Those that defend the atrocities of the extremists and theocracies do so because they don't understand what the hell is going on in the world. They defend terrorists because deep down they feel guilty that as Americans, they have life so much better. I think it really comes down to a love-hate thing they have with the world they themselves live in. In their minds, anything is OK so long as it is done against the majority, or those stronger... Terrorists are the weaklings... The US is the Goliath to their David.

The underdog is always given a pass to do as it likes because it has to to make the playing field even or fair. Also, these Liberals who defend such horrible acts are the same sort of people who want to legislate everything in the name of fairness and safety and equality. In their mind, no one should be any better off than anyone else. So long as the scales aren't even, any act is permissible if it makes things more even or fair.

They assault the transgressions of Christianity and ignore those of Islam because they have never actually experienced them. They're the ones who complain of the US turning into a theocracy or a police state under Bush but have NO clue what one actually is. In their mind, Muslims are the noble savage... It's not their fault they are the way they are... it must be our fault they're like that because as the major power... all bad things are blamed on the big kid on the block.

Really, it's a combination of guilt and ignorance.

This makes me wonder if the Middle Eastern Muslims, having been around longer, have simply evolved into a "purer breed" of Muslim than their more recent(?) Eastern converts? This might explain the more liberal outlook of the Easterners, so similar to the outlook of the " brand-spanking new" Muslims inhabiting the Arab Pennisula (and thrusting into Northern Africa and Southern Europe) 1500 years ago. Of course, that being said, it doesn't bode all that well for the future of the Muslims of the East.

That's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. Islam has never been 'purer' than under the four great caliphs, when the entire faith was united. The famous Muslim tolerance was damaged by the Crusades; that much is clear, as professional poets and scholars began to see the fun that could be had from war. I think the sacking of Baghdad by the Mongols was far more damaging though, on much the same level as the sacking of Rome. Barbarians had razed perhaps the most cultured city in the world.

Had Islam been naturally inclined towards violence, we should have seen a great orgy of destruction rising out of North Africa and the Middle East that was directed at Asia. And yet the sultanates and the Turks did little save attempt to hold their borders. There was no dramatic increase in oppression or anything of the sort.

The European push into the Middle East was damaging, with the typical colonial tendency to kill now and allow questions never, but I think the Cold War encouraged most of today's problems. The requirements of realpolitik meant both sides enforced certain governments (like the Iranian Shah and his secret police, the Palestinian Marxists, the Afghani puppet regime etc) and social institutions that were immensely unpopular. These regimes were so well financed that nothing save an immensely violent revolution seemed to bring them to an end. I think many extremists still hold that mindset - the west can only be halted in its interfering through extreme violence. After all, that's the only thing that worked in the 20th century. Post Cold-War examples like Somalia reflect badly on the west as well, as they show that the west can be cowed simply with a high enough bodycount.

To my mind the cartoons were little more than a religious justification. The fanatics wanted to rampage, they just needed a good reason. And seeing as how they are mostly supported by the oil money of the fabulously wealthy, they can hardly go around blowing up the oligarchies, who are almost certainly the cause of most of their complaints. And so the West is very easy to turn into a scapegoat. Bad for us, sure, but the situation isn't going to improve for us if we keep giving a justification for such a ridiculous notion. Either we move in and end their problems for them - whether cheaply, through aid, or expensively, through war - or we face the politics of diversion and continue to be targets.

That's not impossible, but I think it's unlikely. Islam has never been 'purer' than under the four great caliphs, when the entire faith was united

---Cacto

Looking at it strictly from the perspective of "religious" purity, perhaps. But what I'm getting from you, if I'm correct, is that you feel that that "purity" was tainted by the interference and invasions of outsiders? The violence of the Crusades and such caused the paranoid midset of the present day?

This just in!!!! A check from Usama bin Laden for the Democratic party in the sum of 1 billion dollors, signed by Bin Laden "to my best allies"

But what I'm getting from you, if I'm correct, is that you feel that that "purity" was tainted by the interference and invasions of outsiders?

Almost. Uniquely amongst monotheistic religions Islam proposes a system of governance in addition to a religious dogma; Muhammad was both a capable king as well as a prophet. So if Islam had a tendency towards bloodshed that was built into the very faith, it would have been shown within the time of the four great caliphs. That it only occured well after the end of the first caliphate suggests that indiscriminate violence is grounded in something other than the Qur'an.

The violence of the Crusades and such caused the paranoid midset of the present day?

Not exactly. The Crusades I simply meant as an example of where Islam could have proved itself violent and yet failed entirely to match the bloodthirstiness of Catholic crusaders.

The dicatorships and tendency towards violence didn't arise because of outside influences. They started by themselves, with causes I lack the historical knowledge to chart. However it's fairly undeniable that regimes like the Afghani puppet government (which was responsible for killing or imprisoning most of the moderate leaders; the rest were killed by extremists in the hills) and the Iranian shah (we all know how bad he was and how much worse his successors were) were instrumental in destroying democratic tendencies in the Middle East and enshrining violence as the sole source of political power.

I see violence in the Middle East not as a consequence of the region's faith - the Zoroastrians have also chosen the path of violence, as have the Kurds, the Jews, even the Christians - but as a consequence of the region's history. It's not the West's fault any more than it was the fault of the Communists, but the region was definitely badly affected by the Cold War's side effects.

I think we've taken Gid's article far enough off-track, don't you? If you want me to go into my position/understanding/whatever in more depth you can post an article and I'll lay it down for you.

Islam could have proved itself violent and yet failed entirely to match the bloodthirstiness of Catholic crusaders.

I'm scratchin' my head over that one. Two bloodthirsty groups duke it out and the loser is considered less bloodthirsty and non-violent?

Hmm...

I'm scratchin' my head over that one. Two bloodthirsty groups duke it out and the loser is considered less bloodthirsty and non-violent?

Compare, for example, the sack of Jerusalem by Crusader forces and the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin, all occuring within the first few crusades. Oh, and who invaded whom, and the pretexts and reasons behind the whole deal. I have trouble believing you're even arguing the point.

I think we've taken Gid's article far enough off-track, don't you?

--cacto

On the contrary; I think it plays right along with the topic in its own way. But I'll go along with you. I'm not going to post an article for you to "lay it all out", though. I'm not versed enough in the subject to adequately discuss it...it wouldn't be worth it.
Though, if you wanted to post on your own, I'm sure you'd have some takers.

You're not stupid, I'll give you that.

The Siege of Jerusalem 1099, part of the First Crusade:

Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even any remaining Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."

Source Link

The Siege of Jerusalem 1187, led by Saladin:

Balian handed over the keys to the Tower of David, the citadel, on October 2. It was announced that every inhabitant had about a month to pay their ransom, if they could (the length of time was perhaps 30 to 50 days, depending on the source). Saladin was generous and freed some of those who were forced into slavery; his brother Saphadin did the same, and both Balian and Heraclius, not wishing to be seen less generous than their enemies, freed many others with their own money. Saladin also allowed for an orderly march away from Jerusalem and prevented the sort of massacre that had occurred when the crusaders captured the city in 1099. Even Heraclius, who disgusted the Muslim chronicler Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani by hoarding all his wealth and the treasures of the church instead of contributing to the ransom of the poor, was escorted from the city unmolested. The ransomed inhabitants marched away in three columns; the Templars and Hospitallers led the first two, with Balian and the Patriarch leading the third. Balian and his family were permitted to flee to Tripoli.

Source: Link

Many Arabs draw an analogy between the current occupation of Iraq and the Crusades; President Bush is often referred to as a "Crusader." I am glad that this point was raised because the Crusades were a war by Christianity against Islam and I asked Gideon if we were at war with Islam. Afterall, if I as a Liberal am defending Islam, someone must be attacking it, no?

I thought we were at war with Terror, but maybe we are at war with Islam. We have no problem in working with and supporting Pakistan, an Islamic dictatorship that leads the world in honor-murders of women. If the US is at war with Islam, are they on the list? How about Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation? Are we going to go to war with all Muslims, all 1.8 billion of them?

Gideon listed seven criteria, starting with the environment and going through Fair labor. Islamic countries rank low in almost all those. But so does China, a country that has warred mightily with its Islamic population. Conservatives LIKE China these days. You know China, Walmart East. How does China rank in terms of say Free Speech?

Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military dictatorships that are anti-Communist, no matter how low on the MacLeish Scale those countries rank.

I asked before and will ask again, which of my Liberal stances would you like me to change? Should I say that its okay to demonize Muslims? Should we draw up plans for Muslim interment camps in the US? Lets not recognize Hamas as the duly elected government in Palestine, because endless war is preferrable to negotiation with terrorists?

Gideon started off with the assumption that Liberals defend Islam, without ever explaining what that meant. Give me some examples and I can argue pro or con, but what we have hear is a sweeping generalization that has no substance.

The Siege of Jerusalem 1099, part of the First Crusade:

Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even any remaining Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."

Source Link

The Siege of Jerusalem 1187, led by Saladin:

Balian handed over the keys to the Tower of David, the citadel, on October 2. It was announced that every inhabitant had about a month to pay their ransom, if they could (the length of time was perhaps 30 to 50 days, depending on the source). Saladin was generous and freed some of those who were forced into slavery; his brother Saphadin did the same, and both Balian and Heraclius, not wishing to be seen less generous than their enemies, freed many others with their own money. Saladin also allowed for an orderly march away from Jerusalem and prevented the sort of massacre that had occurred when the crusaders captured the city in 1099. Even Heraclius, who disgusted the Muslim chronicler Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani by hoarding all his wealth and the treasures of the church instead of contributing to the ransom of the poor, was escorted from the city unmolested. The ransomed inhabitants marched away in three columns; the Templars and Hospitallers led the first two, with Balian and the Patriarch leading the third. Balian and his family were permitted to flee to Tripoli.

Source: Link

Many Arabs draw an analogy between the current occupation of Iraq and the Crusades; President Bush is often referred to as a "Crusader." I am glad that this point was raised because the Crusades were a war by Christianity against Islam and I asked Gideon if we were at war with Islam. Afterall, if I as a Liberal am defending Islam, someone must be attacking it, no?

I thought we were at war with Terror, but maybe we are at war with Islam. We have no problem in working with and supporting Pakistan, an Islamic dictatorship that leads the world in honor-murders of women. If the US is at war with Islam, are they on the list? How about Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic nation? Are we going to go to war with all Muslims, all 1.8 billion of them?

Gideon listed seven criteria, starting with the environment and going through Fair labor. Islamic countries rank low in almost all those. But so does China, a country that has warred mightily with its Islamic population. Conservatives LIKE China these days. You know China, Walmart East. How does China rank in terms of say Free Speech?

Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military dictatorships that are anti-Communist, no matter how low on the MacLeish Scale those countries rank.

I asked before and will ask again, which of my Liberal stances would you like me to change? Should I say that its okay to demonize Muslims? Should we draw up plans for Muslim interment camps in the US? Lets not recognize Hamas as the duly elected government in Palestine, because endless war is preferrable to negotiation with terrorists?

Gideon started off with the assumption that Liberals defend Islam, without ever explaining what that meant. Give me some examples and I can argue pro or con, but what we have here is a sweeping generalization that has no substance.

Oops! Sorry for the double post. JoeUser was being naughty again.

Conservatives never seem to have a problem with military dictatorships that are anti-Communist, no matter how low on the MacLeish Scale those countries rank.

You mistake foreign politics with a political movement.  There is a vast difference as I have demonstrated to kingbee.

Many Arabs draw an analogy between the current occupation of Iraq and the Crusades

That's because they are uneducated.

They don't know about the history of the crusades and they ignore what is actually going on in Iraq.

Your tale of the crusades is true. But the roles have changed. Today Christians (and atheists and Jews and others) invade and don't kill the inhabitants of the invaded country.

A thousand years ago Islam was the superior culture and Christianity was barbaric. But times have changed.

Anything you say about the glorious past of Islam makes it clearer how wrong things have gone in today's Islam.

Leauki said:

"That's because they are uneducated." All of them? Kind of a sweeping generalization, don't you think? What do you call it when one makes a sweeping generalization that encompasses almost 2 billion people?

"They don't know about the history of the crusades and they ignore what is actually going on in Iraq." They don't know the history of the Crusades? Any support for that? Among those that "ignore what is actually going on in Iraq" would you include the Iraqi people themselves? Are you saying that YOU really know because you watch TV?

"Today Christians (and atheists and Jews and others) invade and don't kill the inhabitants of the invaded country." Ah, I would like to summon forth the ghosts of those that died in Lebanon at the hands of the Christian Phalangists to rebut your argument.

"A thousand years ago Islam was the superior culture and Christianity was barbaric. But times have changed." And you are comfortable with your role as judge?

"Anything you say about the glorious past of Islam makes it clearer how wrong things have gone in today's Islam." Let me make this clear. Islam is not monolithic. The Shiites are not the same as the Sunnis, Indonesia is not Saudi Arabis, not all Muslims are the same.

This isn't personal and Leuki, you have written some good posts. But throughout this blog people have made overly broad generalizations. There is a wide diversity of belief among Muslims, as among any people. There are many Muslims, for example, who were not angered by the recent cartoons. There are many Muslims who want peace with Israel. When you lump all Muslims together, you do them and yourself a disservice.

lol, i'd agree. Islam and barbaric, middle ages Europe have a lot in common. I'm not insulted by the comparison, I applaud it. Here's hoping it won't take them a thousand years to catch up. Appeasement at this point is just inviting more bloodshed in the future. Modern Islam, at least for most of the world, is a bully who has decided the only way to preserve their barbarity is to impose it on as much of the world as possible. Tolerance of it must end, violently if necessary to prevent further violence.

wow I'm absolutely amazed. Many people here regard the defense of Islam as equal to defense of terrorism.

You're wondering why many of them are chanting "we're misunderstood!!!" ?

The points in the blog entry was more of a list of (generally perceived) traits of a Islam-dominated country and not Islam per se.

Coming from a Muslim country I truly understand how many freedoms are stifled for followers of other religions, but this post does so little to illuminate the facts.

Saddam's regime was secular and many in the Muslim world opposed it because of that. Of course the minute a non-Muslim nation invades him they'll be right behind his back.

"wow I'm absolutely amazed. Many people here regard the defense of Islam as equal to defense of terrorism."

That would be all you could really defend, given that no other aspects of Islam are really under attack. We tolerate the barbaric hacking of limbs and mistreatement of women. The only time you'll see this sort of outrage is when we are attacked and when Islamic values are imposed upon us, contrary to the rights spelled out by our own form of government.

Otherwise, let them foul their own nests. WHen they make themselves a threat, they shouldn't be surprised to be treated like one. Despite Western outrage, you don't see us storming through Muslim neighborhoods like the scum in Lebanon did in their own Christian neighborhoods. So far I think you'll agree that our angst is well-targeted. So far, anyway.

All US citizens are second class citizens. Some ethnic groups as well as women are still fighting for true "equality".

So, what you're saying is American "liberals AREN'T fighting for racial and gender equality? Thanks for your honesty.

My point wasn't that the US was numero uno in ANY of these areas, much less all of them, but that ALL of these are pet "causes" of the left; odd that they would give Muslim nations a free pass in ALL of these areas

(and, for the record, I believe that the US offers far more promise in ALL of these areas than just about any other nation on earth).

"All US citizens are second class citizens."

As I said on another blog, you can see something akin to the Romantic era's "Noble Savage" ideal at work here when people start talking about the US. Back then, all the bobble-heads started making this Liberal mythology where folks like Arabs and Native Americans and such were really just idealistic Liberals steeped in Christian ideals; untouched by nasty Western culture.

It's idiotic, and people still do it today with statements like I quote above. The US is evil compared to nations where they hang little girls and other nations where you are rubber hosed to death for your religious beliefs. We suck compared to nations that make political ideologies illegal to express. It could be all free ice cream and lemonade and we'd still suck... because we're the US.

Let the pissants moan about the US's "second class citizens" and move to places like Denmark which make it illegal to question the holocaust, and at the same time test those wanting citizenship as to whether they are more devoted to the Constitution or the Koran. Or someplace like France, with double-digit unemployment that doesn't matter because it is among those "non-French people", and who make it illegal for your kid to wear a yarmulka to school.

"So, what you're saying is American "liberals AREN'T fighting for racial and gender equality? Thanks for your honesty."


You may be saying that; I am not. You can break down equality into sections and title them, but they are only parts of the whole. The same holds for classes (subclasses). While you are all second class citizens, some enjoy higher and more privileges than others.


"My point wasn't that the US was numero uno in ANY of these areas, much less all of them, but that ALL of these are pet "causes" of the left; odd that they would give Muslim nations a free pass in ALL of these areas"


What evidence is there that supports the "left" giving Muslim nations a FREE PASS in ALL of these areas?


"(and, for the record, I believe that the US offers far more promise in ALL of these areas than just about any other nation on earth)."


1. It is your belief, however that does not constitute that it is right / correct.

2. "far more promise"... It is helpful (for one's psyche), to have hope that the future will bring the desired condition. However, the track record indicates otherwise. [A group was promised 40 acres and a mule: didn't happen; the US broke all treaties with the Native Americans; development and implementation of an alternative fuel and a "supercar"... canned that as well]

'til dawn...

"Back then, all the bobble-heads started making this Liberal mythology where folks like Arabs and Native Americans and such were really just idealistic Liberals steeped in Christian ideals; untouched by nasty Western culture."


Back then, the Native Americans accounted for over 500 diverse nations. To reference them as one group acting "saintly" or otherwise is disingenuous.

The constitution (US) owes its humble beginnings to one of those nations.


"It's idiotic, and people still do it today with statements like I quote above... "


The statement was made to exemplify that both are in the same sinking boat. The difference is one is in deeper water than the other. Both have the same potential -- sink with the boat or move to land.

If you don't like your second class status, change it.


"Let the pissants moan about the US's "second class citizens" and move to places like Denmark which make it illegal to question the holocaust..."


The only one moaning (if anyone is) over second class status is you. You are most welcome to change the facts for yourself, that is leave second class.

'til dawn...

"The only one moaning (if anyone is) over second class status is you. "

Huh? That's a desperate move. I don't recognize second-class status as being a valid characterization. I dunno if you are imposing some sort of 'downtrodden' status because of some socialist ideal or Liberal idea of equality, but it isn't valid at all.

I'm not moaning about my status, I'm deriding your characterization of it.

1. It is your belief, however that does not constitute that it is right / correct. 2. "far more promise"... It is helpful (for one's psyche), to have hope that the future will bring the desired condition. However, the track record indicates otherwise. [A group was promised 40 acres and a mule: didn't happen; the US broke all treaties with the Native Americans; development and implementation of an alternative fuel and a "supercar"... canned that as well]

Do you have "proof" of this, or is it merely your "opinion" that we don't?

"Huh? That's a desperate move..."


It wasn't; your feelings are noted.


"I'm not moaning about my status, I'm deriding your characterization of it."


Sure you are. Take it up with your government:


Read 'em and weep...

"The government of the United States is a foreign corporation with respect to a state."
In re Merriam, 36 N. E. 505, 141 N. Y. 479, affirmed 16 S. Ct. 1073, 163 U. S. 625, 41 L.Ed. 287.

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..."
Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

(15) “United States” means -

(A) a Federal corporation:

United States Code, Title 28 - Judicial and Judiciary Procedure, §3002. Definitions, (15)(A), p. 564

UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 28, PART VI, CHAPTER 176, SUB CHAPTER A, Sec. 3002. Definitions (15) ''United States'' means -

(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States

[That makes you a franchise / property.]

“We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each is distinct from the other and each has citizens of its own...”
U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588

"The term 'Citizen of the United States' must be understood to mean those who were citizens of the State as such after the Union had commenced and the several States had assumed their sovereignty. Before that period there were no citizens of the United States."
Inhabitants of Manchester v. Inhabitants of Boston, 16 Mass. 230, 235.

"The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are protected by the 14th Amendment, against abridgment by the states, are those which arise out of the essential nature and characteristics of the national government, the federal Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress, as distinguished from those belonging to the Citizens of a state;. . . . " Gardner v. Ray, 157 S. W. 1147, 1150; Hammer v. State, 89 N. E. 850, 851, 173 Ind. 199, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034.

“The governments of the United States and of each state of the several states are distinct from one another. The rights of a citizen under one may be quite different from those which he has under the other”.
Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404; 56 S.Ct. 252 (1935)

The 14th Amendment creates and defines citizenship of the United States. It had long been contended, and had been held by many learned authorities, and had never been judicially decided to the contrary, that there was no such thing as a citizen of the United States, except by first becoming a citizen of some state.
United States v. Anthony (1874), 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (No. 14,459), 830.

“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

“...rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship”.
Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83: 84 L.Ed. 590 (1940)

"Except as modified by statute, the place of birth governs citizenship status".
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815; 28 L.Ed.2d 499; 91 S.Ct. 1060 (1971).

And the Buck Act seals your fate on "Rogers v. Bellei".

*********************************************

"Do you have "proof" of this, or is it merely your "opinion" that we don't?"


That you don't what?

'til dawn...

"A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the federal government ..." Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp 383

Sorry but when you're talking about this it's best not to mix a "state court" opinion in with federal. Since this is a state court's opinion it really doesn't carry a lot of weight. So in a federal court your arguement would fall on it's face. No where in your rambling dissertation do you even remotely begin to prove that US citizens are a "franchise/property". This in just for you.

Is there a gibberish translator in the house? I can't make head nor nail of that uber-babble you flung onto the screen during your latest spasmodic seizure. You should offer your posting style to hospital operating theatres as a highly-effective alternative to unconsciousness-inducing medications. I don't know what makes you such a worthless poster, but it really works! I understand what you are trying to say, even though you obviously don't. If you knew what you're talking about, you'd be dangerous. As Ellen Glasgow once remarked: "He knows so little and knows it so fluently." If that post was intended as a joke, you forgot to include the punch line. Why don't you close your mouth before someone sticks an apple in it? Maybe you wouldn't come across as such a jellyfish-sucking mental midget if didn't lack even the dim flicker of sentience needed to qualify as a imbecile; if your weren't so fat that the Brooklyn Bridge would collapse if you ever tried to go Bungee Jumping off of it, or if you didn't have a face so ugly that your mom had to get well-and-truly drunk before she could breast feed you. No, come to think of it, you would. Anyway, I'm not really good with fools, but a friend who is good with fools wrote something down for me. Oh, yeah, "Shut your cake-hole, stupid!"