It's about time, don't you think?
but too long delayed and too isolated.
It's the failure of mainstream Islam to address this radicalism which lends credence to the Ann Coulter observation that we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.
What's funny is how the far Left condemns Christian opposition to abortion, citing the killers of abortionists, notwithstanding their immediate condemnation of that radicalism, but remain silent when most Islamic leaders and clerics fail to address Islamic radicalism.
Yet another double standard from our nihilistic, hypocritical friends on the far Left!
It is any wonder that this behavior causes many to conclude that the only standard which seems to govern their actions seems to be a (sometimes) unexpressed hatred for Western liberal democratic republicanism.
As though Moslem Clerics are going to listen to the American Secular Left anyway? And as though the American Right is going to be impressed by any such statements from us? I hate to say, that if there's any timewidth for dialogue, other things are higher on the list.
From our failure to say the useless, your suggesting that we atheistic, traitorous commie liberals during the Cold War have recently converted to Radical Islam just to stay traitors? This is more fantastical than any of the conspiracies presented in Stalin's show-trials.
Your insight is in the same world as the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction-- the world of imagination. That the Right is trying this now shows that it didn't have any credibility when they did it in the Cold War.
-- Modified on 3/15/2005 4:58:46 AM
as the content which follows.
Unfortunately, the text demonstrates that its author isn't speaking my language, either.
I'm not suggesting that Islamic leaders "listen to the American Secular Left." To "listen to the American Secular Left" implies that they should be taken seriously, which they shouldn't be. "The American Secular Left" has demonstrated itself to be too far outside of Western liberalism (as opposed to Liberalism) to be taken seriously. But perhaps the right words (i.e., demanding that so-called "moderate" Islamic leaders demonstrate their commitment to peace by condemning radicalism) followed by deeds (withdrawing support for terrorist organizations like the PLO when it promotes the Intifada) would do something to salvage or rebuild a bipartisan foreign policy. I'm not saying that I, as a conservative American, would be "impressed" by such words, but I would find it more difficult to hold the "American Secular Left" in such contempt were they to be offered.
And no, I'm not "suggesting that we atheistic, traitorous commie liberals during the Cold War have recently converted to Radical Islam just to stay traitors." "Conversion" would imply commitment to Islam. I'm merely observing that the "American Secular Left's" commitment to the destruction of democratic capitalism and the American democratic republic is the cause of a continuing blindness to the evil of America's enemies, one demonstrated throughout the Cold War. However, it was refreshing to see someone from the American Secular Left conceding (for a change) that Stalin DID conduct show trials. 'Tis a pity that those on the American Secular Left failed to do so when it could have made a difference, i.e., when they were going on, or when we were devising a foreign policy to deal with the regime that conducted them. On the other hand, I note that you attack the credibility of conservatives in the Cold War, demonstrating notwithstanding the historical victory of the American regime in that conflict that you are still a committed Leftist and America-hater.
As for Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, they were not a fantasy to the Israelis, who bombed the Osirak nuclear facility in the early 80s to prevent Saddam from getting the bomb, or to the 10,000 Kurds gassed by Saddam in the early 90s, or to the Iranians who were subject to chemical weapons attacks in the early 80s (in a war launched by Saddam), or to Saddam, who claimed to have them and behaved as though he had an on-going program. Indeed, even the New York Times is now reporting that those unfound weapons --- upon which a worldwide consensus agreed did exist --- were moved out of the country before the onset of hostilities.
Don't push me to revealing your absurdities then accuse me of being absurd.
Can't you just take it as given that I would like for Islam to renounce Osama Bin Laden, and that I took it as good news that some clerics in Britain have chosen to put a *Fatwa* on him?
BTW, when I first read the story, I thought a *Fatwa* also entailed a requirement/mission/bounty to kill Bin Laden-- like the one on Salmon Rushdie did. I was highly disappointed in Islam (again!), when I realized it didn't. It seems that a writer blaspheming Allah is more offensive than a soldier doing the same, and committing mass murders to boot.
So, what good would it have done for the ASL (the American Secular Left) to acknowledge Stalin's show trials? First, most liberals didn't see it as involving them-- kind of like expecting liberals to renounce Al Capone's gangland killings. Second, for the most part, the show trials were communists killing other communists. I ask you, is that such a bad thing to have your enemies killing each other? Now the concurrent mass arrests and executions going on were kept under wraps, and contacts with Westerners was strictly controlled. As far as I know, there wasn't any definite evidence about the general arrests and persecutions until Kruschev came to power, and admitted them.
It seems to me your phrase "commitment to the destruction of democratic capitalism and the American democratic Republic" is just a long handed way of saying "traitors." Then you describe our single-mindedness that blinds us to the evils of America's enemies. You've substituted terms, and made it sound benign, but you are expressing a belief about the liberals exactly as I charaterized it. I stand by what I wrote.
As for attacking conservatives after they "won" the Cold War for us (which they didn't-- the opponent died of degenerative heart failure before the crucial contest, to the surprise of everyone.) I would be thankful, except that I think liberals kept conservatives from turning the world into a radioactive slag ball by 1965-- and continued to prevent it all the way through the '70s.
Everything you cite about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was 10-20 years out of date by the time of the second Iraqi war-- and you know this. Weapons inspectors were finding *no evidence* of a current program in the late 90s, and the weakened Hussein regime in Iraq had every reason to lie about still having them-- with a vengeful and fully armed Iran right next to them.
As for the NY Times article, I'm currently password locked out of their website. I don't know anything about this. But Saddam wouldn't have got rid of his weapons if he thought their use had been effective before.
-- Modified on 3/17/2005 1:02:26 AM
And, James, how did this becomes a discussion about the Evil Left? Can't you guys stay on point ever?
BTW, what you will find interesting about this particular fatwa is that there's a ton of Saudi money in Spain, in the Marbella/Costa del Rolex region. I doubt this could happen without their blessing.
Actually, I know the message the Spanish clerics are really trying to send, and I applaud their bravery in saying it.
germaneness. I didn't realize that we had them on this Board.