I have a uncle who's been a Muslim (non-NOI) for 25 years. I also have a couple of Arab Muslim friends. All practice their faith studiously. And not ONCE have I detected an ounce of anti-Americanism and/or sympathy with Islamic terrorist groups. In the case of my Arab Muslim friends, they are INSANELY outraged at the twisting of Islam by "wackaroons" (I got them using that term). And I think it is highly unfair for some us to expect Muslims to be always marching and/or speaking out against Islamic wackaroons. They have lives to live ya know?
Just like I don't have to march and/or speak out against dumb azz black folks since I'm black. I say what I say when I freakin' feel like it. And that's all I expect of non-wackaroon Muslims.
The more I read about this topic the more I think Dean's right. I've learned to distrust the MSM's flawed reporting on just about every important topic, including Iraq, national politics, race relations, science, and medicine. They treat their conservative and rural neighbors in America like they're from another planet. Why should I trust them to portray the views of average Muslims any more competently?
Okay Dean, you let the White House know, and I'll buy the comic! Now, how do we get the rest of the media (especially Hollywierd) to go for it? It's all propoganda after all.
The key difference of the time period Dean is that Americans were imprisoned because of their decent. Some rightfully so as there are records of attempted treason, but the vast majority were just Americans. (Please quit the hyphen crap! We're all in this boat together boys and girls, we either row like it or sink!)
At the time they felt a loyalty to the US and her cause that is seriously lacking for most Americans today. They actively went out of their way to demonstrate their loyalty. Not a lot of Muslims do that today Dean, and you know it. I don't question the sincerity of the Muslim groups you espouse and publicise.
I question the loyalty and sincerity of those Muslims that keep paying terrorists, keep saying 'not in my religion', keep saying 'it's the west's aggression that's at fault' (etc., etc., etc.), or who just turn away saying it doesn't effect them, that they have nothing to loose or gain in the WOT. They're bigger threats than the nutballs, as they'll watch the nutballs destroy anything and anyone and not find it to be in their interest to interven. They are the problem, you can kill the terrorists (and so far their 'war of attrition' isn't going so well for 'em) but until the 'quiet majority' find a voice they are the bigger threat to my country. They aren't part of my country (through their own choices to remain seperate), thus they aren't loyal to it...that begs the question of just who and what they ARE loyal to. Do YOU have an answer for that question, or are you just hopin' they support us and are too scared to use their free speech to tell us (while using their free speech to tell us we're waing war on Islam, and making 2000+ new Bin Ladens by fighting the WOT)?
And I don't think wavin' a US flag, or repeating the Pledge will do it. You must DEMONSTRATE your support of your nation, not use words only. Don't like it? I don't care! I'm tired of 'winning their hearts and minds'. Time for them to start winning mine, too!
One potential problem I see with the point you make is the following: during WWII, the Japanese were fighting for hegemony in Asia, among other things. Even before the US got into the Asian war via Pearl Harbor, the Japanese had conquered parts of China, Korea, and had also invaded the Phillipines. The invaded part of China had been treated with great barbarity by the Japanese, and China was one of the Allies during WWII.
In other words, Japan was fighting for Japanese dominance of Asia against the will of other Asians, who were actively and visibly fighting against them. Therefore the battle lines were very clear.
The only analogy I can think of today is to a country such as Kuwait. Sauda Arabia, also, is a nominal ally--but the message is mixed, to say the least. For example, it is the Saudis who have been responsible for spreading Wahabism around the Moslem world, and it is Wahabism that is the problem. So, despite the ally stature of the Saudis, there is tremendous ambiguity, and an argument can (and has!) been made that they are not allies at all.
In addition, the jihadis speak in the language of the Moslem religion as a whole, and use it to justify their vicious and expansionist acts. The fact that most Moslems may indeed disagree with them--and I still believe that that is the case, especially in countries such as Indonesia--does not change the fact that the jihadis use the religion as a whole to justify their actions, and that they can find textual support--and even some clerical support--for their beliefs.
Even in a country such as Indonesia, when outgoing leader Mahathir gave a speech to the world Islamic Organization and gave voice to an extreme version of anti-Semitism, he was applauded and lauded by what appeared to be the entire group. And Mahathir's sentiments were not simple "anti-Zionism," they were outright and flagrant anti-Semitism. This, again, occurred at a worldwide Islamic conference with leaders of 57 nations in attendance, and as far as I know, no Moslem nation or leader objected to the remarks--au contraire.
Although this most definitely does not mean that every Moslem on earth ascribes to the position of Mahathir--and, again, I am sure many of them do not--it is an example of why people feel very justified in believing that Moslems, in general, subscribe to dangerous viewpoints.
I'd just like to know what the proposed solution is.
Clearly "eradicating Islam" or "nuking Mecca" is right out. But what are we proposing in its place, under the doctrine of conquering Islamism while leaving Islam unscathed?
Do we expect that the kind of radical impulses that blow up Buddhas or forbid statues of Mother Teresa will just sort of go away on their own?
Or are we within our rights to call upon moderate Muslims to do more than just issue statements and write occasional editorials, welcome as they might be? Should we be asking for Islam itself to produce a moderating influence—a Pope or a Geneva Convention or something—that the crazies can be directed to as an alternative source of authority rather than just their bile-spewing imams? Is such a thing possible? If not, why not, and what effect does that have on our options for resolving this culture clash peacefully and with our society intact?
What can we do? Aside from supporting the war on terror and the effort to spread liberal democracy in the Middle East, what is our role in this supposed to be?
Or should we all just butt out and hope for the best?
Your analogy doesn't work, Dean. What you are demanding is that people distinguish between good Muslims and bad Muslims. What they did in WWII was distinguish between Japanese and Chinese. The two distinctions are not similar. A better analogy would be if Roosevelt and the press had spent the whole war preaching to people about how not all Japanese were bad people, only the war-like ones.
Doc, you'd be correct if there was a monolithic Muslim state, that all Muslims belonged to just as all Japanese and members of vassal states belonged to Imperial Japan.
Apparently you didn't read the post, since one of Dean's major examples was Kato, and I quote, "A Filipino of Japanese descent. He spoke Japanese. He looked Japanese."
In the bigots world, if they look like a Muslims, and talk like a Muslim, they're a terrorist, or at least a supporter thereof.
They ARE different. They're not all, or even mostly, our enemies. But our culture is as foreign and strange to the peaceful Muslims as their ways are to us. Some of our culture is superior, in human rights and other areas. But much of it is merely different.
That doesn't make sense logically, Dean. If your analogy is bad, then it fails to support your reasoning. Pointing out the flaws in the analogy is just a mechanism for pointing out the flaws in the reasoning - in the same way that you are using the analogy to support your reasoning.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with my analog. Muslims are divided into many different groups, just as "orientals" (as they were known during World War II) were divided into many different nationalities and cultures.
We know who the enemies are:
Al Qaeda
Salafists
Baathists
Khomenei-inspired Shia
We also know for a fact that all of those put together are still a minority of Muslims.
But you know all this Scott. You just willfully refuse to acknowledge it.
As for asking non-murderous muslims to do more: and what would "doing more" entail exactly, and how precisely do you know that they aren't doing it? Because you don't see it in the pages of the New York Times?
I don't read the NYT Dean. Never have, not gonna break my streak now. I want to see Muslims acting like AMERICANS. Not calling for Sharia law to be enacted in their local areas, not calling for women to be fired for eating pork at work, not demaning women be forced to enter their mosque via the side or back door. Not having honor killings. Better yet, making sure those that do any of those things are held up to public scruitiny - by public I mean ALL Americans Dean, not just those who say "well, it's their culture, we can't say it's wrong".
I want to see Muslims actually adressing terrorism, and the fact it is constantly 'twisting' Islam to do it. I want to see them stop giving money to their local 'foundation' with ties to Hamas, Al Jihad, Al Asqua, Jihadi this and jihadi that. I want to see them stop funding terror states, and terror groups. I don't want to walk into the local Wal-Mart and be given 'drop dead heaten scum' looks by women for my long hair - or 'slut' looks by men for the same reason. (And yes Dean, it happens on a regular frikin' basis here and in Europe.)
I want to see Muslims admiting terror is a problem. Not just small groups (notable though they are) but the large 'silent' majority. I want to hear of Imans and 'leaders' of the mosque being fired for teaching terror instead of how they're being kept in 'office' inspite of their terror ties.
Any of those ideas work, or am I making judgement calls again? We all know we can't say bad things about Islam, that might hurt their feelings...
Dean, I think Doc has a point, although I'm not sure it's as strong as he thinks it is.
You know as well as I do that there's a tremendous difference between Chinese, Japanese, Philipino, and Burmese. Different looks, different culture, different language... Much greater differences in many ways than between Sunni/Shiite or Muslim/Islamist.
Your analogy is quite useful; if nothing else it stimulates debate about the issue, which is always a good thing. But at the end, it's still flawed, and your flat statement that "there's nothing wrong with with my analog[y]" is not reasoning. It's merely an unsupported claim. A classic example of ipse dixit.
As for "what would 'doing more' entail exactly, and how precisely do you know that they aren't doing it?," Rhianna has already answered your question. Many 2nd- and 3rd-generation Japanese-Americans volunteered in WW2. They stepped forward and said "not only are we not those people (Imperial Nippon), not only do we oppose and condemn those people, we will fight and die while doing so.
Those Asian peoples who gained a taste of the "Greater East-Asian Co-prosperity Sphere" very nearly, to a man, found that flavor bitter and repulsive. Burmese, Chinese (both Nationalist and Communist), Vietnamese, Philipino, Indonesian, or Polynesian. All resisted the Empire, and all offered their sons to the greater cause.
Where are the Muslims who would risk their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor for this cause? Don't tell me "Iraqis," because they're fighting to take their own country back, not oppose global Islamofascism. Where are the modern equivalent of the above-mentioned East Asian peoples? The editorial staff of a decadent Danish newspaper has more collective cojones than the majority of Muslims.
Oh, they'll release a statement to the press, hold a rally or two, and maybe even gather signatures for a petition. Any alert student of history (not to mention the UN) can tell you the ultimate utility of such pious public statements.
What the skeptics ask, Dean is: what will the "real" Muslims do? Besides, like, disapprove? And -sure- I'll sign that petition. Next week. When no one's looking...
As opposed to:
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Nope. Sorry. Just not feelin' it.
All of this damages the whole "Islam is a religion of peace" position.
Now me, I have no problem with agreeing that over 90% of all Muslims want nothing more than to be left alone, and get along with their lives.
I also have no problem with dogging out those who relentlessly insist that Islam is some sort of "religion of slavery." Theirs is a narrow and twisted view.
The question is: when will Muslims step forward, and own their challenges? The Western/Christian United States has -since Desert Storm- done more for Muslims around the globe than all the Muslim-ruled countries have, rolled together.
Whoops, sorry, Saudi Arabia has begun to consider the possibility that they might (eventually) consider allowing women to hold drivers liscenses. Silly me. What was I thinking?
BTW, T-Steel: feel free to not speak out against "dumb azz black folks," but recall that they dont blow up buses full of women and children, use mentally-disabled teens as suicide bombers, or drop walls on homosexuals to murder them.
You misread my comment. I should have made it clearer. I wasn't arguing with your analogy. Honestly, I just didn't have the mental energy to engage in another long debate.
I was arguing with the logic of your comment that nit-picking an analogy is an indication that the nit-picker has lost the argument. My point was that nit-picking an analogy in order to undermine an argument is just as valid logically validas using an analogy to support an argument.
I have direct evidence that people were able to make the finer distinctions.
My Nana was in Pearl City the day the harbor was bombed, and wrote an extensive diary entry on it. She mentions, at one point, that she got a lot of help from a policeman, and didnt even realize until afterwards that he was "a Jap." She then goes on to imagine what a task it must be to be a policeman in that kind of situation.
She'd grown up in the Islands, and had often encountered first-generation Japanese immigrants. It must have been quite horrible to her to know families who would have to wonder if their relatives back in Japan were now their enemies.
Just like I don't have to march and/or speak out against dumb azz black folks since I'm black. I say what I say when I freakin' feel like it. And that's all I expect of non-wackaroon Muslims.
And some other stuff.
Yours,
Wince
The key difference of the time period Dean is that Americans were imprisoned because of their decent. Some rightfully so as there are records of attempted treason, but the vast majority were just Americans. (Please quit the hyphen crap! We're all in this boat together boys and girls, we either row like it or sink!)
At the time they felt a loyalty to the US and her cause that is seriously lacking for most Americans today. They actively went out of their way to demonstrate their loyalty. Not a lot of Muslims do that today Dean, and you know it. I don't question the sincerity of the Muslim groups you espouse and publicise.
I question the loyalty and sincerity of those Muslims that keep paying terrorists, keep saying 'not in my religion', keep saying 'it's the west's aggression that's at fault' (etc., etc., etc.), or who just turn away saying it doesn't effect them, that they have nothing to loose or gain in the WOT. They're bigger threats than the nutballs, as they'll watch the nutballs destroy anything and anyone and not find it to be in their interest to interven. They are the problem, you can kill the terrorists (and so far their 'war of attrition' isn't going so well for 'em) but until the 'quiet majority' find a voice they are the bigger threat to my country. They aren't part of my country (through their own choices to remain seperate), thus they aren't loyal to it...that begs the question of just who and what they ARE loyal to. Do YOU have an answer for that question, or are you just hopin' they support us and are too scared to use their free speech to tell us (while using their free speech to tell us we're waing war on Islam, and making 2000+ new Bin Ladens by fighting the WOT)?
And I don't think wavin' a US flag, or repeating the Pledge will do it. You must DEMONSTRATE your support of your nation, not use words only. Don't like it? I don't care! I'm tired of 'winning their hearts and minds'. Time for them to start winning mine, too!
In other words, Japan was fighting for Japanese dominance of Asia against the will of other Asians, who were actively and visibly fighting against them. Therefore the battle lines were very clear.
The only analogy I can think of today is to a country such as Kuwait. Sauda Arabia, also, is a nominal ally--but the message is mixed, to say the least. For example, it is the Saudis who have been responsible for spreading Wahabism around the Moslem world, and it is Wahabism that is the problem. So, despite the ally stature of the Saudis, there is tremendous ambiguity, and an argument can (and has!) been made that they are not allies at all.
In addition, the jihadis speak in the language of the Moslem religion as a whole, and use it to justify their vicious and expansionist acts. The fact that most Moslems may indeed disagree with them--and I still believe that that is the case, especially in countries such as Indonesia--does not change the fact that the jihadis use the religion as a whole to justify their actions, and that they can find textual support--and even some clerical support--for their beliefs.
Even in a country such as Indonesia, when outgoing leader Mahathir gave a speech to the world Islamic Organization and gave voice to an extreme version of anti-Semitism, he was applauded and lauded by what appeared to be the entire group. And Mahathir's sentiments were not simple "anti-Zionism," they were outright and flagrant anti-Semitism. This, again, occurred at a worldwide Islamic conference with leaders of 57 nations in attendance, and as far as I know, no Moslem nation or leader objected to the remarks--au contraire.
Although this most definitely does not mean that every Moslem on earth ascribes to the position of Mahathir--and, again, I am sure many of them do not--it is an example of why people feel very justified in believing that Moslems, in general, subscribe to dangerous viewpoints.
Clearly "eradicating Islam" or "nuking Mecca" is right out. But what are we proposing in its place, under the doctrine of conquering Islamism while leaving Islam unscathed?
Do we expect that the kind of radical impulses that blow up Buddhas or forbid statues of Mother Teresa will just sort of go away on their own?
Or are we within our rights to call upon moderate Muslims to do more than just issue statements and write occasional editorials, welcome as they might be? Should we be asking for Islam itself to produce a moderating influence—a Pope or a Geneva Convention or something—that the crazies can be directed to as an alternative source of authority rather than just their bile-spewing imams? Is such a thing possible? If not, why not, and what effect does that have on our options for resolving this culture clash peacefully and with our society intact?
What can we do? Aside from supporting the war on terror and the effort to spread liberal democracy in the Middle East, what is our role in this supposed to be?
Or should we all just butt out and hope for the best?
How could anyone tell which was which?
Apparently you didn't read the post, since one of Dean's major examples was Kato, and I quote, "A Filipino of Japanese descent. He spoke Japanese. He looked Japanese."
In the bigots world, if they look like a Muslims, and talk like a Muslim, they're a terrorist, or at least a supporter thereof.
They ARE different. They're not all, or even mostly, our enemies. But our culture is as foreign and strange to the peaceful Muslims as their ways are to us. Some of our culture is superior, in human rights and other areas. But much of it is merely different.
We know who the enemies are:
Al Qaeda
Salafists
Baathists
Khomenei-inspired Shia
We also know for a fact that all of those put together are still a minority of Muslims.
But you know all this Scott. You just willfully refuse to acknowledge it.
I want to see Muslims actually adressing terrorism, and the fact it is constantly 'twisting' Islam to do it. I want to see them stop giving money to their local 'foundation' with ties to Hamas, Al Jihad, Al Asqua, Jihadi this and jihadi that. I want to see them stop funding terror states, and terror groups. I don't want to walk into the local Wal-Mart and be given 'drop dead heaten scum' looks by women for my long hair - or 'slut' looks by men for the same reason. (And yes Dean, it happens on a regular frikin' basis here and in Europe.)
I want to see Muslims admiting terror is a problem. Not just small groups (notable though they are) but the large 'silent' majority. I want to hear of Imans and 'leaders' of the mosque being fired for teaching terror instead of how they're being kept in 'office' inspite of their terror ties.
Any of those ideas work, or am I making judgement calls again? We all know we can't say bad things about Islam, that might hurt their feelings...
You know as well as I do that there's a tremendous difference between Chinese, Japanese, Philipino, and Burmese. Different looks, different culture, different language... Much greater differences in many ways than between Sunni/Shiite or Muslim/Islamist.
Your analogy is quite useful; if nothing else it stimulates debate about the issue, which is always a good thing. But at the end, it's still flawed, and your flat statement that "there's nothing wrong with with my analog[y]" is not reasoning. It's merely an unsupported claim. A classic example of ipse dixit.
As for "what would 'doing more' entail exactly, and how precisely do you know that they aren't doing it?," Rhianna has already answered your question. Many 2nd- and 3rd-generation Japanese-Americans volunteered in WW2. They stepped forward and said "not only are we not those people (Imperial Nippon), not only do we oppose and condemn those people, we will fight and die while doing so.
Those Asian peoples who gained a taste of the "Greater East-Asian Co-prosperity Sphere" very nearly, to a man, found that flavor bitter and repulsive. Burmese, Chinese (both Nationalist and Communist), Vietnamese, Philipino, Indonesian, or Polynesian. All resisted the Empire, and all offered their sons to the greater cause.
Where are the Muslims who would risk their Lives, Fortunes and sacred Honor for this cause? Don't tell me "Iraqis," because they're fighting to take their own country back, not oppose global Islamofascism. Where are the modern equivalent of the above-mentioned East Asian peoples? The editorial staff of a decadent Danish newspaper has more collective cojones than the majority of Muslims.
Oh, they'll release a statement to the press, hold a rally or two, and maybe even gather signatures for a petition. Any alert student of history (not to mention the UN) can tell you the ultimate utility of such pious public statements.
What the skeptics ask, Dean is: what will the "real" Muslims do? Besides, like, disapprove? And -sure- I'll sign that petition. Next week. When no one's looking...
As opposed to:
Nope. Sorry. Just not feelin' it.
All of this damages the whole "Islam is a religion of peace" position.
Now me, I have no problem with agreeing that over 90% of all Muslims want nothing more than to be left alone, and get along with their lives.
I also have no problem with dogging out those who relentlessly insist that Islam is some sort of "religion of slavery." Theirs is a narrow and twisted view.
The question is: when will Muslims step forward, and own their challenges? The Western/Christian United States has -since Desert Storm- done more for Muslims around the globe than all the Muslim-ruled countries have, rolled together.
Whoops, sorry, Saudi Arabia has begun to consider the possibility that they might (eventually) consider allowing women to hold drivers liscenses. Silly me. What was I thinking?
BTW, T-Steel: feel free to not speak out against "dumb azz black folks," but recall that they dont blow up buses full of women and children, use mentally-disabled teens as suicide bombers, or drop walls on homosexuals to murder them.
You misread my comment. I should have made it clearer. I wasn't arguing with your analogy. Honestly, I just didn't have the mental energy to engage in another long debate.
I was arguing with the logic of your comment that nit-picking an analogy is an indication that the nit-picker has lost the argument. My point was that nit-picking an analogy in order to undermine an argument is just as valid logically validas using an analogy to support an argument.
My Nana was in Pearl City the day the harbor was bombed, and wrote an extensive diary entry on it. She mentions, at one point, that she got a lot of help from a policeman, and didnt even realize until afterwards that he was "a Jap." She then goes on to imagine what a task it must be to be a policeman in that kind of situation.
She'd grown up in the Islands, and had often encountered first-generation Japanese immigrants. It must have been quite horrible to her to know families who would have to wonder if their relatives back in Japan were now their enemies.