cont'd ...

As the US backs Israel's repressive policies in
the occupied territories and looks the other way while
Israel violates U.N. resolutions, Muslims cry foul
and accuse the US of ignoring its own principles when
convenient.

Similar charges of hypocrisy have been leveled at the
US for punishing Iraq and Pakistan, both Muslim
countires, for having nuclear weapons programs without
insisting that India and Israel also gut their programs.

Muslims also condemn what they view as the slow response
of the US to Serbian campaigns of "ethnic cleansing"
against Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Muslims during the
1990s, as well as the US refusal to take strong action to
halt the repression of Muslims in Kashmir and Chechnya.

While many Islamic fundamentalists decry Western
influence in general, and while Wahhabis like Osama bin
Laden vow holy war against Western infidels, it is
important to remember that the vast majority of Muslims
around the world do not see Westerners as evil.

However, rhetoric of good versus evil as a way to increase
the West's "war on terror" only increases mistrust among
Muslims worldwide. The previous US President's (George
W's) identification of Iran and Iraq (along with North
Korea) as an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union
address in January 2002 provides one potent example.

Finally, oil continues to be a key factor in US and
European policy. The US and its allies first developed
close relationships with Persian Gulf countries to
ensure a steady supply of oil to the West, and a central
objective of the Gulf War was to secure Kuwait oil fields.
Perhaps not surprisingly critics have charged the previous
Bush administration with being more concerned about access
to oil than fearful of weapons of mass destruction.

As I've state earlier as the threat of terrorism continues,
the challenge for the US and other Western countries will
be to deal with all the complexities within fundamentalist
Islam and within Islam itself.

See you on another thread.

Foxy I have the greatest respect for you, in my mind you never drop below the top ten poster in OLO.
But this time you got it wrong, humans, every color do great things, read the books we produced see the great ideas not related to God we have done well.
We too can be evil, all of us, every nation,
But if I am to suffer for deeds done by generations a thousand years ago?
Yes, yes England did great wrongs, we only have history written by others to judge the crusades.
Basically we humans invented other great books, great ideas great good and great bad, we invented Gods, now hold this truth, Christians are unconcerned at the idea other Gods are inventions..
Like it or not the west is in fact finding far less interest in Christianity, in our lifetimes inventing new ones.
SOME Muslims, have not excepted the modern world, still word for word believe the controlling demanding religion of their choice, it could be any, MUST control life.
Sorry but continuing world attempts to integrate us by a thing called multi culture's, in its self not a bad thing, by stopping me and you using the word once used for God on fear of death?
No its not America only who must look at the problem, ask the Dutch how they think, or Swiss.
Ask the kids of western Sydney .
Ask those hate filled teachers of murder whom use damaged children as bombs to murder.
Time sadly will show it is not just the west who must commit to change.
Let us be clear I can be condemned to death, for just holding the views I put in this Post.
We rightly say sorry for past wrongs but it seems only our side ever gets it wrong.

*Harping about what radical
extremists believe - only ignores
the fact that all religions have their radicals,
fundamentalists and extemists.*

You have a little problem there Foxy. At the
end of the day, religions operate on a similar
method. They have a so called holy book, then
some take those words and twist them into whatever
they want, to fit their agenda. Little kiddies
are brainwashed from an early age to believe this
stuff.

Fact is that because the Koran does actually contain
alot of violent stuff, it is very easily reinterpreted
into a violent belief system.

Its possible too with the bible, but modern Xtians
simply claim that the old Testament does not really
apply to them, for there of course too many contradictions
in there, for it to be taken seriously.

Now if you look around, not too many wars have been based
on Buddist ideology, for its basically a peacefull
religion. Yet just about wherever Islam goes, conflict
seems to invariably follow.

I once took a trip from Singapore, up through Malaysia
and then into Thailand. The thing that just blew
me away, was the change of attitude to everyday life,
as I went from an Islamic to a Buddist culture.

Arriving in Thailand, felt quite liberating!

Hi BOAZ_DAVID.
Yes indeed, I am not you and you are not me.
Thanks for the interesting links.
I’d seen the Google video before but the marcuse link gave it deeper meaning.
The brainwashed coterie of OLO contributors certainly testify to the success of his strategy.
Consider this latest gem from Foxy:
< A critical fist step in this process is to explore
why Muslims, including fundamentalists, around
the world think of the West, and particularly the
United States, as they do.>
duuuhhh…
Let me see.
What would their Holy Book say?
* Infidels are your sworn enemies (Sura 4:101).
* Be ruthless to the infidels (Sura 48:29).
* Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Sura 9:123, 66:9).
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Sura 9:29).
* Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Sura 47:4).
* Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Sura 5:51, 60:13).
* Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Sura 28:86).
* Kill the disbelievers wherever we find them (Sura 2:191).
But no, Foxy doesn’t even have the decency to respect their core beliefs,
she has to project her own belief system onto them to account for their actions.
Talk about condescending.
Even when Nidal Hasan produces a power point presentation demonstrating why he engaged
in mass murder of the infidels, Foxy knows better than him why he did it!
It’s an incredible spectacle really,
to watch this self-congratulatory claque of heteromatons “go round..and round...and round..”
They make the landscape here so arid.
I can see why you’ve moved to “much greener and more rewarding pastures”.
Good luck!

Western nations accomplished separation of Church and State a long time ago, so that politics, law and government can continue to function fairly well irrespective of the religious beliefs of the populace. In contrast, to what extent do Muslim nations evidence a separation of state and religion?

As Westerners we are not required to just be tolerant of another's religious beliefs, which is fine, but to accept that where Islam is concerned, we must be required to be tolerant of a combo package of religion, politics, law and government. That those institutions are entwined mean that we do need, from a policy perspective and in regard to preserving our preferred state system, to be very careful about what 'toleration' means and the extent of it.

Also:

1. Many historians have written that the Crusades were not expansionist but defensive - conducted to reclaim Christian countries which had been invaded by Muslim forces.
2. Crusades and all that went on then - brutal times. Revolting all round. However, as unfashionable as it may be to state it, I am somewhat grateful to the Crusaders. If they hadn't done their thing maybe we'd be living under a very different regime.
3. The Golden Era of Islam is highly questionable; some historians have written that whatever innovations there were, were adopted from elsewhere (esp. numerals from India and zero I think) or produced by progressive thinking Islamic and non-Islamic scholars trying to survive in an environment that was hostile to their ideas. That is, innovations that came into being were not fostered by the surrounding culture.

I am pro-multiculturalism, for many reasons, but I think that we need to think clearly and strategically and with compassion unclouded by romanticism and the urge to be trendily cosmopolitan.

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2008/02/04/080204crbo_books_acocella?currentPage=all

Asking David Boaz if he's HermanYutic
and expecting an honest answer is like
expecting him to be tolerant as far as
Islam or Muslims are concerned.

We all know anyone can join up at various
Internet Cafes under different names and
post to their heart's content.

Look at the responses and connect the dots.

Totally predictable!
Not addressing the issues being discussed,
instead more mud-slinging and rants!

I simply don't buy the denials.
Unfortunately, - Boazy/Herman may be with us
for quite some time yet.

What is objectionable, what is dangerous about
extremists such as Boazy/Herman is that they think
that communication means agreeing with them.
They are haters. They always hate people on the
other side of THEIR scale.

"Railing and praising were his usual themes;
and both showed his judgement in extremes.
Either over violent or over civil,
So everyone to him was either god or devil."
(John Dryden).