# Islam vs. Free Speech in UK & Canada



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Curious about what others here think about this thread below.

https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24176


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The author makes a valid point about the case in England. It's much less valid as to the Canadian case, since there has been no adjudication, yet he writes as though the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

The use of libel as a means of suppressing political speech was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in _New York Times v. Sullivan_, but the record of English courts is more variable. For instance, Holocaust denier Clifford Irving lost in his attack on an American author, but the Ehrenfeld case is a serious cause for concern.

This case was just discussed at Writ last week. Here's the link: https://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20071224.html. What's tricky about this is that other countries would likely consider it cultural imperialism if we were to maintain that no author or speaker could be held liable in any other country unless they could be held liable in the United States; naturally, they would also like to assert the extraterritorial application of their laws, much to our detriment. I am very concerned, though, that Islam, like other religions at various times and places, is intolerant of dissent and some of its adherents appear willing to use violence if necessary to crush the expression of ideas with which they disagree.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Did I miss it, or did Jed Babbin have no complaints about David Irving's arrest in Austria? Guess what: other countries don't protect speech to the extent we do (nor do we to the extent we pretend to - see _Commonwealth _v . _Jones_, 880 S.W.2d 544 for example). Oh well, these things happen. If your writings are published in a country they better comply with the laws of that country.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> Curious about what others here think about this thread below.
> 
> https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24176


I think it's a riot reading about what an evil, repressive religion Islam is, while reading another headline on the same web page:

"We need new nukes." by Caspar Weinberger Jr.

Time will tell who the bigger terrorists are.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Time will tell who the bigger terrorists are.


If I was of the opinion that my country of residence was a terrorist state I would feel a moral obligation to leave and stop fueling the economic fire that supports that terrorism. It's a shame people like you don't feel the same moral obligation.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> If I was of the opinion that my country of residence was a terrorist state


Depends how you define "state". Bush ranks between Kim Jong-Il and Osama bin Laden as a danger to world peace:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1938434,00.html


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

hopkins_student said:


> If I was of the opinion that my country of residence was a terrorist state I would feel a moral obligation to leave and stop fueling the economic fire that supports that terrorism. It's a shame people like you don't feel the same moral obligation.


I don't think we're a terrorist state, but that's a highly undemocratic idea you expressed. The basis of liberal democracy is that when you believe that your country of residence is doing wrong you speak up and try to convince others to have the same belief, and when enough people share that belief it gets manifested as a revolution, be it in the streets or the polls.

"If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouze themselves and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was first erected" (if there are mistakes in here I apologize in advance; this is from memory, it should be pretty close) - John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, "Of the Dissolution of Government"

It doesn't say, "If a long train of abuses, prevarications, and artifices make the design clear the people will get out quick and hope to have better luck elsewhere."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

" The only thing required for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Frank, you disparage every veteran post WW2 and damn our government. Yet you sit snug and warm like, dare I say it, A GOOD GERMAN. You are no White Rose, no swing kid, no Von Trappe, definitely no Clause Von Stauffenberg.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> " The only thing required for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing."


Tell that to a baby, and the response you'll get is, "Doo do, daaaaa!", followed by a huge smile and a bit of adorable drooling from the baby's mouth.

The vast majority of men are inherently and instinctually good, not evil, and all that is required for this good to triumph is for evil men to do nothing, repent of their sins, or simply die. That's as true for war mongering presidents, pedophile priests and gay bashing politicians as it is for terrorists and "religious" extremists.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

As one who admires the late Edmund Burke, I think it important to accurately quote what he actually said, which is far more powerful, than what is universally attributed to him, although not necessarily in this thread:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Attributed to EDMUND BURKE, but never found in his works. It is likely a paraphrase of Burke's view that "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle" (_Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents,_ April 23, 1770)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Frank, I've defended you before, but it is hard for me to equate George Bush (who I loathe) with the Islamic Fundamentalists who want to take the world back to the 12th century. 

(That is if that's what they REALLY want. I suspect a lot of their "religious" fervor is just a cover-up for the eternal desire of some men for power and wealth. They certainly don't seem to reject modern methods for killing people, although they seem to enjoy a good old-fashioned beheading, too.)


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Frank, I've defended you before, but it is hard for me to equate George Bush (who I loathe) with the Islamic Fundamentalists who want to take the world back to the 12th century.
> 
> (That is if that's what they REALLY want. I suspect a lot of their "religious" fervor is just a cover-up for the eternal desire of some men for power and wealth. They certainly don't seem to reject modern methods for killing people, although they seem to enjoy a good old-fashioned beheading, too.)


The machine responsible for Mr. Bush has its own agenda, and while they may not want to take the world back to the 12th century, they most assuredly would like to take us back to the 19th century.

Take any Bush or Cheney speech of the last six years -- it doesn't matter which one -- and make a list of the keywords and phrases used in the speech. You'll begin to get an idea of why comparisons are made between this regime and Germany's Third Reich. It's the exact same relentless fear mongering, scare tactics, terrorizing and misrepresentation.

Here's the list from Bush's last State of the Union speech:

defining hour
decisions are hard and courage is needed
determined enemies
face them together
guard America against all evil
a government divided
uncertainty in the air
fully secure the border
drug smugglers and criminals and terrorists
more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists
cause huge disruptions of oil shipments
do great harm to our economy
in our vital interest
protect the people of this country from danger
we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause
critical protections to guard the homeland
the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us
conflict
win the war on terror
the enemy knows
for the terrorists
life since 9/11
success in this war
full extent of the attacks
al Qaeda plot
Southeast Asian terror cell
grooming operatives for attacks
al Qaeda cell developing anthrax
attacks against America
a plot to blow up passenger planes
the brave public servants
finding the terrorists and stopping them
success against the terrorists
shoreless ambitions of this enemy
evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work
America is still a nation at war
in the mind of the terrorist
war began
and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled
the nature of this enemy
al Qaeda and its followers
Sunni extremists
possessed by hatred
commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology
preach with threats
instruct with bullets and bombs
promise paradise for the murder of the innocent
our enemies
overthrow moderate governments
establish safe havens
plan and carry out new attacks on our country
killing and terrorizing Americans
force our country to retreat
abandon the cause of liberty
impose their will
spread their totalitarian ideology
listen to this warning
terrorist Zarqawi
sacrifice our blood and bodies to put an end to your dreams
what is coming is even worse
Osama bin Laden
death is better than living on this Earth
the unbelievers among us
not given to idle words
just one camp in the Islamist radical movement
we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists
just as hostile to America
determined to dominate
regime in Iran
funding and arming terrorists
al Qaeda
American lives it has taken
the Shia and Sunni extremists
totalitarian threat
slaughter the innocent
wicked purposes
kill Americans
kill democracy
gain the weapons to kill on an even more horrific scale
our nation was attacked
I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not.
military action
do our duty
find these enemies
protect the American people
war is more than a clash of arms
decisive ideological struggle
the security of our nation is in the balance
inspire blind hatred
drove 19 men to get onto airplanes and to come and kill us
every terrorist
choices
conscience
resentments
violent and malignant ideologies
advance our own security interests
for the sake of our own security
enemy's fierce reaction
defied the terrorists
endless threats from the killers
a thinking enemy
adjusted their tactics
they struck back
assassins took the life
Hezbollah terrorists
sowed conflict
undermine
Taliban and al Qaeda fighters
regain power
al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists
blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam
atrocity
provoke retaliation
radical Shia elements
formed death squads
tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal
the fight we entered in Iraq
the fight we're in
leave our promises unkept
our friends abandoned
our own security at risk
shape the outcome of this battle
find our resolve
turn events toward victory
strategy in Iraq
demands more
our forces in Iraq
reinforcements
complete their mission
rule of law
provides them security
ally in the war on terror
sectarian violence
deploying reinforcements
20,000 additional soldiers and Marines
Iraqi forces
clear and secure neighborhoods
advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units
forces will help secure the city
chasing down the terrorists
insurgents
roaming death squads
al Qaeda terrorists
local forces
fight them
4,000 United States Marines
find the terrorists and clear them out
al Qaeda
safe haven in Afghanistan
new safe haven
deploy more of their own troops
secure Baghdad
confront violent radicals
any faction or political party
needless restrictions on Iraqi and coalition forces
troops can achieve their mission
bringing security
share oil revenues
the wealth of Iraq
security
secure
take back its capital
make good on its commitments
our military commanders
carefully weighed
the consequences of failure
grievous and far-reaching
American forces
secure
overrun by extremists on all sides
an epic battle
Shia extremists backed by Iran
Sunni extremists aided by al Qaeda
supporters of the old regime
a contagion of violence
spill out across the country
entire region could be drawn into the conflict
nightmare scenario
this is the objective
chaos is the greatest ally
struggle
chaos in Iraq
emerge an emboldened enemy
new safe havens
new recruits
new resources
an even greater determination to harm America
the lessons of September the 11th
invite tragedy
nothing is more important at this moment
spare the American people from this danger
support our troops
the war on terror
we fight today
generational struggle
establish a special advisory council on the war on terror
confronts us
show our enemies abroad
united in the goal of victory
add to the ranks of our military
the American Armed Forces
ready for all the challenges ahead
I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000
design and establish a volunteer Civilian Reserve Corps
our military reserve
Armed Forces
hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad
America needs them
wear the uniform
serve in the defining struggle of our time
the outcome of this struggle
this struggle
diplomatic strategy
rallying the world
join in the fight
extremism
multinational forces
mandate
increase support
imposed sanctions
Iran
the regime in Tehran
acquire nuclear weapons
security
the Taliban and al Qaeda offensive
deployed forces
nuclear weapons
save the people
American foreign policy
a matter of war
timeless truth
To whom much is given, much is required
the challenges
hunger and poverty and disease
fight
our Emergency Plan
funding our efforts to fight
corruption
poverty
show the strength
self-sacrifice
great poverty and disease
a world that is safe
guys and girls overseas dying for us to have our freedoms
he enlisted in the United States Army
reconnaissance mission in Iraq
heavy enemy fire
returned fire
he used his body as a shield
protect his gunner
shot in the chest and arm
shrapnel wounds to his legs
stayed in the fight
repel a second attack
firing grenades
enemy's position
volunteered to defend us
met challenges
faced dangers
we know that more lie ahead


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Something I learned in my literature courses is that at best humanity has 4-5 basic stories and plots. We read Shakespeare, not for plays that were standard fair even in Elizabethan times, but for the rich language. We can enjoy 7 Samurai and then watch The Maginificent Seven with equal engagement. I am truly curious which organisation curated this literary obituary, and, is there some secret code not unlike that claimed for the Bible within it's body linking Bush & Company to The Lizard people or Area 51 and if Rush Limbaugh ties sold on EBAY are really decoding filters when lain over with backlighting. In all sincerity, please tell us who we have to thank for this scholarly endeavor. Because I must confess, in all my sources from Amy Goodman at Pacifica Radio to sporadic broadcasts on radio from North Korea I caught during El Nino:Never, never have I read such a Lewis Carrolesq manuscript.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

marlinspike said:


> The basis of liberal democracy is that when you believe that your country of residence is doing wrong you speak up and try to convince others to have the same belief, and when enough people share that belief it gets manifested as a revolution, be it in the streets or the polls.


Duh. But Frank isn't really all that committed if the extent of his speaking up is done on a message board. And I would suggest that in this modern day with the communications technology we have, as much speaking up can be done from without as from within, and while communicating from without one would not be contributing to the economy of the machine one opposes.


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

Do you really need to hijack every thread in this section? What are you going to do when Bush is gone?



FrankDC said:


> I think it's a riot reading about what an evil, repressive religion Islam is, while reading another headline on the same web page:
> 
> "We need new nukes." by Caspar Weinberger Jr.
> 
> Time will tell who the bigger terrorists are.


----------



## rkipperman (Mar 19, 2006)

Flashy said:


> Do you really need to hijack every thread in this section? What are you going to do when Bush is gone?


All future ills will be blaimed on "Reagan-Bush" as well.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I think it's a riot reading about what an evil, repressive religion Islam is, while reading another headline on the same web page:
> 
> "We need new nukes." by Caspar Weinberger Jr.
> 
> Time will tell who the bigger terrorists are.


Frank, you get a hard time on the interchange, and deservedly so like anyone else who's so keen to make militant points time and again, you'll get criticisim. From me, also. But... I found the title of this thread distasteful and bigoted. And the general point you make here should be deeply contemplated by the other forum members.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Rossini said:


> I found the title of this thread distasteful and bigoted.


When I look at the various religions around the world why do I see so many are not problems in the West, except for Muslims? I get the impression that many Muslisms have donated to terrorist and consider themselves normal good people. I don't see other religious groups moving into a country and supporting terrorist against that country. Nor do I see other religions trying to change the country they immigrate to to be something entirely different. There is something called respect which I don't see enough of from the Muslim community. Not all Muslims are what I have posted above, but there are way to many. And when you see the twin towers coming down because of some Muslims that says a lot, and the continue problems we see in Europe says a lot. The Buddhists have lived here for over 150 years and never even began to cause all of the problems the Muslims have with in 20 years or less. We of the West have a right to say something and do something. If you want to call it bigotry then you need to start with your self. Because this is a subject that needs to be openly talked about to prevent farther problems. And I don't like cons doing reverse psychology.

Freedom of speech is very important. Because, with out it how can free people protect itself? I don't see people moving by the millions to Muslim countries, but I do see them moving to countries that have a Christian foundation and you ought to be asking yourself why. This thread is not a bigoted thread but, a thread of concern. There is no place that says all Muslims are a problem, or a problem at all but, there clearly are too many that are a problem or we wouldn't have terrorist and freedom problems. I don't hardly ever ever see Muslims stand up for the West and its ways. Those, wherever they come from, whatever background, of any religion or non religion if they are not for the West then they do not belong in the West. Christianity has been attacked day and night and has any of your freedoms been taken away so you can't say something against Christianity? Every group in the West gets unkind things said about them. And the Muslims need to start being like the rest of us. The old saying "Sticks and stone may break my bones but words will never hurt me." They need to learn how to live "words will never hurt me."


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I think it's a riot reading about what an evil, repressive religion Islam is, while reading another headline on the same web page:
> 
> "We need new nukes." by Caspar Weinberger Jr.
> 
> Time will tell who the bigger terrorists are.


With all the power we have why haven't we done the threat you say we are? During the 50's and 60's and 70's there was real nucleolar threat. And since then why haven't we taken over the whole world? Why haven't we tried? We haven't taken over any country for ourselves. So why do you accuse us of being things we are not?

And why should we not progress in better technology? The Cold War shows the USSR trying to do what you accuse the US of trying to do. If you had evidence that would be different, but without any evidence you show you need mental help. With Putin in Russia he is showing us that we need better technology (Putin is not an honorable person but, rather treacherous).


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

WA, you do know there are MANY more incidents of ecoterrorism than of so-called islamic terrorism, right? There is also the fact that when guys like Cho say they're doing what Jesus would do they're called nuts (rightly) but when people blow themselves up to kill others they're not called nuts if they claim to be Moslem, they're called "islamic terrorists" instead.


----------



## Rossini (Oct 7, 2007)

WA, let's just say you have a lot to learn (on a number of fronts), and good luck in your journey.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Marlinespike, Aside from the very extreme and tiny ELF! Please define ecoterrorism. The old tactic of treespiking was always accompanied by warnings. And guess what? the only known and documented injury came about when a mill FAILED to have the industry standard safety shield in place. That spiking was traced to a disgruntled mill worker and not an activist. Treespiking was formally stopped by Judi Bari after meeting with millworkers. Judi, a longtime labour activist got reciprocal treatment when a planted nail bomb, suprisingly timed a few days after an FBI seminar on their assembly almost killed her. There is not one death linked to any known environmental group; from Sea Shepherd to the Audoban Society. Not one, though if you read The War on the Greens you can talley the murders, injuries, rapes and false imprisonment. You might want to read A FIELD GUIDE TO MONKEYWRENCHING volume 3. One of the central tenants of the 'Bible' of ecotage is that no life be endangered.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Kav said:


> Marlinespike, Aside from the very extreme and tiny ELF!


My point is that it's not a situation where it's just the unwashed masses of middle-easterners who use extreme tactics and the european descended white knights ride on their horses doing nothing but good. There are many groups out there who use terroristic tactics (doing substantial monetary damage to a person is harmful to them too). If you want violent terrorist groups there are those too (ETA for one) in other countries. Some in this thread would have you believe middle-easterners are the only ones ever do something other than discuss their differences using words.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Marlinespike, I understand, and appreciate your clarification. For the record; 'ECOTERRORIST' was coined in 1974 by Ron Arnold, an executive with the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, a 'Wize use' organisation founded by Alan Gottlieb, self described laizzes-faire businessman with a degree in nuclear engineering and writer for Gun World on gunrights. He was convicted and served 8 months for tax evasion. He sued successfully to have his right to possess fireams restored as a convicted felon.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Marlin and Rossi, I would like to know what the percentage of Muslims in the West that paid into the bombing of the twin towers, trains, buses and caused other damage to the West is. This idea that I have no right to know speaks ill because that is anything but freedom. Is it 90%? 10%? I don't see the Muslim world in the West helping out, do you? The CIA says there is a lack of Muslims signing up to help, and who knows how many have signed up to cause problems. I don't like it when terrorist are caught comeing across the border with a trunk full of high explosives to do damage to my country. I have never heard a Muslim say that these terrorist are not Muslims.

Nobody said any religion is perfect but right now the Some Muslims are way out on a limb that needs to be cut off. The US tax payers have paid billions of dollars to Muslims in the Middle East to help them, as probably the Europeans have done too. Bombing the West is not the way to thank them. Demanding them to give up their freedoms is not the way to thank the West either. Those who move to the West for a better life have a lot to learn, not the West, because the West has already learned it. A few years ago there were several emails floating around that spoke of major accomplishments to the human race, and all of these accomplishments came from the countries that have a Christian foundation. So belittling Christianity shows how much you don't know. Remember that tidal wave in the Indain ocean a few years ago? Who donated the quickest? And who donated the most? The answer is the countries with a Christian foundation. With out respect how you be thankful?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

WA said:


> The US tax payers have paid billions of dollars to Muslims in the Middle East to help them, as probably the Europeans have done too. Bombing the West is not the way to thank them.


If the problem of terrorism has any hope of being resolved long-term, the first step for us is to acknowledge the factual history of "the West" (Britain and the U.S.) in the Middle East. You make it sound as if all we've ever done in the region is throw money at the people who live there. The truth is, we and Britain have a 100+ year history of interfering in the area's politics and social order, plundering their natural resources, creating and propping up brutal, repressive puppet governments, drawing arbitrary and unworkable borders between nations, and a host of other activities that have fostered huge amounts of resentment and hatred toward us. To listen to our moron president whine about how "they hate our freedoms" makes my stomach turn. It's not the truth and such an attitude accomplishes nothing.

Over a billion followers of Islam exist around the world, and almost all the 911 perpetrators were Saudi nationals. Do the math.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

WA said:


> Marlin and Rossi, I would like to know what the percentage of Muslims in the West that paid into the bombing of the twin towers, trains, buses and caused other damage to the West is. This idea that I have no right to know speaks ill because that is anything but freedom. Is it 90%? 10%? I don't see the Muslim world in the West helping out, do you? The CIA says there is a lack of Muslims signing up to help, and who knows how many have signed up to cause problems. I don't like it when terrorist are caught comeing across the border with a trunk full of high explosives to do damage to my country. I have never heard a Muslim say that these terrorist are not Muslims.
> 
> Nobody said any religion is perfect but right now the Some Muslims are way out on a limb that needs to be cut off. The US tax payers have paid billions of dollars to Muslims in the Middle East to help them, as probably the Europeans have done too. Bombing the West is not the way to thank them. Demanding them to give up their freedoms is not the way to thank the West either. Those who move to the West for a better life have a lot to learn, not the West, because the West has already learned it. A few years ago there were several emails floating around that spoke of major accomplishments to the human race, and all of these accomplishments came from the countries that have a Christian foundation. So belittling Christianity shows how much you don't know. Remember that tidal wave in the Indain ocean a few years ago? Who donated the quickest? And who donated the most? The answer is the countries with a Christian foundation. With out respect how you be thankful?


Nobody says they're not Moslems because they are to the same extent David Duke is a Christian. If you think you're in a religion, well you are. Now, they aren't good Moslems. What they do isn't in step with Islam. They aren't true Moslems.

I don't tink you can really say the major accomplishments come from any one group because there are so many of them and how do you weigh them. The wheel, alcohol as a disinfectant, algebra, the concept of 0, the Arabic Numeral System (the one we use), the concept of written laws, and the arch all originated in countries that don't have a Christian foundation. That said there are many accomplishments that did originate in countries with a Christian foundation (nor did Backgammon or Chess). To say one has done more than the other seems a bit small minded (do you really think you can name every major accomplishment and its place of origin?).

On the Tsunami relief, things aren't as one sided as you think. The US pledged .083permile of our GNP. Qatar pledged 1.43permile of their GNP. Kuwait pledged ~1.79permile of their GDP (I don't have their GNP but I'm guessing Kuwait doesn't have too much coming in from factors of production outside Kuwait).

As to your first question, I can't find it now but IIRC CIA estimates that were mentioned around the time of 9/11 on the portion of Moslems who actively support (being a member or contributing) the various terrorist groups (as we define terrorist groups) is between 0.1% to 0.2% of the Moslem population.


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

Are you at all familiar with US history in the middle east? The founding of American Universities in Beruit and Cairo by missionaries who didn't preach or attempt to convert, but only to teach. Truman's demand after WWII that both Britain and the USSR withdraw from Iran six months after the end of hostilities--to the point to of putting US forces on Europe on alert when the Soviets reused to withdraw. At a time with the Persian people were getting bupkiss from AIOC, US oil companies were splitting their profits 50-50 with the Saudis. Let's not forget a decade of American--and western support for the Muslim Afghan resistance against the Soviets invasion, as well as American support for Muslims in Bosnia. The liberation of Kuwait in 1991?

The British and French inherited the Middle East after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. If you want to talk about brutal exploitation, look at the was the Sublime Porte treated its own Arab Muslim subjects.

As for propping up brutal and repressive governments--contrary to your earlier assertion about socialism--that is the kind of government most common for all of human history, including the past century. The Middle East doesn't need Western support for that. Look at Iran, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan.



FrankDC said:


> If the problem of terrorism has any hope of being resolved long-term, the first step for us is to acknowledge the factual history of "the West" (Britain and the U.S.) in the Middle East. You make it sound as if all we've ever done in the region is throw money at the people who live there. The truth is, we and Britain have a 100+ year history of interfering in the area's politics and social order, plundering their natural resources, creating and propping up brutal, repressive puppet governments, drawing arbitrary and unworkable borders between nations, and a host of other activities that have fostered huge amounts of resentment and hatred toward us. To listen to our moron president whine about how "they hate our freedoms" makes my stomach turn. It's not the truth and such an attitude accomplishes nothing.
> 
> Over a billion followers of Islam exist around the world, and almost all the 911 perpetrators were Saudi nationals. Do the math.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Flashy said:


> Are you at all familiar with US history in the middle east? The founding of American Universities in Beruit and Cairo by missionaries who didn't preach or attempt to convert, but only to teach. Truman's demand after WWII that both Britain and the USSR withdraw from Iran six months after the end of hostilities--to the point to of putting US forces on Europe on alert when the Soviets reused to withdraw. At a time with the Persian people were getting bupkiss from AIOC, US oil companies were splitting their profits 50-50 with the Saudis. Let's not forget a decade of American--and western support for the Muslim Afghan resistance against the Soviets invasion, as well as American support for Muslims in Bosnia. The liberation of Kuwait in 1991?
> 
> The British and French inherited the Middle East after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. If you want to talk about brutal exploitation, look at the was the Sublime Porte treated its own Arab Muslim subjects.
> 
> As for propping up brutal and repressive governments--contrary to your earlier assertion about socialism--that is the kind of government most common for all of human history, including the past century. The Middle East doesn't need Western support for that. Look at Iran, Uzbekistan, or Turkmenistan.


Britain did a good job of dividing up the Middle East in ways that would cause the most trouble in the future.

Charlie Wilson himself has said the he and the US are to blame for the Taliban getting a foothold specifically because of how they handled their aiding of the Afghanies against the Russians (i.e. leaving as soon as the Russians were fought off).

The liberation in Kuwait? Saddam asked our embassador if we would have any issues with an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. She said the US isn't concerned which such things, he invaded, and it all made a nice photo-op.

I agree with you that the US was a lot better than England and BP.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Nobody says they're not Moslems because they are to the same extent David Duke is a Christian. If you think you're in a religion, well you are. Now, they aren't good Moslems. What they do isn't in step with Islam. They aren't true Moslems.
> 
> I don't tink you can really say the major accomplishments come from any one group because there are so many of them and how do you weigh them. The wheel, alcohol as a disinfectant, algebra, the concept of 0, the Arabic Numeral System (the one we use), the concept of written laws, and the arch all originated in countries that don't have a Christian foundation. That said there are many accomplishments that did originate in countries with a Christian foundation (nor did Backgammon or Chess). To say one has done more than the other seems a bit small minded (do you really think you can name every major accomplishment and its place of origin?).
> 
> ...


Thank you. That is what I wanted to read. I suspect the US has not had any more bombings, etc. because some Moslems have stood up to be counted, but I have never read of it yet, anywhere, which could be the medias fault. So, what are Moslems doing to change those court cases so the freedom is not lost? To come here for freedom and then destroy it has gained what? Something else; there are Moslem enclaves in England where the government does not even know who is being born, killed, what education, etc. which is totally illegal and a refusal to become English. What are the Moslems doing to correct this serious problem? This a problem that should never have happened and the English government should not have to deal with it because the responcible Moslems should never have let it happen in the first place and should go out of their way to clean these problems up. That is a good way to make Moslems look better.

Here is a tragic story I read. A family of Moslems move to the US. The daugther does something that in the old country says she is to be killed for dishonering the parents. The daughter is killed and the parents caught and convicted of murder and thrown in jail for a very very long time. The laws of this country are very clear. They move here and refuse to obey the laws and yet if I were to move to their old country I would be expected to obey their laws. As I said it is a sad story.


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

My point in the mast post is that US involvement in the GME hasn't all be exploitative. Yes, we've made mistakes, and often they come back to haunt us. After WWII, Truman backed France's return into Southeast Asia--after FRD had vocalized his opposition to colonialism. What if Truman had followed his predecessor's policies? Hindsight is 20/20. What would have happened if we had let Russia go unchecked in Afghanistan? 
What if we had let Saddam stay in Kuwait? That's speculation that might make of an interesting novel, but is ultimately futile.

The US dropped it support after the Soviets pulled out, leaving Masood's and Hekmatyar's alliances to fight it out with Najibullah's government. Why did we pull out? 1) the Berlin Wall fell, bringing about the greatest shift in the world political system since the end of World War II and 2) the Gulf War happened.

So what happened in Afghanistan? Hekmatyar's Pashtuns and Masood's Tajiks couldn't' share power, wore each other down in a civil war which devastated the country. This lay the ground work for the Taliban. The Taliban is essentially a Pashtun nationalist movement.
Since 1747, the Pashtun tribes ruled an empire made up of Tajiks, Hazaras, Nuristanis and other groups. From 1979 on, the minorities had power and influence they'd previously been denied, culminating in the Rabbani presidency. Further, this is why, over the past few years, you've seen Karzai replacing his government ministers--minority hold-overs from the NA days--with ethnic Pashtuns.

As for Kuwait, I'm a cynic. I don't doubt the ambassador would have been correct, had Saudi Arabia not asked for support against Saddam. However, that doesn't change my point, that the US has supported, not merely exploited, Muslims. The fact that they're were selfish motives doesn't detract from that fact--every nation acts in its own self-interest.



marlinspike said:


> Britain did a good job of dividing up the Middle East in ways that would cause the most trouble in the future.
> 
> Charlie Wilson himself has said the he and the US are to blame for the Taliban getting a foothold specifically because of how they handled their aiding of the Afghanies against the Russians (i.e. leaving as soon as the Russians were fought off).
> 
> ...


----------



## James Gordon E. (Oct 2, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Take any Bush or Cheney speech of the last six years -- it doesn't matter which one -- and make a list of the keywords and phrases used in the speech. You'll begin to get an idea of why comparisons are made between this regime and Germany's Third Reich. It's the exact same relentless fear mongering, scare tactics, terrorizing and misrepresentation.
> 
> Here's the list from Bush's last State of the Union speech:


Talk of enemies, praise of courage...is this not the same rhetoric used during every war, by every leader? You'll find Lincoln and FDR used similarly-weighty language.

What is the difference? I believe (and wager you do as well) that Lincoln and FDR (and all their contemporaries) were waging just struggles, while the war in Iraq was not begun for just reasons. The language, however, of struggle, sacrifice, and honor should not be deemed "Nazi," because we do need it for the true wars-crusades, dare I say?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I am painfully trying to follow the Kurds. We supported them against Hussein and then Kissinger handed over every Kurdish rebel position to Hussein when he went to war with Iran. Then we invaded Iraq and Kurdistan was one area of relative security. Now we have the conflict with Turkey and another apparent ignoring of the Kurds if not tacit approval for Istanbul's actions.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Flashy said:


> The founding of American Universities in Beruit and Cairo by missionaries who didn't preach or attempt to convert, but only to teach.


First of all, a missionary who doesn't preach or attempt to convert isn't a missionary. And second, I've never seen the existence of these universities listed as a grievance by any Arab country, or by al Qaeda, or any terrorist organization. Have you?


Flashy said:


> Truman's demand after WWII that both Britain and the USSR withdraw from Iran six months after the end of hostilities--to the point to of putting US forces on Europe on alert when the Soviets reused to withdraw. At a time with the Persian people were getting bupkiss from AIOC, US oil companies were splitting their profits 50-50 with the Saudis.


Which Saudis would those be? The Saudi people lived (and still live) in absolute squalor, while Saudi "princes" have sterling silver BMWs built for themselves. It's one of the world's most notorious and brutal oligarchies. Simply reading a Bible in that country is grounds for imprisonment. Yet we see Mr. Bush kissing and holding hands with these "princes".



Flashy said:


> Let's not forget a decade of American--and western support for the Muslim Afghan resistance against the Soviets invasion, as well as American support for Muslims in Bosnia. The liberation of Kuwait in 1991?


What would have happened if the Soviets had done their job in Afghanistan? Think man, think.

As for Kuwait, it's a perfect example of arbitrary borders, courtesy of Britain. And Bush didn't "liberate" anyone, he simply secured interest in oil reserves, the exact same thing his son is doing now in Iraq.


----------



## OscarTheWild (Jan 8, 2004)

WA said:


> ...............
> 
> Here is a tragic story I read. A family of Moslems move to the US. The daugther does something that in the old country says she is to be killed for dishonering the parents. The daughter is killed and the parents caught and convicted of murder and thrown in jail for a very very long time. The laws of this country are very clear. They move here and refuse to obey the laws and yet if I were to move to their old country I would be expected to obey their laws. As I said it is a sad story.


Truly sad. Have you read this:

What is the religion of the family? If it was muslim, it would be prominent all over the news and you would have another data point. But it is not muslim, so it is not headlines. Do you ever ask yourself why?

Regarding suicide bombings, India has had more suicide bombings by non-muslims (including the death of their prime minister, Rajiv Ghandhi). How come so much focus is on muslim suicide bombers? There were years when the number of suicide bombings in India alone were greater than the all the muslim bombings in the ME. However, that is not what was portrayed to the american public.

Not for a second do I let the arabs off the hook. They have failed to educate their masses. For all the money and glitz, they don't have even a single university that would be comparable to one from even the poorest states in this great union.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Lets at least get our terminology right. Islam is not solely arab, but includes native Europeans, Africans, Kurds, Turks, Persians, Afghans, Paks,Syrians, Lebanese, many peoples of the former Soviet union, peoples of the Southeast Asia Archipelego parts of the PRC,Mongols, the Moros of the Phillipines and of course more recent converts. Islam itself is currently represtented by 5 surviving sects and not a few religons, including Sikhs and Bahai have roots in Islam proper. 'Arabs' by definition can and do include Christians. Ignorance of these facts is O.K. for singing ' Abdul the Bulbar Emir' in bars but not while watching CSPAN and trying to grasp the whole cat's cradle.And a lack of education is hardly the bane of Islam.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

James Gordon E. said:


> Talk of enemies, praise of courage...is this not the same rhetoric used during every war, by every leader? You'll find Lincoln and FDR used similarly-weighty language.
> 
> What is the difference? I believe (and wager you do as well) that Lincoln and FDR (and all their contemporaries) were waging just struggles, while the war in Iraq was not begun for just reasons. The language, however, of struggle, sacrifice, and honor should not be deemed "Nazi," because we do need it for the true wars-crusades, dare I say?


The "War in Iraq" was over in the first six weeks. What we've had since is an unwanted occupation that has lasted longer than all of World War II. Unlike FDR, Bush's rhetoric is not intended to alleviate fear, but to create and leverage it. He's been making a political career out of this fear for six years.


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

Well, it is interestig, but the only good muslims are the ones who their own peers consider to be the bad muslims. I wonder why is that? Do you really have to rap an explosive around yourself and walk in to the mall to be considered a good muslim by your peers?
May be the problem is the muslim religion itself?


----------



## oktagon (Mar 9, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> bla bla QUOTE]
> 
> Petty liberal bullcrap, which has lost Dems two WH terms and will loose more.
> 
> Hitlery will not be POTUS and Bakak Osama will not be nominated by the Dems because they are too afraid thatUS is not "ready". Well they are right in one thing once in 20 years


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

OscarTheWild said:


> Truly sad. Have you read this:
> 
> What is the religion of the family? If it was muslim, it would be prominent all over the news and you would have another data point. But it is not muslim, so it is not headlines. Do you ever ask yourself why?
> 
> ...


Yes, there are many sad stories around the world, but only one group has to live under the shadow of 911, which is sadly for those who came to get away from that image which are still stuck with it for some time longer. So to say, it is going to take a long time to live that one down. The enclaves in Europe is another black eye they need to clean up and not make excusses for. Death threats for Rushdie and others need to end now. In this world innocent people are hurt everyday- look at our gun rights. A woman I went hiking with a few days ago her brothers often took their guns to school, today, because of a few wackos, it is now illegal (government does not know how to do it's job anymore).

In Canada an East Indian who imagrated to Canada, that blew up a jet (in court unproven), other East Indians who imagrated are the ones who have pursued in court for justice. There are many East Indians in Canada - where are the bombings? What people do in their own countries is their problems, but to bring their problems here, speading their problems is wrong. I don't see Moslems in court pursuing Moslems terrorist for justice, do you? Marlinspike, if he is a Moslem, is the first one that I have heard or read that say the terrorist are not Moslems, if I read him correctly. That is a long time after 911 for a Moslem to say that. Not everybody that flys a flag is really under or for that flag. If the Moslems pursue those crimals that fly the Moslem flag, then maybe peace in the ME will show up. As I wrote about the family before-_ "They move here and refuse to obey the laws and yet if I were to move to their old country I would be expected to obey their laws." _This applies everywhere on this planet to all peoples with few exceptions. So many people are moving to the West to get away from worse problems from where ever they come from, the West does not want worse problems.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

WA said:


> Marlinspike, if he is a Moslem, is the first one that I have heard or read that say the terrorist are not Moslems, if I read him correctly. That is a long time after 911 for a Moslem to say that. Not everybody that flys a flag is really under or for that flag. If the Moslems pursue those crimals that fly the Moslem flag, then maybe peace in the ME will show up. As I wrote about the family before-_ "They move here and refuse to obey the laws and yet if I were to move to their old country I would be expected to obey their laws." _This applies everywhere on this planet to all peoples with few exceptions. So many people are moving to the West to get away from worse problems from where ever they come from, the West does not want worse problems.


Most of the ME governments condemned the attacks and the people who did them (I can't think of one that didn't, but just in case I've said most). Of course, the press only covered this shortly. Bhutto said it too (IIRC it was something like "a Moslem won't kill me because a Moslem knows if they kill a woman they'll go to hell.")


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

oktagon said:


> Hitlery will not be POTUS and Bakak Osama


Really? Name rhyming? Was that even clever in the 3rd grade?


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> First of all, a missionary who doesn't preach or attempt to convert isn't a missionary. And second, I've never seen the existence of these universities listed as a grievance by any Arab country, or by al Qaeda, or any terrorist organization. Have you?


Leading by example, doing good works and educating people form all over the world. I'd say that's the best kind of missionary. Tends to be much more effective than cramming your faith down someone's throat. AS for the second part of your comment, I'll just mention that David Dodge, the head of American University in Beirut, a direct descendant of the founders, who'd lived in Beirut his entire life, was the first person taken hostage by Muslim militants during the Lebanese Civil War.



FrankDC said:


> Which Saudis would those be? The Saudi people lived (and still live) in absolute squalor, while Saudi "princes" have sterling silver BMWs built for themselves. It's one of the world's most notorious and brutal oligarchies. Simply reading a Bible in that country is grounds for imprisonment. Yet we see Mr. Bush kissing and holding hands with these "princes".


My comment was about early oil contracts, immediate post-WWII. Hence the comparison with Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Try to follow along. Just a remind, my question to you was: do you know anything of US history in the Greater Middle East?



FrankDC said:


> What would have happened if the Soviets had done their job in Afghanistan? Think man, think.


You mean securing a Socialist Worker's Paradise in the Hindu Kush? Shoring up the shaky, unpopular and self-divided PDPA?



FrankDC said:


> As for Kuwait, it's a perfect example of arbitrary borders, courtesy of Britain. And Bush didn't "liberate" anyone, he simply secured interest in oil reserves, the exact same thing his son is doing now in Iraq.


Once again your history fails you. Kuwait existed as province of the Ottoman Empire long before the British showed up on the scene. it wasn't until 1913 that Britain started exercising influence in the area.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

OscarTheWild said:


> For all the money and glitz, they don't have even a single university that would be comparable to one from even the poorest states in this great union.


I agree with your underlying point. However, it must be noted that Al-Azhar (in Egypt) is the *oldest* institution of learning in the world. As a matter of fact the silly cloaks and mortarboards worn at Western graduations are copies of dress from Al-Azhar (Al-Azhar is an Islamic institution of learning, concerned with different things from a Western university. My copy of "Reliance of the Traveler" (a manual of Sharia law) bears the Al-Azhar imprint.))


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Flashy said:


> Leading by example, doing good works and educating people form all over the world. I'd say that's the best kind of missionary. Tends to be much more effective than cramming your faith down someone's throat. AS for the second part of your comment, I'll just mention that David Dodge, the head of American University in Beirut, a direct descendant of the founders, who'd lived in Beirut his entire life, was the first person taken hostage by Muslim militants during the Lebanese Civil War.


So I need to ask you the same question: do you know what the hell you're talking about regarding the Middle East? First you claim the missionaries who founded American University weren't missionaries, now you're claiming David Dodge -- a military intelligence officer during WWII and former employee of Aramco and the Trans-Arabian Pipeline Company -- was taken hostage during the Lebanese "Civil War" -- simply for being a philanthropist? Bizarre. No, just horribly revisionist and clueless. And a perfect example of the arrogant attitute that got us where we are today in the Middle East.



Flashy said:


> My comment was about early oil contracts, immediate post-WWII. Hence the comparison with Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Try to follow along. Just a remind, my question to you was: do you know anything of US history in the Greater Middle East?


There you go again. Early oil contracts weren't any more equitable to the Saudi people than later ones.



Flashy said:


> You mean securing a Socialist Worker's Paradise in the Hindu Kush? Shoring up the shaky, unpopular and self-divided PDPA?


You know exactly what I mean: if the Soviets had intervened in 1977 or 1978 instead of 1979 we would not have had the rise of Amin, the fall of Karmal, organization of the mujahideen, rise of Mullah Omar and the Taleban, the subsequent safe haven for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. And almost certainly no 911 attack.



Flashy said:


> Once again your history fails you. Kuwait existed as province of the Ottoman Empire long before the British showed up on the scene. it wasn't until 1913 that Britain started exercising influence in the area.


Again with the absurdly revisionist history! The British began meddling in Kuwait during the 1890's: the "First Kuwaiti Crisis" in 1898 was a specific demand from the Ottomans that the British stop interfering with Kuwait's internal affairs. And that was just the beginning, e.g.

"After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was defeated and the British invalidated the Anglo-Ottoman Convention, declaring Kuwait to be an "independent sheikhdom under British protectorate."

...

"The 1920s and 30s saw the collapse of the pearl fishery and with it Kuwait's economy. This is attributed to the invention of the artificial cultivation of pearls. Kuwait became one of the world's poorest countries and became even more dependent on Britain for protection."

"In response to the various Bedouin raids, the British High Commissioner in Baghdad, Sir Percy Cox, imposed the Uqair Protocol of 1922 which defined the boundaries between Iraq and Nejd; and between Kuwait and Nejd.
On April 1, 1923, Shaikh Ahmad al-Sabah wrote the British Political Agent in Kuwait, Major John More, "I still do not know what the border between Iraq and Kuwait is, I shall be glad if you will kindly give me this information." More, upon learning that al-Sabah claimed the outer green line of the Anglo-Ottoman Convention (April 4), would relay the information to Sir Percy.
On April 19, Sir Percy stated that the British government recognized the outer line of the Convention as the border between Iraq and Kuwait. This decision limited Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf at 58 km of mostly marshy and swampy coastline. As this would make it difficult for Iraq to become a naval power (the territory did not include any deepwater harbours), the Iraqi King Faisal I (whom the British installed as a puppet king in Iraq) did not agree to the plan. However, as his country was under British mandate, he had little say in the matter."

Etc. etc. etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait

Read it first, then have the gall to ask others if they have any knowledge of the region's history.


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

OscarTheWild said:


> Regarding suicide bombings, India has had more suicide bombings by non-muslims (including the death of their prime minister, Rajiv Ghandhi). How come so much focus is on muslim suicide bombers? There were years when the number of suicide bombings in India alone were greater than the all the muslim bombings in the ME. However, that is not what was portrayed to the american public.
> 
> Not for a second do I let the arabs off the hook. They have failed to educate their masses. For all the money and glitz, they don't have even a single university that would be comparable to one from even the poorest states in this great union.


Suicide bombing was invented by the Tamils. As Hindus, they believe in reincarnation, and so death doesn't hold the finality for them as it does for the Judeo-Christian-Muslim faiths. Suicide bombing became popular in the Lebanese civil war, particularly among the Shi'a.
Shi'ism places a special emphasis on martyrdom, focusingon the murder of the Imam Ali.

As for the education of Muslims, that's not always been true. When the west was in the so-called Dark ages, the Arab and Perian worlds were at their height. In the 10th Centruy, Ibn Sienna (Avicenna) wrote medical texts that were used even in Europe until the Enlightenment. In the 15th Century, Ulugh Beg, the son of Timur (Tamerlane) was a world renowned astronomer and mathmatician. The ruins of his observator have been excavated in Samarqand. Unforntuately, thatp assion for learning has been replaced with a Muslim Dark Age.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

WA said:


> Curious about what others here think about this thread below.
> 
> https://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24176


I find the title of the article to be pretty funny. Instead of blaming lawmakers for creating court systems he considers unfair, the author blames Muslims for using the judicial system.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Learned*

I am learning a lot by following this thread. The depth of knowledge and insightfulness of most posters is impressive. Thank you all.

The confrontation between the Occident and the Muslim world dates to the early Middle Ages. The arrival of Vasco da Gama in the Indian Ocean marks, I believe the major assault by the west against the Muslim world in the present era.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> You know exactly what I mean: if the Soviets had intervened in 1977 or 1978 instead of 1979 we would not have had the rise of Amin, the fall of Karmal, organization of the mujahideen, rise of Mullah Omar and the Taleban, the subsequent safe haven for Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. And almost certainly no 911 attack.
> QUOTE]
> 
> This statement is so absolutely insane, I just have to see where you're going with it. What could the possible justification for a Soviet invastion of Daoud Khan's Afghanistan have been in 1977?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Flashy said:


> This statement is so absolutely insane, I just have to see where you're going with it. What could the possible justification for a Soviet invastion of Daoud Khan's Afghanistan have been in 1977?


By the time the Afghan mujahideen was organized (in June 1978), the Soviets knew perfectly well what was coming. I said intervene, not invade, and had the Soviets done so earlier it may (IMO would) have precluded the need for an invasion.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

omairp said:


> I find the title of the article to be pretty funny. Instead of blaming lawmakers for creating court systems he considers unfair, the author blames Muslims for using the judicial system.


The British judicial system is unique. This book that I read the first chapter of explained how it got started. I believe it was started before America was discovered Those that branched off the British, such as USA use the same system. These that use the system are some of the wealthist countries in the world, so the system works pretty good. The system to a certain extent eliminates lawmakers. Some laws are based upon previous judical decisions, so as to not reinvent the wheel. With the English judical system the judges look at what has been done before and view the problems that came with them. Rarely does a judge throw out what has been done in the past. If they take a case then the view will probably be changed some. This is why judges can throw out some laws that lawmakers have made. Many other countries put the lawmakers ahead of the judges. Of couse, any law student can say this above better than me and correct every mistake, but I think I explained it not to bad.

When you look at the British system it prevents lawmakers from making the same mistake over and over again because lawmakers are not very good at reviewing what happened in the past, where as, judges it is there job.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

marlinspike said:


> Most of the ME governments condemned the attacks and the people who did them (I can't think of one that didn't, but just in case I've said most). Of course, the press only covered this shortly. Bhutto said it too (IIRC it was something like "a Moslem won't kill me because a Moslem knows if they kill a woman they'll go to hell.")


The news media shows what they want he public to see, or grab as much money as they can, so don't do their duty. If I worked like that at a regular job I would be fired.

The Moslem beliefs I know just about 100% zero. I believe it has many variations like Christianity does. I am thinking about starting a new thread about something Jesus did so I can read what other Christians believe it means and I certainly want to hear what the Moslems say about it, too.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

What has happened here is an example of SLAPP, or strategic lawsuits against political participation. This lovely practise was invented by Corporate America to silence any criticism. You take on a corporation, and they retaliate with legal and financial resources well beyond any private individual. It seems to me, that if the authors of these books want to fight back, a lawsuit in OUR courts against the offending parties for restraint of trade is a good place to start. Globalisation works both ways, and if these people have any contacts or future dealings in America they are just as vulnerable.


----------

