The wretched of the earth
Notice who showed up to hear the stemwinders at the big radical Muslim confab in London the other day. Says the NYT: The conference was dedicated to the return of the Khilafah, or caliphate, the organization of Muslim power that...
"Meanwhile, I see that Rep. Tancredo has stepped into the pile of doo that Rich Lowry and I dipped our toes into a few years ago: bombing (if not nuking) Mecca."
Ah, I see you read my comments before you delete them! ;^)
Jesus doesn't like it when you nuke people.
What would we have thought if, at the height of "the troubles" in Belfast, the British Prime Minister suggested that any future IRA terror acts would be answered by a nuclear strike at the Vatican?
That the Brits were either insane or evil, most likely. And that would be a pretty fair assessment.
I don't know if you have been following this, Rod, but there is an interesting forum on Islam that was co-sponsored by the Washington Post:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/projects/muslimsspeakout/index.html
There are a lot of angry posters commenting in response to the articles on this forum, and those angry posters include both Muslims and non-Muslims (of whatever variety). I tried to engage directly with some of the Muslim posters about whether they believe Islam ought to be relegated to "the personal and private sphere" and whether they supported separation of Church and State.
I think it is easy to lose ourselves in anger, and harder to engage in constructive dialogue. Obviously, I don't think remarks such as Tancredo's are good for dialogue.
Not terribly different from our attacking Iraq because of 9/11, is it?
Getting straight answers from Western Muslims leaders about their intensions for Western society is very hard to do.
Ed - It wouldn't be terribly different if 9/11 were actually the reason the U.S. attacked Iraq. But I do remember a HUGE debate about weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, and disregarded UN resolutions. You may not agree these reasons justified attacking Iraq, but 9/11 wasn't the reason given by the advocates for the war.
Following on your post, Eric, I think the intentions of the attendees at "Khilafah: The Need and the Method" are fairly clear, and do not seem at all benign to me.
I wonder if part of the difficulty of getting straight answers is that we don't want to listen to the Islamists who, for the most part, seem pretty up front about what they want. On the other hand, some of the moderate Muslim leaders appear to be genuine apologists for radical Islam, while others appear (to me) to be on the defensive because they feel their religion is being attacked.
My hope is that we can make common cause with the second category of Muslim moderate, but I don't think common cause can be made with people who appear to be obfuscating and outright lying.
Alicia - Agreed. When I said that getting answers is difficult, I meant getting answers from them when the media ask them direct questions in public forums. It's easier when radical Muslims get together and think what they say isn't going to make it to the outside world.
"But I do remember a HUGE debate about weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations, and disregarded UN resolutions."
Or you talking about Iraq or Israel? Those criteria apply to both, although Israel's WMD are easier to find.
Bill - No, we were talking about Iraq. That was the subject Ed brought up.
I think you are right about that, Eric, and I would add that the difficulty with getting straight answers to direct questions appears to extend to the Muslim speakers I have directly encountered, either at my church, or on-line. To put it simply, I feel that direct answers are rare, and obfuscation and "talking out of both sides of one's mouth" seems to be all to common.
This does not seem to be the case with individual Muslims so much as with those who are trying to do PR. The sense I get is that the waffling has to do with not wanting to tell Westerners what they think we don't want to hear. There are also fictions promoted by, for instance, Saudi Arabia, about how Islam spread peacefully. I've had liberals members of my church get angry at me for pointing out that this is a lie.
"Meanwhile, I see that Rep. Tancredo has stepped into the pile of doo that Rich Lowry and I dipped our toes into a few years ago: bombing (if not nuking) Mecca. He's for keeping it on the table as a threat to deter Muslim loonies from nuking an American city."
This is what I was referring to in my comment on 9/11: that if you are attacked, you attack someone else as punishment. In any case, I don't believe the Islamic terrorists even care about Mecca, but would use it as a rallying cry to enrage a billion Muslims. As I've said before, whose side is Tancredo on, anyway?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.