🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 20:51:43 GMT, "Larry G" <gilstrap@texas.net>
wrote:.... massive snippage....
>Because we do not live, and cannot act in isolation.
>As long as other countries believe that Muslims should
>have a choice in their conduct, we will meet with opposition,
>any attempt to redress these wrongs.
>
>
>> >> 4. Why should not any or all muslims be held accountable until such
>> >> acts of atrocity cease?
>> >
>> >Should we hold the Pope responsible for his priest raping
>> >children?  Put him in jail for a crime he didn't commit,
>> >and did not advocate?  Where is the justice you desire?
>> >
>>
>> See my above response.  The leaders are guilty if they are aware and
>> take no action or negative action.
>
>Again, we need to go after the actual wrong-doers, and not just
>victimize innocents of a particular faith.
>
>> >> By all means verify the authenticity of the story and then spread it
>> >> far and wide.  It is time to call the muslim apologists to task and
>> >> demand that their actions match their rhetoric.
>> >
>> >Well, they do, in an odd sort of way.  Most of the
>> >attack on 9/11 was in New York City, which was
>> >responsible for the sexual assault, in a police station,
>> >with a toilet plunger handle; and in another case
>> >an unarmed black man was shot to death by some
>> >trigger happy rookie cops.  Yeah, two jets into the
>> > WTC, that'll show those suspect raping, civilian
>> >murdering New Yorker infidels!  Do you think they
>> >learned anything?
>
>Please forgive my attempts at facetious satire of your
>own misguided logic.  I had hoped that in seeing the
>folly I put forward, you might be able to recognize
>your own.  The two are entirely analogous.
>
>Cheers,
>Larry G.

Larry, In return pardon my failure to see any satire, that bit just
seemed to fit into your completely misunderstanding my points.  You
seem under the impressions that I was calling for some sort of
military reprisal or possible complete annihilation of muslims.  I was
not.  There are two underlying issues in my post(s).

One is the issue of how the Islamic world is and does respond to such
acts as were described in the rape article.  On the one hand you have
the official reaction, in this instance the Pakastani government
apparently has arrested some of the village police for not stopping
the event.  Why the members of the Council were not so detained is a
mystery to me.  But, nonetheless the political branch did something
and officially denounced the occurance.  All well and good.  Now to
the religious reaction.  Near silence!

Once again, just as after the events of 9/11 the Islamic religious
heirarchy is mum.  Yes a few, lowly neighborhood imams or such are
decrying "It is not Islamic!  It is against the Koran!"  But you do
not hear the higher up imams, jumping up immediately and making those
statements. Not in this instance, nor in the instances of acts of
terrorism against other pepoples or nations.  For in fact, it is at
that level of Islamic religiosity that the impetus for all those
actions come.  

In no organization, and particularly religious ones, can you have
widespread actions of similer nature, without implicit or explicit
condoning from the leadership.  The Muslims I have seen and heard
always point out that Islam has no central church or leader.  True,
they have no equivalent of a Catholic Pope or a Mormon President, but
they most certainly do have a very strict heirarchy, which most
certainly does wield power.  One needs only to look at Iran or the
former(?) Taliban.

Now to point two.  The retribution. When I said all Muslims should be
held accountable, and exampled the situation with the catholic priests
i.e. If priests did it, and Bishops covered, and the membership found
out about the covering, then it is implicit upon the membership to
clean up the mess.  If they do not then it, in the instance of child
abuse, becomes the absolute right and need to do so by the surrounding
society.

If as I pointed out, and you agreed with, that various and sundry
atrocities, not just terrorism, are widespread amongst the Islamic
community then it is that communities responsibility to clean it
up...IF they claim those acts are indeed repugnant to the faith.
Simple when you look at it squarely, they the Muslims have only to
either admit that they practice and condone such acts or they condemn
them and take actions which will cause them to cease.  

Now as to the outside non Muslim worlds role, I see it as this.  If
the acts are directly aimed at non- muslims and result in harm, then
the offended society has the right to take any action that is
acceptable within its own society, no matter what that may be, to put
an end to future acts against its members.

If the acts are such that they constitute more of an affront to the
moral sensibilities of other societies than they do an attack upon
themselves, then the choices widen.  Take the case that started this
thread.  The official raping, by the ruling council, of a young girl
for an act her brother did.  That is vile, abhorrent and utterly
loathsome in my eyes, and I believe that it is so in general within
our society.  Do we 'nuke the bastards!"?  As much and assuredly as I
would do so personally, I know that is not called fro at the societal
level.  But I would argue that sanctions most certainly should be
placed upon all Islamic countries until such acts of barbarism and
terror cease.  What that means simply is this.  If your neighbors is
an ass you do not interact with them, period.  If at some future time
they become acceptable then you go back to trading rakes and hoses.

The world can live and maintain its general wellbeing quite adequately
without the muslims, I wonder if they can survive as well without the
infidel.  And forget the oil issue.  They can't eat oil and camels
won't drink it.  Well over half the oil pumped is now non-muslim. 

If we stopped all, and I mean all weapons sales to the Saudis, as well
as the sales of all technologies, you would see a rapid and thorough
cleanup of at least half of the Islamic terrorism and barbarism, at
least the Sunni half.  For the Saudi royals exist by sole dint of our
military weapons, not by support of its serfs.  You would have the
unstated but tacit approval of several moderate muslim states as well.
Most notable Egypt and Turkey, as well as Morocco and the other non
oil producers.  I shouldn't dount that Shiite Iran, would be chukling
up their own burnooses as well.

All pure-assed monte speculation, but do you now finally see where I
was aiming?  The target was the hypocrisy of the Islamic top dogs(pun
intended).


Monte
"Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books,
 and there is some evidence that they can't read them either." ---Gore Vidal