Posted on 04/09/2003 6:31:03 PM PDT by The Lake City Gar
I've been going through posts all day today and have been absolutely overjoyed. It seems as if we're finially making in-roads on preventing another 9-11 or worse. I wish I could bookmark this entire day...This place has it ALL covered, it should be used as a History lesson in years to come...The American Internet at it's FINEST!
But I just thought of something...
Where is the "Nuke Mecca" crowd? The "The only good muslim is a dead muslim" crowd? The "Islam is a death cult" crowd? The "Intern all Arabs" crowd? The "Islam is a religion of peace" crowd?
I've had a few run-ins with these people over the past few months. I've tried to make the obvious case that not ALL 1.6 billion muslims in the world are blood thirsty animals. And I've been called everything from a muslim to a communist to a democrat to a traitor. I've taken a beating for standing up against what I saw as bigotry...And many others have gone through the same.
But today we saw muslims handing flowers to our troops, kissing pictures of President Bush and waiving American Flags.
Is this just an act? Are they trying to lull us into a false sense of security while they are plotting to kill every last one of us in the name of their "Moon God"? Or are many of them simply held against their will by brutal dictators and/or religious fanatics who have warped their muslim ideals and ways?
I choose to believe it's the latter. And I hope the above mentioned crowds are gone for good.
I should have been more clear I suppose.. My focus was mainly on the title, but most of the first paragraph was what caught my eye.
Specifically:
Of course.
I didn't paint anyone with a broad brush however, there is a crowd (who shall remain nameless) that offer up nukes and oppression for every real or perceived problem that's deemed to be (broadly) "Muslim" in nature.
I can't count how many times I have seen these sentiments expressed as a one line rant here. I know some of it is just blowing off steam, people are outraged and I can appreciate that.. but some of these people are very series. They go to great length in an effort to justify this kind of thing, have given it a great deal of thought, and I have no reason not to take them at their word.
Exactly. It is heartwarming.. I loved seeing them drag Saddam's "head" around town like they did. It's great.
-- My suggestion is that if you see a thread that illustrates some point you've been trying to make in an ongoing debate with some particular poster, flag them to it..
No, no.. I didn't flag the "Nuke Mecca" crowd here. I didn't even flag anyone here to debate. I left them out of it, their minds are made up and I don't think there's any changing them.
On the contrary, I only flagged people of like mind ("Valis" was a mistake though, I don't know where he stands. I meant to flag "Valin") because they were right.
What we saw yesterday would have never happened if the "Nuke Mecca" bunch had their way. Giving Iraq a glass landscape would not have resulted in the celebration we witnessed.
The much maligned, "cooler heads" prevailed where the "nuke em'" guy's would not.
Muslims of any kind and variety and that includes American born - need to be managed/controlled/expelled/questioned etc. Muslims are like Communists - if they are preaching violent overthrow of the government they should be monitored. If they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy - they should be arrested and duly prosecuted and incapacitated.
IN times of peril such as they are do we need strong and effective laws to do these things? YES!
I don't know what was wrong with my original comments but maybe that one was better.
Well, I think that you're overreacting to hyperbolic bluster, and understimating the intrinsic problem with Islam. Frankly, the politically correct, "Islam means peace" line is a greater danger to the country than someone barking "nuke mecca" just to yank some oversensitive chains. Much of the dialogue on FR is in the vein of a bull session, and should be taken with a grain of salt. I've got a friend who's a rare conservative public school teacher, and he told me of a like-minded regular substitute who drops jaws in the teachers' lounge any time Iraq is discussed by chanting the slogan, "kick their ass, take their gas!" The gag is all the more amusing when those who don't get it are all bent out of shape.
In similar fashion, there are many in this forum who waste no time in presuming that a dim view of Islam as a religion/ideology/culture implies a desire for a Muslim holocaust. It's a strawman, an evasion to avoid dealing with some difficult truths about the Clash of Civilizations in which we find ourselves.
For example, the "nuke Mecca crowd" isn't as you described it, nor is it as silently absent as you claimed, yet it seems to me that you've spent more of this thread trying to justify its very shaky premises, than you have in dealing with the posts from a variety of Freepers that quite reasonably explain why the rose-colored view of Islam isn't universally shared.
No...I'm not.
And I can't belive I'm having to explain this...
Did you NOT read post number 15? Of course you did.
Have you not seen the other numerous examples of bigotry permiating this site? Of course you have.
Again, there have been numerous posts to you, not by myself alone, that your characterizations of the so-called "nuke Mecca crowd" are in error. You have also diligently avoided addressing a number of genuine problems with Islam. A lot of the posters struck me as yanking your chain, knowing it was easy to get under your skin in that way (your headline and post at the top of the thread gave a lot away). A sense of humor can sometimes be a better response than sanctimony.
i am decidedly not of the "Nuke Mecca" crowd. At least not with sufficient provocation. The Nuclear use doctrine of the United States is clearly defined, and has been for years. While i may not be literally accurate, it can be summed up as follows:
1) A nation uses WMD against American property, land or people.
2) Use of nuclear weapons prevent excessive loss of life on the part of both an enemy, and American military, (e.g. Japan, WWII).
3) The deterrent value is necessary to prevent a power from using force against the United States (e.g. possible Soviet attack on NATO during the cold war)
At present, NONE of the above condidtions have been met. At the present time, none of the criteria are met.
Should one of the criteria are met in our future, then i would advocate the use of Nuclear weapons against identified offenders.
i have serious reservations about the treatment of those persons already in our country legally. It is a truism that the rights that our nation conferrs on individuals within the borders of the United States are not based on their citizenship status. Rather, those rights, which according to the Declaration of Independence are given on the basis of our humanity.
While we do have complete control of who may enter our country legally, we cannot deprive them of the rights that are derived from their humanity. Certainly, other Constitutional Rights are defined as requiring certain criteria, but most are not.
While the Constitution makes provision for extraordinary situations such as war, insurrection, and rebellion, it remains the Supreme law of the land under all of those situations. Historical precident does not change that fact. For example, many of Lincoln's actions during the Civil are and were recognised as Unconstitutional, and therefore void.
If a resident, citizen or not commits a crime, he or she should be subject to the penalties of the law of the land. Similarly, one who has been law abiding should not be subjected to penalties for crimes that they may or may not committ. So i oppose blanket deportation.
Sabes, you seem to be taking the president's use of the phrase "Islam means peace" quite literally. Yet, you seem to offer the nonliteral translation for "nuke mecca" crowd -- offering provisos.
IMO, a president who says "Islam is peace" as he simulataously goes around the globe fighting radical Islam, does not mean to misrepresent the current state of Islam.
I believe the presidents intentions are to destroy radical Islam and to promote a reformed Islam.
IMO, a person who goes around barking "nuke mecca" is more dangerous than somebody who goes around saying "Islam means peace" as he simultaneouly attempts to physically remove the radical Islamists from this planet.
I think he would agree. I don't, because I am of the opinion that if it is reformed to the point where it is genuinely peaceful, it will no longer be Islam. The Koran is a bloody, delusional screed, written by Mohammed to justify his conquests.
Fair enough. Where we disagree is on whom we take seriously. I generally don't believe the "nuke Mecca crowd" is as crazy as has been characterized; I think what we're reading is mainly trash-talking bluster, though they correctly identify Islam as an intransigent foe. In any event, they're powerless.
OTH, those of the "Islam means peace" persuasion do not accept the "Clash of Civilizations" model for the conflict in which we find ourselves, and hold great sway in this Administration. While I have no major complaints with how the War on Terror has been conducted thus far, "Islam means peace" may prove to be problematic as events unfold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.