RoR: Forum

You know, let me clarify.

If Islam requires murder of non-Muslims, then why would any rational, loving, good person want to follow it?

If only fringe Muslims believe that murder is necessary, then why wouldn't any rational, loving, good person do ANYTHING POSSIBLE to separate themselves from the Terrorist Muslims and assist the West?

Some might be, b ut by and large, they fucking aren't.

In WWII, Italy was one of the Axis powers. Italian Americans answered the call in WWII BIG TIME. Alot of Italians, WAY OVER their percentage of the population, enlisted and went in there and fought the Axis. Even the Japanese, WHO WERE INTERRED IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS BY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT, volunteered--and I'm talking about the guys who had their homes abnd businesses confiscated. These guys volunteered and went to war overseas. The Japanese Americans fought like lions, and if memory serves, a JA unit was THE most decorated in the war. Even French Americans pitched in and DIDN'T enlist, to help the war effort (the last good French soldier was Napolean, and he was Italian!)

I have the distinct impression that Muslims in the West are content to earn their nice, save living here, and DEMAND to be left alone, secretly snickering every time we face a military setback or another scumbag blows up another building.

Post 21

Friday, August 5, 2005 - 6:02pm

This thread has turned into a strange sanctuary for arguments based upon crude collectivist premises and massive ignorance. Please please please be more concise with your arguments and stop introducing racisim and false ideas about Islam into these discussions. Believe me, the ideology of Islam is evil enough. We don't need to ADD things to Muslim ideology that are not there to boost our arguments. For example, I have never heard of Muslims saying nice things about Hitler or Stalin and killing non Muslims is certainly not considered a requirement among orthodox Muslims. Now let me try to provide you guys with a more objective view of the overall situation. I have had several Muslim friends over the years, I've known and spoken to Islamic extremists and I have read several books about Islam including their holy texts.

First of all let me say that I DO NOT APPROVE of mainstream orthodox Sunni Islam. I think that its evils are basically equal, and probably a little worse then Christianity. They do not, however believe in any requirement for the murder of non Muslims. Most passages relating to war and murder in the Quran and within the Hadith can clearly be interpreted as being against this type of action. While there are indeed a couple of conflicting passages there is no modern mainstream Muslim scholar who would issue a fatwa in favor of such actions given the clear arguments against them in most of the main Islamic texts.

The world's Islamic terrorists come from two particular minority groups among Muslims. The first group is known as the Wahabbis. This is a sect (and I would call it a cult) that is a break off from orthodox Sunni Islam and has developed only during the last few hundred years among the people who are now in power in Saudi Arabia. When this group of arabs gained independence from Turkey after WWI they became very wealthy due to oil production and large kickbacks to members of its new royal family. The Saudi arabs began funding Wahabist madrasas (religious schools) all over the world -- especially among poor young muslims in places like Pakistan and Afganistan. To make a general comparison -- traditional Sunni Islam has progressed in terms of being somewhat adaptive to changes in the word. Their system of legal judgements (fatwas) has grown to encompass changes that have taken place in the modern world. Wahabism is opposed to anything new, and they see all of these adaptations as evil and have eliminated all of them from their doctrines. They aspire to what they see as the original "golden age" of Islam and tend to be as radical as possible in terms of their religious findings -- they literally want to return to how things were in the year 650 and they want to bring the rest of the world along with them.

Now as I said, the Saudis began spreading this stuff all over the world. Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi Wahabi is the most famous example of a rich, spoiled Saudi heir who decided to use his money to fund Wahabist Jihad activity, first in Afghanistan and then in the creation of the Wahabi terrorist orginization Al Qaeda. Other examples of Wahabi groups are the Taliban -- which was essentially a Saudi funded and Pakistani supported experiment in creating a pure Wahabi state in Afghanistan. In Egypt there is the Muslim Brotherhood and Egyptian Islamic Jihad (now merged with Al Qaeda). Hamas in Palestine is also a group that is funded by wealthy oil rich Wahabis. London is the main hot bed for Wahabi groups in the West and I was not at all surprised that terrorist attacks have taken place there. Most Islamic extremists I have interacted with have been from London. Also take note that most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Wahabis. The insurgents fighting the Americans and the Shia'ites in Iraq are primarily Wahabis allied with old Saddam loyalists.

The second group is the Shia. Shia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia) is an entirely different branch of Islam. They are the majority religious groups in both Iran and Iraq. Back in the 1970s Iran underwent a Shia revolution and is now under the full control of a repressive religious government that preaches on an almost a daily basis famous slogans like "Death to America" ,"Death to Israel", "Death to Britain". They are ruled by the Ayatollahs, who are supposed to be direct descendents of Muhammad and have a virtual monopoly on religious judgments and thus all judgments on what takes place in Iran. They allow for the election of a government to appease the general public but they maintain an iron grip over power with a gigantic secret police organization. They are guilty of funding terrorist groups all over the world. The most famous of them is the Hesbollah which is based in southern Lebanon. This is the main Shia'ite organization that fights with Israel. It should be noted that the Shia and the Sunnis (and especially the Wahabbis) dislike each other intensely. Their feud goes back to the very beginning of Islam. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" regularly launches attacks against Shia targets in that country and has killed thousands of them over the last couple of years.

So, as far as I'm concerned there are two key enemies in the war on terror. The first is Saudi Arabia and many of the gulf Arab states -- our supposed allies whose citizens in fact provide the money and the ideology behind most world wide terror and the government of Iran, which represents a fully religious government and is the seat of power for radical Shia'itism. These governments must all be eliminated before we can be free from the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.

While these groups represent a small percentage of Muslims world wide they represent a large portion of its wealth and propaganda power. The average Sunni Muslim despises Wahabis and complains about them as much as they complain about the U.S. or Israel but they have yet to make clear united public pronouncements against them and they have clearly bought into much of their propaganda. One of the difficulties is, unlike the Shia, there is no central religious leadership among orthodox Sunni Muslims so it is difficult to get them to unite on ANYTHING. Until orthodox Sunni Islam, in a united front denounces and clearly separates themselves from the Wahabis they are in my opinion sanctioning their acts. And unless this suddenly happens it will be up to the U.S. and the U.K. (and hopefully others) to take care of these problems for them and this involves the destruction of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran along with the continued aggressive pursuit of terrorist organizations.

- Jason

Post 22

Friday, August 5, 2005 - 7:58pm

Jason,

(whew!)

Thank you for a bit of sanity. Your knowledge of the political division of Islam is admirable. I want to look at a different angle, however.

I have a story that is anecdotal, which is what led me to my hero theory. I was married to a Brazilian woman with a Bedouin father and Lebanese mother for about five years.

During that time I had the opportunity to observe this culture by living in it on a family basis. My former father-in-law was a very interesting person. He made his anti-American tirades at times, but guess what movies he most liked to watch - and watched all the time?

John Wayne westerns. I'm not kidding.

He is not alone. Many Arabian people (I use this term generically) I have known hugely enjoy American westerns - even Spaghetti Westerns.

Do you want to know why? Because this strikes a very deep chord in their soul. Just because we decree that Islam is evil does not mean that those who grew up in Islamic culture are not concerned with good and evil or do not have a burning need for art forms like movies. THEY NEED HEROES JUST AS MUCH AS WE DO.

There are no local alternatives available to them outside of the ones provided by religion and politics.

Ayn Rand, in For the New Intellectual, stated that history was made by those concerned with wealth and those concerned with ideas. She branded the irrational ones Attila (who gained wealth by physical conquest) and the Witch Doctor (who dealt in mystical ideas in order to garner the sanctions of fleeced victims). The rational counterparts are the Producer (who produces wealth) and the Intellectual (who provides the ideas that support and structure society so that producers can do their work in peace).

Well what the hell are we? What is Solo?

WE ARE INTELLECTUALS.

Islam has well over one billion followers. That is one hell of a market for anyone creative enough to come up with a hero with rational values that will go over in that culture. The demand is red hot, to tell the truth.

If anybody is interested in making a fictional hero like this, it would be a good idea to understand a minimum of what the target audience consumes hero-wise. Reading 1001 Nights might be a good start.

I have a lot of thoughts on this. If young Arabians come across someone to look up to besides Saddam and strongarm Islamic father figures like that, they will come around to rational ideas.

You can believe one thing. The young will have their heroes. They need them. The Saddams and Bin Ladens are heroes to them by default. There are no palatable alternatives available, not even anything being published in the West. There are cowboys in Western movies, but they are way too American for the young to emulate in a culture that has many conflicts with the USA.

If an Arabian James Bond or especially Chuck Norris-type figure could be dreamed up, it would fly. I have no doubt about that. If this hero spiced his adventures with rational ideas, the young would listen. Just as they listen to local Islamic heros who stand up to the Great Satan.

Then we would see the Koran start to lose its malignant hold in the same manner that the Bible has done since the Dark Ages.

That is just one idea.

Bitching and calling these people evil will not change their minds about anything.

Believe it or not, Bush got one thing right. He kicked their ass when they got violent. They respect that - and many over there now love Bush. It looks like they are in for another ass-kicking. It will be respected, also. But it will not change their thinking.

A follow-up is needed if we are to avoid years and years of terrorist attacks from those who hate us.

That is our job. That is the job of intellectuals.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/06, 5:59am)

Post 23

Friday, August 5, 2005 - 8:31pm

Michael, I agree entirely -- it is my opinion that Westernism will (and is in the process of) overrunning the Islamic world. The fanatics that remain are just reactionary movements. But these movements still control whole countries and can still do a great deal of damage. We cannot give them anything that resembles an upper hand. I think I should make it clear that just because I think there needs to be an end to the government of a country like Iran that this does not mean that I feel any hatred toward Iranians as a collective group. I happen to like every Iranian I've ever met. I also don't support using excessive force (weapons of mass destruction) to do the job -- one of the more hideous things being advocated lately by the ARI Objectivists.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/05, 8:33pm)

Post 24

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 3:29am

Jason, I have just printed off your post. It is one of the most clear and succinct explanations of Islam I have read so far.
Also the tone of your discourse with Michael is just right. There has been too much irrational, emotional language on this issue and that is a turn off to me. Thanks for raising the quality of debate.

Post 25

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 12:22pm

Jason, your post is intersting. It is exposition, but exposition which readers must accept on faith that you are correct about. I have no dout that you are correct generally in your descriptions about the different flavors of Islam. You criticize others for 'collectivist' arguments regarding treating all Muslims in a particular way, and then define 'all' Muslims into about 3 groups--who then presumably should be treated the same way?

But I think your response supports my position, rather than refutes it. How would you feel about your charming Muslim friends if, while entertaining you at dinner, they knew their cousin was burglarizing your home, but did not tell you, because the burglar is Muslim, and you are not? Would they still be perfectly okay with you? Still morally-innocent? What if your next door neighbors were Muslim, and only one of the 6 people in the house hated you because you were not Muslim? He would get up late at night and deface your property. When you go on vacation, he starts your house on fire, and poisons your dog. But whenever you go next door to talk about it, half of the family members refuse to talk about it with you at all, and the other half call you racist and guilty of religious persecution.

At some point, a responsible and justice loving family will cooperate with authorities and weed out the bad apple. For abstract moral reasons (it is the RIGHT thing to do) and for practical reasons (they dont want THEIR house burnt down because of the lunatic actions of one family member). We are not calling on moral Muslims to do this. We are letting them off the hook with silly ideas like "Muslims are individual people, and should be treated as such." While this is obviously true, it ignores the culpability of those who OWE their wealthy, WEstern-convenient lifestyles to the very countries and cultures they are complicit in harming.

So, no, I do not think Muslims adolize Hitler, nor do I think genocide or concentration camps are a very individualist thing for some of the fellows on this board to suggest. But your and Michael's abstract 'war of ideas' equates to 'zero action.' The big problem with letting these 'ideas' convert the Muslims is: young Muslims are being taught in madrassas, taught that to be Muslim is to hate the West and kill Westerners, and that Western culture is evil. Muslims that do not follow the Code are beaten or killed (and this is happeneing in WESTERN COUNTRIES because we are too lilly-livered to address it aggressively). Can you imagine what would happen if Muslims in Iran tried to embrace the sort of 'Muslim' individualist action hero? People would be quartered in the streets. Islam evidently DEMANDS control of its adherent's mental contents, at the barrel of a gun, if necessary.

Post 26

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 12:58pm

A question for Jason and others that use wikipedia as a reference. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, how can you trust Wikipedia when anyone can edit it?

As for the major differences between Shia/Sunni Islam. Bernard Lewis, amoung others, hve said that in terms of ideology there isn't much of a difference. Ayn Rand would say that it's a whole argument based on non-essentials.

I agree with much of what you've said here, Jason, but you also have made statements you can't possibility know to be true. The average Sunni Muslim despises the Wahabis and that they complain about them as much as the U.S. Really? Perhaps so - although I doubt it - but where's your proof? Why is it hideous to use extensive force? You support force, so isn't it a difference of degree and not of kind?

Post 27

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 1:09pm

Scott --

"You criticize others for 'collectivist' arguments regarding treating all Muslims in a particular way, and then define 'all' Muslims into about 3 groups--who then presumably should be treated the same way? "

That is not what I did at all -- and there are certainly not only 3 groups. Orthodox Sunni Islam has several subgroups. I was attempting to illustrate that the terrorist elements are supported and funded by two sub groups. One of which controls a great deal of wealth and the other controls an entire country.   So you have two clear targets, two specific governments who either directly or semi-directly support most Islamic terrorism.   I am also calling for Orthodox Sunni muslims (who make up between 80%-90% of the 1 billion Muslims world wide) to clearly come out in the media and seperate themselves from the Wahabi sect.

"But I think your response supports my position, rather than refutes it. How would you feel about your charming Muslim friends if, while entertaining you at dinner, they knew their cousin was burglarizing your home, but did not tell you, because the burglar is Muslim, and you are not? "

I honestly don't think this is a very good analogy. As I said before, the Wahabi sect is not particularly liked by the average Orthodox Sunni and I think evidence shows that terrorist cells in the West are able to keep their plans and their secrets very much out of sight.   After the terrorist attacks in London all of the Orthodox Sunni leaders called on members of their mosques to give the police any information they might have. If you are infering that it is somehow a docrine of Islam that muslims protect their fellow muslims even when they commit crimes you are clearly mistaken. Nor do I think it is fair to blame just the average Sunni muslims for being complicit with specific acts of terror even though I am calling on them to speak out more clearly against terrorist elements instead of always making excuses for why the terrorists exist. They are not the only people who are wishy washy.   Many among the leftists, including the mayor of London have been guilty recently of precisely the same kind of excuse making for why the  radical Wahabis exist.   They are not any less guilty and my charge of indirect sanction applies equally to them.

"Can you imagine what would happen if Muslims in Iran tried to embrace the sort of 'Muslim' individualist action hero? People would be quartered in the streets. Islam evidently DEMANDS control of its adherent's mental contents, at the barrel of a gun, if necessary."

I agree with this, but so does every religon if taken to its ultimate extreme.  Luckily in the west Christians have not recently been successful in setting up any governments. Are we going to begin acting suspicous toward all of the Christians we come into contact with simply because their religion calls for the same type of ultimate control?

- Jason

Post 28

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 1:34pm

Wayne Simmons --

"A question for Jason and others that use wikipedia as a reference. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, how can you trust Wikipedia when anyone can edit it?

As for the major differences between Shia/Sunni Islam.  Bernard Lewis, amoung others, hve said that in terms of ideology there isn't much of a difference. Ayn Rand would say that it's a whole argument based on non-essentials.

I agree with much of what you've said here, Jason, but you also have made statements you can't possibility know to be true.  The average Sunni Muslim despises the Wahabis and that they complain about them as much as the U.S. Really? Perhaps so - although I doubt it -  but where's your proof? Why is it hideous to use extensive force? You support force, so isn't it a difference of degree and not of kind? "

You are welcome to search any of the information I have supplied here. I did not use wikipedia for anything I wrote in that post. I provided the link in case anyone wanted to read up on the Shia. The Shia/Sunni difference is very important because a large percentage of Shias are under the direct control of a radical repressive regime that preaches an extreme form of Islam. The average Sunni is not under this set of influences. It is important to make these distinctions because we have to be able to select targets in the war on terror. We have to be able to pinpoint where to expend our resources. We cannot simply point in the direction of 1 billion Muslims and declare that are all the enemy as many here would like to do.

The Orthodox muslims dislike the Wahabis (who they call Salafis) for several reasons and I invite you to go to any normal mosque and inquire about them. You will find that my statements are entirely true.   I don't have time to bring forth hordes of evidence but you are welcome to search the internet.   Here are some editorial blog entries I have bookmarked that a muslim friend of mine (a Bangladeshi from the United Arab Emirates who now lives in Singapore) made last year -- and this represents the type of opinion that you will find with average educated Muslims when discussing Wahabis though my friend is less interested in making excuses for why they exist then many muslims. I have interacted with enough of them here in the U.S. and around the world to know that I am not representing a minority viewpoint.

http://iftekhar.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_iftekhar_archive.html

I am not going to get into another discussion over the ARI's advocacy of mass murder.

- Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/06, 3:42pm)

Post 29

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 3:54pm

Scott,

We argue not only from different perspectives, but from vastly different knowledge. We do not argue from different principles, so I will not engage you as I would a racist-type war monger. (Please remember that I supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, also.)

Just two points:

But your and Michael's abstract 'war of ideas' equates to 'zero action.'

That is your evaluation based on your own knowledge - which I gather is derived basically from broadcast and print news coverage.

One of the beautiful things about the modern world is electronic and microwave communications.

I remember reading about ten years ago or longer that Egypt was having a tremendous headache with the Internet because of Heavy Metal music. Much of this music spoofs devil worship (sorry - I just can't take this music to be a form of actual worship). But to Islamists, the idea of horsing around with Satan is serious enough to warrant serious censorship. They invaded the houses of some known young Heavy Metal fans and dragged them off to jail. I don't have the statistics or facts, but I would guess that there is now a rather strong underground Heavy Metal culture over there simply because the Internet - satellite Internet - will not be stopped by censors.

Ayn Rand despised Communism (and not the group of people who lived under that regime). She did not go around preaching that the entire people should be wiped out or somehow penalized - or even profiled. She did preach overthrow of the Communist government. And she did her part in an tremendously effective manner.

She got out. She made up exciting heroes and filled their mouths with great ideas. Some of those ideas reached people like Ronald Reagan and the rest is history. All this was done as a very real threat of nuclear war developed with the Soviet Union in the background.

It took years to do it. Of course there were probably people around her claiming that her efforts "equates to 'zero action.'" I personally think she did more than any armed conflict ever could do.

So I disagree strongly with you that coming up with rational fictional heroes and getting them published and broadcast is the same as doing nothing. I would even claim the opposite, that this is one of the only manners of doing something that will make a real difference.

You go on to say what Muslims are taught and not taught - and how they are beaten and killed and so forth. Most of the Muslim people I have known suffered nothing of the kind. There is an awful lot of hype out there and it is a mistake to swallow it whole. You become part of the hype that way. (btw - I do not endorse Islam, but then I do not endorse any religion.)

Then you state:

Can you imagine what would happen if Muslims in Iran tried to embrace the sort of 'Muslim' individualist action hero?

I don't know many Iranians, but I bet a lot of them watch John Wayne any chance they can get.

Wayne S made a good point about above there not being any essential differences in the different factions of Islam. Of course, there is the money, as Jason points out. But basically the rest is faith-based tribal warfare on a huge scale. Good ideas will make mincemeat out of those repressive structures.

But you raise the first problematic point of creating a fictional heroic character. You obviously cannot start out with Rambo. A Superman or Batman type would be more like it, especially one who protected average peace-loving Arabian people (like they protect average Americans). Maybe instead of a Batmobile, he would use a high-tech flying carpet.

At the start he would not be able to question explicitly the fundamentals of Islam, but he could through his acts and moral judgments on villains. He must be one of them. Also, Mohammad is the Islamic hero absolute, so our hero would not be able to make fun of him or denigrate him. He could, however, have his own rational thoughts on what and whom he encounters and finds despicable, especially the disgraceful outcome of certain Islamic tenets.
This approach is extremely effective. As I said, the hunger for it is very real. If a way is found to introduce and market such a rational hero, and the market is huge, the rest will follow, including the spread of other literature. Thus the evils of the Islamic world will slowly crumble.

Michael

Post 30

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 4:29pm

Thanks, Jason for your reply. I don't dispute the fact that many so-called sunni muslims oppose Wahabism. But, what I dispute are your false distinctions that are not based on induction. Consider the seriousness of faith of your "muslim" friends.

Here is just one of many of my personal experiences which clashes with your PC view.

I live in Toronto, which is one of the largest cities in North America. Canada is perhaps the next Al Qaeda target. I work downtown and use the subway system. About 2-3 months ago I noticed 2 young muslim men, university students, handing out pamphlets promoting Islam inside the Subway station ay Yonge/Boor. One of the Students was from Saudi Arabia, sent here to get an education. I stopped to debate with them, and find out some information. Well, I found out that they too opposed these extremists (hell, who would say otherwise?) but that Saudi Arabia is a wonderful place of freedom, of course, set by the limits imposed by sharia Law. The Saudi student, told me that the name, Wahabism, is foreign language and not used at all - no reference was made to " Salafis".

Who provided the funding for their materials? Why were they really there? I was given a copy of the Koran and a pamphlet on Islam. I took them knowing that I was depriving some other person of this material who was not as intellectually armed as myself.

I think to some extent you're giving a very distorted view of reality, Jason. Even moderate "muslims", denounce the U.S. any chance they get. Very few of them (with some exceptions: Irshad Manji, for example )  are prepared to stand up and defend, unapologetically, the War on Terrorism and moderity. This is a fact of reality that you'll continue to evade.

Post 31

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 4:30pm

It runs out that we actually AGREE about the most important stuff!

"I am also calling for Orthodox Sunni muslims (who make up between 80%-90% of the 1 billion Muslims world wide) to clearly come out in the media and seperate themselves from the Wahabi sect."

And I agree with you above, 100%.

I do NOT agree with your contentions in the paragraph ending: "They are not any less guilty and my charge of indirect sanction applies equally to them" but do not knwo whether either of us have really solid evidence to support our positions.

And in response to your probably-rhetorical-but-my-rhetorical-sensor-is-broken question:"Are we going to begin acting suspicous toward all of the Christians we come into contact with simply because their religion calls for the same type of ultimate control?"

Absolutely, when they act the these Muslim cults have. I do not care what label you care to slap on it, roving bands of thugs enforcing their religious edict (in FREE NATIONS!!) with their fists, clubs, and guns are an absolute abomination no matter what religious banner they claim to fly under.

I think that 'average' Muslims living in their insular Muslim neighborhoods in the West are doing EXACTLY as I suggest in the analogy. We know a little about it from the British train bombings. We know some about it because precious few Muslims have come out and explicitly denounced it. And no, I do not count the less than honest Saudi response. I am infinitely more concerned about American Muslims.

Post 32

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 4:40pm

While I really do not care for the consdescending tone of your post (really--read it, it isn't very nice), I DO understand where you are coming from. I agree with your argument as it applies to the eventual collapse of Communist China. I do not with respect to Muslims, particularly those who have been in Western countries and have not integrated a whit, have no desire to, and behave as if they were living in a more wealthy counterpart to whatever area of the ME their families originally hailed. And even if you are correct and I am not, it is not enough. What has 2 generations of Muslims watching John Wayne done for their Westernization?

You are indulging in a flight of fancy with: "This approach is extremely effective. As I said, the hunger for it is very real. If a way is found to introduce and market such a rational hero, and the market is huge, the rest will follow, including the spread of other literature. Thus the evils of the Islamic world will slowly crumble." I mean, come on. your "vastly different knowledge" aside, this is really bald supposition.

Post 33

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 5:32pm

Well, Scott D,

It might be a bald supposition (or flight of fancy???), but throughout the world and human history it has worked and worked and worked and worked and worked.

Even Ayn Rand did it.

Maybe it has hair after all, but it is just cut too short for you to see in the wake of terrorist attacks.

Actually saying that intellectual efforts (i.e. the spread of good ideas) will not work this time around with Muslims - because they are different, they are the real actual no-doubt-about-it lowdown dirty rotten evil ones - seems a bit hairless to me. Be sarcastic about John Wayne if you like. Be sarcastic all you want. All that does is avoid the issue. (Over a billion individual issues to be more exact.)

btw - No condescension is ever meant with you. Really. But your previous posts were not very nice either. We just have to agree to be abrasive, I guess.

Also, do you have any information on how many members of the USA armed forces are of descent from Islamic culture? Did I understand that you insinuated that the ones living in the USA did not fight in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions? Where do you get that idea from?

You don't like the Muslim quarter. How about the Irish one? The Jewish one? The Amish? The Mormons? How about any group that bands together to practice particular customs and traditions?

I kinda thought that freedom to do that was one of the ideas the USA was built on.

OK, keep an eye on them now because of the hostilities. Not to do so is irresponsible. But fostering hate? I can't go there. Sorry.

I want to change the ideas. I want to make a difference in life, not be merely another member of the herd denouncing the real enemies this time. Those real enemies keep on changing during history for some reason.

Frankly I do not like defending Islamists, but I see no point in making their mistake from the other end. Making the same mistake will not change the world. It is great for tribal warfare, though. Arms manufacturers love it.

Islamists are not ready for The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged or even the Declaration of Independence. Proper seeds need to be planted. Now.

Change the ideas and you change behavior. You change the world. This seems so very obvious to me. Our job as intellectuals is to get the good ideas out and in forms that allow them to be heard.

Not throw up our hands and say it is impossible this time because of this, that or bla bla bla, so let's just shoot the bastards.

Hype just doesn't cut it with me. It never has.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/06, 10:17pm)

Post 34

Saturday, August 6, 2005 - 8:05pm

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 8/06, 11:28pm)

Post 35

Thursday, August 11, 2005 - 12:21pm