coed schools that are required to accept girls throughout the region, including hot spots like Afghanistan.

I agree that women should have a say; even in Israel, it is the women who speak out against the atrocities and the Wall.

So, with my final quotation of your question about "the circumstances that give power to these fringe elements," I reply with a quotation of my own, from a source whose attribution is long forgotten:

"Educating women is the key to peace."

Yes

I did not even mention the obvious insinuation Sam made.

But I would be interested to know what it was.

Because it does not fit the agenda!!!

And I would like to know this too!

Excuse me: wasn't the debate about whether or not Canada deserved islamic terrorism?The question was why do they hate us? (as in the USA)I started the thread and I intended it to go in the direction Sam indicates. The point of the op-ed I cribbed is that the looney fundies hate Canada too, even though it distances itself from the USA in ways we assumed would fend off their wrath.

As for your long, detailed post, I have no quarrel with most of the things you say. Despite a century-long trend of promising but neither monotonic nor geographically uniform secularization, Western civilization is still Christian at heart. It still subscribes to the pathetic binary model of the human spirit that might as well have been designed by a computer programmer. It's only been sixty years since its last genocide, which when stripped of its political imagery was basically about an ancient religious rivalry. I know that America and the West in general, particularly the Superpowers who came before us and tried to make colonies of all non-Western nations, civilized or not, bears much responsibility for the conditions in which those former colonies now find themselves. That doesn't mean we should sit on the sidelines and wait for them to destroy or just colonize us in retribution.

I understand that democracy and capitalism are both choices and not automatic ones for people whose basic desires are better summed up in one of our most hallowed documents: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean we should be sanguine about the formation of nations who think the solution to being tampered with is to tamper with us.

I understand that most Muslims are moderate or even secularized and own cameras, stereos, dogs, liquor, but no burqas. And that Mohammed would be just as sick about much of what is being done in his name as Jesus would. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be alarmed about the growth in numbers, influence, wealth, and military capability of the fringe.

Apparently we both see that fringe as a deliberate threat to civilization.

...And that Mohammed would be just as sick about much of what is being done in his name as Jesus would.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Whereas Jesus supposedly led an honest, peaceful and exemplary life, the same cannot be said for Muhammad who was nothing more than a violent bandit with world-wide ambitions.

When muslims act with violence to expand their religion and push their agendas, they are simply following the precedent that their beloved 'prophet' set 1400 years ago. Perhaps *that* is why they are so touchy about displaying their prophet?

I understand that democracy and capitalism are both choices and not automatic ones for people whose basic desires are better summed up in one of our most hallowed documents: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn't mean we should be sanguine about the formation of nations who think the solution to being tampered with is to tamper with us.

Of course not. That would be pointless and destructive. But I fear that action-reaction is more the norm than diplomacy. That is what scares me too.

I understand that most Muslims are moderate or even secularized and own cameras, stereos, dogs, liquor, but no burqas. And that Mohammed would be just as sick about much of what is being done in his name as Jesus would. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be alarmed about the growth in numbers, influence, wealth, and military capability of the fringe.


But do you understand what I mean when I say that fear of their military capability cannot be resolved by invading or annihilating them?

Apparently we both see that fringe as a deliberate threat to civilization.

I wish people would just talk to each other.

Billy T -

I'm in need of some education here. I thought Los Desaparecidos were in Argentina, killed by the Argentine military (by helicopter drop technique as you mentioned). Is this another group, and if so, was it by the Chilean military with CIA support, or directly by CIA-funded operatives? This is not well known in the US. When did this take place, etc. Is it at all directly related to the Argentine massacre.I do not know much (practially nothing) about the crimes that happen about the same time when the military ran Argentina. Brazil also was under military rule and similar crimes took palce here. I do not think the CIA was very active in either case. It was the cold war era, and US was happy to see right winger governments supressing the left / social democrate movements, but in Chile the CIA felt it had to act as Alenda was elected, and openly marxist. People "disapeared" in all three countries, but I believe mainly in Chile. I recomend you google etc. Pleas post what you learn.

No-one outside of the US is very keen on the US. That's the truth, Ruth.
That must be why everyone and their cousin is trying to get into the US illegally.

Ask for a tuition refund, dude.

Don't expect you'll actually put the fear in them that they'll actually give it to you.

http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

That must be why everyone and their cousin is trying to get into the US illegally.
I'm not. And guess what? Neither is my cousin.

Fuck Pepsi, fuck Coke, fuck Macdonalds and fuck imperialist right-wing Amerikkka, devourer of global culture.

Fuck Pepsi, fuck Coke, fuck Macdonalds and fuck imperialist right-wing Amerikkka, devourer of global culture.

Neil Young - This Note's For You

"Don't want no cash
Don't need no money
Ain't got no stash
This note's for you.

Ain't singin' for Pepsi
Ain't singin' for Coke
I don't sing for nobody
Makes me look like a joke
This note's for you.

Ain't singin' for Miller
Don't sing for Bud
I won't sing for politicians
Ain't singin' for Spuds
This note's for you.

Don't need no cash
Don't want no money
Ain't got no stash
This note's for you.

I've got the real thing
I got the real thing, baby
I got the real thing
Yeah, alright."

- N

I wish people would just talk to each other.A few years ago one of the big (at the time) U.S. talk show hosts managed to put together a panel consisting of young Israelis and young people from a number of countries with militant Islamic movements. He wanted to do just that, sit back and let them talk to each other. About halfway through, one of the Israelis said what the host had been expressing with his furrowed brow for twenty minutes: There is no way that these people can talk to each other.

It came down to that pre-Reformation worldview that is at the essence of militant, fundamentalist Islam: What happens during our corporeal life doesn't really matter; all that matters is what happens afterward. They simply could not work up any interest in the plight of living human beings.

The Jews of course were just the opposite. Devout, religious Jews believe in heaven, but they don't believe that anyone will go there until some vague point in the future when God decides it's time. Until then we have to all do our best to run things here fairly and compassionately, because this is all a test and God's going to use the test results to decide what kind of afterlife we get to have.

There was no way to establish a dialog between these people. They were literally from different planets. More precisely, one group was from this planet and the other one believed that it was not.

A few years ago one of the big (at the time) U.S. talk show hosts managed to put together a panel consisting of young Israelis and young people from a number of countries with militant Islamic movements. He wanted to do just that, sit back and let them talk to each other. About halfway through, one of the Israelis said what the host had been expressing with his furrowed brow for twenty minutes: There is no way that these people can talk to each other.

It came down to that pre-Reformation worldview that is at the essence of militant, fundamentalist Islam: What happens during our corporeal life doesn't really matter; all that matters is what happens afterward. They simply could not work up any interest in the plight of living human beings.

The Jews of course were just the opposite. Devout, religious Jews believe in heaven, but they don't believe that anyone will go there until some vague point in the future when God decides it's time. Until then we have to all do our best to run things here fairly and compassionately, because this is all a test and God's going to use the test results to decide what kind of afterlife we get to have.

There was no way to establish a dialog between these people. They were literally from different planets. More precisely, one group was from this planet and the other one believed that it was not.

This makes no sense to me. The same principles are present in Judaism and Islam. We also believe that after dying, our spiritual energy becomes dormant until Judgement day, when all will be resurrected for their final judgement. We call it Yaum al-Qiyamah.


Until then we have to all do our best to run things here fairly and compassionately, because this is all a test and God's going to use the test results to decide what kind of afterlife we get to have.

Yes our afterlife will be judged based on this.

Devout, religious Jews believe in heaven,
not really, no. not in the sense that most people imagine.

but they don't believe that anyone will go there until some vague point in the future when God decides it's time.
jews believe that all events that have ever happened, that ever will happen, or are happening right now...are happening at the exact same instant.

Until then we have to all do our best to run things here fairly and compassionately, because this is all a test and God's going to use the test results to decide what kind of afterlife we get to have.
this is more spot on. :)

i understand the nature of your post, but i had to clear a few things up there. :m:

I find myself disagreeing with Fraggle Rocker for the first time ever.

"I am particularly alarmed by the violent, fundamentalist fringe of Islam"
fundamentalists scare us all, but the Christian fundies have much more power, so my fear is mainly directed towards them

I haven't caught up with this thread but I'll barge in anyway. Fraggle, should you read John Perkins' (http://democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251) books, listen to his interviews and lectures, you might find a timely and topical launchpad for an intruiguing journey of independent discovery: "My God, It's full of spies".

With all due respect, you apparently have been living in virtual ignorance of an entire geopolitical dimension.

Maybe through examining this level of sometimes-dysfunctional international relations, you will find that Islamic terrorists are almost invariably far more oriented to business and politics than they are to any concepts of God. Often they are sheep in shepherd's clothing, but sometimes when the moon is right they grow fangs and claws, and turn on Master.

You might consider the song "Jimmy Cracked Corn" as conforming in meaning to the Bedoin tradition, because they also believe in payback.

You might consider the assymetrical economic war that is now beginning. There are players who know how to make the natives restless on the grandest of historic scales.

You might consider the Shi'a resurgence that is coming. Throughout the wealthy Western Gulf Region, Shia have been thinking more and more about come-uppance.

You might consider that Israel is attempting to keep neighbors de-stabilized at all costs.

You might consider that America's economic underbelly has never become so globally public.

And you might consider that all of these explosive issues are fast converging. This isn't about Islamists being jealous of our strip-malls or strip-clubs. They don't covet our women, or ass (wouldn't be Muslim, would it?). This perfect storm is about the end of a systematically oppressive empire that never became democratically self-aware until it was too late for reforms to save it. I don't think any of us can be sure, but I suspect that those who take a wide-eyed look at what I am alluding to may also admit that the Bottom could drop out soon.

not really, no. not in the sense that most people imagine.

How is it different?


jews believe that all events that have ever happened, that ever will happen, or are happening right now...are happening at the exact same instant.

Can you elaborate a little bit?

There's no time (really).

I find myself disagreeing with Fraggle Rocker for the first time ever.

"I am particularly alarmed by the violent, fundamentalist fringe of Islam"
fundamentalists scare us all, but the Christian fundies have much more power, so my fear is mainly directed towards them
I couldn't agree more. The xian fundies are far more of a threat to the IS and the world than any ragtag islamic militia.

...I suspect that those who take a wide-eyed look at what I am alluding to may also admit that the Bottom could drop out soon.Very glad to learn that at least someone else can see beyond next month. It is interesting to speculate as to what will be the straw that breaks the back of the US economy. There are may possibilities. In past, I put Taiwan at top of list (China has the cash to break the dollar if US were to prevent re-annexation), but now I have moved the overturn of the house of Saudi into first place. That family click has never been popular with the masses. If they continue to support US/Israel in spite of the rapidly growing hate then they may fall and gas in the US go above $15/gal. That would be sustainable in Europe, but not in the US with its "suburban infrastructure." China* can buy all the oil the Mid East can pump, if it also creates a strategic oil reserve, equal to that of the US, so in some sense, the "twin deficits" GWB's wars have made is still at the top of my "lists of straws."
---------------------------------
*China has reserves of $941 billion, and excellent credit, due to its trade surpluses. July06 China added $14.6 billion more in trade with US (Exports to US = 80.3 and imports from US = 65.7 billions) I have made many post about how the US is loading the gun China can fire when it likes to destroy the US.

If the Sauds fall, there will be a free for all in the ME.

Its a big piece of cake with lots and lots of icing.

If the Sauds fall, there will be a free for all in the ME. Its a big piece of cake with lots and lots of icing.I agree. What happens then is too complex to predict, but lets assume that US Navy / Marines / Army try to take control, at least of Riyadh and the oil ports.

How long do you think there will be functional pipelines to the ports? (or functional ports for that matter?) I.e. the oil flow from Gulf will drop much more than it has from Iraq. - I would guess to about 50% or less, initially. Gas in US will either:

(1) Be rationed (only available to police and fire and army for sure.) - If any is left, some goes to food trucks (in convoys to stop hungry gun-toting looters. - The average food item transport distance exceeds 500 miles.) and doctors.
OR
(2) If GWB is still in power, only the rich will get any as a free market price of at least $30/gal would be required to bring supply and demand in to balance.

In either case, US is in such a deep depression that it makes the one started in 1929 look like a “mild recession.”

You do realize that by completely reinterpretating Buffalo's word, you have committed the very same "knee-jerk, reactionary, narrow minded, bigoted, prejudiced, thoughtless, uninformed, ignorant, insensitive, blighted perspective"!!!

At no point did buff say anything about all Muslims, he merely was pointing out that he believed sam to be defending fundamentalists.

Point 1:I have never reinterpretated anything in my life and never shall.
Point 2:My response was not knee-jerk, since I took some time to consider the background to the original points, the broad global situation, the nature of Islam to day, the broaf perception of Islam today in the West, and the potential reaction to my own planned comments.
Point 2:It was not reactionary, since I was indulging in a dogmatic, pre-established position.
Point 3:It was not narrow minded, since I was offering an alternative and additional interpretation of Sam's quoted poem. Expanding the range and number of perspectives on an issue can scarcely be considered narrow-minded.
Point 4:In what way was it bigoted. I attacked no one. I expressed no negative views of anyone. I did not criticse anyone. Tough to be bigoted if you don't indulge in those actions.
Point 4:This is getting tedious. Prejudiced. Yes, you have me to rights there. Prejudiced against sloppy thinking and poorly expressed thoughts that lead to the condemnation of others simply because they have a different point of view, and worse prejudice against those who stereotype.
Point 5:Thoughtless. I have already explained I gave my reply a lot of thought.
Point 6Ignorant. Well I am ignorant of many things, but I have some knowledge of the topics we are debating here. I would be happy to learn what specifically in my reply was ignorant.
Point 6:Insensitive. Gosh, I hope I didn't offend anyone by saying what I thought, in careful, precise terms. It seems to me the only insensitive aspect of my post was suggesting, through failure to exclude it as a possibility, that Buffalo could have reached any other conclusion than the same one I had reached.

In short. Stop talking crap. It doesn't read well.

How is it different?




Can you elaborate a little bit?
well, i wont put my religious views up here for all to view.

ill explain another time, if you remind me.

well, i wont put my religious views up here for all to view.

ill explain another time, if you remind me.

I understand. This is not a good place for a religious discussion.

Just curious, most Jews I've known are not very familiar with conservative Judaism (much like Muslims and the 70,000 virgins).

But I think you've probably studied it well.

Some other time, then.

The question was why do they hate us? (as in the USA)

And I'm explaining my thoughts on it.

I think in order to remove terrorism it is necessary to address the root causes of what causes it to be initated, propagated and established. Unless we understand what drives and motivates the terrorists, all we end up doing is using the same methods over and over, expecting different results.

What do you think?

I think your Canadian example hardly qualifies as terrorism.

Fraggle Rocker poses a very interesting answer to the general question: "Why can't we just talk to each other?"

Well, the problem is that we can't. We - this 'society' and that - see things too fundamentally (to use the word hovering in everyone's subconscious) differently to amass change. A simple reflection:

Islamic societies and democratic ones (or republics, or 'Western' ones, or whatever you might choose to refer to them as, post-secular-JudeoChristian-ethical-industriohumanitarian complexes or what have you) are based, at their philosophical cores, in different worlds altogether. The islamic state is constructed and exists for the reason of furthering and continuing islam, by way of which it invokes sharia and so forth. The latter type (I avoid naming it for the above reasons) is based (where that right is not impeded, or not not impeded, or vaguely cited, by bad chads, or good ones, or indifferent ones, or electronic people that may or may not exist in some time and place) in the furthering and continuance of democracy.

Now the more politically introspective among you might be thinking: “well, duuhh", but the contrast is I think so direct as to be habitually ignored.

One never proposes (in public discourse, anyway, unless one cares to be verbally tarred and feathered by upstanding Minutemen, political muskets loaded and charged with Constitutional cannonballs) a reduction in democracy as a panacea to the ills of democratic society. (And please, no comments about red-staters versus blue-staters; I’ve heard, too, plenty of well-educated leftists demanding more oligarchy and less freedom.) Democracy is often taken as a de facto solution or optimal state-of-being, these democratic rights being "self-evident".

In the same way, but with apparently more exacting standards, no one who does not care for public beatings, fines, jail, forced divorce and eventual beheading never offer less islam as a solution to the problems of islamic society. Contrarily, it is in fact often the reverse: “Women are oppressed! What can we do?” “More islam!” “Human rights are in danger! How can we stop this?” “More islam!” “Apostates are being killed! What is the solution?” “More islam!” and so on and so on, ad nauseam. There are exceptions to this – human rights organizations do exist in islamic countries, the adherents of which are often referred to by where they are buried. In any event, it is contrary to the nature of islamic society to ease off the valves on religion – for if one’s Head of State is purported not to be a mere mortal choking on a pretzel, but rather God, then it probably strikes the waybearers of officialdom as well as the laity to err on the side of torches and pitchforks, so as not to offend governmental practice and a being that supposedly dictates the future of individual existence. And so “more islam” is inevitably preached as a solution, without ever recognizing (or at least not obviously) that more islam (translating into more conservative islam) itself is the problem, and so there is less talking - or at least not that outside the ‘will’ of this presumed ‘prophet’, forcing discussion into those comfortable patterns of “submission” and rote, and resulting in more dismay and decry of the “evils” of Western (or whatever) decadence, where people are “free to insult Allah, but not free to question the Holocaust” and so forth, and so there is more inward hatred directed at those presumed to be fifth columnists inside the ummah – the Christians, the Jews, the Animists, the Hindus, the secularists – without ever needing to identify precisely what is so wrong about them, or so right about more islam in the first place.

Now all that might seem an unnecessarily harsh condemnation of the society of islamic nations, or of islam. I don’t doubt that there are truly moderate muslims in the world (although apparently not a majority of British muslims anyway, which is quite disturbing), but consider: in which national societies is the questioning of societal dogma (religious, political or otherwise) tolerated? In which is it not?

Why is that, and is it likely to change?

It is ironic then how many so-called progressive Islamic countries are driven even further back into the millenia due to well-intentioned Western politics, who only seem to feel their significance when the results of their tampering come too close to home. And yet the circle goes on and on.

Which progressive ones did you mean? If progressive, why only "so-called"?

From Liberty Magazine, August 2006
by Tim Slagle

It's strange. Canadians have nationalized health care, a generous welfare system, and few Fortune 500 corporations. They refused to support the war in Iraq. I don't think Canada gives any aid to Israel. And yet, fundamentalist Muslims still wanted to attack the country.

I hope this is a wake-up call for the "why do they hate us?" crowd. What angers fundamentalist Muslims about the U.S. isn't our foreign policy, or our loathing of socialism, or our election of President Bush. It's that the American and Canadian governments refuse to force women into burqas, or men to kneel down on rugs five times a day. In the U.S. and Canada, we allow people to worship any god they choose, and publish any book, no matter how blasphemous.

The war against the Western infidels is not against capitalism, corporations, Israel, or the military-industrial complex. It is a war against basic freedoms--the same ones that the "why do they hate us?" crowd claim to cherish so much.

Canadas in afghanistan and Im sure much more. Plus its not the obvious iraq,israel stuff fundamentalists go on about, its much deeper.

Which progressive ones did you mean? If progressive, why only "so-called"?

Not democratic, hence so-called. But progressive where Islam was concerned.
Several including Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Syria.

Iran and Afghanistan as examples of "progressive" islamic states?

Doth thou jest??

...A simple reflection:

Islamic societies and democratic ones.....are based, at their philosophical cores, in different worlds altogether. The islamic state is constructed and exists for the reason of furthering and continuing islam,...{a "democratic" one} is based ...in the furthering and continuance of democracy...Your characterization of Islamic states is not far from wrong, in general, but this goal for democratic ones is only taught in civic classes, not practiced.

Almost all, if not all, states act in what they perceive to be their self interest, but usually only the consequences during the current rulers term of office are considered important. (This may be some Darwinian selection process and perhaps explains under investment in education etc. as well as long-term, counter-productive foreign policy.)

If you really believe US invaded Iraq to further democracy or that US opposed Musharraf over throwing the elected government, his closing of congress, banning opposition press, staging sham election (with the two only serious opponents banded from participation) etc., then stop reading now as facts will change your POV.

If you want to look just* at the CIA’s role in "furthering democracy" I reproduce part of my post at 45 past the hour yesterday in thread "Israel/Lebanon = convenient distraction..." below (the two footnotes give facts and references - go to original to read.):
…It has been my observation that the CIA, likes to place military dictators in power, even if that requires destroying democratically elected governments that were not "adequately responsive" to US wishes. These military men are easier to control with the gifts of some last generation hardware. Usually, after a few years, they become "too independent" and then either:

(1) the CIA must remove them - for example, Noregio is now in a Florida jail.
OR
(2) more commonly, the people throw them out of power and establish a regime much less friendly to US - For example, Castro replaced Bautista; Ayatollah Khomeini replaced the Shaw of Iran; Pinochet* of Chile has been replaced by democratic process; Sandinists replaced the Somoza**

In the recent case of Pakistan, Musharraf is still doing what US wants, getting his military toys etc, but who know how it will end. - Perhaps the democracy he destroyed (probably with CIA help - not yet know how) will be restored. He is certainly getting his military “toys’ and was even granted “most favored nation” status to be eligible for more. Some please tell me again how the US is striving for democracy in the Middle East.

You are not as naive as your claim that democracies only seek to spread democracy indicates (I think). In the current US case, the government does not even act in the short term interest of the people, but for the wealthy and powerful. - For examples read my post that asks "How stupid can US voters be?" (Pay higher taxes to pay more for food and energy and transfer billions to a few well connected groups, like the Cargill family and Iowa’s industrial scale corn growers.)
--------------------------
*I will not detail the role of government-backed private companies like United Fruit Co. in South America, etc. that also overthrew elected governments, craved off Panama from Columbia etc.

Well, I'm referring to the presumed core principles, of course.

How well any such state is held to such presumptions depends on the populace, the leaders they elect, big business, and domestic and international developments. I would argue still that any practical failing of its qualities is just that: a failure of practice, rather than the intent of its founding principles.

Iran and Afghanistan as examples of "progressive" islamic states?

Doth thou jest??

Afghanistan pre-Taliban, where urban women did not wear the veil and worked for a living.

Iran- pre-1953 coup and economic sanctions imposed by UK and US on Mossadegh who wanted to nationalise the oil, followed by the Iran-Iraq war and reversion to fundamentalism.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0210-07.htm

Well, I'm referring to the presumed core principles, of course. ....OK, but that is quite academic. I follow the rule that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck etc. it is a duck.

Fact is that US is (and has been for a long time) exploiting the weaker states that happen to have assets it wants, not “spreading democracy.” Often via local puppets who get rich or states like Israel and Saudi Arabia* who can do things (torture, war crimes, mass kidnappings, effective human intelligence collection, bombing raids, wide spread civil destruction, etc.) the US wants done.

It is pure hypocrisy to claim this is all in the interest of “spreading democracy!”
--------------------------------------
*The royal Saudi family can not conduct bombing raids, but provides the Bases for the US to do so, however, their most important service is to help enforce selling oil only for dollars. This makes many nations willing to hold their reserves mainly in dollars, and is the only reason why dollar has not already collapsed, given fact US can never pay back what it already owes and went $14.6 billion deeper in debt to China in July alone. (China is holding 941 billion dollars in reserves now, but would hold much more in Euros if oil were sold in Euros also. etc.) In exchange for these services, the US helps keep them on the throne, despite their many anti-democratic policies and lack of popular support.