Posted on 06/20/2002 10:22:07 AM PDT by thatcher
Victory over Nazism and communism were imperative for freedom. And in the case of militant Islamic terrorism, the same spirit is required.
The First Principle is Moral Clarity.
Identify all terrorism as illegitimate. Terrorism is always evil. Nothing justifies terrorism. The deliberate and systematic assault on innocents is evil. The main weapon that terrorists use against the West is not bombs or guns, but moral obfuscation. They don't establish free societies. They don't establish governments that respect human rights. They establish dictatorships that trample human rights.
The Second Principle is Strategic Clarity
The foundations of the terror network must be eliminated to stop terroism, it is not enough to eliminate individual terroist. Root out the terror-supporting regimes.
The Third Principle is Imperative for Victory
The only way to defeat terrorism is actually to defeat it.
the root cause of the kind of systemic terrorism we confront today is totalitarianism, and in order to defeat totalitarianism we have to defeat the totalitarian regimes.
Agents of hostile foreign powers do not have the rights which the constition of America guarantees it's citizens.
I don't know how accurate the denial of terrorist acts by the Resistance was, I do know there was a lot of revenge taken on actual or claimed collaborators after liberation.
[Antidote: Freedom
With these three principles -- moral clarity, strategic clarity and the imperative for victory -- the defeat of terrorism is not as distant as many people think. Beyond that, if I had to point to the one thing that is needed in the Arab and Muslim world to ensure that the next century will be better than the last -- for them and for us -- it would be to promote democracy, a free press, debate and dissent. In the end, the only antidote to terrorism is the antidote to totalitarianism. It is freedom. It is what the American flag represents to me and to billions in the world. It is the key to securing not merely peace of mind, but peace between peoples.]
The very laws of Islam make it impossible to coexist with any other religion, or even any secular way of life.
Shari'a (Islamic law) is why none of the Moslem countries are democratic, because democracy is literally against the Islamic religion. Islam is not a religion, which can be separated from the state; it demands that the state laws be Shari'a laws. Shari'a forbids non-Muslims from having authority over Muslims.
The Shari'a determines Muslim behavior. Therefore a state for Muslims must implement this law. The Shari'a has never been collected and specified in a particular 'law book', the Shari'a is best understood as a shared opinion of the community, based on a literature that is extensive, but not necessarily coherent or authorized by any single body. This means that ultimately it gives totalitaric power to whom ever is ruling.
This in contrast to most current legal systems in the world, where the law is defined as systematic set of paragraphs and sections that is written down in what we call a law code. This code is normally written and authorized by a specific body, elected or otherwise: a legislative assembly. There fore basically everyone is playing by agreed upon and the same rules. Because the Shari'a does not have such a specific form, it is known as an uncodified law.
Where did I write that Jews and Christians don't generally get along as groups? Please don't misrepresent what I wrote.
With extraordinarily rare exceptions, this has occurred either in areas where the Muslims did not hold political power (as today in the US) or during a phase of comparative religious indifference. Invariably, such a phase has been followed by a "reform" which brought bigoted Moslems back to political power and a deterioration of the condition of non-Muslims.
Yes -- and you will note that the United States government prosecuted and punished him when his actions became known.
Your comments please on Jews, Christians, Moslems living together, worshipping as each pleases, with respect, in peace, working and playing together, and with peaceful and friendly discussions on each's religious history?
And paying taxes for secular local government?
Turkey is a westernized country, and enforces its laws as such. (The Turks, rather than destroy, absorbed much of the Byzantium culture, much like Rome did after conquering the Greeks.) Turkey is also the regional ally of Israel. It was under the Ottoman rule that the zionist movement started.
In Jordan, there are several court systems. The Muslims, Christians, and Jews all get their own system for intra-religious issues, and then they have a secular court system for inter-religious issues. (Ironically, the King of Jordan claims divine right to the throne as a descendent of Mohammed.)
Also note that Iraq is a secular country. Saddam only cries Jihad! when he thinks it will serve his intrests. Also, the Deputy PM of Iraq is a Christian.
"Sharia (Islamic law)"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Sharia+(Islamic+law)%22&spell=1
You gone?
We work with a Muslim CPA who describes Sharia law as an antique from cave dwellers. Or, as he says, a religion has no business establishing civil laws, nor any other laws as religion is God, not mortal interpretations d'jour. In his opinion, Islam must get away from legal business, political business, just as reformations in Europe painfully seperated the King from the Vatican.
Religions do evolve. Getting bogged down in history can be deceiving, especially after hundreds of years of translations, many by vested interests in retaining power.
Where what?
It sounds like you have some specific examples in mind.
Yes and Turkey must diligently keep and protect it's secular government against the Islamic onslaughts:
"The court said the main opposition party violated a law that prohibited religious activities that could undermine the secular government."
The Scarf Skirmishes
Both Turkey and Iran are Muslim "outsiders," belonging to the non-Arab part of Islam. It is interesting that as such, they also represent the two extremes in today's Muslem culture, fundamentalism and secularism.
It is not Ms. Kavakci's chic white suit with gold buttons that caused the problem. It is the white scarf that covers her head, coupled with ideas of freedom she developed while living in Texas.
FOREIGN DESK | June 23, 2001
Turkish Court Bans Religious Party, Main Opposition Force
By DOUGLAS FRANTZ (NYT) 774 words
Turkey's messy political system suffered another jolt today when the country's highest court banned the religious-oriented Virtue Party. The court sai...
(NY Times)
Turkish Court Bans Religious Party, Main Opposition Force
New York Times; New York, N.Y.; Jun 23, 2001; Douglas Frantz;
New York Times Company Jun 23, 2001
Turkey's messy political system suffered another jolt today when the country's highest court banned the religious-oriented Virtue Party. The court said the main opposition party violated a law that prohibited religious activities that could undermine the secular government.
The court stopped short of expelling large numbers of the party from Parliament, a move that would have automatically led to new elections because it would have left more than 5 percent of the Parliament seats vacant. The party controls 102 of the 550 seats. Most of the rest are split among the three governing parties.
The decision was announced after financial markets had closed here, but it seems highly likely to contribute to the turmoil that has seen the currency plunge, thousands of businesses close and 500,000 Turks lose their jobs since February.
Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit ruled out early elections, saying the country had to deal with its economic difficulties. ''An atmosphere of an early election does not exist in any way,'' Mr. Ecevit told reporters before the court announced its decision. ''We are trying to solve the problems accumulated over the years. Even mentioning early elections is out of the question.''
Closing the Virtue Party will alter the political equation at a time when Mr. Ecevit's three-party coalition already faces strains in its effort to restore economic stability and to carry out changes demanded by international agencies in exchange for $16 billion in loans.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court found that the party was a focus of ''Islamic and antisecular activities.'' Two members were expelled from Parliament, and five others were banned from politics for five years, which means they cannot join or form a party in that period.
Among the banned members of Parliament was Merve Kavakci, who caused a stir two years ago when she was denied permission to take the oath of office because she refused to remove her head scarf. Many conservative Turks view a head scarf as a symbol of Islamic piety. But the law bars civil servants and students from wearing them because of their religious connotations.
''It was decided by majority vote that the Virtue Party will be permanently closed for activities contrary to the principle of the secular republic,'' Chief Justice Mustafa Bumin told reporters in Ankara, where the decision was announced.
A large contingent of Virtue Party members threatened this week to resign if the party was closed. Most experts said the members would move to existing parties or form a new party. The Virtue Party's popularity has fallen in recent months, along with the popularity of the governing parties.
Oner Ayan, manager of emerging markets at Raymond James, the investment bank in New York, said the financial markets were quite unlikely to have a strong reaction unless a large number of party members resigned after the court decision, raising the prospect of elections.
The European Union, which is weighing Turkey's candidacy for membership, is widely expected to criticize the decision, even though it is legal to ban parties in Europe, and Germany is in the process of shutting down a neo-fascist organization.
In most cases, however, European parties are banned for advocating or participating in violence. The Virtue Party was closed for nonviolent activities more often defined as thought crimes.
''The Europeans tend to expect real violence or potential action among the reasons to ban a party,'' said Cagri Erhan, deputy director of European research at Ankara University.
The Virtue Party sprang full grown from the ashes of the Welfare Party, which became the country's most powerful Islamic-oriented party in 1996, when its leader, Necmettin Erbakan, became prime minister in a coalition government.
The coalition collapsed after a year in office under heavy pressure from the powerful military, which considers itself the guardian of the secular system. The military and opposition politicians argued that Mr. Erbakan had given crucial government jobs to people who supported Islamic law. After the Welfare Party was ousted from government, a court closed it, Mr. Erbakan was banned from politics for life, and most supporters made a smooth transition to the new Virtue Party.
This time, however, political Islam seems more fragmented. Former Mayor Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Istanbul, a former party member, has indicated that he will form a moderate Islamic party, though he is still banned from politics.
* Tatilimizin bir kısmını Türkiye'de gecirmekteyim. Bu süre icerisinde dış basından yazıları size aktaracagım. Saygılarımla.
Headscarf ignites Iran-Turkey row
[Turkey, which is officially secular, regards the wearing of the Muslim headscarf as a political, pro-Islamic statement and has banned them in public institutions.
Virtue Party ban
Ms Kavakci, a newly-elected woman Virtue Party deputy, re-ignited the debate over the place Islam holds in Turkey when she wore a Muslim headscarf in parliament.
She has refused to back down, with the full support of her party leader, Recai Kutan.
But Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit will not allow her to take her oath of office wearing a headscarf.
Turkey's chief prosecutor has already begun legal moves to ban the Virtue Party on the grounds that it is trying to overthrow the country's constitution by persisting with its support for Ms Kavakci.
This is the latest round in a long-running series of disputes between the two neighbouring countries, whose governments are ideologically at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Secularism was one of the main pillars of the modern Turkish state set up by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in the 1920s.]
You are correct, it's just too bad that the Islamic terrorist have not learned this. It's just too bad that the so called enlightened Muslims who are living here in America have not instituted any kind of out- reach program to their poor ignorant brethren living in less fortunate environments. It's just too bad that instead of Americans hearing overwhelming condemnation from American Muslims about what happened here on September eleventh 2001, instead , about every other day I get to here about their rights, rights that would not exist except for the overwhelming influence of the Judeo-Christian ethics which built and enlightened the world to ideas such as respect for one's neighbor and for their equal rights.
IMHO Enlightened Muslims of western civilization should be in the front line of the information and education war against the likes of the parents of these terrorist who not only encourage their children to martyrdom, but take money for their children's blood and guts. The enlightened know that no god is worthy of child sacrifice.
Until I see American Muslims implementing some kind of terrorist eliminating education system for their third world brethren, I will continue to believe that just as Arafat's minions and the ardent Egyptian Islamic press, and the Saudi Arabians, in their English statements speak against terrorism, while in their Arabic tongues they continue to scream for infidel (that's you and me, anyone who is not a muslem ) blood, so our American Muslims are continuing to aid and support the work to eliminate the infidels.
American Muslims seem much more interested in convincing the likes of me, who actually did lose friends in the attack on the WTC, who should really not have to be at all concerned about this matter, than convincing the real source of what they call misinformation, the terrorists themselves. The terrorist are the ones who are abusing the meaning of Islam, not someone like me. So please expend some effort on dealing with the source. But of course if American Muslims are not really interested in change, American Muslims wouldn't do that ... and so they aren't. So what's a person like me, who actually did lose friends in the attack on the WTC to believe, what they say , or what they do?
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.