Hamid Rizvi (Toronto), in the National Post;
What French philosophy professor Robert Redeker has to realize is that Muslims in the world are not against him because he is practising freedom of speech. Islam values the rights of every person and their right to express their opinion. Expressing their opinion is different, however, from openly denouncing or insulting the beliefs and religion of someone else. When Muslims in the world retaliate against such opinions -- or the Danish cartoons -- they are not trying to eliminate freedom of speech. Instead, we are trying to eliminate the unnecessary hatred against us that is based on completely false facts and analysis.The fact that someone could call the Koran a "book of inherent violence" tells us how ignorant and uninformed that person is about our religion.
Secondly, what I found interesting was Prof. Redeker's comment, "We must distinguish between Islamists and those responsible Muslims out there who should without a doubt support me." I find it hard to understand what he is looking for. Does he want moderate Muslims to support him when he is insulting the basis of our religion without putting in the time and effort to understand it completely? Even though he will not face a violent backlash from moderate Muslims, Prof. Redeker will not gain any kind of support or encouragement either.
Muslim "reactions" and "retaliations" against supposed "free speech" are not coming out of thin air. In fact, authors such as Prof. Redeker are adding fuel to the fire and expecting it to extinguish itself. There is a simple solution to these "violent" retaliations. Let's keep practising free speech, but eliminate the ignorant insulting of Muslim beliefs. The retaliations will stop. It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand.
You go, Dhimmi!
It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand.
As you will soon see after I cut it off, Infidel!!!
Incredible. What a marvellous example of ignorant illogicality.
The author claims that he supports freedom of speech and freedom of expressing an opinion. He then immediately rejects this axiom by censoring all speech and restricting all expression.
He says that free speech is great, as long as you do not insult the beliefs of someone else. Now wait; think about that. It's completely illogical.
He is actually claiming that any opinion, if it 'hurts the feelings' of someone else, is censored.
Remember that 'insult' is always a subjective and personal emotion, not open to empirical proof.
He's also saying that IF you criticize Islam, THEN that means that you don't understand it correctly. This means that he has moved Islam outside of critique. Any questions or criticism of its axioms are rejected - because any questions or criticism reveal, not inadequacies within the religion - but reveal your own ignorance. Islam, after all, is perfect.
AND, if you criticize Islam, you might hurt someone's feelings, and that's not allowed.
Hmmm. It's not merely the end of free speech. It's the complete and total rejection of reason.
If I express myself, freely, against the notion that the earth is flat, then, according to this author, this cannot be allowed because I have 'insulted the beliefs of The Flat Earth Society'.
If I express myself, freely, and criticize the notion of the Holy Trinity, a basic critique in the Arian/Athanasian Christian debates, then this cannot be allowed because I have insulted the Catholic church (which is Athanasian).
If I express myself, freely, and criticize the notion of democracy - a political mode rejected by Islam, then, this cannot be allowed because I have insulted the beliefs of people in democratic countries.
Therefore, ANY opinion that is subjectively presumed by a listener to 'insult their beliefs'- cannot be allowed.
So much for free speech. It's reduced to ordering a sugar free vs a sugared coffee at the local coffee shop. Oh wait - have I insulted anyone?
So much for reason, for thought, for analysis. Not allowed. If you criticize a belief system such as Islam, that shows that you are ignorant and also, a vicious insulter.
By the way, how does burning down a church or attacking Christians 'eliminate the unnecessary hatred based on completely false facts and analysis'???? I'm curious. How?
Oh, boo-hoo. Somebody "insulted" your "relifion".
Cry me a river.
"There is a simple solution to these "violent" retaliations. Let's keep practising free speech, but eliminate the ignorant insulting of Muslim beliefs. The retaliations will stop. It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand."
I really don't see his point. On one hand he says Let's keep practising free speech and on the other he says Come on Fido you filthy dog roll over and play dead or we will punish you.
Let me give you a heads up Hamid, Western civilization is the most successful on the planet for one very big reason. Our forefathers were the most brutal, savage and warlike people that lived.
We now wear a very thin veneer of something called "civilized" culture. Unfortunately for you it is getting thinner all the time. Even those on the moderate left of our "civilized" political spectrum (those that have not been totally brainwashed by socialism that is) are starting to realize that Islam is a very real threat to our way of life. Once that thin veil is torn away and we revert to what made us the most successful culture to inhabit the planet you will learn what "violent retaliations" are and may your God help you.
It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand...
As Captain Hook said more than once to Peter Pan when speaking about the Neverland Religion.
May amputation be upon you.
The letter is almost like an insect in amber. A beautiful example of the irrationality, victimhood and soft sand that islamists, perhaps any ideological advocate, build their cages out of.
Anyone know who this guy is. I think the best line is stop saying things about me that I dont like and the retaliations will stop....no personal responsibility there, the insulter made me do it.
I guess Islamist logic treats all infidels as muslim women, it is their fault till proven otherwise, thus justifying anything.
PS he is right, Muslim reactions arent coming out of thin air, more like thin skins and thin skulls.
It is pretty hard to clap with just one hand.
I think it is pretty clear what Rizvi is doing with just one hand...
Related: HotAir has a link to this week's Opus comic -- http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/
I would never insult a filthy religious cult like islam!
This letter is almost a parody of itself.
I'm glad the Post published that slush. The more people read irrational arguments like that one in regards to this topic, the better.
O yes,but some people who are'nt muslim are saying that very thing.Dont insult the muslim religion and we wont have any trouble from them.Those are the ones that worry me.
the point is, just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you should.
a good lesson for the reutersruters of the world.
Rizvi makes use of the term "moderate Muslims".
Can we please ban this term from the English language.
There is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim and until we fools wake up and realize that fact we are screwed.
When a comment about Islam is classed "ignorant" or "a lie", then you just know those comments represent the truth.
How, given Islam's 1400 year record of violence, can accurate statements not be viewed as insulting by radical Muslims who've been raised on a steady diet of falsehoods concerning the "faith" and its "prophet".
I'm in my late 40s and have been reading about Islam long before 911. The more you read up on the subject, the more turned-off you become.
It's an ideology based on aggression, subjegation and conquest that attempts to anchor its belligerance in a pseudo "divinity" cobble-potted together using snippets of Judaism and Christianity and whatever else was at hand at the time.
The Muslim "product", thus, is so shoddy that any attrempt at real, substantive debate with Muslims can only expose its faults and imperfections to the light of day. Consequently, every time the debate approaches the exposure point, the truth benchmark, muslims will immediately resort to the "islamophobia" drill in an effort to suppress that truth.
In this way the communal lie is sustained and community solidarity reinforced and enhanced through a systematic, never-ending campaign of hatred and denigration of the non-muslim "other".
Hate is mercy, subordination is liberation, integration is segregation and, as we've seen over the past few days in England, the veiled, theocratic enslavement of women is depicted as feminist self-realisation, as "choice".
The western progressive narrative has been co-opted by radical Muslims, and so any serious discussions amount to nothing more than idle plays on words designed to disguise and to dissimulate the aims, objectives and cruel realities of Islam.
Discussion is useful for Muslims, though, but only in that it buys time.
Dialogue, then, isn't really possible, because the faults and shortcommings that are sure to be raised will always rest with "the other".
Same old same old.
no, jeff, that's not the point; that's another issue.
Just because I can SAY 'my god, why are you wearing that ugly hat' - doesn't mean that I should say it.
But, this discussion of the nature of free speech and the nature of ideologies is quite different.
What this discussion is about, is the definition of an ideology. It is open or closed? Reason requires that the ideology be open to debate, questions, discussion, criticism, analysis and change. If an ideology is open, this requires free speech and reason.
How do you close an ideology? By rejecting the free expresion of Reason in its perusal. That's what the author did in his opinion piece in the National Post.
According to him, if you criticize Islam, it reveals two things: First, your ignorance, because if you find anything to criticize about Islam, it means you don't understand it.
Second, you have insulted someone who holds that belief. And, according to him, it is unacceptable to criticize something because someone's feelings might be hurt.
Now - go back to the example of 'the ugly hat'. That's not an ideology; that's someone's personal choice and is, in that sense, 'closed' to discussion because of that. It isn't 'open'.
But an ideology must be open to Reason. And the expression of Reason is free speech. So, according to this author, Islam is not open to Reason, (as Pope Benedict was also saying), is not available for criticisms and is Closed.
An ideology that is Closed has moved into dogma. And that's dangerous.
KKKate/KHate, is this your anti-Muslim piece for Monday? Or are you planning to add others as the day progresses?
Freedom of speech but not to insult? - excerpt from Flemming Rose on why Jyllands-Posten printed the 12 cartoons o' blasphemy:
Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.
This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.
. . .
As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.
The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.
John,
Have you read "Crisis In Islam" by Bernard Lewis.
Hits on many points that you did. The one that struck me the most was the dissonance between the religon and the experience. Meaning, Islam is a religon that tells stories of physical triumph and conquest through force of arms. Hence the feeling of humiliation when you live in a society that is not that.
So rather than see it for a lie, or just a story, the "logical step" is to recreate. Rather than make another more logical step, which is to see it as a story and a personal metaphor.
Other religons explicity or implicity make that leap. Christianity, not advocating only using it as an example, explicity states that one need not physically sacrifice ones body anymore to atone or acheive enlightenment, as it has already been done.
Anyway, good book and sheds a lot of light on to the mind of someone like our letter writing friend.
The guy is obviously a closet jihadist not to mention a flake. Since when is it an insult to tell the truth? If you don't like islam being "insulted" TOUGH, live with it, get used to it or change islam.
Jeff, that's very cute of you to copy my post to your web site and then call it racist. Coward.
I see from your web site that you cannot even find the strength to put capital letters at the beginning of sentences. Or is that your little brave form of rebellion because you don't actually have anything intelligent to say?
Don't answer that.
Stephen, that's exactly what Redeker states, as well.
In Christianity, for example, the eucharist becomes a kind of substitute for human sacrifice. In Jusdaism Abe was told NOT to sacrifice his son thus doing away with the practice. In Islam, though, the principle thrives; it is called suicide "martrydom". Such human sacrifices give one immediate and uncontested entry into heaven.....with some virgins, to boot.
"KKKate/KHate, is this your anti-Muslim piece for Monday? Or are you planning to add others as the day progresses?"
Gee Budd, as Hamid suggested, perhaps we should just keep practising free speech but eliminate your ignorant insulting of Kate?
KKKate/KHate, is this your anti-Muslim piece for Monday? Or are you planning to add others as the day progresses?--Budd
Well I can't answer for the host here, but really the day is yet still young. I'm sure that some 'enlightened' follower of the ROP will say or do something 'enlightened' later today that might warrant comment.
Say I know Budd, why don't you post a pro-Muslim piece just to even things out. I'm sure you can think of many reasons why Islam is a credit to the world and a force for reason and progress in these troubled time.
ps-- The triple KKK's in the name were ever so cute. How do you folks manage to be so clever so much of the time. Is there a university course in this somewhere? Can I sign up ? Envious I am, sir, envious I am.
Bud:
All Kate did was quote somebody at length who was criticizing the criticism of Islam. In other words, she was giving "the other side" their say.
It was the readers, and you specifically, who interpreted that posting to be anti-Muslim.
John,
Lewis addresses some of this. Largely in the context of saying that this is a bastardization of the text and in fact there are many, many passages contradicting it.
But he largely goes after the "legalisms" in these bastardized forms of Islam. (I am aware that some consider the whole thing that way, I guess I still have some faith and hope so I dont subscribe to baby and bathwater line of thinking)
For example Bin Laden now has a religous ruling that states he can cause civilians damage in the US, but NO MORE THAN 10 MILLION! Oh, and he has warned the US 2x to stop or he'll attack and has offered leniency if they convert....thus he has fulfilled his obligation and has the right and DUTY under his version of Islam to carry out his task.
Bin Laden has taken snippets of Islam, iginoring a larger moral context, to glue a veneer of legality and process to this horrendous act that is being considered, a nuclear or biological attack on a US Megaopolis.
Anyway, the point remains the same that through self defined processes and logic immoral things can be done. This Islamists may well have learned from some of the more heinous examples from the West, Naziism, Stalinism, Maoism(Eastern variant), or any totalitarian ideology. (not blaming us before people go off the deep end on this, it is twisted logic and psychotic in any society)
This is why free expression and yes potentially insulting criticism must be allowed. How else can you prevent a self definition from leading to totalitarianism and tyranny.
I will look up Redeker, as I havent read any of his stuff.
'They' say that a liberal is a conservative who has not yet been mugged......and perhaps a pro-Islamist is someone who has had no exposure to Islam.
This letter reminds me of Lloyd Axworthy's letter to Condoleeza Rice a few years ago. Is this a serious piece or satire?
Don't mind me, I'm KKKrazy, Bbbud.
Muslims upset about Apple's NYC cubic shaped store.
This story appeared on TUAW.com and judging by the follow-up story, they got inudated with threatening e-mails.
More evidence about the religion of peace.
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/10/16/follow-up-on-the-muslim-community-offended-by-apples-fifth-ave/
Islam is a competing political system, therefore it cannot exist within democracy. It's not possible.
The basic hypocrisy of politically active Islamic apologists, such as Rizvi, is in ignoring and whitewashing the overwhelming failure, inherent discrimination and legally condoned and promoted violence of Islam, throughout history. The failure of Islam is obvious for all to see today, throughout the ME and Asia.
His arguments, if you want to call them that, are just another example of taqiyya, or dissimulation - lying to and misleading the infidels, in order to achieve the greater objective. And we all know what that is.
Muslims cannot debate Islam, because it will fall apart against any sort of scrutiny and reasonable argument. Rather, when confronted, they hurl outlandish insults and violently protest. Like the children they've been taught to be.
It's a primitive and illogical form of mind control. For example - the Qu'ran can only be understood in it's original Arabic (not so good for other cultures); the Qu'ran was written by the hand of Allah, not man, before the world existed (therefore it is infallible and cannot be contested); the Quaranic promises of carnal, rather than spiritual incentives and rewards; evil acts are good on Allahs behalf, etc.
Appologists must be ignored and Islam confronted and ridiculed whenever possible.
They can do what they want in their own stygian backwater 'civilization,' but they cannot in ours. Political Islam must be completely rejected.
If Islam could pass the test of questioning and criticism then there would be no problem in discussing and enlightening us. This is how it is done with all the other religions in the world. Through questioning comes truth. Then people choose the religion they wish to follow based on their rationalisation of the facts.
Since Islam reverts to violence and other imposing tactics to expand we can only conclude that this is the only tactic available since scrutiny from questioning and criticism would expose flaws in the religion and thus fail the test.
This why Islam is the fastest growing imposed religion in the world while Christianity is the fastest growing selected religion in the world.
Jack,
When in doubt, at SDA always take it as satire.
When you're brainwashed from the time you leave your mother's womb and taught that submission to your god is the ultimate goal on this earth in order to get in line for a trip to paradise, how can you be rational? You've been taught not to think for yourself - in fact, it is the biggest sin of all. From the time you are kindergarten age you spend about 3 hrs learning the Koran and daily recite and memorize passages. You attend a mosque where you are separated from women who are unworthy creatures. If you tolerate the idea that women should not be educated, if you believe they must be covered, you cannot be a moderate. If you believe that infidels and Jews must be destroyed, you're not a moderate. If you don't critize the wild hate-mongering rants of your immans, you can't be a moderate. If you don't decry the parents who teach their children that the highest goal in Islam is to immolate yourself, you can't be a moderate. If you aren't arguing against the practice of burqhas for women, which is degrading and humiliating to the female sex, you're not a moderate. If you aren't at the forefront in the battle against sharia law, you're not a moderate. The list is endless, so regardless of how many degrees a Muslim has, his core beliefs are the complete opposite to everything western civilization believe in the 21st C. Ours evolved, their's haven't. Nor is their a sure sign that they will. There might be a few moderate Muslims who are able to criticize their faith, but you also notice that only a very, very few are brave enough to do it publicly. Otherwise, they mouth the party line, which requires no logic, and make themselves sound like irrational idiots.
Some good points being made. I read Bernard Lewis's books and have found them both enlightening and helpful in making "sense" of the current behaviour of Islamists. There was a particularly good article in the National Post recently (can't remember the author) pointing out the irrationality of Islamic responses to criticism, Rizvi's included. Most especially it focused on the violent responses to any suggestion that Islam is violent. That kind of response is perplexing only if one assumes an Islamist agenda of rationality or even a desire to appear rational. But the point is, that is not their agenda. Their agenda is conquest. Spreading the religion by proseletyzing (vis Mormons or Jehavoah's Witnesses) was never a core Islamic value. Conquest was. In the same way that the Nazis tried to appear rational only in order to buy time for rearmament or gain territory at virtually no cost (Rhineland, the Anschluss, Sudetenland), the Islamists will feign rationality when overt conquest is impractical. When rational argument on the points at issue appears hopeless or impractical then threats, intimidation and outright violence do perfectly well thank you very much. Just as the Nazis dropped any pretence of rational argument with the invasion of Poland (they knew they couldn't argue Poland out of its territory), likewise the Islamists will drop any pretence of civilized behaviour the minute they recognize that it can no longer further their conquests.
I'm for raising funds for a mockumentary of the ROP along the lines of Spinal Tap. It could premier simultaneously in all western countries, then, once and for all, we can flush these lunatics out in the open. To minimize casualties to non-Muslims, the empty theaters should be built on vacant lots. Start the movies with remote control.
Let's just get on with this and stop further speculation. Let's end the myth of the "moderate Muslim", the merits of multiculti kum by ya and Islam's tolerance of free speech. Should liberals feel Mohammed Tap is a bit too edgy, then, they can assist the faithful in rioting and burning down the theaters which could lead to another mockumentary film. The MSM, of course, would try to fashion headlines of the ROP rioting while watching a documentary of their perpetual rioting without any irony which could lead to yet another mockumentary film.
One movie, then, all myths purged.
Penny,
I like your idea. Wonder if the Monty Python folks would be up for it? The life of Mo.
Well I'm glad we cleared that up, Islam is perfect and beyond all critisim is it? Well what exactly are all these little muslims doing in the west ? Could it be that it really sucks where they come from???? If they don't like our points of view,freedom to choose,live ,worship, or not, go back to the middle east,try and find a job,or a doctor, dentist.whatever, of course islam is perfect, yeagh right.
"Let me give you a heads up Hamid, Western civilization is the most successful on the planet for one very big reason. Our forefathers were the most brutal, savage and warlike people that lived."
Largs at 10:47 am.
Given our civilzation's bloody past, it is tempting to conclude as Largs does, but his conclusion is very incomplete. It needs to be modified by noting that we are or were the most successful civilzation at being brutal, savage and warlike. As far as the raw presence of these characteristics, the history of Islam suggests that their civilization was or is at least as brutal, savage and warlike as ours.
What made the West successful draws on other values and characteristics, such as reason and the development of modes of government that gave encouragement to the application of reason in matters secular and spiritual; economic and military alike.
the point is, just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you should.
a good lesson for the reutersruters of the world.
Posted by: jeff at October 16, 2006 11:12 AM
I tried having a discussion with a very nice muslim I used to work with. I wasn't trying to be rude or mean, just honest. I said that I didn't respect Islam. Not in an angry way, just stating a fact. She looked at me in wide eyed horror backed away and wouldn't talk to me for the rest of the night. They say they want dialouge but they can't handle it. Part of free speech is that people may offend you at times. As a christian it happens to me all the time. I deal with it.
Even Noam Chomsky can be concise and correct, once in a blue moon.
"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like.”
Jeff said: "the point is, just because you CAN say something doesn't mean you should"
Sure, we don't go around saying everything we think, for a number of perfectly valid reasons. But not criticizing an ideology because you're afraid of violent retaliation? Come on!
Yes Cal he said that when his views were not really the mainstream.
I didnt see Noam out there strongly condemning the crtoon controversey or the killing of Theo Van Gogh.....
I think old Noam feels these are manufactured events so as to make you believe that you have an enemy when you really dont.
But hey when you are endorsed by Hugo Chavez you must be doing something right....
The blatant hypocrisy of Risvi's screed is easily revealed when you consider that Muslims feel free to call everyone else on the planet "infidels", and continue to spread stories such as Jews need Moslem blood for their Passover rituals, etc. So, apparently, it's OK for Muslims to insult and revile non-Muslims, but not OK for non-Muslims to insult and ridicule Muslims.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
And then some days I actually have hope
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/raw_video_from_iran_grand_ayat.php
Even Noam Chomsky can be concise and correct, once in a blue moon : "If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like.”
I'd rather quote Orwell to essentially the same effect: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
So, start "our" intifada - against Islam. Insult them in public, draw them out in editorials, ridicule the Qu'ran publicly, throw stones so to speak. Force these antiquated, brain washed dupes, to stand up and debate their "cult", because that is precisely what it is. Make them unwelcome here in "our" country, drive them out, force them to "submit" to freedom of speech, whilste they live amoungst us. If they fail to "submit", then the end result is death by the sword by believers of the faith of free speech.
Give them a little taste of our own medieval ancient practices. Hack and slash!
Hoo-ah!
So, start "our" intifada - against Islam. Insult them in public, draw them out in editorials, ridicule the Qu'ran publicly, throw stones so to speak. Force these antiquated, brain washed dupes, to stand up and debate their "cult", because that is precisely what it is. Make them unwelcome here in "our" country, drive them out, force them to "submit" to freedom of speech, whilste they live amoungst us. If they fail to "submit", then the end result is death by the sword by believers of the faith of free speech.
Give them a little taste of our own medieval ancient practices. Hack and slash!
Hoo-ah!
The true power in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is the Ayatollah Khamenei. He is supported by an organization called the Guardian Council. Then there’s another group called the Expediency Council. These are the people that control the military, the police, the nuclear program, all the instruments of power. And not only has the Supreme Leader issued a fatwa that says that nuclear weapons are not compatible with Islamic law, with the Shia belief system that he is responsible, in 2003 he actually reached out to the Bush administration via the Swiss embassy and said, “Look, we would like to normalize relations with the United States. We’d like to initiate a process that leads to a peace treaty between Israel and Iran.” Get this, Israel and Iran. He’s not saying, “We want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.” He is saying, “We want peace with Israel.” And they were willing to put their nuclear program on the table.
Why didn’t the Bush administration embrace this? Because that leads to a process of normalization, where the United States recognizes the legitimacy of the theocracy and is willing to peacefully coexist with the theocracy. That’s not the Bush administration's position. They want the theocracy gone. They will do nothing that legitimizes that, nothing that sustains peace. They rejected peace. So, it’s not Ahmadinejad that represents the threat to international peace and security when it comes to American-Iranian relations. It’s the Bush administration, because the Bush administration refuses to put peace on the table. Bush talks about diplomacy. There will not be diplomacy, true diplomacy, until he puts Condoleezza Rice on an airplane, sends her to Tehran to talk to the Supreme Leader.
Target Iran: The Truth About the White House’s Plans for Regime Change, Scott Ritter, coming out in November 2006
What an eye-opening experience to be on your own in a nation that has been called an Islamic fascist state. I have been to dictatorships in the Middle East. I have been to nations that have a high security profile. Iran is not one of these nations. I’m a former intelligence officer who has stated some pretty strong positions on Iran, and yet I had full freedom of movement in Iran with no interference whatsoever. And as a result, although I didn’t have the approved agenda, I had my own agenda, which allowed me to interview senior government officials, senior military officials, senior intelligence officials, and to visit sites that were deemed sensitive. The conclusion is that the American media has gotten it wrong on Iran. It’s a very modern, westernized, pro-Western, and surprisingly pro-American country that does not constitute a threat to the United States whatsoever.
So why is the US military in Iran right now regime change and control of the middle east?
But the Nuclear War is just getting started, China will not let the US attack NK or Iran. cutting funding of the Bush Wars is one way they can hurt america.
So now its not the Jews, like it was in the second world war, but the muslims that are the evil enemy.
Don't Go!
The Ballad Of Ho Chang
Check it out at information clearing house or google it
This might be your child in the future is that what you want for them?
A while ago I eliminated ignorant insulting of Muslim beliefs by reading the Quran. Now I practice informed insulting of Muslim beliefs.
"What made the West successful draws on other values and characteristics, such as reason and the development of modes of government that gave encouragement to the application of reason in matters secular and spiritual; economic and military alike."
felis corpulentis 02:07 PM
Well felis tell me one western government that wasn't developed by means of revolution. Please don't say Canada, it is after all modelled after the British system which was formed through acts of rebellion against a tyrant King.
Yes we have evolved beyond that, or we like to think we have at least. My point was and is that we will not take it forever. There will come a time when even the meekest of us will say that we have no cheeks left to turn.
BTW don't take my response as a criticism your points are well taken. I am after all a polite, tolerant, Canadian:)