| The Sick Arab/Islamic Mentality II
| Saturday, August 26, 2006
Let's accept that Arabs are victims of the Israeli and Westerner's aggression. But what is puzzling here is that with all this talking of Israeli war crimes and Lebanese misery, Hezbollah claimed victory in this war, didn't they?
The major newspapers and internet sites are full of article noting that, "For Majority of Arabs, Hezbollah Won".
The Washington Post,
"CAIRO, Egypt -- Babies have been named "Hezbollah" and "Nasrallah." Even some die-hard secularists are praising the Shiite fundamentalist militia in the wake of its cease-fire with Israel _ saying its fighters restored their feelings of honor and dignity."
"Arab nations fought several wars with Israel _ in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973, as well as Israel's previous two invasions of Lebanon. The first three were heavy defeats for Arab armies, and though Egypt's army saw dramatic successes in 1973, the battle had swung to Israel's favor by the time it ended."
"In the eyes of many Arabs, Hezbollah's performance shook the Israeli military's image of invulnerability."
"The Lebanese people may have lost a lot of economic and human resources .... but away from figures and calculations, they have achieved a lot of gains," said Youssef al-Rashed, a columnist for the Kuwaiti daily Al-Anba.
Lebanon's "heroic resistance fighters have proven to the world that Lebanese borders are not open to Israeli tanks without a price," he wrote Tuesday. "Lebanon was victorious in the battle of dignity and honor."
So that's what all this was about. A revenge for the wars in which they lost and to show that Israel is not indestructible (what for?, are they planning or promoting another war with Israel?). They are seeking honor the same way, they seek honor and dignity by killing their daughters if they are raped or happened to be in love with somebody.
It's not about how many lives they themselves loose but how many they themselves can kill. Their happiness lies in the misery of others (Israeli people) and not the prosperity of their own people. How sad is that. SICK is a better word actually.
|posted by Roya @ 2:31 AM
You hit the nail on the head. Arab Muslim mentality is mind boggling, they use false circumstances as a reason to murder innocents.
Arab Muslims do not care for the Palesstinians. The first war started by the Arab league was strictly intolerance. How dare the Jews govern a small piece of the middle east?
The countries that attacked Israel (they didn't have any claims to the Palestine region themselves) showed their concern for the Palestinians after they lost in 1948........none, zero.
As Hussein Massawi, former leader of the Party of God (the Hezb'Allah) put it, "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something; we are fighting to eliminate you."
Yet people worldwide insist on having diplomacy and negotiation with a terror gang. It is madness. Why a vocal minority of Americans want to talk, talk, and talk with the Hezb'Allah, give peace a chance, and sing Kumbayah demonstrates a profound irrationality on their part, especially since the Party of God killed 241 American PEACEKEEPERS in Lebanon in 1983.
But those people were Americans, who are tainted by original sin, and deserve to die, just like the "little Eichmanns" in 911.
And why does Iran make such a point of talking belligerently against Israel when it does not share a border with Israel? There is no rational reason I can think of for Iran to be so provocative with respect to Israel.
In one of my politics classes, I remember the looks on the students faces when one boy asked, why don't they (Israelis & Palestinians)live together and stick with one state solution? This way everyone gets all the parts of Israel.
They looked at the boy as if they heard the most stupid thing ever. But you know what, he wasn't domb. He just didn't know much about Arabs. The first thing the Palestinians would do is to celebrate by sacrificing Jews for Allah for giving them their land back. There is no way you could give Palestinians what they want without another holocaust.
tommeykey - "There is no rational reason I can think of for Iran to be so provocative with respect to Israel. "
Not from our perspective. But in Iran, and that region of the world, opposing Israel is something which is popular domestically for Ahmadinejad. Many polls suggest that a majority of Iranians view Israel as the aggressor in the conflict with Palestine/Lebanon. They may not agree with all of the ignorant opinions of their President, but his general opposition to Israel is something they are sympathetic to.
Analyzing why iran behaves towards Israel as a foreign policy issue is different from understanding it is a domestic iranian issue. if you studied it as a foreign policy objective, I'd say Iran is trying to reach out and exert more regional hegemony over its arab neighbors by acting as a leader on an issue important to Arabs.
Pretty good anlysis, but the reasons you've pointed out are secondary ones.
The main reasons for this war were described and predicted in the December 2005 issue of Jane's Defense Weekly magazine. You can't find this article anywhere on the net unless you're a subscriber to this magazine, but a friend of mine sent me a scanned copy which I posted on my blog.
There are 3 main reasons:
1. Hezbollah's desperate fight for political survival, both internal and external;
2. Diversion from Iran's nuclear program;
3. Diversion from the investigation of Syria's involvement in the assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
You wouldn't believe how accurate the analyses of the situation and the predictions were until you read it.
Steve says: Analyzing why iran behaves towards Israel as a foreign policy issue is different from understanding it is a domestic iranian issue. if you studied it as a foreign policy objective, I'd say Iran is trying to reach out and exert more regional hegemony over its arab neighbors by acting as a leader on an issue important to Arabs.
Steve, defend him all you want, but the fact is that Amadinejad is a religious nutball. I swear, people who think like you would actually justify and willingly accept your and your countrymen's demise by islamic extremists. It seems as if you would passively hand over the entire western world because of some academia/textbook- induced guilt.
"[H]e (Ahmadinejad) is a fervent believer in the imminent reappearance of the 12th Imam, Shi'ism's version of the Messiah. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been reported as saying in official meetings that the end of history is only two or three years away. He reportedly told an associate that on the podium of the General Assembly last September, he felt a halo around him and for "those 27 or 28 minutes, the leaders of the world did not blink ... as if a hand was holding them there and it opened their eyes to receive" his message. He believes that the Islamic revolution's raison d'être is to prepare the way for the messianic redemption, which in his eschatology is preceded by worldwide upheaval and chaos. --Time Magazine: "Today Tehran, Tomorrow the World" March 2006"
Ahmadinejad has said more than once: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," (according to a quote published by Iran's state news outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency.)
Thanks for the link Watcher. In fact I read it an hour ago on your blog.:)
Nice blog by the way!
Thans, you have a nice place here yourself. ;-)
The article is from a friend of mine from the UK who is now posting on my blog as team member.
He'll be also substituting for me next week when I'll be in London.
Actually this war was about Hezbollah trying to arrange a prisoner exchange with Israel; something which has been done in the past.
Israel seized it as an opportunity to eliminate Hezbollah through the use of overwhelming and indiscriminate force.
It did not quie work out the way Israel thought it would ...
Stardust - "Steve, defend him all you want, but the fact is that Amadinejad is a religious nutball"
I don't defend him, he is a religious nutball, where did I suggest he was a normal human being? Just by saying he has a foreign policy? See, I dont think you read stuff Stardust. Tommey asked what objectives he has in hating Israel, and I said basically that Arabs and Iranians dissapprove of Israel (to put it mildly). Are we not in agreement on that or am I wrong? He is an affront to anybody who cares about human rights and even history. Moreover, he's barely even in charge of Iran. The Guardian Council has the true power, and they are even MORE religious nutjobs.
You can also expect a rise in Islamic extremism in Iran in the near future, as the radicalization of the government continues.
Steve, Tommykey was responding to the Lebanese (Hizbullah) argument, that THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR SELF DEFENCE AND PROTECTING THEIR BORDER. And tommykey argued:
"And why does Iran make such a point of talking belligerently against Israel when it does not share a border with Israel? There is no rational reason I can think of for Iran to be so provocative with respect to Israel."
You are very quick to change the subject, aren't you?
Tommykey was not asking you what is the interest of Iran in this but where is the "PROTECTING THE BORDERS FROM AGGRESSORS" argument here.
Taking your stance, you just argued yourself that Iran (or other Muslim countries) act not defensively but aggressively.
You don't like America to stick its nose on others affairs for their self interest but when it comes to muslims its ok, ISN'T IT?
Steven, I am not sure where you are getting your news from but it is the opposite of the situation on the ground in Iran.
The most popular protest sign in Iran is "Forget Palestine, what about us?". Israel is seen as an Arab issue, not a Persian issue (they are not friends), and they do not appreciate having a government obsess over a society 1000 miles away while 40% of the country lives in dire poverty WORSE than Palestine/Lebanon.
They especially do not appreciate their resources being depleated to fund terrorists organizations in Lebanon while they suffer with 20% inflation making those lucky enough to have a state-controlled job racing to cash their paychecks before it becomes too expensive to buy fruit.
I have never met an anti-Israeli Persian. In fact, because the government they hate keeps on pressuring them to hate the tiny state (in schools, forced marches, etc..) there is an eery fascination for Israel.
Persians are smart enough to identify scape-goating jews for their own domestic problems... too bad we are not as bright.
i would love to reply to you Jordan, but Roya is afraid of what I have to say so she deletes my comments. No free speech here, obviously.
If you wish to continue to conversation, you are free to email me at my private email address, which I'm sure you still know.
I'll leave this censored blog for ones which are open to a fair and honest debate.
And for the record, I've never once censored Bacon, or MadZionist, or Jordan, or anyone else on my blog and I never will. Free speech is more important as a principle than winning any one debate.
Steve, don't thraw personal insult and you will be wellcomed.
you consider all forms of criticism personal insults. Regardless, when it comes to free speech, there is no such "personal insult" clause which allows dissent to be silenced.
Steve, do you think "You may oneday evolve to a rational human being" or "non-muslim fools like stardust" as just critisism?
This was from bernarda and you have done the same. Argue your points and don't redirect the issue to a personal conflict. THANK YOU
I have not deleted bernardas' or your posts in which s/he only argued what s/he think on the issue.
Steven, I will honour your original request and not bother you with private corispondance. I have also stayed away from your blog as my presense was clearly upsetting your most supportive followers.
I will give you credit in that you never have censored anyone, including BDE's death threats and the Mein Kampf quality jew-hatred. But unfortinately, censoring is not the problem. Its your consistant standing up to anti-Islam remarks and complete ignoring of anti-Jew remarks that sets the tone. I understand standing up to both or neither, but tolerating jew-hatred only, the tone of your blog is very clear.
Incedently, when you say that your blog is about "fair and honest" debate, does that include BDE's efforts to drive away any moderate viewpoint that isn't consistant with counterpunch or stormfront? Do you think ChooseDoubt deserved the treatment he recieved?
roya - I have NEVER suggested that stardust was unevolved, or unintelligent. Furthermore, I have never attacked your intelligence, or the quality of your blog. I have suggested that some of your arguments were poor on the issue of Arabs and Muslims. Please tell me in what way I attacked YOU rather than your arguments.
Jordan - Bro, you know what you said to get yourself on my bad side. You said you didn't respect me, and I said that I didn't need friends like that. I NEVER said that I didn't respect you, and I NEVER said I didn't want you to comment on my blog up until that point. You turned on me first, and you think its my fault. I'm really not sorry, because you're the one who attacked ME, not the other way around. I've never attacked ChooseDoubt, and you've never attacked Bacon. I guess we're not so different. But frankly, I don't see why ChooseDoubt couldn't just hold his ground instead of running away. You have to have the stomach for politics, I'm sorry, but its a rough business.
The price of our friendship, is apparently, your desire to make me insult or degrade the faith of my girlfriend, and her race. I will NEVER support what certain Palestinian groups do to innocent Israeli's, but I will defend Manar's RIGHT to not be prejudged or catagorized by people who think they know it all about Arabs and Islam.
She will never convert me and she knows that, and vice versa. I don't impose my beliefs on her, and she doesn't on me.
Steve, YOU DID ATTACK ME AND STARDUST. You can check it on Aug 21 post. And I gave you a warning in responce to that.
Steve: "BTW - stardust, I don't consider you an atheist, but a simple bigot. Don't give yourself so much credit."
This was you and in your last 2 post (the only posts that I deleted) you aggressively attacked me calling me racist, narrow-minded, and hypocrite.
I don't recall asking for an apology, or your friendship. I was just trying to explain to you why I choose not to have private corispondance with you or comment on your blog which, after your shameful article that blames Jews for Islamic terrorism around the world, I consider to be classical anti-semetic.
I begged you to re-examine your position. I asked you to go to DavidDuke.com and examine the awful similarities. Did you bother to check? If not, were you afraid of what you would find
And I don't recall accusing you of attacking ChooseDoubt. But your refusal to stand up to the constant character abuse by BDE or bernarda against a polite individual like him while at the same time making the world safe from Islamophobes makes your position very clear. Are you happy with the type of commentary your site currently attracts versus 6 months ago?
Oh, and if you recall, I did stand up to Bacon's methods several times on your blog at your personal request. Feel free to browse your archives.
I do not require my friends to share my political or religious beliefs. And when debating online, I prefer sites with opposing viewpoints. But your site is FAR WORSE in its tolerance of jew hatred than the majority of Arab/Islamists blogs which I enjoy. For example, the term "zionazi" is far more common on Digitally Arranged then eteraz or Umar Lee.
It wasn't always this way, but your decision to tolerate commentators who use death threats and character assisignation has had its predictable effect. Your site no longer revolves around the polite debate of issues, but rather who can portray others as the greater monster.
I defended you often even though I disagreed with your position and never expected gratitude as I believe in the idea of civil debate. And at the same time, I kept on hoping you would stand up against BDE or bernarda's campaign to drive away intellectual diversity just once. For whatever reason, you never did and I don't expect you ever will.
I am out of town for a few days and checked back in here to see if Steve answered any questions asked of him and I see he has not. The world is still waiting for your suggestions and solutions, Steve. We would all be interested in hearing what your positive proposals are for bringing peace to the Middle East (see my post above asking you these things).
Jordan - I have not ONCE used the term zionazi. I am not responsible for the terms used by people in the comments section of my blog. I practice free speech on my blog, get used to it. Its the reason you get to say whatever you want to say. I have never, nor will I ever, censor people on my blog.
stardust - your argument is that no critique of US foreign policy is valid unless a different argument is used to supplant it? Thats silly. I can easily argue that religion is wrong, without having to prove that atheism is right.
Secondly, I do have many constructive arguments for the betterment of the Middle East, but they mainly involve CONSTRUCTION and not DESTRUCTION. Like most liberals, I believe that people are in part linked to the society they are produced in, and the ideology and conditions of the Middle East are inextricably linked to the economics and political dynamics of the region.
As convenient as it would be to assume the people are totally responsible for the conditions of their economy and despotic political regimes, such a view would ignore history and colonization altogether. Your view is in my opinion inconsistant and ahistorical. You don't discuss the origins of extremism, and accept it as a fact rather than the byproduct of social forces
and btw Jordan - you say I tolerate "jew hatred" (mainly because you consider the term israeli and jew synonymous, a viewpoint which is inconsistant with the fact that many Israeli's are not Jews.
But I have a proven record of defending Jews on my blog, and in the blogosphere. Do I really need to pull out the posts and commentary I've made with anti-semites to prove that to you?
You are one of the few commenters who has read my blog long enough to know the arguments I've gotten into with Muslims. And yet you say nothing about that to your compatriots here, who assume because I critisize the west on things, it means I support Islam or Muslims.
I do not. I am an atheist. But that doesn't mean I shut off my brain to history either.
ps - you might want to check out Umar Lee's blog a little closer when it comes to his extremist views. His position on the Danish cartoons, for example, is dyametrically opposed to my own.
Eteraz, as you mention, is a blogging friend of mine who I've known longer than I have you. He would never suggest I am anti-semitic, and yet you imply I am.
First, I must say for someone who likes to display his academic crudentials, you sure seem to be playing fast and loose with wordplay. Your tactic of seperating Israel, the Jewish state, from its Jewish identity is ridiculous and inconsistant with your previous posts.
You specifically blame Israel for the creation of militant Islam (amayzingly, 700 years in the future), which must include the Jihadists who have been having some fun this week in the Philapines, Morraco, and Thailand. Are you blaiming Israel's Arab supreme court judges, army personal, or elected representatives for the killing of Thailand's bank tellers? Of course not! You are blaiming Israel's Jewish population for the policies that allowed those Budhists to die.
Why can you not just state the obvious! Israel has a Jewish identiy just as Ireland has an Irish identity.
This type of absord acedemic denial and moral relativism is apparent on your most recent comment:
"America complains about religious extremism in the Middle East, and the rise of theocracies, while it does the same (in principle) at home. Let us hope our women can still drive cars in the near future, lest Jerry Falwell have his way."
Sometimes I don't know if you are mocking your own ideology. The Taliban executed little girl for trying to learn how to read. Malaysia makes leaving Islam a crime. Saudi Arabia treats women like furnature. Iran beats people on the streat and tortures gays and Bahai for un-islamic behavior.
And yet, you make a ridiculous claim that America, one of the most free countries in the world, is inches away from taking away a women's right to drive. (keep in mind I am an athiest)
Do you appreciate how this irresponsible moral relativsm can be such a terrible insult to all those who are molested in prison before they are executed for the crime of being raped in the Islamic world? Can you see how you pathelogically ignore the facts on the ground to support your beliefs and the consequences of this type of approach on those you claim to want to help?
It reminds me of a recent quote: "In an Orwellian reversal of logic, those who demand that Arabs and other Muslims be held to the same standards of human rights are often labeled anti-Arab." - http://netwmd.com/blog/2006/08/31/899
Steven, if you seem to think you stand up to jew-hatred with the same passion as arab-hatred on your blog, I think you are living in a different world. As BDE and bernarda's constant character attacks on more and more individuals, your silence became more and more defaning. You claim to not censor, but that is a half truth, isn't it. You have asked individuals to leave, you have expressed displeasure with pro-zionists, but when BDE offers a death threat it never occurs to you to stand up to him. You don't say a damn word.
I do not agree with everything Umar Lee says, but both your blogs commentators reflect the authors position. Umar Lee makes an active effort to confront jew-hatred in his posts and holds Arabs/Muslims to the highest standards. Your blog makes excuses where Umar Lee stands up to hatred. Sure there are anti-semites on his blog, but they do not hold nearly as much editorial control as the fine "death to Zionazi" commentators you have on yours. Why do think that is? Its because you articles create an environment that is very welcoming to those who hate Jews... perhaps not by intent but definately by practice.
Futhermore, I don't think we agree on what the word "anti-semetism" truly is. I do not see it as a neadrathal-like hatred of Jews for no reason. Rather, its better described as blaming personal failures on a small jewish population who are ultimately responsible for world failures.
Examples of this type of jew scape-goating:
- The plague
- Germany's crushing debt
- Islamic terrorism across the world
I don't think anti-semites hate Jews, rather they hate themselves. Jews have a nasty habit of prospering under the toughest conditions, where others rely on victomhood to avoid any challenge. Futhermore, anti-semites use the naivity of acedamics, who need complex explinations to anything obvious, to legitimize their victomology.
For example, some people will make use circumstancial excuses to explain the existance of a a violent ideology, where others will use the violent ideology to explain the horriblecircumstance.
- Is there a general lack of freedom and prosperity in 58 muslim majority countries for 58 different reasons that have nothing to do with Islam?
- Do rich terrorists and poor terrorists kill for the same reason?
- Does the westearn world provide 90% of innovation while the Islamic world provides 0% innovation simply based on geographical reasons?
- Does the heavy dose of intolerance in the Quran have an impact on its followers?
You seem to think that blaiming Israel for Islamic ideology and holding Muslims to the lowest standards humanly possible is the key to peace (and by "peace" I mean ignoring tyranny). This is what 21st century anti-semetism is all about. This is what appeasment looks like.
"Steven, if you seem to think you stand up to jew-hatred with the same passion as arab-hatred on your blog, I think you are living in a different world. "
Firstly Jordan, to quote you, I don't think you, Bacon, ChooseDoubt, MadZionist, etc were having any difficulty standing up for yourselves. Secondly, I have challenged Bernanda. Thirdly, you call Israel a religious state when it suites your interests, and you call it a secular democracy when it suites your interests. Take your pick. If its secular, then you can't very well argue that attacking a secular state is the same as attacking a religious group. If its a religious society, then you can't argue its not a theocracy.
Moreover, your arguments about "jew scapegoating" are only a few isolated examples. Jews have been attacked THROUGHOUT history for a range of issues, including as you mention the black death, but also grand schemes like greed, and of course world domination through things like the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I do not argue, nor would I suggest, that there is not anti-semitism in the world and through history.
Where we differ is whether or not one concedes that critisizing Israel falls into the catagory of anti-semitism. I do not believe it does. Im sorry, but there is a difference between hating a religious or ethnic group, and opposing a foreign policy.
Moreover, you've misrepresented my opinions. I do not fully place the blame of militant Islam on Israel, but I do believe it has contributed to its own problems, fanned the flames, and in large part expanded militant Islam throughout the region. However, I would be the first to admit that there are MANY other factors which lead militant Islam to be the force it is today in the region.
You cannot create an exlcuded middle, wherein America and Israel have either played no role in militant Islam's expansion, or are entirely responsible for its expansion. Israel HAS MADE mistakes, and clearly, its recent war in Lebanon has led to the expansion of Hezbollah and the increase in its popularity throughout the region.
Even US authorities had admitted as such. TO my understanding, Israeli politicians are looking at this issue as well, as Iran donates (through hezbollah) to rebuild Lebanon. What will Israel do? Drop food packets maybe, but do little to rebuild what it has helped destroy.
Was that a racist statement by me Jordan? No it wasn't, so don't imply I'm racist for challenging Israel.
As for your last list of facts, I think what you, Sam Harris, Stardust, and a host of other atheist scholars on the subject miss, is that radical ideologies are socially constructed. You have to examine the societies and histories in which they emerged, and WHY people are attracted to radical politics, not simply evaluate radical ideas on face value.
Your girlfriend is Muslim, and for the life of me I don't understand why that doesn't establish for you that there are MANY Muslim men and women who do not fit the stereotype of violent jihadi.
Steven - "Where we differ is whether or not one concedes that critisizing Israel falls into the catagory of anti-semitism. I do not believe it does. Im sorry, but there is a difference between hating a religious or ethnic group, and opposing a foreign policy."
Critisizing Israel is not anti-semetic. Critizing Israel obsessively to the exclusion of all others while excusing the fascist police states who's sole purpose of existance is to destroy the tiny Jewish state IS anti-semetic.
Are you going to deny that you hold Israel to standards you would NEVER hold Arabs to?
And anyone who calls Israel a "theocratic state" has never been there. There are no religious police. There is no culture of male-supremecy... they have the gay pride parade for g-ds sake.
You want a definition of a Jew... sure, I will give you one: "The group of people that academics blame for the actions of others." Or perhaps "the only group of people who are not entitled to self-determination or defending its borders from Jihad"
Steven - " I do not fully place the blame of militant Islam on Israel, but I do believe it has contributed to its own problems, fanned the flames, and in large part expanded militant Islam throughout the region."
As a pro-Israeli Jew, should I apologize to the Coptic Christians for getting killed everytime they try to build a church? Or should I apologize to the Bahai for being beaten and improsoned when they are caught praying? (post-48 of course).
Even if I was to agree with you that Israelis are "fanning the flames" because they insist on defending itself from being driven into the sea or having their children suicide bombed, I will NEVER put the blame on Israel for the countless acts of Islamic terror against assorted infidels and especially, fellow Muslims. Sorry Steven, thats anti-semetic... whether you know it or not.
When are you going to admit that Thailand, Phillapines, Indonesia, Nigeria, Sudan and (insert muslims or infidel country here) has NOTHING to do with Jews?
Steven - "You cannot create an exlcuded middle, wherein America and Israel have either played no role in militant Islam's expansion, or are entirely responsible for its expansion"
America and Israel are responsible for 1000 years of Islamic expansion through the sword? Thats a cool trick.
Steven - "Israel HAS MADE mistakes, and clearly, its recent war in Lebanon has led to the expansion of Hezbollah and the increase in its popularity throughout the region."
"Expansion of Hezbollah"? Which Lebaonese blog have you been reading? Hezbollah has never been more isolated, and their leaders have never grovelled on national TV before. They are quitly giving up their weapons, Lebonese leaders are talking "peace treaties" with Israel... something that would have gotten them killed a few months ago. And g-d help anyone who flies a Hezbollah flag in the Christian part of Lebanon. Their "victory" dance died 5 minutes after the war ended, and no amount of Iranian cash handouts will bring back their former glory.
Steven - "Iran donates (through hezbollah) to rebuild Lebanon."
The 40% of Iranians starving, illeterate, opium addicted population must be thrilled with their governments genoricty. Thank g-d Iran does not have any earthquake hell holes that could have used that money.
Steven - "Was that a racist statement by me Jordan? No it wasn't, so don't imply I'm racist for challenging Israel."
I imply your a racist because you hold Arabs/Muslims to the lowest possible standards in human history. You excuse their behavior against others and themselves on Jews, Americans, and anyone else besides the people doing the actual terror.
Do you ever imagine a day when you will ask the Islamic world to treat women like human beings? Are the Jews responsible for their 1000 year old gender apartheid too?
Steven - " is that radical ideologies are socially constructed"
You mean, like the Quran?
Steven - "You have to examine the societies and histories in which they emerged, and WHY people are attracted to radical politics, not simply evaluate radical ideas on face value."
I know academics are hostile to obvious answers and prefer abstract ideas rather than the facts on the ground, but what exactly about 1000 years of Jihad based on explicit hatred outlined in the Quran do you find unnacceptable at face value? Perhaps the Jews, Christians, Bahai, Hindus, Budhists, and Pagans all did something to offend the gentle Jihadists. Or perhaps, its a group of people who read a violent book and carry out their g-d's explicit instructions.
Steven - "Your girlfriend is Muslim, and for the life of me I don't understand why that doesn't establish for you that there are MANY Muslim men and women who do not fit the stereotype of violent jihadi."
Why the hell do you think they left an upper-middle class life in Iran to work minimum wage jobs in Canada? For the poutine?
They left to get the hell away from those who use the Quran to terrorize women. They left so their children can escape a world with no hope. They left so they can live free amongst the infidels.
My girlfriend did not have the opportunity to try to "understand" the religious police that destroyed Persia. She just payed them off so she wouldn't be raped in prison... like every other Muslim in Iran.
I'm sure no one is reading this any more but I¡d never read the comments before and I noticed this from Steve:
"But frankly, I don't see why ChooseDoubt couldn't just hold his ground instead of running away. You have to have the stomach for politics, I'm sorry, but its a rough business."
Don't worry, I exist on a diet of pure curry. My stomach is strong. If I don't respond on some dicussions it's a combination of being busy, forgetting about the discussion, deciding to wait until I'm not drunk or stoned to answer (and then forgetting), and deciding that the conversation is going to go somewhere I've already been before and so opting to save myself the effort.
I don't really mind if I deserve whatever treatement I receive. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and even if it's unsulting torrid dribble I do try to consider that it may contain a valid point.