This is almost word-for-word identical to the statements I'm hearing from my various Muslim friends and associates.<<
While recognizing that there is a counter-argument to every argument, and, importantly, there are perfectly sensible counters to most of the counter-arguments, I keep coming back to some key points that deserve mention:
1) a lot of foreign policy is based on electrical theory... the path of least resistance is preferred. It's not that US leaders seek out repressive regimes to support, but in pursuit of some self-interest (in the ME, it's oil) we are compelled to deal with those in control.
Are these folks saying it's our responsibility to overthrow every other nation's government if they display certain repressiveness? Where is the line of 'too repressive' to be drawn? Is it not the responsibility of the citizens of such countries to change their own dysfunctional governments?
2) We have established a reasonably good record of pressuring other governments to be less repressive. Diplomacy prevents shedding a lot of light in this regard, but where the facts have come to light, it is clear we've made strides in the right direction since the 1970s. And with Israel in particular, it should be clear that we've provided a moderating force that has granted the Palestinians some advances.
It sometimes feels like Muslims expect our government to be as responsive as a hungry poodle at the door when Nonny arrives home.... sheesh, get a grip! Short of Code Red dire emergencies, our government moves like escargot after a hot tub in garlic butter.
3) We have defended Muslims in several countries. Despite this, we are treated to nothing but complaints. When Arab leaders have taken the initiatives to foster peace, they get shot down, like Anwar Sadat. Everyone can criticize; where is the Muslim voice that provides a workable solution?
It is awfully silent out there, once you subtract the anti-Israel, anti-US carping.
4) There are other places in the world that have legitimate grievances about US government initiatives that have wronged them. Has Japan attacked us for what we did in Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Have Filipino extremists created a terror organization to attack the US mainland for our support of Marcos? There are other ways to redress grievances and to obtain better results.
Violence, threats of violence, quiet support of others doing the violence have worked, to some degree, in the past. Keep it there, because we're done with it.
Sure, some are afraid of it, some are terrified. But I've seen more love-pushin', laid-back, mellow-yellow lifelong hippiegranola peacefreaks workin' out at the shooting ranges and generally actin' like survivalist militia types than ever before, so if anyone still has the notion that we're set to turn tail and run, go ahead.... make my day...
That's not anti-Muslim, that's a refusal to die.
5) All Western religions share one common aspect. They teach that life will never be fair on Earth, but the afterlife will provide it. This approach is used to justify additional brutality in the name of God or Allah, which makes life on Earth even less fair, paricularly for the innocent citizens targetted. If this is what any God truly wants, I fail to see any reason to worship any god over any devil. It can only mean one of two things: either that higher power is corrupt or the interpreting 'holy' men defining God are misleading believers by corrupting the word of God.
What fair God would make women slaves by offerring 72 virgins for every holy warrior, as if they were a herd of sheep whose sole purpose is to provide unlimited pleasures for men? How can that kind of Heaven be fair to them? And even if you have a ready answer, let me ask if the recent Palestinian woman suicide bomber will find 72 virgin men awaiting her? Fair's fair, right?
6) Persisting on the path of 'criticize and attack' without offering a solution at some middle-point that's achievable, is terribly risky. Positions are hardening in the US. And even though our leadership has properly represented that our dispute is not against Islam, we are starting to sense that many in the Muslim world will not take no for an answer.
So I ask you to envision a worst case scenario, a reasonable projection of what will occur if the wish for a Holy War is granted. Perhaps a handful of US cities will be devastated, with millions dead. And hundreds of millions of Muslims will be dead with half of the Middle East radiated in the aftermath. Perhaps we will lose our superpower status, if the extremists are extraordinarily well-coordinated and lucky. But the devastation to the Middle East will be awful. The survivors can then look forward to a secular Communist existence when China takes over. That's quite a trade-off.
Of course, I don't expect the worst case to come close to that. But I expect that if mainstream Muslims don't call off the jackals and treat them as the criminals they are, they'll get the type of unholy war that Iran suffered through with Iraq..... times ten thousand.
The numbers of Muslims gets bandied about in constant reminders about how they outnumber US residents. Do they forget that the extremists are attacking all over Europe, and they've taken on the populations of Russia and India too?
From a strategy standpoint, I can only guess the goal is to get the entire Muslim world to their heavenly rewards as quickly as possible.
7) The funny thing is, it's unnecessary. Despite what it seems at moments when our nation feels imminently threatened, we still practice restraint and diplomacy, providing a number of avenues to work towards resolutions of disputes.
Yet it seems the Muslim intransigents cannot settle for less than the extermination of the Jewish people. That's non-negotiable.... not because the Jews control our media, but because it's wrong, period. It always will be wrong.
And the deafening silence on that easy-to-understand point, from even mainstream Muslims, is far more horrific to contemplate than any sin our succession of governments has ever committed, even cumulatively.
If reason cannot prevail over that depth of hatred, even the conventional forces of the world that will oppose it can demonstrate the folly of that.
The thing is, the citizens of that world will tire quickly of the risks to their own, and the refrain of "just nuke 'em" will grow louder.
That's not because the world is Christian or Jewish or anti-Muslim. That's because the world is anti-fanatic and is not at all eager for a long, sustained war.
I cannot begin to guess if a nuclear war will come from this. But I can assure that anyone who plans to utilize a bullet or bomb to express their grievance will find the opportunities to dance in the streets to be few.
Sure, Osama and his toadies have evaded capture or death for awhile, but they're pretty much stuck with ordering in their Happy Meals while they conspire to visit a greater horror upon our populace.
Do the Muslims or Arabs in America expect the civil libertarians among us to be able to defend them if it comes to that?
As an ardent civil libertarian myself, I know better. And as a humanitarian wishing to avoid such scenarios as I've described here, I can only say that my conscience is shocked by the miniscule numbers of Muslim voices that are protesting the proponents of violence whose goal is to trigger exactly that kind of confrontation.
When reason does not work, when diplomatic compromises become sinister betrayals or delaying tactics, when religion of any sort is used as a propaganda machine to promote holocaustal murders, and when personal conscience submits to mob mentalities, the only avenue left is the gun.
I pray it does not come to that. But despite my peaceful propensities, I'm not stupid. I'm quite prepared to defend my loved ones from such madness.
But the ultimate outcome of all this is ultimately a choice that is in the hands and hearts of mainstream Muslims. The complaint departments close when the bullets fly. |
