We hold these truths to be self-evident: the Secular Muslim Summit
Where, oh where, are those moderate Muslims we all yearn for?
Here.
Although, to tell the truth, there’s nothing so very “moderate” about these particular moderates; they are radical as far as Islam is concerned.
And they are among the bravest of humans. Because—make no mistake about it—what they are doing and saying makes them targets of the many reactionary and ruthless forces in Islam.
Follow the link and listen to Ibn Warraq read the Declaration of St. Petersburg, a Declaration of Independence every bit as radical as the latter document was in its day.
These Secular Muslims rightly define the struggle not as between the West and Islam, but between “the free and the unfree.” The signers speak of themselves as defending “the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience,” and they assert that there is no inherent contradiction between that conscience and Islam itself, just between that conscience and Islam as it is commonly practiced today. They call on Muslims to consider their faith a personal rather than a political doctrine. The signers of this Declaration also declare the primacy of what they call “the community of conscience” over allegiance to religion, and defend the rights of unbelievers.
This is exactly what Islam needs. Whether this tiny graft of Enlightenment thought has any chance of taking I do not know; the forces arrayed against it are powerful, determined, and vast, both inside and outside the Muslim world.
The Declaration also calls on “academics and thinkers everywhere” to help them by examining Islam and promulgating “the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry.” It is deeply ironic, therefore, that it is in the academic world itself that this may be least likely to happen.
Our own Declaration of Independence was not, after all, a morally relativistic postmodern document. It was and is, instead, a universalist one (which, interestingly enough, mentions the deity as the source of human liberty):
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Although it took a while for the intent of the Declaration to be truly fulfilled and extended to include blacks and women, these later refinements were understood to be clearly within the framework of the original universalist statements. And when the framers had gotten around to writing a constitution, they understood that merely declaring liberty and having elections would be nowhere near enough to guarantee those rights, so they instituted the Bill of Rights, the system of checks and balances, and all the other safeguards carefully built into our Constitution.
This was because those framers understood two related things: that tyrants will always arise to undermine those liberties, and that humankind itself can be seduced or strong-armed or frightened into giving them up.
Postmodernist moral relativism and its handmaiden, cultural relativism, have acquired a domination over modern academia, and although both exist and flourish only because of freedom of thought and expression, both refuse to acknowledge their own debt to the superior—yes, superior—values of the Enlightenment. Therefore we are faced with the puzzling fact that those who ought to be the greatest champions of exactly what the St. Petersburg Declaration is asking them to speak out for—liberty in the Muslim world, and elsewhere—make excuses for and even ally themselves with those who would deny it to that Muslim world.
America has always been universalist in its belief in the value of liberty for everyone. This universalism is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it an invention of evil neocons: it was part and parcel of this country’s basic principles from its very foundation. How this liberty can best be accomplished has always been a question to be debated, but the principle is a basic one, and part of our country’s very origins.
That is amazing. I am truly astonished that those Muslims are brave enough to speak out. They are truly “speaking truth to power” despite the very real chance of being killed for it.
We can do our part. If America stays the course in Iraq and denies the extremists the chance to claim a “victory” over the West, we will give a great boost to the cause of secular Islam.
People do respect physical strength and the will to persevere. Victimhood may be fashionable among Western intellectuals, but most humans still have a nearly instinctive attraction to SUCCESS. An American victory in Iraq, no matter how hard-won, is a victory for freedom everywhere.
And an American defeat in Iraq — which means any withdrawal before the terrorists are beaten — is a defeat for freedom. Pulling out now would be a death sentence for the secular Muslims.
They call on Muslims to consider their faith a personal rather than a political doctrine
Protestant reformation, Neo?
This is exactly what Islam needs. Whether this tiny graft of Enlightenment thought has any chance of taking I do not know; the forces arrayed against it are powerful, determined, and vast, both inside and outside the Muslim world.
They need armies, in the temporal world. There is little freedom of religion if the Protestants had no temporal power backing them.
It is deeply ironic, therefore, that it is in the academic world itself that this may be least likely to happen.
For the West, perhaps. Don’t know about India.
make excuses for and even ally themselves with those who would deny it to that Muslim world.
And now, Neo, perhaps we understand more intimately why the Founders had so much fear of the masses. Sure, being ignorant and easily gullible could be bad for a nation that runs by direct democracy. The buying up of the Presidency by a rich and charismatic foreign potentate (Prince), for example. But now we see that it isn’t that clear cut. The danger of idiots subverting liberty, is not just at the bottom of the pyramid.
The protections built in was designed against every subverting clique. Andrew Jackson when he got the franchise to all white men, regardless of land requirements, understood that if you could improve the ability of the people at the bottom to vote and make decisions, that this would have long term repercussions that were positive. If you could not buy up the masses, it becomes a lot harder to foment revolution and what not.
Universalist may be too large a belief system for some people, Neo. Some people are just too parochial to accept such a thing. In some ways it is ironic. Back in the 18th century, wouldn’t you have said that the un-educated masses and farmers were parochial, and the educated leaders the cosmopolitans? But now it is reverse in a way. There are in terms of pop percentage, many bigots in the general population, but as a percentage of total, you have parochial and ignorant folks in the circles of power (Hollywood) more than you have it at the bottom (Alaska).
It is like it is inverting, the sand is flowing upside down. It is going up to smother the rich classes and the top folks, while the bottom 90% gets more clear headed.
One of your problems, Neo, is that you have to ask “where are the moderate Muslims?” Their absence is an illusion; you do not see or hear them, and assume that they therefore do not exist. When you do come across one or two who fit your mold of an appropriately moderate Muslim, you declare “aha! here is one of the few scattered voices in a sea of terribleness.”
I don’t fault you for this, Neo, or at least not you alone. Most Westerners make this mistake. The Muslim world is an incredibly diverse collection of peoples numbering over a billion, and yet you think only one or two of them are speaking out against extremism? This is foolish, and where you should be faulted. Where you should not be faulted is in your ability to actually learn about the diversity of modern Muslim political and social discourse. In the US, in particular, most people have no exposure to the discourses of the rest of the world. CNN and Fox News are both guilty of spending more air time on Anna Nicole Smith than they are on the Iraq War; if they can’t be bothered to cover the Iraq War sufficiently, how could they possibly cover the more subtle and more complex situation of a billion people’s political lives?
So I can’t fault you for not reading an Arab newspaper, since precious few are translated into English, or for not watching al Jazeera’s English-language channel, since it is not carried by any US cable provider. What I can fault you for, however, is expounding on a situation about which you know only the barest of surface details.
I’ll point to a few places to start.
Mark Tessler, “Gauging Arab Support for Democracy” ( http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v016/16.3tessler.pdf )
Nathan Brown, ”
Pushing Toward Party Politics? Kuwait’s Islamic Constitutional Movement”
( http://carnegieendowment.org/files/cp79_brown_kuwait_final.pdf)
Marc Lynch, “Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, Al-Jazeera and Middle East Politics Today”
(Unfortunately not available online, but Lynch’s blog is available at http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/)
That is, of course, scratching the surface. I also recommend reading the International Crisis Group’s series on Islamism, the Council on Foreign Relation’s work on Muslim public opinion, and Carnegie’s Arab Reform Bulletin. If you’re seriously interested, a wonderful option is to email a professor of Middle East studies or political science at a local university or college and ask for an introductory reading list.
I know little about psychiatry and wouldn’t think of maintaining a blog in which I frequently held forth on therapy, therapists, psychiatry or psychology because I had read a few articles in the mainstream English-language press and watched Silence of the Lambs. People who actually knew something about the subject, certainly, would never take me seriously. Unfortunately, your audience and many out there take writings like this seriously and hold their authors as authorities on subjects about which they know little or nothing. I’m curious as to why you feel comfortable taking a few scraps of knowledge and constructing an illusion of mastery, an Islamic imaginary, for your readers.
I applaud your interest – most Americans have trouble grasping the difference between Sunni and Shi’a. A significant and overlooked problem is when people grasp the difference and imagine that they have achieved mastery of the issue, when they have barely even delved into the subject. Can anyone here name, without googling, the Prime Minister of Iraq, his political party, his party’s parliamentary coalition, what position he holds in his party, the name of his party’s militia, and what he was doing during Saddam’s rule? No? I couldn’t blame you if you couldn’t – it’s fairly obscure information. But it’s also vital to understanding Iraq’s political situation. Yet how many people here have acted at one point or another as if they understood Iraq’s politics and saw clearly What Must Be Done?
I suggest everyone take a break from all this, read a book or two, and then try again.
Newsflash for neons: the Iraqi insurgents are not from China and English is not their native tongue either. The white man is a god for white men.
Fie on modern academia. And Bonnie too.
Guy: Give it a rest. You make the tremendously unwarranted assumption that because others disagree with your opinions, they don’t know as much as you do. That is not the case.
And this is a personal Web log, not the fargin’ Council on Foreign Relations. Why _shouldn’t_ people air their views, even if they haven’t been sanctified by academia?
Bonnie: I have no idea what you’re trying to say, and I find myself wondering if you have any idea either.
amazon.comamazon.comI suggest everyone take a break from all this, read a book or two, and then try again.
I wouldn’t suggest the same for everyone, but I would for Some — here’s a book or two to start with:
America Alone by Mark Steyn and The Force of Reason by Oriana Fallaci. I know “some” guys won’t like those, but it’s vitally important that those same guys make a start in understanding the Western world, or indeed the non-muslim world in general. It’s that world that has been attacked — not just in New York, but in London, Madrid, Paris, Denmark, Moscow, Beslan, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, Bali, Lebanon, Argentina, Israel, India, Thailand, and a few dozen more. Attacked, in every case, by people claiming to act in the name of Islam. Maybe it’s time that muslims and their apologists start to learn a little more about the victims of these systematic butcheries carried out in their name, and about their steadily growing anger. Otherwise, even good efforts like this “summit” will simply be a case of too little too late.
“America has always been universalist…“:
The question is not whether America is a country that believes in liberty. The question is whether we will invade other countries in order to impose liberty upon others. That is, the question is whether America is to be an imperial power. The Neocons’ answer to this question is ‘yes’.
Some guy: If I am looking for moderate Muslims and don’t find them, then that is a different story, isn’t it? I don’t think that anyone here claims that Arab/Persian/Muslim opinion is all of a piece. The claim has been that the voices against extremism have been muted. The conference noted, I believe, is fairly unusual, though perhaps not unique. We are perhaps too influenced by the posturings of CAIR, which seems to command instant attention in its statement.
Notable by their absence are Lewis, Pipes, Ajami, Waterbury, Karsh, Lockman…
Here’s one of the not so moderate Muslims debating an attendee at the St Petersburg conference:
http://ahmedbedier.blogspot.com/2007/03/ahmed-bedier-exposes-illegitimate.html
Sufism is mostly the key.
Two videos
My response was actually directed to this incredible statement posted by trimeg:”We can do our part. If America stays the course in Iraq and denies the extremists the chance to claim a “victory” over the West, we will give a great boost to the cause of secular Islam.”
Oh yeah? Does Iraq belong to the “West”? Trimeg speaks as if the US is fighting foriegners on her own soil! Ha! Statements like this displays the nuttiness of it all. What a dangerous trainwreck, this enterprise. Someone should intervene. Oh yeah, we call them “terrorists”. On their own land, no less. or should I say “ours”?
“…US is fighting foriegners…“:
This ties in with the claims we make about “foreign fighters” in Iraq. In fact, for the vast majority of foreign fighters in Iraq, there is no mystery. We have very good intelligence on most of the foreign fighters. We know where and when they are born, their names and their current disposition. Most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are members of either the US Army, Marines, Navy or Air Force.
Anonymous: The question is whether we will invade other countries in order to impose liberty upon others. That is, the question is whether America is to be an imperial power.
Regardless of whether imposing liberty is right or wrong, it has NEVER been the definition of imperialism.
Bonnie, you do realize military forces from the West are fighting in Iraq, right? If you do, then you grossly misrepresent what Trimegistus wrote. And are these “terrorists” are the intervention you call for? You do realize the “intervention” you support is targeting Iraqi civilians far more often than US troops, right? They are intentionally butchering hundreds of Iraqis a week, it seems, in markets, at funerals, trying to go about their lives. And, of course, they want to impose another bloody dictatorship. What an odd intervention you call for.
Anonymous #2, you know that the foreign fighters you’re talking about are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government, and have a UN mandate to do what they are doing, right?
Most of the foreign fighters in Iraq are members of either the US Army, Marines, Navy or Air Force.
Quite possibly — and a good thing too. Not all “foreign fighters” are the same.
Iraq has been invaded by the US, its regime deposed and its former leader hanged because it was the worst of a region of oil-rich tyrannies that bred and supported suicidal mass murderers like flies. The US was and is one of the primary targets of such murderers, and was the only one able to do anything about it. It did. Continuing the fight against the foreign fighters seeking to bring back the tyranny or worse is indeed to support the cause of “secular Islam” as much as to support human freedom and justice in general.
To contemporary left-liberals, of course, that’s just “nutty” — far better to have left Saddam in place, the Middle East “stability” that’s lead to so much death untouched, the no-nuke assurances of the mullahs and other thugs unquestioned, and to hope for the best. Others have a different view of what’s nutty.
NeoNeoCon:
You write brilliantly.
Ever notice how Bush repeats this mantra “they (Muslims) hate us for our freedom” but never mentions the fact that Bin-laden warned the US to take their troops out of the Holy Land? Ever notice how the fighters (regardless of who they are…Hezbollah, Palestinians, Iraqi insurgents) are regarded as terrorists and yet it the Arabs who have been murdered by the hundreds of thousands by the US and Israel (both foreign entities) …properties and livelyhoods destroyed? Ever notice that for every terrorist there was a military presence on their homeland beforhand? And for Sally and pajama guy…how is it possible you see our military presence in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East as reasonable? Would you think it reasonable if the Chinese liberated you in your country at the invite of a few liberals?
Bonnie:
My, my, my…from what benighted rock did you crawl out of?
In re: Chinese…
If I were living under an American Saddam and his family/friends/cronies/tribe, I would be praying (but not to Allah: he’s a fake) for some nice Han Chinese to come with guns a-blazing. And before said American Saddam got around to me.
Yeah, I do consider living under what some say would be a “Liberal Regime” as something to be avoided. Extreme left wing liberals are not my cup of coffee…
Do some reading besides The Nation, Bonnie. There’s a whole wide world out there.
Something is brewing. In Germany, a Zentralrat (Central Council or Committee) of ex-Muslims has formed to stand up to to those who presume to speak for all Turks or all people from Islamic countries.
how is it possible you see our military presence in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East as reasonable?
The US military presence in the Middle East is both reasonable and necessary, since the Middle East, fueled by its oil money, is the most violence-prone region on the planet, and since it exports that violence to the rest of the world, including other nations in the region who are friends and allies of the US. It doesn’t really matter what Bin Laden “warned” — the only people who think he rules the earth already and his warnings anything to be heeded seem to be naive and easily cowed left-liberals. It’s not just possible to see our miltary presence in that benighted region as reasonable, in other words, Bonnie — it’s necessary for anyone who values the survival of freedom and justice, as opposed to tyranny.
How, on the other hand, is it possible for anyone not to notice that Bin Laden is fighting the entire non-muslim world in order to impose a global caliphate, along the lines of the Taliban, who would whip women for so much as showing their face in public, murder homosexuals, cut the hands off of thieves and the heads off apostates, etc., etc.? If you can’t see the moral difference between the US and states like Afghanistan and Iraq — particularly if you can’t see that providing a safe harbor for international terrorists is a cause for war — then you’re not just morally blind, you really don’t have a clue about what’s reasonable and what isn’t.
“How, on the other hand, is it possible for anyone not to notice that Bin Laden is fighting the entire non-muslim world in order to impose a global caliphate, along the lines of the Taliban, who would whip women for so much as showing their face in public, murder homosexuals, cut the hands off of thieves and the heads off apostates, etc., etc.?“:
If that is the case how do you explain that we can do no better than put 135,000 troops on the ground? How is it that we can escalate our presence by about 20,000 extra troops? According to you our very existence is at risk. And this escalation is our last chance. Wouldn’t you think that, given what is at stake, that we would do much more than we are?
Wouldn’t you think that, given what is at stake, that we would do much more than we are?
Yes, I would. The troops on the ground were a necessary start, but no more than that. And I would certainly welcome the support of those, like yourself, who think similarly, and would, at the very least, speak, write, vote, and act in favor of doing much more.
Unfortunately, a war fought on one side through suicidal terrorists is not one that most people are familiar with or are prepared to face. Terrorism, in other words, has an insidious effectiveness, and is often able to transform much of its targeted populations into Stockholm Syndrome victims who desperately try to “see” and “understand” those who are busy threatening and slaughtering them. Because of this, so far the asymmetric war has been a bit of a stand-off — it remains to be seen if the victims can eventually summon enough nerve to really turn on their murderers.
A. Nony Moose @ 9:01am:
I would quote you (approximately) what Thucydides once said in re: Athens/Sparta.
“Strong Nations do what they can; Weak Nations do what they must.”
We are in the position of a Strong Nation. We should be doing what is in OUR interests, including military actions since this area is a major strong point. At a certain point, it is NOT in our interests to bother with other nations and peoples: what they think and say is irrelevant to OUR interests.
And it may well be working…we’ll see.
We can -and perhaps will – go up to and include our own WMDs.
Another quote paraphrased: “…if a choice must be made, it is better to be feared than loved…”
“examining Islam and promulgating “the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry.” It is deeply ironic, therefore, that it is in the academic world itself that this may be least likely to happen.”
Ironic? Are you saying academia isn’t the place for free scientific and spiritual inquiry?
That seems rather dumb…
“How, on the other hand, is it possible for anyone not to notice that Bin Laden is fighting the entire non-muslim world in order to impose a global caliphate, along the lines of the Taliban, who would whip women for so much as showing their face in public, murder homosexuals, cut the hands off of thieves and the heads off apostates, etc., etc.? If you can’t see the moral difference between the US and states like Afghanistan and Iraq – particularly if you can’t see that providing a safe harbor for international terrorists is a cause for war – then you’re not just morally blind, you really don’t have a clue about what’s reasonable and what isn’t.”
The branch of Islamic extremism your talking about also targets other muslims who are viewed as non-believers for whatever reasons they an dream up.
This is the common problem with right-wing critics of Islam and Islamic nations – that they view all muslims as the same – and so they are all, basically, extremists in their view, which of course, is totally false.
The reality is muslim extremists are a small minority in the region. But for people like Sally and other neocons, the problem is that they view states and peoples that oppose(actively or in word) Israeli and U.S crimes(occupation, illegal invasions, theft of resources, manipulating and destroying the democratic proces, double standards etc) as extremists. Just like they equate left- thinking peoples as extremists for making the arugment against U.S/Israeli crimes – which of course, are a fact – a reality.
And so she is able to make – she thinks – an argument for the immorality of Arabs states compared to the U.S. And, of course, she is obviously wrong.
And defending these liberties using armed forces at home and abroad, in certain circumstances, also is not neocon invention — it was present from the very beginning. See Wiki “Barbary wars” – against Muslim slave-traders. Compare Congress appeasement and Jefferson resolve during this first American war abroad.
memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html
strategycenter.netSo I can’t fault you for not reading an Arab newspaper, since precious few are translated into English, or for not watching al Jazeera’s English-language channel, since it is not carried by any US cable provider. What I can fault you for, however, is expounding on a situation about which you know only the barest of surface details…
…Marc Lynch, “Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, Al-Jazeera and Middle East Politics Today”
(Unfortunately not available online, but Lynch’s blog is available at http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/)
Guy – You mean the Marc Lynch who appears to be dedicating his blog and his research to putting lipstick on the totalitarian-wannabe pig that is the Muslim Brotherhood?
You also mention the Carnegie Arab Reform Bulletin, put out by the “Carnegie Endowment for International Peace”, one of many academic ‘peace’ groups dedicated to pimping the idea that the “liberal Islamists” of the Muslim Brotherhood are all about sunshine, happiness and democracy.
Carnegie operatives like Marina Ottoway say things like this:
Islamist organizations–that is, organizations that appeal to the religious values and social conservatism of the Arab public in their call for political reform–are the key to democratization in the Arab world. They have considerable support, as measured by the votes they receive when they are allowed to participate in elections, the turnout at their demonstrations, and the audiences attracted by radical preachers during sermons at mosques. They are also well-organized, maintaining strong networks of educational, health, and charitable programs
Of course, they (and you) don’t mention the fact that the supposedly “peaceful” Muslim brotherhood supports the Iraqi insurgency. They don’t mention the fact that all Islamists support Shari’a laws which are, by their nature, set up an authoriatrian system ruled by apartheid laws.
These seekers of ‘peace’ also don’t mention that the Brotherhood is the the financial hub of a billion dollar Islamist terrorist network, with large sums of cash stuffed into many offshore accounts.
You really do think we don’t know anything about the Muslim world.
hmmm..I’m not sure why strategy center.net is at the beginning of my comment. it wasn’t in the box..?
Here is what Bin-laden said on record in 1998:”For more than seven years, the United States
has been occupying the lands of Islam in the
holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula,
plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers,
humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors
and turning its bases in the peninsula into
a spearhead through which to fight the
neighboring Muslim peoples.”
Allow me to make a few points. #1 it would be awfully strange for Muslims who have no independence and are still subjugated by Jews on their own land to suddenly intend to provide the whole wide world with a caliphate. It requires a complete recontruction of the Muslim world as well as the rest of the world. Who told you that, GW Bush? What a bedtime story. Which brings me to point #2. Speak of friends and allies. president Musharif of Pakistan went on record to say that the US threatned to bomb Pakistan to the stone age if they didn’t comply with US demands after 2001. With friends like us…
and for good ol Charlie who believes in the white man’s burden, well no one stays on top forever. When the lion is dead the hares jump all over him. I hope for more dignity.
I would not give two penny for democratization of Muslim world if this means giving power to Islamists. It means replacing of 13-th century secular autocracy by 7-th century mob rule. This is not an improvement. Democracy is not aim in itself and should be supported only if it bears hope of modernization. If not, dictatorship rational enough to respect Western interests is preferable. It is also rightly deserved for peoples so benighted that without it jump en masse centures back.
“theft of resources”
Must be why we’ve spent billions repairing infrastructure, and why the Iraqis just passed their oil sharing law…we’ve stolen it all, haven’t we TC?
What a yutz.
See, Bonny, what Scripture says about pacifists who try to appease terrorists:
In Proverbs 25:26 we read: “A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.”
Sally, blog commenter, wrote:
Bin Laden is fighting the entire non-muslim world in order to impose a global caliphate, along the lines of the Taliban…
Ambassador Francis X. Taylor, Coordinator for Counterterrorism, United States Department of State said:
“Bin Laden’s goal is to remove the American presence from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic Nations and to create an Islamic utopia in what is now the Islamic world. He sees the United States as the major impediment to his goal and has vowed to attack America and Americans to undermine our influence on the world stage.”
You all may now begin trashing Ambassador Taylor as a politically-motivated hack.
Speak of friends and allies. president Musharif of Pakistan went on record to say that the US threatned to bomb Pakistan to the stone age if they didn’t comply with US demands after 2001. With friends like us…
If Pakistan were any kind of “friend”, they wouldn’t have had to be threatened to allow US overflights, they would have actively helped. Pakistan is only an “ally” because of the threats. Like Saudi Arabia, it too will have to be confronted eventually.
As for that peace-lover, Bin Laden — well, I think we can see where Bonnie’s coming from. Like so many on the collapsed, degenerate left of our time, she can’t help but admire that “strong horse”, even if he is still obsessing over “the tragedy of Andalusia”. They may differ a bit in the terms they employ, but they share the same intense hatred of America, the West, and — for the lefties, ever since their socialist utopian dreams were popped by history — the modern world. The only thing stopping many of them from strapping on bombs and waddling off to blow up a school bus is the nagging difficulty in believing that there really are 72 virgins (or boytoys) awaiting them.
“Bin Laden’s goal is to remove the American presence from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic Nations and to create an Islamic utopia in what is now the Islamic world….”
Which is no doubt true — and not only consistent with, but a necessary prerequisite for, a long-term dream of extending that “utopia” to the rest of the world’s “unbelievers”.
Note that word “utopia”, by the way — it’s the key to understanding the perverse hold that islamist fanatics have on the contemporary left, grasping after any fantasy of coerced order. For a glimpse at just how depraved that is, look at the “utopia” in action — Taliban-run Afghanistan.
Dearest Bonnie:
You mused: “…and for good ol Charlie who believes in the white man’s burden, well no one stays on top forever. When the lion is dead the hares jump all over him. I hope for more dignity.”.
My point is that while you’re on top (which you imply the USA is) do things calculated to assure that you remain on top. Whether it’s the Kipling Route or a Bleeding Heart, do whatever it takes.
Because no one will love you like yourself.
Another quote I advise thinking upon: “The world is divided into two groups: those who are kicked and those who do the kicking”. Uttered by a rather leftish Berthod Brecht. In “A Man’s A Man” IIRC.
“My point is that while you’re on top (which you imply the USA is) do things calculated to assure that you remain on top. Whether it’s the Kipling Route or a Bleeding Heart, do whatever it takes.
Yeah like invading devasted, third world nations – overextending our military; strengthening our enemies; having no dipolomatic credibility; having the whole world either hate us or laughing at us as we slowly strangle ourselves financially and morally – and still as arrogant as ever…
Yeah, that’s one hell of a calculated move I gotta say…
“Bin Laden’s goal is to remove the American presence from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic Nations and to create an Islamic utopia in what is now the Islamic world. He sees the United States as the major impediment to his goal and has vowed to attack America and Americans to undermine our influence on the world stage.”
So what? So what if he wants us(our military presence) out, again I ask, does the Arab world belong to the US? Do we speak Arabic? And nowhere does Bin-laden state that he will attack Americans just to undermine them for the sake of undermining them. That’s the old “kill them because their infidels” hysteria propaganda. That is silly, we are doing fine on our own and he knows it. We fell right into his trap. the whole world hates Bush more than Bin-laden. Everyone is onto this game. except for you true believers. That’s gotta be worth a good laugh even for someone as sober as Bin-laden. You don’t know what they are fighting for, or what you are fighting for. You think 72 virgins means intact hymens in heaven for crissakes.
we dont’ speak arabic but they do speak English, and the Kurds are almost totally phasing out teaching Arabic, replacing it with English classes.
I would suggest that the rapid succession of false choices proposed by Bonnie indicates she is unable to discuss issues, but simply wants to lecture. TC we know from previous discussions does this. When they are ready to discuss matters, we should oblige them. Until then, we might pray for more reasonable opposition.
I have offered discussion before and been rebuffed. It is now up to Bonnie and TC to acknowledge that people who disagree with them might have decent motives and actual reasons. Until then, there is simply no point in going further.
You think 72 virgins means intact hymens in heaven for crissakes.
You’re a little confused, here, Bonnie, and maybe, ironically enough, a little hysterical — the 72 virgins or raisins or whatever are supposed to be the sexual reward for your favorite pathological killers.
No, the Arab world doesn’t belong to the US. Neither does it belong to Bin Laden and his gang. So, as you say yourself, it’s quite irrelevant what Bin Laden or his likes want, or why he’s attacking the US — it’s simply a fact that he is, and that we need to defend ourselves. We could, of course, try to figure out what he wants and then try to give it to him, in the hopes that he, and the rest of them, will then leave us alone — does that seem like a good strategy to you?
More to the point, we need to get over the fixation on Bin Laden (not to mention the liberal hand-wringing over who “the whole world” hates more). These problems preceded Bin Laden, and will carry on after he’s busy with those intact hymens. We need to see the full cultural, regional, and historical scope of this threat, and deal with it on those levels.
So what if he wants us(our military presence) out, again I ask, does the Arab world belong to the US? Do we speak Arabic?
Bonnie, are you saying that Bin Laden is the spokesman for the Arab world?
Bonnie, are you saying that Bin Laden is the spokesman for the Arab world?
Bin-laden speaks for the Arab world in the same vien as Hanan Ashwari, the Palestinian Quaker spokeswoman for Palestine. And Edward Said the Palestinian Christian and Noam Chomsky, the Jew, and Robert Fisk the Brisith Journalist. Bin-laden and the others are telling you to get your boot off their necks or they or someone else will have to strap the bombs and kill you. These are your “suicidal killers” and your leaders tell you they hate you for your freedom, which doesn’t even makes sense to me. They are there and we are here. Oh yes, we are there too. Not you and your family but your whole damn Christian and Jewish army. I have to tell you, I wouldn’t like it either and I would fight back too if the same was happening in my homeland. At least I hope I would.
we dont’ speak arabic but they do speak English, and the Kurds are almost totally phasing out teaching Arabic, replacing it with English classes.
the Kurds have their own language, what do you mean “phasing out” Arabic”…?
Good ol Charlie, I like your honesty. You go where few dare to go.
You’re a little confused, here, Bonnie, and maybe, ironically enough, a little hysterical – the 72 virgins or raisins or whatever are supposed to be the sexual reward for your favorite pathological killers.
You are confused Sally, I am sorry to insist on the truth here. There are no sexual rewards in the Islamic heaven. Don’t let Jimmy Swaggart tell you anything different. As for the Arab world belonging to Bin-laden, I would say it belongs to him more than you or I the same way America belongs to you and I more than Bin-laden. Makes sense to me anyway.
Qur’an Surah 56, verse 33: “On couches or thrones raised high. Verily, we have created them (maidens) incomparable: we have formed their maidens as a special creation, and made them to grow a new growth. We made them virgins-pure and undefiled, lovers, matched in age.” Yes, Bonnie, no matter how ridiculous it sounds, this is what they BELIEVE! Notice their wives or lovers aren’t the heavenly virgins, these are “specially created, prepetual” and “matched in age” to you(no wonder the old clerics and Bin Laden don’t martyr themselves; I mean, 72 sixty year old virgins). If you REALLY want to know what motivates the “extremists” and cowes the “moderates”, read their holy scriptures, the Qur’an and Sunnah(hadiths). It really does not need to get any more scholarly than that.
Notice their wives or lovers aren’t the heavenly virgins, these are “specially created, prepetual” and “matched in age” to you(no wonder the old clerics and Bin Laden don’t martyr themselves; I mean, 72 sixty year old virgins).
What an ugly imagination you have. Let me offer you something different. These virgins ‘lovers’ (heavenly creatures) are servants for the most high where prophets of God, saints and martyrs reside. Not sex slaves as you imagine or they could hardly be pure and heaven just wouldn’t be heaven. Everything in heaven is beautiful and pure. And for everyone in heaven (not just the highest level) they will be associated with others whom they love and those of similarity. (matched) Not age, there is no age. It’s an expression of satisfaction and happiness. I don’t think you’re ready to grasp Quranic expressions of beauty and purity but don’t say I didn’t try.
Bin-laden and the others are telling you to get your boot off their necks or they or someone else will have to strap the bombs and kill you.
And here, Bonnie, is what we say to Bin Laden and “the others”, including you — unstrap your bombs and learn to live with a diverse world, or we will have to put our boots on your neck. And I mean really put our boots on your neck, which of course we haven’t done to this point at all, not even in Iraq or Afghanistan, which is why there are still a bunch of pathological killers jacked up on visions of “Quranic expressions of beauty and purity” (yeah, right) running around blowing up their own people.
Yes, Bonnie, you — and many like you — have made your choice, and that choice isn’t Islam (as the people of the Declaration of St. Petersburg would tell you). It’s quite literally the choice of death everlasting over life. And that will come soon enough for all of you, suicide killers and their wannabes — you’re good at mass murder, especially of unsuspecting school children, but that’s all you’re good at, and that won’t be enough.
This declaration, alas, is of little significance, as Islam actually cannot be reformed, and so a bunch of apostates claiming otherwise will have no effect, at least not on Islam.
‘Yes, Bonnie, you – and many like you – have made your choice, and that choice isn’t Islam (as the people of the Declaration of St. Petersburg would tell you). It’s quite literally the choice of death everlasting over life. And that will come soon enough for all of you, suicide killers and their wannabes – you’re good at mass murder, especially of unsuspecting school children, but that’s all you’re good at, and that won’t be enough.”
What melodramatic nonsense that is, if I may.
Scary though to think people actually believe this stuff. Even scarier to think they have no conception of what good and evil are. Just pure partisanship to the bone…
When white men, Anglo-Saxon Protestants especially, get really angry they form such deadly force that nothing in universe can stop them. At present they have not yet arrived at this stage, but every new Muslim crime and arrogance drive them there, and so every “success” of jihad prepare ultimate destruction of bloody bastards. At some point US people will cry out “Nuke them!” and this will be done.
TC, if anger and outrage at murdering of scoolchildren is “melodramatic nonsense” for you, this is you who have no conception of what good and evil are. For four days of Beslan siege the whole Russia could not break away from TV in disgust and fury, and in aftermath the death sentence on Chechen mutiny was sealed. The same will follow for all jihadists, sooner or later.
sally says:Yes, Bonnie, you – and many like you – have made your choice, and that choice isn’t Islam (as the people of the Declaration of St. Petersburg would tell you). It’s quite literally the choice of death everlasting over life. And that will come soon enough for all of you, suicide killers and their wannabes – you’re good at mass murder, especially of unsuspecting school children, but that’s all you’re good at, and that won’t be enough.
The St. Petersburg declaration is not promoting Christian/Jewish invasion of Muslim lands nor promoting the idea that Muslims should lie down under their boot or saying the lands and people should not be defended. You are confused about many things. Statisitcs would easily show you that the Muslims do not surpass (or even come close to ) Israel/US in the killing of unsuspecting children. Surely you are afraid to look into that. But think of this. the children around the globe from Japan to El Salvador to Iraq to Palestine to Lebanon to Vietnam just to name a few places, do not see our cluster bombs, fire bombs, or A-bombs, or distant missiles, daisy cutters nor our chemical weapons that land in their beds, yards, streets and schools. World facts are independent of your own myopia which is a personal problem.
sergey Says:
When white men, Anglo-Saxon Protestants especially, get really angry they form such deadly force that nothing in universe can stop them. At present they have not yet arrived at this stage, but every new Muslim crime and arrogance drive them there, and so every “success” of jihad prepare ultimate destruction of bloody bastards. At some point US people will cry out “Nuke them!” and this will be done.
Arrogance is a recipee for defeat, Homer.
“What melodramatic nonsense that is, if I may.
Scary though to think people actually believe this stuff. Even scarier to think they have no conception of what good and evil are. Just pure partisanship to the bone…”
Suicide for heavenly sex slaves, murder for it’s own sake. Savages. Moderate Muslims out there somewhere even if we don’t know what one is. It’s an anglo dreamland.
Suicide for heavenly sex slaves, murder for it’s own sake. Savages.
You said it. Though it’s not, as a rule, “murder for its own sake”, but rather murder in the name of a particular religion. And they’re not really “savages”, either, since that just insults savages — they’re sick specimens of a vicious ideology spawned by an essentially medieval culture, struggling to come to terms with the modern world. But even as such, the islamists are a step or two above their depraved and fawning admirers in the West, who will cling desperately to any murderous cult that promises to deliver them from their own self-loathing.
Take little TC, for example. He thinks this is just “melodramatic nonsense”. And he says he’s scared — frightened, apparently, at the thought that others see it as actual evil. He’s not afraid of, so he says — not even, apparently, much affected by — those who shoot fleeing schoolchildren in the back; or those who slowly saw off the head of a helpless captive, while filming the event for the internet; or those who slice the throats of flight attendants and run airliners at full speed into packed buildings; etc., etc., etc. No, these and thousands of similar horrors leave him just indifferent. But anybody who finds them morally repellant — those are the ones who have him trembling in his boots, or so he claims. And it hardly matters whether he’s lying about that or not — the real point is just to notice the sort of moral sickness that would result in such a statement in the first place.
The St. Petersburg declaration is not promoting Christian/Jewish invasion of Muslim lands nor promoting the idea that Muslims should lie down under their boot or saying the lands and people should not be defended.
Oh, and by the way — nor is anyone else.
Yeah, Bonnie, I’m not ready to grasp Quranic expressions of beauty and purity because the Qur’an doesn’t express any ITSELF! Boy, you’re one for the books. To take those ugly words and say they’re expressing heavenly beauty and purity, you really have to have a vivid imagination. To get such “heavenly beauty”, one needs go no further than the nearest upscale brothel. The Biblical heaven isn’t described as much more than communion with God. Why such emphasis on the wine, the food, the “heavenly lovers”? Is this what “paradise” is all about? And Allah himself isn’t even there. He’s too busy stoking the fire for the infidels, personally dragging people by the forelocks to the fire, replacing singed skin with fresh skin so the torment can last forever(merciful, benevolent my ASS!). No, sorry Bonnie, their scripture is as demented as it’s god and messenger. Some “beauty and purity”.
Really does make you wonder why Allah prefers hell to heaven, doesn’t it?
Bin-laden speaks for the Arab world in the same vien as Hanan Ashwari, the Palestinian Quaker spokeswoman for Palestine. And Edward Said the Palestinian Christian and Noam Chomsky, the Jew, and Robert Fisk the Brisith Journalist. Bin-laden and the others are telling you to get your boot off their necks or they or someone else will have to strap the bombs and kill you.
ooh, you’re scaring me 🙂
These are your “suicidal killers” and your leaders tell you they hate you for your freedom, which doesn’t even makes sense to me. They are there and we are here. Oh yes, we are there too. Not you and your family but your whole damn Christian and Jewish army. I have to tell you, I wouldn’t like it either and I would fight back too if the same was happening in my homeland. At least I hope I would.
Your writing is poorly constructed and I can’t tell who the ‘we’s and ‘they’s are but I’m guessing that this is some kind of threat?
The leaders of terrorist organizations are mostly middle and upper class folks who pretend to be motivated by ideology, but who are actually motivated by greed and a need for political power. They preach jihad or the Third Reich or the dictatorship of the proletariat, they convince dumb punks to die for the cause and they rake in the cash. The terrorist economy is worth billions of dollars and they need lots of cannon fodder to keep things running.
Of course they need rage-filled ideologues like you for cannon fodder, so believe you I would fight. Good luck with that.
Speaking of poorly constructed sentences, that should be:
Of course they need rage-filled ideologues like you for cannon fodder, so I believe you would fight…
“Yeah, Bonnie, I’m not ready to grasp Quranic expressions of beauty and purity because the Qur’an doesn’t express any ITSELF!”
Very convient for you to be so focused on some religion and culture you are inept for whatever reasons to grasp (and then blame the religion too) and skip over the root causes that are spelled out in plain simple English for why you are being attacked. It has been explained in your language that the ‘terrorists” will remain at your doorstep untill you’re terrorists are off of theirs. Whether or not you like them or understand them is irrelevant, who cares. Just acknoweledge the deal instead of side stepping it which leads me to believe those who keep doing that feel guilty and need to be in denial. For me that is shirking. You’re hiding. Good ol Charlie looks it square in the eye. “Strong Nations do what they can; Weak Nations do what they must.” Colonization, the inhabitants fight back. It’s natural, we don’t need to blame their religion or culture or call them evil, that’s just an attempt to oppress a guilty conscience.
Your writing is poorly constructed and I can’t tell who the ‘we’s and ‘they’s are but I’m guessing that this is some kind of threat?
well Mary, that aside, what about the point? You jumped right back to the scary “Jihad” that you attribute to Muslims when there are people from all walks of life involved in various ways. Some fight, some write, some teach, some donate. They are from all religions, all countries, all educational levels. The Jihad is global in more ways than one particular religion. It includes those authors of the St. Petersburg declaration, it includes me and I don’t believe in the Al-Qaida or Taliban school of religious thought. It’s not about any of that, it’s about US foreign policy. I would only repress my feeling and sentiments if i felt guilty.
It’s not about any of that, it’s about US foreign policy.
Right, it’s all our fault – we make you a violent, spittle-flecked ideologue and therefore you’re not guilty of anything.
Enjoy your jihad/revolution/reich or whatever you’re calling it now.
U.S. foreign policy has:
Saved Europe from itself twice. Defeated the totalitarian plague that was communist Russia. Given the Saudis and most of the rest of the Middle East access to the oil they didn’t even know they had. Spent more on fighting AIDS in Africa than any other nation. Helped to prevent the annihilation of the only democracy in the Middle East. Prevented the communist North from taking over South Korea…who’s in better shape now? Helped to rebuild defeated former enemies Japan and Germany. (My favorite license plate frame: “Pearl Harbor Survivors Society”–on the back of a Toyota!) Given billions in aid to the “Palestinians”, Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Iraqis, etc.
Oh, those EEEEEEEEEVIL Americans!
What is Islam’s “foreign policy”? Shall we ask those in Thailand, Indonesia, Bali, Australia, Israel, France, Germany, Russia (Beslan), Kosovo, Darfur, New York City?
Get a grip, Bonnie. Your hatred is showing.
Gee, Bonnie, how does doing business with the Middle East constitute “colonization”?And quite frankly, when, and ONLY when muslims stop killing us, then, and ONLY then will we stop killing people who are killing us. It’s as simple as that, and it’s ALWAYS been that simple. Sorry, but that’s the way it is. If the ONLY way to stop oppressing muslims is to become one or pay tribute, then I guess we have to park ourselves in and amoug you to make sure as much as possible that THAT doesn’t happen. And that is what we had to do to Germany and Japan. And we will continue to do so in the ME until they stop killing us. So, feel repressed all you want, I don’t care anymore. If they leave us alone, we’ll leave them alone. If they want to do business, we’ll do business. If they want to be friends, PROVE IT! We’ll be friends with anyone. But if the only way to survive is to “oppress” you, then so be it. That is YOUR choice, and may the best side win.(btw: we ARE winning)
Lee:
“Gee, Bonnie, how does doing business with the Middle East constitute “colonization”?”
Lee, you know we’ve oppressed the Middle East so horribly. The West has given them *trillions* of dollars for a miineral they couldn’t even get out of the ground without our technology, the poor dears!
It has been explained in your language that the ‘terrorists” will remain at your doorstep untill you’re terrorists are off of theirs. Whether or not you like them or understand them is irrelevant, who cares. Just acknoweledge the deal instead of side stepping it….
I’m not sure what Bonnie’s language is, but this works perfectly the other way: who cares what Bonnie & her terrorist friends think of America? For one thing, they’re deranged, but that’s irrelevant too — the simple fact is that we can kill their real terrorists faster and more effectively than they can kill us. “Just acknowledge the deal instead of side-stepping it”, Bonnie.
“Amoug”?
Pingback:Sexy Arab
Pingback:mad money transcript