Blogcritics: Comments on Fight the Long Fight

Comment by jadester

Sun, 23 Nov 2003 09:02:03 EST

i don't remember his name. It was on some of the reports about the bombings in turkey i think. the problem i have is that too many people seem to bunch together everyone who believes in Islam. i doubt protestants would like to be grouped with catholics (at least, not in ireland) for example. i thought "Islamists believe that all problems faced by Muslim societies can be solved only by adhering to the strict tenets of Islam, with varying degrees of adaptation to modern custom and usage" (from wikipedia, but that's about what i thought). I stand corrected, but it still appears to me that all too often, the whole of Islam is bunched under the title of Islamists. The thing is, from what i have seen on the news and read on the web, for most people in Islam it's a case of them not wanting their culture to be assimilated and destroyed by that of the west. Let's face it, ours IS a pervasive culture. it changes countries (whether for the better or worse is a matter of opinion), and if this happens without respect for the existing culture, if the existing culture is still pretty strong, you get a situation like what we have. If it was the other way around, if Islam was the dominant culture and poised to take over your home country, would you be worried?

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:28:17 EST

I just realized what this whole mess reminds of. It is like saying you are going to stop arsonists by sending out the fire department to burn down crack houses. As this week's bombings in Turkey (and they have arrested suspects, hint, that is how a justice system works in a democracy, you police crimes and conduct a trial) have proved, reducing a neighbouring country to anarchy and not expecting it to spread isn't a good idea. Similar to setting a house on fire and then being surprized when the whole neighbourhood burns down.

Comment by Tom

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:38:58 EST

Who is this western authority on Islam. Name please. So was FDR wrong for attacking the Japanese at Midway after they attacked us. They wanted to destroy our way of life. We had to take the war to them. Take them to the mattresses so they cannot take any more. You just said that they are parepared to die for their religion. People like that cannot be dealt with in a rational manner. They will not stop. Talking will do nothing. I cannot fathom that after 3,000 people were killed on September 11th you are so naive. I am truly shocked.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:35:58 EST

Jade, the key to what you said was "Islamist." The Crusades were against Islam just because it was Islam - that was wrong. The current struggle isn't with Islam, but the Islamists: those who proclaim Islam the only possible faith, that all who don't believe are subhuman and that it is Allah's will they be subjugated, converted, and/or killed, that theocracy is the only possible form of government, and that the West should be destroyed by any means possible. THAT is who we are fighting, that is who cannot be negotiated with, with whom it is kill or be killed.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:27:08 EST

Apology accepted, Tom. Thanks.

Comment by jadester

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:16:22 EST

violence breeds violence, and war breeds war. Even the top western authority on islam has said that the only way we are going to solve the problem is by diplomacy. Think about it for a minute - there are people prepared to die for their religion, their beliefs. The reasons for this are increased when western nations take military action against people JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE ISLAMISTS it's just as bad as hudnreds of years ago when the english christians went on a massive cruasade against all who opposed them. Or how the spanish inquisition tortured unbelievers and burned "heretical" books. All this may be in the past but seemingly, we haven't leanrt anything from it, and that is the scariest thing of all.

Comment by Tom

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:42:04 EST

I want to apologize. That last comment was rude. I don't like to be rude. I just worked a 12 hour day only to have two telemarketers call right as I walked in the door. I am sorry if that comment came across in a rude manner.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:41:05 EST

You obviously have no clue about what I value. I will say this: I value Americans -- note, the people, not the government, not the land mass -- no more and no less than I value other people on this planet. I'm sorry if you feel insulted, but you are in my prayers nonetheless.

Comment by Tom Bux

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:36:04 EST

What, you obviously value the type of people who would commit acts of terrorism over a country that values freedom and democracy? I find it insulting that somone like YOU would think they need to pray for me.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:09:02 EST

Oh, it can not be simply that my values differ from yours, could it? Your comment says much about you, Tom, and you are in my prayers.

Comment by Tom Bux

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:04:29 EST

I just don't see how you can say we "Use Diplomacy". You are crazy. These people do not negotiate. They are terrorists. They blow up women and children and think they will be rewarded with 100 virgins. They are crazy If you think you can just talk to them nicely you are naive. And sick

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:19:17 EST

I don't know whether to be appalled or sickly amused. A state of Permanent War will only destabilize international relations, and will be a massive failure, creating larger Yugoslavias and Lebanons. But I guess Fear said it best when they said: Let's have a war So you can go and die! Let's have a war! We could all use the money! Let's have a war! We need the space! Let's have a war! Clean out this place! It already started in the city! Suburbia will be just as easy!

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:58:58 EST

This peacenik does not make that distiinction; absolutely correct. I understand perfectly the distinction that others see, but I do disagree with it.

Comment by Tim Hall

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:24:58 EST

Seems to me that both the peace protestors and the War Party don't want to make any distinction between the war against Al Queda, which is a fight to the death we have to win (and will win, it's just a matter of how many innocent die in the process), and the invasion of Iraq, which is still debatable.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:19:37 EST

I agree 100% Tom, and it is every bit as critical as you state - this is THE issue of our time and Bush's realization of this is the main reason I support him (at this point).

Comment by Natalie Davis

Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:19:16 EST

Hide our heads? No. We talk. We use diplomacy. We put ourselves in harm's way and demand peace. If we die, we die, but we die out in the open, working for peace and against violence of any kind. We do not hide. Granted, few people share my view on this.