they do not hold Islam to the same standard as America because it does not suit there sick and twisted agenda. simple huh?

I agree with you LW.....we have a local yokel here that for quite a while was very verbose in his letters to the editor on all the bad things about America. He was a liberal's liberal if you ask me. So I publicly using the same format offered to pay for a one way ticket to any communist country of his choice.

Funny......he never took me up on the offer....but we did enjoy his absense for a while.

LW, maybe the problem is we should be FORCING people to leave.

Est-ce que vous pensez vraiment que Saddam Houssein avait besoin de l'Islam pour instaurer sa dictature ??? Je pense que c'est voir les choses par le bout de la lorgnette...

Island Dog...
Je n'arrive pas à saisir cette "appréhension subliminale" à propos de Chavez, sinon de faire de l'association d'idées à la noix...

Je pense que quelqu'un qui a mis les ressources du pétrole vénézulien au service du bien-être de son peuple ne mérite pas d'être étiqueté de tyran... Chavez dérange autant plus que tout l'Amérique du Sud bascule ( Lula, Morales...) dans une vision qui ne colle pas avec le diktat américain...Je vous rapelle que ces 3 dernières années, six pays ont voté dans le même sens. Un vrai bouleversement politique !!! Chavez n'en est pas l'exception tyrannique. Au contraire, c'est le représentant le plus en vue de ce mouvement populaire sud-américain...

mar'ouki: on that we will have to agree to disagree. I would just urge you to look at the anti-democratic actions of the man, and realize that the mandate from his people is not at all certain. He imports "intelligence" experts from Cuba to train his people to keep the peace. Each election grows more dubious, and we will see if he doesn't eventually do away with elections altogether. He most certainly overturns other elections in his country on a whim.

We will see, but in my opinion he is another Castro in training.

I don't know if this was aimed at me - I assume it was in some ways, as by JU standards I'm fairly liberal and I have defended some Muslims - but I think there are some Muslims worth defending. Indonesian and Malaysian Muslims have made great strides in all the key liberal areas, and there seems to be a genuine desire amongst the young Muslims of those nations to further improve on human rights and the environment. It pains me to see them lumped in with dictatorships like Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Pakistan etc.

To my mind many of the indefensible stances of traditional Middle Eastern Islam stem from the forms of their governance. It's very difficult for the people to have a say in a dictatorship, as generally only violence will persuade the leaders to change their minds. And so Islam in the region is predominately violent. South America, a staunchly Catholic area, is/was much the same. It's not an excuse, but I hope it can be seen as something of a reason behind the violence.

When the dictatorships go I forsee a corresponding decline in violence.

I find that funny and sad. Right wing, and liberal. yet it is the right wing that is defying them, and the liberal trying to excuse them. So much for labels.

You read what I wrote, right? We are actually in agreement on this occasion.

I'm liberal, and I have no intention of excusing them or their savage behaviour.
I don't like having their extreme right religious beliefs forced on me with the threat of violence. I'm a liberal, yes, but I know when something is absolutely wrong. And I know when to stand and fight for my liberal beliefs. If these muslim extremists want a fight I say bring it on, I'll go them.

They never hold Communistic governments accountable, either. Same pattern, different subject.

Communist Governments do not make the tall moral claims that the elected regimes make.

You read what I wrote, right? We are actually in agreement on this occasion.

Actually, you say you are liberal, but there has been more than one occassion where we agree.  I think you are just becoming more conservative.

Like Larry, I think we're assigning a lot of different meanings to one word. "Islam" is an extremely overloaded word, just like "Theory", "Liberal" and "Conservative"

There's Islam the faith, which in and of itself isn't a bad thing. It's really no more a violent religion at it's core than Judaism or Christianity. There is a lot of variance in how it is practiced, and that's where the violence comes from.

There's Islam the government, which is a very very bad thing. Any theocracy is bad because it forms around one particular view of a religion and grows increasingly intollerant of dissent and criticism. As soon as attacking the government becomes an attack on God, horrible things start to happen.

There's Islam the fundamentalist/extremist movement. This is a combination of that varried practice of faith and theocracies that have spanned centuries. This gets baked into the culture almost after all those centuries. This is also always a bad thing because extremists tend to act the most violently to anything they percieve as heretical (is that a word?). You have one whacked out view of Islam, reinforced by the government ruling you, and for many it's all they ever know. It's very much like the Amish (minus the violence)... a very odd and unique take of faith and culture. It becomes baked into whoever is raised in it.

Two of the three forms of Islam are very bad. They promote violence, intolerance, the degredation of women, of homosexuals, of free thought and speech. The faith doesn't call for that crap any more than other faiths do. This is what I defend. I defend the actual faith of Islam. Most people usually mean the government or the extremist form of Islam. Why? Because it's what they see on the news, so to most it becomes synonymous. It's the same problem you see with the term "Theory" when it comes to Evolution/ID arguments. Both sides use the same word but have fundamentally different definitions.

There are fundamental problems with Islamic culture. It has become deletrious in it's fanatacism and can not survive in a global setting. Radical governments with extremely intollerant cultures survived just fine when it took weeks and weeks to move between nations, before communication was instantaneous, before one resource could tilt the entire globe on its ear. It has become a culture that needs either an overhaul, or it needs to be removed.

But remember, what the culture is, what the extremists do, and what the theocracies do is different from the religion itself. It is the individuals, the terrorists, the organizations and states that promote the violence that the issue is with. The average Muslim is not the enemy. Islam itself is not the enemy. It's the people and groups that are attacking us, that are blowing cars up, that are flying planes into buildings that are the problem. When you start going on about how Islam is violent, that Islam = Terrorists you are attacking people who have nothing to do with all of this. These are the ones I defend when I step up and defend Islam. When you say to them that Islam is evil, to them you're saying they are evil. Such an attack actually HELPS the terrorists as it pushes people towards their cause. I mean, if we're going to call them all terrorists and evil, they might as well be right? It errodes any support we may be building in the area.

In defense of Islam, you are comparing apples and oranges, a religion to a "nation". Although western civilizations tend to broaden the term, that doesn't make it so. Also, why are you asking in a forum that is predominately republican a topic for democrats to comment on?

... But to humor your points:

"The environment: Liberals are quick to condemn our dependence on fossil fuels in the west. They are quick to decry our environmental atrocities, while failing to hold Islamic countries accountable for the same."


When you claim to be Numero Uno, you don't have much latitude in screwing up.

Secondly, the numbers are: 1/4 of the world's pollution, 1/3 of 1/6 of the world's population the US accounts for. The numbers aren't in your favor.

But of course this means nothing as it is comparison of the US to any and all countries.


"Equal rights: Women are second class citizens in Islamic countries, and homosexuality is justification for murder in many villages, without consequence from the national government."


All US citizens are second class citizens.

Some ethnic groups as well as women are still fighting for true "equality".


"Free Speech: Do I even have to go here?"


Speech is curtailed in the US as well. The question is: how long is the leash?


"Freedom of Religion: There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger."


Since Islam is a religion, that is correct. The same is said for Judaism and Christianity.


"Democracy: virtually nonexistent"


... and the point here is??? Democracy is not a good thing or the best thing.


"Civil Liberties: The Hussein regime in Iraq was a horribly ruthless and oppressive regime. Islamic countries are constantly at the top of Amnesty International's watch lists."


1. It was a civil war.

2. It was supported by the US. Just ask Donald Rumsfeld.


"Fair labor standards: Again, Islamic countries come in on the low end."


Again, when you brag and boast Numero Uno, be wary of the skeletons you carry.

'til dawn...