Monday, September 18, 2006

All Apologies

Muslim extremists threatening continuing violence against the West and non-Muslims alike over the Pope for comments he made last week about Islam and violence last week.

You know, some people just have no sense of irony.

Even moderate Muslims continuing to ask for a "better" apology.

Yeah, we'll get right on that.

As soon as they apologize for 9/11.

And the USS Cole attack.

And the African embassy bombings.

And the Khobar Towers bombing.

And the Marine Barracks truckbombing in Beirut.

And the Iranian hostage crisis.

That would be a good start.

Just once, I'd like to see these so-called moderates express outrage at the way extremists have hijacked their faith, instead of whinging and whining about how picked-on they are.


Nate said...

Cheers - right frickin' on. In this intractable confrontation with Muslims, is anybody on the right getting the creeping sensation that religion may be the problem and not the solution..? Just wondering. I am fighting that feeling every day.

JBlog said...

Well, I don't know if "religion" is "the problem" per se.

But I do think that the conventional wisdom on this conflict -- that is about social and economic inequity -- is wrong.

I believe it is largely about political, cultural and religious disagreement. Violent disagreement.

And those disagreeing the loudest are the ones who say God tells them they should kill their neighbors.

Osama Bin Laden and his Al Quaida have told us so -- I have no reason to doubt them.

Nate said...

Before I pollute your blog with my opinion: I am in love with your Jazz Bass.


Yes, the social/economic angle is misguided at best, a ruse at worst.

I am not an atheist, nor particularly hostile toward any religion in general, but it strikes me as weird that people cannot accept the reality that we all indeliably share one thing: several dozen years on this planet.

I like what you're saying about ABL and AQ basically spelling out their grievances.

Why do you think it is that we are continually barraged with this nonsense about terrorists "hating freedom"? Does anybody know what that means? I know the medieval Muslim model is what our enemies may ultimately be after, but somehow our leaders' assertion that "they hate our freedom" just rings hollow to me.

And where is the hue and cry over the fact that we emboldened and essentially armed-up these bastards in the initial Soviet occupation of Afghanistan?

JBlog said...

Thanks -- it's a very cool bass.

I don't think the "hate freedom" thing is nonsense -- I think it's a logical conclusion, based on their expressed philosophy and how they have acted on it.

They envision a global Islamic caliphate, where everyone lives under Sharia law and must adhere to the most severe standards for behavior and self-expression. Any deviation is punished severely.

Look at how the Taliban operated when they ruled Afghanistan -- girls not allowed to go to school. All speech censored. Art and music banned. Men and women beaten if they did not dress or wear their hair correctly. People executed for commiting adultery.

If that's not all "hatred of freedom" I don't know what is.

As to the whole Soviet-era thing, yeah, in retrospective it didn't work out so well. But answer me this -- did we really have any other choice at the time?

It would be lovely if we lived in a perfect world, where you could clearly tell the good guys from the bad guys all the time, and align youself only with the good ones.

But here in reality it doesn't work that way. Sometimes you have to work with a bad guy to defeat a worse guy.

Heck, we fought alongside Stalin against Hitler in WWII, and he was responsible for sending 20 million people to their deaths in the purges and later enslaving all of Eastern Europe.

Nate said...

Those are good points. History is dirty.

Re: "they hate freedom", as a generic concept -- I can't argue with your Taliban illustration.

I guess I'm thinking more of the talking point/slogan "they hate OUR freedom"... I think a more honest, impactful way to phrase it may be: "they hate our influence, visibility, and capability to promote a pluralistic world"... Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but it just seems a lot less abstract.

JBlog said...

I agree with your analysis -- I think all of those things are rooted in our "freedom."

But I think this goes beyond some kind of geopolitical penis envy on their part.

I think we have a serious clash of values -- their's steeped in authoritarianism and ours founded on freedom and personal liberty.

They have, in fact, said this. And I think we can take them at their word.