Islam's disdain For U.S. five months after 9/11

[Bonnie]

Huh? You somehow equate their thinking the invasion of Afghanistan was unjusitifiable as some sort of endorsement of 9-11? Where does it state they even think the two are related. In fact, the survey seems to suggest they think BOTH actions were unjustifiable (with the notable exception of Kuwait).

We had every right to go into Afghanistan after 9/11, the fact that Islam and you apparently don't is very telling of their disdain for anything we do even when it's justified.......Nice try at throwing detritus in there though

 

[jillian]

We had every right to go into Afghanistan after 9/11, the fact that Islam and you apparently don't is very telling of their disdain for anything we do even when it's justified.......Nice try at throwing detritus in there though

Where did he say HE agreed or disagreed with Afghanistan. I think you're making a bit of a leap.

 

[Bonnie]

Where did he say HE agreed or disagreed with Afghanistan. I think you're making a bit of a leap.

No leap on my part...

 

[Dr Grump]

We had every right to go into Afghanistan after 9/11, the fact that Islam and you apparently don't is very telling of their disdain for anything we do even when it's justified.......Nice try at throwing detritus in there though

Yeah, but why don't those seven countries think you should have gone in. And it is hardly detritus. I think the US should have gone into Afghanistan. Not due to 9-11 though, due to the Taliban being arseholes. That aside, I find it very telling you don't think that most of them thought 9-11 was unjustified and you seem to be giving that aspect very little creedence. Why is that? hhhmmmmm

 

[Bonnie]

Yeah, but why don't those seven countries think you should have gone in. And it is hardly detritus. I think the US should have gone into Afghanistan. Not due to 9-11 though, due to the Taliban being arseholes. That aside, I find it very telling you don't think that most of them thought 9-11 was unjustified and you seem to be giving that aspect very little creedence. Why is that? hhhmmmmm

It's ridiculous to say on the one hand that they feel sorry for us yet on the other side of their mouths they say we are unjustified in doing what we need to do in retaliation? It's completely disingenuous. That's why I give it no creedence. The whole reason we went into Afghanistan was not because the Taliban were assholes, but because Bin-laden was there training terrorists to kill more of us. Getting the Taliban out of power was necessary gravy.

 

[1549]

It's ridiculous to say on the one hand that they feel sorry for us yet on the other side of their mouths they say we are unjustified in doing what we need to do in retaliation? It's completely disingenuous.

Do not be so sure. When Spain was attacked, the Spanish people reacted by voting out their pro-war leadership. It is completely possible for Europeans to feel terrible about 9/11, but also feel that our actions military were morally wrong.

You are speaking from an American point of view. We are a gung-ho country. Europe is more inclined to favor pacifism, negotiation, and global decision making. When this is taken into account, their stance is not as hypocritical as it initially seems.

 

[jillian]

It's ridiculous to say on the one hand that they feel sorry for us yet on the other side of their mouths they say we are unjustified in doing what we need to do in retaliation? It's completely disingenuous. That's why I give it no creedence. The whole reason we went into Afghanistan was not because the Taliban were assholes, but because Bin-laden was there training terrorists to kill more of us. Getting the Taliban out of power was necessary gravy.

Was necessary? I agree. But you speak as if it's past tense.

posted September 25, 2006 at 12:30 p.m.
The 'surprising tenacity' of the Taliban
US, NATO confront 'ferocious resurgence' of Islamic extremist influence in unstable Afghanistan.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

Five years after their ouster, the Taliban have returned in significant numbers to Afghanistan. McClatchy Newspapers reports that the Taliban's ranks are filled with "a new generation of die-hards," and that violence, opium trafficking, ethnic tensions, official corruption, and political anarchy are at worse levels than at any time since the 2003 US-led invasion.

By failing to stop Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden from escaping into Pakistan, then diverting troops and resources to Iraq before finishing the job in Afghanistan, the Bush administration left the door open to a Taliban comeback. Compounding the problem, reconstruction efforts have been slow and limited, and the US and NATO didn't anticipate the extent and ferocity of the Taliban resurgence or the alliances the insurgents have formed with other Islamic extremists and with the world's leading opium traffickers.

There are only 42,000 US and NATO-led troops to secure a country that's half again the size of Iraq, where 150,000 US-led coalition troops are deployed. Suicide bombings have soared from two in all of 2002 to about one every five days. Civilian casualties are mounting. President Hamid Karzai and his US backers have become hugely unpopular.

Most Afghans oppose the Taliban, McClatchy also reports, because of their practices when they ruled the country. But most Afghans have also grown disillusioned with Mr. Karzai, and while the Taliban's resurgence is most felt in their homeland in the south, "their reach and that of allied Islamic groups and criminal gangs now extends to more than half the country."

"The insurgency is developing all over," warned Zia Mojaddedi, a senior member of Karzai's national security council. "It is still not lost. They are not strong. But we are weak. We are corrupt."

Wednesday, Karzai will meet with President Bush and with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. CNN reports that the meeting is designed to be a "showcase" of the success of Washington's war on terror, but comes at a time when Afghanistan is increasingly unstable, and Karzai's authority is limited to Kabul and its immediate surroundings.

"The Taliban's tenacity in the face of massive losses has been a surprise," admitted Britain's Defense Secretary Des Browne in a recent speech to the Royal United Services Institute in London, "Absorbing more of our effort than predicted and consequently slowing progress on reconstruction."

"At this stage the insurgency isn't a direct threat to Karzai's administration," says Joanna Nathan of the International Crisis Group's Kabul office. "It is, however, getting ever closer to Kabul and deflecting a huge amount of energy, time and resources during what should be a period of hope and rebuilding. The fighting has got noticeably worse over the last twelve months, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Violence is unquestionably on an upward trend.

CNN also reports that the Taliban aren't the only problem Karzai faces; warlords and private militias control most of the country; crime and corruption are rife; and opium production, which had plummeted under the Taliban, has rocketed again.

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, US ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann said that while things were bad, they weren't anywhere near as dangerous as in Baghdad. He also said he believes the Taliban remain a weak force, and that their resurgence has been lacks the jihadist fervor found elsewhere.

There are a lot of places in this country where people are going about their business with only occasionally a bit of violence. That is much more a testimony to Taliban weakness than to government strength. There is also not a lot of ideological support for the Taliban, even if local people are fighting for them ... We learn from interrogation of prisoners that it is more a matter of local grievances, tribal differences, things that can be dealt with – not necessarily the deep ideological commitment of a suicide bomber.

Ambassador Neumann also said he believes the Taliban insurgency could continue for the next decade, but will decline after enough Afghan police and military are trained, which could take about two years.

Although almost every security expert says that it is vital for the future of Afghanistan as a democracy that it works with Pakistan to control the flow of Taliban fighters across the border between the two countries, Karzai and Mr. Musharraf have recently engaged in some very public name-calling and finger-pointing about who is responsible for the Taliban's resurgence. Media Line reports that just this past week, Karzai expressed skepticism over the recent peace accord signed between the Pakistani government and local tribesman on the border with Afghanistan.

"Attacks have actually increased along the border region of North Waziristan since the pact was signed," Karzai said.

Karzai added he initially thought Pakistan had signed the deal directly with the Taliban. He was disappointed last week upon hearing [Musharraf], who said the deal was struck with local tribal leaders who are hosting the Taliban.

The pact with the Taliban has come under fire from many sources. The Daily Telegraph reported Sunday that Taliban leader Mullah Omar has emerged as the key player in the agreement, signing a letter "explicitly endorsing the truce announced this month."

While officially a US ally in the war on terror, Pakistan has been repeatedly accused by Afghanistan of not doing enough to clear Taliban militants out of its border regions, allegations it denies. However, Mullah Omar clearly felt that the deal benefited the Taliban, adding force to criticisms that it was in effect a cave-in. Tribal elders in south Waziristan said that Mullah Omar had sent one of his most trusted and feared commanders, Mullah Dadullah, to ask local militants to sign the truce. Dadullah, a one-legged fighter known for his fondness for beheading his enemies, is believed to be the man leading the campaign in southern Afghanistan in which 18 British troops have been killed.

"Had they been not asked by Mullah Omar, none of them were willing to sign an agreement," said Lateef Afridi, a tribal elder and former national assembly member. "This is no peace agreement, it is accepting Taliban rule in Pakistan's territory."

For its part, Media Line also reports that Pakistan denies any of the Taliban or Al Qaeda leadership is in within its borders. "We believe that Taliban's leadership is inside Afghanistan and much of the insurgency is located deep inside Afghanistan, far away from the Pakistan border," said Tasnim Aslam, a spokeswoman at the Pakistani Foreign Office on Monday.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0926/dailyUpdate.html

 

[dilloduck]

Was necessary? I agree. But you speak as if it's past tense.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0926/dailyUpdate.html

Maybe if the Democrats win big in November they will declare war on Pakistan so they can finish the job that Bush couldn't.:firing:

 

[Dr Grump]

It's ridiculous to say on the one hand that they feel sorry for us yet on the other side of their mouths they say we are unjustified in doing what we need to do in retaliation?

Maybe because they didn't see the retaliation as justified.

It's completely disingenuous. That's why I give it no creedence. The whole reason we went into Afghanistan was not because the Taliban were assholes, but because Bin-laden was there training terrorists to kill more of us. Getting the Taliban out of power was necessary gravy.

And that's the US's reasons. Maybe they see it as other reasons...

 

[Bonnie]

Do not be so sure. When Spain was attacked, the Spanish people reacted by voting out their pro-war leadership. It is completely possible for Europeans to feel terrible about 9/11, but also feel that our actions military were morally wrong.

You are speaking from an American point of view. We are a gung-ho country. Europe is more inclined to favor pacifism, negotiation, and global decision making. When this is taken into account, their stance is not as hypocritical as it initially seems.

This isn't about Europe though, it's about the Middle East, and certainly this is no surprise to me, but to say it's all Bush and the Iraq war is not valid, their hatred for us came way before that.

 

[Bonnie]

Maybe because they didn't see the retaliation as justified.



And that's the US's reasons. Maybe they see it as other reasons...

Yes that would seem apparent.

 

[Annie]

Yes that would seem apparent.

Undoubtedly:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot27sep27,0,2842179.column?coll=la-opinion-columnists

MAX BOOT
Max Boot: Muslims' Complicity With Violence
Unless it clamps down vigorously on fanaticism, the Islamic world risks validating its worst caricatures.
Max Boot

September 27, 2006

EVER SINCE 9/11, a dark view of Islam has been gaining currency on what might be called the Western street. This view holds that, contrary to the protestations of our political leaders — who claim that acts of terrorism are being carried out by a minority of extremists — the real problem lies with Islam itself. In this interpretation, Islam is not a religion of peace but of war, and its 1.2 billion adherents will never rest until all of humanity is either converted, subjugated or simply annihilated.

Is the war on terrorism really a "clash of civilizations"? The overreaction to Pope Benedict XVI's relatively innocuous remarks at the University of Regensburg on Sept. 12 would seem to lend weight to this alarming notion.

As part of a plea for combining reason with religion, the pope cited a 14th century Byzantine emperor who condemned Muhammad's teachings as "evil and inhuman" because of "his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The pope subsequently made clear that these were not his own views, but this did not stop an explosion of animosity across the Muslim world. Amid calls from angry clerics to "hunt down" the holy father (a.k.a. "the dog of Rome" and the "worshiper of the cross"), various hotheads have taken to the streets and attacked Christian churches. This recalls the over-the-top outcry this year after a Danish newspaper dared to print cartoons depicting Muhammad as an instigator of violence.

Muslim spokesmen claim that these are unconscionable slurs. Yet, while demanding respect for their own religion, too many Muslims accord too little respect to competing faiths or even to competing brands of their own faith.

Where are the demonstrations in the Muslim street when the president of Iran denies the Holocaust and calls for the destruction of Israel? Or when Palestinian kidnappers force two Western journalists to convert to Islam at gunpoint? Or when Sunni terrorists in Iraq bomb Shiite mosques and slaughter hundreds of worshipers? All too many Islamic leaders prefer to harp on the supposed sins of the "infidels," however exaggerated or even fictionalized (no, the CIA didn't bomb the World Trade Center to create an excuse for invading Afghanistan), rather than focusing on the problems within their own umma (community).

And yet it would be a mistake to conclude that the woes of Islamic society today, serious as they are, are endemic to the religion itself.

It is true that, alone of the world's major faiths, Islam was founded by a prophet who used force to win converts. "I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah,' " Muhammad proclaimed in his farewell address to his followers in AD 632.

Countless Muslims since then have followed the path of jihad — literally, "exertion in the path of Allah" but usually taken as an injunction for waging holy war. But countless Muslims also have been willing to trade with unbelievers, to live peaceably alongside them, to learn from them and even to enter into military alliances with them against Muslim rivals.

Religions are not monolithic. They have no fixed, eternal identity. Until the 18th century, Christianity was a militant faith whose adherents did not hesitate to kill "heathens." Throughout the Middle Ages, Islamic states usually offered greater tolerance to religious minorities and were more open to secular learning than their Christian neighbors.

Even now, most Muslim countries — from Senegal to Indonesia — are far more pluralistic and much less fundamentalist than Iran or Saudi Arabia. And even in the most militant Muslim societies, clerics are able to maintain a rigid orthodoxy only by force. Left to their own devices, the Saudi or Iranian people would opt for a less monastic existence — a danger that the guardians of official morality are keenly aware of.

The real enemy we face is not Islam per se but a violent offshoot known as Islamism, which is rooted, to be sure, in the Koran but which also finds inspiration in such modern Western ideologies as fascism, Nazism and communism. Its most successful exponents — from Hassan Banna and Sayyid Qutb to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Osama bin Laden — are hardly orthodox interpreters of Islam. They are power-mad intellectuals in the mold of a Lenin or a Hitler. The problem is that the rest of the Muslim world, by not doing more to curb the radicals — whether out of fear or sympathy — lends credence to the most objectionable caricatures of their faith.

 

[manu1959]

Do not be so sure. When Spain was attacked, the Spanish people reacted by voting out their pro-war leadership. It is completely possible for Europeans to feel terrible about 9/11, but also feel that our actions military were morally wrong.

You are speaking from an American point of view. We are a gung-ho country. Europe is more inclined to favor pacifism, negotiation, and global decision making. When this is taken into account, their stance is not as hypocritical as it initially seems.

shortly after Spain surrendered to al queda the ETA saw Spain as weak and cancelled their truce and negotiations and went on the offensive again to win their independence from Spain.....

 

[José]

I was criticised when I said some weeks ago that Israel will bite the dust two american skyscrappers at a time.

But take a look at what I was responding to:

Writen by Youssef Ibrahim
You shoot old guns at modern Israeli tanks and American-made fighter jets, doing virtually no harm to Israel while bringing the wrath of its mighty army down upon you.

Get a shrink, Youssef... you’re screwed in the head!

The arab people of Palestine being killed like cattle by american weapons in their fight against the jewish racial dictatorship.

This moron gave a whole new meaning to the expression moral depravation.

I wonder how many young men in Iraq, Syria and Lebannon, after reading this part of the article, thought to themselves:

“Two skyscrappers was too little, it should have been ten... at least.”

You should be ashamed for posting this pornographic garbage here, Bonnie.

This is where a great deal of arab/muslim anti americanism comes from.

 

[José]

I don’t like to say what I said about America, a country that I consider an example of an open society to be followed by the whole world.

And in the end, I ended up being as bad as this shithead... I dehumanised those innocent american civilians just like he dehumanised the arab people of Palestine.

Should I have sunk to his level?? Obviously not...

But the blame for what I said must be put squarely on him.

UNFORTUNATELY, I share the same name with this mentally retarded arab.

 

[Gunny]

I was criticised when I said some weeks ago that Israel will bite the dust two american skyscrappers at a time.

But take a look at what I was responding to:



Get a shrink, Youssef... you’re screwed in the head!

The arab people of Palestine being killed like cattle by american weapons in their fight against the jewish racial dictatorship.

This moron gave a whole new meaning to the expression moral depravation.

I wonder how many young men in Iraq, Syria and Lebannon, after reading this part of the article, thought to themselves:

“Two skyscrappers was too little, it should have been ten... at least.”

You should be ashamed for posting this pornographic garbage here, Bonnie.

This is where a great deal of arab/muslim anti americanism comes from.

YOU are the one screwed in the head. Forget your meds? Stop spewing terrorist sympathyzing propaganda, grow some balls and go join them. Then you too can become a "martyr" at the hand of US weapons.

I won't miss you a bit.

 

[Gunny]

I don’t like to say what I said about America, a country that I consider an example of an open society to be followed by the whole world.

And in the end, I ended up being as bad as this shithead... I dehumanised those innocent american civilians just like he dehumanised the arab people of Palestine.

Should I have sunk to his level?? Obviously not...

But the blame for what I said must be put squarely on him.

UNFORTUNATELY, I share the same name with this mentally retarded arab.

Did not the people of Palestine, in a democratic election, choose a KNOWN terrorist organization as their government?

They get what they deserve.

 

[Annie]

This seems to fit in here. There are a lot of links. Perhaps some of those that seem to respond, 'It's Malkin, I'm not reading...' might wish to check out the links:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006011.htm

Critics of Islam under fire...again
By Michelle Malkin · September 28, 2006 09:30 PM

redeker2.jpg

Robert Redeker: In hiding after "insulting Islam"

egonflaig.jpg
Ancient historian Egon Flaig: Banned in Egypt

salah.jpg
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury: May face death for criticizing Islam

The Danish cartoonists aren't the only ones living in fear for offending the global jihadi mob. Now, French philosophy professor and secondary school teacher Robert Redeker is under police protection for penning a piece blasting Islamic violence in Le Figaro.

AFP/Expatica report:

A French philosophy teacher was under police protection Thursday after receiving death threats over an article he wrote in a national newspaper that accused Islam of "exalting violence", school and police officials said.

Robert Redeker has not attended classes at his secondary school near Toulouse in southern France since September 19, when his opinion column appeared in the right-wing daily Le Figaro.

"He received written death threats in the form of emails. On the face of it they were pretty serious," said the lycée's headmaster Pierre Donnadieu.

Police confirmed the threat but refused to comment on the protection Redeker is receiving.

Under the heading "In the face of Islamist intimidation, what must the free world do?", Redeker described the Koran as a "book of extraordinary violence" and Islam as "a religion which ... exalts violence and hate".

Likening Islam to Communism, he said that "violence and intimidation are the methods used by an expansionist ideology ... to impose its leaden cloak on the world".
​

I can't access Redeker's piece at Le Figaro. But it is titled "Face aux intimidations islamistes, que doit faire le monde libre" and there are rough translations scattered on the Internet. If you speak French and can send a full and accurate translation of the piece, let me know.

Fausta points to this French Channel 2 report, "Tribune sur l'islam: menaces contre un professeur de philosophie ," on Redeker's plight. Again, if you speak French and have time to send a rough transcript, it would be most appreciated.

Le Figaro and two other European newspapers have now been banned for running commentary critical of Islam:

Reporters Without Borders today condemned the Egyptian government’s decision yesterday to ban the sale of three recent issues of European newspapers containing articles which it considered “offensive to Islam.”

“Some people may indeed have felt offended by these articles but censorship is never an acceptable response,” the press freedom organisation said. “It is up to readers to form their own opinions and to have a debate about them, if they want. But it is not the job of the authorities to decide which information may or may not be made available to the public.”

Information minister Anas Al-Fekki issued a decree banning the sale of the 19 September issue of the French daily Le Figaro, the 16 September issue of the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the latest issue of the London-based Guardian Weekly.

Le Figaro’s 19 September issue had already been banned in Tunisia on the same grounds. It contained an op-ed piece by philosopher Robert Redeker headlined: “What must the free world do in the face of Islamist intimidation?”

The ban on the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung was prompted by an article in its cultural supplement on Islam and the recent controversy about Pope Benedict’s comments.​

The forbidden piece in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung was written by ancient historian Egon Flaig. Here's a summary:

"Islam wants world domination" is the headline brandished in Saturday's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Feuilleton, complete with photo of Anthony Quinn as Muhammed's sword swinging Uncle Hamza in "The Message" (1976). Ancient historian Egon Flaig sees the Pope's speech in Regensburg as a justified reference to the martial-imperialist strains in Islam and gives historical precedent for his argument. "Since the beginning of the classical world between the ninth and the eleventh centuries Islamic jurists have divided the world into the "House of Islam" and the "House of War". This division is not dependent on where large numbers of Muslims live, or even represent the majority, but is made according to where Islam rules, in the form of Sharia, and where it does not rule. This dichotomy is therefore not religious but political. And war will reign between these two parts of the world until the House of War no longer exists and Islam rules over the world. (Verse 8, 39 and 9, 41)."
​

Here is the full article in German at the FAZ site. If you speak German and can provide a translation, that would be most appreciated.

More Germans are raising their voices against the jihadist bullies. The backlash against OperaRage continues to bubble. The Bild newspaper asked in a bold headline: ""Will we obey Islam?" They also mocked up the German Parliament with minarets:

bildminaret.jpg

I'm sure the fatwas have already been filed.

Meanwhile in Bangladesh, Muslim journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury--under fire in the past for supporting Israel and criticizing Islam--faces trial at the end of the month for "sedition" (hat tip: Done with Mirrors). Michael Freund at the JPost reports:

A Bangladeshi Muslim journalist arrested in the past for advocating ties with Israel now faces charges of sedition, a crime punishable by death in Bangladesh, and will likely be put on trial by the end of the month, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

In a court session on Tuesday in Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, a state-appointed judge ruled that the government's case against Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury could proceed to trial and that the hearings would commence within 15 days.

As editor of The Weekly Blitz, an English-language newspaper published in Dhaka, Choudhury aroused the ire of Bangladeshi authorities after he printed articles favorable to Israel and critical of Muslim extremism.

Bangladesh does not recognize Israel's existence and refuses to establish diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

In November 2003, Choudhury was arrested at Dhaka's international airport just prior to boarding a flight on his way to Israel, where he was scheduled to deliver an address on promoting understanding between Muslims and Jews. His visit to Israel would have been the first by a Bangladeshi journalist.

Choudhury was charged with sedition, held in prison for 17 months and was reportedly tortured before being freed in April 2005. But the authorities in Bangladesh, which is ruled by a coalition government that includes Islamic extremists, decided to continue pursuing charges against him.​

This never ends, you see. It didn't start with our invasion in Iraq. It's not America's fault. Or Israel's. "Islamophobia?" Try kafir-phobia.

Jihadist Anjem Choudary spelled it all out--again--for the hard of hearing at the anti-Pope demonstrations in London last week:

The 39-year-old lawyer organised demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring "Behead Those Who Insult Islam".

Yesterday he said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

He added: "I am here hav[ing] a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out.

"I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."
​

Do you understand?

 

[Bonnie]

This seems to fit in here. There are a lot of links. Perhaps some of those that seem to respond, 'It's Malkin, I'm not reading...' might wish to check out the links:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006011.htm

Such peaceful positive people, we could all learn from them

 

[Annie]

Such peaceful positive people, we could all learn from them

I know. I had a nice dinner with a friend and all we did was talk politics. Came home and got that wonderful invitation. Been a 'politics' kind of night!