Why liberals love Islam

http://capitalismmagazine.com/2013/05/why-liberals-love-islam/

One of the replies to the article,
"Why the left sides with Islam? They only see politics.

This is a great article, but I think it's much simpler. The left, and the religious, won't challenge Islam, because to do so would bring the discussion into the moral realm. The left exists in a moral vacuum. And once a moral discussion begins, the left evaporates, rather quickly. So too would the woman hating muslims evaporate. Try it. Try having a moral discussion with a leftist. Ask one to think in moral terms. And they will ask you, who's morals. Because they see nothing moral, anywhere. They only see politics."

Ringing true in this thread.

otb,

Once again you bring forth your tired old
arguments. How can one possibly have any discussion
with you when you persist in using the same old
labels, and continue to see everything in very
rigid and stereotypical terms. How can anyone
of any intelligence and reason talk to someone like
you -
whose concepts are too vague and sweeping in their
scope. Many of us - have tried many times,
but ended up finally ignoring your posts
because - it always
ends up with a total breakdown in communication.
Most people's views are not set in concrete - and
most people are able to modify their judgements.
Also most people nowadays - lean towards the centre
in their political views. Times are changing -
and a sign of intelligence is the ability to change.

Dear Foxy,

You could be right: Hicks, after working for NATO in Albania and Bosnia, left to do humanitarian work in Pakistan and Afghanistan. His purpose in Afghanistan was to try to persuade his brother Osama bin Laden to turn to such humanitarian work.

When the US attacked Afghanistan, he tried to leave Pakistan but took a wrong turn and ended up back in Afghanistan, from where he tried to take a taxi out, but was captured by the Northern Alliance. Yes, he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, poor bloke.

I'm glad that's settled :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Of course it is perfectly legitimate (indeed
crucial - it seems) for you to believe that the panel
of experts from Australia who warned the
Australian Government, the PM, the Attorney General,
the Foreign Affairs Minister, not to proceed with the
David Hicks case - the man had done nothing wrong,
as well as Dan Mori, the American lawyer who represented
Mr Hicks while he was in Guantanamo Bay, as well as
Amnesty International, as well as reputable journalists
like Antony Loewenstein, as well as Colonel Morris Davis,
the former Chief Prosecutor of Military Commissions, as
well as US journalist Jason Leopold, and the many reports
and documented evidence - are all liars. And now that the
US Military Commissions have actually found David Hicks
not guilty and cleared of all charges - you and quite a
few others on this forum will find ways to make fun of
the situation - without giving much thought to the
rule of law or due process.

There's nothing more to be said under those circumstances.

Dear Foxy,

Well, of course there's due process and then there's what Hicks was actually there for. Are you suggesting he was just sight-seeing in Afghanistan ? Missed his bus, so he tried to take a taxi ? That he was sight-seeing with his LeT friends on the Kashmir border and took a few pot-shots with his AK-47 at a couple of sparrows, inadvertently hitting a few Indian soldiers ?

Of course he could be just a blowhard, bragging about being a brother to Osama bin Laden, about getting photographed in Bosnia and Kosovo, and was just being full of it when he wrote to his relations back here about jihad.

Let's just agree to believe what we each think is the truth, on the basis of compassion on one hand and evidence on the other :)

Love,

Joe

Foxy, are you related to David Hicks in any possible way? You defence for him seems abnormal for someone not personally involved.