Yeah, but nobody in "authority" is gonna say this, because it might cost them a few votes come '06. And I don't think Muslims do care, just as long as they have some kind of paper target to raise hell about; either that, or their spiritual leaders are even bigger moral cowards than ours.

>but a more critical insight is necessary.<

Nothing wrong with that.

>"Look, Newsweek may have violated journalistic rules, but what jihadist terrorists are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan - blowing up innocent Muslims struggling to build an alternative society to dictatorship - surely destroys the Koran."<

Is he serious? In a country where we have over 300 sects of Christian faith could he be so far removed from the idea that some radical minority contingent, that was not too long ago in power, would think that killing is an obstacle for achieving their idea of an Islamic society? Why would the human conceptualization of Islam be any less varied than Christianity?

>"They are the real enemies of Islam because they are depriving Muslims of a better future."<

The notion of a "better future" is in the eyes of the beholder.

I believe the anti-abortion wackos who kill doctors in this county also believe they're paving the way to a better future.

>"From what I know of Islam, it teaches that you show reverence to God by showing reverence for his creations, not just his words. Why don't your spiritual leaders say that?"<

Substitute "Christianity" for "Islam" and ask yourself how many "spiritual leaders" other than the deceased Pope, who would otherwise be considered supporters of Bush and his positions have spoken out against this travesty in Iraq? Why aren't they "showing reverence for his creations"?

They would have to have a spine. It is impossible to reconcile such reverence with our corrupt invasion of Iraq.

Yet TF expects more from Moslems?

By no means am I endorsing murder and mayhem. Simply playing devils advocate.

>>>"They are the real enemies of Islam because they are depriving Muslims of a better future."<

The notion of a "better future" is in the eyes of the beholder.<<

So, BillB - you want to debate the issue of whether a future where you're alive is better than one where you're dead? Come again?

Dave

When a Muslim is killed, Christians generally don't run out in the street screaming "God is Great" or "Death to Islam".

ya but we wouldnt because we are the dominant view and we don't have the same history behind us.

its like the theory that you can't be racists to a white person. No matter what a black person says to a white person it can't be felt as racist because the white person knows he represents or is supported by the dominat discourse of teh times.

Anyway... Ijust wanted to say that, inrealtins to the original post, GWB should have said somthing along those lines but that would undermine is alterir motives. Transition of the middle east by force. To all of suddent pull up and start talking things though would might get people thinking of alternatives to millitary action.

Hey Dave

>>>"They are the real enemies of Islam because they are depriving Muslims of a better future."<<<

>>The notion of a "better future" is in the eyes of the beholder.<<

>So, BillB - you want to debate the issue of whether a future where you're alive is better than one where you're dead? Come again?<

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here Dave but I'll try to clarify from my end.

I certainly don't agree with those who indiscriminately murder as I hoped to infer with my analogy to the anti-abortion folks who've murdered doctors.

I was intending to speak more to what I could only perceive as naivete on the part of TF who seems to view Islam as a monolithic philosophy.

The insurgents are fighting in part because they believe from their perspective that they are better suited to build a "better future". Of course they also are pissed about losing power and want the power and goodies back. Not to mention their opposition to anything American.

You could certainly argue that historically they are "less" Islamic than other Moslems but I see that as a different argument. They still have their ideology to support their ideas. Anyone who "believes" does.

Maybe there is some kind of correlation between the Christians who will not criticize Bush and Moslems who will not criticize the insurgents and the opposition in Afghanistan.

I know from your perspective you are not bound by these constaints but I think you'd have to agree that as TF laments the lack of Moslem voices pointing out the hypocricy of insurgent actions as related to tenets of the Koran so exists the lack of Christian voices pointing out the hypocricy of our actions. Ya know, love thy enemy as thy self, do unto others, turn the other cheek etc.

While much time has been spent by religious folks debating the criteria for a just war, the last time I checked Jesus' quote was something on the order of "love thy neighbor as thyself" and not "love thy neighbor as thyself unless you think he might kick your ass sometime in the future in which case you can kill him."

Is this so transparent that he can not see it? Or is he blinded by righteousness?

I don't mean to take sides in this as much as I'm making an observation.

As I've mentioned in another post, from where we currently find ourselves, I only want the best for the Iraqi people. The democracy we're trying to impose, with a moderate Islamic flavor, seems to be the best hope at this point.

I simply don't have much faith that we'll be successful - for a litany of reasons.

Bill

Just a note on my previous post.

>love thy enemy as thy self<

I don't think this one exists. I think I confused it with "neighbor".

But there is this one.

Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you...

>>The insurgents are fighting in part because they believe from their perspective that they are better suited to build a "better future". Of course they also are pissed about losing power and want the power and goodies back. Not to mention their opposition to anything American.<<

The problem is that depending on which 'insurgent' group you're talking about the better future for them means either a theocratic dictatorship or a military police state for the Iraqi people. What's better for violent terrorists once they get into power is generally no better for the common people of a country than the violence and death they used to gain that power.

Dave

>The problem is that depending on which 'insurgent' group you're talking about the better future for them means either a theocratic dictatorship or a military police state for the Iraqi people. What's better for violent terrorists once they get into power is generally no better for the common people of a country than the violence and death they used to gain that power.<

I'm pretty much with you there Dave.

I'd only add that within these groups are both people who truly believe in the justification of their actions and goals and those who's aims are more self serving.

I'm not making a value judgement on the merits of their cause. Just an observation.

A couple of points:

>theocratic dictatorship<

Likely what Iraq would look like if they were truly free.

>What's better for violent terrorists once they get into power is generally no better for the common people of a country than the violence and death they used to gain that power.<

From some of your other posts I'm assuming you don't have a problem with violence as a means to an end. Nor with the terrorists/insurgents methods as what their doing is pretty logical considering the strategies available to them.

Your problem is with their idea of Iraq's future/endgame. Understood. I also do not want to see a repressive regime take hold in Iraq.

Bill

[>theocratic dictatorship<

Likely what Iraq would look like if they were truly free.]

Funny but while I truly believe this, while reading it back the irony struck me.

If truly free they'd choose repression.

While I think that last comment might be true for a minority in Iraq and a lot of people in the mideast in general, my impression of Iraq is that they've been sufficiently secularized over a long enough time period that the majority of the population wouldn't be at all happy with a theocratic dictatoriship. The problem is that the majority are more concerned about their jobs and their cell phone coverage than being politically active, and the ones who are motivated to activism are the extremists.

Dave

>The problem is that the majority are more concerned about their jobs and their cell phone coverage than being politically active, and the ones who are motivated to activism are the extremists.<


Wow. I don't know if you meant it or even if you'd feel the same way as me but -- does that sound familiar?

Bill

Join Eric Olsen on my program Subject To Discussion Wednesday night May 25 at 6pm PT LIVE go , click on LISTEN and click on CAM/CHAT.

Also Koenigrules from GalacticaStation will be on for his Colonial Confidential Reporters Notebook Battlestar Galactica Update. With information about the second season of BSG.

Join us for a discussion of current events and Battlestar Galactica Wednesday night at 6pm PT.

Shaun