London's Underground & Toronto's TTC

[Guest eureka]

Islam does consist of all true Muslims. Islam means surrender, submission, obedience to the faith - nothing else. It is the only religion that does not name itself for an individual but for a belief.

And, Islam does contain freedom of choice and free will in its creed. It does not despise our freedoms at all though it may despise what it considers our license. Even then, Islam itself does not hate us for that. We are "Kafirs", non-believers and our punishment will be at the Day of Judgement not at the hands of believers.

It is a serious mistake of the West to keep up the propaganda that a radical and misguided element represents Islam any more than that a few deluded preachers and their followers in the US represent Christianity.

[kimmy]

Islam does consist of all true Muslims. Islam means surrender, submission, obedience to the faith - nothing else. It is the only religion that does not name itself for an individual but for a belief.

And, Islam does contain freedom of choice and free will in its creed. It does not despise our freedoms at all though it may despise what it considers our license. Even then, Islam itself does not hate us for that. We are "Kafirs", non-believers and our punishment will be at the Day of Judgement not at the hands of believers.

It is a serious mistake of the West to keep up the propaganda that a radical and misguided element represents Islam any more than that a few deluded preachers and their followers in the US represent Christianity.

Yes, I realize that Islam encompasses a wide range of views and beliefs. Which is why in this discussion I've been very careful to use the words Islamist and not Islamic, and Islamist and not Muslim. Islamism and Islamist refer very specifically to those Muslims who believe that their faith is a political system and legal system as well as a religious belief.

-k

[kimmy]

Shoes?  I'm pretty sure August wasn't talking about shoes when he wrote the message you took issue with. 

August wasn't even the poster I was taking issue with in that post.

So you quoted August by accident or something?

The section you quoted was "On the other hand, the men behind these attacks in London (or Madrid, or New York, or wherever) don't think about two women or two men together. These men don't think about homosexuality. They refuse the idea that a person should be free to choose."

Thats right. Because, apparently, these people hate choice. They hate liberty. They hate democracy. They love being oppressed by religious and financial elites. They just lap it up. They simply can't get enough of it! Every morning when they wake up, they think to themselves "Boy, am I ever glad I don't get to vote in a free and democratic election!" Such is the extent of their hatred of liberty.

Sounds kind of absurd when you actually make explicit what is implied in this "they hate freedom" nonsense, doesn't it?

What's ridiculous is your presentation of it, not the fact that these views are held.

They love being oppressed by religious and financial elites.

-they believe such oppression is not oppression at all. They believe it's the law given to Mohammed by god himself.

Every morning when they wake up, they think to themselves "Boy, am I ever glad I don't get to vote in a free and democratic election!"

-the belief of Islamists is that Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political system and legal system. They believe that free and democratic elections are simply not the way god specified things to be run.

(for casual observers, I again emphasize the term Islamists as opposed to Muslims in general.)

Such is the extent of their hatred of liberty.

-some of the liberties we take for granted are in opposition to their religious beliefs. "Hate" might not be the right term, but "oppose" seems pretty close.

Brutal dictatorships in the middle east (ie. Saudi Arabia) are propped up by western governments for their own gain. The people living in these states are subjected to horrible conditions designed to maintain that support. Discontent arises out of such conditions. Some people decide to oppose the status quo, and they encounter a problem.

When you compare miserable conditions with death, the miserable conditions don't seem so bad. If you want to mobilize people to action at great risk to their lives, you need to alter the payoff matrix. Guess how you do that?

I can see what you are saying here, and it is not without merit, at least in some instances.

However, here is something to consider: even here in Canada where we have a comfortable standard of living and relatively high quality of universal public education, we have people whose religious beliefs are such that they sincerely believe god will punish us for disobeying their religious beliefs. Even on this message board, we've had visits from some who sincerely believe that the SSM law will lead us to the same fate as Sodom and Gamorrah. We know that even here in our cozy, comfortable, tolerant, educated society, we have elements who are willing to commit murder in support of their religious beliefs-- think of abortion-clinic snipers, for instance.

If our wealthy, enlightened society can produce individuals willing to kill for religious reasons, then how much worse might it be in societies where religion is all they have and the only education they have is memorizing religious verse?

Do people in Islamist countries have intellectual freedom, or freedom of expression?  When saying the wrong thing can mean the head of state puts out a fatwa against you, I'd suggest not.

Surface level analysis. Ask yourself why opposition to western style freedoms is so intense in some circles. Could it be because a small group of elites have redirected the hatred of western intervention in the middle east toward western political systems for their own gain? In the minds of their followers, militant islamicists have defined fundamentalist Islam as opposition to western imperialism.

Or it could be the same reason that Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church.

-k

[August1991]

Because, apparently, these people hate choice. They hate liberty. They hate democracy. They love being oppressed by religious and financial elites. They just lap it up. They simply can't get enough of it! Every morning when they wake up, they think to themselves "Boy, am I ever glad I don't get to vote in a free and democratic election!" Such is the extent of their hatred of liberty.

Sounds kind of absurd when you actually make explicit what is implied in this "they hate freedom" nonsense, doesn't it?

Religious and financial elites? What planet are you living on?

There is a long thread from which I took the following post I made:

Around the world, for the past hundred years or so, there has been an ongoing revolution in relations between ordinary people. Ordinary people can increasingly decide for themselves.

Women are increasingly free to choose.

The Muslim/Arab world seems unable to face this revolution. Individuals want to face it in their daily life but they can't. Why is this? What is the problem?

You might want to flip though the thread. There are numerous links to sites describing who exactly oppresses whom. In my experience, it is usually older men, patriarchs in the family.

[Argus]

And the Guardian Council refused permission for nearly all of the parliamentary reformers to run again this time around, along with all others who expressed reformist sentiments. Or did you fail to notice that?

Do you have a source other than Bush propaganda rags that can confirm that? The article I linked to clearly indicates that reformers were running in the recent election and lost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"In mid-February 2004, the country was facing another crisis. This time over the disqualification of thousands of reformist candidates from the February 20 elections. The Council of Guardians had announced a list of more than 5,400 candidates who were approved to run for election around the country. More than 2,300 candidates -- four times as many as in the last election -- were disqualified, including many of the most well-known figures in the reform movement. Also disqualified was Mohammad Reza Khatami, the president's brother, who was in charge of the largest reform faction and served as deputy speaker of the outgoing parliament. He had won more votes than any other candidate in the 2000 general elections.

Many candidates were declared not eligible due to an alleged indifference to Islam and to the constitution. Others were accused of questioning the supreme leader's powers." Countrywatch

What happened in Iran at the beginning of this year, when I was supposed to be there, reflected the same ideological tug-of-war that made Iranian officials unable to decide on such a small matter as my visa. A full-fledged political crisis erupted as the parliament, which represents Iranian democracy, clashed with the shadowy Council of Guardians, the voice of reaction and fundamentalism. The council issued an order disqualifying nearly half of the 8,200 candidates who wished to run for seats in parliament. Among them were more than 80 of the 290 incumbents, including no less symbolic a figure than President Mohammed Khatami's brother.

PBS

Add to this that scores of semi-independant, reformist newspapers have been shut down, and that all the votes were counted by the Interior Ministry under the supervision of the Guardian Council.

I don't think most people would have termed these fair elections.

[Black Dog]

He always had the above. And more. But putting a few knapsacks on buses and subways in London, home to large population of radically inclined Muslims, is a far cry from flying multiple airplanes into buildings in New York. Any idiot can bomb the London subway. But don't you think if Al Quaeda was still capable of flying airplanes into American buildings they'd have done so by now?

Or perhaps, given the increased focus on aviation security since 9-11, they've simply adjusted their methods.

And again, what does the West do to the Muslim world? Support Israel? So what? What real impact does Israel's existence have on the average Muslim shopkeeper in Cairo or Damascus? And how would that impact difer if they were Arab Muslims and not Jews?

Western support of Israel (the foundation of which was in direct violation of the indiginous people's right to self-determination) led to a de facto showdown between the rising forces of Arab nationalism (Nasser et al) and western military might (through Israel). The former lost, another humiliation in a long line stretching back to the Crusades and the end of the Islamic world's cultural supremacy. As for why Arab Muslims don't care about Muslims in China or India or Indonesia, I don't know that they don't. But Israel was Arab land, colonized against the wishes of the inhabitants, a lingering reminder of the west's apparent war on Islam in Islam's own backyard.

The US helps prop up dictatorships? Perhaps. And without the US would the Saudi or Egyptian governments fall? Possibly, to be replaced by brutal theocratic thugocracies like Irans. So why should the US not do what is in its own interests, and which really causes no harm to the people of Saudi Arabia or Egypt?

First: historically, western support for dictatorships (such as the Shah) came at the expense of self-determination and secular nationalism. No wonder the inevitable blowback had a religious flavour.

Second: you're contradicting yourself. One the one hand, you bemoan the Muslim world's lack of progress, their oppressive government's and shoddy human rights records. Then, on the other, you make the claim that support of dictatorships like Egypt and Saudi Arabia (itself a " brutal theocratic thugocracy") actually "causes no harm to the people". Which is it? Benevolant clients or backwards thugs? Or does that depend on the price of gas?

[BHS]

Western support of Israel (the foundation of which was in direct violation of the indiginous people's right to self-determination)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just picking nits here. You're use of the word "indigenous" implies that the so-called Palestinian Arabs are the original inhabitants of the area, and ignores the fact that many cultures have called the country now known as "Israel" home throughout recorded history, including the Jews. Furthermore, since the Jewish state was built from the ground up during years of struggle (read terrorism) against the British, it's hard for me to accept the idea that the Arabs were suddenly pushed aside as if by external conquest, which is to me the gist of your post.

[Black Dog]

Just picking nits here. You're use of the word "indigenous" implies that the so-called Palestinian Arabs are the original inhabitants of the area, and ignores the fact that many cultures have called the country now known as "Israel" home throughout recorded history, including the Jews.

Perhaps many of the thousands of post war European Jewish DPs could, casting back through the ages, trace their lineage to the tribe sthat once roamed the deserts of what is now Israel. That fact pales to insignificance when one considers the claims of the million+ Arabs who actually lived there up until the time of partition and were subsequently dispossessed by the influx of Jewish immigrants.

Furthermore, since the Jewish state was built from the ground up during years of struggle (read terrorism) against the British, it's hard for me to accept the idea that the Arabs were suddenly pushed aside as if by external conquest, which is to me the gist of your post

In 1947, Jews made up 1/3 of the population of the Palestine Mandate. After partition and the declaraton of the State of Israel, more than 700,000 Arabs were expelled (many by force, while those that left voluntarily were refused the right to return). So, given that and teh fact that Jewish land ownership jumped from 7 per cent before partition to 79 per cent after, its difficult to arrive at any conclusion other than the one that says Israel, in its present form, is the product of conquest.

[August1991]

There is ironic justice in the fact that this hostage, James Loney, is gay and this fact was kept secret up until his release.

I have ressurrected this thread which I started just after the bombings in the London underground, and just after parliament passed gay marriage legislation. My point was that we cannot dissociate these two events. Islamic fundamentalists send suicide pilots to fly planes into buildings and suicide bombers onto urban trains because they fundamentally view western society as corrupting, dangerous, impious and ungodly.

We cannot avoid this "clash of civilizations" because it is in the nature of western society to provoke, ask questions, break taboos, permit the individual to choose freely.

Typical westerners like James Loney are going to come into contact with all manner of people in Muslim countries.

When Canada passed gay marriage legislation, it was a stark message - even a provocation - to people such as bin Laden that we reject his kind of obscurantism. Do Canadians understand that our right to gay marriage is dependent on our ability to defend our choice?

I'm not sure that when the Left chose to get involved in "progressive" causes such as gay rights, it was clear to Leftists that ultimately it was defending individual rights, and becoming in effect libertarian. The Left hasn't understood either that individual rights must be defended.

If Loney is obviously confused, and his behaviour incoherent, Charles Adler gets the point:

The Christian Peacemaker Team members have been called misguided and naive. But it's clear from here that Jim Loney is only selectively naive. He could not afford to talk about his partner while in captivity and didn't.

Homosexuality in Saddam Hussein's Iraq was punishable by death. Amnesty International says the current status of gay and lesbian rights is unclear. But here are few things that are crystal clear.

1) Jim Loney only feels free to speak his mind about his sexual orientation in a country with a government that protects gay rights.

2) Christian Peacemakers claim to have gone to Iraq to prevent the coalition forces from carrying out their mission.

3) Had the the Peacemakers succeeded in keeping Saddam Hussein in power, a homosexual in Iraq would have zero hope for having an openly gay life. We know from Loney's statement made here in Canada that even he knows that the threat to gays wasn't coming from Western Imperialism.

Adler

[geoffrey]

Charles Adler certainly gets the point with this one.

How hypocritical of the guy. Only Canadian gays should have rights? Jim Loney was actively attempting to prevent those rights to others. How sad. How very sad.

There are alot of 'protest' groups that fall into the same trap. Groups that only exist here because we allow it, but end up pressuring the government to prevent any assistance to groups of similar nature from existing throughout the world.

[seabee]

Reviving this thread because of these new facts is indeed a very good idea.

Societies change, but at different rates, for all sorts of internal reasons. Imposing change from the outside is not the way to go.

We may not agree with other's way, but then again they may not agree with ours. Does that give us the right to militarily impose ours on theirs?

[August1991]

Societies change, but at different rates, for all sorts of internal reasons. Imposing change from the outside is not the way to go.

We may not agree with other's way, but then again they may not agree with ours. Does that give us the right to militarily impose ours on theirs?

Seabee, you raise a critical point.

Mark Steyn, for one, has gotten into this demographic analysis of birth rates, immigration and Eurabia. In Quebec, this is an old tradition and since Steyn claims to be a Quebecer, perhaps this explains his obsession or penchant.

Quebecers have been obsessed with demography for a century or two, and connect survival to birth rates. Textbooks detail various population measures, and pyramids. Denys Arcand, in his movie Le Déclin, had a personnage refer to "Numbers, numbers, numbers".

Maybe this is why Steyn, who claims Quebec birth, has recently become obsessed about demography.

My own view is that numbers don't matter. Adaptability does. French is still spoken in North America because people in Quebec chose the best, practical way to adapt. I suspect Icelanders will be speaking Icelandic three centuries hence, but I'm not so certain any Lebanese will be speaking Classical Arabic.

----

Immigrants to America become American. Individual freedom is too attractive, and possible.

I despair sometimes about the future of our planet, but to the extent in part I believe people are willing to defend this freedom, then I have hope.

I am heartened that the NDP has become Libertarian and chosen to defend individual gay rights against the majority. Canada needs an ACLU.

[uOttawaMan]

Societies change, but at different rates, for all sorts of internal reasons. Imposing change from the outside is not the way to go.

We may not agree with other's way, but then again they may not agree with ours. Does that give us the right to militarily impose ours on theirs?

Seabee, you raise a critical point.

Mark Steyn, for one, has gotten into this demographic analysis of birth rates, immigration and Eurabia. In Quebec, this is an old tradition and since Steyn claims to be a Quebecer, perhaps this explains his obsession or penchant.

Quebecers have been obsessed with demography for a century or two, and connect survival to birth rates. Textbooks detail various population measures, and pyramids. Denys Arcand, in his movie Le Déclin, had a personnage refer to "Numbers, numbers, numbers".

Maybe this is why Steyn, who claims Quebec birth, has recently become obsessed about demography.

My own view is that numbers don't matter. Adaptability does. French is still spoken in North America because people in Quebec chose the best, practical way to adapt. I suspect Icelanders will be speaking Icelandic three centuries hence, but I'm not so certain any Lebanese will be speaking Classical Arabic.

----

Immigrants to America become American. Individual freedom is too attractive, and possible.

I despair sometimes about the future of our planet, but to the extent in part I believe people are willing to defend this freedom, then I have hope.

Nah, the last line speaks the truth. I don't subscribe to the positivist view that humans are all generally good. The planet is going down the crapper anyway, we are just speeding up the process greatly.

[August1991]

Nah, the last line speaks the truth. I don't subscribe to the positivist view that humans are all generally good. The planet is going down the crapper anyway, we are just speeding up the process greatly.

I added an edit.

I have two fears for our species. First, we don't have the courage to defend freedom. Second, we don't understand the need to protect the common.

(In the grand scheme of things - the universe - what happens here is irrelevant. But it would be sad if we were the precise timeframe, and place, that screwed it up.)

[Riverwind]

I have two fears for our species. First, we don't have the courage to defend freedom. Second, we don't understand the need to protect the common.

What does freedom mean anyways? For some people that means freedom to say what they want and do what they please. For others that means freedom from fear of crime or violance. For others it means freedom from fear of economic uncertainty and upheaval.

People are willing to give up some freedoms if they believe it will give the freedom they desire most.