November 24, 2004

"The moment these considerations stop you from speaking out, that's the moment freedom of speech stops..."

Further background on Theo van Gogh from Salon.com.

Posted by Dr. Frank at November 24, 2004 07:47 PM | TrackBack
Comments

You read somehtign like that and George Bush doesn't seem so bad compred to those muslim finatics.

Posted by: Dave at November 25, 2004 01:00 AM

The murder of Van Gogh is a horrible shame regardless of how ignorant and inflammatory Van Gogh's public remarks regarding Muslims were.

For an individual to resort to murder under the circumstances is just insane.

But that's just what it was. An insane individual. Not "crazy Muslim fanatics," plural, taking over Europe.

The Dutch vigilante retaliation, by the way - which Frank, of course, doesn't mention - was also likely perpetrated by insane individuals who do not represent Dutch society.

Here is information regarding a series of retaliatory bombings and attacks at Muslim targets in the Netherlands this past week.

They are no less reprehensible and outrageous than the stabbing of Van Gogh.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4008781.stm

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 25, 2004 04:34 AM

By the way, don't think for a moment that the anti-Muslim cottage industry, propagated primarily by Israeli interests in the United States and Israel, disfavors an escalation of this violence.

Unfortunely for the rest of the world, any event, large or small, which demonstrates animosity between Muslims and any other third party, be it Chechens v. Russians, Ughurs v. Han Chinese, Filipino Muslims v. Filipino Christians, or European Muslim immigrants v. Europeans, is excellent fodder for Israeli propaganda against Muslims. And, so, as a matter of policy, Israeli interests seek to encourage and escalate such conflicts.

The idea being Muslim conflicts with parties other than Israel can be exaggerated, promoted, escalated (and in some cases, fabricated) to show to the world that Muslims are simply fanatical, resentful and inherently prone to violence - violence with anyone, and that such tendencies are inherent in the culture and not due to anything Israel has done that is actually wrong.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 25, 2004 05:06 AM

The Dutch that I have spoken with openly drew a parallel between Theo Van Gogh and Michael Moore.
His 25 film and endless insensitive utterances had made him more enemies that Carter makes of those little liver pills. It seems the Muslims got to him first.

Posted by: Neo at November 25, 2004 06:09 AM

"...which Frank of course doesn't mention..."

Indeed, Arya, as you point out, I had been hoping that by linking to a single Salon.com article I could do my small part to prevent people from learning of the Dutch vigilanteism in the aftermath of the Theo van Gogh murder. Unfortunately, you're too clever for me, and you and your bbc link have ruined the whole thing. The cat is out of the bag. And I must now reluctantly concede that the Dutch are not entirely blameless and that the fault lies with - the Israelis!

*Everything* isn't all about Israel. And as far as I can see you're the only one talking about "crazy Muslim fanatics" who are "inherently prone to violence."

But in your view, is it possible to be concerned about Islamist political violence without being either an architect or a tool of Israeli propaganda?

Posted by: Dr. Frank at November 25, 2004 03:00 PM

It is certainly possible to be objective and still be concerned about political violence, be it Islamist, Leftist, separatist, or otherwise.

However, the fixation with political violence involving Muslims in particular, coupled with the overwhelmingly disproportionate publicity given to the issue, and the framing of the issue as one of the foremost security problems in the world today is what is disingenuous propaganda.

The notion is architected and encouraged by interests who desire to incite and escalate conflict between third parties and Muslims, and discredit Muslims as inherently violent and dangerous, among other goals.

Who would want to do that?

In reality, the "Rise of Fanatical Muslims" motif is a propaganda tool to incite dislike of Muslims and ultimately violence against them by third parties. That has been an open and admitted policy objective of Israel for decades.

It is certainly not a genuine problem for the rest of the world - let alone for the continuity of civilization as we know it - and anyone who makes such preposterous claims usually has an ulterior motive.

The ulterior motive is not always being a pro-Israel ideologue, by the way. War profiteering, colonialist aspirations, Christian fundamentalism, and racism are also ulterior motives in this game. But the primary inciter of those forces against Muslims are Israeli interests.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 25, 2004 07:05 PM

"Who would want to do that?"

"The ulterior motive is not always being a pro-Israel ideologue, by the way. War profiteering, colonialist aspirations, Christian fundamentalism, and racism are also ulterior motives in this game"

Which one are you, Dr. Frank?

Posted by: josh at November 26, 2004 02:49 PM

Publicizing the "rise of fanatical Muslims" is not a propaganda tool. It is the simple reporting of the fact that there is an Islamist-financed culture of hate that has already caused more than a million innocent deaths.

From "Culture of Hate" by Egyptian Bat Yeor:

"This hate, which suppresses freedom of thought, and condemns difference, calls itself "Islamic jihad." It draws on religious texts whose interpretation other Muslims dispute. Moreover, because these moderate Muslims challenge this interpretation of jihad, wishing to live in peace with the non-Muslim peoples and nations of the world, their lives are threatened. There is constant bloodshed in Algeria. Jihad is disseminating death and terror in Israel. In Southern Sudan, jihad has caused the death of some two million people, generated an even larger number of refugees, lead to the enslavement of tens of thousands, and produced deadly famines."

This culture of hate is motivated by the desire to force unwilling people (moderate Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc) to live under pre-medieval, extremist Shariah laws. This culture of hate is financed by states that are already ruled by Shariah, including the twin pillars of terrorism, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

http://psy.ucsd.edu/~jwortman/sudan.htm

This culture of hate is currently attacking the governments of Thailand, India, the Netherlands, Belgium, the United States and Israel. If we did not use military force to counteract these attacks we would all suffer the same fate as the Sudanese blacks.

The murder of Theo Van Gogh is entirely legal according the extremist interpretation of Shariah (Islamic law allows for the killing of women and children who are perceived as aiding the war effort against the Muslims ('Umdat al-Salik o9.10, cf. al-Mawardi, al-Akham as-Sultaniyyah, 4.2).

In contrast, the mosque burnings are against Dutch law.

The threats that were made against Hirsi Ali were also in accordance with Islamic law, which states that the punishment for apostasy is death. Shariah also justifies the genocide and slavery that Muslim Arabs are currently inflicting on the Sudanese blacks.

These extremist, fundamentalist laws and the people who support them are supporting slavery, genocide and other crimes against humanity.

Posted by: mary at November 27, 2004 10:38 PM

What a bunch of bullshit.

There is no evidence on the historical record that demonstrates Muslim societies to be any more violent than Western societies.

Any instance of Muslim atrocities you cite can be matched tit for tat by a European or Christian atrocity of similar if not greater magnitude.

Your comments are absurd and not in line with reality.

And if you want to play this stupid game of citing to archaic and disused passages from the Koran or to "Shariah" laws as evidence of the violent nature of Muslim civilization, two can play at that.

Here are some quotes from the Bible for you to mull over:

1 Corinthians 11:5

"And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. "


Ephesians 5:22-24

"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. "

Leviticus 20:13

"If a man; also lie will mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Exodus 22:20

"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed."

Deuteronomy 13:6-10

"If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."

Deuteronomy 13:12-16

"If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt."


Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 28, 2004 04:59 AM

Thanks. That was most illuminating.

But leaving aside the "historical record," it almost sounds like you're saying that the threat from Islamist extremism isn't real, or that it isn't serious, or that it has been fabricated out of nothing by unscrupulous propagandists. The conventional wisdom is that, you know, it isn't. 9/11 and so forth.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at November 28, 2004 02:09 PM

The news we see every day proves that the threat from Islamic fanaticism is real.

The article I mentioned above, describes how state-sponsored terrorism and the establishment of Shariah law destroyed Sudanese society. From the article:

"By the 1980s, a series of poignant civil rights abuses aroused fear in the southern populations. The increasingly fanatical Islamized northern government had been abusing its power by dismantling the constitutional rights for people in the southern region and by imposing Shariya Law – traditional Muslim Law Code – over the ethnically diverse southern populations."

..Shariah (or Shariya) is not archaic, and it doesn’t exist only in the Koran. It’s the current, applied system of laws that justifies the current genocidal jihad.

From the article: "Omar’s fundamentalist government, supported by their oil reserves, military technology, and fear, continue to push forward. Their campaign however is not fueled by purely by religious zeal as it may appear at first glance. It is much more ethnically motivated, pitting the Arabic Muslim government against the African, dark-skinned Muslim and non-Muslims of greater Sudan. The African Muslims are mostly sedentary tribal peoples, agricultural societies that embrace diversity. The Arabic government fosters the form of ethnic fanaticism that has plagued the Middle East, such as in Iraq where Arabic Sunnis have in the past threatened and massacred Islamic Shiites and Kurds."

Shariah is used to justify the current Islamist campaign of genocidal jihad, slavery, the oppression and apartheid systems that give Muslim men rights that are denied to Muslim women, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. Extremist Islam recognizes no division between church and state.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-yeor080202.asp

http://www.saudiembassy.net/Issues/HRights/hr-judicial-2-intro.html

If a nation declares itself an Islamic state and follows the Islamic criminal (hudud) codes, that state (not coincidentally) is a terror-supporting state. The Muslim Brotherhood, a long-existing terrorist organization, has established Muslim Youth Camps in the United States, which they’re using to further their goal of bringing Shariah to America.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0409190261sep19,1,3910166.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Under Islamic laws, the lives of blacks, women, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and even moderate Muslims are not valued. That’s why they feel so free to kill us en masse. If Western and other nations do not use our military forces to defend ourselves, we will suffer the same fate as the Sudanese blacks.


Posted by: mary at November 28, 2004 03:18 PM

As tempting as it is to "leave aside" the historical record and accept what Dr. Frank says on all matters pertaining to the Middle East, I will have to pass on that this time.

And your latest reply is beautiful:

"The conventional wisdom is that, you know, it isn't."

Frank, just to clarify: What is being debating is whether or not the "conventional" wisdom is accurate.

If your response to that question is going to be that conventional wisdom is correct because conventional wisdom is correct, what's the point in continuing?

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 28, 2004 04:43 PM

Well, sometimes the conventional wisdom happens to be right.

I'll try not to confuse you with irony, though. So you're saying: the conventional wisdom in this case (that Islamist extremism presents a serious threat to liberal societies) is wrong? There is no threat? Or, that in fact Islamist extremism isn't all that extreme after all? Or that Islamist extremists actually played no part in the planning and execution of 9/11? (Let me guess: the Israelis, again?) I'm really not sure what you're getting at, if not that.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at November 28, 2004 05:01 PM

Mary: There's obviously no point in engaging you in a debate on this matter. You obviously have an intense hatred for Muslims which will not be fixed by anythnig I write. I could continue correcting or explaining the various half-truths you employ in developing your "Islam is evil and must be crushed" synopsis, but what's the point of that? You are way too far gone.

When you get a chance, though, could you give me a little background on how you developed your expertise of Muslim law and society?

Anyway, it's Sunday and I should really get some rest.

“Whosoever shall work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death”

Exodus 31:15

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 28, 2004 05:11 PM

Okay, you bated me out from my Sabbath rest.

;;;;the conventional wisdom in this case (that Islamist extremism presents a serious threat to liberal societies) is wrong? ;;;;

Yes.

'''''Or, that in fact Islamist extremism isn't all that extreme after all?''''

It's extreme but not prevalent. Not even a fraction of 1% of Muslims subscribe to or endorse the ridiculous literalist views that people like Mary are ascribing to a billion people. People like Mary are either ignorant or have their own internal beef with Muslims for other reasons.

;;;;Or that Islamist extremists actually played no part in the planning and execution of 9/11? (Let me guess: the Israelis, again?);;;;;

That is an open question.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 28, 2004 05:21 PM

Arya - you ask - "When you get a chance, though, could you give me a little background on how you developed your expertise of Muslim law and society"

I came by my knowledge of Muslim law and society through the writings of various Muslim scholars. Many moderate Muslims oppose the enforcement of extremist Shariah laws, and many oppose the terrorism and the genocidal jihad that these laws inspire.

Do you believe that these moderates 'hate all Muslims', or was that your attempt at irony?

Posted by: mary at November 28, 2004 05:28 PM

Arya, I don't see how the percentage enters into it. 1% of a billion is still a whole lot of extremists. A small number of revolutionaries or terrorists can in fact do a great deal of damage. I don't see how concern about those who follow bin Ladenite ideologies automatically translates into a condemnation of Islam or of all Muslims. On the contrary, by definition, it doesn't. Hence the term "extremists." Mary can, of course, speak for herself, but I see nothing in her comments to justify your characterization of her views (i.e., "Islam is evil and must be crushed.") You're tilting at a straw man, and I suspect you know it.

I'll take you at your word that your insouciance (concerning whether or not such extremists threaten the liberal political order) is genuine. It seems to me that such a position relies rather heavily on the sort of denial embodied in the ambivalence expressed in your answer to the question about who bears responsibility for 9/11.

Posted by: Dr. Frank at November 28, 2004 06:18 PM

Mary: Sudan has nothing to do with Morrocans in Holland or Chechans in Russia, or the Israel-Palestine conflict or the Pakistan-India conflict.

Your points regarding Sudan are all moot.

This is propaganda intended to draw a vague connection between what some thugs are saying and doing in Sudan and the Israel-Palestine conflict, along with practically every other social and political issue concerning Muslims, from 9/11 to Bosnia to Chechnya to Iran to India to Indonesia.

The tactic and logic is disingenuous and misleading, and that is why it is aptly described as propaganda.

It's like me spending all my time taking about Nazis, Stalinists, and Christian fundamentalists in the West, then taking the great logical leap of using that as a pretext to attack European countries, or argue that European culture is the threat to the world, or to discredit the whole of Western Civilization.

Are you really so ignorant as to think that such extreme views and acts, as in Sudan, are unique to Muslims?

The truth is the same exists and has existed in every region and culture in the world, from Cambodia to Germany.

And barbarism is no more accepted in the rest of the Middle East than the barbarism that took place in Germany during the Holocaust was accepted in the United States or Western Europe.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 28, 2004 08:34 PM

Frank: You are correct. I am operating under the assumption that 9-11 and almost all of the videos and beheadings attributed to extremist Muslims since the Bush administration's taking office are false flag operations and propagandist fabrications.

That's why we disagree on everything else.

Now, Sudan, the Taliban, those are for real.

But obviously, those distant and podunk regimes are / were no more a threat to Western Civilization, Life As We Know It, etc. than Khmer Rouge soldiers or El Salvadoran communists were to us in the 1980's.

The real threat to Western Civilization, in my view, is far more troubling. It is the ascendency of rightist neo-conservatives who are willing to resort to violence against anybody - be it Americans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, or otherwise - in order to create a pretext for advancing a great number of strategic aims.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 28, 2004 09:16 PM

Arya - For years, the Sudanese government, al Qaeda and the Iranians have been working together.

Al-Qaeda runs a number of official government agencies for the NIF including the Islamic Security Agency (secret police), the al-Amn al-Sawri (counter-intelligence), and the People's Defense Force (a paramilitary group along the lines of the SS). The first high-ranking al-Qaeda defector the US ever got ahold of back in 1994, Jamal al-Fadhl, was serving as the assistant director of the Revolutionary Security Service, the evolutionary predecessor of the Islamic Security Agency.

The Sudanese military helped al-Qaeda to conduct (unsuccessful) chemical, biological, and radiological weapons experiments at the Hilat Koko military base with the help of government scientists.

Al-Qaeda shipped $300,000,000 in gold from Afghanistan to Sudan in the wake of the US victory over the Taliban.

All of this information can be found by reading the court documents from the trial of the 1998 embassy bombers…

According to the Washington Post, Iran is still aiding al Qaeda. Iran, Sudan and al Qaeda have been working together for many years. It’s a myth that the Shi’ite Iranians and Saudi (Sunni) al Qaeda are enemies. They have been fighting a common enemy, us, for decades.

Sudan (and Iran and Saudi Arabia) has everything to do with the spread of terrorism and the deaths of the many thousands who have been recently murdered for jihad.

Moroccan jihadis in Holland, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Chechens in Russia and the Sudanese are all financed and trained by various Saudi and Iranian organizations. All share the same goal – forcing unwilling populations to live under Shariah law, to spread their cultural ‘values’ and their influence, around the world.

http://regnumcrucis.blogspot.com/2004_06_27_regnumcrucis_archive.html#108855322602934531

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27535-2002Sep2?language=printer

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt091003.htm

http://members.cox.net/slsturgi3/PhilosopherOfIslamicTerror.htm

Again, none of this is a secret. It’s in the news everyday. I’ve linked to articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times and Senate Hearings which will prove that Islamist extremism and the worldwide jihad is a current danger to most of the world’s population. This violence is funded by extremist states, and it’s inspired by an extremist interpretation of Shariah law.

You say: “I am operating under the assumption that 9-11 and almost all of the videos and beheadings attributed to extremist Muslims since the Bush administration's taking office are false flag operations and propagandist fabrications”

No kidding. And this propanda is all part of a neo-con/Israeli plot?

Do you have any links to reliable sources that’ll prove that?

Posted by: mary at November 28, 2004 11:46 PM

Iran is "working together" with Al Qaeda?

Where's the proof?

All the articles you cite to are simply repeated unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous sources with no evidence.

The idea is to tie Israel's enemies to Al Qaeda and thus create a pretext for an attack against that country. Happened with Iraq. Now they're trying to do it to Iran. Then it'll be Syria. And so forth.

It's all a lie.

No country in the world except the U.S. and Israel even ALLEGE that that is true.

At the height of al-Qaeda's involvement with the Taleban regime in Afghanistan, Iran nearly went to war with its eastern neighbour. It frequently repeats the charge that it was the Americans who created al-Qaeda and the Taleban.

http://www.indolink.com/displayArticleS.php?id=072504094306

Iran has been fighting al-Qaeda since long before 9/11 - back when the U.S. was supporting them. Funny way to support a group - by publicly opposing them and arresting / deporting all of their members.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2003-05-26-iran-al-qaeda_x.htm

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 29, 2004 03:30 AM

"Iran is "working together" with Al Qaeda? Where's the proof?"

You seemed to believe that the millions of Sudanese blacks who were slaughtered and enslaved by Arab Islamists were irrelevant, so I provided some well-known links between Sudanese Islamists and Saudi al Qaeda. The fact that Iran is also involved is well-known. There’s not much reason to go over this again, and this is not an endorsement of the boneheaded idea that we should invade Iran while leaving other terror-supporting states intact, but; in addition to the Washington Post, the sworn testimony and court documents from the trial of the 1998 embassy bombers, the 9/11 commission found evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iran.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html

The Los Angeles Times also has this article, reprinted here.

http://rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?HC=&D=8/1/2004&ID=39489

Of course, if you believe that 9/11 was a American Imperialist/ZOG conspiracy, facts probably aren’t relevant in your universe but there they are.

..and al Qaeda and the Taliban’s extremism were not ‘created’ by America. These beliefs have existed for hundreds of years, and they’re based on Saudi Wahhabism:

http://www.meta-religion.com/Extremism/Islamic_extremism/wahhabism.htm

"The Wahhabis' strict interpretation of the Sharia has sanctioned extreme laws and forms of punishment. According to Stephen Schwartz in the October 6, 2001 London Spectator , virtually all recent acts of terrorism have been enacted by Wahhabis. "Bin Laden is a Wahhabi. So are the suicide bombers in Israel. So are his Egyptian allies, who exulted as they stabbed foreign tourists to death at Luxor not many years ago, bathing in blood up to their elbows and emitting blasphemous cries of ecstasy. So are the Algerian Islamist terrorists, whose contribution to the purification of the world consisted of murdering people for such sins as running a movie projector or reading secular newspapers. So are the Taliban style guerrillas in Kashmir who murder Hindus."

All Muslims are definitely not extremists but all Islamist terrorists are inspired by Wahhabi extremism.

Posted by: mary at November 29, 2004 04:49 AM

Very slick, Mary.

I ask: "Where's the proof? [of the Government of Iran supporting the al-Qaeda terrorist network]"

You reply: "Sudanese blacks blah blah blah Arab Islamists blah blah blah well-known links blah blah blah al Qaeda. The fact that Iran is also involved is well-known."

That's called throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

I.E., no proof.

Proof is not "the Washington Post says that the 9/11 commission says that an intelligence official says that he has reason to believe that Iran is in cahoots with bin Laden."

Just because the government of Israel - or the United States, for that matter - allege something, that doesn't make it true.

Again, I ask you, give us the actual proof, not international relations' equivilent of he said / she said.

The government of Iran was opposed to al-Qaeda and the Taleban long before the government of the United States was.

Now, if you want a *real* reason to smear Iran, try the nuclear weapon issue.

Iran is most assuredly developing nuclear weapons, and arguably the most fascinating issue in the last decade of foreign relations is how this matter will be resolved.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 29, 2004 06:45 AM

Hey, Mary, look: barbarism and ignorance and it's not even Islamic!

Recording shows "Israeli officer pumping the body of a 13-year-old girl full of bullets and then saying he would have shot her even if she had been three years old."

"Pictures in an Israeli newspaper of ultra-orthodox soldiers mocking Palestinian corpses by impaling a man's head on a pole and sticking a cigarette in his mouth."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1361755,00.html

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 29, 2004 01:26 PM

Arya - The world should deal with Iran's nuclear threat the way we originally dealt with Saddams' threat. UN inspections and aerial supervision were surprisingly effective.

And yes, atrocities exist in every country. But those atrocities are against our laws. In contrast, atrocities and crimes against humanity are required and entirely legal under Shariah.

You say "Just because the government of Israel - or the United States, for that matter - allege something, that doesn't make it true."

I see. And the prattlings of mullahs who believe that 9 year old girls are 'marriageable' is entirely believable. Whatever.

Posted by: mary at November 29, 2004 02:19 PM

''''''And yes, atrocities exist in every country. But those atrocities are against our laws. In contrast, atrocities and crimes against humanity are required and entirely legal under Shariah. '''''''

1. Atrocities committed by European Christians have NOT been illegal under their own laws. Germany, Russia, the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, all European Christian nations, all legitimized their heinous activities under the cover of Nazi German and Soviet law, respectively. Literally millions died as a direct consequence of these laws, and this example alone dwarfs by several orders of magnitude any atrocity committed by Muslims in the last two centuries.

2. You can't even count on one hand the number of Muslim regimes which even purport to practice "Shariah" law. Moreover, there is no consensus, even among the few countries which allegedly practice it, on what so-called "Shariah" law actually is. This shows that the whole thing is a hunk of baloney used by some despots to be despots, and manipulated by Western propagandists to justify their agendas for the entire Middle East.


''''''You say "Just because the government of Israel - or the United States, for that matter - allege something, that doesn't make it true."
I see. And the prattlings of mullahs who believe that 9 year old girls are 'marriageable' is entirely believable. Whatever. ''''''''

I never said we should take at face value everything the government of Iran (or any other government, for that matter) says on a particular issue.

As a matter of fact, I just told you that Iran was likely developing nuclear weapons despite the formal denials of the government.

On the other hand, you are the one suggesting anything a particular government alleges is true by definition.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 29, 2004 07:43 PM

Arya - you're right, the nations that are ruled by Shariah (ie: Iran, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, Nigeria, etc.) are directly comparable to Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia.

"As a matter of fact, I just told you that Iran was likely developing nuclear weapons despite the formal denials of the government"

I already know that, I mentioned how we should deal with it, so why do you keep repeating the same thing over and over? Do you think we should invade?

Posted by: mary at November 29, 2004 09:45 PM

This is my last word on the comparative religion and culture front. I'm citing to an objective scholarly paper written by a Ph.D. professor in this field.

http://www.iranian.com/Alamdari/2004/November/Religion/index.html

As for my comments regarding the Iranian nuclear issue, they were meant to contradict your implication that I advocated accepting all the public claims of the Iranian government while being skeptical of the claims made by the governments of the U.S. and Israel. The accusation is untrue. I am skeptical of both.

Now *should* Iran be developing nuclear weapons?

Should we attack Iran?

These are questions for another day.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 29, 2004 10:47 PM

Arya – Thanks for the Alamdari link. It looks interesting.

You said that you believe that the ‘real threat’ to Western Civilization is the “ascendency of rightist neo-conservatives who are willing to resort to violence against anybody - be it Americans, Europeans, Middle Easterners, or otherwise - in order to create a pretext for advancing a great number of strategic aims.”

If American neo-cons and their imperialist plots are so destructive, then why would you be so laissez-faire about the idea of America invading Iran? Why would you be repeating the ‘WMD boogiemen are gonna get you’ routine, why are you trying to make Iran look threatening and dangerous if you’re opposed to an invasion?

Unless, of course, the destruction of Western Civilization and the corresponding Zionist "conspiracy" is part of your hopes and dreams. Which is the only interpretation that makes any sense.

I oppose a unilateral invasion of Iran because it’s obvious that it would result in another long, economically draining occupation/insurgency war. Since most Islamist states have pathetically weak armies, losing the war and draining an enemy’s resources through foreign-funded terrorist insurgencies is the only way they can fight. Provoking occupation/insurgencies also has the side benefit of increasing their oil profits. Is that your opinion too?

You also said:

"The notion is architected and encouraged by interests who desire to incite and escalate conflict between third parties and Muslims, and discredit Muslims as inherently violent and dangerous, among other goals. Who would want to do that?"

Yes, who would want to do that? Thanks for answering my question.

Posted by: mary at November 30, 2004 02:10 AM

Mary: I think you misunderstood my position.

I am emphatically opposed to any attack on Iran by the U.S. and Israel, as much for the sake of the U.S. and Israel as for the sake of Iran.

The U.S. has not invaded a nation with the geographic size, population, regular and irregular military capabilities, and fierce nationalistic tendencies of Persian Iran, without suffering at least 100,000 casualties.

And the casualties may be far greater if Iran uses its heretofore unexercised military leverage with the Shiites in Iraq, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan (practically an Iranian proxy), groups in Lebanon, or has already developed nuclear weapons.

But don't get me wrong.

That does not mean that I believe Iran is a threat to the U.S. As CIA Iran analyst Kenneth Pollack noted in his new book "The Persian Puzzle," Iran's defense strategy appears to be just that - defensive and geared primary to serve as a deterrent to foreign invasion.

The only country that has anything to fear is Israel, not because Iran will use nukes on Israel, but because a huge element of its defense strategy - having a monopoly on nuclear weapons - is or will be rendered void.

Posted by: Aryamehr University at November 30, 2004 04:34 PM