SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (4017)11/13/2003 7:55:34 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 6358
 
The ‘Arab Street's’ concept of freedom

By Cal Thomas








jewishworldreview.com | President Bush delivered a speech last week to the National Endowment for Democracy. Quoting Ronald Reagan's 1982 address at Westminster Palace in which Reagan spoke of a turning point in history, Bush noted Reagan had argued that Soviet communism had failed "precisely because it did not respect its own people — their creativity, their genius and their rights."

The Bush address understandably came from a Western perspective. But, as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher noted at a U.N. disarmament conference more than two decades ago, we in the West make a mistake when we "transpose" our morality on those who don't share it.

President Bush asked, "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty?" It depends on the meaning of liberty. What if the Islamic nations of the region define liberty differently from us? Suppose they see our liberty as something corrupting to faith and morals and our culture as something they do not wish to import, but oppose as inimical to a healthy life on Earth and an impediment to an afterlife?

The president asserted that Islam "is consistent with democratic rule," and he listed as examples several states where non-radical Muslims live (Turkey, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Indonesia and Niger). These states are not a threat to the United States. The threat comes from states dominated by extremist Muslim militants, especially the Wahhabi brand. To draw a comparison between atheistic communism and radical Islam and to suggest that what happened to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe can be replicated in the Middle East is dangerous. The New York Times reported last Friday (Nov. 7) that commentators across the Middle East dismissed the president's speech as primarily for domestic consumption.



Secular societies, even those presided over by an openly Christian leader like President Bush, risk lulling their people into complacency when they offer bromides instead of calls to civil defense and appropriate responses during war. As Giuseppe De Rosa, S.I. writes in the Italian publication La Civilta Cattolica (http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,41931,00.html): "all of Islamic history is dominated by the idea of the conquest of the Christian lands of Western E urope and of the Eastern Roman Empire, whose capital was Constantinople. Thus, through many centuries, Islam and Christianity faced each other in terrible battles, which led on one side to the conquest of Constantinople (1453), Bulgaria and Greece, and on the other, to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the naval battle of Lepanto (1571)."

That warrior spirit, or jihad, continues today. The president said there is "democratic progress in many predominately Muslim countries," such as Niger. He also said Muslim men and women are "good citizens" of a number of other nations, including South Africa, Western Europe and the United States. Would it be indelicate to note that Muslims do not (yet) direct the political destiny in those nations?

The president left out Nigeria, which borders Niger. Many regions in Nigeria have introduced Sharia as state law, which has been used to persecute thousands of Christians. Major attacks against Christians have occurred in the Philippines, Pakistan, Indonesia, Java, East Timor and the Moluccas. In the northern Arab and Muslim portion of Sudan, genocidal war continues against the black and mostly Christian south.

To fundamentalist Muslims, liberty is not found in democracy. It is found in Allah and actions they believe please their god. The most extreme of them, who seem to be growing in number and influence, plant the idea in the minds of children (see a number of Palestinian videos and textbooks) that this life is nothing and that they should "seek Shahada" (martyrdom) and "ask for death," which they teach is true liberty.

In his speech, the president said that securing democracy in Iraq is "a massive and difficult undertaking." He is right. It will be made even more difficult if Westerners think that Islamic nations want what we have. In their sermons, in editorials in their state-owned newspapers and on television and in the actions of the most radical among them, their objective is clear — to defeat and subjugate all nations and all thinking to their religion and their way. To them, it is we who live in bondage and they who are ultimately free. It will take more than speeches to convert them to America's point of view



To: calgal who wrote (4017)11/13/2003 7:55:50 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6358
 
Our Saudi friends get a lesson

By Wesley Pruden








jewishworldreview.com | Schadenfreude, taking pleasure in the misfortunes of your enemies, is not nice. It's not compatible with either Jewish ethics or Christian morality. Principled atheists know better.

But the Saudis, who nurtured 15 of the 19 men who plotted and executed the outrage of September 11 that we can never forget or forgive, can't expect us not to notice that they're getting theirs. Just deserts in the desert, an insensitive man might be tempted to say.

Tempting or not, we must stifle the urge to take pleasure in these just deserts. The anger and consternation in the Arab world should be enough to satisfy the appetite for schadenfreude.

But neither ethics nor morality requires anyone to reprise in paraphrase that famous headline in Paris on September 12 to say that "we are all Arabs and Muslims now." This would no doubt insult the Arabs, anyway, and much of the rest of the Islamic world. The Arab anger and Muslim consternation in the wake of the terrorist rage in Riyadh was expended not as an expression of common humanity, it is important to note, but in narrow ethnic and religious terms: How could Muslim terrorists have slain brother and sister Muslims? This is hardly the stuff of solidarity.

Sherard Cowper-Coles, the wonderfully named British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, misses the point, too, in denouncing the murder of 17 Saudis and the wounding of dozens of others (including Americans and Englishmen) as "senseless." He couldn't understand why Islamists targeted a compound of Muslims when there are still plenty of Jews and Christians for them to kill.



It wasn't "senseless" at all, from the point of view of al Qaeda, which is determined to drive out the West and all the Western influences of tolerance, justice, mercy, kindness, compassion and forbearance — the qualities taught over the centuries by generations of hated Jewish and despised Christian holy men. You let in a little civilization and you never know where it will lead.

But it might be a mistake of tactics. Ordinary Muslims in the streets, that famously seething mosh pit of public opinion so beloved by Western diplomats, politicians and pundits, suggest that the Riyadh bombing was too far over the top even for Islamic taste. "Al-Qaeda is now bombing ordinary Arab people who had been their staunchest supporters," says Malik al-Suleimany, a prominent pundit in Oman. "This has undoubtedly dented public opinion toward [al-Qaeda]." Newspapers in Beirut splashed photographs of two dead Lebanese children across their front pages, clucking disapproval.

Such compassion, even if compassion driven by the sacrifice of their own, will undoubtedly subside with the next cycle of dead Israelis in Jerusalem or American GIs in Baghdad. What is more encouraging is the early evidence that the deadly assault on a posh residential compound in Riyadh is an answered wake-up call. The Saudi government, which couldn't be bothered to help so long as the terrorists were killing merely Christian women and Jewish children, are cooperating now. They're scared. The creeps and jitters that began with the May 11 attack on foreigners working in Saudi Arabia have given way to genuine fright and authentic panic, enough to make the king and all the princes, Wahhabi or not, wet their royal pants.

"It was a staggering experience for them to see that their own capital was vulnerable," says a senior U.S. official, a close observer of the Saudi royals. "Their own security services had been penetrated."

The Saudi security forces, though riddled by al Qaeda sympathizers if not actual followers, are sharing intelligence now with the CIA, whose agents have been in the desert kingdom since early summer. This is an improvement, modest as it is, over the silly Saudi public-relations campaign meant to persuade Western opinion that the Saudis are upstanding and law-abiding citizens of the modern world.

Deathbed conversions, even of princes, are better than nothing, of course, but always suspect. If the Saudi royals can get a promise from Osama bin Laden that he will go back to killing only Christians and Jews, the Saudis will spike the new policy of cooperating with Washington in a Manhattan minute. Fear is persuasive, but subsides quickly.

The more encouraging prospect is that George W. Bush may finally be getting over his family's famous infatuation with the Saudis, recognizing the Saudi "reforms" for what they are. "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe," he said only last week. "Because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." Hear, hear. Better late than never.