Text 2310, 176 rader
Skriven 2010-01-02 15:17:48 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: The Evil That Men Do
============================
Hello Robert,

On Wednesday December 30 2009 15:49, you wrote to me:

 MV>> They are no angels of course, but when was the last major war
 MV>> between two Islamic contries without Western involvement?
[..]
 RB> You also are doubtless trying to protect yourself against the obvious
 RB> cases of Iran-Iraq (started by Saddam Hussein, who wanted to take over
 RB> Iranian territory to get more oil and coastline after the Islamic
 RB> Revolution),

Iraq during the reign of Saddam Hussein was not an Islamic country.

And that conflict was not without western involvement either. Saddam was backed
up by the US.

And of course Iran was not without western interference either. The Sjah was
helped in the saddle by the US. Without the Sjah, no iranian revolution and
without that Iran would not be what it is now.

 RB> the warfare between the Palastinian Fatah and Hamas groups,

Is a result of the refusal of the western world to accept that Hamas won the
election. An election that the western world insisted on, I may add.

 RB> the actions of the Syrians in Lebanon, the invasion of Kuweit
 RB> by Iraq and a few other "minor" things.

Does not qualify as a conflict between two islamic countries.

 RB> Based on what you write, I don't doubt you will claim all of these
 RB> have been mere "American surrogate" wars. Although that doesn't say
 RB> much for the intelligence or independence of the usually fiercely
 RB> independent Moslem leaders.

As I wrote, they are no angels. But to me they do not look any more violent
among each other than the Europeans 100 years ago. I reject the idea that the
Islam is inherently more violent and intolerant than other religions.

 RB>>> The only thing they appear to hate more than Israelis (and
 RB>>> Americans)

 MV>> For which they have good reasons...

 RB> You appear to have much sympathy for religious fanatics and
 RB> terrorists,

I have no sympathy for either. In fact I have little sympathy for followers of
religion even if they are not fanatics. Basing major decisions on myth is
primitive. And when it results in attempts to force one's beliefs on others -
as seems to be a common factor of all religions - it is annoying.

I also realise I am privileged. My parents were non believers and so I was not
indoctrinated into religion. I also had the privilege of a very good education.
The majority of the people living in Islamic countries did not have that luck.
So one can not really blame then for holding false beliefs. Very few manage to
rid themselves of the indoctrination of religion. A good education is the best
cure against religion, but unfortunately that is what is lacking in most parts
of the world.

As for the terrorist part, that is a matter of perspective. One man's terrorist
is another man's freedom fighter.

 RB>>> is other moslems. And hate, not tolerance or affection or
 RB>>> brotherly love, is the driving force in modern islam.

 MV>> Absolute nonsence.

 RB> You're living in a dream world, or are intentionally trying to deny
 RB> the obvious.

You are talking like Geert Wilders. (That is the Dutch version of Jörg Haider)

 MV>> The average Muslim is not more violent than the average Christian.

 RB> The average Muslim of the year 2009 is no more violent than the
 RB> average Christian of the year 1100.

You are exaggerating. They may be a bit behind, but not that much. Change 2100
into 1900 and we may agree.

 MV>> Of course there are extermeists. But you will find those
 MV>> everywhere, not just among Muslims.

 RB> How many Christian suicide bombers have blown up aircraft in the last
 RB> few years, Michiel?

Forget about the means and look at the result. How many "innocent citizens"
have died as a result of action by Jews and Christians?

How many Israelis died as a result of Palestinian rockets? How many
Palestinians died in the attack of Gaza last year?

How many civilians died in Iraq after it was invaded by the coalition?

 RB>>> Ever hear the term "Hashemite whore"? That's what his "arab
 RB>>> brothers" once called King Hussein of Jordan.

 MV>> You should not judge an entire religion by the words of a few
 MV>> extremists.

 RB> I don't.

Yes you do.

 RB> I judge Muslims by what I see demonstrated in the media.

The media have the habit of zooming in on where the action is.

 RB> The riots and hysterical ranting of so-called "clergy" after
 RB> publication of the Mohammed cartoons in Denmark were very illustrative
 RB> of the kind of thinking that goes on in that part of the world.

No, they are not. No more than Geert Wilders is illustrative for the kind of
thinking in this part of the world,

 RB> And anyone who trys to excuse that on the basis of religion is simply
 RB> spouting appeasement and fear that any future free expression (in OUR
 RB> society) will lead to even more violence.

I am not excusing it. On the contrary. But I do not accept that that attitude
is typical for all Muslims.

 RB> Why should we allow ourselves to be intimidated by foreigners from
 RB> another culture, why should we voluntarily give up our freedoms in our
 RB> own countries simply because some foreigners from another culture get
 RB> hysterical and rampage brainlessly? To hell with that, is my attitude.

We should not.

 RB> If a Muslim wants to kill his daughter because she wants to marry
 RB> someone her father doesn't approve of - let him move back to where he
 RB> came from, where such behavior is acceptable.

Certainly.

But now you are mixing up two things. There is the matter of Muslims
immigrating to our country. Yes, they should submit to our laws and customs.

But what does that have to do with the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan?
why are we fighting the Taliban? Why do we not allow then to run their country
the way they want?  Why do we deny them what we claim as a right for ourselves?

 MV>> You don't judge the entire US population by the words of Malcolm X
 MV>> do you?

 RB> Malcolm X was of limited influence in the States.

It was just an example. Surely you will agree that the US has its share of
religious fanatics.

 RB> There have beenbetter examples (such as Father Coughlin and Huey
 RB> Long), but you may not be aware of them.

Indeed, never heard of them. I did hear of that bunch of religious fanatics
that set themselves on fire when they were confronted with an attempt to arrest
their leader. Forgot his name. Or that bunch that kept children captive and
abused them...

 RB> And such people were never, _never_ as influential in the US as people
 RB> like Arafat or Koumehni were in their respective areas.

How about George Bush? Who managed to plunge his country into two wars
resulting in hundred thousands of death on the base of lies?

 RB> So no, I don't judte the US population on the basis
 RB> of Malcolm X - but I also believe you picked a very bad analogy.

Then you should not judge the people of Islamic countries on the extremists
either.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)