Posted on 09/11/2001 4:07:58 PM PDT by Illbay
A perfect description of the Islamic militants.
That's one interpretation. An outsider to Christianity might not understand that the Biblical injunction to stone adulterers, disrespectful children and homosexuals holds no bearing, as Christians live under the new covenenant. An outsider might also not understand how Southern Baptists and Catholics worship the same God from the same book, and yet differ so greatly.
I condemn any who would violate your rights or mine to life or faith.
But Islam does not do that.
And what is Constitutionalism? If you're referring to the half-informed drivel that typically gets pedalled at FR by self-styled Constitutional Experts (usually libertarian), then there's no need to feel ashamed for disagreeing with it or even laughing out loud at it. It's comic book constitutionalism.
On the other hand, a lack of respect for or understanding of the Constitution--the genuine article unadulterated by personal conceits, appetites, and quirks--is something for which any adult American ought to feel ashamed.
One of the most succint descriptions of what is wrong with PC thinking I've ever seen. I remember arguing with a liberal aquaintance that tolerance was not a universal good and that some things can not be tolerated, that all beliefs are not equal. A lot of people don't get it anymore.
Perhaps through Osama Bin Laden and the fundamentalists Satan himself is attempting to destroy Islam and the Middle East.
Well, thank you Kevin, for a well reasoned statement. When I see Freepers I like and respect ready to toss overboard the Constititution and principles on which this country was founded when the ship hits rough waters, you and I should both be concerned.
Agreed. I'll warrant that that is the last thing Osama expects, because of our well-publicised reluctance to commit any kind of ground forces to the attack on Serbia. But then his people didn't anticipate the fact that American civilians would have the courage to crash their own plane in order to prevent a terrorist strike.
I do not agree with the author's implicit contention that we must go through Pakistan. Why not do a joint operation with the Russians? Afterwards, let them govern it as a protectorate -- just our way of apologising for aiding the Mujahadeen in the first place.
No one here opposes Constitutionalism, least of all me. You should quit raising these stupid straw man arguments.
The issue here is how as free people we should go about identifing the potential mass killers within our own borders. I believe the best way to do this is by bringing all Muslims of Arabic descent who are also non-citizens under systematic scrutiny. This approach would not violate the rights of any American.
But calls for retaliation against radical Islam are perfectly appropriate. Yes, I understand that the two are not the same, because I am not an idiot.
I think perhaps there needs to be a paradigm shift wherein people realize that what we are dealing with here are two religions, not just one. The first religion, mainstream Islam, is essentially harmless for all I know.
But there is a second religion, sprung out of and loosely associated with Islam, which is almost purely murderous and barbarous. I would suggest that it is a new religion, based on what appears to be an extreme notion of "purity" (immoral infidel Westerners must be killed) as well as an idolatry of suicide martyrs (if you die doing so you will go to heaven and be with Allah). It has only a superficial relation to mainstream Islam, in that they read the same book. Christians and Jews, too, read the same book - the Bible/Old Testament - but we have no problem whatsoever comprehending that they are different religions. The same ought to become true of Islam vs. Radical Islam.
Now, I don't pretend to understand this new religion fully, but I do know that it is the enemy of civilization and that it is evil. It is just unfortunate that they too refer to themselves as "Muslims" because this is what causes the slander of millions of innocent people, through guilt by association. I think we need to think of a new name by which to call Osama and the like. "Radical Islam" just doesn't quite cut it because no one hears the word "radical"; if I say "radical Islam needs to be stopped" then PC-types get all offended and perhaps mainstream peaceful Muslims will become scared I am talking about them, which I most certainly am not.
I recall one poster suggesting that we declare war against, for lack of a better more precise term, The Nation of Terrorism. Perhaps "Terrorism" is as good a name as any other for this (relatively) new religion. Except, the problem there is if we use that term, no one will realize that by the word "terrorism" we mean more than an action, we mean an entire cult/religion/ideology. The full connotation will simply not come through.
A traditional resolution to this type of naming problem, I believe, is to identify a movement with its most charismatic or well-known practitioner and leader. At this point, that person seems to be Osama.
I propose therefore that we call this religion, a type of suicide-bombing radical extreme offshoot of Islam, "Osamism". These people are Osamists and they belong to the Nation of Osamia and practice the religion of Osamism. And, so forth.
And yes, I do propose that we retaliate against people who are Osamists. I am making a negative reference to people strictly because of their religion, Osamism. In fact I believe that all Osamists ought to be wiped from the face of the earth.
I hope that peaceful Muslims will now realize that I am not talking about them when I say this. But either way I will not apologize for it. Best,
Perhaps through Osama Bin Laden and the fundamentalists Satan himself is attempting to destroy Islam and the Middle East.
You're delusional.
Vladimir Putin compared the attack on America to the Holocaust. The head of the former "Great Satan" feels that America has been violated, severely!
When the Mullahs condemn BinLaden and prostrate themselves in the streets, I'll believe their protestations.
Satan is USING the radicals, friend.
Don't hold your breath. That will never happen.
Although I do not have all the facts about Tuesday's attacks, the preponderance of evidence certainly seems to point towards Osama, or at least towards Islamic fundamentalists of unspecified affiliation. At this point, I would have to say that Islamic fundamentalists are THE enemy of mankind and it doesn't really matter by which acronym they are known.
If you are referring to the possibility of non-Islamic involvement, the only way I could see that entering into the picture is if some foreign intelligence sources had crucial information which they chose not to disclose to us. If these un-named parties did conceal information because the provocation of an international crisis was in their best interest, then they are certainly guilty of being accomplices to a war crime. But that is almost after the fact. The prime culprits are those who did the deed, not those who might benefit from it.
Governments have a long history of deceiving their populations in order to create a frenzy for war. This seems to be especially true in the Anglo-American Sprachraum. I do not believe that it is true in this case, however.
I have been using that phrase, "clash of civilizations," ever since the attack, and I had not heard of Huntington or his book.
In any case, I believe he is correct. My hope is that the conflict will recall the West to its own roots and make our civilization worthy not just of salvation, but of celebration.
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.