The New York Times magazine has a feature called "QUESTIONS FOR," and the other day it was "the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens," now named Yusuf Islam (as of his conversion to Islam), who was being questioned by Deborah Solomon. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article(16 messages)
When this is our example of a moderate Muslim—and Mr. Islam tells us that if he isn’t "an example of that," who else would be—then the chance of reaching some accord with Islam is very small indeed. Imagine a Roman Catholic who tried to whitewash the child molestation that has been perpetrated by many priests recently or who said he wouldn’t say anything on the issue of the Holy Inquisition, claiming that it is a very contentious issue. What is contentious about it? Where is the debate about its merits versus demerits?
Good analogy. I used to listen to Cat Stevens (to his music). If he were a Roman Catholic who skirted the issue of the Holy Inquisition, then I'd definitely be done with him -- as I am now.
The broader issue of course is the general lack of revulsion that some left-liberals have regarding the Islamofascist killing of innocent men, women, and children. The dime-store psychology explaining that evasive mind-set is that "everyone's a victim." It goes like this: If everyone's a victim of everyone else, it's okay to strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a whole bus-load of folks. It's because you've been so victimized by folks before. It doesn't matter that you're killing innocent people, after all, you were "hurting" so bad about what it was that was done to you (or done to your "faith").
It's pretty silly stuff actually, yet so potentially tragic for us all.
I think expecting a reasonable, intelligent answer from anyone who participates in a "religion" (Islamofascism) that does not promote or encourage education is a lot to ask. After memorizing the Koran and filling themselves with an irrational hatred for the infidels (i.e. The United States of America and other nations that are free), there's just not much room left in their brains for much else. You can not reason with those people - they are incapable of it. In their culture, the strongest, loudest, and most forceful & passionate win the argument - not the most logical. In their culture - it is ok to lie (to infidels) if it supports and protects Islam, which "Mr. Islam" is doing. He is not very soft on Islamic Terrorism - he supports it.
Traci Kanaan (I'm half Lebanese - my Catholic grandfather left Lebanon in the early 1900's because the Muslims were oppressive whack jobs back then.)
Traci, I am so happy to see you posting here -- and with such an intelligent first post!
I met Traci after posting to the Beachbody message boards last year looking for any Ayn Rand fans. Traci was the only response I got which I considered sad given the number of members there. Interestingly, she also lives in Florida and does comedy tours regularly. I met her and her husband when she did a show in Cocoa Beach last July. Visit her site at
~ I've come to look very askance at Muslims who are publicly interviewed talking about being very 'peace'-oriented whilst, whether hard-balled questioned or not, clearly avoid/evade condemning their fundamentalist-activist brethren.
~ Of course the radical fundy's want 'peace'! So did Hitler! Hitler was willing to war, but, if everyone just accepted him as dictator rather than fighting against his desire for takeover, fine; all would have 'peace.' The peace that Rome had with it's slaves...until Spartacus 'started' a war.
~ Clearly, most Muslim public speakers mean 'peace' in terms of Mohammed's exhortations, ergo, it's really the dis-agreeing heretics who cause the 'war' by not converting...or at least not acquiescing...to the latest rabid death-dealers' demands.
~ Just as clearly, 'peace' has a radically different meaning to most Muslim speakers (and, their fan-followers) than it does to civilized peoples.
P.S. Didn't know that about Cat's support of the 'hit-men' execution-order on Rushdie. "Moonshadow", my ass!
At this point, the proper question is not 'why wouldwe care' what such 'think', but, why doesthe media care about such celebrities' opinions/thoughts/feelings/whims on such world-shaking subjects, a-n-d, why we care what the media selectively 'reports' thereby?
Should we pay much attention to Paris Hilton's 'thoughts' on PETA? Should we pay much attention to Harry Belafonte's 'thoughts' on North Korea (or Cuber)? Should we pay much attention to the media's focus ON 'celebrities' supposed 'thoughts'?
I don't think so. I say ignore them. Then put your own opinion forth on an issue by all means. But to answer them risks giving them legitamacy as an 'expert' (Edited by Mr Maximus X Zeus on 1/15, 9:13pm)
There is no justification for the killing of innocent people the problem is people on this board find justification when western forces are the ones responsible for it but hold the opposite side to task when the opposite side is involved in the same crime. Maybe you need to believe that the other side is evil and hates you and therby you justify your hypocrisy.
Killing innocent people is a crime it doesn't matter who is involved in it. So why blame Hamas only and ignore crimes committed by Israel. I think thats why Yusuf Islam didn't want to answer the question.
Innocent people may be morally killed when they are being used as shields by those committing violence. If you fire guns at me to kill me from the cover of a village, it is not my responsibility if when firing back an innocent person is killed, it is yours because you chose to use those people - in fact in the case of the middle east this is not done by accident but on purpose - as shields. Their death is on your hands.
I do believe that reasonable effort should be made to avoid these casualties, but under no circumstance is such collateral damage anyone's fault but the violent perpetrator's.
What value are the Palestinian "people" bringing to the world now? They could easily settle in other Arab Nations, notice how none of them allow it or want them. Also what happened when they were given Gaza and established hydroponic gardens intact? They destroyed them.
If you fail to realize that there are vast numbers of Islamics who want nothing more to enslave or kill you, you are going to end up dead or enslaved much sooner than you think. If someone says they want me dead and they keep trying, I would kill them first, and that is exactly what they should do before it is too late. Should they bare their throats instead?
I don't think innocent people can be legitimate targets when being used as shields it wouldn't be accepted in America so why should that be accepted anywhere else in the world. Policemen don't kill hostages to get to the bank robber etc.
How can anyone be 'given' anything that belongs to them anyway? What you are forgetting that Israel is an occupier of Palestinian land. Palestine was a land where Jews, Christians, Muslims lived together in peace before the mass immigration and settlements of the European Jews. They behave towards the palestinians in the same ways the Nazis behaved towards them. It not the average palestinian's fault that they are oppressed and cannot make something out of their lives, imagine being in a situation where going to school can put you into a life or death situation.
Why should any people be expected to give up their land to any occupier, you have told me time and time again if anyone came to you to take what's rightfully yours you will be ready with your gun but you expect them to run away when they are facing the same situation.
This is a very difficult situation and it doesn't help by ignoring crimes committed by one side and taking the smallest crime committed by the other and blowing it all out of proportion.
Police - protect civilians. That means that any criminals holding hostages are holding the civilians you are supposed to protect. They also deal with people who are ordinary criminals, and whose self-preservation is important to them. There are specialists who understand their psychology and can negotiate release. Finally, if despite all this, force must be used, any deaths of civilians - even by a police bullet - are the responsibility of the criminal.
Army - Win the battle and protect your nation and your civilians. If your opponent uses its OWN CITIZENS as shields, then they are abrogating their own responsibility and doing the exact opposite of what they should do - that is the key difference between a real army and terrorists. Terrorists kill the very people that a true soldier would protect. In regards to civilian casualties, the enemy is responsible for not fighting and deliberately putting his own civilians in harm's way, so the deaths are the responsibilty of the terrorists who are killing them by the methods they fight with.
First - The land was worthless before value was added to it, second, it was annexed after an aggressive war against Israel after they were attacked without provocation, in order to defend themselves. That is the point, it is not rightfully theirs at all. And from my POV, the Israelis are willing to live in peace with me, do not claim they want to kill me, and create businesses and markets for me to trade with. The Palestinians create suicide bombers. Time to do what we did to Japan and Germany and annhilate the enemy ruthlessly until they surrender unconditionally.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]