Bloodbaths Provoked by Zionist and Colonialist Outrages

[Oleg Bach]

I'm not sure that the atheists are such a terrible threat to the inherent decency of the suffering Christians.

I go by what I see..that photographic portraying of atheists in a recent Toronto pubication...was visually revealing...genetically speaking the images of the atheists were all....how shall I put it...they look like little devils...ugly unattractive people..IF you were to allow these types to have to much power and influence...out of sheer envy they might just go around killing the beautiful people - Much like America likes to bomb the hell out of middle eastern nations because the woman are more beautiful than the demonic ugly bulemic bitches that America displays as beautiful..envy kills...and atheists are full of GOD envy...of course I am saying this with a bit of humor.....

In the alternative - I have seen smart atheists who dispise religion - but behave in a good and Godly manner - hating God is a shallow approach...understanding what God is or is not is more useful...frankly - only stupid people are real atheists. And as I have always said - stupidity and evil are kin.

[Bonam]

But if they don't properly navigate the "correct" narrative, they aren't sought after for opinions; they aren't asked for their expert opinions on matters of Islam, the West, militaristic policies, and so on.

Why not? (Never mind; a rhetorical question.)

An obvious example would be Malalai Joya, Afghanistan's youngest MP, a secular feminist, and who has been risking her life for years struggling agaisnt the Taliban. Her chief concerns are for the rights and welfare of children, women, and the poor and disenfranchised generally; of men imprisoned for arbitrary religious reasons and tortured, and so on.

Well, she sounds like a perfect candidate. But there's a couple of small issues with Joya which make her largely unsuitable for North American interviews on prime time, or for gushing editorials in major newspapers, as people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali receive.

There's a problem with your premise. You've heard of her. I've heard of her. How many other random Afghan MPs have you heard of? Not many I'd bet. Clearly, she's garnered the attention of some form of media or other, or we wouldn't know of her.

[M.Dancer]

There's a problem with your premise. You've heard of her. I've heard of her. How many other random Afghan MPs have you heard of? Not many I'd bet. Clearly, she's garnered the attention of some form of media or other, or we wouldn't know of her.

That is of course the main reason why she doesn't daily front page exposure. She is not anyone of importance. She has no portfolio...she has nothing except her personality. All the accolades she has received from the western media (and she has received tons) doesn't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to the day to day grind.

[jbg]

For example, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been given a decent amount of attention and publicity, is sought after for her opinions, and so on. I see no problem with this. But despite her (more or less) liberalism, she has thrown herself wholeheartedly into the arms of the hawks, even getting a place of honour in the American Enterprise Insitute. (This is rather ironic, because the neocons are, at heart, remarkably anti-democratic; they support democratic forms, but don't care much for democratic principles...but this is a lengthy subject for another post.)

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

An obvious example would be Malalai Joya, Afghanistan's youngest MP, a secular feminist, and who has been risking her life for years struggling agaisnt the Taliban. Her chief concerns are for the rights and welfare of children, women, and the poor and disenfranchised generally; of men imprisoned for arbitrary religious reasons and tortured, and so on.

Well, she sounds like a perfect candidate. But there's a couple of small issues with Joya which make her largely unsuitable for North American interviews on prime time, or for gushing editorials in major newspapers, as people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali receive.

Because Joya doesn't only oppose the Taliban; she also opposes the warlords who make up much of the current government.

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

Now, she lives under risk of death, just as she did under the Taliban. But this time, it's our Afghan allies who wish her dead.

This illustrates my point. There are some outlier Muslims who take a strong stand against the madness. As we saw with a provincial governor in Pakistan they risk their lives in the process.

In no way does Islam have a viable internal peace movement.

[JB Globe]

In no way does Islam have a viable internal peace movement.

Does Judaism have one?

And I mean religious peace movement across the whole religion, not a secular one within a nation state - because after all, that's the criteria you're using when evaluating Islam.

Edited January 14, 2011 by JB Globe

[jbg]

Does Judaism have one?

J-Street?

[Rue]

J-Street?

JB Globe just demonstrated why I criticize you. You make the statement that Islam as a religion has no peace network. You throw out the criticism against all Muslims and their entire religion when any fool realizes one can make the exact same critcism about Christianity, Judaism or any other religion.

You are precisely the kind of person I challenge. You throw out negative generalizations and all you do is make yourself look foolish because the very thing you criticize applies to more people than just people who follow Islam.

Your answer above proves how ridiculous a shrill you have become and what a mockery you make of we Jews particularly those of us who like Christians, Muslims, people of other religons or atheists, are capable of criticizing religious dogma without smearing ALL people who might follow different versions of it.

[Rue]

Does Judaism have one?

And I mean religious peace movement across the whole religion, not a secular one within a nation state - because after all, that's the criteria you're using when evaluating Islam.

Of course we don't and neither does any other religion. He likes peeing into the headwinds evidently.

[sharkman]

Christianity doesn't have standing orders to kill infidels and Jews. But maybe I'm splitting hairs.

[Rue]

Here are though some Muslim and jewish peace groups that do exist:

http://www.peoplebuildingpeace.org/thestories/article.php?typ=theme&id=153&pid=34

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-02-11-voa16-68714812.html

The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement

http://mpf21.wordpress.com/about-2/

http://peacewalk.blogspot.com/2004/05/read-this-article-by-attendee-of.html

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/tag/israeli-peace-movement/

http://peacethroughunderstanding.blogspot.com/2006/11/rabia-terri-harris.html

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Projects_working_for_peace_among_Israelis_and_Palestinians/

[Rue]

Christianity doesn't have standing orders to kill infidels and Jews. But maybe I'm splitting hairs.

No just convert them/us which is tatamount to spiritual death.Given the no. of Christians in the past who wiped out Jews and other non Christians in the name of Jesus, I wouldn't be too quick to give such a response.

None of our religions come with clean hands. All have fought bloody wars or engaged in autrocities in the name of God.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Rue

[bloodyminded]

There's a problem with your premise. You've heard of her. I've heard of her. How many other random Afghan MPs have you heard of? Not many I'd bet. Clearly, she's garnered the attention of some form of media or other, or we wouldn't know of her.

She would receive a lot more media attention here if she supported some laughable "War on terror", and restrained her criticism to the Taliban (rather than to our allies who wish her dead), and believed that Western military policy is inherently benign.

A lot more.

[Guest American Woman]

She would receive a lot more media attention here if she supported some laughable "War on terror", and restrained her criticism to the Taliban (rather than to our allies who wish her dead)....

Who among our allies wishes her dead?

[Guest TrueMetis]

Who among our allies wishes her dead?

Are we not allied with the government of Afghanistan?

[bloodyminded]

Who among our allies wishes her dead?

As TM said, it is elements within the government; notably the fundamentalists, who were part of the "Northern Alliance"...who, since they were fighting the Taliban, were the "good guys," even though they're ideologically the same as those fine fellows.

[Guest American Woman]

As TM said, it is elements within the government; notably the fundamentalists, who were part of the "Northern Alliance"...who, since they were fighting the Taliban, were the "good guys," even though they're ideologically the same as those fine fellows.

So when you made your statement about "our allies" in the war on terror, you meant elements within the Afghan government? Because I sure found your statement confusing, and now that you've clarified, I find it misleading. Most people don't normally think "elements of the Afghan government" when someone refers to "our allies" in the war on terror; they think of all of our allies. But having cleared that up, you honestly believe she would get more media coverage but for the fact that some elements of the Afghan government want her dead? Seriously? What media outlets do you think have so much respect for some elements of the Afghan government that they are purposely not giving her more attention?

[bloodyminded]

So when you made your statement about "our allies" in the war on terror, you meant elements within the Afghan government? Because I sure found your statement confusing, and now that you've clarified, I find it misleading. Most people don't normally think "elements of the Afghan government" when someone refers to "our allies" in the war on terror; they think of all of our allies.

There's nothing "misleading" about it; and it needs no clarification, since it it was perfectly clear when I first remarked on it in detail...in this very thread.

That you didn't bother going back to post #41 is no terrible sin...but it certainly isn't my fault.

But having cleared that up, you honestly believe she would get more media coverage but for the fact that some elements of the Afghan government want her dead? Seriously? What media outlets do you think have so much respect for some elements of the Afghan government that they are purposely not giving her more attention?

I'm not saying they have so much respect for any elements of the Afghan government; I'm saying they are not giving Joya attention because she's critical of the West.

Again, my argument (regardless of whether you agree with it) would make a lot more sense to you...if you bothered to read it.

Edited January 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[JB Globe]

J-Street?

J-Street is a secular political organization within the US, and is not representative of the world's Jews nor does it have any religious component to it.

I asked for a religious peace movement within Judaism, just like you asked for a religious peace movement within Islam.

You failed.

I guess us Jews have no traditions of peace.

OR . . . Your logic is absolutely absurd, and you hold Islam to standards that you don't hold your own religion to.

Edited January 17, 2011 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

Christianity doesn't have standing orders to kill infidels and Jews.

It depends who you ask.

Pope Benedict thinks it doesn't, but Pope Sixtus IV certainly was fine with it, so were the conquistadors. Martin Luther had no problems being one of the worst German anti-semites in European history until the 20th century.

Why are you completely unaware that some folks have twisted Biblical scripture to suit their own illegitimate actions?

Why do you believe that only some Muslims are guilty of doing this to their scripture?

I mean even the most basic reading of the history of Western society would have told you Muslims aren't exceptional in this regard.

Edited January 17, 2011 by JB Globe

[JB Globe]

double post, deleted

Edited January 17, 2011 by JB Globe

[jbg]

I asked for a religious peace movement within Judaism, just like you asked for a religious peace movement within Islam.

As you well know, J-Street's membership is predominantly Jewish and it purports to speak for Jewish opinion. Last I heard, J-Streeters don't get their heads cut off.

You fail.

[JB Globe]

As you well know, J-Street's membership is predominantly Jewish and it purports to speak for Jewish opinion. Last I heard, J-Streeters don't get their heads cut off.

You fail.

I find it incredible that you would rather embarrass yourself than admit that perhaps you were mistaken to hold Islam to a standard you don't hold Judaism to.

Again: J-Street is a non-religious, secular, American political advocacy group, you do not have to be religious to be a member (you could be an atheist), just ethnically Jewish. Religion plays no part in the organizations' activities. That's actually on purpose to separate it from AIPAC.

If you're going to go down the road of: "An institution/organization that claims to be Jewish is automatically religious in nature, regardless of if religion plays any role in its function" than you're opening up a can of worms that can go both ways. ie - I could say that the Rothstein Jewish Mafia are examples of religious Jewish criminal gangs, because all of its members were Jewish, and therefor, Judaism has a religious tradition of criminality.

Do you see what happens when you just don't admit when you made a mistake? You end up digging yourself into a bigger hole.

Face it, there is no religiously-based Jewish peace movement, otherwise you probably would have cited an example.

So if Islam is prone to violence because it does not have a peace tradition, by your logic, than what about Judaism, which does not have a peace tradition either?

Could it be that violence perpetrated by followers of either faith have more to do with political and historical context than with some inherent propensity for violence?

Why do you hold Islam to a more rigorous standard than you hold Judaism?

Edited January 18, 2011 by JB Globe

[Bonam]

Why do you hold Islam to a more rigorous standard than you hold Judaism?

Because we are faced with examples of Islamic fundamentalists committing terrorist acts on an almost daily basis. Despite this constant violence, people continue to make ridiculous claims, for example that "Islam is the religion of peace" and such statements routinely go unchallenged. Such claims must indeed be held to a high standard when faced with so many examples that would seem to indicate the contrary. I'd say a religion of peace would be Jainism, but certainly not Islam. Islam is sculpted after and idolizes a warrior-prophet who spent his life conquering, raping, and pillaging. Now sure, you can try to explain away the fact that the vast majority of terrorists happen to be Muslims with arguments about the economic and political context, but why do those same arguments lead nowhere when it comes to, for example, Tibetans, which have been oppressed by a foreign power no less than any Muslim community?

The fact is, if any religion NEEDS a "religiously-based peace movement" as you put it, it is Islam, because so many (even if it is a small percentage) of its followers have interpreted its teachings as calling for violence. Would so many young Muslims be willing to become "martyrs" if their religious leaders consistently told them that such actions would lead them straight to hell, rather than straight to paradise? If they didn't issue fatwas calling for the deaths of people? Other religions don't particularly need such a movement these days because they do not presently suffer from the same streak of religious violence that Islam does. You may try to pull out strawmen like wars conducted by Western powers or by Israel but the reality is that those have absolutely nothing to do with religion but are entirely about secular issues like security or if you are more cynical, control of resources. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, however, while in part motivated by historical and political context as you say, is also strongly influenced by religion. You don't have to take me on my word on that, listen to the terrorists themselves, what they say, these are not secular people with secular grievances.

[bloodyminded]

Because we are faced with examples of Islamic fundamentalists committing terrorist acts on an almost daily basis. Despite this constant violence, people continue to make ridiculous claims, for example that "Islam is the religion of peace" and such statements routinely go unchallenged. Such claims must indeed be held to a high standard when faced with so many examples that would seem to indicate the contrary. I'd say a religion of peace would be Jainism, but certainly not Islam. Islam is sculpted after and idolizes a warrior-prophet who spent his life conquering, raping, and pillaging. Now sure, you can try to explain away the fact that the vast majority of terrorists happen to be Muslims with arguments about the economic and political context, but why do those same arguments lead nowhere when it comes to, for example, Tibetans, which have been oppressed by a foreign power no less than any Muslim community?

The fact is, if any religion NEEDS a "religiously-based peace movement" as you put it, it is Islam, because so many (even if it is a small percentage) of its followers have interpreted its teachings as calling for violence. Would so many young Muslims be willing to become "martyrs" if their religious leaders consistently told them that such actions would lead them straight to hell, rather than straight to paradise? If they didn't issue fatwas calling for the deaths of people? Other religions don't particularly need such a movement these days because they do not presently suffer from the same streak of religious violence that Islam does. You may try to pull out strawmen like wars conducted by Western powers or by Israel but the reality is that those have absolutely nothing to do with religion but are entirely about secular issues like security or if you are more cynical, control of resources. Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, however, while in part motivated by historical and political context as you say, is also strongly influenced by religion. You don't have to take me on my word on that, listen to the terrorists themselves, what they say, these are not secular people with secular grievances.

I agree with some of this, but with several caveats.

Yes, Islamist terrorism is fed by certain readings of Islam; both to genuine, malleable believers and (I take it for granted) by more cynical voices using it for more strictly ideological ends.

But it's a complex picture. You call interference or machinations by the West "strawmen," but I think they're crucial. I think Western actions are part and parcel of the motivation for Islamist terrorism generally; and not only motivation, but also exacerbation.

That is, I don't think we're actually "fighting terrorism" at all, nor are our policies much designed to do so. We'll kill or arrest terrorists, potential terrorists, and suspected terrorists (who, interestingly, are basically deemed "terrorists" based on this suspicion, betraying Western hatred for the very principles we claim to espouse); but foreign policy of the great and middle powers is not geared towards eradication of terrorism itself. Quite the opposite. It's geared towards ensuring that terrorism continues.

This is not a conspiracy theory, because this direction is not, or not usually, an intentional, planned motivator to continue terrorism. Rather, policymakers have decided (and it is a choice) that we are institutionally incapable of doing anything different. Of course that's nonsense...and I know, from conversations that you and I have had, that you believe people make choices, and that there are consequences to those choices, and that especially people with money and influence can always be doing things differently than they do. No one forced the Bush administration to bring al Queda into Iraq; but that's what they did, and it was predicted that it would happen, and they chose not to care.

So, Western foreign actions and interventions (and policy generally) tend to be highly cynical maneuvres; and that which has created (or simply exacerbated) violence and turmoil in the past is what we choose to continue doing. It is done for money, it is done for potential access to wealth, and it is done for complex geopolitical purposes, including the lunatic logic of power-for-its-own-sake (one of the Great Human Weaknesses)...which doesn't clearly excuse the actions, no more than you or I would excuse the actions of Iran. Iran also acts out of complex geopolitical motives, as we do; they're not totally unlike ourselves; it's not as if we flit about trying to do "good," while they gloat in the darkness about creating evil for its own sake. And I really think we should grow up and drop the fairy-tale pretence that our intentions are always, at bottom, benign. Not only are we not benign, but leaders and planners know full well that their policies make the issues they claim to be fighting very much worse. They can't not know it.

We understand that they realize the issues, because once they're out of power, they sometimes tell us things which demolish what they themselves have said, and which shatter the delusions which they have had a hand in trying to sell us. We've seen Eisenhower condemning a very central factor of US foreign policy, as soon as he was out of office; Chretien talking about the West's callous misuse of human beings and the resultant blowback; Clinton pointing out that the global economy (which is the Western economic rules and interventions to which the world's poor are subject) is cruel and irrational. These aren't outsiders giving an analysis, but insiders informing us of what they know, of what they've been key players in. (Once they're in no position to alter anything, of course.)

I say it's complex because, within the usually criminally-insane framework in which the West operates, there are plenty of people who do not wish harm to anyone, and who hope against hope that our actions will do some good. So there are good intentions mixed up with the bad (and indifferent). But the idea--fallacious--is that things are just "done" such-and-such a way, and so must continue apace.

The result of this is a moral and logical schizophrenia, to which I suspect any country that achieves power and influence will succumb. We hate terrorism; but we are willing to fund and support it. Well, okay, so we don't hate terrorism, then. By definition, we do not. We hate it when terrorism does not go the way we wish it to go. And we want everyone to have the life-security of not starving to death; but we will allow economic gambling, through foodstuffs speculation which artifically raises food prices for impoverished countries, say, or set "austerity rules" that we refuse to follow ourselves, or destroy the ability of Haitians to grow food by coercing them into trade agreements that cannot see beyond ten years into the future...so that a small number of Westerners, with absurd levels of political influence, can become a little bit richer than they already are. That's not capitalism, it's economic imperialism.

More dramatically, we will overthrow elected leaders who fight such policies, and impose tyrants who will be more obedient. That's an old story, and it's ongoing.

More specifically to the Muslim world, but related to my last point, we tend to take the dictators very seriously, while ignoring the populations. This was illustrated quite nicely with the Wikileaks issue: "the Arab states," we were soberly informed, agree with the United States that Iran is a terrible threat.

Well, let's get more specific; some Arab dictators agree with the the United States that Iran is a terrible threat.

Ten percent of the Arab population agrees. But almost ninety percent feels that the United States and Israel are the terrible threats.

Well, for the few who understand this salient fact (and most Westerners do not understand it, because the "liberal media" reports exactly what the most hawkish elements wish us to learn), this is blithely passed off as "propaganda" to which the Arabs are all subject. (They don't "get it" the way we more elevated folks do.)

But leaving aside the inconvenient fact that Western propaganda is the most sophisticated propaganda in the world (what we think of as propaganda in the contemporary sense was developed, very consciously and intentionally, by the British and the Americans in the early 20th century)...the logic falls apart. With a few exceptions, the dictators aren't propagandizing to the people that America is evil. The dictators are agreeing with and working with the Americans and other Western powers.

It's that the people generally understand things a little better, despite what their Western-supported tyrants, whom the Arabs despise, are telling them.

All of this is a component of terrorism. It doesn't justify it. But our actions--which are closely intertwined--are not justifiable either.

You don't have to take me on my word on that, listen to the terrorists themselves, what they say, these are not secular people with secular grievances.

Not true. If we are to listen to the terrorists themselves, as you suggest, then the actions and policies of the West are very much part of their motivations. That's according to them.

Edited January 18, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

J-Street is a secular political organization within the US, and is not representative of the world's Jews nor does it have any religious component to it.

I asked for a religious peace movement within Judaism, just like you asked for a religious peace movement within Islam.

You failed.

I guess us Jews have no traditions of peace.

OR . . . Your logic is absolutely absurd, and you hold Islam to standards that you don't hold your own religion to.

J-Street isn't completely irreligious, there are religious individuals and organizations associated with J-Street that invoke their interpretations of Jewish teachings in order to reinforce their political perspectives. That needs to be clarified. There's a man, Rabbi Lerner, who I am quite sure I have seen doing the media-circuit doing advocacy for J-Street's political perspectives. Although he seems like a reformist, he's probably one of the more well-known religious individuals associated with J-Street.

Moreover, and more broadly, I'm not sure how we can define a "peace movement" with uniform acceptance. I am quite certain that my definition of "peace movement" greatly diverges from the definition of "peace movement" subscribed to by Israel's enemies. Let us consider an infamous anti-Israel poster who shall not be named - this poster would only attach the term "peace movement" to an organization that is anti-Zionistic and supports acquiescing to all of the demands from the PA, Hamas, Hezbollah, Arab League, UN, and EU. To any honest, reasonable, and intelligent observer, an organization that advocates these position isn't a "peace organization", but rather an organization that advocated for the abolishment of Jewish independence and eventual suicide of the Jewish people.

If we get to the root of jbg's message, it is quite clear to me that he doesn't see a significant movement among Muslim communities at home or abroad that strongly reject terrorism coming from Islamic groups. For every statement I read from organizations like CAIR condemning terrorism, they always make another few statements that seem to justify terrorism. In my view, the most prominent Islamic PR organizations in the Western world seem to speak out of both sides of their mouth when addressing the threat of terrorism we face from Islamic organizations and governments. I understand that this is somewhat inevitable when dealing with the thorny issue of contemporary terrorism and its connection to Islam, as words need to be carefully selected in order not to indict massive populations of Muslims. Still, as a person who consumes massive amounts of information regarding these subjects, and as someone who frequents Islamic PR websites and reads their statements, in my view these organizations virtually always cast blame for terrorism on the West, make excuses and justifications for the phenomenon of terrorism, and misrepresent the severity of the threat as well as efforts undertaken by Western government to address this threat.