You may remember seeing these photographs in The New York Times, Washington Post, or your state capital's largest news publication early February, 2006.
Maybe you saw the footage of these protesters in the U.K. on MSNBC, CBS, or FOX news, shouting angry threats at the Western world over the re-publication of cartoons Muslims found offensive.
Originally printed in the Danish newspaper 'Jyllends-Posten' on September, 30 2005, the twelve cartoons seemed to cause problems, calling muslim leaders to gather and angrily decry the 'Blasphemy'. In late January of 2006 the Norwegian Christian newspaper 'Magazinet', and the newspaper website of 'Dagbladet', also based in Norway, caused the outcry you may remember so much about, as it's images flooded the U.S. press from coast to coast and border to border.
Doesn't ring a bell? You certainly remember the talk, as there was much over weeks. What about the cartoons? Do you remember those appearing in Time, Life, and The New Yorker? The one of the prophet Muhammad, his turban a bomb? The other eleven?There is a reason you do not.
These images were deleted from every aspect of the U.S. press, as not to upset the Muslim world any further. Imagine the United States bowing to the possibility of the rage of Islam, 'the religion of peace'. So much so that the freedom of the press to depict the truth of the situation in Europe was abrogated.
Were it not for the Internet, the images worth one thousand words each if fair market value still holds, would have most likely not been presented here. Carefully read the signs of these peaceful people and study their faces, those peaceful enough not to have concealed themselves for fear of recognition (other than those who may be women. Some,who as a cultural practice wear burkas) This is the face of Radical Islam.
Several moderate Muslim leaders from countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan have stated that the 'Radical Muslim' population is only about one per cent. Bear in mind these countries are not democracies and are to one degree or another if not completely. Muslim theocracies.
The European Union's estimated population as of January, 1 2007 is four-hundred and ninety million. of this an estimated four to five percent are Muslim, giving us a rough figure of fifteen to twenty million practicing Muslims among the E.U.'s twenty-seven member states. So according to Moderate Muslim leaders there are approximately one million, five-hundred thousand, to two million practicing Muslims who could be considered to be 'Radical' by Muslim standards.
Radical is a multi -toned word. Once, an out of controlled child in a supermarket who got a well deserved swat on the behind was considered to be 'receiving discipline'. Now such a 'Radical' action can bring about a lawsuit and destroy a family in the name of the 'child's rights' should the ACLU get involved. There was a time when speaking out in protest against our own government was considered 'Radical', even illegal depending on what you said.
We find in America today, in many states if not all, you can be jailed and charged for just the threat of murder. The freedom of speech most
Western countries enjoy does not mean you can shout "Bomb" on a crowded plane at twenty thousand feet. Threatening to murder another three thousand civilians, or even more atrocious, to advocate the slaughter of another six million people for any reason certainly qualifies as 'Radical' with prejudice.
While we realize the cartoons were not published in America, though there were many who wished they were, and the protests and violence they were responded to with did not happen on our streets, or even offend our delicate senses via most forms of public media, they do with crystal clarity show the hatred of lethal intent by a portion of a religious culture toward anyone and anything it deems unacceptable.
We have had the earth shaken under our feet, the sky blackened with soot and our eyes filled with the tears of agony and loss by that one per cent, and one wonders what else we are being kept in the dark about as a nation, by the fear of those in control on our portion of the earth, that we may not further disturb such a peaceful system of belief as Islam. We can ponder these things as we go about our privileged lives, content with what we are fed daily by the news and try to think of peaceful things, and put our thoughts elsewhere. We can oppose and protest a war we at home are not personally watching our fellow soldier die or be maimed in. We can argue all the what if's our minds can handle.
This is where the enemy wants us most, and where we as a divided nation, and a divided culture are most happy to oblige because it keeps our nose out of the truth, which sometimes smells less like flowers than we would like. Things at a distance do not appear as clearly as we would think, and the faster they come at us the harder it is to make a decision about where we stand. Islam is the worlds fastest growing religion, and at least one per cent of Muslims have told us in no uncertain terms how they feel publicly, and loudly so we can not say we did not know. As of July, 2007 the population of the United States is a little over three hundred million.
18 comments:
I flipped over the coin you presented and guess what I found? There might be some hope in talking peace with 99% of the adherents of the fastest growing religion on the planet.
I also found that another way to avoid the problem of allowing the enemy to see us disunited is to unite in opposition to the war!
I'm sorry that radical Muslims create such a problem for you. My life is not in the hands of fearful humans running governments, I trust in God to protect my life, even if that means that I lose it and go home to God.
Take a quarter, put it on a table before you, head down, tail side up. for the sake of example, the tail side is evil, the head side good. Are you suggesting that either the quarter disappears if you turn the coin over, or that the tail side of the coin no longer exists if one can not actually see it? Truly a Schrodinger-like approach to national security. But somehow a confusing paragraph, as this portion of your comment dismisses the mathematical facts the original post supposes, while making no committed attempt to address it.
The next two sections of your argument are in diametric stress, you acknowledge a problem and an enemy, neither of which will disappear like the down-facing side of the coin if we simply oppose the conflict or the objective of the enemy, while dismissing yourself of the whole situation before the Lord, who for His own purpose and glory is allowing the very war you declare opposition to, as if it were beyond His control. A puzzling reply that still has little sense of definite direction. Meanwhile,'Radical Muslims' are presently creating a problem for literally Billions of people all over the world at the moment Ian, the least of whom is me. While I am just as secure in my Salvation in Christ as you are, there are so many who suffer from these people's labor of evil still knowing The Lord, as well as the hopeless doubt of those yet Lost, do not all deserve to know what is at stake on the Earth God made before they are blindsided again by those who would rather hide the truth than shine light on it?
We are becoming so scared of everything that has Muslim written on it. Honestly, I don't think people are as revved up as they once were. Life has to go on. Bush encouraged us to go buy stuff after 911. And we did. Imperialism tends to breed this kind of fascism and radical interpretaion of the creeds of Islam. I am not defending the violence, but violence begets more violence. In the end we shoud be securing our borders with the troops that are in Iraq. We should have a plan to intercept those who would do us harm. But going on offense in the wrong part of the field has not made us safer, it's just made them madder.
I, too, have a problem with radical Muslims. As Ian commented in a post on QYW, we have an obligation to our fellow human beings both now and in future generations. We have enjoyed a peaceful place to live life most of our lives and we have a responsibility to preserve that peace and freedom for our children and grandchildren. Yes, of course, my life is in the hands of God, but I don't believe He thinks we should let radical Islamists slaughter all "infidels" and drag the world back into the 7th century. The radical Islamists are a serious threat to our way of life AND to the ways of life of our fellow human beings around the globe.
History has shown us that going on the offensive will certainly make an aggressor more angry. Even nature does, ever have to deal with a hornet's nest in the eaves or shutters of your house? But History has shocked us to shame at what can happen when we allow those who spout their will, above all the fanatical, when we subscribe to isolationism and do not move swiftly to challenge their advance. Point in case 1930's Europe, and the Nazi-German appeasement, then the same treatment of communism at the end of WWII.
Thank you Soj for your presentation of this point. If we as a nation believe the problem of a self-proclaimed violent aggressor will solve itself if we do nothing, or as we are finding out now in Iraq, commit ourselves to do less than what is necessary with immediacy, our security here at home as well as the security of nations abroad will always be in danger of breach.
Our security "at home" is based on defending what we have. We may talk of freedom, but what we are really defending is our wealth. American "freedom" is for the most part freedom from want, it could easily be translated as luxury.
We should in no way be isolationist. But that doesn't mean we need to export our militarism around the world in a misguided attempt to "spread freedom." We should distribute the material blessings we know in America to all those in need everywhere since home is not our country, but our planet.
And I firmly believe that a world where everyone had enough would be a safer world. Terrorists would have little reason to fight and would be provided little cover by the communities they infest.
And before you call me a utopian dreamer, I'll take the label on myself and self-identify as a hope-monger. I'll place my trust in the Prince of Peace and try to build that "kindom" on earth instead of listening to fear-mongers who place their trust in the might of human militaries that will bring the hell of warfare on earth.
Ian, your interpretation of American freedom astounds me. You who are so gifted with intellect and written expression of thought find our primary freedom to be freedom from want???????? Have you no recollection of the bill of rights? How many other governments endorse such liberty? There certainly aren't very many in the Middle East.
Perhaps Osama bin Laden and his many wealthy shiek friends could distribute some of their astronomical wealth to the poor of the world. They could start with their own countrymen but seem to prefer to let their less fortunate brethren depend on donkey power for transportation and farming. And to use their women in some of the most demeaning relationships world-wide.
I guess this is one of those points that we should agree to disagree. Our basic world views are just too radically divergent to find much commmon ground.
My comment was just that, a comment, not an expose, so I made a quick simple point. Yes, of course I recognize the remarkable nature of the Bill of Rights, but I also grieve the way they are being trampled in America today as well the fact that they cannot be exported at the end of a gun barrel.
And it is not a stretch to talk about wealth as the primary "virtue" for America. I don't remember the exact history, but some of the founding fathers wanted the language of the Declaration of Independence to read "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" thus pursuit of happiness is actually little more than a euphemism for acquisition of wealth.
I don't think we are trying to export our values by the gun, but giving others the chance to establish their own, and protecting those who already have including ourselves. If one Per cent of a county's population hold the rest captive by terror we should do nothing? Especially when those same terrible few would impose their will on us, given the chance?
These have already given us proof of their intent, as well as their willingness and ability to carry out horrible acts. I have never heard of the idea of a different version of the Constitution, have not found anything on Google yet either but would be interested if you could offer something more on this.
If you will look at history carefully, we as a nation, other than the war we waged against the original indigenous peoples of this land ( which is it's own tragedy, and like slavery is a stain on the face of this land), do not go around starting wars with others, aside from The Revolutionary War, and Spain, we have been content to sit tight at home. our involvement in Korea and Viet Nam were in assistance of nations under attack by those who would impose their will. If you remember the whole thing with Iraq started with their invasion of Kuwait, and from there a host of nations included themselves in dealing with this issue, with the consent of the United Nations.
I heard an awesome quote of truth yesterday, I can't remember where or who said it, but I remember the words; "We will never loose a war by the brave men and women of our nation's military, but only by the citizens of our own country"
Yes, the whole war in Iraq started with the invasion of the KINGDOM of Kuwait (not exactly a freedom-loving democracy btw)and that war ENDED. This war was a preemptive unjustified attack based on lies, we are talking apples and oranges.
We also are not fighting one percent who are holding the rest of the citizens captive there. I may not have a citation for a bit of obscure history that I once heard, but you could at least get current events correct.
I,m not sure that disagreeing with your assessment of the situation in Iraq at the moment or on the whole constitutes getting "current events straight", I think few assumed we were done with Saddam after the first Gulf War, or that he would not use WMD's if he developed them or bought them. And while the average number of Radical Muslims in Europe may be one per cent of the population, you may be wrong in your assumption that, the percentage in Iraq is the same. In fact I think it would be higher as it is a predominantly Muslim country, and that we are also fighting Iran there by proxy, and possibly Syria also. Both nations who we do know to support terrorism, and are unquestionably Muslim.
First of all, al Qaeda in Iraq is not the same al Qaeda who attacked us on 9/11. Second, there are only 2000 of them in Anbar province and there are 170,000 American troops in Iraq, not to mention the Brits and others. Are they so amazing that the finest military in the world cannot stop their small numbers? This whole war is a game being played for very high stakes by ideologues whose children will not be giving their lives in the fight. The whole thing stinks and I am more than tired of it.
BTW, for the record, I have been opposed since before the invasion, I am not a recent convert. Also, the scripture that I insisted on reading at the impromptu service our church held just after 9/11 was "love your enemies."
Mike, This war was uconstitutional from day one based on the intelligence at that moment, not even the intelligence we confirmed later. As I've said, from a strictly constitutional standpoint, this was an unwarranted trampling of our founding documents. You can debate if Al Queda and Iraq are the same body all day long, but even if they are, which they aren't, we invaded a sovereign nation without direct provocation by that nation. And that my friends is grounds for impeachment. That sounds harsh, but it's true.
We need to fight radical Islam by being smart at home and making the homeland safer. Wasn't that why the Department of Homeland Security was established? We need a department that promotes peace and peaceful resolution as well. Even James Baker said we should talk with our enemeies. We should exhaust every diplomatic option before enacting a military option.
Ian, I am foregoing time in the waiting room--perhaps to my own detriment--but how on earth do we know that al Qaeda in Iraq is not al Qaeda of 9/11?
David, we were told from Day 1 that this would be a different kind of war against a different kind of enemy. The enemy's No. 1 gripe with us is that we are not Muslim. That doesn't leave much to talk about. Osama bin Laden doesn't care to discuss it: his creed is "convert or die."
A quick comment about the numbers in Iraq...When the enemy has no uniform and cloaks its weapons beneath the clothes of children, women as well as their 70 virgin crazed young men, and they do their dirty work in public markets, restaurants and weddings, it creates an enemy that is much harder to target. They hide their headquarters in places of worship and schools. They make videos that purposely distort their places of origin and the identity of their militia. Easy prey, huh?
I'm not sure why I dare jump into this foray because nobody ever dissuades anyone else. I'll zip my lips and renew my resolve to return to the waiting room. It's a good place to pray about the issues.
Sorry that I don't have a reference handy, but I have definitely heard reporting that "al Qaeda in Iraq" is not an off-shoot of bin Laden's al Qaeda, but a new group that uses the name. Granted, the ties may be established between the groups now, but my point is that this new group is a response to our presence in Iraq, they certainly didn't exist there in any strength prior to the invasion.
And yes, the enemy in Iraq is hard to determine and thus hard to fight. On those grounds alone, we should be calling for a withdrawal. What is the point of sending uniformed under-protected (e.g. not enough armor for the humvees, not enough body armor) targets to be shot at? From the very beginning the "war of terrorism" should have been a police investigation not a military intervention. We need to infiltrate and seek actionable intelligence through the vehicles both domestic and international that do that work. Sending the military is like using a sledge hammer to hang pictures.
Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, all fall under the distinction of 'Raical Islam'. Considering this there may be even groups we in the west know nothing about. I would also submit that a police investigation would be useless, as we had plenty of indication as to what could happen before we were attacked yet were not able to prevent it. In fact our investigative fingers were all thumbs under the Clinton administration as this is when the original 9-11 hijackers came into the country and enrolled in flight school. If we could not figure this out in our own country, it is unlikely that an investigation into Saddam's Iraq, or Afghanistan under Taliban rule would yield any answers. Sooner or later we would have to be involved again, before an Al-Qaeda, or a military dictator attacked our nation, or destabilized a portion of the world. We faced the same thing in WWII, and we, and the world paid for the wait to get involved. Sometimes one needs a big hammer if one is going to hang a big picture.
And sometimes one has to read the Bible and do what it says like turning the other cheek and loving the enemy. This justifying of preemptive killing saddens me.
Killing should always sadden us Ian, in any context. Yet the wisest man in The Word next to Christ said;
"A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;" ( Ecclesiastes 3:3)
I too pray for peace and our soldiers safety, and that those who know Christ among them are good witnesses of Him to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, that they perform their duty with courage, integrity and mercy where possible. Particularly to our enemies, that those whom we fight today may be by His Will our brothers in Christ tomorrow.
I do not believe that there is anything outside of God's control, and that in season according to His Will, this war as do all wars will end, just as in season He allowed it to begin, whether we think it began with the invasion of Kuwait, or with Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Post a Comment