This just in. Nessitopia.com, the supercool website published by my nephew, has come to an end. It seems Nephew has better things to do than maintain a website. I feel like I did when he dropped all things Pokemon overnight; it's another sign that he's growing up and into new things and interests. But that's what life's all about, growing and changing. I wish you success, Nephew, in all of your new endeavors!!
Love,
Auntie
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Where I Stand
It will come as no surprise to even first time readers of this blog that I'm for victory in Iraq. I have a "poster" on this blog saying just that. However, I wasn't gung ho for going to war in Iraq before it actually happened, so I feel I should clarify my position on this volatile issue.
When President Bush first mentioned going to war with Iraq I didn't think it was a good idea. I didn't think Bush had made the case that Iraq was a unique threat to America. I know, I'm sounding like Susan Sarandon, but let me explain. I didn't doubt that Iraq had WMD's. I simply believed that it wouldn't matter if we destroyed every WMD in Iraq because there were too many other sources for terrorists to get WMD's if they really wanted them. Islamic Pakistan, for instance, has nukes. Surely, if we destroyed Saddam's WMD's Osama could go there for material to make a dirty bomb. Russia has had loose control over its nukes since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And lets not forget North Korea, which would sell anything to anyone to prop itsself up. So, if the war in Iraq was meant to keep America safe from WMD-wielding terrorists, it was a failed war from the start because WMD's are everywhere.
I also had reservations about the war because I remember what happened at the end of the Gulf War, when the first President Bush let Saddam massacre the Kurds and Shiites after calling on them to revolt against him. I feared that that memory would blunt at least some of the expected enthusiasm for America as liberator. After all, how could people who were betrayed--yes, betrayed--by America years earlier be expected to embrace American troops now? So, I had a couple of serious doubts about the war, but once we were committed I was gung ho for victory which sets me apart from people like Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, etc., who are routing for defeat.
Now that we're in the fight I understand that we must win. I understand that overthrowing Saddam's horrific regime was a noble act, even if it wasn't the stated reason for going to war. I understand that the insurgents aren't freedom fighters, as Saddamite Cindy stupidly called them, but bad guys who will put Iraq back under tyranny if they win. I understand that Abu Ghraib was a mole hill, not a mountain. I understand that Americans are free to question or oppose the war, but I also understand that people who call the insurgents freedom fighters and Bush the world's greatest terrorist are anti-American/Bush, not anti-war.
We all now know that Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I'm willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt that he sincerely believed they existed, based on the intelligence given to him. And remember, other leaders such as Tony Blair and Russia's Putin, also believed that Saddam had WMD's. I don't think Bush lied.
I wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if I were Bush. Instead, I would've put an indefinite moratorium on Muslim immigration to America. Until the war on terror was won, no Muslim would enter this country. I then would've put troops on the Mexican border to stop terrorists and others from entering America illegally. Next, I would've had a meeting with all the auto makers who build and/or sell cars in America, and I would've told them that within a year a) all cars sold in America must get 50 mpg and b) they must invent an easy-to-install device for existing cars that would increase their mpg by at least 10%. Next, I would've worked with Congress, governors, and mayors to hammer out a tax incentive/cut for Americans who solarize their homes. Next, I would've massively increased government funding for r&d on alternative energy and the infrastructure for delivering it to the public. The purpose of all this would be to impoverish our enemies and free us to deal with them without worrying about oil supplies. And that would be just the beginning!
My "instead of" scenario outlined above would win me no points from the politically correct crowd, but the purpose of a president is to protect the American people, not kowtow to political correctness. Bush has done what he thought was necessary to protect us. Maybe he was wrong, but it is outrageous to accuse him of deliberately lying us into a war just to make oil profits. The people who do that are only revealing the irrational, ideology-driven, hatred of Bush that's the real driving force behind their "pacifism". They are on the side of the insurgents; I am on the side of America. That's where I stand. How about you?
When President Bush first mentioned going to war with Iraq I didn't think it was a good idea. I didn't think Bush had made the case that Iraq was a unique threat to America. I know, I'm sounding like Susan Sarandon, but let me explain. I didn't doubt that Iraq had WMD's. I simply believed that it wouldn't matter if we destroyed every WMD in Iraq because there were too many other sources for terrorists to get WMD's if they really wanted them. Islamic Pakistan, for instance, has nukes. Surely, if we destroyed Saddam's WMD's Osama could go there for material to make a dirty bomb. Russia has had loose control over its nukes since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And lets not forget North Korea, which would sell anything to anyone to prop itsself up. So, if the war in Iraq was meant to keep America safe from WMD-wielding terrorists, it was a failed war from the start because WMD's are everywhere.
I also had reservations about the war because I remember what happened at the end of the Gulf War, when the first President Bush let Saddam massacre the Kurds and Shiites after calling on them to revolt against him. I feared that that memory would blunt at least some of the expected enthusiasm for America as liberator. After all, how could people who were betrayed--yes, betrayed--by America years earlier be expected to embrace American troops now? So, I had a couple of serious doubts about the war, but once we were committed I was gung ho for victory which sets me apart from people like Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, etc., who are routing for defeat.
Now that we're in the fight I understand that we must win. I understand that overthrowing Saddam's horrific regime was a noble act, even if it wasn't the stated reason for going to war. I understand that the insurgents aren't freedom fighters, as Saddamite Cindy stupidly called them, but bad guys who will put Iraq back under tyranny if they win. I understand that Abu Ghraib was a mole hill, not a mountain. I understand that Americans are free to question or oppose the war, but I also understand that people who call the insurgents freedom fighters and Bush the world's greatest terrorist are anti-American/Bush, not anti-war.
We all now know that Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I'm willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt that he sincerely believed they existed, based on the intelligence given to him. And remember, other leaders such as Tony Blair and Russia's Putin, also believed that Saddam had WMD's. I don't think Bush lied.
I wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if I were Bush. Instead, I would've put an indefinite moratorium on Muslim immigration to America. Until the war on terror was won, no Muslim would enter this country. I then would've put troops on the Mexican border to stop terrorists and others from entering America illegally. Next, I would've had a meeting with all the auto makers who build and/or sell cars in America, and I would've told them that within a year a) all cars sold in America must get 50 mpg and b) they must invent an easy-to-install device for existing cars that would increase their mpg by at least 10%. Next, I would've worked with Congress, governors, and mayors to hammer out a tax incentive/cut for Americans who solarize their homes. Next, I would've massively increased government funding for r&d on alternative energy and the infrastructure for delivering it to the public. The purpose of all this would be to impoverish our enemies and free us to deal with them without worrying about oil supplies. And that would be just the beginning!
My "instead of" scenario outlined above would win me no points from the politically correct crowd, but the purpose of a president is to protect the American people, not kowtow to political correctness. Bush has done what he thought was necessary to protect us. Maybe he was wrong, but it is outrageous to accuse him of deliberately lying us into a war just to make oil profits. The people who do that are only revealing the irrational, ideology-driven, hatred of Bush that's the real driving force behind their "pacifism". They are on the side of the insurgents; I am on the side of America. That's where I stand. How about you?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Read and Understand
Below is a quote from my friend--yes Trevor, I consider you a friend--fellow blogger and American soldier, Trevor. I want all you defeatists and America haters to read what one soldier has to say about his service in and for Iraq. Maybe you'll come away with a new understanding of how wrong you are and how good American warriors like Trevor are. Read and understand.
Having been in Baghdad for several months now, I’m more cognizant than ever of my own mortality, and of the expiration date that all of us have. I want my life to make sense and mean something. I think it does, despite all the rowdy people back home who scream and slobber about the “illegal war,” poking at what is being done over here with a stick, afflicted by intellectual myopia, making the wounds worse by offering stinging criticisms but no positive alternatives to the current course of action. They ask so many questions, but are never satisfied with the answers. They gloss over the evil that is Saddam Hussein and the mass graves of somewhere between a quarter-million and half-million human beings. They ignore the brokenness of civilization in this part of the world and spend their precious breaths blaming instead of actively helping.
Partway through my first and what I hope will be last war, I’m more convinced than ever that war actually does change history, sometimes for the better. Whether this war, my war, will make the world better or worse remains to be seen. It’s up in the air. Much progress has been made, infrastructure built and lives improved. That is one side of the coin. There is the other, uglier side too. Many people have died. Many wonder for what? I don’t have all those answers and the daily shrieks of the superpundits on both sides have grown almost intolerable.
All I can offer from this vantage point is to add my labors to the vast effort here and hope. And I can honor those who have died at the hands of the savages.
Right on, Trevor!
To read the complete post this quote is taken from, click on willtoexist.com in my link field.
Having been in Baghdad for several months now, I’m more cognizant than ever of my own mortality, and of the expiration date that all of us have. I want my life to make sense and mean something. I think it does, despite all the rowdy people back home who scream and slobber about the “illegal war,” poking at what is being done over here with a stick, afflicted by intellectual myopia, making the wounds worse by offering stinging criticisms but no positive alternatives to the current course of action. They ask so many questions, but are never satisfied with the answers. They gloss over the evil that is Saddam Hussein and the mass graves of somewhere between a quarter-million and half-million human beings. They ignore the brokenness of civilization in this part of the world and spend their precious breaths blaming instead of actively helping.
Partway through my first and what I hope will be last war, I’m more convinced than ever that war actually does change history, sometimes for the better. Whether this war, my war, will make the world better or worse remains to be seen. It’s up in the air. Much progress has been made, infrastructure built and lives improved. That is one side of the coin. There is the other, uglier side too. Many people have died. Many wonder for what? I don’t have all those answers and the daily shrieks of the superpundits on both sides have grown almost intolerable.
All I can offer from this vantage point is to add my labors to the vast effort here and hope. And I can honor those who have died at the hands of the savages.
Right on, Trevor!
To read the complete post this quote is taken from, click on willtoexist.com in my link field.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Sir Winston Churchill on Islam
I found this quote on the blog Slantright; it was copied from Qando Blog. The quote is from Curchill's 1899 book, 'The River War". See what the greatest leader of the 20th century had to say about Islam, before the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Chechneya, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the other problems modern Muslims say are the cause of Muslim terrorism.
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property where ever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property--either as child, wife, or concubine--must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show spendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science--the science against which it had vainly struggled--the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property where ever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property--either as child, wife, or concubine--must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show spendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science--the science against which it had vainly struggled--the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
"Bigots Go Home"?
Last night, while babysitting for some friends, I was watching FoxNews and noticed a blurb about a pro-life protest march in San Francisco. The blurb was on what I call the news bar that's at the bottom of the tv screen. The pro-lifers were protesting the Roe v. Wade decision which has it's anniversary today. They were countered by pro-abortion marchers shouting, "Bigots go home", and that's what caught my attention.
We all know that the abortion debate brings out heated passions on both sides, but why, I wondered, did the pro-abortion demonstrators in San Francisco call the pro-lifers bigots? The abortion debate has nothing to do with race or even gender. Millions of pro-lifers are women. Indeed, judging from all the pro-life rallies and protests I've seen on tv, women are the backbone of the pro-life movement, yet the SF pro-lifers were called bigots. Having thought about it, I think I know why, and it gets to the bottom of why I'm not a liberal.
As I stated above, millions of women are pro-life. I'm one of them. My best friends are pro-life. I've had female co-workers who were pro-life. So I know that pro-lifers aren't bigots. Yet liberals are obsessed with making every issue about bigotry, or racism, or hate. Apparently, they think it proves their moral and intellectual superiority over their opponents, but I think it reveals their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
It takes no great mental effort to dismiss your ideological foe with a pre-packaged rebuttal. This is especially true when the rebuttal has little or no relation to the actual issue at hand. Still, liberals do this all the time. And why do they do it? Because they lack convincing arguments for their ideas and because they're too arrogant to think they need them. Liberals are about discrediting the views of others rather than defending their own. They seem to really believe that all they have to do is smear opposing views for the gloriously obvious goodness of their own ideas to shine forth. And what better way to smear opposing views, and the people who hold them, than to paint them as bigoted, racist, or hateful?
This was brought home to me during the bitter debate over welfare reform during Clinton's presidency. Republicans were giving the public real stastitics on the failure of the old welfare system, most notably that it hadn't reduced poverty one bit in 30 years. And the Democrats' response? The Republicans were cruel! The Republicans were racists! The Republicans wanted to starve children! I'll never forget Congressman Charles Rangel actually saying that there were "similarities" between the Republicans' welfare reform bill and Naziism. Opposing a welfare system that kept people poor made you a Nazi??!! That's when I lost all respect for liberals. Truth and common sense didn't matter. Power mattered, and liberals thought they could regain it by launching a hysterical smear campaign they assumed the public was dumb enough to believe. They assumed wrong, and they're still out of power.
I realize that most people aren't going to change their position on the abortion issue, which ever side they're on. But the harshness of the debate could ebb if the pro-abortion side started showing a little more respect for the intellectual depth of the pro-life side. In fact, liberals need to show more respect for the intellectual depth of their opponents on all issues. It's time they started defending their ideas and stopped assasinating non-liberals' character.
We all know that the abortion debate brings out heated passions on both sides, but why, I wondered, did the pro-abortion demonstrators in San Francisco call the pro-lifers bigots? The abortion debate has nothing to do with race or even gender. Millions of pro-lifers are women. Indeed, judging from all the pro-life rallies and protests I've seen on tv, women are the backbone of the pro-life movement, yet the SF pro-lifers were called bigots. Having thought about it, I think I know why, and it gets to the bottom of why I'm not a liberal.
As I stated above, millions of women are pro-life. I'm one of them. My best friends are pro-life. I've had female co-workers who were pro-life. So I know that pro-lifers aren't bigots. Yet liberals are obsessed with making every issue about bigotry, or racism, or hate. Apparently, they think it proves their moral and intellectual superiority over their opponents, but I think it reveals their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
It takes no great mental effort to dismiss your ideological foe with a pre-packaged rebuttal. This is especially true when the rebuttal has little or no relation to the actual issue at hand. Still, liberals do this all the time. And why do they do it? Because they lack convincing arguments for their ideas and because they're too arrogant to think they need them. Liberals are about discrediting the views of others rather than defending their own. They seem to really believe that all they have to do is smear opposing views for the gloriously obvious goodness of their own ideas to shine forth. And what better way to smear opposing views, and the people who hold them, than to paint them as bigoted, racist, or hateful?
This was brought home to me during the bitter debate over welfare reform during Clinton's presidency. Republicans were giving the public real stastitics on the failure of the old welfare system, most notably that it hadn't reduced poverty one bit in 30 years. And the Democrats' response? The Republicans were cruel! The Republicans were racists! The Republicans wanted to starve children! I'll never forget Congressman Charles Rangel actually saying that there were "similarities" between the Republicans' welfare reform bill and Naziism. Opposing a welfare system that kept people poor made you a Nazi??!! That's when I lost all respect for liberals. Truth and common sense didn't matter. Power mattered, and liberals thought they could regain it by launching a hysterical smear campaign they assumed the public was dumb enough to believe. They assumed wrong, and they're still out of power.
I realize that most people aren't going to change their position on the abortion issue, which ever side they're on. But the harshness of the debate could ebb if the pro-abortion side started showing a little more respect for the intellectual depth of the pro-life side. In fact, liberals need to show more respect for the intellectual depth of their opponents on all issues. It's time they started defending their ideas and stopped assasinating non-liberals' character.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Answering Bruce786
It's late and I'm tired, but I'll try to answer Bruce786's comments to my post, "War on Islam? Bah! Humbug!"
First, Bruce786 missed the point of my post. I wasn't trying to give a theological review of Islam as he seemed to think, given the nature of his way too long comments. Rather, I was just pointing out the stupidity of the claim that there's a war on Islam by the West, and I think I did a pretty good job of doing that. What you believe about the truth or falsehood of Islam is irrevelant to deciding whether or not there's a war being waged against it. I'm not a churchgoer, but I believe there's a cultural cold war being waged against Christianity in America. Other non-Christians, inlcuding Jews and at least one pro-choice, feminist, lesbian, feel the same way. Obviously, you don't have to believe in Christianity to see that it's under assault in modern America. Likewise, you don't have to believe or disbelieve in Islam to determine if there's a war on it or not. You just have to look at the evidence, and it says there's no war on Islam.
I didn't deny that certain portions of the international Muslim population are under duress from non-Muslims. I just pointed out that what's happening to Muslims in the West Bank, for instance, doesn't stop the rest of the Muslim world from being Muslim. After all, when someone says there's a war on Islam, the implication is that Muslims are being attacked, persecuted, and killed worldwide for no other reason than for being Muslim, and that the Islamic faith is being repressed by state force, and that's just not true. Muslims aren't being killed or persecuted in America or anywhere else in the West. On the contrary, they have total religious freedom protected not only by constitutional law but also by the socio-political phenomenom of political correctness, which makes criticizing Muslims racist. Thus, in some ways, Muslims in the West have more rights than native Westerners, and certainly more rights than non-Muslims have in the Muslim world. Apparently, certain Muslims and their sympathizers don't want such facts to be heard.
As for Burce786's theological comments, I admit my eyes glazed over while trying to read them. I just can't take seriously someone who says that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were Muslims when they lived thousands of years before Muhammad. I've heard this claim before. If I'm not mistaken, it's actually made in the Koran itself, which helps explains why I don't take it seriously. I suppose the reasoning is that since "Islam" means "submission", and Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other Biblical figures submitted to God, they were "Muslims", i.e. "those who submit". Yeah, right. The only way Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all the rest were Muslims is in the generic sense, with a little "m". They submitted to God, not to Islam.
I suspect there might also be a more sinister element to this idea. Muslims, at least the dangerous ones, believe that any piece of land that comes under Islamic domination must remain Islamic forever. If it falls into non-Muslim hands it must be "liberated" in a jihad. So, if you can claim that all of the world's pre-Islamic, monotheistic, prophets were really Muslims you've got a divine right to all the land they lived and preached in. And if you can claim that Islam goes all the way back to Adam and Eve, then you've got a divine right to the whole world! Neat, huh? Imperialism by divine decree. It sure explains why Muslims stormed into Persia, Syria, India, Judea, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and France centuries before anyone in any of those places raised a hand in anger against them.
Well, I think I've answered you, Bruce786. I've probably pissed you off a bit, too. I can live with that. In America we can speak our minds without anyone issuing a fatwa to kill us. Thank God the Pilgrims were Christians.
First, Bruce786 missed the point of my post. I wasn't trying to give a theological review of Islam as he seemed to think, given the nature of his way too long comments. Rather, I was just pointing out the stupidity of the claim that there's a war on Islam by the West, and I think I did a pretty good job of doing that. What you believe about the truth or falsehood of Islam is irrevelant to deciding whether or not there's a war being waged against it. I'm not a churchgoer, but I believe there's a cultural cold war being waged against Christianity in America. Other non-Christians, inlcuding Jews and at least one pro-choice, feminist, lesbian, feel the same way. Obviously, you don't have to believe in Christianity to see that it's under assault in modern America. Likewise, you don't have to believe or disbelieve in Islam to determine if there's a war on it or not. You just have to look at the evidence, and it says there's no war on Islam.
I didn't deny that certain portions of the international Muslim population are under duress from non-Muslims. I just pointed out that what's happening to Muslims in the West Bank, for instance, doesn't stop the rest of the Muslim world from being Muslim. After all, when someone says there's a war on Islam, the implication is that Muslims are being attacked, persecuted, and killed worldwide for no other reason than for being Muslim, and that the Islamic faith is being repressed by state force, and that's just not true. Muslims aren't being killed or persecuted in America or anywhere else in the West. On the contrary, they have total religious freedom protected not only by constitutional law but also by the socio-political phenomenom of political correctness, which makes criticizing Muslims racist. Thus, in some ways, Muslims in the West have more rights than native Westerners, and certainly more rights than non-Muslims have in the Muslim world. Apparently, certain Muslims and their sympathizers don't want such facts to be heard.
As for Burce786's theological comments, I admit my eyes glazed over while trying to read them. I just can't take seriously someone who says that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were Muslims when they lived thousands of years before Muhammad. I've heard this claim before. If I'm not mistaken, it's actually made in the Koran itself, which helps explains why I don't take it seriously. I suppose the reasoning is that since "Islam" means "submission", and Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other Biblical figures submitted to God, they were "Muslims", i.e. "those who submit". Yeah, right. The only way Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all the rest were Muslims is in the generic sense, with a little "m". They submitted to God, not to Islam.
I suspect there might also be a more sinister element to this idea. Muslims, at least the dangerous ones, believe that any piece of land that comes under Islamic domination must remain Islamic forever. If it falls into non-Muslim hands it must be "liberated" in a jihad. So, if you can claim that all of the world's pre-Islamic, monotheistic, prophets were really Muslims you've got a divine right to all the land they lived and preached in. And if you can claim that Islam goes all the way back to Adam and Eve, then you've got a divine right to the whole world! Neat, huh? Imperialism by divine decree. It sure explains why Muslims stormed into Persia, Syria, India, Judea, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and France centuries before anyone in any of those places raised a hand in anger against them.
Well, I think I've answered you, Bruce786. I've probably pissed you off a bit, too. I can live with that. In America we can speak our minds without anyone issuing a fatwa to kill us. Thank God the Pilgrims were Christians.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Flu Attack*
Hi friends! I haven't posted in a couple of days because I've been down with a mini flu, at least that's what I'm calling it. I've come home from work the last two days and taken a hot bath and curled up in bed for much needed rest. Unfortunately, I can't afford to take off from work, even if I'm sick. Fortunately, I'm getting better. By this time tomorrow I hope to be back to my old self. See you then!
PoorGrrl
PoorGrrl
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
War on Islam? Bah! Humbug!
Like a lot of people since 9/11, I've been wondering what makes Islamic terrorists tick. The recent arrests in Italy of three Algerian martyr wannabes again brought this question to my immediate attention. The Algerians wanted to pull off a series of attacks that would dwarf 9/11. Why? From the chatter on the news, blogs, and elsewhere, it seems that Islamic terrorists believe there's a war on Islam and the primary aggressor is America. I know, the idea's hilarious to rational Americans and Westerners, but is passionately believed by a huge segment of the Muslim world.
So what's the evidence for this alleged war on Muhammad's faith? Israel, and America's support for it, is exhibit A. No matter what you're talking about, it always comes back to Israel and the Palestinians. The mistreatment of the Palestinians is all the proof many Muslims need for the existence of an anti-Islamic crusade. The only problem with this scenario is that not all Palestinians are Muslims. A small minority are Christians, yet Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is never referred to as a war on Christianity. But even if all Palestinians were Muslims their occupation by Israel could hardly be called a war on Islam.
Palestinians probably make up less than 1% of the entire Muslim population. And their area of conflict with Israel occupies a negligible amount of the world's predominately Muslim land. So even if you believe that Israel is guilty of the worst atrocities against the Palestinians, such atrocities would have no impact on the ability of non-Palestinian Muslims to practice their faith.
Sure, many non-Palestinian Muslims feel a lot of sympathy for their co-religionists in the West Bank and Gaza, but they can't honestly claim that what's happening there is preventing them from being fully Muslim. Foam at the mouth all you want about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it's still flimsy evidence for a war on Islam.
Another complaint from radical Muslims is that Western, especially American, culture is taking over their culture. War on Islam! Not! It's true that American pop culture dominates the world, but that's because people want it. There wouldn't be a McDonald's on virtually every corner in virtually every city in the world if people weren't buying Big Macs and McNuggets. If people in Muslim countries want to listen to Eminem, then American record companies are going to supply them with Eminem cd's. It's not a war on Islam or any other religion; it's supply and demand. Muslim parents, and other adults, have only themselves to blame if their kids want American music, movies, video games, etc. Their children's desire exposes their failure to teach them Muslim values and that's an internal Muslim problem, not an American pop culture industry problem. And it sure as hell ain't a war.
Face it, terrorists. THERE'S NO WAR ON ISLAM. Across the Islamic world, from the Sahara to Southeast Asia, Muslims practice their faith without interference from Americans or any other Westerners. Indeed, the West bends over backwards to pander to Muslim sensibilities. Since 9/11, America has let in thousands of Muslim immigrants and George W. Bush still pushes his "Islam is a religion of peace" line. London Muslims are now building the largest mosque in England. In many circles, it's considered racist to even hint that Muslims might be responsible for their own problems, while hating America, the West, and/or Israel is seen as the height of progressive thought. But there's a war on Islam. No, there's a war BY Islam on America and the West, a war which we'd better wake up to before we lose our civilization to a Sharia dark age. Wake up, America! Wake up, Europe! The war is on us.
So what's the evidence for this alleged war on Muhammad's faith? Israel, and America's support for it, is exhibit A. No matter what you're talking about, it always comes back to Israel and the Palestinians. The mistreatment of the Palestinians is all the proof many Muslims need for the existence of an anti-Islamic crusade. The only problem with this scenario is that not all Palestinians are Muslims. A small minority are Christians, yet Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is never referred to as a war on Christianity. But even if all Palestinians were Muslims their occupation by Israel could hardly be called a war on Islam.
Palestinians probably make up less than 1% of the entire Muslim population. And their area of conflict with Israel occupies a negligible amount of the world's predominately Muslim land. So even if you believe that Israel is guilty of the worst atrocities against the Palestinians, such atrocities would have no impact on the ability of non-Palestinian Muslims to practice their faith.
Sure, many non-Palestinian Muslims feel a lot of sympathy for their co-religionists in the West Bank and Gaza, but they can't honestly claim that what's happening there is preventing them from being fully Muslim. Foam at the mouth all you want about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it's still flimsy evidence for a war on Islam.
Another complaint from radical Muslims is that Western, especially American, culture is taking over their culture. War on Islam! Not! It's true that American pop culture dominates the world, but that's because people want it. There wouldn't be a McDonald's on virtually every corner in virtually every city in the world if people weren't buying Big Macs and McNuggets. If people in Muslim countries want to listen to Eminem, then American record companies are going to supply them with Eminem cd's. It's not a war on Islam or any other religion; it's supply and demand. Muslim parents, and other adults, have only themselves to blame if their kids want American music, movies, video games, etc. Their children's desire exposes their failure to teach them Muslim values and that's an internal Muslim problem, not an American pop culture industry problem. And it sure as hell ain't a war.
Face it, terrorists. THERE'S NO WAR ON ISLAM. Across the Islamic world, from the Sahara to Southeast Asia, Muslims practice their faith without interference from Americans or any other Westerners. Indeed, the West bends over backwards to pander to Muslim sensibilities. Since 9/11, America has let in thousands of Muslim immigrants and George W. Bush still pushes his "Islam is a religion of peace" line. London Muslims are now building the largest mosque in England. In many circles, it's considered racist to even hint that Muslims might be responsible for their own problems, while hating America, the West, and/or Israel is seen as the height of progressive thought. But there's a war on Islam. No, there's a war BY Islam on America and the West, a war which we'd better wake up to before we lose our civilization to a Sharia dark age. Wake up, America! Wake up, Europe! The war is on us.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
I'm Back...Again!*
Well, I'm back again. Where've I been? Dsl problems again. It seems SBC put out a disconnect notice one day before they received my payment and then they couldn't reverse the notice even though my bill was paid in full and even had a credit. I don't understand why SBC couldn't reverse the notice, sounds fishy to me, but I'm back on now and I intend to stay this way! Look for regular postings starting tomorrow. Happy blogging!
PoorGrrl
PoorGrrl
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)