There are arguments concerning Islam, Muslims, in America who are part of or in association to subversive elements against the United States of America, whether directly or indirectly, with intent to change the American system of government, its laws and the American society. However, there are also Muslims in the United States who truly want to assimilate and be part of the American society as an American citizen and patriot.
In our endeavor to prevent what is happening in America what is happening in the United Kingdom, specifically England, we must support the government agencies whose mission is to seek, prosecute, incarcerate or deport those who seek to undermine the American form of government, its constitutional laws and general conflagration that demonstrates their negative and evil intentions to spread the flames of extremism and disunity across our fruited plains we hold dear.
The argument and the tool which the subversive element provides, stemming from organizations like CAIR is that the American Constitution and, specifically, the Bill of Rights states clearly the freedom of religion – and this is true. Organizations and individuals whose intent is ulterior are even backed by the misguided organization known as ACLU. However, those that use the freedom of religion as a tool for their underground movement to literally destroy America and those who service these individuals and organized elements as “useful idiots” – apparently do not realize what was written by one of those who helped establish America as a nation and the foundation of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
John Adams [Thoughts on Government, 1776]
While our nation was established by those who were mainly orthodox Christians, in the sense of Western ideology, they all agreed that harmony and peace among the citizens could best be maintained by tolerance of ALL religions – with few exceptions. And those exceptions would be a religion or cultural sect that promotes extremism in the form of transgression against other citizens’ rights, their doctrine consisting of acts of violence or supporting those who commit acts of violence, and with intent to replace the American government with their form of rule and law, in this case, Sharia law.
The declared war that is commonly called the War on Terrorism is a global war that is against a specific entity that claims belief in a certain religion, being Islam. However, as those who follow the Islamic faith and call themselves true or “moderate” Muslims, as you can see in a recent article published here at LP Journal, is standing up against those who falsely proclaim Islam in terms of their contrived and disillusioned doctrine.
Recently, arguments have been made, mostly those with underlying political intentions, concerning the President and his powers in the affairs of intelligence gathering, something that was acceptable in other administrations under certain circumstances, like FDR in his actions to win World War II.
The argument ensues that wire tapping is detrimental to the freedoms and liberties of the American people – but this is not correct when looking at the big picture. Personally, I have no one wire tapping me or investigating my actions, whereabouts or personal life in any measure. Why? Because I am not part of a subversive organization, contacting subversive and suspicious elements overseas, or other suspicious actions or advocacy to undermine and cause violence and civil unrest.
The convention have done well, therefore, in so disposing of the power of making treaties, that although the President must, in forming them, act by the advice and consent of the Senate, yet he will be able to manage the business of intelligence in such a manner as prudence may suggest.
John Jay [Federalist No. 64, March 7th 1788]
I was born and raised under Christian influence, yet I can peacefully have an intellectual conversation with a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and even an atheist. They do not try to convert me and I do not try to convert them.
It is like the racial issue in America. It will not end until we stop separating ourselves (other than for official individual descriptions) into groups based upon skin pigmentation, what type of music we enjoy listening to, the clothes we wear, et cetera. All of this is superficial and materialistic. What matters, as Dr. Martin Luther King had stated several times, is our character – our inner self – as well as our actions toward each other. The Golden Rule (other than the original name for J.C. Penney) was established long before Christ spread his philosophical message and religious teaching, where everyone, even the atheist, can agree that a perfect rule to live by is: “Do unto others as you would have done unto you”. (Stated different ways by different cultures and religions).
Americans have been proud, and should be, of their religious tolerance towards others; however, the political left movement has turned against Christianity in forms of organized persecution concerning public display of their faith. Christians are not allowed to publicly display or incorporate their faith’s doctrines within the confines of public educational institutions – yet schools in California and elsewhere are allowing teaching staff to have students dress as a faithful Muslim, learn about the Qur’an, and other Islamic doctrinal rites. If one religion is not allowed to publicly proclaim or display religious doctrine or characteristics – than NO religion should be allowed to do so. The major problem with this type of curriculum is not just that they are teaching about a religion - but what misguided, propaganda information they are providing to our children.
This does not mean that I am against the study of other religions besides Christianity, my personal library contains religious material from religions all over the globe, some of them ancient and no longer practiced while others are still practices today. But those studies must always be a personal preference or desire – not an institutionalized requirement of an arm of any government, educational institution, or social organization. I am not against after-school curriculum in the form of clubs, unlike the chess clubs and so on that take place within the educational system.
This is what freedom of religion means. You are free to do much of what you want as long as it does not disobey a law or infringe upon another’s freedom. It is a form of Buddha’s Golden Rule. It is a form of what Jesus told his fellow Jews and any Gentiles who were cared to listen. It is the fundamental moral/civic law of all nations and all peoples. Freedom of religion also means you are entitled to be free OF religion; however only to the extent of allowing others to express or publicly display their religious faith.
And the final issue in this random thoughts entry concerns the continued fighting in Iraq. Simply, it has become part of the war against Islamic extremists (fascists) whose agenda and actions are no different than the Bolsheviks of the Red Army revolution that created the cancer called communism. While they separated themselves politically from the fascists of the time – their methods and doctrine was and is no different than that of whom they denounced.
From the book of World on Fire by Anthony Read (not to be confused with the blog of the same name):
Everywhere in the lands of both victims and vanquished and in the new states scrabbling for freedom, the relief of peace was overshadowed by a common fear, the dread of the Red Terror from the east … Lenin and Trotsky, the principal Bolshevik leaders, were convinced that what they were doing in Russia was the start of a world revolution, triggering a chain reaction through the developed and industrialized nations, which were ‘ripe’ for it. Although they despised nationalism, the Bolsheviks were happy to use the various nationalist movements to destabilize Central and Eastern Europe as a first step: as cold-blooded pragmatists, they believed the end justified whatever means they chose to employ, regardless of such Western bourgeois niceties as truth, humanity and honour, none of which they chose to embrace.
Winston Churchill, world renowned statesman, author of historical books, still respected today after many years following his death, he addressed a crown in the town of Dundee on November 26th, 2008 –
Russia is being rapidly reduced by the Bolsheviks to an animal form of barbarism … Civilization is being completely extinguished over gigantic areas while Bolsheviks hop and caper like troops of ferocious baboons amid the ruins of cities and the corpses of their victims.
Winston Churchill was famous for his frankness. He didn’t have to worry about or listen to the rhetoric of the politically correct. He was not afraid to call what he saw, and his perception was almost always accurate to the letter. When FDR and Churchill agreed to have Russia, the Soviet Union, to join the Allied coalition against Nazi Germany; Stalin was in it only because Hitler had performed treachery after they had agreed how to carve up Europe between the two nations. Therefore, Churchill had warned FDR not to trust Stalin. It was a time when, either out of necessity or general policy, anyone who was enemy of our enemy was our ally. Unfortunately this ideology continued after World War II ended, and has bitten us on the backside in several ways.
The war against Islamic extremists and their organized efforts to inflame unrest, promote their doctrine with fear tactics, and undermine free nations (and those who are attempting to be sovereign and free) is not less dangerous than when the Bolsheviks spread their cancerous movement after World War I.
Just as all Germans did not adhere to or agree with the Nazi ruling party of the times, so there are Muslims that do not follow the misguided extremists who stain the honor and name of Islam. There were those within the former Soviet Union who saw the hypocrisy and evil of communism. There were Iraqis who openly or within underground elements opposed the Hussein regime, and worked with the United States intelligence element in this endeavor. Many of them paid with their lives for their efforts, and it took 13 years to provide retribution for those tortured and murdered as the stark evidence of mass graves found provides. Even when America decided enough was enough and invaded Iraq with intent to rid the world of Saddam’s evil, there were Iraqi in the background helping in the effort. One particular case involved a medical doctor who saved the life of a US female soldier who had been captured. His reward was provided by public and government support and immigrated and now lives as a legal immigrant/citizen of the United States. The Iraqi invasion was not against the Iraqi people, but against Saddam, his henchmen (and women), and those that blindly followed him. It was an amazing operation and attests to the technological development and superiority of the American armed forces, in that we could pinpoint targets to reduce casualties of noncombatants and those who were against Saddam’s regime.
Recently, the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War has been recognized. Many Americans have died and been wounded in this cause – but Iraqi casualties are ten times that amount – and they still won’t give in to the terrorist/extremist element that seeks to prevent them from being a sovereign and free nation. A nation with a constitution and a nation free of Sharia and Caliphate laws that originated in an ancient period of history; a time when Europe was in the Dark Age of cultural and technological development.
No one likes war. No one is comfortable with casualty reports. But stop and think about the alternative that protestors and those against the operation in Iraq want us to consider. It is plainly a white flag, surrender to the Islamic extremists whom our government has declared war openly.
If you want to follow the root of an advocacy or an organization – follow the money trail. Most of the organizations that are putting a monkey wrench in the works of victory lead to elements unlike those that inflamed the world in 1919, not much different than the Bolsheviks, and in some cases still carry the same names or affiliation.
Consider this: Did you ever wonder what started all this terrorist actions and inflamed the Islamic extremists? Knowing is important, especially to military strategists; as well as knowing why America fights on the part of the citizenry.
During the Cold War the Soviet Union not only utilized forms of terrorism, but provided actual training institutions for communist elements around the world. Fidel Castro is familiar with this – he sent designated military elements to those schools in the Soviet Union from the 1960s until the Soviet Union collapsed.
The Soviets sponsored terrorism in their strategy against Western Europe and the NATO alliance. Their intent was to spread communism – plain and simple. And their efforts were not contained to the tactics of terrorism. They used espionage and organized elements to undermine nations and their democratic systems – to include America. In America this was taking place after Woodrow Wilson’s warning concerning the Bolsheviks and was an element within the United States in the 1930s behind much of the labor relations unrest involved.[i]
From the web page – Soviet Terrorism School …
… In fact, a former senior officer of Soviet Military Intelligence stated that “ideological sympathy with the Soviet Union is unnecessary: anyone who helps destabilize the west is our friend.” A typical member of the Palestine Liberation Army (PLO) selected training behind the Iron Curtain received an orientation brief on expected conduct while undergoing instruction, as well as ideological orientation prior to departing for Moscow. Upon arrival he was greeted by the PLO representative there and arrangements were made for further travel to the individual’s ultimate training destination.
… There were several hours of daily political orientation covering subjects as wide ranging as “Russian Mortality Rates during World Wars I and II” to “Russian Ties to the Third World”. The meat of daily instruction was education in incendiary charges and detonators; exploding metals; the art of mining munitions dumps; bridges; vehicles and personnel; the rudiments of chemical and biological warfare; command field and escape tactics; marksmanship and camouflage; the use and employment of Soviet RPG rockets and shoulder borne Strela missiles.
Interestingly enough, the Soviets also employed Moslem KGB officers to mix among the trainees and seek recruits for the KGB. By 1977 there were terrorist classes within the USSR near Baku on the Caspian Sea, and near Simferopol on the Black Sea. There were training sites near Plauen, Karl-Marx-Stadt, Dresden, Babelsberg, Klein Machsrow, Schmirblitz, and the North Schwein Region of East Germany. There were four additional sites in Bulgaria, the largest of which was at Varna. There were also four more sites in Czechoslovakia and three in Poland. It is clear that by the late 1970s there was a substantial international terrorist network supporting movements from North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Africa.
People were sent to these schools from Africa, Arabia, North Korea and other places in the world – to include Latin America (Argentina). It wouldn’t surprise me if Chavez attended, or sent selected people within his regime to these terrorist institutions.
The Soviet Union began decreasing support of terrorism around the 1980s and by 1989, the Kremlin even began speaking out against terrorism. Why? Because the mad dogs they created had turned against the element that fed them. Saudi Arabia has realized this, Iran and Syria have not.
During the 1980s, I became a part of the intelligence element via high level administration assignments, leaving behind my basic military occupation of infantryman, in order to utilize and expand my attendance of university curriculum. In 1983 I received a Top Secret clearance and was assigned to NATO HQ LSE, Izmir, Turkey in 1984 and stayed there until 1989. Soon after arriving to my new assignment and after moving up from the word processing supervisor, I was given an additional certification of ATMOL, added to the Top Secret designation, which meant that any nuclear live messages could be read by me if the mission required. When I became part of the military element in the Persian Gulf War in 1990, in preparation of the liberation of Kuwait that took place in 1991, my knowledge and education was put to use there as well. In so doing, I had seen information that fully demonstrated the dangers of allowing Saddam Hussein to continue his regime. Upon early retirement in 1994, I signed a paper of understanding that I would not reveal publicly or privately any classified material I had seen or been in contact with for seven years. Since that time had expired, I have revealed from researched sources and personal knowledge the circumstances, actions and involvement of the Hussein regime that the political left and its media minions do not want you, the public, to know. You are fed just what they want you to know and understand.
For example, a recent “study” was revealed that the media hyped in the headlines as “Saddam Did Not Directly Support Terrorists”. The key word here is “directly”. As soon as US and British forces crossed the Iraqi border from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1993, it wasn’t long in the travel towards Baghdad that they found an intact terrorist camp used as a training institution – complete with an old airline fuselage to train how to take over a commercial aircraft. The 60,000 pages of documents captured from Saddam’s various administrative buildings did include indirect mention of terrorists and terrorism, as well as indirect support. It was revealed by the BBC and other British sources that payment by Saddam was advocated and made to the families of suicide bombers; yet they are trying to tell us that Saddam was innocent of terrorist advocacy and support?
The media, in America and elsewhere, has misused its power of the press, and its freedom of the press. The media now is the major element who decides what primary presidential election candidates remain or stay for the final public vote and the delegate process. This primary campaign process of 2008 is a clear example. If America truly wants political reform, how can that occur when they choose the same politicians? And the media hype doesn’t help when they convince the public (along with the established political elements) that a candidate is not acceptable if he or she doesn’t have “experience”. It is the “experienced” politicians who have caused the major mess that concern issues today.
Yet the media is google-eyed over Senator Obama, despite his congressional non-experience. Their reasons, of course, are their own, but they have failed to adhere to the primary rule of journalism – objectivity and unbiased reporting. Leave the opinions, educated or not, for the editorials and commentary columns – but be prepared to back up that information behind opinion with FACTS.
We remain in Iraq this long because of the enemy. That enemy, in case you are confused with the rhetoric is: Islamic extremists – terrorists. They do not want democracy or any form of it in Iraq. They are against anyone who sides with America. They are infiltrating our valued ally, England, and the English political and social elite are letting them do it in the name of tolerance. So, to my English friends across the sea, I reprint this quotation from one of the Founders:
It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
John Adams [Thoughts on Government, 1776]
This applies to your Parliament, just as much as it does our Congress.
And in closing, I leave a quote from another Founder of the United States of America:
How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?
James Madison [Federalist No. 41, 1788]
We cannot allow the enemies of America and the enemies of free nations to win. If the road to such an endeavor is long, arduous, and a pain of the soul – it is better than the alternative. My heart and soul cries out for those who have given the ultimate sacrifice as members of our armed forces; however, this does not diminish my resolve or my advocacy against tyranny and oppression against America and its allies. Indeed, I could very well be on an Islamic edict list for termination for some of the things I have written here at LP Journal. And if it is so, let it be. But also let it be written that I will not be coerced nor allow fear of retribution stop me or anyone who follows the principles of freedom, liberty and human rights. I am not a hero. I am just pissed off.
LINKS:
Designing Institutions to Deal with Terrorism - Martin Feldstein
Schools and the Dangers of Terrorism - No Compromise When it Comes to Being Right
Symposium: Military Policy and Regimes that Support Terrorism - FindArticles
Soviet History - Its Development - Marxists
The Soviet Union and the United States - Biblio
[i] This is not to say that American labor practices didn’t need reform, it is stating the fact of what political, cultural and criminal element was behind the labor and trade unions – which still applies today in a diluted form.
Keith Lehman
Kritter Girl
quillsnkiko
Witchy Woman
I know you and I hardly ever part company on these matters, my friend, so I hope I do not shock you by begging to differ on a couple of points. I think these points may be important.
Like you and many others, I have wondered “what started all this terrorist actions and inflamed the Islamic extremists? Knowing is important, especially to military strategists; as well as knowing why America fights on the part of the citizenry.”
Unlike some who have wondered and never found time to seek answers, I have read deeply and extensively on this very topic. Why does these people hate us? Why do they attack us? Why has America earned such a black eye in the Muslim world? What can we do to change it?
Like many problems, this is a result of our history in the Middle East, which often shows that we have not fought “on the part of the citizenry.”
The history of modern Muslim extermism is fairly recent. Most of the extermist organizations we now fight were first enemies of their own autocratic Middle Eastern states. The Muslim Brotherhood, the godfather of these groups, as well as many splinter organizations, first fought against the oppression of autocratic governments in their own countries in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere.
These groups cannot be confused with democratic reform movements. In most cases, they were believers in the extreme wing of Islam who objected to the regimes in their own countries because they did not enforce extreme Islamic law. They also objected to the endemic corruption of most of these regimes, believing they were enriching themselves at the expense of their own citizens, which was mostly correct.
American supported these despotic, undemocratic regmines because they were the lesser of two evils. These governments also controlled an enormous amount of oil, which might further explain our foreign policy decisions. So we supported bad guys because they were better than the badder guys and they also had something we wanted. It was a rational choice at the time but it has bitten us in the backside.
The real problem was we did not support the citizens of these countries and their budding aspirations to live freely. For the most part, we supported the despots as they tried to ruthlessly crush their opposition with methods that certainly make our own transgressions at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib look like a day in the park. And as they did so, these governments radicalized even more opponents, caused more popular resentment and forced these radical movements further underground.
We all know the history after that. The worst of them ended up in Afghanistan, led by Osama bin Laden, decided that America was the biggest enemy since we supported these corrupt regimes and decided to launch attacks on America.
Admittedly, it has been a tough call. In a region where there a few democrats, we decided to support stable regimes even thought they were oppressive. While doing so, we alienated many citizens who wanted reform, even though the reform wasn’t what we may have chosen for them. We supported bad governments over worse reformers and now the reformers oppose us even more than those we supported. Hardly the stuff of Captain America comic books or a storyline that remotely resembles the American revolution.
If you have not had time to study this, the very best researched book on this crucial topic that I have found is Lawrence Wright’s “The Looming Towers: al Qaeda and the Road the 9/11.” Hardly a polemicist or partisan, Wright does a wonderful job tracing the history of Islamic extremism from its infancy to the day the airplanes crashed into the Worlds Trade Center.
And so we find our way into Iraq, where the situation, unfortunately, is much the same.
In a country where there are at least six sides in a civil war and we support two-to-four, depending on the weather that day, we support an oppressive and despotic government that is not supported by most of its people and that never has had pretensions toward democracy. The government supports Shiite militias, has strong ties to Iran, supports extremist interpretations of Islamic law and cannot beat back its enemies without U.S. help. You can say precisely the same things about is main Shiite rival, Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army, which shares all the same attributes other than having U.S. help.
Many of the other groups in Iraq are continuing to be armed by America, some are being paid by our government at the rate of $300 pr month not to kill us and al have their own dreams of despotism and enforcing their own versions of Islamic extremism. I’m having a hard time finding the American revolution there.
Name me the John Adams, the Thomas Jefferson, the Ben Franklin, the George Washington in Iraq. Find me the guy who is supporting democratic reform and name the group he leads. American revolutionaries wanted freedom, wanted religious tolerance, wanted democracy. Name me the group in Iraq who backs these goals. All I see is a bunch of bad guys fighting each other; nobody who wants to put their life on the line to win freedom.
Tell me who that group is who wants freedom and democracy in Iraq, who their leader is, and I will board the next plane to Iraq with you, my friend, and fight side-by-side with you to help them, if they will take a 55-year-old guy with bad knees who will have to stop at least twice to catch his breath on a mile run. That’s my biggest problem with Iraq. We are spending American lives and American treasure with no possibility of a good result. That’s my point about not having a strategy.
Ken:
Here is where your delusional opinion, and that is exactly what it is, is profoundly made clear.
First of all – these are not “points” to be made. For 90% of your opinion is based upon nothing but that.
Second, America is not the ONLY target – where have you been the last 30 years?
The history of Islamic extremism is NOT recent.
I think you need to perform better criteria on just exactly what you read. Are we next going to hear the classic line – “Can’t we just all get along?”
Some organizations are “recent” – but the extremism goes back into history. Haven’t you read the coercion and favoritism with the Nazi and their policy, especially when it comes to the Israelites?
Briefly mentioned, I acknowledged that the US made mistakes in their foreign policies in the course of history, did I not? Do the “recent” organizations have anything to do with US relations with the Shah of Iran? And, guess what, as you mention – this occurred on both sides of the American political aisle. European nations made mistakes as well when it came to rogue national leaders.
Iraq is not the same; it would be like comparing the Korean War and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. And mentioning the latter – not much complaining happening when it comes to Afghanistan situation from the left – why is that?
You will not find Adams, Jefferson, et cetera examples in Iraq. You just don’t really read much do you? Anyone who has studied the American colonial period, pre-revolution, revolutionary and post-revolutionary history instantly realizes that it was a unique situation in the world of affairs. Consider there were two other revolutions taking place in the same period (read article series on American Politics – history) – neither of which were successful because the circumstances was not in place for a reenactment of US history.
Here is a name – the present government in Iraq.
All you see is what is in front of your nose. All you see is certain circles of information sources who would twist anything and everything to make this situation look as dark as possible, so more will join your petty, unpatriotic little group of those who denounce anything that hasn’t to do with utopian dreams based on mythical rhetoric. And all for the underlying reason to make a certain political entity more popular (and powerful) than the other.
Ken, I have a feeling that you wouldn’t last three days “fighting side-to-side” with me, and I have a military incurred bad knee. It isn’t just the physical stamina; it is something the GIs of World War II called “guts”, or in a more politically correct way – intestinal fortitude. Besides, according to your past ideology - no war is worth fighting. Which means that aggression must have its way and that diplomacy is going to work (even though it hasn’t in “recent history”. And truly, why should we be civil and diplomatic after the dastardly, cold-blooded attack of September 11th. What did England do to the extremists? Spain? Australia? Denmark? (Published cartoons) Et cetera. Do you want Iraq to be run by Sharia law instead? Does the Iraqi people want law that requires beheading nonbelievers? Or converts? Do you actually know what you are suggesting? Is this a strategy? Not to win.
Your biggest problem is that you not just listen to the propaganda and read it, but you actually believe it. I have countless counter pointed to facts, not mundane dribble, but you continue to ignore it.
The real world is not always black and white – sometimes we have to realize the big picture. The soldier doesn’t know what the big picture is all the time, but he follows the plans of his leader. The only problem with the Bush invasion of Iraq and subsequent operations is that he made errors, didn’t listen to warnings given about initial troop strength, et cetera. President Bush is not alone on those type of errors, examining our history.
In one thing I can agree with Vietnam war comparisons – this will end like Vietnam because, as revealed by former enemy leadership in the form of the NVA, “useful idiots” in America, people who enjoy the fruits of liberty, but refuse to maintain and protect it, were so helpful in the propaganda part of warfare that the communist Chinese and its counterparts in North Korea used. And then, you will say, as those said when Vietnam was over – “What a waste” – and the veterans say the same thing, but in different demeanor: “It was only a waste because we lost”. Those same groups that were antiwar and wanted world peace were financially and psychologically backed by communist world organizations. I also revealed that the Soviet Union created terrorism to what it is today - they had several training institutions to perform this task well. But, as usual, you ignore these tidbits of information.
Unlike the Vietnam War, our military is all volunteers. If you don’t want to go, that is your privilege – but those that have gone and are presently there – need American support. There is enough negativity coming from the camp of the enemy and its affiliates. Iraq has become the front line battlefield in the War on Terrorism. A long war that will get longer with people like you supporting them.
The reason for invasion was a success. Saddam is gone. But now when the Iraqi people are supposed to be trying to develop something they never had – there are those like you who want to cut them off at the knees and say - “It’s taking too long”.
And, by the way, I have spoken to Iraqi – so the little trip you imagine isn’t necessary. There were prisoners of war who wanted to go home and get rid of Saddam themselves, there were refugees who had been caught up in the war (some in our POW camps until it was determined that they really were American naturalized citizens visiting when they were literally taken off the streets and inducted in Saddam’s army) - all of those are real people with real tales to tell - from the front lines. All you patter here is what the media pounds out constantly – you have no idea what is really going on in the background.
Poor choices in foreign policies come in different forms. Your “strategies” are just as dangerous. You wouldn’t know strategy if it was standing in front of you.
The Iraqi has suffered enough and ran up against obstacles when hoping to be free of Saddam. They are struggling to change a system that has been around since the medieval period in history. If you think that it is going to all go into place like a puzzle picture – you really are a Utopian.
How long did it take for the Founders to put together the Constitution? Contrary to belief, all was not unanimous on how to form a “more perfect union” - it took major consideration and discussion. They had nothing or no model to look upon - only what not to do according to the government types in place. It is remarkable that they could have come up with what they did. And you want a people who never knew democracy and plan on changing a social-political ideology overnight?
Bush warned us from the beginning that the fight against Islamic extremism would not be a short one. I guess you forgot that, along with conveniently ignoring other matters.
I have received hate mail on this posting and I am not in the mood for nonfactual opinions. Why should I - I’m correct. Just call me a neocon fascist, others are.
The other day I was thinking to myself, that instead of leaving people to be misinformed about the hype surrounding Saddam (some tend to sympathise for him), it is my duty actually to try and shove them into the direction of what is truthful. I’m not saying I can change people’s opinions or force mine onto them, but majority of South Africans know about the U.S. and other nations only what they see and hear on television, and I’m pretty sure that goes for many other countries as well. Another question to ask is, how well do people know about what was REALLY going on under Saddam’s rule?
So, I took it upon myself to show my dad some pictures. They were the actual mass graves of his victims, the excavation thereof, as well as the preparation for decent burial of the deceased. I was considering including the link here, but I wouldnt want to shock anyone because it is quite disturbing. I could see the expression on my dad’s face, sad but surprised as well. I don’t think it was cruel of me to show it to him (the pictures being so graphic I mean) because it is “truth”, and whether in his life or death, Saddam should never have been made out to be a king, hero. I may be judged for saying this, but I am glad his dead. I don’t feel bad saying it. People are always saying its as though the world is moves backwards.The reason is quite simple really, its because the murderers and rapists and other criminals are being victimised to such an extent that they end up getting the upperhand.
THAT’S the reason so many women and girls in my country don’t bother reporting rapes and domestic abuse, and if you think that has nothing to do with the Saddam issue, it very much does. It happens all over. Maybe not surrounding “mass graves”, but speaking of execution murders, people being mutilated (please forgive me for mentioning these things), both girls & boys going through terrible suffering and torturing before they are eventually killed, yes, that’s all happening here in South Africa. I don’t read about it in the newspaper once a week. I read about it everyday. You would think that when the criminals are caught that justice would be served. Give him a few months in jail and you could be sure he’d be out in no time! In most cases not even years! If this sounds bizarre and exaggerated, there are many poeple in this country who will back what I’m saying, because they feel the way I do. It sickens them, I read comments about poeple complaining but nothing ever seems to come of it.
It feels as though everything is done to protect these evil people. The message you get is “commit a crime and you can be assured you’ll be protected”. Looking at the pictures of the men and women crying over the excavated graves in Iraq, I would like to ask other muslims what that means to them? Why has so many chosen to call it a war against religion? Because now that certainly makes no sense to me. Those were muslims being killed by Saddam, not by any U.S soldier or President. I think I’m starting to understand why it was called the war on “terror”. I used to think it was just a lame excuse, but I see it was truth. I still feel bit shaky from these pics, how do the victims’ families make it through from day to day?! No person on Earth should ever have to go through that.
Michiko:
Yes, sometimes reality is hard to bear. They are still finding mass graves after all this time.
Your point about victims and victimization is profound, and you are right, in a sense it has much to do with the Saddam subject.
But in the course of human history, this has been actions of humans against other humans. It is just that we are more aware of it because of technology; yet in a sense, the media technology also is using the same venue that provides this vast wealth of information, as well as knowledge in learning, for example the cyberspace world of the Internet to use to fool or misinform folks.
In America our justice system has come to be that the perpetrator of a crime, a crime of violence or burglary, et cetera, seems to have more rights than the victim(s). This is something that must change and be reformed.
All these words of wisdom reinforce the points made in articles that we cannot view this as a war against Islam, a modern Crusade. It must be viewed against the actual enemy – fundamentalist extremist individuals and organizations that use Islam in a violent and perverted way.
Saddam may not openly support the terrorist element, but, as you stated, he was certainly a terror in his own right.
People like the Iraqi who endure such hardships and suffering, yet still drive on to their goal, should be commended – not forsaken. Transgressions committed by certain individuals in the military are severely punished, and I am certainly not ignoring the fact that all in the US military act as honorably as they should. It is a shame that they stain the image of the US military, and at the same time hurt its cause and provides more rhetoric from the “antiwar” crowd. However, as I have also pointed out – not so much of a peep from mainstream media and the “antiwar” crowd about the past and present atrocities of the enemy for which we fight against.
We cannot turn away from the Iraqi people who ask for help. We did it once in the Persian Gulf War – which attributed to more mass graves. I know this because I was there and saw classified reports.
If a nation is a free nation that provides freedom and liberty for its people, and during that course of time is prosperous; it should be an unwritten law or code that they help those people of nations to attain the same endeavors to see their goals fulfilled. Spread of democracy and other nations becoming free, prosperous and a peaceful partner in the world of nations is a better policy than just letting the aggressive rogue nations has their way. And that is exactly what the anti-everything people want to do, whether they realize it or not. They believe that we should stop fighting against the aggression that has attacked us on and before September 11th, 2001 and “negotiate” – pull out so we don’t keep them “angry”. The window of opportunity for negotiation has long past. The only negotiation we could possibly consider is when they decide to truly surrender and stop their actions and policies of hate and world domination.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Best Regards
“In our endeavor to prevent what is happening in America what is happening in the United Kingdom, specifically England, we must support the government agencies whose mission is to seek, prosecute, incarcerate or deport those who seek to undermine the American form of government, its constitutional laws…”
Gee, that would be GWB.
mlhm5:
Gee, are you wrong.
GW Bush’s administration does not support enforcement - otherwise we would have started seven years ago to round up the 12-20 million border jumpers, as well as the fence project would have been completed by now, and he would have vowed to veto any legislation that resembles amnesty and especially legislation that offers social benefits to illegal immigrants.
Like you, GW Bush is dysfunctional.
You say “However, there are also Muslims in the United States who truly want to assimilate and be part of the American society as an American citizen and patriot.”
I wonder what data you have to back this up. Are there a few dozen? A few thousand? A few million?
What is your source of information?
LomaAlta:
If I would have put down a specific number of Muslims who are naturalized citizens or in the process of citizenship , I would require to provide a source other than personal association.
One person I knew was in my military unit in the Gulf War.
The rest are scattered across the United States, with probably the most in New York - they are Turks, one Iraqi and one South African Moslem. One of them I have corresponded with for quite a while and the person from South Africa recently.
Now, fair is fair.
Where is your data that shows there ARE NO sincere Moslem immigrants in America who do not want to assimilate, are patriots and are against Islamic extremists? Moslems who abhor what extremists are saying and doing?
You really don’t need to provide those sources, just use Google. Leftist and extremist blogs abound.
The point was, which apparently you failed to grasp is that America is not specifically at war against Islam - because there are some who are allies. And there are some who are angry at extremists for staining the image of their religion, as well as not anti-Semitic.
Just as some Christians embarrass other Christians in their actions.
There are citizens of many faiths and some without religion at all who are anti-American. And you will find that many of them were born here. If you look at my whistleblower article you will find a naturalized citizen stood up against corruption and espionage - even losing her job as a translator over it.
This is not an anti-Islam e-journal, this is a firm advocacy against extremism and fascism wherever it occurs.
Keith you said “Now, fair is fair.
Where is your data that shows there ARE NO sincere Moslem immigrants in America who do not want to assimilate, are patriots and are against Islamic extremists?”
First, I never said there are NO sincere Moslem immigrants. You are putting words in my mouth.
Second, you were making generalizations about sincere Moslems and I was simply asking you to back them up with facts.
Yes, fair is fair. Please don’t put words in my mouth. And, if your assertions are only based on a few personal observations rather than survey data, organized groups with known memberships, etc. that is fine. One can then judge the veracity and generality of your statements based on the presence or absence of data.
LomaAlta:
First, I always back up facts. And, apparently you have conveniently ignored what I wrote. By asking me to prove their are loyal Muslims that are against extremism - you didn’t have to state it directly. You put the words there - if you meant differently than type it so.
If I PERSONALLY know these Muslims - what is there to prove? Now if I said there were five, 100, 1,000, a specific statistical number, then I would certainly show where I got those statistics. I explained this, yet you still squabble about it.
This tells me that you are reaching for straws in order to discount what I wrote.
This also tells me that you are being hostile for no reason.
Again, what exactly is your point?
Just because I do not state there are a certain number of Moslems who came here to not just enjoy the fruits of freedom and liberty, but also assimilate and do not expect America to change for them, et cetera.
There wasn’t any generalization - I know Muslim Americans.
I can’t make it more clear than that. Can I?
So, once again - what is the point whether I know five or 5,000? (Which of course, I don’t personally know this.
If you want examples of Moslems who are against extremism - check out the article about Irshad.
You need to back up rebuttals - bottom line. Your rebuttal is clear, and I am sure others who are reading this may state this as well - you refuted the fact that there are no Moslems as described.
Is your point that we should be aggressive to all those who follow Islam or just those whose creed is death and destruction? I don’t know, you tell me. Is there a point to be made on how many Muslims are not extremist? I don’t know the number. That wasn’t the point of the article. You took a statement that was made from personal observation. I have no idea how many are in New York, California or wherever they may be found. I knew ONE Muslim-American-Iraqi in Georgia who was just as patriotic as me. Does that help?
Again, what is your point here? The rest of my material is bogus because I know Moslems personally? Tell me. My statement did not mention “organizations” - personal people.
Who is exactly making something out of nothing here? Who is “putting words” in one’s mouth.
Ok, I give up. I don’t think a dialog is what you want. Looking at your responses to those who comment, I dont see a need for further discussion.
I will not call you names or question your motives. Nor will I accept you knowing one patriotic Moslem as proof that there are many patriotic Moslems any more than I would accept that if you knew one Moslem terrorist it was proof that all were terrorists.
What I will do is end this exchange, say goodbye and good luck to you.
LomaAlta:
You didn’t answer my question, while I answered yours. You didn’t comment to discuss, you are trying to pick at the entire piece because of one personal observation. The only insult I see here is coming from you. The only name I know to “call” you is “LomaAlta”. I reviewed my comments and don’t see where I called you a “name”. You can please some of the people some of the time …
If I didn’t want a discussion I would have deleted your absurdness but that wouldn’t be right because you weren’t being offensive - like the commentator this morning that wrote:
“Damn all you Jews and go to Hell“. Really intellectual.
Bye. Have a good life.
Say Hello to Gordo and the other Leftist trouble makers that never can answer questions without getting angry and don’t provide sources for rebuttals because you don’t have the facts to back it. I recognized your “handle” in comments other places.
PS - Machiko (commentator) is a Muslim from South Africa - does that count?
Thanks for stopping by anyway …