LinkedIn
Facebook
TwitterOne Man’s Blog
Specialization is for Insects.
Posted on May 21, 2007 - 2:59am by John P. in Politics, Videos
This is one of the most brilliant and courageous things I’ve ever seen. Thanks to Ruby on Rails Guy for sharing this in the comments of another post.
In 2006 Wafa Sultan was named to Time Magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people “whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world.” They had this to say:
“Sultan’s influence flows from her willingness to express openly critical views on Islamic extremism that are widely shared but rarely aired by other Muslims.”
Sultan believes:
“The trouble with Islam is deeply rooted in its teachings. Islam is not only a religion. Islam (is) also a political ideology that preaches violence and applies its agenda by force.â€
Personally, I would go so far as to say that Dr. Wafa Sultan is one of the most inspiring people I’ve ever seen in my life. I would have no problem comparing her to Dr. Martin Luther King.
About a year ago she appeared on Al Jazeera and debated some famous but foolish guy, and in the process she ripped him a new one. Watch this…
Following that debate, Dr. Sultan gave the following interview on Israel National Radio:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Here is some more background information regarding Dr. Wafa Sultan:
Sultan is a Syrian-American psychiatrist (from an Alawi family). She resides in Los Angeles, California. She emigrated to the US in 1989, and is now a naturalized citizen. Sultan has become notable since the September 11, 2001 attacks for her participation in Middle East political debates, with Arabic essays that circulated widely and some television appearances on Al-Jazeera and CNN.
On February 21, 2006, she took part in Al Jazeera’s weekly 90-minute discussion program The Opposite Direction. She spoke from Los Angeles, arguing with host Faisal al-Qassem and with Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli about Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations theory. A six minute composite video of her remarks was subtitled and widely circulated by http://www.MEMRI.org on weblogs and through e-mail. In this video she is scolding Muslims for treating non-Muslims differently and for not recognizing the accomplishments of non-Muslim society, while using its wealth and technology.
The New York Times estimated that the video of her appearance was viewed at least one million times as it spread via weblogs and email.
Sultan revealed to the Times that she is working on a book to be called The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster.
Recently, she sat in on a free-speech discussion at the University of California at Los Angeles, organized by the Ayn Rand Institute with Yaron Brook and Daniel Pipes as speakers.
Sultan describes her thesis as witnessing “a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will lose”, has brought her telephone threats, but also praise from reformers. Her comments, especially a pointed criticism that “no Jew has blown himself up in a German restaurant”, brought her an invitation to Tel Aviv, Israel by the American Jewish Congress.
Sultan believes that “The trouble with Islam is deeply rooted in its teachings. Islam is not only a religion. Islam (is) also a political ideology that preaches violence and applies its agenda by force.”
Sultan said she was shocked into secularism by the 1979 atrocities committed by Islamic extremists of the Muslim Brotherhood against innocent Syrian people, including the machine-gun assassination of her professor, Dr. Yusef al Yusef, an ophthalmologist renowned beyond Syria, in her classroom in front of her eyes at the University of Aleppo where she was a medical student.
“They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, ‘Allah is great!’ ” she said. “At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god.”
I use the "No Adverts for Friends" plugin by Donncha O Caoimh
I am glad you enjoyed that movie. She is a person who worths respect.
Regards,
RoR guy!
Wow, what a powerful and courageous person, is the full debate of the al-jazeera available? I want to see how the muslim extremist answered her!
What she said – Sultan describes her thesis as witnessing “a battle between modernity and barbarism which Islam will loseâ€
- is absolutely spot on. I doubt this applies solely to Islam either.
Here is the other side of Wafa Sultan discussion on al Jazeera — part that was missing in mermi tv and hundreds of youtube videos of that discussion
Part1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRLWFKB30yk
Part2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4tKZv4THCA
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us1dtTFHYjk&
Part4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpRPnwYHc9w
Of course there are extremist elements in all faiths. If you can think your way out of a paper bag, you’ll realize that Islam isn’t the only religion that preaches violence and pushes its agenda by force. I believe religious leaders throughout the history of Europe and the U.S. have used religion (the Christian faith…) to do evil, from Christopher Colubus to the present. George W. Bush has used religious connotations when discussing his reasons for invading Iraq, as well as using God as a justification for the war, saying that he’s doing it to be a “good messanger of His will,” etc.
Also, the Bible has so many passages that encourage violence, genocide, murder, etc. that it is ridiculous to act like the Quran is the only book to do such things. I don’t think it’s particularly couragous of Dr. Sultan to criticize an area (the Middle East) that Europe and the U.S. has done so much to disrupt since 1914 (when British troops occupied Basra).
Awareness,
I believe your points are all valid and I agree with you on principle.
Having read the Bible many times I believe you are technically incorrect in stating that it advocates genocide. Also on a technicality I would state that it does not advocate “murder”, though if you equate killing to murder then I can concede that point.
I would however like to point out that Islam is the only religion I am aware of where people actually openly preach and advocate the complete annihilation of any other religion. As an example of this please see this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yeB_1j4DsG0
Christians and others have done plenty of harm themselves, but Islamist extremists threaten to destroy the entire planet in the name of Allah.
John
Thank you Awareness for your points.
I would like to tell you that there is a HUGE difference between a leader who kills people just because he is a bad person (like the leaders you claimed) and between a person who kills because his GOD told him to do that. If killing order comes from GOD, this is a serious problem, that hard to be removed.
Be rational when you speak about Christianity. Read about it well, and try to differentiate between old and new testimonial. Jesus Christ came to fix what you mentioned.
Finally, compare nations in terms of human rights, women right, technology and another millions things to get feelings of whom are jailed in history prison because of their beliefs.
Thank you!
Glad you responded. You said,
Tell me, what do you think is the consequence of sending in the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines to Iraq? Just to let you know, our forces are very responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, as was the known consequence for our invasion. If God told George W. Bush (the supreme leader of our armed forces) to attack, then G. W. Bush should also know that this is a “killing order from God.” You told me to be rational. I hope we’re all rational when we allow hundreds of thousands of innocent people, already devasted by years of U.S. supported Saddam Hussein and about ten years of sanctions, called genocidal by any one who bothered to look at what it was doing to the population (Denis Halliday, Hans VonSponeck, human rights and aid organizations).
You also said,
I have read it well. Went to church about every Sunday from ages 0-14. First, just because Jesus offered a less violent approach to Christianity, it doesn’t mean the Old Testament is gone. No matter what your version of the New Testament is, people will use it to justify their evil actions (like people use Islam). It is still used by Christians as a guide of spirituality and a way to live life (and, depending on your views, it is the sacred word of God; all truth). Ignoring, for now, the brutality of the Old Testament, let’s look at some examples of the New Testament, which the actual writers of betray, as they “interpret his life, death, and resurrection in light of violent images of God and expectations of history that Jesus himself rejected” (Pellmeyer: “Is Religion Killing Us?” 2003). Priestly writers say God orders disobidient children to be murdered (Lev 20:9, Deut 20:18-21) and a man who gathers sticks on the Sabbath to be stoned to death (Num 16:32-36) because they believe these actions are necessary to appease a violent deity. The book of Acts is a petty murder. God kills Ananias and Sapphria because they withhold part of the proceeds from a voluntary land sale (God wanted all the money…). The examples are numerous, and I can give you more if you’d like.
You lastly said,
You forget: the nations using Islam as a justification to commit atrocities have been/are/will be supported by the United States. King Hussein of Jordan, Mubarak of Egypt, Saddam of Iraq, Israel and their treatment of the Palestinians, the Saudi royal family in Saudi Arabia, and the list goes on and on. I think you’re right: we should compare nations on the terms you listed above. If we’re honest, we’ll look in the mirror and see which countries we support, then speak out against their crimes.
The only problem is, I believe there is enough historical “crime” in every direction that we look that it really doesn’t matter.
People in general are greedy bastards and we do horrible things to one another. Religion serves as a handy excuse, but I think we’d do it even without a belief that a divine being is behind us.
John, you said,
I don’t know what it’s called when all that don’t believe Jesus is the savior will be sent to everlasting Hell, Jews included. To show an example of genocide from the Old Testament, God allows Abram’s descendents to take land away from the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites (Gen 15:18-21). After taking the land, “You must utterly destroy them…show them no mercy (Deut 7:2). People were “massacred as an offering to Yahweh, as a form of human sacrifice” and a way of purging the land of “moral contaminants.” But I suppose it doesn’t count since there’s a New Testament…
You said,
Just as parts of the Old Testament are downplayed, the violent parts of the Quran can be downplayed. We should also remember that the Quran said: “We believe in Allah, and The revelation given to us, and To Abraham, Ismail, Issac, Jacob, and the descendants (children of Jacob) and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to Prophets from their Lord: We make no difference Between one and another of them (Quran 2:136).” So we can take parts from the Quran and Bible to prove how nice or mean they are.
You also said,
First of all, which Islamist extremists? I’m pretty sure that we’ve killed more innocent people than al-Quaeda has killed in Iraq. We are also responsible for the killing of 500,000 to 1 million Iraqi children during our sanctions from August 6, 1990 to May 22, 2003. I think we can also say that most Islamists in the U.S./world do not want to destroy the entire planet. We should also ask ourselves:do no Christian extremists threaten to destroy the plant? I believe you can show me tons of websites that say “the end of times are coming,” “all non-believers will perish to hell,” etc. Also, our Christian leaders, military/civil, are continuing to increase the threat of “destroying the planet” by its confrontation with nuclear powers (by putting a new missile system so close to Russia/China, for example).
If you are a religious person there may seem no difference between everlasting punishment after death, and death itself. But to those who do not believe in God Genocide means specifically the complete extermination of a group of people based solely on race. I assure you, that is not an example of Genocide.
Again, this is not Genocide. The Bible does not state that all of those people would be killed down to the last woman and child. It says that part of their lands would be cleared to make room for Moses’ people. Huge technical difference.
People who opposed Alexander the Great, or most other military opponents were not shown mercy. That does not mean Genocide was committed upon their people.
No. Again, that is not what I said. I’m not talking about the fact that we can find passages among the holy books to debate one another with all day for the rest of our lives, I’m talking about putting the religion into practice.
There are heads of state in Islamic countries calling for the extermination of every man, woman and child in the US and Israel. There are no other heads of state who ascribe to any other religion calling for these types of actions against any other people. So from this perspective it doesn’t matter what the Quaran says, it is the words and actions that I am pointing out are a problem.
This statement is not backed up by fact, and I believe it to be patently false. Additionally, as I’ve already argued it was the Iraqi people’s responsibility to not allow themselves to be taken over by a brutal dictatorial regime. When someone else has to come in and clean up that mess people are going to die, but that does not make them “innocent” since it was their complacency and lack of action that led to conflict.
This statement is ludicrous. If you want to see what its like to watch children get killed go take a look at Darfur. The US has ZERO responsibility for even a single death due to sanctions. If the Iraqi government hadn’t been corrupt, if the Iraqis had pursued a more economically progressive system, if the Iraqis had done what was necessary to provide for their own people’s health, safety and well-being, then US sanctions would have been irrelevant. No, the blame for all the problems in Iraq rest squarely on the leadership at that time and the people who supported it.
After all this discussion today I’m ready to get back to some topics that are more lighthearted, so I’m going to abandon this thread now. But before I do I just want to sum up with a few final thoughts:
I’m outta here!
John
You said,
I agree with you. But you didn’t read what I wrote. I didn’t say it could actually happen or will happen; this is what I wrote: “…the Bible has passages that encourage violence, genocide, murder, etc.†just as most religious books.
Also, look up the definition of genocide. Genocide is the systematic extermination of a racial, religious, ethnic, or national group. The Bible treats, as fact, that a supreme being will eternally damn any religious group besides Christianity. When you believe that the Bible is God’s word, you believe/support the fact that all other religious groups will eternally burn in Hell. I think you’re right when you say that genocide refers to reality, but this wasn’t the issue I was discussing. Once again, I said that the Bible has passages that encourage bad things, or they treat them as if it’s OK.
The issue is about religion’s impact on its believers and what people can use their religion for. The issue Dr. Sultan brings up is that Islam is a faith based on a violent religion and people of that religion are worse than other religions because of that faith. We’re not talking about rational choices based on fact. People can pretend the Bible is not violent, but just taking a look at it can reveal it has violent parts, just like the Quran.
You said,
Once again, look at the Bible. It clearly says: “You must utterly destroy them…show them no mercy†(Deut 7:2). You were wrong when you said that it “did not state that all of those people would be killed.†What does, “You must utterly destroy them…show them no mercy†mean? People were “massacred as an offering to Yahweh, as a form of human sacrifice†and a way of purging the land of “moral contaminants.†You can pretend this is not God-sanctioned genocide or a “huge technical difference,†but I know what it says.
In addition, let’s say that you wanted to (as you say) clear “part of someone’s land to make room for your people.†Let’s also say that a divine influence has allowed you to take land from Jesuits, Jews, Islamists, Protestants, Lutherans, etc. Do you really think those people will do it without fighting? Look up the definition of genocide. It says the systematic extermination of a racial, religious, ethnic, or national group. Genocide is still genocide without killing “every one down to the last woman and child.†Now do you think those people wouldn’t fight? And when they did fight for THEIR land, what’s the reason you would kill them to “make room†for your people? What do you think it means when “lands are clearedâ€? Remember: Deut 7:2 says “You must utterly destroy them (taking no account of innocent/guilty)…show them no mercy.â€
You said,
If the soldiers/Alexander the Great exterminated a national, religious, ethnic, or racial group based on the belief that their national, religious, ethnic, or racial group was superior/more important, it is genocide. Look up the definition. Read about Alexander the Great. You’ll see the systematic extermination of other national, ethnic, religious, and racial groups. Just because his goal was not total extermination doesn’t mean what he did isn’t genocide. It wasn’t an accident that the people Alexander the Great (European) killed happened to be Persian. Again, are you telling me that Abram’s people (Jewish) taking away other people’s land for the benefit of the Jewish religious/ethnic group, and then “utterly destroys†the inhabitants with “no mercy,†isn’t genocide?
You said,
Which heads of state? Since you didn’t name one, I can’t really discuss it. The Muslim heads of state that actually have some power are the ones supported by the U.S.: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Saddam Hussein at one time, and the list goes on and on. And I can tell you that you wouldn’t support them, and the majority of their victims don’t support them/would rather have democratic institutions. Without looking for examples, I’ll just assume there are some Muslims calling for bad things. Can they/have they done as much damage as the U.S. and “Christian†nations? I’m sure there’s cultural, government, and religious leaders in the U.S. that are calling for the extermination of people in Arab/Muslim countries.
This statement is not backed up by fact, and I believe it to be patently false. Additionally, as I’ve already argued it was the Iraqi people’s responsibility to not allow themselves to be taken over by a brutal dictatorial regime. When someone else has to come in and clean up that mess people are going to die, but that does not make them “innocent†since it was their complacency and lack of action that led to conflict.
I do believe you’re right: there are no facts about the number of civilians we killed in Iraq. Well, we don’t know because we don’t really care. Look at any serious study and the number ranges from ten of thousands to over 500,000 thousand. How many innocents has Al-Qaeda killed? Any expert in terrorism will put the number much lower because al-Qaeda doesn’t have the resources we do to inflict as much murder.
The people of Iraq couldn’t topple Saddam because Europe and America allowed him to have the money, political, and military support to keep them subdued. The sanctions also made the people more worried about where their next meal was coming from more so than forming a militia (although if you actually researched it, you’d know many people were trying to overthrow the corrupt government). A quick look at the record will show that a starving, suffering people cannot be expected to free themselves from an armed and powerful war machine supported by a superpower. Also, by your standards, we are guilty since it was U.S. citizen’s “complacency and lack of action†that allowed innocent people of Nicaragua to be terrorized by our government and military. Does that mean it’s OK if civilians are killed by retaliation attacks from Nicaragua? Of course not.
You said,
As for Darfur, I believe most of the deaths occurred before the sanctions (800,000) and the head of the U.N. force there, Gen. Dallaire, pleaded for the U.N. (led by the U.S.) to send help. No help came. So look at the history and see what responsibility we did have. You can be assured it wasn’t “ZERO.â€
You think the Iraqi people wanted Saddam Hussein in power, or that they supported their corrupt government, or that Iraqis didn’t care about their own people, safety and well-being? Unless you lived under a rock, you knew that the people hated Saddam (especially the two majority ethnic groups terrorized by him: Kurds and Shiites), especially when he was supported by the U.S., especially when we knew he used gas, executions, and murder on the people of Iraq. Most Iraqis were very happy when we got rid of Saddam, but didn’t forget that we supported him for years, right during/after the crimes he was executed for. Remember: he had sanctions because of not following U.N. resolutions. Now should we apply sanctions on Israel because they have not followed U.N. resolutions? Should we starve and kill the citizens because of leaders?
The original intent of the article was to support and praise a woman that speaks out against violent people. I agree with that. We also need to look IN THE MIRROR. She should also be speaking about things WE can control as citizens in a free country, maybe the freest in the world. Criticizing poor people under the control of terrorists/dictators we support would be a more appropriate thing to do, in my mind. Have you ever tried to overthrow a dictator supported by the most powerful country in the world? No. Acting like the people of Iraq could’ve somehow easily overthrown Saddam if they really wanted is absurd. They did try to overthrow Saddam, several times. They didn’t have the resources/ability to this because he happened to have money, weapons, and political support from Europe and America. You can open a history book and learn about it. If you hold them responsible and say they “cannot side-step responsibility†and that they would “pay now, or pay later,†you should apply that same standard to your own country.
Looking at the 7-7-07 I entered, I noticed that I made a mistake. I referenced Gen. Dallaire, 800,000 deaths, etc. I was referencing Rwanda, not Darfur. Of course, this does affect the general region, allows instability, and makes the people less secure, which makes violence more possible.
Although I do not believe that our responsibility for the Darfur situation is “ZERO.” The Darfur situation was labeled a genocide by the U.S., yet Washington prevented prosecution of crimes in Darfur. Sec. Council Resolution 1593 authorized referral of the situation in Darfur to the ICC for investigation/prosecution. The U.S. agreed to abstain instead of the usual veto, it is assumed, only after language was added that prevents UN funding for the investigation, which means that it is unlikely to proceed.
Human Rights Watch’s Richard Dicker went further and said, “As killing and rape continue in Darfur, the U.S. now proposes further delay (at the Sec. Council)…the Bush administration’s rearguard campaign to avert an ICC referral is putting innocent civilians at risk in Darfur.”
I agree our responsibility isn’t as great in Darfur, but no sane person can say it is zero. My apologies for the Rwanda/Darfur confusion.
Also, Gen. Dallaire says he sees some big simliarities to Rwanda and Darfur (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/Dallaire_looking_darfur_seeing_rwanda_nyt_100404.htm). So, in a way, I’m glad I was glad to make the mistake. It allowed me to find the above article and see some similarities between the two.
I just wanted to clarify something I wrote…again. I said, “Criticizing poor people under the control of terrorists/dictators we support would be a more appropriate thing to do, in my mind.” Criticizing poor people under the control of terrorists/dictators we support would NOT be a more apprpriate thing to do. I forgot to put “would not” in that sentence. We should actually criticize ourselves and those leaders we support. Sorry for the miscommunication.
One more thought: here’s a list some U.S. (mainly a Christian-led and populated country…) crimes against Muslim:
1. the support of corrupt and tyrannical Middle East governments, from the Shah of Iran to the Saudis.
2. the support for Russia/China against their Muslim populations
3. the shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981
4. the bombing of Libya in 1986
5. the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987
6. the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988
7. the shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989
8. the massive bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991
9. the continuing bombings and horrific sanctions against Iraq from ‘91 to ‘03
10. the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998
11. support of Israel despite its human rights violations/terrorism of the Palestinian people
12. condemning Palestine for resisting Israel
13. rendition…
14. the large military/high-tech presence in Islam’s holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region
15. the devastation/occupation of Afghanistan beginning in 2001 and of Iraq in 2003.
(A lot comes from “Rogue State” by William Blum)
Well, you just lost me.
1) The US did not instate the governments of foreign countries. If the people in Iran, or anywhere else in the world wish to overthrow their tyrannical government it is their right and duty to do so. If they do not, then they are by default forcing the US and every other country to deal with their corrupt political leaders.
Here in the US hundreds of thousands of people have given their life to create, protect and preserve freedom. And we are forced to work with whomever the ruling power is in a country. So you can’t have it both ways: You can’t say “you work with a corrupt government”, and then the moment we overthrow them say “you killed some people”.
You either want the US to support the status quo, or you want us to do something about it. People die. That is the price of ridding the world of tyranny and it is why we must always remain vigilant in not allowing it to take hold.
2) The US hasn’t supported Russia or China in any of their internal policies (they are our biggest adversaries), much less ones targeting religious populations. Again, just because the US doesn’t take direct military action against every country that is persecuting their own people doesn’t mean that the American people condone what’s happening.
3-7) Terrorism is going to have consequences. The US was reacting to provocation. By the way, who the hell is dumb enough to actually pick fights with the US? If these countries were seriously looking to get along they would use diplomacy, world pressure, and advertising campaigns. They don’t do that because their religion says to “kill em all” instead.
I’m not going to go through the rest of the points.
Suffice it to say that having a “presence” anywhere is not a “crime against muslims” (we have plenty of Muslims in our military who are even there), if you bomb US embassies prepare for payback, Wars don’t count, and no one is condemning Palestinian resistance – we condemn terrorist methods.
John
You said, “The US did not instate the governments of foreign countries. If the people in Iran, or anywhere else in the world wish to overthrow their tyrannical government it is their right and duty to do so. If they do not, then they are by default forcing the US and every other country to deal with their corrupt political leaders.”
The US certainly did instate many governments/leaders. Look up the history of the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet in Chile, and countless other examples. The people could not have replaced those leaders if they wanted to, exactly because of our money, poltical, and military support.
If the US can’t be held responsible for the military, financial, and diplomatic support for these leaders, then we can’t hold the inhabitants responsible either. How do poor people fight against local militias, regular violence by citizens, and worst of all: tyrannical leaders supported by US money/political support?
You said, “So you can’t have it both ways: You can’t say “you work with a corrupt governmentâ€, and then the moment we overthrow them say “you killed some peopleâ€.”
Not sure what this means. So you say “we are forced to work with whomever the ruling power is in a country.” In countries like China, Russia, etc. you are correct because we would suffer terribly if we did, as those countries can defend/attack. Remember, after World War II, the US has almost exclusively attacked weak and poor countries. But does this mean we should SUPPORT people like Saddam, Hitler, Stalin, etc., and should SUPPORT their crimes and give them methods to oppress the people living under them? And why/how did the US overthrow Saddam? Was it to help the Iraqi people? The same people that supported Saddam have miraculously decided to get rid of him (Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.), and he was much more dangerous when we supported him than he was in March 2003.
The UN should have been calling the military shots, as stated by the UN charter (which the US helped create), as was supported by most of the world before the invasion. It’s good that Saddam is gone, but he could’ve been gone a lot earlier had the biggest superpowers in the world not supported him (like we’ve done with many other deplorable leaders).
No one is saying we need to attack China, Russia, etc. to stop their atrocities (we don’t because they would be able to defend themselves). The US leadership should support the people of those countries by using their influence and power in the political/economic realm to benefit people instead of just investors/wealty people in the respective countries. I agree: it’s difficult to balance being too reactive (thus hurting the population) and do things that will actually help. Also, when G. W. Bush says “I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country” instead of looking at what he’s actually doing, it’s hard to say we’re for the people instead of pacifying leaders.
I would agree: terrorism has its consequences. Like when we interfere with a huge military presence in an area that has seen what “US support” has done, and also support horrible regimes, people of the Middle East get angry and some want revenge. I’m not saying we deserve terrorist attacks because of the things we’ve done. No one should commit terrorism. But you are correct: terrorism has its consequences. And we’ve seen these consequences, but not as bad as the victims of our terrorism in Iraq, Guatemala, Chile, Iran, and on and on.
You said, “After Iraq invaded Kuwait the Persian Gulf War began. Rule number 1: Don’t start a war if you don’t want to get bombed! If the people of Iraq didn’t want the war then see my response to point number 1.”
We were perfectly OK with Saddam attacking, terrorizing, and murdering the people of Iraq. We knew he was doing it. We even allowed him the bombing of a US naval vessal, killing 37 American sailors. Nothing happened to him then.
You said, “Terrorism is going to have consequences. The US was reacting to provocation.”
I’m not sure what you’re referencing here. If you mean the US bombing Iraq had anything to do with al-Qaeda terrorism, check the diplomatic/factual record.
You said, “Suffice it to say that having a “presence†anywhere is not a “crime against muslims†(we have plenty of Muslims in our military who are even there), if you bomb US embassies prepare for payback, Wars don’t count, and no one is condemning Palestinian resistance – we condemn terrorist methods.”
So if China, Russia, or North Korea put a massive military presence in Canada or Mexico, you wouldn’t have any problem with this? After all, it isn’t a “crime against” Christians/Americans.
We’ve bombed pleanty of embassies. We hit a Chinese embassy in Belgrad. Does this mean the US can “prepare for payback”? No, we would expect a diplomatic solution to the problem and use violence as a last resort.
I don’t know what “Wars don’t count” means. I condemn terroist methods, especially/mostly the ones we support with our tax dollars, Israel’s terrorism for one.
You said,
I don’t necessarily believe that our crimes are merely “historical” and that if we try to change it, it won’t matter. It does matter, because if we looked at our historical crimes, we would’ve known what to expect in Iraq/Afghanistan, we could relieve suffering in the Middle East, and get a better understanding of George Bush’s question “Why do they hate us?”
I don’t believe people are “greedy bastards” in general, and if we try to change it, it could help quite a few people. WE are responsible for OUR actions, and we can do quite a lot to help, being the richest and most powerful superpower.
One last thing I just came across which I think makes my point.
Read it here.
Not knowing much about Hassan except for a BBC article and the article from the Guardian, I think he’s partly correct: the Bible and Quran both have violent traditions and state that they are the only way to salvation. Hassan is correct when he says “the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism” is a factor that influences people. But it’s also correct that when Israel wants to further Zionism, and they do it using violence and terrorism, it’s also wrong. And they wouldn’t exist two seconds without US money/diplomatic support. So we should looking at the “the role of ideologies” we support, and speak out against them.
He also says that “Christian theology…allow(s) for the separation of state and religion”. He gives no evidence of this. Christian theolgy isn’t the same as the US constitution. People in the US are still debating whether this “correct” or not. Many people believe the US is a “Christian nation” and should stay that way. Personally, I don’t think there should be “Christian,” “Muslim,” or any other religious states.
We have to remember: the US supports Islamist leaderships (using the very ideology he deplores) that use terror, human rights violations, etc., and they’re called Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Qaddafi. We’ve been supporting these brutal regimes for years.
When he says that “Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims” it’s like asking the Vatican to “come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised undertanding of the rights and responsibilities of” Christians. So let’s ask them to “refashion” this: 1 Corinthians 14:34 – 35: Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.” Do you think either religion will change the texts? And would this solve anything?
It’s naive to think that people aren’t trying to “revise” ideas from the Quran (just like people did/are doing with the Bible) and look at it, not as a divinely written book, but as a historical piece of literature. Look at John Esposito’s book “Islam: Tthe Straight Path.” Also, the work of Farid Esack, a Muslim liberation theologian, is trying to show that “Muslims must contextualize the Quran if they are to find meaning.”
The main point is that poor/rich and oppressed Muslims, Christians, and people of all faiths should look at their sacred texts and decide whether they should follow it word-for-word.
This part is pure fiction, the doctor was assasinated but off campus so there is no way she could have seen it. The Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s and Norma Khouri’s should stop embellishing their personal history. They can make the same points -and dollars- in general terms without lies about their past which get uncovered eventually.