Spineless Newspapers

[Buckle-meister]

...too much for me to comprehend.

Work backwards, chunk by chunk.

 

[Davemcc]

It's nit-picking I know, but your analogy isn't a good one. A friend who is a friend for being the enemy of your enemy really isn't a friend at all.

I would rather see public policy based strictly upon principled decisions and let those who don't share those principles fight things out amongst themselves. But the Cold War presented some obvious challenges without obvious solutions.

One way for the U.S. to practice containment was to fight the U.S.S.R. by proxy, let others do the fighting with covert U.S. aid. This is why the U.S. armed the Taliban to fight the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. It is why the U.S. supported Pinochet against his socialist rivals who would have made Chile a Soviet client. And so it goes with Nicaragua, Columbia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.

The success of the policy can be seen in the fall of the Soviet Union, but the failure of the policy can be seen in the number of ruthless organizations that have turned on the U.S. since the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

[Johnd]

Did you read post #11 John? There was no 'attack' on Catholicism or the Muslim religion. I don't even know how you could misconstrue what Dave said as such. Dave was just throwing a little history lesson out there.

Well, comprehension is a gift.

If you fail to understand the term "fundamentalism" after all that has been written and how it has been flung about and misused...

 

[Johnd]

Not to stray from this...um...debate...but I just have to ask:

John, do you talk like you type?

Amlost invariably.

 

[Johnd]

You are such a B.S. artist.




B.S. I asked you to highlight the offending passage, and you chose to rehash this one.



B.S. You wrote a heck of a lot more than that, and a lot more critical of me, including the intolerant snipe, that I let slide.



B.S. You know how I know it's not the only statement I wrote that you commented on. Because the rest of your post comments on the other of my statements that you commented on. This is an outright lie.




B.S. They are the very same "fundamentalists" that you support even now. They are the public, moral and financial support for fundamentalists, like Al Quaeda and their ilk.



So it's all up to your delicate tastes, is it? Whatever doesn't suit you is subject to your insult?



B.S. Your zealous support of fundamentalist Muslims and the causes they support needs no sophistry.



B.S. Post #11 contains no attacks on any religion. What it does contain is my observations based on historical truths, each item of which is further supported with evidence in posts 26 and 27. Again, for the umpteenth time, I ask you that if there are any factual errors in these posts, please correct them. I am not interested in your entirely biased opinion of my posts, but rather a factual correction. If you cannot counter the evidence that I've presented, I shall assume that my observations are true and that your opinion is baseless and without merit.



B.S. It is a hollow apology that means nothing. I thought you hated sophistry. Until it serves your purpose that is, I guess.



B.S. I do think you intended to make the argument personal so you could win, thinking you could cow me into accepting your judgment as fact, your self-righteousness as truth and your egocentricism as authority. I think you deliberately launched your insult to divert attention from the fact that you can not refute the evidence I offered to support my statements. To date you have never countered with a single factual error, correction, new information or corroborating opinion.

That's the best you've got? Refute everthing I write? This whole engagement stems from your misuse of the term fundamentalism. It's really that simple. Since you and others have brought it down to the level it is at now, I'll...

 

[Johnd]

It's nit-picking I know, but your analogy isn't a good one. A friend who is a friend for being the enemy of your enemy really isn't a friend at all.

Both an engieer and a philosopher. I'm glad you didn't extrapolate on the latter part. If it has to be explained...

I would not say it's "nitpicking" at all. One ought to use their words deliberately in serious discusions, or have the backbone to be corrected.

If the definition of a "friend" is he who hates my enemy...no thanks. I'll do without.

 

[jinjuku]

Well, comprehension is a gift.

If you fail to understand the term "fundamentalism" after all that has been written and how it has been flung about and misused...

If you're good this year Santa may leave you a gift under the tree. My ability to comprehend complex topics is quite intact.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

Why would "all that has been written and how it has been flung about and misused..." affect my understanding of it?

 

[Johnd]

If you're good this year Santa may leave you a gift under the tree. My ability to comprehend complex topics is quite intact.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "fundamentalism" as "a usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."

Why would "all that has been written and how it has been flung about and misused..." affect my understanding of it?

That was far less of a slight on you than you will ever realize. It was a general statement. If I am speaking (or writing) directly to you...you will know it. Relax, get off the horse, and realize that I'm making general statements about what you have written. Geez. Really some sensitive people around here of late...at least 3 or 4. So, to repeat, I will use your name if I direct anything at your person. Otherwise, it is a general comment, whether or not I quote you.

But as you have flung erudition into the ring:

Why do you think "intolerance" is necessarily incorporated into the defintion?

 

[Davemcc]

Well, comprehension is a gift.

If you fail to understand the term "fundamentalism" after all that has been written and how it has been flung about and misused...

Let's examine Islamic fundamentalism, shall we. Let's get to the core of it's practice and determine if it is worth the zealous support it has received in this thread.

Exhibit #1.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, widely considered the most moderate of fundamentalist Islamic regimes and an ally of the United States. From a nice, safe liberal news source, not an op/ed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1874471.stm

:"Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers.

In a rare criticism of the kingdom's powerful "mutaween" police, the Saudi media has accused them of hindering attempts to save 15 girls who died in the fire on Monday. "

I observe that the moderate fundamentalist religious police of Saudi Arabia have murdered these 15 girls for not wearing a head scarf, just as surely as if they had shot them in the head or stoned them to death.

Exhibit #2

From the same article:

"The religious police are widely feared in Saudi Arabia. They roam the streets enforcing dress codes and sex segregation, and ensuring prayers are performed on time.

Those who refuse to obey their orders are often beaten and sometimes put in jail. "

I observe that women's rights and physical safety are routinely violated by the state in the moderate fundamentalist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Further, I note that freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of individual liberty are violated on a routine basis in the moderate fundamentalist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Exhibit #3.

From a nice, safe liberal United Nations source:
http://www.un.org/works/beijing+10/afghanistan.html

Although the Taliban ended the tribal and regional conflict, their extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism made life unbearable for women. A rigid set of laws governed every aspect of their lives. Girls were denied the right to attend school and women were not allowed to work or even venture outside their own home unless accompanied by a male relative. They faced harsh punishment from religious police if they did not wear the Burka, a traditional garment covering their entire body and face.

I observe that the "extreme" form of fundamentalism practiced by the Taliban is remarkably similar to the moderate form of Islamic fundamentalism as practiced in Saudi Arabia.

Further to Exhibit #3:
An eyewitness account of an Afghan woman in the fundamentalist Taliban regime.
http://www.rawa.org/stimes-lk.htm

Aeman, in a speech made available to The Sunday Times, said women are beaten in Afghanistan, stoned in public for not wearing clothes according to Taliban rules, banned from education, using make-up, laughing aloud in public, playing any sport or watching movies or TV.

"Homes where a woman is present have their windows painted so that outsiders can never see her," she said. Women are not allowed to work in Afghanistan nor be seen in public without a male relative. Widows starve to death, beg on the streets, take to prostitution or just commit suicide. Desperate mothers sell their children on the streets as they can't feed them, she added.

I observe that women have no human rights, no civil rights, access to education is denied and widows starve without male relative escorts to allow them to go shopping for food. Women are chattel.

Exhibit #4:
The case of the teenaged Sri Lankan au pair sentenced to death by beheading in an Islamic court without a translator or legal counsel and with a confession obtained under duress. I found this story in my local paper, but here is an online source:
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/OPINION01/707130350

Saudi law, which strictly interprets Islamic law, according to Evans, permits the death penalty for both lethal and non-lethal crimes, including drug trafficking. Saudi Arabia has already put to death 100 people this year. Amnesty International says under the secretive judicial system, many of those sentenced to death aren't informed of the charges or kept abreast of legal proceedings against them, and defendants can be convicted solely on the basis of confessions obtained under duress. Trials may be conducted in secrecy, without access to defense counsel or foreign consular assistance.

I observe that in a moderate Islamic fundamentalist nation, there is no access to justice for an accused under Islamic law (Sharia Law).

Therefore, I can see little to no difference in practice between moderate fundamentalism or extreme fundamentalism. All fundamentalists observe the Islamic code, Sharia Law, that denies basic human and civil rights, right freedom of conscience and religion, free speech, freedom of movement and action, denies the basic principles of justice and displays a callous disregard of human life.

I observe that the phrase "Dark Ages mentality of Islamic fundamentalism" is entirely warranted. If anybody on this board wishes to defend the honor of this murderous, oppressive sect, I could easily counter with hundreds of other references of the brutality, indignity, oppression and murder that accompanies all forms of Islamic "fundamentalism.

Exhibit #5.
Further to support of such fundamentalist regimes, this from the U.S. State Dep't:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/wh/6947.htm

"The world has responded with an unprecedented coalition against international terrorism. In the first 100 days of the war, President George W. Bush increased America’s homeland security and built a worldwide coalition that:

* Began to destroy al-Qaeda’s grip on Afghanistan by driving the Taliban from power."

I observe that the fundamentalist Taliban regime is intimately linked to Al Quaeda, the terrorists that planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. I consider a defense of fundamentalism (as observed above) is a defense of those responsible for the WTC and the murder of it's victims.

 

[Johnd]

Let's examine Islamic fundamentalism, shall we. Let's get to the core of it's practice and determine if it is worth the zealous support it has received in this thread.

What you apparently feel to realize is that not all fundamentalists are extremists...and only extreme fundamentalists (of the Muslim religion) murder children and stone people. You simply do not know and refuse to learn that not all fundamentalists are as you herein preach. And you have yet to find me defending the extremists. Yet you are the self-proclaimed crusader of religious freedom. I need to find a new missionary.

Further to Johnd's support of Al Quaeda by proxy through his support of such fundamentalist regimes, this from the U.S. State Dep't:

For a while I thought you were better than that Dave. Your constant attacks and erroneous inferences are tiring. Do you not even realize that your blatant mistruths and ad hominems serve to diminish whatever insight you do have to offer?

A little tip Dave: you seem to be a self-proclaimed economist as well as well as a self-proclaimed crusader, but not an attorney. You are treading on very dangerous territory by accusing people of being Al Quaeda supporters. Take a deep breath and walk it off. I have a conveniently short memory when necessary.

 

[Johnd]

Strat, and any other "intelligentsia" that wants to jump on the bandwagon...go ahead and thank the prophet for limiting your information. I really do not see what revelation there is to applaud here. Please post what is so informative. These stories are published and well known. Horrific acts need to be condemned. Villians need to be prosecuted. Terrorism needs to be quashed. If you wish to condemn a whole culture/region/sect on the acts of a few (or a few thousand), that is the definition of intolerance. Condemn the perpetrator, not those that have done no wrong.

 

[Johnd]

I sincerely thank you Dave for your correction (@ 8:30 a.m.). Let us not argue (whether we agree on points or disagree on points) in a civil and productive manner.

Just a suggestion to those 3 or 4 that seem to be "jumping on the bandwagon" these past two days: I have already stated that I am brutally direct. I do not apologize for that character trait (or flaw, depending on your pov). Believe me when I state that try not to offend. When I comment on a phrase, the verbiage used is directed at that phrase...not the man. Trust me...if I wish to speak of the man it will be plain. So perhaps henceforth we can all take a little criticism, and not be so personally offended (unless the comment is directed at the person). I am not above criticism...a subtle message or pm to tone it down or that there is a subtler, softer way of saying that can go a long way. But also please understand that the terms I use are invariably directed at a phrase or comment...rarely, if ever the man. Peace out.

 

[Davemcc]

What you apparently feel to realize is that not all fundamentalists are extremists...and only extreme fundamentalists (of the Muslim religion) murder children and stone people. You simply do not know and refuse to learn that not all fundamentalists are as you herein preach. And you have yet to find me defending the extremists. Yet you are the self-proclaimed crusader of religious freedom. I need to find a new missionary.

What you apparently fail to realize is that Saudi Arabia is a moderate fundamentalist nation, not extreme. Yet it operates very nearly exactly the way more extreme fundamentalist regimes do, because they believe in the same principles, i.e. strict adherence to the Islamic code. A defense of fundamentalism is a defense of the extremists by default. They are one and the same. There are no degrees by which one can follow strict adherence to the Islamic code. There is no middle ground.

For a while I thought you were better than that Dave. Your constant attacks and erroneous inferences are tiring. Do you not even realize that your blatant mistruths and ad hominems serve to diminish whatever insight you do have to offer?

A little tip Dave: you seem to be a self-proclaimed economist as well as well as a self-proclaimed crusader, but not an attorney. You are treading on very dangerous territory by accusing people of being Al Quaeda supporters. Take a deep breath and walk it off. I have a conveniently short memory when necessary.

Al Quaeda is by its very nature a fundamentalist organization. The degree by which you determine "extreme" seems quite arbitrary, given that you consider the Saudi religious police extreme, yet they are the extension of a moderate government and their work considered quite commonplace. They are not "extreme" in their own context, but the normal operation of a normal fundamentalist government.

Perhaps you can give me an example of a "non-extreme fundamentalist", i.e. one who does not follow the Islamic Code of Sharia Law. It seems a rare bird, not found in nature. Enlighten me, please.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Perhaps you can give me an example of a "non-extreme fundamentalist", i.e. one who does not follow the Islamic Code of Sharia Law. It seems a rare bird, not found in nature. Enlighten me, please.

I have never heard of a "non-extreme fundamentalist" in any religion, Islam or otherwise. If Christian evangelists took power in the US, I doubt that the resulting living conditions would be much different than they are under Al Quaeda.

 

[Johnd]

What you apparently fail to realize is that Saudi Arabia is a moderate fundamentalist nation, not extreme. Yet it operates very nearly exactly the way more extreme fundamentalist regimes do, because they believe in the same principles, i.e. strict adherence to the Islamic code. A defense of fundamentalism is a defense of the extremists by default. They are one and the same. There are no degrees by which one can follow strict adherence to the Islamic code. There is no middle ground.

You are just dead wrong. There are Islamic Fundamentalists living right here in our own country that do not kill children or commit acts of terrorism. How are you not aware of this?

Al Quaeda is by its very nature a fundamentalist organization. The degree by which you determine "extreme" seems quite arbitrary, given that you consider the Saudi religious police extreme, yet they are the extension of a moderate government and their work considered quite commonplace. They are not "extreme" in their own context, but the normal operation of a normal fundamentalist government.

Not at all. You fail to realize that what we consider extreme here in the west is quite moderate in the mid-east. Arbitrary? No. Again, extremist Fundamentalist Muslims are those that commit murder and terrorism. Those that commit no crimes...and I assure you they do exist...are simply Fundamentalist Muslims. This fact seems to be missed by you and Joe Schmoe (and perhaps others). There are still those that believe all Muslims are bad. Hmmm...cavemen (not directed at Strat).

Perhaps you can give me an example of a "non-extreme fundamentalist", i.e. one who does not follow the Islamic Code of Sharia Law. It seems a rare bird, not found in nature. Enlighten me, please.

I never wrote that they were all a bunch of saints. Although they do seem to have a current trend toward martyrdom. That does not a saint make in my book.

I really try in earnest to follow your logic Dave. You have proclaimed yourself to to be the protector of religous freedoms, yet you simply dismiss an entire religion. Just for all the erudites out there, Muslimism, and yes, Fundamental Muslimism, is a Federally protected right. So thank you for protecting it, but their rights already exist, provided they commit no crimes. And, yes, unfortunately, many Fundamentalist Muslims have taken the extreme position. How many exactly? I do not know. But do not be so narrow-minded (that is not directed at you Dave...or anyone, for that matter) to believe that simply because the only news in print about Fundamentalist Muslims is that of terrorism and crimes, that non-terrorist and non-criminal Fundamentalists do not exist...they do. Peace out.

 

[Davemcc]

You are just dead wrong. There are Islamic Fundamentalists living right here in our own country that do not kill children or commit acts of terrorism. How are you not aware of this?

Please do not set up a straw man that you can easily knock down. I did not say that Islamic Fundamentalists are defined by killing children and terrorists. I define them, correctly, as those who interpret the Qu-ran literally and wish to impose Sharia Law. I then posted examples of the daily human rights abuses under Sharia Law by lawful government agents, one example a moderate fundamentalist kingdom and ally of the U.S.

Not at all. You fail to realize that what we consider extreme here in the west is quite moderate in the mid-east. Arbitrary? No. Again, extremist Fundamentalist Muslims are those that commit murder and terrorism. Those that commit no crimes...and I assure you they do exist...are simply Fundamentalist Muslims. This fact seems to be missed by you and Joe Schmoe (and perhaps others). There are still those that believe all Muslims are bad. Hmmm...cavemen (not directed at Strat).

The Saudi religious police who forced the young girls back into a burning building to be burnt to death committed no crime. Their actions were not only legal, but acceptable to that society vs. seeing a girl without a head dress in public. To date, I have seen no evidence of charges or sanctions against the religious police or continued cries of protest from the Saudi public. The fact that "simply fundamentalist Muslims" not only accept this conduct, but continue to promote it, has not been missed by me.

I really try in earnest to follow your logic Dave. You have proclaimed yourself to to be the protector of religous freedoms, yet you simply dismiss an entire religion. Just for all the erudites out there, Muslimism, and yes, Fundamental Muslimism, is a Federally protected right. So thank you for protecting it, but their rights already exist, provided they commit no crimes.

I have not dismissed Fundamentalist Islam. I have examined it's beliefs and recorded the actions of its followers and it's role in national governments. I have examined the effects of the religion on societies where it is the dominant religious and legal authority. I have compared it's intellectual traditions to the historic era known as the "Dark Ages" and found the intellectual, moral and legal similarities to compare the traditions and effects of one against the other. If the analysis seems harsh, please note that it is factual.

As for protecting one's right to be a Muslim of any particular sect, I fully support and defend one's right to believe what they will. However, I think it is best that we understand and discuss the beliefs, actions and consequences that are inherent with any religious belief. Such discussion, if it remains factually based and supported by evidence, leads to a greater understanding of the impact that these organizations can have in our lives. I want to know the impact of Sharia Law when these fundamentalists try to pass Sharia Law in western nations, as has already been seriously considered in the province of Ontario, Canada, but defeated in committee by Muslim women's groups.

And, yes, unfortunately, many Fundamentalist Muslims have taken the extreme position. How many exactly? I do not know. But do not be so narrow-minded (that is not directed at you Dave...or anyone, for that matter) to believe that simply because the only news in print about Fundamentalist Muslims is that of terrorism and crimes, that non-terrorist and non-criminal Fundamentalists do not exist...they do. Peace out.

Perhaps you have missed my main point about Fundamentalist Muslims. The issue of terrorism or crime is largely irrelevant.

Sharia Law is an oppressive code of religious law that supersedes the state and abrogates basic human rights, civil rights, legal rights and political rights.

Fundamentalist Muslims are those that believe and promote Sharia Law and seek to institute Sharia Law in any jurisdiction in which they live. They certainly have a right to believe that but when they come around to tell me what to wear, when to pray, what to think or try to stone my wife to death for wearing a miniskirt in public, they will not find me very accommodating to the loss of my basic human rights.