London's Underground & Toronto's TTC

[GostHacked]

I suppose you'll only be happy when the monsters of this world are all treated with kid gloves and appeasement. Too fucking bad. The lessons of WWII have been learned. Ignoring the terrorists won't make them go away. It didn't work in 1993.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Comparing the Al-queda terrorist organization to the Nazi government in Germany during WWII is very ignorant. That was a whole country's population caught up in the event. Al-Queada is scatterd and has yet to invade and take OVER an entire country. Nazi took over Poland in mere days. France in weeks.

I would actually go as far as to compare the Bush Administration to the Nazi Goverment. Same rhetoric, kill the others, we are strong and we will prevail. And now they have taken over Afhganistan and Iraq. I fear the Americans more than any terrorist organization.

And don't thing Canada has been free of terrorist activities. I hope you recall the FLQ. Don't think we are totaly complacent on this. We just don't put it as the main focus of daily life.

Must be stressful for you to live in constant fear.

[BHS]

Comparing the Al-queda terrorist organization to the Nazi government in Germany during WWII is very ignorant. That was a whole country's population caught up in the event. Al-Queada is scatterd and has yet to invade and take OVER an entire country. Nazi took over Poland in mere days. France in weeks.

I would actually go as far as to compare the Bush Administration to the Nazi Goverment. Same rhetoric, kill the others, we are strong and we will prevail. And now they have taken over Afhganistan and Iraq. I fear the Americans more than any terrorist organization.

And don't thing Canada has been free of terrorist activities. I hope you recall the FLQ. Don't think we are totaly complacent on this. We just don't put it as the main focus of daily life.

Must be stressful for you to live in constant fear.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I meant to compare the pre-emptive strike against Iraq in the early 21st century to the appeasement of the Nazis in the 1930s. I should have made myself more clear.

On the other hand, comparing America to Nazi Germany is ignorant bordering on insane, especially using the weak generalizations you've employed. When you can come up with a better set of comparisons than that, I'll be here.

I don't actually live in constant fear. It's funny, because I'd have thought YOU would be the one in constant fear, living right next door to the regime you fear more than anyone, including the killers of Al-Aqaeda.

[August1991]

Should Torontonians worry because Canada just passed same-sex marriage legislation? Will some people abroad view this as a provocation? Or should we not worry because what Canada does is thankfully ignored on the world stage, and Canadians never provoke anybody. Is our parliament's decision to pass same-sex marriage legislation in any way connected to potential future attacks?

No.

Actually, let me rephrase that. Its entirely possible that canada's expansion of marriage rights to include same sex couple scould lead to violence and perhaps terrorism. Except it won't be perpatrated by our own Emmanuel Goldstein in Tora Bora, but by homegrown religious extremists.

Homegrown extremists? BD, please travel in time - several centuries.

BD, you and I know that same sex marriage is ultimately an issue about individual freedom. Yes, there is the social-engineering question of "respect" and making others understand that gays are people too. But the reason many young Canadians accept gay marriage is because they believe that people should be free to choose.

And true, to many older Canadians, the idea of gay marriage is still provocative. Nevertheless, over 30 years ago, even they accepted that two women (or two men) should be able to do whatever they wanted in the privacy of a bedroom. Bedroom? In 2005, Stephen Harper defends civil union.

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.

Black Dog, the modern Left seems to have adopted principles of social freedom and seems willing to defend these principles intellectually - the NDP certainly defends same-sex marriage. Is the Left willing to defend such principles of freedom practically?

BD, I think Jack Layton should fly to Riyadh and give a speech about same sex marriage. If Layton is not willing (or able) to do that, then he has absolutely no right to criticize the foreign policy of Bush Jnr.

[I Miss Trudeau]

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.

We keep seeing these statements over and over and over again, but never with any argument to back them up. Why do you think that is?

[PocketRocket]

The question was posed earlier in this thread whether or not Canada should be concerned about an attack.

Consider that (according to CTV evening news Thurs July 7) Canada was one of 6 countries which were warned of being on the terrorist "hit" list.

Apparently this list has been fairly well known for some time, although this is the first I heard of it.

If the list is given any credence, and if we consider the other 5 have already been attacked in one form or another, England being the last, then I believe we DO have cause to be concerned.

Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, all would make good, high-profile targets.

Toronto, I believe, would be most likely.

Think of the furor should the CN Tower be hit.

Ottawa is another possibility. Or maybe not. If they bomb Ottawa, they could very well end up taking out Parliament completely, and it could be argued that this would be no bad thing, given our current state of governmental affairs.

Outside of these 4 cities, I can't really see anything they'd care to go after.

But I do believe an attack is nearly certain, it's just a matter of time.

[Argus]

Hmm, Al Quaeda had a base with 10,000 fighters, an international network, almost open support by any number of Saudi billionaires... Now Bin Laden lives in a cave, most of the leadership is dead, most of his people are dead, in jail or scattered. Yeah, they done real good

Hmm, as oppossed to now when Al Qaeda has a new base (Iraq) with an unknown number of fighters, an international network capable of striking at the heart of the "infidels'" nations (if yesterday's London attacks are indeed the work of AQ or AQ afiliates), a series of networks capable of operating without central leadership, a vast pool of new recruits to draw from, while Osama bin Laden remains at large, his whereabouts unknown.

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?

Like us, basking in the safety of American protection. Letting the Americans do the dirty work they don't have the stomach for. Sitting back and doing nothing knowing the Americans will fight for them.

Bzzt! Wrong!

Here's a hint: bin Laden himself has repeatedly claimed that his war with the United States and the West is based on what they have done and are doing in the Muslim world – and not by the mere existence of their societies and freedoms.

But the rage of most muslim fanatics, and I think of bin laden as well, is at the failure and humiliation of their own people and the success and power of the west. Bin Laden despises the West, and everything it stands for, the secularism, the promiscuity and immorality, the Godlessness of it all, and he is enraged at its influence on his society, a society he wants to keep in the sixteenth century.

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? 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?

Do you honestly think the people of Egypt would be better off with an Iranian style dictatorship than the one they have now?

[Argus]

The British spent many years fighting IRA terrorism. They did not see the need to create a 'war' to fight the IRA. They treated it as largely a police matter and at the same time worked to resolve the situation in North Ireland that was being used as an excuse by for the actions by the IRA. If the Brits used Bush's logic they would have invaded Ireland because it was a 'haven' for terrorists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you ever seen what "policing" amounts to in Northern Ireland? It's hardly different than how the Israelis go into the Palestinian regions. Furthermore, the British didn't need to "invade" Northern Ireland because they've owned the place since the 1600s. And your conjecture that they "worked" to resolve the problem during the worst years of the troubles is laughable - between 1972 and 1999 tthe people of NI were governed directly from London and had little say in how the conflict could be dispelled. Hardly like a war at all, eh?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And let us not forget that the British "policing" included asssasination of suspected IRA leaders and operatives, even in third countries, imprisonment without trial, and firing on peaceful demonstrators. It is difficult for most to credit, but when the British army first moved into NI they were welcomed by the Catholic population. It was their own actions and behaviour which turned the population against them.

[August1991]

We keep seeing these statements over and over and over again, but never with any argument to back them up. Why do you think that is?

Will you take Ken Livingstone as a source?

This point was made resoundingly clear yesterday by Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, who answered a news-conference question about the city's ability to play host to the 2012 Olympics without violence with an extemporaneous celebration of urban life.

This year marks the first in history, he said, in which more people in the world live in cities than in rural areas. Many of them adopted urban life, he continued, to escape the constrictions of religious intolerance.

“This is a city in which you can be yourself as long as you don't harm anyone else. You can live your life as you choose to do, rather than as somebody else tells you to do.

“It's a city in which you can achieve your potential. And that, I think, is our strength. And that is what the bombers seek to destroy. They fear that freedom.”

He concluded: “I say to those who planned this dreadful attack, whether they're still here in hiding, or somewhere abroad: Watch next week as we bury our dead and mourn them. But see, also, in those same days, new people coming to this city to make it their home, to call themselves Londoners, and doing it because of that freedom to be themselves.”

G & M

As much as I disagree with Ken Livingstone, he has said this well.

[kimmy]

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.

We keep seeing these statements over and over and over again, but never with any argument to back them up. Why do you think that is?

Al-Qaeda is an Islamist organization, IMT. bin-Laden himself is a Wahhabi. A core belief of that branch of Islam is that religion and politics must conform to practices during the time of Mohammed, who had a direct hotline to heaven to explain how things ought to be. Any practices or beliefs developed after the time of Mohammed are dismissed as inventions of man; anything that disagrees with the word of god as given to Mohammed is clearly false.

What would an Islamist state look like in practice? You saw it in Afghanistan. They didn't just refuse the idea that homosexuals should be free to choose how to live their lives... they lined homosexuals up in front of stone walls and used tanks to topple the walls on top of them, as a lesson to others.

While apologists would no doubt like to exclude any consideration of religion from discussions of Al-Qaeda and their motivation, you can't. It's not a collective of people whose only unifying goal is to confront US intervention in the middle east. Fundamentalist Islam is a core belief.

If you doubt the objectivity or veracity of anything I've written here, please feel free to do your own research. If you find anything that contradicts me, I'd love to hear it.

-k

[Riverwind]

While apologists would no doubt like to exclude any consideration of religion from discussions of Al-Qaeda and their motivation, you can't.  It's not a collective of people whose only unifying goal is to confront US intervention in the middle east.  Fundamentalist Islam is a core belief.

You must put Islam into context of the societies where it is predominate. In most cases these societies are dictatorships of some sort where the dictators use Islam as a justification for their position and imply that any who oppose them must be against Islam. The only way to oppose such people in a society that takes Islam very seriously is to wrap themselves in the 'Koran' and claim that they are better Muslims than the leaders.

Similar psychological battles go on in Western society. For example, the Bush Republicans often attacked their Democratic opponents by claiming they were 'unamerican' for opposing the Republican viewpoints. Democrats were defeated because they could not/would not resort to nationalist one upmanship.

In short, Bin-laden and Al Qaeda may talk a lot of religion but that is simply because that is the political tool they need to use in their societies to push for change. And change in Islamic societies is the ultimate goal of these terrorist groups. People who see this as a Jihad against western society/values are exaggerating facts to suit their own political ideology.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Will you take Ken Livingstone as a source?

I don't seem him providing any argument, either. It is not sufficient to say, "Look, here is another person that says the same thing that I do!" without any actual argument or evidence to support the claim.

[I Miss Trudeau]

While apologists would no doubt like to exclude any consideration of religion from discussions of Al-Qaeda and their motivation, you can't.  It's not a collective of people whose only unifying goal is to confront US intervention in the middle east.  Fundamentalist Islam is a core belief.

No one wants to exclude religion from the debate. Most just want something a little more meaningful and insightful than "Those goat herding Arabs don't want us to be able to choose what color of shoes to wear."

[Argus]

While apologists would no doubt like to exclude any consideration of religion from discussions of Al-Qaeda and their motivation, you can't.  It's not a collective of people whose only unifying goal is to confront US intervention in the middle east.  Fundamentalist Islam is a core belief.

You must put Islam into context of the societies where it is predominate. In most cases these societies are dictatorships of some sort where the dictators use Islam as a justification for their position and imply that any who oppose them must be against Islam. The only way to oppose such people in a society that takes Islam very seriously is to wrap themselves in the 'Koran' and claim that they are better Muslims than the leaders.

You might have a point, if "wrapping themselves in the Koran" didn't involve cutting off people's heads, blowing up buildings full of innocent people, and machinegunning schoolgirls who aren't wearing their head scarves. Or are you suggesting these sorts of things are mere political posturing?

In short, Bin-laden and Al Qaeda may talk a lot of religion but that is simply because that is the political tool they need to use in their societies to push for change.

UHm, yes, change to an Islamic society. Are you trying to suggest that all those Islamist terrorist and political groups out there are merely posturing, and don't actually believe anything they say? Was Khomeni posturing when he overthrew the Shaw? It doesn't seem like it. Were the Taliban merely posturing? I rather doubt it. I get the idea that you, as a western secularist, simply can't conceive of people whose belief is so utterly complete, so deep, that it is the entirety of their being. There is no seperation of church and state in the muslim world. There isn't even the thought of seperation of church and state. Good Muslims live their lives according to God's rules, and good Muslim societies do the same. As for fanatical muslim zealots, well, there is plenty of blood and violence in what Mohammud preached to incite their own blood lust and to justify their violence to themselves.

And change in Islamic societies is the ultimate goal of these terrorist groups. People who see this as a Jihad against western society/values are exaggerating facts to suit their own political ideology.

But what kind of change? At their core, these groups see Muslim nations as being weakened and moving away from true Islam by the infestation of Western cultural values. That's why they bomb movie theatres and murder women for "immorality", among other things. They despise the Godless immorality of the West, and its culture. So while they are fighting for a "true" Islamic society they are also fighting against all of the political and social values and ideas which originate in the West. It would be naive to think they didn't despise the West and didn't wish it ill. And let us not forget there are numerous Islamist groups in the West preaching hatred of Western society and Western values. Britain is full of them, as is France and Spain. There's no dictatorship there, so why are they "wrapping themselves in the Koran"?

[Argus]

While apologists would no doubt like to exclude any consideration of religion from discussions of Al-Qaeda and their motivation, you can't.  It's not a collective of people whose only unifying goal is to confront US intervention in the middle east.  Fundamentalist Islam is a core belief.

No one wants to exclude religion from the debate. Most just want something a little more meaningful and insightful than "Those goat herding Arabs don't want us to be able to choose what color of shoes to wear."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why don't you go organize Tehran's first gay pride parade then?

[Riverwind]

And change in Islamic societies is the ultimate goal of these terrorist groups. People who see this as a Jihad against western society/values are exaggerating facts to suit their own political ideology.

West. It would be naive to think they didn't despise the West and didn't wish it ill. And let us not forget there are numerous Islamist groups in the West preaching hatred of Western society and Western values. Britain is full of them, as is France and Spain. There's no dictatorship there, so why are they "wrapping themselves in the Koran"?

Many Muslims feel there is something wrong with their societies and want change. Some of those wanting change use religious extremism as the justification for change in the belief that having an Islamically 'pure' state would correct the problems that they see in their societies. The 'west', as we call it, is simply a prop being used in a bloody civil war within Muslim society.

The are significant parallels between the Muslim religious extremism that we find so distasteful and the Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell - Cromwell believed quite firmly that he was remaking England according to the directions of God as he slaughtered thousands of people.

That is why I think it is important that we protect ourselves from those who would do us harm but it is equally important that we do not become the dupes of these extremist that want to provoke an over-reaction in the west. So far, Bush has become the willing pawn of the Islamic radicals as he plays the part that they have written for him.

[BHS]

And change in Islamic societies is the ultimate goal of these terrorist groups. People who see this as a Jihad against western society/values are exaggerating facts to suit their own political ideology.

West. It would be naive to think they didn't despise the West and didn't wish it ill. And let us not forget there are numerous Islamist groups in the West preaching hatred of Western society and Western values. Britain is full of them, as is France and Spain. There's no dictatorship there, so why are they "wrapping themselves in the Koran"?

Many Muslims feel there is something wrong with their societies and want change. Some of those wanting change use religious extremism as the justification for change in the belief that having an Islamically 'pure' state would correct the problems that they see in their societies. The 'west', as we call it, is simply a prop being used in a bloody civil war within Muslim society.

The are significant parallels between the Muslim religious extremism that we find so distasteful and the Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell - Cromwell believed quite firmly that he was remaking England according to the directions of God as he slaughtered thousands of people.

That is why I think it is important that we protect ourselves from those who would do us harm but it is equally important that we do not become the dupes of these extremist that want to provoke an over-reaction in the west. So far, Bush has become the willing pawn of the Islamic radicals as he plays the part that they have written for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An interesting philosophical question: did Cromwell's rule of England in the 1600 lead to the democratic reforms that followed, after the return of monarchy? (Please note that I'm not playing devil's advocate here. This area of history is a little fuzzy for me.)

[Riverwind]

The are significant parallels between the Muslim religious extremism that we find so distasteful and the Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell - Cromwell believed quite firmly that he was remaking England according to the directions of God as he slaughtered thousands of people.

An interesting philosophical question: did Cromwell's rule of England in the 1600 lead to the democratic reforms that followed, after the return of monarchy? (Please note that I'm not playing devil's advocate here. This area of history is a little fuzzy for me.)

Actually that is my point. Cromwell himself was an anti-democratic authoritarian, however, he united many groups who were opposed to the monarchy including democrats. Although he himself did not introduce democracy, the changes he brought out in society led to the introduction of democracy.

In some ways, Cromwell is similar to Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran - a religious radical who deposed a depot that desperately needed deposing. Furthermore, similar to 17th century England, Iran is developing an open democratic society on its own without the help of the west. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has actually slowed this process down.

The recent election of an anti-west radical illustrates an important fact: Iran has democratic elections where there is actually a fair contest between political rivals. Let me repeat that to make sure people get it: "Iran has democratic elections where there is actually a fair contest between political rivals". It is true that candidates have to be approved by the clerics, but the fact that there was a free and fair election between the sanctioned candidates is pretty amazing in my book. It also suggests that the best way to encourage democracies is the Islamic world is to stop proping up dictators like the Sauds, accept that muslims will elect religious extremists for the foreable future and be patient.

[BHS]

The are significant parallels between the Muslim religious extremism that we find so distasteful and the Puritanism of Oliver Cromwell - Cromwell believed quite firmly that he was remaking England according to the directions of God as he slaughtered thousands of people.

An interesting philosophical question: did Cromwell's rule of England in the 1600 lead to the democratic reforms that followed, after the return of monarchy? (Please note that I'm not playing devil's advocate here. This area of history is a little fuzzy for me.)

Actually that is my point. Cromwell himself was an anti-democratic authoritarian, however, he united many groups who were opposed to the monarchy including democrats. Although he himself did not introduce democracy, the changes he brought out in society led to the introduction of democracy.

In some ways, Cromwell is similar to Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran - a religious radical who deposed a depot that desperately needed deposing. Furthermore, similar to 17th century England, Iran is developing an open democratic society on its own without the help of the west. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has actually slowed this process down.

The recent election of an anti-west radical illustrates an important fact: Iran has democratic elections where there is actually a fair contest between political rivals. Let me repeat that to make sure people get it: "Iran has democratic elections where there is actually a fair contest between political rivals". It is true that candidates have to be approved by the clerics, but the fact that there was a free and fair election between the sanctioned candidates is pretty amazing in my book. It also suggests that the best way to encourage democracies is the Islamic world is to stop proping up dictators like the Sauds, accept that muslims will elect religious extremists for the foreable future and be patient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm afraid I have to disagree entirely about the Iranian elections. There's nothing free or fair about an election where you get to choose between A and A. This is hardly a step up from Saddam's "elections" in Iraq where the population got to choose whether or not they approved of his leadership.

I also disagree that Iran's progress toward democracy has been slowed by the invasion of Iraq, but since there's no way of proving either of our cases, I'm going to leave it at that.

[Riverwind]

I also disagree that Iran's progress toward democracy has been slowed by the invasion of Iraq, but since there's no way of proving either of our cases, I'm going to leave it at that.

Before the Iraq war, reformers had control of the country's parliment and were gradually gaining more power - this is a fact that can be verified in numerous sources. Furthermore, they won power in the same electoral system that elected the hard liner - a fact that can also be verified.

However, it is diffiult to know why they lost the recent election. One theory is that they failed to appeal to the masses of poor Iranians and it had nothing to do with geo polictics.

Here is a link that talks more about the fortunes of Iran's reformists.

[Argus]

The recent election of an anti-west radical illustrates an important fact: Iran has democratic elections where there is actually a fair contest between political rivals.

Nonsense.

Let me repeat that to make sure people get it: "Iran has democratic elections where there is actually a fair contest between political rivals".

Let me repeat that to make sure you got it: nonsense.

It is true that candidates have to be approved by the clerics, but the fact that there was a free and fair election between the sanctioned candidates is pretty amazing in my book.

Why? You get to choose between people who support the ruling religious order and want no changes. You consider that a free and fair election? It's like Canada having a free and fair election so long as you vote Liberal. You just get two Liberal candidates to choose from in each riding. Oh, and the votes will be counted by Liberal party members, supervised by the PMO.

[Argus]

I also disagree that Iran's progress toward democracy has been slowed by the invasion of Iraq, but since there's no way of proving either of our cases, I'm going to leave it at that.

Before the Iraq war, reformers had control of the country's parliment and were gradually gaining more power - this is a fact that can be verified in numerous sources. Furthermore, they won power in the same electoral system that elected the hard liner - a fact that can also be verified.

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?

[Riverwind]

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.

[kimmy]

While apologists would no doubt like to exclude any consideration of religion from discussions of Al-Qaeda and their motivation, you can't.  It's not a collective of people whose only unifying goal is to confront US intervention in the middle east.  Fundamentalist Islam is a core belief.

No one wants to exclude religion from the debate. Most just want something a little more meaningful and insightful than "Those goat herding Arabs don't want us to be able to choose what color of shoes to wear."

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

We aren't talking about shoes, IMT. Nor are we talking about "goat-herding Arabs," or even Muslims in general, or even conservative Muslims. We are discussing militant Islamists. (I'm assuming you know the definition of the term "Islamist" and know it doesn't refer to Muslims as a whole... but I will point out the distinction for those who know might not.)

So... nobody wants to exclude religion from the debate? I'm not convinced. I mean, you clearly felt more comfortable coming back to me with

"Those goat herding Arabs don't want us to be able to choose what color of shoes to wear."

than with

"Those goat-herding Islamists don't want us to be able to choose whether we can recognize gay marriages."

Why is that? Perhaps you just thought it would be witty, or perhaps you sought to trivialize the opposing viewpoint, or perhaps you really thought we were discussing shoes, or perhaps you prefered to leave religion out of the discussion.

I think August's point-- that the Islamists are opposed to choice (not on shoes, as far as I know, but on many issues of fundamental importance to us in the west-- education, women's rights, democracy, sexuality, free expression) is fairly well supported even by common knowledge. One doesn't have to look through speeches by Osama to find clues to this leaning. One can simply look at life in countries where Islamist rule is in force. How are women treated under Sharia law? How do elections work out in those countries? Do people have religious freedom? (would you choose to live as a 'dhimmi' in an Islamic country?) How do homosexuals fare in these countries? (and so on.)

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.

And I've already mentioned Afghanistan. The Taliban were Osama's allies, his former comrades in arms, his ideological offspring. I suggest that the Taliban regime's reign of terror is tangiable proof that the Islamists do not belief people should be free to choose.

And, finally, I already mentioned El Sayyid Nosair, who was part of the 1993 WTC bombing plot. Who also bombed a gay bar in Greenwich Villiage a few years earlier. Some like Sparhawk argue that the extremists want to effect change back in "their own countries". I agree, for now... but will people like this start deciding that our western democracies are "their own countries" too?

-k

[BHS]

I also disagree that Iran's progress toward democracy has been slowed by the invasion of Iraq, but since there's no way of proving either of our cases, I'm going to leave it at that.

Before the Iraq war, reformers had control of the country's parliment and were gradually gaining more power - this is a fact that can be verified in numerous sources. Furthermore, they won power in the same electoral system that elected the hard liner - a fact that can also be verified.

However, it is diffiult to know why they lost the recent election. One theory is that they failed to appeal to the masses of poor Iranians and it had nothing to do with geo polictics.

Here is a link that talks more about the fortunes of Iran's reformists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would argue that the "reform" movement within the government is nothing more than a sop to Western nations and the real reformers, being the student movements and their supporters, who are keen to throw out the theocracy altogether. As both Argus and I have argued, it hardly makes a difference if the "leaders" of Iran are "reformers" or "hard-liners" - it's all just different packaging for the same party.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Why is that? Perhaps you just thought it would be witty, or perhaps you sought to trivialize the opposing viewpoint,

Why on earth would I bother? Argus did a far better job trivializing his viewpoint than I ever could with his "goat herding arabs" comment.

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.

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?

(I'm assuming you know the definition of the term "Islamist" and know it doesn't refer to Muslims as a whole... but I will point out the distinction for those who know might not.)

Insightful commentary looks at causes and relationships. You can't get past the end result.

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 think August's point-- that the Islamists are opposed to choice (not on shoes, as far as I know, but on many issues of fundamental importance to us in the west-- education, women's rights, democracy, sexuality, free expression) is fairly well supported even by common knowledge. 

Again, you're not digging deep enough. You've stopped at the surface.

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.