🚀 go-pugleaf

"Monte" <montep@email.com> wrote in message
news:3d297781.27179421@news.ev1.net...

<snip>

> 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


Your points are well taken.

Try to understand the conditions those people are living in.
Right now, they are culturally going through the same sort
of totalitarianism/tyranny that Christian Europe suffered for
the better part of a millennium.  As recently as perhaps 500
years ago, Europe and American were under a virtual
theocracy.

Common people and low level clerics did not dare
oppose the word of their religious leaders - for fear of
an unholy retribution.  The Church had an iron grip on
the lives of its "flock".  People could be tried and burned
for heresy as easily as they could for outright witchcraft.
And mere accusations were deemed sufficient to
condemn the innocent.

It wasn't until Martin Luther, in Germany, and King
Henry VIII of England stepped up to address the
corruption of Rome that blind obedience to the Pope,
Cardinals, Bishops and priests was really questioned.

And any attempt that we make to "enlighten our
islamist neighbors" is met with great fear and
suspicion.  Given the history of the U.S. in such
matters, rightly so.  We seldom give a damn about
what is good and right for everyone, except the
small special interests which are usually out to
economically exploit the assets of third world
countries.

====

Now, I too am troubled by the prevalence of
violence and cruelty in the Islamic world, especially
that in the middle-east.  I wish we had the capacity
and the will to impose our systems of justice and
government on these moral lepers.  As it is, the U.S.
has its own sordid history of injustice, subversion,
terrorism and action contrary to democratic/Constitutional
principles.  In the world's eyes, we do not have a
sufficiently clean moral slate which would allow us
to go about casting stones at other sinners.

And with the political/economic system that
has been in place for the past fifty years (if
not much longer) we aren't likely to have that
moral righteousness any time soon, certainly
not in my lifetime, and maybe not in yours.

Good analysis.  Keep up the good work.

Cheers,
larry g.