Krauthammer: Hamas

[picasso]

Just in case you missed it.:)

Election of Hamas: Truth in advertising
By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER Washington Post Writers Group
2/6/2006




WASHINGTON -- Amid much gnashing of teeth, the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections is being called a disaster. On the contrary. It is deeply clarifying and ultimately cleansing. If the world responds correctly, it will mark a turning point for the better.

The Palestinian people have spoken. According to their apologists, sure, Hamas wants to destroy Israel, wage permanent war and send suicide bombers into discotheques to drive nails into the skulls of young Israelis, but what the Palestinians were really voting for was efficient garbage collection.

It is time to stop infantilizing the Palestinians. As Hamas leader Khaled Meshal said in a news conference four days after the election, "The Palestinian people have chosen Hamas with its known stances." By a landslide, the Palestinian people have chosen these known stances: rejectionism, Islamism, terrorism, rank anti-Semitism, and the destruction of Israel in a romance of blood, death and revolution. Garbage collection on Wednesdays.

Everyone is lamenting the fall of Fatah and the marginalization of its leader Mahmoud Abbas. This is ridiculous. The election exposed what everyone knew and would not admit: Abbas has no constituency. Would it have been better to keep funneling billions of dollars from

the EU and a gullible U.S. to the thoroughly corrupt administration of a hapless figurehead? Billions that either end up in Swiss bank accounts or subsidize countless gangs of young men carrying guns?

The current nostalgia for Fatah moderation is absurd. What moderation? Yasser Arafat's 1993 paper recognition of Israel's right to exist was as fraudulent as his famous Oslo side letter renouncing terrorism. He spent the next seven years clandestinely sponsoring terror, then openly launched a four-year terror war, the most vicious in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

With this election, we can no longer hide from the truth: After 60 years, the Palestinian people continue to reject the right of a Jewish state to exist side-by-side with them. Fatah -- secular, worldly and wise -- learned to lie to the West and pretend otherwise. Hamas -- less sophisticated, more literal and more bound by religious obligation to expel the Jews -- is simply more honest.

This election was truth in advertising. Now we know. What to do?

The world must impress upon the Palestinians that there are consequences for their choices. And so long as they choose rejectionism -- the source of a 60-year conflict the Israelis have long been ready to resolve -- the world will not continue to support and subsidize them.

And that means cutting off Hamas completely: no recognition, no negotiation, no aid, nothing. And not just assistance to a Hamas government, but all assistance. The Bush administration suggests continuing financial support for "humanitarian" services. This is a serious mistake.

First, because money is fungible. Every dollar we spend for Palestinian social services is a dollar freed up for a Hamas government to purchase rockets, guns and suicide belts for the "Palestinian army" that Meshal has already declared he intends to build.

Second, because it sends the Palestinians precisely the wrong message. If they were under a dictatorship that imposed rejectionism upon them, there would be a case for helping a disenfranchised Palestinian people. But they just held the most open and honest exercise of democracy in Palestinian history. The Palestinian people chose. However much they love victimhood, they are not victims here. They are actors. And historical actors have to take responsibility.

They want blood and death and romance? They will get nothing. They choose peace and coexistence? Then, as President Bush pledged in June 2002, they will get everything: world recognition, financial assistance, their own state with independence and dignity.

In August 2001, Hamas sent a suicide bomber into a Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem. He killed 15 innocent Israelis, mutilating many dozens more. A month later, Hamas student activists at al-Najah University in Nablus celebrated the attack with an exhibit, a mockup of the smashed Sbarro shop strewn with blood and fake body parts -- a severed leg, still dressed in jeans; a human hand dangling from the ceiling. The inscription (with a reference to the Qassam military wing of Hamas) read: "Qassami Pizza is more delicious."

The correct term for such a mentality is not militance, not extremism, but moral depravity. The world must advise the Palestinian people that if their national will is to embrace Hamas -- its methods and its madness -- then their national will is simply too murderous and, yes, too depraved for the world to countenance, let alone subsidize.

The essential first lesson of any newborn democracy is that national choices have national consequences. A Hamas-led Palestine, cut off entirely, will be forced to entertain second thoughts.

[OklahomaTuba]

Hamas, Nazis, all the same **** to me.

Elections brought them both in, and war will end them both.

[Widescreen]

Krauthammer speaks the truth. We'll see if Bush has a backbone.

[mdklatt]

If we do isolate them (no recognition, no aid) what incentive will they have to behave? Rational people might realize that once they start behaving they'll be rewarded, but not before. However, rational thought is in short supply in Middle East politics. Hamas will use the West's reaction to further inflame anti-Western sentiment. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[picasso]

my brother pointed the article out to me. He's lived over there and said it hit the nail onnen ze head.

[Widescreen]

If we do isolate them (no recognition, no aid) what incentive will they have to behave? Rational people might realize that once they start behaving they'll be rewarded, but not before. However, rational thought is in short supply in Middle East politics. Hamas will use the West's reaction to further inflame anti-Western sentiment. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Well, it's obvious the money-for-behavior thing didn't work so I say we just save our money - or use it to kill more baddies.

[OklahomaTuba]

If we do isolate them (no recognition, no aid) what incentive will they have to behave? Rational people might realize that once they start behaving they'll be rewarded, but not before. However, rational thought is in short supply in Middle East politics. Hamas will use the West's reaction to further inflame anti-Western sentiment. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
This won't end well.

Not with Iran showing its teeth again IMO. Hope I am wrong.

[yermom]

at least we wouldn't be funding their bombs and ****

let 'em starve or whatever

of course, Isreal isn't exactly innocent in this either

[Octavian]

Hamas, Nazis, all the same **** to me.

Elections brought them both in


sort of...the nazis never received a majority vote from the masses when they came to power

[mdklatt]

Well, it's obvious the money for behavior thing didn't work so I say we just save our money - or use it to kill more baddies.

Sounds like as good a plan as any. Why is it that all the warmest parts of the planet are so perpetually ****ed up? Central Africa. Central/South America. The Middle East. India. SE Asia. Maybe the problem is perpetual heat stroke.

[yermom]

i would kinda think it's because it's easier to survive with no money

the people with nothing to live for live longer ;)

[IronSooner]

If we do isolate them (no recognition, no aid) what incentive will they have to behave? Rational people might realize that once they start behaving they'll be rewarded, but not before. However, rational thought is in short supply in Middle East politics. Hamas will use the West's reaction to further inflame anti-Western sentiment. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

I think there's a pretty good chance you're right on that. If we cut off everything they'll just get more ****ed off at us for it. But you know what? **** 'em. There is absolutely no reason why we need to give them anything or recognize them for anything. And it's not like we're overflowing with money anyway. Save some cash, do something actually useful with it, and let them do what they want.

[IronSooner]

Sounds like as good a plan as any. Why is it that all the warmest parts of the planet are so perpetually ****ed up? Central Africa. Central/South America. The Middle East. India. SE Asia. Maybe the problem is perpetual heat stroke.

Haven't there been studies that show that people lget more easily antagonized and generally more aggressive during heat waves? Seems like I've heard that.

[mdklatt]

i would kinda think it's because it's easier to survive with no money



You're definitely onto something, there. It takes a lot more cooperation to survive in harsher climates, so northern civilizations were created by people who had more incentive to not kill everybody they disagreed with and less free time to do it even if they wanted to.

[mdklatt]

Haven't there been studies that show that people lget more easily antagonized and generally more aggressive during heat waves? Seems like I've heard that.

Yes, but they're acclimated to the heat near the Equator.

[OklahomaTuba]

sort of...the nazis never received a majority vote from the masses when they came to powerYeah, but there was no majority by any party and the nazis had the largest party.

A tad different, but the ideology is very much the same.

[handcrafted]

I'm with Tuba. This won't end well.

The depraved Muslims (to use CK's accurate terminology) are bloodthirsty and willing to martyr themselves, and their "prophecies" are self-fulfilling. In the end, we'll have to give them what they long for: a violent death while they scream some Arabic crap about allah and mohammed. We're about to enter into an extended (perhaps decades-long) war in the Middle East. The only way we'll avoid it is if countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. sack up and *help us* defeat the militant types. If they just sit on the sidelines, like they've been doing, we and the rest of the world will be forced to just mow 'em down. No more Palestine. No more Iran. No more Syria if they get in the way.

[Widescreen]

The fact is that the arab 'street' just isn't very smart. They continue to believe whatever their dictators/imams tell them to believe despite decades of repeated failure. When I look at these riots every night, I can hardly believe what I'm seeing. On the other hand, it has yielded some good comedy. I saw a skit the other night with a bunch of people demonstrating with placards that said "Death to Marmaduke!"

[OklahomaTuba]

I'm with Tuba. This won't end well.

We're about to enter into an extended (perhaps decades-long) war in the Middle East. The only way we'll avoid it is if countries like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. sack up and *help us* defeat the militant types. If they just sit on the sidelines, like they've been doing, we and the rest of the world will be forced to just mow 'em down. No more Palestine. No more Iran. No more Syria if they get in the way.

I agree.

Whats scares me is Iran and their involvement in all this.

Once Iran has a nuke, and starts ******* with the oil supply, all bets are off IMO.

Either we deal with it now, before they have one (easier), or wait till they have one and can really cause some trouble. I have no doubt they will either.

I sincerly feel there are some really tough days ahead here. I just hope we still have the strength as a nation that we had in 1914, 1941 and during the cold war. The leftists make me doubt that we do though.

[mdklatt]

I think there's a pretty good chance you're right on that. If we cut off everything they'll just get more ****ed off at us for it. But you know what? **** 'em. There is absolutely no reason why we need to give them anything or recognize them for anything.

We're really up against a wall. Bush has gone on and on about democracy taking hold in the Middle East, implying that free elections are the best way to gain the West's favor. Okay, fine. But now Palestine is essentially going to be punished for having free elections. What a ****ing mess.

How long until we get out of oil rehab and can put the Middle East on our ignore list?

[SCOUT]

We're really up against a wall. Bush has gone on and on about democracy taking hold in the Middle East, implying that free elections are the best way to gain the West's favor. Okay, fine. But now Palestine is essentially going to be punished for having free elections. What a ****ing mess.

How long until we get out of oil rehab and can put the Middle East on our ignore list?

I think it is a misrepresentation to say that Palestine is essentially going to be punished for having free elections. They are essentially going to be punished for their choice. In the real world choices have consequences. Sometimes those are good and sometimes bad. The outcome of your choices today should help shape your choices in the future.

This is all hypothetical anyway, I really doubt we, as a country, have the stones to take particularly strong stances with Palestine.

[mdklatt]

The fact is that the arab 'street' just isn't very smart. They continue to believe whatever their dictators/imams tell them to believe despite decades of repeated failure.

It's not fair to call them dumb; they just don't know any better. They're brainwashed, basically. The Middle East is what happens when true believers are running the show.

[handcrafted]

We're really up against a wall. Bush has gone on and on about democracy taking hold in the Middle East, implying that free elections are the best way to gain the West's favor. Okay, fine. But now Palestine is essentially going to be punished for having free elections. What a ****ing mess.

I totally agree (shock, horror! :D). And it's not that they're being punished for having elections, really. It's that those who were elected are simply clueless and power-hungry. A bad combo any way you serve it. If Hamas had said "okay, now we're in charge, how do we make this thing work?", problem on the way to solution. But, of course, they didn't. It's the old Indian story about the Scorpion. They cooperate if to do so furthers their own needs, but they will try to kill us, because it is their nature.


How long until we get out of oil rehab and can put the Middle East on our ignore list?

Oh don't get me started on that one. Short answer: should have been there 30 years ago. Not soon enough in my book.

[mdklatt]

I think it is a misrepresentation to say that Palestine is essentially going to be punished for having free elections. They are essentially going to be punished for their choice. In the real world choices have consequences. Sometimes those are good and sometimes bad. The outcome of your choices today should help shape your choices in the future.


Vote for whomever you want, as long as it's this guy.

That sends kind of a mixed message about democracy doesn't it? I'm not sayin the West's reaction is wrong, per se; the problem is that there's isn't a right answer in this case. Big ****ing mess.



This is all hypothetical anyway, I really doubt we, as a country, have the
stones to take particularly strong stances with Palestine.

We've got bigger fish to fry. Let Israel deal with Palestine. It's mostly their problem, and they're more than capable of handling it.

[OklahomaTuba]

We're really up against a wall. Bush has gone on and on about democracy taking hold in the Middle East, implying that free elections are the best way to gain the West's favor. Okay, fine. But now Palestine is essentially going to be punished for having free elections. What a ****ing mess.

How long until we get out of oil rehab and can put the Middle East on our ignore list?
Democracy isn't perfect, but its better than anything else around.

As for oil rehab, good luck with that. Oil is in just about everything, not just cars. Clothing, chemicals, plastics, building materials, computers, etc.

Oil isn't going away anytime soon I can assure you.

Its to bad our liberal friends won't let us drill off the coast of the US more, or in the permafrost of ANWR, or build more refineries. Might lessen the impact on our economy when Iran stops selling its oil.

[mdklatt]

It's that those who were elected are simply clueless and power-hungry. A bad combo any way you serve it.

Unfortunately, this describes every government everywhere in the world.

Sigh.




If Hamas had said "okay, now we're in charge, how do we make this thing work?", problem on the way to solution. But, of course, they didn't. It's the old Indian story about the Scorpion. They cooperate if to do so furthers their own needs, but they will try to kill us, because it is their nature.


That pretty much sums it up.

[SCOUT]

Vote for whomever you want, as long as it's this guy.

That sends kind of a mixed message about democracy doesn't it? I'm not sayin the West's reaction is wrong, per se; the problem is that there's isn't a right answer in this case. Big ****ing mess.



We've got bigger fish to fry. Let Israel deal with Palestine. It's mostly their problem, and they're more than capable of handling it.

I wouldn't say it is "vote for this guy" as much as it is to "understand the consequences of your decision." Having a reaction to your action isn't a mixed message about democracy. It is a truism to all decisions. I couldn't agree more that it is a big ****ing mess.

[handcrafted]

It's not fair to call them dumb; they just don't know any better. They're brainwashed, basically. The Middle East is what happens when true believers are running the show.

*bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* thank you for playing.

Over-generalization a bit, there?

You'd rather have "false believers" in charge? Everyone believes in something, dude. Everyone has an ideology and an agenda. Don't compare the Arab thugs with American Christians. Apple, meet Orange. The culture and mindset is completely different. The Arab world is as alien to us as the Europeans were to the American Indians in the 16th-17th Centuries. Worlds apart on the same world. We will never understand each other. The best we can hope for is peaceful co-existence.

[TUSooner]

Spot on.

[mdklatt]

Its to bad our liberal friends won't let us drill off the coast of the US more, or in the permafrost of ANWR, or build more refineries. Might lessen the impact on our economy when Iran stops selling its oil.

These are all still short-term solutions. Coal, as Bush proposed, isn't the answer either. And hydrogen? Where the hell are we supposed to get large quantities of hydrogen? Getting it from water via electrolysis is a net energy loser, although that would be a way to convert renewable energies like wind and solar into something portable.

[yermom]

*bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz* thank you for playing.

Over-generalization a bit, there?

You'd rather have "false believers" in charge? Everyone believes in something, dude. Everyone has an ideology and an agenda. Don't compare the Arab thugs with American Christians. Apple, meet Orange. The culture and mindset is completely different. The Arab world is as alien to us as the Europeans were to the American Indians in the 16th-17th Centuries. Worlds apart on the same world. We will never understand each other. The best we can hope for is peaceful co-existence.


but it's an example of what happens when you make your government decisions on faith

if you are a zealot that doesn't respect other people's faiths then you aren't exactly going to get along well with your neighbors that are doing the same thing

we didn't exactly peacefully co-exist with the Native Americans

[OklahomaTuba]

The best we can hope for is peaceful co-existence.

I believe this lesson was left out of the Holy Koran.

[OklahomaTuba]

These are all still short-term solutions. Coal, as Bush proposed, isn't the answer either. And hydrogen? Where the hell are we supposed to get large quantities of hydrogen? Getting it from water via electrolysis is a net energy loser, although that would be a way to convert renewable energies like wind and solar into something portable.

Who knows what the future will bring. I know I am really into the ethanol thing, corn and cellulose. Also like the biodiesel technology, and hydrogen has a ways to go.

Either way, there isn't even enough of that to cover 10% of car usage, much less replace everything we get from crude.

What I do know is that consumption of oil keeps going up, yet production is flat here.

If Iran removes their oil from the market, wheres the slack gonna come from? Oil will be 3 digits and the really thirsty nations like China and India will come looking for it.

Japan did the same thing in 1941.

[handcrafted]

Unfortunately, this describes every government everywhere in the world.

Some more than others, but you're right. The problem with governments: human beings are running them. People are inherently depraved, selfish, and evil. Power corrupts (or, more accurately, makes corruption worse).

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

my brother pointed the article out to me. He's lived over there and said it hit the nail onnen ze head.:) I think Krauthammer is the most astute and respected commentator on the FOX NEWS CHANNEL. He always seems to go right to the essence of the issues, and almost always makes great sense.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Democracy isn't perfect, but its better than anything else around.

As for oil rehab, good luck with that. Oil is in just about everything, not just cars. Clothing, chemicals, plastics, building materials, computers, etc.

Oil isn't going away anytime soon I can assure you.

Its to bad our liberal friends won't let us drill off the coast of the US more, or in the permafrost of ANWR, or build more refineries. Might lessen the impact on our economy when Iran stops selling its oil.AMEN. This is a problem we in the USA can peacefully do something about, BUT WON'T!!!

[handcrafted]

but it's an example of what happens when you make your government decisions on faith

Impossible not to. Everyone has faith, as I said. Faith in something. The question is, what do you want the people who run your government to have faith in? Other people? It's obvious where that gets us. How about faith in the God who says "love your neighbor as yourself", and gave us a list of things we should do to act out that love?


if you are a zealot that doesn't respect other people's faiths then you aren't exactly going to get along well with your neighbors that are doing the same thing

Now here I basically agree with you. Although I'm not sure the word "zealot" necessarily carries a negative connotation, these days it probably does by default. As long as "respect" is not equated with "legitimize", then I'm fine with it.


we didn't exactly peacefully co-exist with the Native Americans

To our eternal shame. However, 500 years ago, it was still acceptable to acquire territory by conquest, in the European mind. Doesn't excuse it, doesn't make it right, but at the time, the explorers and conquistadores were operating within their own cultural norms.

[yermom]

i guess i mean faith as in religion

[Tear Down This Wall]

Hamas, Fatah...it's like choosing between Texas and Oklahoma State. They both suck no matter how you slice it.

[mdklatt]

Don't compare the Arab thugs with American Christians.

When did I do that?

I draw a distinction between people of faith (most religious followers) and "true believers" (the zealots). Faith is by definition a personal choice, so it only makes sense that not everybody has to feel the same way as you do. There is no such gray area for the true believer; he is convinced his way is the only way.

American politics is thankfully dominated by people of faith, not true believers. Except in Kansas.

[handcrafted]

i guess i mean faith as in religion

And I'm saying, everyone's got a religion, even if it's secular humanism. If you say "there is no god", that's a religion (atheism). If you say "it's impossible to know if there's a god", that's a religion (agnosticism or secular existentialism). What people believe affects how they view the world, and how they see the role of government, to varying degrees.

[Harry Beanbag]

I think we need to start rebuilding the military like yesterday. We're gonna need a lot more than half million or so active duty troops to deal with what's coming.

[yermom]

i guess i'm saying i'd rather see a secular government instead of one that has roots in the religion on the country, like the Taliban, or whatever

the US is mostly Christian, but it's not really a Christian Nation

[handcrafted]

When did I do that?

I draw a distinction between people of faith (most religious followers) and "true believers" (the zealots). Faith is by definition a personal choice, so it only makes sense that not everybody has to feel the same way as you do. There is no such gray area for the true believer; he is convinced his way is the only way.

American politics is thankfully dominated by people of faith, not true believers. Except in Kansas.

Although the distinctions you make and the way you make them are largely inaccurate, I think I understand your point.

[handcrafted]

i guess i'm saying i'd rather see a secular government instead of one that has roots in the religion on the country, like the Taliban, or whatever

the US is mostly Christian, but it's not really a Christian Nation

True dat. We're much closer to Babylon these days.

[mdklatt]

i guess i'm saying i'd rather see a secular government instead of one that has roots in the religion on the country, like the Taliban, or whatever




When government and religion mix, it's to the detriment of both. See also: Iran and the Soviet Union

[Tear Down This Wall]

I like God. He's done America right. Allah/Baal has done nothing for the dirt-eating muslims. They're lorded over by tyrants, crap into holes in the ground, get imprisoned or executed for disagreeing with the government. But, what else do you expect when you base your life and system of governance on disobeying Commandment #1, brothuh!

Exodus 20
1And God spoke all these words, saying,

2"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

3"You shall have no other gods before me.

4"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

[Pricetag]

As long as "respect" is not equated with "legitimize", then I'm fine with it.
Can respect be given without legitimizing? I don't think so, especially in cases of religious beliefs.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I draw a distinction between people of faith (most religious followers) and "true believers" (the zealots). Faith is by definition a personal choice, so it only makes sense that not everybody has to feel the same way as you do. There is no such gray area for the true believer; he is convinced his way is the only way.

And, it's a little bit icky when one's "way" is to kill all non-believers.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Can respect be given without legitimizing? I don't think so, especially in cases of religious beliefs.

Yes, it can. In American, muslims are free to worship Allah/Baal because we live in a country that respects personal religious beliefs. However, in countries run by muslims, people who worship God and believe in Christ Jesus are imprisoned, abused, harrasses, executed, etc.

But, all of our respect for the muslim faith doesn't legitimize it. They may as well be worshiping a pet rock. Fine. Do what you want with your faith. But, be happy you can worship Allah/Baal (pet rock) freely in American. It's the priviledge we show all faiths.

[mdklatt]

I like God. He's done America right. Allah/Baal has done nothing for the dirt-eating muslims.

You know it's all the same dude, right?

[mdklatt]

Can respect be given without legitimizing?

Sure it can, if everybody would mind their own damn business. You can believe the other guy has it wrong without needing to interfere with his business.

[soonerscuba]

Behold His Noodly Appendage! I believe that America should be firmly established on the laws of FSMism.

[handcrafted]

Can respect be given without legitimizing? I don't think so, especially in cases of religious beliefs.

Perhaps not. I suppose I was intending to convey respect for the person without legitimizing the religion.

[handcrafted]

You know it's all the same dude, right?

That's your opinion, of course. That may be true for *you*, but it's not true for *me*.

;)

[Widescreen]

I draw a distinction between people of faith (most religious followers) and "true believers" (the zealots). Faith is by definition a personal choice, so it only makes sense that not everybody has to feel the same way as you do. There is no such gray area for the true believer; he is convinced his way is the only way.
By your definition, I'm a true believer. But does that change if I think everyone can believe whatever they want - even though I "know" they're wrong? What if I'm not interested in blowing people up for believing differently than me and I respect other people's beliefs. Am I still a 'true believer'?

[Tear Down This Wall]

You know it's all the same dude, right?

No, it isn't even close. Look at the way a nation built by Christians lives and prospers, then look at the violence and poverty of the muslim nations.

There is only one God, the God of Israel, from whom salvation came to the world in the form of Christ. Those who follow Allah are the same as the prophets of Baal in the Old Testament. Basically, they are heathens who try to enforce allegiance to their false god, whom they call Allah/Baal, through violence and intimidation.

The muslims cut and thrash themselves as the prophets of Baal did at Mt. Carmel before God used Elijah to rout them. They do the same thing now, killing and bombing one another in the name of their god, Allah. Pathetic.

Then, Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal. Now, the muslims make a mockery of themselves, so uptight about their god and prophet that they cannot even brook a cartoon depiction. Their reliance on their non-existent god to the point of violence is nothing new - neither is their being routed by those who follow the true and living God.

[mdklatt]

That's your opinion, of course. That may be true for *you*, but it's not true for *me*.

;)

I don't know why you call that an "opinion". The Old Testament is part of Islam just as it's part of Judaism and Christianity. The whole cartoon fracas is because of the Islamic interpretation of the Second Commandment. And Jesus is a big deal in Islam, too.

[mdklatt]

No, it isn't even close. Look at the way a nation built by Christians lives and prospers, then look at the violence and poverty of the muslim nations.



God plays favorites? I guess this is kinda like how he bestows victory on the football team that prays the hardest before the game.

[handcrafted]

I don't know why you call that an "opinion". The Old Testament is part of Islam just as it's part of Judaism and Christianity. The whole cartoon fracas is because of the Islamic interpretation of the Second Commandment. And Jesus is a big deal in Islam, too.

1. It was a post-modern joke.

2. If Jesus was such a "big deal" in Islam, they'd believe what the Bible said about Him.

3. It was a joke.

[Widescreen]

God plays favorites?
He does have a 'chosen people'. I'd call that favorites.


I guess this is kinda like how he bestows victory on the football team that prays the hardest before the game.
Heh.

[mdklatt]

1. It was a post-modern joke.

2. If Jesus was such a "big deal" in Islam, they'd believe what the Bible said about Him.

3. It was a joke.

Heh.

I didn't say Jesus was as big a deal in Islam as he was in Christianity. But I bet you'd sooner get stoned for cursing Jesus in a mosque than you would in a church.

[SoonerProphet]

i thought krauthammer was one of the geniuses behind this whole democracy in action bullsh*t. sounds like double standards and fear-mongering to me, typical of his ilk. it is also pretty fu*kin' funny to see him rant about choice, the palestinians didn't land on haganah...the haganah landed on them.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Heh.

I didn't say Jesus was as big a deal in Islam as he was in Christianity. But I bet you'd sooner get stoned for cursing Jesus in a mosque than you would in a church.

And, the reason is that Jesus told his disciples to take rejection of him with a grain of salt, Matthew 10:14, 15

14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."

Christ also would not allow Peter to defend him with violence when he was arrested and carried away to his crucifixion.

The difference is that Jesus knew and predicted that many would reject him and the gospel. Unlike islam, however, Jesus gives the judgement day as the reckoning for such rejection, while muslims are to exact vengeance today against non-islams. Basically, Jesus leaves the punishment for non-belief/rejection to God, islam directs its followers to inflict punishment for non-belief/rejection.

The difference manifests itself in the way a follower of Christ and a follower of Muhammad react to the rejection of their faith. Christians can brush it off and move along, muslims cannot. Really, islam is a very small faith intellectually. No one is allowed to challenge or mock it. It is really very dishonest.

[Ike]

God plays favorites? I guess this is kinda like how he bestows victory on the football team that prays the hardest before the game.


Is it possible for God to play favorites AND be playing dice at the same time?


I guess he has weighted dice then. there goes quantum mechanics.

[soonerscuba]

The difference manifests itself in the way a follower of Christ and a follower of Muhammad react to the rejection of their faith. Christians can brush it off and move along, muslims cannot. Really, islam is a very small faith intellectually. No one is allowed to challenge or mock it. It is really very dishonest.

I think this stems not from the religion and more from the fact that they are 1000 years behind the rest of us. It wasn't that long ago that Christians did the same thing. The only thing they have going for them is being on the cutting edge of torso asploding science. Ironically, they sit on the engine of the world, if God has a sense of humor, its pretty dark, so I'll probably like the guy.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Excellent point, scuba. And, it took Martin Luther to help drag "christians", who then were simply power hungry, intolerant Catholics, back to the Bible and actually read what they were doing was wrong.

I think to look at the whole thing overall is key in this discussion. Krauthammer simply calls it like it really is - Fatah or Hamas, they're both losers on the world stage. Stripped of all of the formalities, it was just a matter of shaking your hand with the intent to harm you later versus spitting in your face with the intent to harm you as soon as possible. Both choices sucked.

[mdklatt]

Is it possible for God to play favorites AND be playing dice at the same time?




I think it's possible for God to do whatever he wants. :D

[Widescreen]

Heh.

I didn't say Jesus was as big a deal in Islam as he was in Christianity. But I bet you'd sooner get stoned for cursing Jesus in a mosque than you would in a church.
I'm not sure what that proves. You can apparently get stoned for having luggage with wheels too. They're stone crazy over there. ;)

[sitzpinkler]

And I'm saying, everyone's got a religion, even if it's secular humanism. If you say "there is no god", that's a religion (atheism). If you say "it's impossible to know if there's a god", that's a religion (agnosticism or secular existentialism). What people believe affects how they view the world, and how they see the role of government, to varying degrees.

I don't believe in santa or the tooth fairy, does that make me religious?

atheism is not a religion, I don't know where you get that idea

[mdklatt]

I'm not sure what that proves. ... They're stone crazy over there. ;)

That was mostly my point. :D

[SoonerProphet]

http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040227_book755text.pdf


Call it democratic realism. And this is its axiom: We will support
democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in
places where there is a strategic necessity—meaning, places central to
the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a
global mortal threat to freedom.

My how things change when your foreign policy strategies blow up in your face.

[mdklatt]

My how things change when your foreign policy strategies blow up in your face.

Installing "friendly" dictators who later stab us in the back is so 80's. Widespread democracy is the way to go if you do it right. Most Middle Eastern societies are not ready for democracy. They don't have the instiutions in place to protect against the tyrrany of a majority yet. Democracy is going to be difficult in Iraq for awhile because the Shiites don't have much incentive to let the Sunnis participate, and the Sunnis don't have much incentive to participate in the first place. And the Kurds are going to keep on doing their own thing.

Even American democracy was not a spontaneous creation. The colonists had a longstanding tradition of British democracy to draw upon.

[IronSooner]

Most Middle Eastern societies are not ready for democracy. They don't have the instiutions in place to protect against the tyrrany of a majority yet. Democracy is going to be difficult in Iraq for awhile because the Shiites don't have much incentive to let the Sunnis participate, and the Sunnis don't have much incentive to participate in the first place.


This is entirely the problem. Until those foundations are laid, this is going to continue. We didn't exactly do it overnight and neither will they. Unfortunately, first the infighting has to stop...no more getting back at each other for this and that. That is key.

[Okieflyer]

Hamas, Nazis, all the same **** to me.

Elections brought them both in, and war will end them both.

Never said better!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Which is/was more f***ed up, Nazi Germany or todays "Palestinians"?

[Octavian]

Which is/was more f***ed up, Nazi Germany or todays "Palestinians"?

seriously?

not.

even.

close.

[SoonerProphet]

Installing "friendly" dictators who later stab us in the back is so 80's. Widespread democracy is the way to go if you do it right. Most Middle Eastern societies are not ready for democracy. They don't have the instiutions in place to protect against the tyrrany of a majority yet. Democracy is going to be difficult in Iraq for awhile because the Shiites don't have much incentive to let the Sunnis participate, and the Sunnis don't have much incentive to participate in the first place. And the Kurds are going to keep on doing their own thing.

Even American democracy was not a spontaneous creation. The colonists had a longstanding tradition of British democracy to draw upon.

Widespread "democracy" as we in the West tend to view it may not be the way to go even if it is done right. While I'll agree that notions of minority rights and majority rule are serious issue to be overcome in the Middle East and the Muslim world, these are not the only ones. Other concepts, especially the "rule of law" are alien to most Muslim cultures. In most Muslim countries, especially the Mideast, the rule of law is the sharia and can in no way be reconciled with secular laws like English common law or the Napoleanic code. It simply won't work, longstanding traditions or not.

While I tend to shy away from Huntington's view of a "clash of civilizations" I do think it is an important detail. Most Muslim societies beat to a drummer far different than our own, good, bad, or indifferent. This does not mean they cannot accept representative rule, for Persia had the majils just a century ago. What it does mean is that Islam is simply not just a religion, but a way of life, like Confucian ideals in China. As a result they are usually inclined to go with decision from on high because it is what is expected. Islam as a faith gives pride of place to authority.

I think a pursuit of blended democracy and a willingness to work with illiberal society may be the wisest path. Then again we can just nuke them and relieve the problem that way.

[mdklatt]

Most Muslim societies beat to a drummer far different than our own, good, bad, or indifferent. This does not mean they cannot accept representative rule, for Persia had the majils just a century ago. What it does mean is that Islam is simply not just a religion, but a way of life, like Confucian ideals in China. As a result they are usually inclined to go with decision from on high because it is what is expected. Islam as a faith gives pride of place to authority.


There are non-theocratic Muslim countries. Now I wouldn't call places like Turkey or Pakistan models of progressive government, but that's a place to start. The ordinary Muslim is just like the ordinary citizen anywhere. He's more likely a person of faith than a "true believer" (my personal distinction). He just wants to have a steady job and nice things. That's human nature, and capitalist democracies have historically been more amenable to human nature.

Average Ahmed may realize that a fundamentalist government is not the way for to go, but he thinks he's powerless. Or, he may not realize that his government is the problem because he doesn't know any better. His government rigidly controls all the information he's ever been exposed to. His government blames Israel and the US for all of his country's woes, and who doesn't love a scapegoat?

[mdklatt]

Then again we can just nuke them and relieve the problem that way.

Well, Operation Bomb All The Brown People would take care of most of the world's trouble areas....

[SoonerProphet]

There are non-theocratic Muslim countries. Now I wouldn't call places like Turkey or Pakistan models of progressive government, but that's a place to start. The ordinary Muslim is just like the ordinary citizen anywhere. He's more likely a person of faith than a "true believer" (my personal distinction). He just wants to have a steady job and nice things. That's human nature, and capitalist democracies have historically been more amenable to human nature.

Turkey is governed by an Islamist party that has indeed rolled back some of Attaturks reforsm. As long as the military plays along in both countries all will be ok, from an internal standpoint. I agree they are examples of "democracy" at work, but they are also examplse of some of the pitfalls behind Islamic culture.


Average Ahmed may realize that a fundamentalist government is not the way for to go, but he thinks he's powerless. Or, he may not realize that his government is the problem because he doesn't know any better. His government rigidly controls all the information he's ever been exposed to. His government blames Israel and the US for all of his country's woes, and who doesn't love a scapegoat?

The whole basis of their culutre is to submit. Authoritarianism of some form seems most likely. So "democratic" societies don't rigidly control information and play the nationalist scapegoat card? I am not buying it.

[mdklatt]

Turkey is governed by an Islamist party that has indeed rolled back some of Attaturks reforsm. As long as the military plays along in both countries all will be ok, from an internal standpoint. I agree they are examples of "democracy" at work, but they are also examplse of some of the pitfalls behind Islamic culture.


But Turkey wants to be part of the EU, which is a lot better than wanting to just blow up Europeans. At least that's progress. Egypt is secular by Middle Eastern standards, and has arguably the best economy in the region. Does a good economy foster secularism or does secularism foster a good economy?




The whole basis of their culutre is to submit. Authoritarianism of some form seems most likely.

Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, is a democracy. Well, as much of a democracy as any other SE Asian country. This might be because of Dutch colonial traditions, but they don't seem to be rushing towards theocracy on their own. The whole basis of Czarist Russia and then Soviet culture was to submit, but Russians got over that in a hurry.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Hello, McFly...the Indonesians are awful when it comes to human rights abuses. They may not techincally be a theocracy, but try mentioning a little Jesus over there and see what happens. If Indonesia didn't have oil, no one would pay attention to it. That country is Middle East Lite.

[SoonerProphet]

But Turkey wants to be part of the EU, which is a lot better than wanting to just blow up Europeans. At least that's progress. Egypt is secular by Middle Eastern standards, and has arguably the best economy in the region. Does a good economy foster secularism or does secularism foster a good economy?

I think Turkey's involvement in the EU and Turkish society as a whole is more secular than other Muslime countries, that does not discount the fact that an Islamist party is in power and Islam dominates the culture. I think the assumption that all Islamist want to blow up Europeans stretches things a bit. Egypt is an open vote away from electing the Muslim Brotherhood into power.

Free markets and free trade foster economic growth, not sure if secularism has anything to do with it.


Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, is a democracy. Well, as much of a democracy as any other SE Asian country. This might be because of Dutch colonial traditions, but they don't seem to be rushing towards theocracy on their own. The whole basis of Czarist Russia and then Soviet culture was to submit, but Russians got over that in a hurry.

Ask the East Timorese about Indonesian democracy, or the folks at the Bali nightclub. Many Indoniesians have seen a spike in the growth of jihadism because of democracy.

Czarist Russia was dominated by serfdom and a boyer class that had their beards cut off. Russian's still quite have not grasped the principles of democracy, imo.