Muslim televangelist Zakir Naik banned from Toronto conference

[scribblet]

This guy is nuts, a real whack job who advocates killing homosexuals and beating your wife as well as supporting terrorisim, especially terorrism against America. !!!

I was listening to Tarek Fatah on this subject who agrees with this decision.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/06/22/controversial-muslim-televangelist-zakir-naik-banned-from-toronto-conference/

Controversial Muslim televangelist Zakir Naik banned from Toronto conference

An Indian Muslim televangelist who was banned from Britain last week for “unacceptable behaviour” will not be allowed into Canada to speak at an upcoming conference in Toronto, sources familiar with the situation have told the National Post.

Dr. Zakir Naik, who has said “every Muslim should be a terrorist” and that Jews are “our staunchest enemy,” was to headline next month’s Journey of Faith Conference — which is billed as one of North America’s largest Islamic conferences and is expected to attract upward of 10,000 people.

Dr. Naik, the Mumbai-based founder of Peace TV and a widely respected lecturer in India, has a laundry list of views that could have led to his exclusion from the U.K. and Canada, both of which require an Indian citizen to obtain a visitor visa.

The 44-year-old medical doctor recommends capital punishment for homosexuals and the death penalty for those who abandon Islam as their faith.

He has said that a man is within his right to beat his wife “lightly,” though in a July 2009 YouTube video he cautioned against hitting her on the face or leaving a mark.

The “Keep Zakir Naik Out of Canada” Facebook group, which was launched over the weekend, also points out his view that western women make themselves “more susceptible to rape” by wearing revealing clothing.

Among the chief reasons, British Home Secretary Theresa May decided to quash Dr. Naik’s U.K. speaking tour later this month, however, were comments he made in a widely circulated 2007 video.

“If [Osama bin Laden] is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him … If he is terrorizing a terrorist, if he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him,” said Dr. Naik, who has delivered hundreds of talks in India, Canada, the U.S. and the Middle East. “Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

cont...

Edited June 22, 2010 by scriblett

[Moonbox]

The man is a joke and a prime example of a rabid Muslim zealot.

[GostHacked]

Good stuff, we don't need that here.

[Jack Weber]

I saw this brought up on Michael Coren's show yesterday....

Part of me says that we dodn't need to hear this garbage....

Part of me says that he should be able to say this heinous crap because it would be a perfect way to expose him as a theocratic bigot.Anne Coulter says some pretty inflammatory stuff,and although I don't agree with her,I thought what U of O did a few months ago was mentally weak.I thought they should have let her speak.

Freedom of speech means taking the good with the bad,especially the stuff that is quite objectionable...

Edited June 22, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Argus]

The man is a joke and a prime example of a rabid Muslim zealot.

No doubt. No doubt he is a hateful man.

And yet, he was invited to come to Canada by Canadian Muslims to be the prime speaker at a huge Islamic congress said to have 10,000 attendees. So what does this say about how horrified Canadian Muslims are at his views? Or contrarily, how acceptable they find those views? Note the writeup on their web site. They say nothing about him even being controversial.

Featured Speaker

Edited June 22, 2010 by Argus

[Moonbox]

And yet, he was invited to come to Canada by Canadian Muslims to be the prime speaker at a huge Islamic congress said to have 10,000 attendees. So what does this say about how horrified Canadian Muslims are at his views? Or contrarily, how acceptable they find those views? Note the writeup on their web site. They say nothing about him even being controversial.

I'd suspect that one of the main reasons he was prevented from coming was in fact the audience he would be speaking to. There are plenty of hateful Canadian, American and British bigots out there who say similar things, but we marginalize them and ostracize them from society. The fundamentalist Muslim community, however, seems to glorify these nuts and, what's worse, take instruction from them.

Freedom of Speech is all fine and dandy, but I don't think it was meant be a tool to foment violence amongst a brainwashed religious extremity.

[Jack Weber]

I'd suspect that one of the main reasons he was prevented from coming was in fact the audience he would be speaking to. There are plenty of hateful Canadian, American and British bigots out there who say similar things, but we marginalize them and ostracize them from society. The fundamentalist Muslim community, however, seems to glorify these nuts and, what's worse, take instruction from them.

Freedom of Speech is all fine and dandy, but I don't think it was meant be a tool to foment violence amongst a brainwashed religious extremity.

I agree,but I heared Anne Coulter say we should go over to the Mulsim world,kill their leaders,and,convert them to Christianity(I'm assuming by force),in some Spanish Inquisitionesque fashion that would make Tomas De Torquemada proud...

It would be quite easy to contrue that what Ms.Coulter said was certainly extremist and certainly could potentially incite violence.And I thought it was cowardly,and dull witted, what the U of O "intellectuals" did to her.This guy is complete scum who's ideas are at odds with almost evry person in this country,however,he should be able to say these things because it is better to get this stuff out in the open where it can be dealt with.

[dre]

I agree,but I heared Anne Coulter say we should go over to the Mulsim world,kill their leaders,and,convert them to Christianity(I'm assuming by force),in some Spanish Inquisitionesque fashion that would make Tomas De Torquemada proud...

It would be quite easy to contrue that what Ms.Coulter said was certainly extremist and certainly could potentially incite violence.And I thought it was cowardly,and dull witted, what the U of O "intellectuals" did to her.This guy is complete scum who's ideas are at odds with almost evry person in this country,however,he should be able to say these things because it is better to get this stuff out in the open where it can be dealt with.

For me it comes down to what the guy does and I admit I dont much about this guy. If hes an extremist firebrand speaker, I have no problem with that. But if he directly incites violence thats a crime here and he should be denied entry for any reason.

Anne Coulter is just a good business women. She says what her publicist tells her will sell books, and BAT-SHIT-CRAZY is what sells to her target demographic.

Edited June 22, 2010 by dre

[kimmy]

I feel exactly the same way I felt when Ann Coulter came to Canada. I think he should be allowed to speak.

And if he does say anything that fits under the specific legal definitions of restricted speech in Canada, he should be charged under the law.

And whatever the case, I hope that the organizers of this event are asked explain to Canadians why they thought this guy should be brought to Canada. I think an event like this would be an opportunity for modern-thinking Muslims like Tarek Fatah to articulate their opposition to the brand of Islam that this guy represents.

Ultimately, I think that bringing a douchebag like this to Canada and letting him speak could only accomplish one thing: public embarrassment of conservative Muslims. I'm all for it. I'm all in favor of giving them the opportunity to do so. Why should we protect them from themselves by preventing this guy from speaking in Canada?

-k

[Bonam]

Instinctively, I agree with the freedom of speech argument, that we should allow these people to speak and that the idiocy of their statements will work against them more effectively than any attempt at banning them.

At the same time, however, freedom of speech means that people in Canada can speak their minds as they wish. It doesn't necessarily mean that the government is required to accept visa requests from foreign radicals who come here with the purpose of making inflammatory statements. I would argue that the government is well within its rights to reject visa applications from such individuals.

[Jack Weber]

Instinctively, I agree with the freedom of speech argument, that we should allow these people to speak and that the idiocy of their statements will work against them more effectively than any attempt at banning them.

At the same time, however, freedom of speech means that people in Canada can speak their minds as they wish. It doesn't necessarily mean that the government is required to accept visa requests from foreign radicals who come here with the purpose of making inflammatory statements. I would argue that the government is well within its rights to reject visa applications from such individuals.

Yeah,but does that assist things greatly?

I don't think so because it sounds and looks like the government is hiding behind rules and regulations.

I would say it is better to allow these people to come here and let them spew their ridiculous bile and venom.Then attack them on the issues and expose them for what they really are.Exposure for these people,outside of their closed minded echo chamber of thought,is what they dread the most.After exposing them for what they are,it would vicariously expose those that follow this ridiculousness here...And those that do follow Islamofascism do not want to be exposed in this country...

[Bonam]

I don't think so because it sounds and looks like the government is hiding behind rules and regulations.

I would say it is better to allow these people to come here and let them spew their ridiculous bile and venom.Then attack them on the issues and expose them for what they really are.Exposure for these people,outside of their closed minded echo chamber of thought,is what they dread the most.After exposing them for what they are,it would vicariously expose those that follow this ridiculousness here...And those that do follow Islamofascism do not want to be exposed in this country...

If this was a Canadian, I'd be all for the freedom of speech position, but here we have not only freedom of speech entering the equation, but also immigration law and policy. If a terrorist supporter and radical can enter the country, anyone can enter the country. Do we want the standards for entry into Canada to be so low? Why should Islamofascist zealots with a hatred for Western life be allowed into Canada? As we all know, once someone is here, our system can make it quite difficult to have them promptly deported if they try to remain. Why allow them here in the first place?

Additionally, given the statements I've read in this thread, attributed to Naik, in support of terrorism, perhaps he also poses legitimate security concerns. After all, if he is so strongly in support of terrorism, perhaps he has terrorist ties, and will be meeting with other terrorist sympathizers while in Canada, perhaps raising money for terrorist causes.

So to me, while there is the issue of free speech and censorship, there is also the issue of wanting to keep terrorist sympathizers out of the country.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Bonam

[lukin]

I agree,but I heared Anne Coulter say we should go over to the Mulsim world,kill their leaders,and,convert them to Christianity(I'm assuming by force),in some Spanish Inquisitionesque fashion that would make Tomas De Torquemada proud...

It would be quite easy to contrue that what Ms.Coulter said was certainly extremist and certainly could potentially incite violence.And I thought it was cowardly,and dull witted, what the U of O "intellectuals" did to her.This guy is complete scum who's ideas are at odds with almost evry person in this country,however,he should be able to say these things because it is better to get this stuff out in the open where it can be dealt with.

Jack, have you actually read any of Coulter's books? Or are you just going by what you "heard"? Read Coulter's latest book "Guilty". You'll realize that what she writes isn't nearly as bad a s the left-wing press would have you believe. She says what many people say in a sickening politically correct world.

Comparing Zakir Naik to Anne Coulter is ludicrous. Do your homework.

[bloodyminded]

Jack, have you actually read any of Coulter's books? Or are you just going by what you "heard"? Read Coulter's latest book "Guilty". You'll realize that what she writes isn't nearly as bad a s the left-wing press would have you believe. She says what many people say in a sickening politically correct world.

Like most people who condemn political correctness, Ms.Coulter is only denouncing the political correctness with which she disagrees or doesn't like. But certainly, she is herself profoundly politically correct in her thinking.

[Army Guy]

Part of me says that we dodn't need to hear this garbage....

Part of me says that he should be able to say this heinous crap because it would be a perfect way to expose him as a theocratic bigot.Anne Coulter says some pretty inflammatory stuff,and although I don't agree with her,I thought what U of O did a few months ago was mentally weak.I thought they should have let her speak.

Freedom of speech means taking the good with the bad,especially the stuff that is quite objectionable...

I think Jack hit it on the head , I mean what are we afraid of that he would be a better public speaker or debater than any of those that attended these speaches....I think we do need to allow these wing nuts in if for nothing else to allow them to hear our views on the subject...

And yet, he was invited to come to Canada by Canadian Muslims to be the prime speaker at a huge Islamic congress said to have 10,000 attendees. So what does this say about how horrified Canadian Muslims are at his views? Or contrarily, how acceptable they find those views? Note the writeup on their web site. They say nothing about him even being controversial.

Or are we afraid that he may wipe up Canada's quite moderate muslim comunity....which as Argus pionted out invited this guy here in the first place , either to hear and debunk what this wing nut has to say, or this is the message they want to hear, in which we might have to reconsider our classfication of this moderate muslim group....and need to keep closer tabs on them....

[Argus]

And now, a little reality. Guys like this are not going to get on a stage in Toronto and start screaming about how all the Jews and faggots need to be executed. That's not how they operate. No, if allowed to come, he'll speak from the koran, he'll stick strictly to Islamic duty and responsibility. He won't mention Osama bin laden, or terrorism.

He'll play the part of the respectable, learned holy man. If he uses any harsh language at all it will be to decry secularism and godlessness, to reinforce the idea that the west is filled with immorality, and that true Muslims must guard against it. And that Islam must be defended.

If you read the comments of the imams who were quoted with regard to that 16yo girl murdered by her father and brother in an honor killing last week, none said "You must kill girls who refuse to wear the hijab!" That's not how they work here. Instead they say things like "Parents fail and bring shame upon themselves if a child chooses to abandon holy writings and not wear the hijab." and "If we stay away from the teachings of Islam, we will pay for it. . . . Women who wear hijabs occupy higher positions in Islam, according to religious teachings."

Neither one came out and said "The bitch got what she deserved" but that's pretty clearly their opinion, and any Muslim hearing that would get it.

Anyway, he would keep his comments legal, and encourage people to see him on u-tube and on his own web sites, where they could hear his unvarnished opinions, and, having already been impressed with what a great and important man he is from watching him headline the conference, they might be inclined to take his words more seriously than they otherwise would have.

Equating this vermin to Anne Coulter is also transparently foolish. Coulter might say outrageous things, but they come a long way from the kind of encouragement of terrorism and mass murder this guy is guilty of.

Edited June 23, 2010 by Argus

[bloodyminded]

Equating this vermin to Anne Coulter is also transparently foolish. Coulter might say outrageous things, but they come a long way from the kind of encouragement of terrorism and mass murder this guy is guilty of.

You're right that it's unfair to Coulter to single her out: the support and defense of terrorism and mass murder is quite a mainstream phenomenon in the West.

[Argus]

You're right that it's unfair to Coulter to single her out: the support and defense of terrorism and mass murder is quite a mainstream phenomenon in the West.

I don't think you can coherently make such a point - not that that's stopped you in the past.

[bloodyminded]

I don't think you can coherently make such a point - not that that's stopped you in the past.

I have coherently made the point. You simply disagree with me, Argus--for reasons, I should point out, that remain unstated.

Edited June 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

I have coherently made the point. You simply disagree with me, Argus--for reasons, I should point out, that remain unstated.

Because you're wrong.

You equate past western support for dictatorial regimes with "mainstream support of terrorism". That's far too big a leap to make.

Even when Reagan was funneling money to the Contras he had to do it illegally because his own congress had banned sending them money and the public was totally opposed.

[bloodyminded]

Because you're wrong.

You equate past western support for dictatorial regimes with "mainstream support of terrorism". That's far too big a leap to make.

That's funny, because yourself--as well as some liberals and conservatives on this very board--have openly defended the material aid for massive state terrorism as "fighting communism" (without elaborating...understandably, since it's a sick joke); alternatively, they will say "foreign affairs and international relations are complex"...a truism, but one they are natively unable, or at least unwilling, to apply to official enemies, who are portrayed as Satanic beings gloating over uncomplicated matters of pure Evil.

Sometimes they will even imply that aiding massive state terrorism only proves the beneficence of the West, since the West's responsibility is saving the Earth from the forces of darkness.

Not through its actions, as is plain; but by dint of bland claims uttered with solemn regularity. As with economics, theory is more important than reality itself, especially when the two are contradictory.

Aside from leftists, a smattering handful of intellectual libertarians, and rogue Catholic elements, I have heard zero condemnation of these matters.

Usually, it's defended (mass murder and terrorism, I mean); or dismissed with world-weary pieties about how damn hard it is to be Powerful. (AS opposed to weak...that's easy, apparently.)

Even when Reagan was funneling money to the Contras he had to do it illegally because his own congress had banned sending them money and the public was totally opposed.

I don't know that the public was "totally opposed"; but I would suggest that, were it going on today, the same people denouncing the far-less brutal Hamas would be telling you how "complicated" such matters suddenly become when the the Sons of Liberty & co. & co.....

At any rate, was the public also "totally opposed" to the non-covert military attacks on Nicaragua, adjudged to be "international aggression" by the World Court?

All these debates are about is WHO perpetrates/precipitates/participates in international crimes. Not the crimes themselves (and certainly not the scale, either), which obviously are not relevant to the True Believers.

Edited June 23, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Moonbox]

Bloodyminded you don't get it.

Give us examples of what you're talking about and, item by item, I'm sure we could outline the HUGE differences between them and the frothing rabid clerics calling for general violence against everyone and anyone that doesn't share their beliefs.

[bloodyminded]

Bloodyminded you don't get it.

Give us examples of what you're talking about and, item by item, I'm sure we could outline the HUGE differences between them and the frothing rabid clerics calling for general violence against everyone and anyone that doesn't share their beliefs.

If others who have read my relatively lengthy posts on this subject can overlook the repetition, I'll give what I see as the more obvious, egregious examples...though there are many more, and no doubt some I know little or nothing about:

On the subnational terrorism scale, we've got the by-now pretty infamous Contras. Trained, armed, funded, and given propaganda support by the US administration (Congress being somewhat less unanimous in its support of terrorism), they went on a murder binge in Nicaragua that would make your blood run cold.

Part of the pretext, though not the only one, was that the Sandanistas were brutalizing their own people. Well, there is some truth to this, not that those who say it actually care one way or another (as will become self-evident momentarily); they were especially bad to the Miskito Indians. However, the Contras, deemed "freedom fighters," were far worse. They were actually led by the holdovers from the Somoza military dictatorship, and didn't even have a pretext of a political platform. They were terrorist mercenaries, plain and simple, though no doubt some lower-level members had little clue of the larger context, much like most of the misled suicide bombers.

The Contras committed to a prgram of looting, rape, murder, kidnapping, mass slaughters, destroying villages, and torture on a scale far beyond anything Hamas or Hezbollah has even attempted. All done with the knowledge, and wilful aid, of the US administration.

But on a scale far worse, predictably, is an instance of long-time state terrorism which ranks among the worst of the large-scale criminal acts of the postwar 20th century: Indonesia. Here, we can't even smugly blame the United States, who were worse in scale, but the same in principle as we were.

Suharto killed hundreds of thousands of "communists" in 1965--a purge of gigantic proportions, not far removed from Pol Pot's crimes. And "communists" meant not only the word itself, but also dissidents, intellectuals, labour unionists, disaffected peasantry, and so on. This was all defended quite eagerly by much of the West. But it was the subsequent events in which the West's role in state terror became explicit, and crucial for its success. Namely, the invasion of East Timor.

The 25 years of of oppression and mass murder wiped out over a quarter of E. Timor's population, perhaps a third: the numbers, difficult to ascertain, are 200 000 (conservatively) to over 300 000. They were murdered with the knowledge of Western leaders, and with the use of Western arms. When the slaughters peaked, so did the arms shipments.

President Ford and Kissinger, who met with Suharto on the eve of the initial invasion in December 1975, gave him the green light; this was long suspected, but is now solidly proven thanks to the declassification of the records. They only asked Suharto to wait until Ford and Kissinger had retunred to the U.S., to avoid the embarassment of how it would look. Suharto, being a friendly tyrant and mass killer, readily agreed, thankful for US help in aiding their attempted genocide.

Soon, other Western nations kicked in their contributions to mass murder, including the UK, Australia, Canada, and (I believe, but can't remember for sure) France.

The media had little to say about all this...much more concerned with enemy atrocities like Pol Pot's; or, as recently as 1999, Milosevic. There's our "left-wing, combative media." In fact, at the moment the press was moaning deliriously about our "humanitarian military intervention" in Kosovo, the Indonesians were carrying out far worse actions, with Western weapons, Western training of the Indonesian military (trickled down to the equally-bad militias, though they used machetes and the like as well as machine-guns) and full Western knowledge and support of the terror.

Wolfowitz, who was ambassador, played an important role in underplaying and even masking Suharto's crimes; earlier, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ambassador to the UN, boasted in his memoirs of making the UN ineffective against US wishes in this matter. No doubt his boasts are accurate enough.

The few media reports that did occur tended to follow conventional pieties: "why aren't we doing somehting about this?" Well, we were doing somehting about it: we were helping it along, intentionally. The few fringe activists fighting to publicize the crimes--for decades, remember--were insisting that if the West stopped supporting the genocide, it would instantly stop. Well, that turns out to have been 100% correct; when Clinton, aware of the threat of growing public pressure, suddenly changed course in 1999 and told Suharto that it was done...the Indonesian militayry backed off, the militias dried up, the UN stepped in, and the massacres ended.

So, that is explicit Western support, material, diplomatic, fundamental support, for state terrorism on a monumental scale.

Now, I am predicting a response (not necessarily from you, Moonbox, but from others...because it's as predictable as gravity): that "we sometimes must be allied to bad people"; or "it was the Cold War, and so it was a battle of Lesser Evilism."

So, just to helpfully avoid the cringing embarassment that such empty apologetics automatically engenders, and to save time, I'll respond to both now:

1. I agree we must be sometimes allied to bad leaders. There's enough of them in the world that it's unavoidable.

But we're not talking about "looking the other way," the usual claim, made with zero knowledge of the specific event in question; we're talking about direct and unequivocal support, including material support, with full knowledge of what that support is doing, and with an understanding that we could have stopped it at any time; if we chose; which we did not.

Which makes us absolutely complicit in state terrorism, mass murder, attempted genocide.

2. "The Cold War."

A talismanic phrase, designed to justify everything we do. Well, that doesn't wash for anyone who is not an unintelligent, servile little Commissar. How supporting mass murder on that scale, in that particular country at that particular time, was "fighting Communist Aggression"...well, those who make the reflexive "Cold War" justification don't answer that; because they haven't thought it through. Their assumption, based precisely and only on what they have repeatedly been told without evidence , is that the Western democracies, while occassionally "making mistakes," will always act fundamentally with benign intentions.

And so the tautology is quite perfect, really. We did it...so it can't be that bad. QED.

And that, aside from scale, is the primary difference between "their" terrorism and "our" terrorism: propaganda and indoctrination, with a greasy dollop of moral relativism thrown in for fun.

Edited June 25, 2010 by bloodyminded

[naomiglover]

I feel exactly the same way I felt when Ann Coulter came to Canada. I think he should be allowed to speak.

And if he does say anything that fits under the specific legal definitions of restricted speech in Canada, he should be charged under the law.

And whatever the case, I hope that the organizers of this event are asked explain to Canadians why they thought this guy should be brought to Canada. I think an event like this would be an opportunity for modern-thinking Muslims like Tarek Fatah to articulate their opposition to the brand of Islam that this guy represents.

Ultimately, I think that bringing a douchebag like this to Canada and letting him speak could only accomplish one thing: public embarrassment of conservative Muslims. I'm all for it. I'm all in favor of giving them the opportunity to do so. Why should we protect them from themselves by preventing this guy from speaking in Canada?

-k

I feel the same way. He's a disgusting person, but we shouldn't compromise freedom of speech. I do however have to disagree with your comparison between him and Coulter. Coulter was never banned. Her speech had to be canceled due to the protesters.

[Argus]

On the subnational terrorism scale, we've got the by-now pretty infamous Contras. Trained, armed, funded, and given propaganda support by the US administration (Congress being somewhat less unanimous in its support of terrorism), they went on a murder binge in Nicaragua that would make your blood run cold.

Nicaragua actually wasn't all that different from numerous other extended bloody guerrilla struggles around the world, some of which continue to this day. I think it was unnecessary, but then I'm not paid to defend the world against Communism. But I think you miss, in these rants of yours, the key element of intent. Now I'll be the first to admit that US officials can be as ignorant and close-minded as any, but the actual intent with regard to Nicaragua was to prevent Communism from taking hold on the mainland in the Western hemisphere, from which it could spread to the numerous vulnerable nations of central and South America. The U.S. waged a long, bloody struggle against Communist and Marxist guerrillas funded, equipped and trained by China, Russia and Cuba to keep the Communists out, and the greater good, both of the locals and of the US and its allies, was seen, at the time, as being worth supporting some pretty nasty people in the process.

You always leave out, btw, that the primary reason for the violence was not the salivating greed of the US but the sly, cold-blooded calculation of the Soviets in advancing arms, training and money to a variety of brutal Marxist and Communist groups throughout Central and South America. It's kind of difficult to make the case that the people of those areas would be better off today had the US just drawn back and let the chips fall as they may.

Nor can you even say there'd have been fewer murders, less butchery. Communists seem like Jehova's Witnesses, incapable of sitting quietly at home, driven to export their religion or ideology. Hell, Che Guevera went all the way to Africa to try to start a communist uprising in the congo.

But on a scale far worse, predictably, is an instance of long-time state terrorism which ranks among the worst of the large-scale criminal acts of the postwar 20th century: Indonesia. Here, we can't even smugly blame the United States, who were worse in scale, but the same in principle as we were.

another assumption of yours is that providing a little cover at the UN, and selling weapons, gives the US or anyone else control over a particular nation. That's ludicrous on the face of it, especially when we're dealing with tyrants in full and absolute control. You imagine that the US could simply tell Suharto to ease back on killing people and he would have obeyed. There's really no reason to believe that. For most of his reign he could simply have found another backer, one with less scruples, like the Soviets, and such a possibility was considered far too dangerous by the US given Indonesia's size and location.

Consider that if, in 1975, the US had sternly told Indonesia off, stopped supporting them, and refused to ship them any arms, do you honestly think Suharto couldn't have gotten all that and more from the Soviets just for asking? Were his troops any more brutal than the North Vietnamese or North Koreans supported enthusiastically by Russia and China? You think they'd have turned up their noses at such a client in such a location? Not a chance!

Whether they tried to modify his brutality is a question, but given their success at doing so with the Shah of Iran and what happened there I wonder why they'd try.

Ultimately, the US government, like ours, is put in place to look out for the well being of their own citizens, not foreigners. If their perception is that playing one group of violent people off against another group, or supporting one dictator so that he doesn't turn to an enemy is needed to safeguard their own people I don't think either you or I have the training or ability to counter that.

And again I raise their intent. It is not conquest but defense. Modern terrorism is not about defense, but conquest and power. Furthermore, there is a difference between reluctantly supporting some miserable dictator type because the alternative is worse, and deliberately targeting, planning, and executing murderous acts of terror against civilians just for the purpose of terrorizing them, just for the purpose of killing.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Argus