Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
sorkoi2003    RE:MG Condemning Terrorism- What If...   12/8/2004 6:46:02 PM
MG. We started this strand because it was suggested that Muslims collectively had not condemned 'terrorism'. When it was pointed out Islamic Conference Organization had condemned 'terrorism'. It was suggested it does not count unless Arab newspaper have a front-page spread... and that Muslim governments communiqués were meaningless they were in the wrong language. Now there is demand that majority of Arab newspapers, respected scholars, need to make such a public declaration. It seems that goal posts keep shifting. Underlying much of the blanket condemnations of Muslims/ Islamicate culture are based on ignorance of how Muslim societies actually operate- I think if you tried replacing the word "Muslim" with "Black" or "Jewish" in many of the posts that appear here it would make very uncomfortable reading and I would hazard a guess that it would break the rules of use of the site. This does not happen because its that assumed that this stuff about Muslims is true. (It should be noted that at time, many of assumptions about people of African descent were also considered to be true - their laziness, their child-like nature, having a higher tolerance for pain, their uncontrolled lust for white women...)as were assumptions about the deviant nature of "Jews" (...their disloyalty, their love of money, their parasitic nature...). I think it was you on another strand who made the point about difference between expert knowledge and general knowledge/opinion (my terminology) and how they could not be equal. I wonder how many people, here have a knowledge of Islamicate cultures outside the experiences of 9-11 specifically or security issues generally. The whole catalogue of instant literature produced about Islam v.quickly and in very polemical context becomes the yardstick by which Muslims and Muslim societies are to be judged and evaluated. Let me illustrate what I am saying by talking an excerpt from your email: “The truth is, whether you like it or not, that Middle Eastern culture is one of violence, hatred and extremism. Being a moderate in that culture is a sure ticket to being targeted by one of the fundamentalist groups. These cultures and groups oppose the United States and the rest of Western civilization, not because of what we do, but because of who we are. Islamic extremists have been actively targeting the US since the 1970's, and all of the West since the 1930's, easily. Or did you not pay attention to the historical evidence of cooperation and common cause many Arab nations and/or resistance groups (in some cases) making common cause with the Nazi's in the 1930's. And many of these same groups then came to power in the 1950's and 1960's. The Ba'athists would be an obvious example”. You start by saying Middle Eastern culture is violent and extremist (I imagine you mean Muslim culture in general – but maybe you don’t). Then you make an assertion that ‘Western culture is hated’ not because of what it does but what it is. You illustrate these statements by making a number of historical references. First, you say that US has been targeted since the 1970s. (I imagine you are perhaps referring to the Iranian revolution?). If Middle Easterner hate the US for what it is- and not what it does. You need to explain why did they not target the US in 1950s or 1960s. By suggesting that there is historical dimension to the targeting of the US- it seem there is an implication that a fair person would want to explore why did the US get target in 1970s. What happened what changed. If Middle Eastern culture did not change because you suggest that its violent and extremism goes back to at least 1930s- it would follow there was either change in western culture or there were second-order changes. In which cases the relevance of cultural arguments would diminish. Second, you say that other Western countries have been attacked since 1930s. Most of the Middle East (and Muslim world) was under European rule during that time. So many Middle Easterners collaborated with Nazis who did not rule them, many other collaborated with European colonial rulers. We also, know that many American organizations collaborated with Nazis, we also know that US placed Japanese citizens in camps but not Germans, we also know that US did not officially declare war on Germany. We also know that Nazi saw in ‘Jim Crow’ a model for Jewish segregation… all of these things are omitted from your account. Leaving the impression, that unreasonable of Middle Easterners to ally with Nazis to be free from colonial rule. You would like Middle Easterner to practice a purity that for example, Britain and US refused to do in relation to Stalinist Russia. If it was ok for the US-UK forces to turn a blind eye to the cruelties of the Stalin regime- because they had a common enemy in the Nazis, why would it not be equally valid for some Middle Easterners to turn a blind eye to the Nazis because of their common enemy the European c
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus    RE:MG Condemning Terrorism- What If...   12/9/2004 4:47:28 AM
"History will not doubt determine who is right or wrong but I would suggest that the day that most of the American press and opinion makers and policy makers make a public declaration denouncing American imperialism will probably be the day that Muslims would make a denunciation of terrorism that would satisfy you." Does this mean that the 56 OIC's did not pass the Sudan resolution because of Sudaneese Imperialism? Are they being burned and butchered as a way to punish America?
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:Reminder-AK is NC17   12/9/2004 10:31:34 AM
>>Jeez. I keep saying this. YOu think I'm kidding. YOu must be of good cheer, not entirely plastered, adult, and not easily offended to deal with AK(well, the totally plastered sometimes helps).<< Ah, my public... I actually don't recommend reading my posts while plastered. Read them in the spirit they were written in. Use a gravity bong or other improvised recreational device if you must.
 
Quote    Reply

timon_phocas    RE: sorkoi    12/9/2004 10:32:30 AM
>>we also know that US placed Japanese citizens in camps but not Germans<< not so, the US rounded up and imprisoned many hundreds, if not thousands, of German and Italian fascists. The Japanese internment was racial in nature, but there were also Japanese extremist groups that were collaborating with the Japanses Empire. These groups and their efforts were short circuited by the internment. >>we also know that US did not officially declare war on Germany<< not so, the US Congress declared war on Germany on 11 December, 1941. The vote was unanimous. >>We also know that Nazi saw in ‘Jim Crow’ a model for Jewish segregation<< did they? The Wansee Protocol specifically rejected segregation. you have a commendasble command of academic jargon. Your history, however, seems deficient
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:MG Condemning Terrorism- What If...   12/9/2004 10:43:56 AM
>>History will not doubt determine who is right or wrong but I would suggest that the day that most of the American press and opinion makers and policy makers make a public declaration denouncing American imperialism will probably be the day that Muslims would make a denunciation of terrorism that would satisfy you.<< Okay... let's hop aboard Mr. Roger's trolley to the outskirts of the land of Make-Believe in search of the magical combinations of hallucinogenic mushrooms and paint thinner fumes that will make the above quoted suggestion make sense. Let's imagine that the Islamic world truly believes they are held oppressed by "American imperialism" and if not for the fact that we exist no Muslim would ever dream of tossing grenades into a Kashmir church building, much less hijack airplanes and fly them into skyscrapers filled with thousands of people. If this is the case, we're too many pages into the debate. Let's go back to this "American imperialism oppresses Muslims" thing. If true, who the hell gave the Islamic world permission to be outraged? I mean, damn. It's bad enough they breate oxygen generated by American trees without so much as a thank you, and now they think they can be outraged? Some imperialism, ha!
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE: Timon Phocas historical knowledges    12/9/2004 11:52:31 AM
"not so, the US rounded up and imprisoned many hundreds, if not thousands, of German and Italian fascists." German and Italian fascists were rounded up (as they were in the UK as well). German and Italian Americans were not rounded up- as you admit it was not only Japanese ultra-nationalists were rounded up. Thanks for helping me to clarify my point. "The Japanese internment was racial in nature, but there were also Japanese extremist groups that were collaborating with the Japanses Empire. These groups and their efforts were short circuited by the internment." But you would accept that the internment of Japanese-American was not specific only to those who were supporters of the Empire- and yourself would contrast this with the treatment of German-American and Italian-Americans. >>we also know that US did not officially declare war on Germany<< "not so, the US Congress declared war on Germany on 11 December, 1941. The vote was unanimous." You are correct. The point I was making it was Hitler who declared war on the US first. Without the declaration of war by Hitler would US have declared war on Germany so quickly? The arguement I was trying to make here was that as British keep reminding the world they had been fighting Nazism since 3rd Sept 1939- they with the French declared war on Germany- both the SU and US had war declared on them by Nazis (I can't remember the exact sequence whether German declaration came after the intial attack on SU or hours before). The idea the US was committed in 1930s to fighting Nazism is problematic (in the same way that American society was divided: That does not mean they were no anti-Nazis at the time but that there was large body of opinion that did not want to fight Nazis as noble cause. Hence record against Nazism is not all that clear-cut as sometimes its presented. "did they? The Wansee Protocol specifically rejected segregation". Indeed. The Wansee Conference took place in early 1942. The perecution of Jews had become offical with Nazi take over of power in 1933. The intial discriminatory laws which passed were intended a segregate the Jews. The final solution emerged in the cotext of Nazis conquests and tendency of Nazi policies to be ratched upwards. From the points you made above I am not convinced that my hisorical knowledge is that weak on the substantive issues.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    More on Islamo-fascism, by former CIA Chief James Woolsley   12/9/2004 9:38:30 PM
Interesting - for those who dont or refuse to understand the term: http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16219 swhitebull - seems the only one NOT getting this are the Islamo-Fascists, and Sorkoi
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Chemist being nit picky race, ethncity etc   12/10/2004 4:42:58 PM
The difference is between the understanding of politics as a process of identity/ethnic formation and race as a source of politiy formation. If Catholics in USA began to be identified primarily in terms of their Catholicism rather than region, language, class, or ancestary- you could argue that a Catholic ethnicity is being formed. Such an ethnicity would include groups formerly identified as Irish, Chicanos, Italian-American etc. One would speak of Catholic-Americans rather than Hispanics, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans etc. Catholic ethnicity would transcend those divisions, it would not be matter of aesthetics (?)but of politics. Similary, before 1989-1991- there were no Muslims in Europe they were Kurds, Maghrebis, South Asians, Sengalese etc. since then these groups are increasingly being seen as part of a collective identity called Muslims- where their Muslimness is seen to be more signficant than other factors like language or ancestary or class etc. I would make a difference between identiy politics (that any identity determines a particular politics) and politics as identification. One of things politics does is produce identites primarliy between friends and enemies, e.g red states vs blue states, liberals vs conservatives... I am not sure there is politics that does not involve some kind of identification even economic packages make idenfications between 'middle class' poor work-shy etc...
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus    RE:Chemist being nit picky race, ethncity etc   12/10/2004 6:34:49 PM
"If Catholics in USA began to be identified primarily in terms of their Catholicism rather than region, language, class, or ancestary- you could argue that a Catholic ethnicity is being formed. Such an ethnicity would include groups formerly identified as Irish, Chicanos, Italian-American etc. One would speak of Catholic-Americans rather than Hispanics, Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans etc. Catholic ethnicity would transcend those divisions, it would not be matter of aesthetics (?)but of politics. " I believe this was also covered in ComSen 101. It's known as wildly groping to make a point. If we begin to identify Catholics as Catholics instead of where they're from, then eventually, we would identify them as Catholics from wherever.
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus    RE:Americans must respect Islam   12/10/2004 8:16:57 PM
Outside View: Immigrants in France By Robert Levine Outside View Commentator Washington, DC, Dec. 10 (UPI) -- The United States and France face the parallel problem of assimilating large groups of culturally different immigrants: Hispanics in the United States, North Africans in France. History suggests the United States will incorporate the new entrants more or less smoothly while the French are likely to fail. The first immigrants to enter the United States in large numbers were the Irish in 1845. Italians and East European Jews followed, starting 40 years later. The key to their assimilation has been that U.S. culture has changed even as it "Americanized" the newcomers. In spite of current alarms, the Hispanic wave looks little different. France remains the European nation most open to immigrants, assimilating individuals into traditional French culture. The North Africans constitute the first massive wave. Many want to retain elements of their own culture and the other French are resisting mightily. Until 1845, the United States could be characterized as an Anglo-Saxon Protestant society; although black slaves modified the culture from the start. Catholicism was tolerated but mistrusted. Germans constituted a small node. The Irish potato famine forced emigration so rapid that by 1850, 10 percent of the U.S. population was Irish. They were different. Anti-Catholicism burgeoned and employers refused to hire the Irish, forcing them to depend on their own economy. Communal clashes were common. They gradually found public jobs, many as policemen. They forced their way into politics -- in 1905, John Fitzgerald Kennedy's grandfather became the first Irish mayor of Boston. The Irish were absorbed into a culture that simultaneously absorbed Irish elements. The Irish cop became traditional. Catholic universities were well-respected. Warm-hearted Catholic priests were central characters in popular movies. In 1960, Kennedy was elected president. Jews and Italians began large-scale immigration in the 1880s. They did not speak English. East European Judaism was considered exotic. Italian Catholicism differed from Irish. Like the Irish, the newcomers began in their own communities. Many Jews moved out through clothing and other businesses (and the associated unions). Many Italians did the same as laborers and then contractors. In and after World War II, assimilation became almost complete, with both groups represented at the highest private and public levels. In achieving this, American culture absorbed many Jewish and Italian elements, from bagels and pizza to Hollywood and higher culture. As one measure of assimilation, by the 1990s the U.S. Senate had about 25 Jewish and 10 Italian members even though neither ethnic group constitutes a majority of the population in any state in the union. Some Americans fear "The persistent inflow of Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into two peoples," as Harvard Professor Samuel Huntington put it. The fears are misplaced. Immigration has been rapid since the 1970s, and people of Mexican origin constitute 9 percent of the population, but that is less than the Irish at the peak. Successor generations are Americanizing as fast as their predecessors. One fear is that U.S. culture will become "Hispanicized." And so it will, faster perhaps than it changed in response to past immigrations. But U.S. culture is always adapting: today the taco has joined the bagel and pizza, salsa music is melding with jazz (hardly Anglo-Saxon in its own origins), and high and low Hispanic culture is spreading. For many people in the United States this means revitalization. More important, the newcomers are entering U.S. democratic institutions. Colorado has just elected Mexican-American Democrat Ken Salazar and Florida has elected Cuban-American Republican Mel Martinez to the U.S. Senate. France transforms individual immigrants into good Frenchmen, but that is not working for the wave of North Africans who, like Hispanics in the United States now constitute about 10 percent of the population. The new immigrants are Muslims, many of them religious, entering a France that combines a millennium of Catholicism with a century of secularism. The wave began with Algerians who had supported the losing French side in the revolution. The strong post-war French economy accelerated the inflow. Then a counterproductive French attempt to close the doors in the mid-1970s motivated Algerians already in France to bring their families. The new immigrants were unprepared-still religiously Muslim, culturally Arab, and economically primitive-and the French were unprepared for them. A vigorous economy could have eased the transition, but growth slowed in the 1980s. Lacking jobs, the immigrants remained in urban/suburban ghettoes where poverty and crime grew. The French made few efforts to build bridges, and the North Africans intensified t
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics