Pardon My Bad
Two things currently amaze me about many people in their response to terrorists' threats, demands, claims, and outrage at the infidels' lack of appreciation of what Allah wants: the belief and insistance that the infidels and the islamists can resolve their differences by talk; the other is the prevalent need to apologize, apologize - ad nauseam and apparently without any effect. Have we apologized enough yet for our desecration of their holy cows? A thousand times NO and it will never be enough.
I discovered the impossibility of having a dialog with jihadists in the years and months leading up to 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. Occasionally Afghan "diplomats" - Taliban representatives at the United Nations - would appear on evening talk shows. No, not Leno or Letterman, unfortunately, and I love to consider what kind of a time Jon Stewart would have interviewing them (he got on great with the Pres. of Pakistan last night but he was selling a book) --- but, of course on the news channels, CNN et al. Talking heads, would ask civil questions simple enough to answer briefly, but their Taliban guests would either deflect the questions and make rude comments about the West, change the subject, also insultingly, explain how awful our culture is compared to their high civilization, etc.
They were always treated with respect. And the broadcasters could never get a straight answer. So why, when it has become obvious in the years since the Iraq invasion that they don't think that there's anything to talk about but for us simply to listen to their threats, tirades, and demands and obey pronto. Especially when we are called upon to apologize.
Now, when our actions "cause" offense, demonstrations, and attacks on persons and property, whether we have apologized or not we need to understand what is happening. It is not a question of our "understanding" islamic law and customs. When a news article reports yet another example of someone taking the lord's name in vain and explains how making images of Mohammed is prohibited, someone is talking out of his hat. Surely people of one religion routinely and without intention break laws that others hold sacred. Since when do Westerners have to obey Islamic law.
Oh, but we might do something provocative, something that might offend pious Muslims. Baloney. It's true that some Jews have not yet accepted the sight of religious emblems in public places on Xmas, but they don't blow them up, do they? Besides they are really just defending separation of church and state. So American Muslims , or Brits etc., have longed lived with things that might be considered offensive to them but it's not they who are having the demonstrations and letting themselves be driven to insane fury. It's the peoople who have declared war against us, and this is just another weapon against us. Along with jihad, the pilgrimages to Mecca, fasting, etc. contempt for infidels is a cornerstone of their beliefs; I think it is called dhimmitude.
One way we should acknowledge our inferiority is by humbly begging forgiveness of our superiors when it is demanded. When Bush apologized after the Danish cartoon coup by imams and the U. S. hadn't even published any cartoons that was sickening. Besides, when forged cartoons portraying Mohammed as a pig were shown in the Arab world, that proved it was part of the planned attack against the West.
And when the director of a German opera house just days ago cancelled a performance of an opera which included a scene with severed puppet heads of Mahomet, Buddha, Siva, etc. because of fear of retribution even though in his country art is free (unlike under the nazis when it was considered to be, in Hitler's words, the handmaiden of the state), that was a concession to Islamic law and an acknowledment of our inferiority to Muslims.
While some German leaders agreed that there was nothing else that could be done in view of the danger to life and property, other Germans disagreed and said,
"Our ideas about openness, tolerance and freedom must be lived on the offensive. Voluntary self-limitation gives those who fight against our values a confirmation in advance that we will not stand behind them."
and
"When the concern over possible protests leads to self-censorship, then the democratic culture of free speech becomes endangered."
Yes it is difficult to imagine defiantly putting peoples lives in danger because of terrorist's threats (although in this case they hadn't even materialized yet.)
What do you think?
Complete article was found at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_en_mu/germany_opera_islam
Two things currently amaze me about many people in their response to terrorists' threats, demands, claims, and outrage at the infidels' lack of appreciation of what Allah wants: the belief and insistance that the infidels and the islamists can resolve their differences by talk; the other is the prevalent need to apologize, apologize - ad nauseam and apparently without any effect. Have we apologized enough yet for our desecration of their holy cows? A thousand times NO and it will never be enough.
I discovered the impossibility of having a dialog with jihadists in the years and months leading up to 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan. Occasionally Afghan "diplomats" - Taliban representatives at the United Nations - would appear on evening talk shows. No, not Leno or Letterman, unfortunately, and I love to consider what kind of a time Jon Stewart would have interviewing them (he got on great with the Pres. of Pakistan last night but he was selling a book) --- but, of course on the news channels, CNN et al. Talking heads, would ask civil questions simple enough to answer briefly, but their Taliban guests would either deflect the questions and make rude comments about the West, change the subject, also insultingly, explain how awful our culture is compared to their high civilization, etc.
They were always treated with respect. And the broadcasters could never get a straight answer. So why, when it has become obvious in the years since the Iraq invasion that they don't think that there's anything to talk about but for us simply to listen to their threats, tirades, and demands and obey pronto. Especially when we are called upon to apologize.
Now, when our actions "cause" offense, demonstrations, and attacks on persons and property, whether we have apologized or not we need to understand what is happening. It is not a question of our "understanding" islamic law and customs. When a news article reports yet another example of someone taking the lord's name in vain and explains how making images of Mohammed is prohibited, someone is talking out of his hat. Surely people of one religion routinely and without intention break laws that others hold sacred. Since when do Westerners have to obey Islamic law.
Oh, but we might do something provocative, something that might offend pious Muslims. Baloney. It's true that some Jews have not yet accepted the sight of religious emblems in public places on Xmas, but they don't blow them up, do they? Besides they are really just defending separation of church and state. So American Muslims , or Brits etc., have longed lived with things that might be considered offensive to them but it's not they who are having the demonstrations and letting themselves be driven to insane fury. It's the peoople who have declared war against us, and this is just another weapon against us. Along with jihad, the pilgrimages to Mecca, fasting, etc. contempt for infidels is a cornerstone of their beliefs; I think it is called dhimmitude.
One way we should acknowledge our inferiority is by humbly begging forgiveness of our superiors when it is demanded. When Bush apologized after the Danish cartoon coup by imams and the U. S. hadn't even published any cartoons that was sickening. Besides, when forged cartoons portraying Mohammed as a pig were shown in the Arab world, that proved it was part of the planned attack against the West.
And when the director of a German opera house just days ago cancelled a performance of an opera which included a scene with severed puppet heads of Mahomet, Buddha, Siva, etc. because of fear of retribution even though in his country art is free (unlike under the nazis when it was considered to be, in Hitler's words, the handmaiden of the state), that was a concession to Islamic law and an acknowledment of our inferiority to Muslims.
While some German leaders agreed that there was nothing else that could be done in view of the danger to life and property, other Germans disagreed and said,
"Our ideas about openness, tolerance and freedom must be lived on the offensive. Voluntary self-limitation gives those who fight against our values a confirmation in advance that we will not stand behind them."
and
"When the concern over possible protests leads to self-censorship, then the democratic culture of free speech becomes endangered."
Yes it is difficult to imagine defiantly putting peoples lives in danger because of terrorist's threats (although in this case they hadn't even materialized yet.)
What do you think?
Complete article was found at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_en_mu/germany_opera_islam
1 Comments:
Thanks for the comment hun...
now u tell me who is not inlove with the city?
Post a Comment
<< Home