- Jun 23, 2004
Excellent post. W/o bin laden, Bush would have just faded from view as another unremarkable president. Now he'll go down as a president who did "something"-right or wrong, he did "something". Agree also on bin laden- undeserved limelight. Draconian repression of women (bin ladens & many others, in his part of the world, "ideal" society) is unsustainable. Agree on assimilation too. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."limerickman said:I see the Daily Mail carries news that Howard, who's real name is Michul Hecht, admitted that his Romainian Jewish father, may have been an illegal
immigrant to Britian !
That's an aside (I thought the DM was a Tory paper ?).
This is a complex issue - is Judaism a race or a religion, or both ?
The Labour party wanted to draft posters of pigs flying and the Tories complained that this was being racist against Howard.
Howard, on the other hand says that he wants to clamp down on immigration.
To be honest, I think they're both playing the racist card - and both sets want to appear to be tough on immigration.
I happen to agree with you.
i think if you live in a society - you ought to respect the tenets of that society, especially if you are not from that society.
The Muslims should tolerate free speech - however I think that the film your referred to earlier was extremely provocative.
I do not in any way condone the murder of that film maker - in fact I condemn utterly his murder.
But, in a free society, the film maker could have been less provocative in his portrayal of the subject in question.
I do not support the taking of life by Muslim terrorists or anyone else for that matter.
I think that Beslan, 9/11, Madrid were terrible acts.
I think that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible act too.
So no side comes to this issue with clean hands.
There may well be cultural tensions between some elements of extreme Muslims living in Europe and main stream Europe.
The bombing in Madrid, we were told was because Spain supported the illegal US invasion of Iraq.
This brings me to the concept of Ummah.
I haven't got the literal translation of Ummah - but I'll paraphrase.
Essentially, Ummah is the concept of Islamic territory : it holds that if an infidel occupies Islamic land, the infidel violates the concept of Ummah.
Outmoded as this concept may well be - it is invoked by BinLaden & Co.
Thus the invasion of Iraq - according to Al Qaeda - violates the concept of Ummah.
Spain - historically known as Anduluscia in Islam - was also part of the Ummah, under the Moors (we discussed this when talking about Zaragoza and Cordoba, previously).
Thus, because the concept of Ummah was violated by the US ,and assisted by Spain, Spain therefore made itself a target.
From an extremists viewpoint, Madrid and 9/11 were not crimes.
Because of the US presence in Saudi, iraq, Afghanistan, Ummah has been violated.
The only surefire way to solve this entire problem is to get the USA out of all Muslim countries and for all non-Muslim countires to seal their borders to Muslims.
Neither of these options will happen.
So we have to try to work through a solution.
I think that there are extremists on both sides (in the West, and, separately within Islam).
Neither set of extremists will win because it's an unwinnable war for both sides.
I recognise militant Islam.
I also recognise Israeli's State terrorism and US State terrorism.
I hear a lot of posters here waffling on about Islamo-fascists and other Islamo-phobic stuff (not you, it has to be said).
Then I hear them squeal anti-semiticism when their own kind are criticised.
They have a blind spot about criticisning their own kind.
I am big enough to say "yes, there is a problem with Islamic terrorism" but I am also big enough to recognise that "yes there is a problem too with US/Israeli terrorism".
Which brand of terrorism poses is a bigger threat ?
One feeds of the other.
Which is Bush's biggest crime - in reality, his entire raison d'etre is Binladen.
In turn, Binladen's raison d'etre is Israel/US.