Islam, Terrorism, Liberals and more

The following is a series of responses and comments prompted by the second post to this blog which can be read at the end of this one. I chose this method rather than just adding another comment as I have a lot more to say and would hope for readership. The first section is a series of comments and my responses. The last response is lengthy and detailed and is the reason for my posting the entire series.

John Burgess said...
Nice piece!

I'd only note that the term "Wahhabi" tends to get misused. The majority of Wahhabis are not terrorists, nor are they sympathetic to terrorists.

The term that seems to be gaining momentum--due largely to Anthony Cordesman at the CSIS--is "neo-salafist". This correctly encompasses the violent extremists while excluding the Wahhabis who are, actually, rather quietist in their outlook.
10:06 AM

HoJo added, “I shall research this information and make appropriate adjustments.”

Ian said...
America is already weak. America is already ineffective. The actions taken by our president and his subsequent approval rating show little confidence from the country in our leadership. This shows weakness. Bush shows weakness.

It is insulting for you to compare Iraq to WWII... completely and utterly insulting. In the Iraqi war, we are the aggressors. We made the invasion. Germany and Hitler were the invasive party in WWII. The anniversary of Pearl Harbor was 4 days ago... I don't think I need to remind you who was the aggressor there.

It is often interesting to see the injustices that are perpetrated for no reason, to see the people stand idly by and watch the deterioration of a nation and morality because they are too afraid to be shut up by propagandists and overbearing, dangerous nationalists.

Terrorism is the product of stubbornness, elitism and pigheaded foreign policy. The path to the heart of our "enemies" lies not in bombing their cities. Surely you can see this.
7:03 PM

HoJo said...
Ian:

Pardon me, but your indoctrination into leftist philosophy is showing. In many respects you are quite accurate when you say America is weak. The consummate destruction of morality in our nation that has been promoted by the left for so many years has substantially weakened us. Your President, “Slick Willy” clearly demonstrated that with his direct lies and redefinition of sex. Your great and honorable leaders like Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd also demonstrate that almost on a daily basis.

I will stand on my statements about WWII. I think it insulting to say we were the aggressors in Iraq. If that be true then surely we were also the aggressors in Germany and Japan. There is no question, Saddam Hussein was precisely the same kind of despotic dictator as Hitler. The similarity of his treatment of the Kurds to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews is inescapable. The only difference was that we stopped Saddam Hussein before he became powerful enough to be a major world threat. How much of a threat would he be now if he accomplished what he clearly stated was his intent and taken over the entire Arabian peninsula? Think about it.

Some time back I watched a Peter Jennings special on our dropping of the atom bomb. The way it was presented one would have thought that we were the evil aggressors against the poor Japanese. This special was clearly meant to rewrite history and paint America as evil. The main stream and very liberal media still seem to try their best to paint our nation as an evil aggressor virtually everywhere. Surely you get all your news from the liberal triplets. I doubt you ever listen to or read any information that differs from your own views. My sister, whom I love dearly, once wrote me, “You have such a fine mind, I cannot fathom why you waste your attention on such persons as Rush Limbaugh and George Bush and the Religious Right.” That was after she wrote that I was the only person she knew who voted for George Bush. All that demonstrated to me was that she hadn’t a clue who I really was or what I thought. Simply because I was not in complete accord with her liberal views I was lumped in with all those “stupid, ultra conservative, fundamentalist Christians from fly-over country.” That is as much prejudice as, “all blacks are . . .” Should you want to learn something of this kind of political prejudice, read Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.” I see you like many young people as caught up in a political belief system that controls your thoughts, shutting out absolutely everything that does not agree with the “holy” liberal agenda.

I like your paragraph about injustices and agree almost completely. I would merely replace your word “nationalists” with “liberal one-worlders.” Europe stood by and did precisely what you described as Hitler’s power grew. I would suppose that you would have us stand by now and let tyrants and world conquerors like Saddam Hussein grow in power in the same way.

Your words on terrorism: I see you following the mantras of the left in blaming America for terrorism and describing our actions as, “bombing their cities.” Would you then also blame America for causing the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Many people did, you know. The Japanese went to war with us because we shut off vital materials we had previously been providing. I doubt you know that. I realize it would go against your belief, but try substituting the words, “liberating their cities” for “bombing their cities” and you get an entirely different slant.

You might be surprised to know that I disagree strongly with many of the Bush administration policies. Read the comments on my blog about the environment as the blog itself may not make that clear. I like to think I have a mind open to all kinds of information from all kinds of sources. I have an idea that you and I would have more agreements than disagreements. Our big differences would come in the methods we would choose to achieve those goals.

I certainly would not be condescending in my comments because I know you are a very bright, thoughtful, idealistic young man. I would only suggest that you consider the possibility that your deeply ingrained prejudices may be guiding your emotions and anger. There really is a possibility you could be at least partly wrong, you know. I will readily admit to being wrong a few times myself. Peter Abelard said, “By doubting we are led to inquire. By inquiring we perceive the truth.” As I suggested, read Eric Hoffer if you can find his work. His views are very down-to-earth and quite enlightening. Incidently, in his time he was considered to be quite liberal.

Cordially, Uncle Mike
6:10 AM

Fish said...
Uncle Mike,
It's pretty difficult to respond to most of the things that you say and I think it's pretty evident that there is a great deal of futility in my even trying to do so. But you made some pretty large mistakes in your response to me.

First of all, I have been indoctrinated into nothing. I am a thinker who sees alternate points of view, has heard numerous opinions and has chosen what he believes to be the right one. I don't associate with a political party or an ideological category. I have my own conceptions of right and wrong, my own analysis of morality. I am a philosophy major at Reed College who is deeply intrigued by ethics and morals. These issues cannot be invaluated in a philosophical manner by one who is "indoctrinated".

Obviously, your sense of morality and mine are vastly different. While we may both share concepts of right and wrong that are similar, I can't believe anyone would fault a president for sexual indiscretions more than a president who has led a war that has killed innocent people both in America and in the Middle East.

Your President, "Slick Willy" clearly demonstrated that with his direct lies and redefinition of sex. Your great and honorable leaders like Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd also demonstrate that almost on a daily basis.

Here's where you make a huge error that shows your rush to judgement and, unfortunately, an inability for critical evaluation. Bill Clinton is not "my president" exclusively by any means. He is not the exclusive president of the liberals, the democrats, the radical leftists or the sexual transgressors. For 8 years, he was the President of the United States and all its citizens. I never voted for him (I was 11 when he was elected for the second time), but he was my president. As much as I hate to say it, George Bush is my president in the same respect. I didn't vote for him, but I live in this country and he is my president. And that is precisely the problem. He doesn't represent my sense of right and wrong and certainly doesn't represent the concerns of people who hold similar opinions to me. This is why he is a bad president at the very root of all things.

Mostly, I am taken aback that you say "Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd are" my leaders. These two men are not my leaders. I am a leader. I believe what I believe. I have my sense of right and wrong, my conceptions of how the country should be run, and my ideas for making the world better. I certainly don't believe that Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd are leading me in any direction. I'm leading myself to my own conclusions, critically evaluating everything that I hear from every source--Democrat or Republican.

I have no great admiration for the Democratic party of late. It's not liberal enough. It doesn't truly advocate what is right and what is wrong. They are spineless individuals who are more concerned about earning the vote than doing the right thing. I represent myself; I don't buy in to what my "leaders" say just because they say it.

And you should do the same with regards to Bush. You voted for him. He's your leader. He's mine too. But part of living in a democracy means questioning the wrongdoings of our leaders when they take the wrong step with regard to policy, even if it isn't socialy acceptable to do so.

I don't know that I want to get into WWII and Iraq except to say this: Hitler systematically killed Six Million Jews. It became a science. A low-cost effort to eliminate a people from the world. To compare Hitler to Saddam Hussein demonstrates your inability to look beyond Bush's rhetoric.

Hitler had the tools, the power and he implemented them. A "what if" argument is unsound and fallacious. What if Saddam Hussein actually had nuclear weapons? Then maybe Bush would have had cause to go to war.

But alas, he didn't. And so... he didn't.

It is an unjust war. Nearly all wars are. I haven't been fed this by the "leftist" media (the people at Fox News sure are a bunch of tree-huggin' hippies!), but have realized it on my own in my nearly 21 years of life.
Ian
5:41 PM

Ian:
You said, It's pretty difficult to respond to most of the things that you say and I think it's pretty evident that there is a great deal of futility in my even trying to do so. But you made some pretty large mistakes in your response to me.

I could say the same to you, but won’t. My mistakes, as you call them, seem to me to be differences of opinion. Of course, I have observed that any disagreement with the absolutely correct positions with those on the liberal left (and Christian fundamentalists of the right) are considered mistakes or errors by those self-same individuals. I still contend that your “objective” education has helped instill in you certain beliefs about what is right and what is wrong. You are, even as I am, a product of genetics plus all the input from others present and involved in your upbringing, education and personal discovery. These influences determine who and what you are, your moral standards, your belief systems, even your likes and dislikes. Some of these inputs you will accept, some you will rebel against, some you will ignore. No one is exempt from these influences. It is how we become who we are. When we describe this about ourselves we call it independent personal choice. In others we call it indoctrination or prejudice.

Virtually everything you have learned thus far in your life you learned from another human in one way or another. There is extremely little chance that personal, unaided discovery has contributed much to who you are. I’m sure your parents did all possible to teach you to think for yourself–to be your own person–to be a leader and not a follower– to make up your own mind. I know I did that for all five of mine as best I could. Since you valued your parents and their thoughts and beliefs it is quite natural for these to have had a major effect on you. Even so, I will also wager there were times when you disagreed with them–even argued your case forcibly. I know my gang were never afraid to oppose me when they thought differently. This is the natural course of human events.

Your grandmother and I were brought up in virtually the same home environment yet we view many things quite differently. Differences became much stronger after college where she and I took paths of significant differences. She studied drama and the humanities; (the touchy-feely world of emotion, hopes and human behavior) I studied science and engineering. (the pragmatic world of facts, mathematics and realistic solutions) As a result of our nature, our home experience and our formal education we came to view things from very different vantage points. I seriously doubt you (or she) ever seek out and listen to or consider seriously opinions, thoughts, principals or “morals” that are not in concert with your own regardless of where you actually stand. You “know” those people are wrong, misguided, stupid or ignorant simply because they don’t agree with you.

Yes, technically, Bill Clinton was indeed “my” president. Common treatment of language includes a rather broad definition of this term and I claim the right to use it in a general term. He was most certainly not my choice for President in the same way George Bush is certainly not your choice. When technicality serves to prove a point it is used. When generality serves, that is used. Come on Ian, you knew precisely what I meant, or do I need spell it out for you?

You wrote, George Bush is my president in the same respect. I didn't vote for him, but I live in this country and he is my president. And that is precisely the problem. He doesn't represent my sense of right and wrong and certainly doesn't represent the concerns of people who hold similar opinions to me. This is why he is a bad president at the very root of all things.

I am to take it from this that you believe Bush is a bad President simply because you and those “who hold similar opinions to me.” believe so and disagree with him and his policies? In other words, anyone who disagrees with you is bad? Is that not a very arrogant statement? I hear similar statements from so many liberals–they are just right and anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, ignorant, evil, mislead, etc... Maybe they (and you) are just incredulous that anyone would question the “holy” opinions or agenda of the liberal. I haven’t a clue!

About your references to this “illegal” war and how incorrect it is to compare Hitler and Hussein. That is merely an opinion, not a fact. Had the free world (or any part of it) stopped Hitler in the mid 30s when “Peace in our time” was the rule of those who refused to act against an obviously growing menace, the organized murder of millions by the NAZIs would never have come to fact. Possibly even the several times as many millions murdered systematically by the Bolsheviks in Russia could have been prevented. Of course there is no way to predict where Saddam Hussein would have gone had he not been stopped. If you deny that possibility then technically, you are once more correct. I certainly do not agree.

Hitler in nineteen-forty-one was a vastly different threat than Hussein in 2001. You are once more correct, technically. However, Hitler in 1933 was even less of a menace than Hussein before the first Gulf War. The difference is that no one stopped Hitler. Would you have considered a war to prevent Hitler from building his juggernaut of death another illegal or immoral war? Would you have called illegal, a war to stop or prevent the murders of millions just because you are opposed to war? And on what would you base your opinion?

Once more, the conclusion to follow is a projection, and not an actual fact, but from existing records, twice as many Iraqis were killed by Saddam Hussein’s government each year before the “liberation” (to you, occupation) of Iraq by coalition forces than have died in any of the years since. That means the “illegal” and “inhumane” war has saved as many as 35,000 net lives in Iraq. Of course, Hussein could have lowered his rate of killing in response to appeals from American peaceniks. What do you think?

Another report by a British research group for the year 2005 reported 900 coalition deaths from all causes in 2005. They also reported 4200 Iraqi deaths during the same period. 2100 were terrorists killed by coalition action.1700 were civilians killed by the actions of terrorists. 400 were non-combatants killed by coalition forces during actions against terrorists. It is interesting to note that during all of 2005, about twice as many young men were killed by gun violence (700) in Chicago as in Bagdad, (348) a city of twice the population of Chicago. Statistics in the rest of Iraq average out to about the same, including terrorists killed in military action. Extended to the rest of the US at half the rate of Chicago to be safe, internal, home grown terrorism right here in the US is at least twice as deadly as in Iraq. We have a far bigger body count here at home, even on a percentage basis, than we do in Iraq and other than the most sensational murders or accidental shootings, it is rarely even mentioned in the media.

In one of your comments you said, “Terrorism is the product of stubbornness, elitism and pigheaded foreign policy. The path to the heart of our ‘enemies’ lies not in bombing their cities. Surely you can see this.” I suppose you mean that American imperialism was responsible for all thirteen hundred years of Islamic terrorism including the anti-Hindu terrorism in India, the anti Buddhist terrorism in most of Asia, the conquering of Christian Constantinople by Sulemon the Magnificent, the sacking of the library in Alexandria and all the other wars and terrorism visited on people by Islamic armies and terrorists. Apparently you would agree with Samiul Haq described in the following quote from an article about Islam.

“In the 1980s the Soviet Union epitomized, for fundamentalist-minded Muslims, the abode of war. Today it is the United States that symbolizes the dar-al-harb. How this came to pass, how America, which supported -- created, some would say -- the jihad movement against the Soviets, came to become the No. 1 enemy of hard-core Islamists is one of the more vexing questions facing American policy-makers and the leaders of a dozen Muslim countries today. One school of thought, Samiul Haq's school, says it's the Americans' fault: American imperialism and the export of American social and sexual mores are to blame." (This could indeed be considered an indictment of the Hollywood liberal left’s effect on sexual mores?)

"The other school of thought holds that Islam, by its very nature, is in permanent competition with other civilizations. This is the theory expounded by the Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington, who coined the term “Islam's bloody borders” -- a reference to the fact that wherever Islam rubs up against other civilizations -- Jewish, Christian, Hindu -- wars seem to break out. Men like Haq deride this view, and yet, in their black-and-white world, Islam stands alone against the world's infidels: Christians (or “Crusaders,” in the fundamentalist parlance) to be sure, but Jews and Hindus especially. In Haq's view, the West is implacably hostile to the message of Islam, and so the need to prepare for jihad is never-ending.”

Listen to the rhetoric of these fundamentalist Muslims. They are totally intolerant of any views other than their own very narrow, fundamentalist doctrine. Listen to the voices of those who support their goals. They are bringing their seventh century mentality and literal hate message of the Koran into the present as they have since Mohammed first brought the Koran to them. Any truce offering they make is specifically made to enable them to build up their forces, weapons and fighters for the next attack. To not respect their expressed and written words is suicidal folly. They not only want the extermination of the Jews, but the extermination of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and all other religions including even some Muslims who don’t agree with them. They base this on the literal wording of the Koran. Their goal? Subjugation of all the peoples of the world by a Taliban-like world government and murder of all who don’t accept and convert to their satanic belief system. Those are their own pronouncements, not my opinion.

Another absolutely necessary action: That action is to immediately develop useable, non-petroleum fuels to cut off the economic destruction of the west. The Islamic world and all petroleum financed dictators would soon be destitute and without resources were we to implement such an action. This would be the cheapest and safest way to destroy Islam–bankrupt them. Combine their massive population growth, removal of oil revenue would bring them to their knees economically and militarily. I have outlined a workable plan to solve not only our dependence on foreign oil, but to take giant steps to reversing CO2 emissions and the purported concomitant global warming. This a plan. Something I see almost noone of from the ranks of liberals. I saw lots of condemnation in your words, but where is your plan? I realize it is much easier to destroy than to build. Are liberals just not up to the hard work of building, but must concentrate on hate and destruction?

I realize the chances of our taking these steps is very remote. The left would rather commit suicide and probably will and could even take all of us with them when they do. Didn’t some one say, “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” Of course, Islamic terrorists, Fidel Castro, Caesar Chavez and most American Liberals view conservatives and Republicans as the evil Satan. Come the Islamic take over, they will be the first to be beheaded, but liberals, you will be next! As models, look at the French revolution and the Bolshevik revolution. Remember, there was no such blood bath in our own revolution because those involved had little taste for blood, but a real thirst for freedom.

The Moslem world is mostly either under the totalitarian fist of oppressive dictators or the chaos of anarchy. Their chosen enemies are all free men everywhere. Their supporters are those who believe their rein of absolute power will be fulfilled if they support and help these angry men. Financed by money from the west’s thirst for petroleum products, Islam is posing an increasing menace to the US and free men everywhere. By using the power of class, ethnic, cultural, racial and religious hatred, to incite violence and terrorism against the United States, these truly evil men are uniting the poor and ignorant of the world as pawns in their thirst for dictatorial power. Their word is hatred, their mantra is envy, their message is death and destruction, and their appeal is to those who have little or nothing to lose. This is almost precisely the carefully hidden agenda of the American liberal left. Hunger for power makes for strange bedfellows.

Heros: We all have heros of one sort or another. These are usually people we look up to and respect for a variety of reasons. Sometimes we seek to emulate them. I have a number of people I consider my heros. My parents, my sisters, (yes, your grandmother is one of my admired heros) Even my children and grandchildren I consider heros of a sort. I know I can always learn from them. Most of my other heros are those whose words and actions I respect and admire even though I don’t always agree with them. All are strangers in a personal sense as I have never met any of them. In no particular order they include: Talbot Munday, Helen Keller, Mother Theresa, Albert Einstein, Andrei Sakharov, Mohandas Gandhi, Edwin Hubble, and two with web sites, Stephen Jay Gould - http://www.stephenjaygould.org and Eric Hoffer - http://www.erichoffer.net. I know there are others but none come to mind immediately. Incidently, should you google Talbot Munday you will see a reference to one of my blog sites about the fourth listing down. You might want to take a look at http://2therealworld.blogspot.com, a lecture I have given to several groups of young people that was quite well received.

You’ll notice there are no politicians included among my heros. I have little respect for most politicians with their duplicitous words and devious motives. They may spout meaningless pap to the public, posture mightily, make ridiculous laws, send our men to die in foreign lands, spend our money lavishly and often foolishly, feather their nests from the public treasury and a thousand other significant actions serving self rather than the nation, and promise many things while doing just the opposite, yet we are stupid enough to continue electing them time and again. I often wonder, how many public serving statesmen our nation has actually held in office the last two hundred and twenty some years. I’ll wager there weren’t many. I’ll also wager there are more true and honorable public servants reporting to the board rooms of America than walking the halls of Congress and other public buildings in Washington.

So Ian, do you have any heros? If so, who are they? Who would you describe as a statesman serving the public rather than self?

Leadership: So, where is your leadership into the brave new world of liberal freedom and peace? According to your words, you are a leader. A leader of one? Who are your followers? Who will implement the grand plans you have for changing this evil world? And, by the way, I don’t recall reading about any plans. Do you have any? I see lots of condemnation–lots of anger–lots of “anti” words coming from you. How about the positive–the constructive–the building–the solutions? You despise Bush, but offer no creative thought about solving the problems facing our nation. It’s quite easy to condemn the actions of other, but quite a different thing to propose practical, productive solutions to the problems with which they are dealing.

A favorite quote of mine: “Choose, and take the consequences. Choose to command, and learn the pain of the barbed treachery of envy. Choose to obey, and learn how soon obedience begets contempt. Choose the philosopher’s life, and learn the famished waste of thought that, like a barren woman, lusts unpregnant. Choose . . . or become the victim of others’ choosing.” by Talbot Munday

To me, leadership is not walking alone into the future, but leading individuals into productive effort for a worthwhile constructive cause. Leadership is bringing people together and helping them to achieve as a group, far more than the total the group could achieve with individuals going it alone–synergy if you will. Leadership demands a practical plan aimed at a goal, a real goal. To that end I have written and continue to add to a book titled, “Solutions.” It is a collection of workable plans to solve some of our most vexing problems–national and world-wide. To date I have addressed revision of our ridiculous tax structure, welfare, health care, global warming, atmospheric pollution, our dependence on foreign petroleum, the drug problem–and several others. I have also listed numerous other problems I plan to address in the future. Here are links to those plans I have posted to date.

Taxes & welfare - The Johnson Tax Code
http://jtax.blogspot.com
Fuels - Tribrid Vehicle, The - Overview
http://SUPERfuel.blogspot.com
Fuels - Tribrid© Vehicle Economy, The
http://SUPERfueli.blogspot.com
Fuels - Gasoline and diesel alternatives
http://cheapfuels.blogspot.com
Drugs - A Real Answer to the Drug Problem
http://hjdrugprb.blogspot.com
Security - Solution to the ID security Problem
http://hjidsecurity.blogspot.com

What concrete plans do you have for our nation in the next fifty years? I’d certainly be eager to read them. Or are you, like so many liberals, so caught up in anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-whatever effort you have no time for creative, productive, positive efforts at building? I realize those are questions you don’t really want to answer so I will consider your silence an admission that you have no plans.

With kindest personal regards, Uncle Mike

To contact the author for any reason, Click Here!