Friday, July 07, 2006

One Year Later, Two Minutes of Silence, Millions of Questions

It's been one year since the London terrorist attacks on the city's public transit system. Fifty two lives were lost that day in July, and a new dimension was added to the global war on terror.

What's most frightening about these attacks, as was the case with 9-11, is that they were planned within the borders of the world's most successful democracies. In trying to capture the hearts and minds of the Arab world in the middle east, it seems that the UK, the US, France, and other European nations are losing sight of a battle on their own turf.

I will make no qualms about it: I am convinced that Islam is the biggest threat to the safety of the West. Muslims have no allegiance to anyone except their faith, a faith that demands the head of every "infidel" on the planet. This is a mindset that predates the U.S.' wrongful invasion of Iraq, that predates the Zionist movement, and that is turning the world community against each other.

Muslims living in the West don't harbor a nostalgic or romantic connection to their faith and homeland while living in a foreign land; they're pissed that their new neighbors don't share their beliefs. They don't want to become a part of their adopted countries, be it France, the U.S., or England, they prefer to sulk among their own, hating and plotting against everyone who is not like them. We saw this in France last summer when "la racaille," or ilk, emerged from the ghettos they've created for themselves to torch cities across the Republic. And it's too ironic that Danish embassies were torched and civilians were murdered during riots that ensued over cartoons that depicted the prophet Mohammed as a terrorist.
(Note: The editors of the Danish daily that published the infamous Mohammed cartoons should be tried for incitement of a riot as there was no need to run these cartoons in the first place. There was no precedent for these cartoons, as I learned at a lecture by the Danish Consular General here in NY at the Asia Society in April, other than to test the tolerance of the Danish Muslim population for cartoons about their faith. What a stupid experiment.)

I'm all for co-existence and peace and bla bla bla, but these people cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be trusted, they will cut your head off the minute you sit down at the negotiation table.

What's even more infuriating is that not only are they using violence to advance their jihad, they're using their enemies laws as well. Case in point, the trial of author/journalist Oriana Fallaci for "defaming Islam" in a book called The Force of Reason. The plaintiff, an Italian Muslim-activist, is filing suit against Fallaci under the guise of an Italian law that prohibits the defamation of faiths. Among other things Fallaci is accused of inciting hatred against Muslims (I would cite 9-11 as a more immediate example, but oh well).
(Note: I am grossly paraphrasing the gist of the Italian law under which Falacci is being tried.)

As I write this entry I am disappointed in myself for coming to the conclusion that in the middle of so much hate and violence in the world it could be so easy to point to just one enemy. But Islam's myopic view of the world is forcing people to take sides in the wake of the third world war. Make no mistake: fundamentalism in the U.S. is its own beast to be grappled with, but it hasn't manifested itself in the form of suicide attacks on civilians. We have been forced to make a decision, we have been summed up in an involuntary war and we're all complicit in its future...choices must be made.

Whose side are YOU on?

14 comments:

alejandra said...

Are you making a distinction between Islam and fundamentalist Islam?

William said...

I'm on your side. Your fierce!

plane said...

I'm on my side.

kittynboi said...

I'm also on my own side. I can hate Islam and Bush at the same time.

kittynboi said...

I'm also on my own side. I can hate Islam and Bush at the same time.

Anonymous said...

Oh come on. Muslims are not the threat. Fundamentalist Muslims who believe their duty is to use violence to bring about a global Islamic revolution, are. Apparently you haven't met any Muslims. I have, and consider several to be friends. None of them have tried to either convert me or kill me (or anyone else, for that matter). I can't say the same thing about my Christian friends not trying to convert me.

timmyboy said...

It is the fundamentalism within Islam that bothers me, but not as much as the fundalmentalism within christianity. You are right to criticize Islamic behavior and attitude that results in terror; you should equally criticize the Christian fundamentalism that results in violoence to homosexuals, waging war against "pagans" and their behaviors. Islam and Chrisianity and any other belief system can co-exist quite nicely if focus is on the "spiritual" rather than the "religious." Every faith system has the capacity for both. It's a matter of which you chose whether or not we can survive together.

Anonymous said...

I'm much more afraid of the pseudo-christian fundamentalists in this country than I am of Muslims.

BATSRUS said...

I found your blog through Sullivan's link, and was happy at the prospect of reading another reasoned voice eschewing the flawed dichotomy of the "liberal" and "conservative" labels.

Then I read this post, where you include all Muslims in a sweeping condemnation as the most dangerous people in the world. WTF? Have you even met a Muslim before? Do you comprehend the difference between Islam and Islamist Fundamentalism? I guess you're just another flame-baiting idiot ranting away on a blog. You and a million others. Andrew should be ashamed to have promoted your website at all. I think it was the name of your blog that caught his attention, as it did mine, and he didn't bother to find out if you were a reasoned voice or not. Based on this post, at least, it is clear that you are not.

Adam said...

You write, "We saw this in France last summer when "la racaille," or ilk, emerged from the ghettos they've created for themselves to torch cities across the Republic." However, it seems that you ignore one of the main reasons that the French-Arabs are living in the ghettos. Denied full citizenship by a nation that has racist laws and policies, can one expect them to do anything else, other than live amongst their own? As for the history of Islam, I would reccomend you read a few books about the history of the middle east before making such sweeping (and generaly wrong) characterizations about Islam.

Anonymous said...

I think the author's statements are correct. I notice that nearly everyone commenting here is an apologist for Islam. Some suggest that Christians are more dangerous than Moslems. I don't know any Christians wanting to blow themselves up.

Those who say that the author needs to read "book" about Islam, can rest assured that some gays have read such "books." We know about the status accorded to the Dhimma, contained within the horrible and primitive Sharia. We know about the ideal of Islam, that is, the perfect man: Mohammed. He was a murderer, assassin and thief. Comparisons to Buddha or Jesus are ridiculous. We know that Islam is a one-way street because one caeE know what is done to gays and to women. The fact that some Moslems might not practice what is contained in Islam does not make that religion anything but extreme. There are moderate Moslems, but Islam is not itself moderate. (Ibn Warraq)

I would go further than the author and state that what the Danish paper was hardly any more provocative than South Park.

Our gay brothers and sisters are beginning to be threatened by these radical, ungrateful and backward immigrants in Europe. Apologists for Islam need to learn far more about Islam before they either: compare it to Christianity (or any other beleif system) or defend it.

Take sides indeed. Take the right side. Christians are annoying, but I'll take them any day over these monsters.

GRT said...

As usual, there is a bit of truth in most of the discussions here.

Moderate Muslims may not publicly embrace the extremisms which allow perverted interpretations, but those writings still exist. As such, they are a potential danger.

Jesus offered a new direction for Judaism, but he didn't disavow the ancient writings. He supplanted their immediacy. He "modernized" the religion, if you will.

Until Islam undergoes a modernization of its own, it remains a religion whose extremist adherents are able to manipulate it for their own political ends.

Somehow we need to get the word out to all "believers" that religious literature is primarily metaphorical: there was no burning, speaking bush, and there is no physical Paradise, and certainly no rewards of the flesh. "Rewards" in the "afterlife" were constructed to counter the harshness of the contemporary life of the writers.

There's a lot of work to be done; patience and logic are needed.

Anonymous said...

Underneath your photo I see the words "Fed up with the hateful rhetoric of the right..."

BATSRUS said...

[I notice that nearly everyone commenting here is an apologist for Islam.]

I am not an apologist for Islam. Though I will admit to being an apologist for reason, perspective, and accuracy.