Thursday, October 12, 2006

Fact Dodgers 'R 'Us

I've stumbled across a blog called Terrorism News that seems to be promoting the idea that terrorism is all the fault of the west and the Jews. I have taken particular interest in a discussion about the persecution of Muslims in the UK. I've already been warned simply for disagreeing with them so I thought some of my readers and fellow bloggers may enjoy entering the discussion and setting them straight.

So far they have come up with such gems as how non-Muslims can live with religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, how Jews are so well represented in Iran, and how Kurds lived so happily under Saddam. These fact dodgers deserve a little attention.

I suspect my comments will be deleted very shortly as they don't seem to like being challenged.

Update: Since they are threatening to delete my comments as "hate speech" I have decided to post my latest reply to the blogger known as _H_ here.

“I can assure you that you are simply coming across as a bigot. It is illegal for anyone to be found in a public place in the United Kingdom without having any money on them. The crime is vagrancy and the sentence is severe.... your point ? in the context of Muslims who live in the UK is ?”

You can call me a bigot if you wish. It does not alter the facts. If Saudi is not relevant to UK Muslims would you please explain how vagrancy is relevant? Or is this one rule for you and one for those that disagree with you? It doesn’t matter.

“People of many different religions live in Saudi Arabia and have done so for centuries. This article is not about Saudi Arabia. It is about the persecution of British Muslims. I will give you a chance to find your way back on topic and apply yourself to the comment rules. If you persist in your xenophobic rant then I will simply delete your hard work.”

People of many different religions are severely persecuted in Saudi Arabia, as in fact they are in absolutely every Muslim majority country and such persecution is defined in law within each and every one of those countries. You’re post makes one very large and unproven assumption and that is that Muslims in the UK are persecuted. Your justification for this assumption is the criticism levelled at Muslims in the UK. I am answering this by pointing out that criticism is valid as it is a fact that Islam is intolerant of other religions as it has been since Muhammad first attained some degree of power within his own life time. This is demonstrable within the historical records as it is within the Qur’an and ahadith.

“I don't see Muslims launching cruise missiles in to populated areas. I don't see Muslim clerics molesting young children... We could debate for weeks on the morality of western society in comparison to a Muslim society. But you fail to notice that your obsession and your narcissism is preventing you from remaining on the topic of this article.”

I don’t see them launching cruise missile either, but I have seen them launching Katyusha missiles into populated areas, packed with explosives and ball barings. Over 4000 of these missiles were launched during the recent war and even Amnesty International condemned Hizbullah for this behaviour and their actions of using forced human shields. But of course you will simply come back with how this was justified because of the evils of Israel. Good luck with that one when you decide to use it.

“I have worked in Saudi and right across the middle east.. please cease making foolish remarks by assuming that you alone have access to facts. You are living right on the borderline of courtesy ,decency and respect. Ironic considering that these are things you are desperate to attack others for but somehow you fail to notice the ignorance of such aspects within your own comments.”

I don’t assume I alone have access to the facts. You also have access to them, such as the link I previously posted. The difference is simply that I have made use of that access prior to forming an opinion. You having worked in Saudi does not change their law and neither does it discredit the thousands of reports by victims, international human rights organisations, religious organisations, independent witnesses and foreign governments regarding wide spread persecution of non-Muslims and the persecution against the Shi’a minority. My ignorance is irrelevant. Dispute my assertions with reference. If you can dispute the report I linked you to then I will be happy to come back to you with further evidence, but I very much doubt you have read it yet. It is not compatible with your opinion.

“I am aware of the political landscape of the middle east. We can all pick and choose which points to highlight... How about the Jews in the Iranian parliament ? How about the Kurds who lived happily in Baghdad during the time of Saddam ?”

I think you mean “Jew (singular) in the Iranian parliament”. You will find that information in the report I referred you to previously and you will also find it along with other interesting facts here:

With regards to the Kurds I have decided to invite Roya, a Kurdish blogger, to respond to you. She is extremely well informed on the subject.

“Why I wonder are you selecting Saudi Arabia as a model and not for example Israel.”

To demonstrate that Muslims are not innocent victims of persecution as you like to paint them as, but rather their entire history and present circumstance demonstrates a hard-line intolerance towards other faiths and cultures - a valid point for criticism. In the UK this is revealed by the Islamic assault on free speech and the demands to be treated differently under law. My argument is that Muslims are in fact guilty of incitement to hatred and not as you assume solely the victims of it. The foundation for this hatred is found throughout the Qur’an, which we shall come to in a moment, and is manifested in observable reality of Muslim treatment of and relationship with other faiths across the entire globe.

“Israel has no constitution, No Bill of Rights, No guarantees of free speech, No freedom of assembly and questionable due process in law. It is legally defined as a 'Jewish nation' with special privileges for 'Jews'. Anyone who wishes to argue that the Israel should be a nation with equal rights for all, and not a 'Jewish nation' are not allowed to hold office, or even run for election. It is impossible to acquire land or property in most areas unless you are Jewish, They torture ,use subversion and allow the detainment of suspects without trial. It also developed nuclear weapons behind the back of the world and refuses to even sign the NPT... So why not Israel ?”

I will be pleased to discuss Israel with you whenever you chose. But now it is you who is certainly straying off topic and I have already answered this question above. We can also discuss the USA if you wish, feel free to start a thread for both of the above.

“What makes you so high and mighty ? Apart from your misplaced ego that is.”

Ego is not relevant to the facts. I do not consider myself to be high and mighty but I am quite well read on this and many other relevant subjects including having studied Islamic history, the Qur’an, and ahadith. It is not ego that I suspect that I am far better informed than are you. It is experience and the numerous clues you provide in your statements that you really don’t know a great deal of what you are talking about.

“As for your source , your correct , I would not trust anything that came out of the US Department of State... Sorry , just a sign of the times. The US government has ceased to represent a source that can be trusted. I never used too feel that way.” - Human rights Watch report that explicitly states the following:

“Saudi Arabia
This year's State Department report accurately describes the situation in Saudi Arabia. It says: "Freedom of religion does not exist." Only the officially sanctioned version of Islam is permitted. The public practice of other religions is forbidden.
Though the Saudi government claims that people in the country are free to practice non-sanctioned religions privately in their homes, it often does not respect this right in practice. The Saudi religious police have continued to arrest and deport Christians for conducting private religious services. Saudi religious police continue to raid private homes where they suspect such services are taking place. They also continue to brutally enforce the country's overall policy of religious persecution, harassing, detaining, and beating people who they believe are straying from the officially sanctioned path.
Ironically, in terms of numbers, most victims of religious persecution in Saudi Arabia are Muslims. The Shi'a and Isma'ili Muslim communities suffer officially sanctioned political and economic discrimination. Even in Saudi Arabia's Eastern Province, where Shi'a Muslims constitute a majority of the population, virtually no Shi'as are allowed to serve in positions of authority in government, judicial or educational institutions.”

Knock yourself out. If you don’t like these let me know and I’ll post you hundreds more links that all confirm every word I have previously said.

“That much is clear though I am sure we would disagree on the reason. I tend to ignore off topic, xenophobic and narcissistic comments (I have simply read so many , usually from right wing Americans... ) and you have somehow decided that you do not have to apply to the site rules like every other reader and can instead dribble away about your opinions on Saudi Arabia.”

There are two reasons why I said “don’t argue with me, it’s a waste of your time”. The first is that I believe that instead of defending your opinion it would be more beneficial to you to research it first and save me the effort of having to correct you on everything and send you links which I have little confidence you will even read. The second is that if you research instead of argue I consider it likely that you will be faced by so many mutually corroboratory facts that you will be unlikely to maintain your current opinion and thus feel little desire to waste your time arguing it.

“This will be a single polite warning.”

If you don’t want to debate those that do not agree with you then delete my comments. Otherwise, the fact that you have a blog and are posting articles that invite comment I shall take as an invitation to debate your assertions. I will do so with reference and fact. If that is objectionable to you then it is a far greater statement regarding your arrogance than my own.

I consider that in discussing the persecution of Muslims in the UK, your unproven assumption, it is perfectly valid to use as evidence the relationship, both historical and current, between Islam and other faiths. This is relevant because I am first challenging your assumption of Muslim persecution in the UK and attempting to point out to you that Islam is historically intolerant of all other faiths and demands supremacy and unique rights. I therefore argue that what you call persecution is in fact valid criticism of Muslim demand for unique treatment both socially and under law and Muslim refusal to demonstrate tolerance of others beliefs. And before you say it, no I do not suggest that this includes all Muslims or that no case of persecution has occurred. However the conflict is an integral part of the religion and that is entirely relevant to your original article.

“I have zero tolerance of such ignorance.”

Demonstrate my ignorance.


Qur’an 2:256 is an abrogated verse. It has been abrogated by amongst others:

And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

9:73O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.

O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an).

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

You will also find numerous references in hadith regarding compulsion and historically you may wish to research Muhammad’s own actions when it came to conversion by the sword.

“I am no Muslim and I can easily find examples that show how Muhammad spoke of peace and understanding of other faiths.... I have also read many quotes from the quran that when taken out of context attempt to present a religion of hate.. We can do that with any religous text and I will not permit such attacks against Muslims or any other religion. As a fully signed up atheist I care little for debates on 'faith' but I care a great deal that people show respect for the worlds different religions.”

Yes he did speak of peace, but he changed his tune. A central concept of Islam is the principle of abrogation. The Qur’an is not written in a chronological order. In Islam that which Muhammad “revealed” later chronologically is said to abrogate earlier verse when there is overlap of subject matter. Even direct contradictions are taken to be clarifications. You will find that the vast majority regarding peace was either abrogated by later non-peaceful verses or within context is speaking solely with regards to Dar al-Islam and so is not applicable to relationships with non-Muslims. Feel free to do some research on that and ask some Imams. Again, I would be more than willing to debate this topic with you and the rest of your contributors.

“Debating selective parts from the quran is pointless ,ignorant and lacking in respect for the worlds one billion Muslims. I have no doubt that your above ramblings can clearly be defined as hate speech and it currently remains out of the (misplaced) hope that your will retract your attack against a billion people and show some respect to them.
I doubt that you will and there is a fair chance that my fellow moderator will judge your comments as being hate speech and will simply remove them.
If he does not .. be assured that you are wasting your time here.. you will not find any tolerance for your views and I would suggest that you do not type in anything that you do not expect to lose....”

So you are not a great fan of open debate then? If someone disagrees with you then it is regarded as hate speech. Before you delete my comments would you mind explaining to me exactly how anything I have said is hateful? I put it to you that you will delete my comments not because they are hateful, because they are not, but because you are insufficiently prepared for the discussion. My comments are simply statements regarding referencable facts, directly supported by evidence from Human Rights Watch, UN reports, governmental reports , Amnesty International and many other sources of evidence that report the same facts. But I guess you classify anything as hate speech that doesn’t support your existing opinion.

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.


Jez said...

For now, I will simply point out, that Israel does not equal 'the Jews'. Furthermore, I can point out, that Jews, and people of jewish origin (such as myself) do not necessarily identify with Israel.
Also, we are 'westerners' and therefore choose (at least I do) to address what we (I) know best. Furthermore, we try to point out the historical facts logically, ie. the fact, that western political entities have been engaged in colonialism and neo-colonialism (or imperialism) for over a hundred and fifty years, whereas Islam cannot be defined as a homogenous entity by any stretch of the immagination. Neither can Christianity, for that matter even if Christians (not all) have been engaged in violence for many centuries.
What I am getting at, is that war is of a political, nationalistic and patriotic nature rather than a religious nature, and that nationalism is far from being limited to people of muslim faith as you yourself seem to show through your comments.

chooseDoubt said...


You are right, Islam cannot be described as an homogoneous entity. However it can be accurately described as the motivation for 1400 years of conflict between Islamic groups and other groups and the driving force behind 1400 years of expansionism (which has been reversed by opposing forces at times) that is still occuring today and in fact once again accelerating.

Bacon Eating Atheist Jew said...

Jez, what did the 5 Arab Muslim countries have in common when they declared war on Israel in 1948?
Don't tell me they cared about the indigenous Arabs of the region. They proved they didn't right after they lost the war.
I'm not sure how you stand on colonialism, but it did lead to progress. Where would you rather live? The West or Saudi Arabia?
CD, Muslim apologists tend to forget how Muslim majority countries were formed.

chooseDoubt said...

"CD, Muslim apologists tend to forget how Muslim majority countries were formed."

And how they are ruled. This is really the whole point. Whenever someone speaks up against it they are instantly labelled as either a bigot, a racist, ignorant or all three simply for pointing out that there continues to be an extremely strong correlation between Islam and human rights abuse. It as though there is something immoral in objecting to the continuation and spread of such abuse.

Jez said...

During those 1400 years you talk about, assuming one can talk of 1400 years of continuous war (which I do not think one can), there were conflicts between christians and muslims, different christian and muslim 'sects', empires which defined themselves as christian and muslim...
As I have said, the reason for war is usually (if not always) political and nationalistic rather than religious. Religion is used as an excuse, and I would rejct religion on that basis if on no other.(so the idea, that I am a muslim apologist is downright
That the ARAB states didn't have the palestinian interests at heart doesn't change the above. At the time, several of the arab leaders were nationalist secularists as are several today. The resurgence of a fundamentalist islam is a recent development, which leads us to the question of colonialist legacy.
First of all, islamic colonialism. One usually talks of religious expansion which is something christianity and islam have in common and dates back several centuries.
Colonisation and imperialism is, again, political and nationalistic.
I would rather live in the West, because I am 'western' and as a white 'westerner' I am treated relatively well. However, I would no doubt not wish to live in as an Arab under foreign (ie. European) domination, however 'enlightened it thinks it is. I would not either wish to live under an arab dictatorship propped up by a foreign power, suc as under the Shah of Iran or under Saddam Hussein until 1991 to mention two examples.
I consider certain values to be true to the whole of humanity, but even assuming those values are what motivated european colonisation and imperialism (which they certainly did not), I do not think it is the right way to spread those values. Indeed, as we saw with the replacement of colonisation with neo-colonisation, it merely leads to resistance and more violence.
As for how 'muslim majority countries' were formed, I am not sure what you are getting at. How were 'christian majority countries' formed? By the expansion of religion (see above), surely.
The US (along with its western allies) sees its self as world cop. Life may be better for us in the West (though it ise debatable whether Arabs and other ethnic minorities are necessarily HAPPIER in the West than in their countries of origin), but western leaders don't export democracy to dictatorships unless it is in their interest (Germany, Japan vs. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia for example). And what is democratic about a 'jewish state'? Zionism didn't have to mean a jesish state. It could have meant settling alongside arabs in a land where Jews and Arabs had lived in relative peace until then. Problem is, zionist leaders as far back as Theodor Herzl (and just today I have finished a dissertation on two anti-zionist austrian jewish authors)had one thing in mind: ejecting the Arabs in favour of a jewish state.

CD, you may have studied muslim texts for four years, but that is not enough to understand reality of Islam and its inner and outer conflicts, since, as I have pointed out, those conflicts are usually of a political and nationalistic nature.

Jeremy said...

I think you should watch the docu on Doomsdayers on Terrorism News. True, it's a wee bit long and a wee bit tedious to watch at times (technical problems), but it shows the proximity to power these fanatics have. It's not really a conspiracy theory either, it's pretty well documented, even if I learnt a lot from this documentary. I don't know anybody who could deny today, that power is concentrated in the US and the west today. Given that, and given, that these fundamentalists (like fundamentalist muslims, perhaps, they distort the 'holy' scriptures) are close to political power in the US, I think they are somewhat more dangerous than islamic fundamentalists. No, I am not an apologist for any fundamentalism. I seek answers, not short cuts. Of course it's easy to say "look! those islamists are up to their terrorism again", without addressing recent historical (and present) western aggression of muslim/arab lands. Doomsdayers may not be directly involved in violence in the Middle East. Neither is Bush and neither is Bin Laden, though. They don't get their hands dirty. They send their armies. Doomsdayers, it would seem, support the violence while remaining respectable members of the community.
If you are an atheist combatting religious fanaticism and violence, take a look at the video, and talk about it.
We can talk about islamic fundamentalists, and denounce them, as I, for one, have done several times. We have a choice though: either we merely react to the visible violence in the world, and in particular in the ME, or we try to look for reasons, root causes, sensibly and not by generalising about a people, a faith, a nation or whatever. Power is in the hands of relatively few people.

chooseDoubt said...


I am having a busy day but will reply toyou later in full detail.

chooseDoubt said...


Whatever is wrong with other groups does not change the faults of any one group. I am firmly against all faiths and particularly all excesses within those faiths and I am also concerned about the rise of christianity. I will watch the video you have suggested with interest.

What I want to make clear though is that there is an incredible assumption being made with regards to religion, and especially Islam, that the religion itself is not a cause of conflict and an inspiration, motivation and justification of the "fanatacism" we are seeing played out. Even a small amount of research will confirm this assumption to be utterly wrong, regardless of other contributory factors that may add to the chaos. Poverty for example may aid recruitment, but poverty does not inspire a person to end his life with joy, as is the case by shahada. Yet none of the Muslims apologists seem prepared to listen to the shahides and other terrorists when they are all quite vocal and clear when stating their inspiration, motivation and justification and it is always Islam. Furthermore, they are not mistaken. They are not inventing Quranic verse or ahadith.

What I object to with the Terrorism News approach is the denial even of the validity of investigating the contribution made by the ideology to the conflict. This denial is brain dead and entirely vacuous and utterly invalidates any further investigation. It declares a dedication to ignoring relevant data. I have been labelled as racist, xenophobic and a bigot simply for questioning the assumptions upon which they have already formed an imutable opinion and I object to this because I am absolutely certain that they understand and have knowledge of almost none of the religion. Despite the fact that I am able and willing to present relevant evidence the debate is denied and anybody that is not willing to debate their assumptions or even recognise them is absolutely not willing to explore a topic with any degree of honesty. Shame on them for this.

I shall watch the video and I look forward to an open conversation with you and I hope that we can both agree that absolutely every aspect of that conversation and every assumption upon which either of us base our observations are equally open to clarrification, questioning and debate.


Jez said...

not sure how 'jez' got turned into 'jeremy'.

You see your main problem is, that you label people who do not wish to generalise about Islam "muslim apologists". That, and calling muslims "your fellow muslims" just shows how little you value honest and ration investigation.

We are for investigation, if it is honest and rational and not made up of genaralisations and fallacies which come accross as bigoted or xenophobic (see the above quotes).

None of us, as far as I know have justified any acts of terror, be they islamic or state terror. We believe, and have backed up our belief with evidence, that western intervention is the main cause of the resurgence in islamic fundamentalist violence.

Quoting muslim 'holy' scriptures does nothing to prove, that muslims are inherently violent. It may prove, that Islam is originally a violent religion (though I am not even sure of that), but that does not explain western colonisation and intervention in muslim lands. Any rational person, I believe, would agree, that colonisation came about because of the thirst for access to natural ressources. You have failed to address the responsibility of colonialism and neo-colonialism. Again, quoting 'holy' scritptures is not enough to explain wars, which are political and nationalistic in nature.

chooseDoubt said...


Jez didn't get turned into Jeremy. If you took the time to read above you may notice that someone who used the name Jeremy also posted and I was replying to him.

I label people Muslim apologists who fall into the group of those that refuse discussion about Islam yet are perfectly content to determine that the violence and conflict within and extending from Islamic groups is entirely the fault of Western civilization. I believe it is an accurate classification and easily understood by others that are also familiar the creed of ignorance you and your colleagues have so adequately demonstrated during this discussion.

As for "your fellow muslims", I do not find that phrase anywhere within the discussion we have had on either of our blogs. Out of context I also do not see any reason for contention. Please provide a reference.

I’ll be very happy to discuss colonialism and neo-colonialism with you or anybody else once but I shall do so here on my blog where I am not subject to you’re the obvious hypocrisy of the application of your comments rules and your limited definition of hate speech based on your desire to restrict comment to only that which agrees with your dubious opinion.

I have also posted a response to you and your colleagues as an article here.

Jez said...

Jeremy's message was Jez...maybe I mistakenly wrote Jeremy...
I must apologise, the quote about 'fellow muslims' was indeed not yours.
However, if you read what we write, I am sure you will find, that we have never justified any terrorism and indeed oppose all acts of terror. We do, however (and I think on this I can speak on behalf of my 'colleagues') believe, that the current resurgence of islamic fundamentalist terrorism is a direct result of western intervention. While fundamentalists such as Bin Laden no doubt justify their acts by the Quran, the great majority of the world's muslims do not share his views. Furthermore, Bin Laden is a product of Soviet and US intervention in Afghanistan. The idea, that the US intended to save Afghanistan from Communism by supporting ruthless afghan militias is a joke at best. Its intentions was to safeguard its own interests in the region as it has done for over a century.
What i believe, is, that the message of the Quran is neither here nor there. I am an agnostic (maybe even an atheist) and have a distrust of all religions. However, I also distrust fanatic secularists, as I recognise the right of all to practise their faith peacefuly, which is what the majority of muslims do. As I have said, 'holy' scriptures are interpreted differently by different people even (and especially) by those within the faith. Whether they are right to do so or not in your opinion, has no bearing on reality. The reality is, that the kind of fundamentalist islam we see today in terrorist attacks, whether we agree with it or not, is a response to western intervention. It is true of Bin Laden, and it is certainly true of his 'foot soldiers' such as the perpetrators of the London bomings. It is even more true of Palestinian suicide bombers who have spent their lives under the direct oppression of Israel.
Finally, if you compare the numbers of citizens of muslim countries murdered by state terror (not all muslims) with those of western countries murdered by islamic terrorists (including muslims), and even if you were to add to the latter the victims of non-islamic terror (IRA, Corsican, Basque, Neo Nazi...), I am quite sure you will find state terror to be more effective than islamic (or other) terror. Given, that nowadays western state terror is usually conducted in the name of 'good vs. evil' or in the name of zionism, one could come to the conclusion, that christianity and judaism are violent religions. I would not come to that conclusion, as I am aware, that religion is the excuse of nationalistic war mongerers.

jhrhv said...

Personally I don’t agree that most of the fighting in the ME is about borders. I think there is at least as much if not more proof if you include the past that would show wars being about religious expansion both by Christians and Muslims.

Its also quite possible that the rise in radical Islam is due to people like OBL putting up masses of cash as do many other Saudis to operate radical mosques, there by indoctrinating masses of new soldiers for their meat grinder. There is of course the issue they often go on about in Islamic nations of not being properly respected I personally don’t get that. Just as I don’t understand the Arab honour system they obviously don’t understand that the west does not respect suicide bombing as a way of gaining respect or starting negotiations. There is also of course the many years of the Jews are evil America is the great Satan teachings. This leads to the we are fantastic on the side of Allah mentality and you not having food is because of those evil infidels raping and pillaging our natural resources. Just to try and keep it short single product economy after 50 years of sitting on a cash cow kind of stupid.

Blaming the U.S. for build up OBL is simplified as well. Other than leaving them with the feeling of we just beat Russia and are strong. I don’t know how much more of what happened in Afghanistan you can blame on the U.S. other than they left a vacuum there where the Russian government was which made it easy for OBL to setup indoctrination U.

Stating that because Islamic terrorists are not effective as those fighting back against them somehow makes them the victim is an old ruse. The fact that Islam is not killing more infidels is certainly not for lack of trying.

To be quite honest if the west wasn’t being as hard line toward Islam as it has been the last couple of years. There is little doubt there would have been more attacks on western targets. Currently many expect they are playing the waiting game in the hope that some wuss will in 08 in the U.S. and that other nations like the U.K. will do the same that is vote in some wet noodle. Bush might be dumb as a sack of hammers but he doesn’t seem to have issues with fighting a war and bombing the crap out of anyone he is told is a threat. Even though many Muslims are brainwashed from birth to blow themselves up the leaders don’t want their palaces bombed.

As soon as the hard line attitude is diminished and the appeasement game starts again the clock will be ticking.

Roya said...

CD, I thought Halabja and the Anfal campaign is good to start with.

Roya said...

Here is another one.

The Arab world stayed silent as they are silent about Sudan. It's OK for Muslims to kill people, even if they are innocent people but if one of their own dies in the hands of a STRANGER that is a non-muslims, the entire world of non-moslims is a target.

Jeremy said...


You may not be able to understand arab honour code. Neither do I. I don't understand any honour code, be it arab, muslim, christian, aristocratic or whatever. Nationalism too is a form of honour code. an interesting book/post/article on nationalism as the main source of terror can be found here:

As I have said, I believe religion is and probably always has been the excuse for nationalistic wars. I, like the owner of this site, am atheist (or at the very least agnostic). I don't believe god created man, but rather, that man created god to serve his interests. These interests are expansion and power. This goes for crusades, colonialism, fundamentalism. Religious leaders seek power. This should not mean, however, that the majority of the followers of a faith have war on their mind. I, as a humanist, can not understand how religion can be anything but dogmatic, yet I realise, that most believers are indeed not dogmatic. While I believe, that in the long term less religion is the way forward, in the present, I would encourage those who believe to practise their religion peacefully and without dogmatism. These people should therefore be allowed to practise their religion thus, without being ostracised and demonised. Doing so, only creates resentment.

You may think the 'war on terror' has meant less violence, but it is not what many observers, including western military leaders in Iraq believe. Many claim Us/British intervention in Iraq has made us more vulnerable to attack. And what of the Iraqis who are dying in far huger numbers now than under the dictatorial reign of the secular (anti-islamist) Saddam Hussein?

The fact, that the West is more effective at terrorising innocent people, shows it has more power. As I have alluded to above, many competent observers are of the opinion, that terror breeds terror. As is obvious to most rational thinkers, the purpose of colonialism and neo-colonialism isn't to bring democracy unless it suits the imperialist aspirations of the (neo-) colonial power. The West invented modern terror during the colonial era, with repression and torture. It continues to use terror in that way, either indirectly in friendly dictatorships or directly in places like Abu Graib or Guantanamo.
As I have already mentioned, islamic terror as we know it today is a recent phenomenon. After the independence of arab lands, most arab political leaders and dictators were nationalists and secularists (Saddam Hussein, Nasser, the Shah...). Even the wahabite Kingdom of Saudi Arabia represses fundamentalist islamists. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, thefoot soldiers of fundamentalist islam are 'normal citizens' living either under oppression or in racist countries all the while seeing the suffering of their co-religionists. We may not be able to understand why a British-Asian muslim feels so strongly about the suffering of a palestinian (arab) muslim. But then, we are not subjected to abuse on an almost daily basis as a result of the colour of our skin or our spirtitual beliefs.
So, the ones with the most power to bring an end to terror, are those who have initiated it, and especially who are the mightiest.

jhrhv said...

I read this article today on honour you may find it interesting.

Using terms like safer and less violence not sure exactly what to think of that comment. Its hard to say you are safer or there is less violence while at war. I think the point I was making is that weaker leaders in the west would probably lead to more attacks on the west now. The possibly perpetual war on terror could as they say go on for decades.

I also don’t doubt that there are many recruiting tools for Islamic terrorists. Which is most effective I don’t know. But British-Asian Muslims almost certainly are the result of influence of radical religious beliefs being taught in the mosque right at home far from oppression and mostly living rather privileged lives.

Also again my opinion, when you are raised in someplace like Gaza the examples you get brought up with on the street (squalor) on television (being taught Jews are evil and want your blood to make bread) with religion (being taught martyrdom is the holiest thing). Then seeing families of martyrs and prisoners getting front of the line access to money etc etc etc pretty much indoctrinates you to thinking hate as the best way of life.

Terror breads terror is pretty much the same as saying an attack gets a counter attack. A good Christian might say turn the other cheek but I don’t know that wishful thinking makes good politics. For several decades past we saw terrorism against Israel, America and England from various sources which largely went unanswered. Part of what we are seeing today is that Karma is a bitch. There is a big difference between supporting the ethics of the west and those of the terrorists.

Given the option of supporting regimes that put having a nuke or other arms above feeding the people I’ll stick with the government I have. It isn’t perfect but I don’t have to cook the bark off a tree while my imperious leader rides around in his silver plated Audi.

Jez said...

what does 'weaker' mean? Do you have to be dumb to be strong? UK and US military leaders are telling us things have got worse, not better since the invasion and subsequent and continuing war in Iraq.

How do you expect Palestinians to live, given they have no state? They have been stateless ever since they were exiled within their land by the creation of a jewish, ie. religious, state in the land they had lived in for centuries alongside jews. It should be pointed out, that neither 'Arab' nor 'Palestinian' are religious or ethnic definitions. 'Jew' is a religious definition, since only one whose mother is a Jew can be considered a Jew (and in the Israeli constitution, an Israeli), unless they convert to Judaism according to strict rules.

As for 'your government', I would suggest you take a closer look at the 'imperious' and terrorist leaders it has supported and continues to support. Think El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia...

jhrhv said...

Weak would be someone who or some entity that thinks the carrot and stick act is going to get them anywhere when dealing with people like Amadinewarmongeringnutjobajad. Iraq might not be going the way the U.S wants it to, yet there is no denying that every nation or terrorist entity now knows that attacking America has an extreme price tag attached to it. Don’t be surprised either if America still manages to help the Iraqis turn Iraq around and helps it to become a great nation.

How do you expect Palestinians to live” Like any reasonable people. Focus on things like building an economy and living peacefully. Brainwashing your populace by teaching things like Mien Kampf in school isn’t doing anyone any good.

Israel started off on equal footing with the Arabs of Palestine. Israel has turned into by following the western ideology a world leading nation. The Palestinians have created for themselves a pretty much welfare state following an ideology of tribal and religious dogma.

South and North Korea started off on equal footing at the end of the war between each other. Another prime and recent example of following the democratic example compared to the communist alternative.