I've believed that Islam and democracy are incompatible for years. The Muslims simply cannot accept a system which gives equal rights to all citizens, regardless of race, gender, national origin or religion. It would spell the end of their entire way of life. Giving them democracy is throwing pearls before swine.

but what islam does equal is peace. remember this after the next attack, which will of course only be celebrated and supported by a very small minority of muslims. of course.

Fascism and democracy are always incompatible.

Forget the Muslims not supporting it -- what about the State Department?

"..... Thus it is clear that Islam and democracy are incompatible."

Yes, I agree. The Civilized World should isolate ourselves from this depraved, deranged, so called "culture".

The last part of what you quote above pretty well sums it up. I guess its up to the democrocys to send them off to the next life where the followers of Mohammed will find true happiness.

Thus it is clear that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

Where is there to go from here? This is disheartening, to say the least.

Dubya can't actually believe that Islam is compatible with democracy.

Hopefully he is just mouthing the words in preparation for future "advancements" of democracy (by way of the JDAM) in the middle east.

... exists to manifest the will of Allah (SWT) and so prepare the way for individuals to, InshaAllah, achieve Jannah.

What is "Jannah" and what does "SWT" stand for? Anyone know?

for Islam, there is only the boundary between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr

Well good news! I guess Syria won't need any presence in Lebanon anymore, as you're all singing from the same sheet of music. And that neatly solves the problem of Jordyptian "refugees." Just let as many come on in as want to, what with borders being meaningless between Muslims. Right?

Substitute the word "Marxism" for "Islam" as an ideology incompatible with democracy and you will understand the affinity of LLL with Islamism.

this from a group of people who have been killing each other in the millions for 1400 years to set up this mythical pious caliphate which hasn't existed de facto since the 13th century and was relegated to pissboy status long before that by the sultanate and other political/military leaders--bunch of ahistorical fantasists and religio/power wankers--remember- 3 out of the first 4 "rightly guided caliphs" in the "golden age' of islam were assassinated--so much for their method of transfer of governmental power

#9 zb-'s'up--jannah is arabic for paradise--swt--is first letter of each arabic word "peace be upon him"--no jokes :-]

working late.

But, the Jordainians are right. Islam is fundamentally inverted as a religion from Enlightenment age Christianity (which is responsible for liberal democracy in the first place). Instead of viewing the authority of the Divine as a limit on the powers of government and an affirmation of the rights of the individual, Islam is indissoluably ties to servitude.

The only reason to rise up against a tyrannical leader in Islam is for violating the Koran. Hardly makes for a political outlook condusive to democratic ideals of individual rights and limited government.

It's essentially a Confucian mindset of having a philosopher king, but without the philosophy and instead just centralizing submission to Allah. Islam is also without the preeminence of "virtue" (and fatherly benificence) that could at times check an Asiatic despots and leave their people in a tolerable state of ignorance and servitude.

Now, none of that is to say that Arabs can't learn democratic values. The risk with Islam is the strength of fundamentalism, though, that forever threatens to swamp any advance in a anarchic uprising of religious fervor. At least until the people get enough of a taste of freedom. Then you get things like what's happening in Iran (Persians, btw), they look back and see that things were once better, adn have an idea to return to.

Unlike Persians, Arabs have no prior "golden age" as far as individual fredom and just rule are concerned (and certainly not in modern times. If nothing else, though, giving the Arab masses a taste of freedom might help them grow the fortitude necessary to stand up to the religious and political despots that keep them ignorant and backward.

Bush is speaking BULLSHIT.

Sir Winston Churchill said.

"This is a battle between the forces of darkness and light."

God bless Sir Winston.

HULUGU (#13)

Thank you!

P.S. HULUGU, how do you know all this? Do you speak Arabic? Just curious ... seen some French thrown into some of your posts too and of course your nick is interesting :-)

Dar al-Kufr ...... How clever of these atavistics.

President Bush surely knows this --remember he has Daniel Pipes on a ME advisory committee. I think this forces their hand.

It's up to them --that silent majority of moderates to come forward or up to them to denounce it. I think it was a challenge --it is consistent with his "you are with us or against us" style.

Declare what your goals and intentions are and what you see as possible.

It should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule.

Okay, now I know where we've heard this before: "Our heroic Russian allies are advancing to liberate Europe ..."

But at least the Russians could fight. What are our new "allies" good for, I wonder?

We'd better find a way to make it compatible else there's going to be ton of dead people in the world.
While it's true Arab Islamic culture is anathema to
democracy, nevertheless, the Turks, who consider themselves Europeans and the Persians have had limited success with democracy.Limited democracies
anyway.

That is why we are in Iraq. Either we convert that part of the world to democracy in the next thrity years or it develops its own atomic bombs and we have a standoff like that we had with the Soviets all those years. Only the Arabs will be much more unstable.

#17 zulubaby
_______________

Hugulu is definitely a very smart guy. Always some meat on his posts.

Thus it is clear that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

Darn. So you all realize what this means, when we bring democracy to the ME, right?

Slightly off topic --as far as moderates go --this position makes it clear that the "moderate" designation is also a western concept. That the "fundamentalists" have hyjacked Islam -------

" [Link: forums.clearguidance.com...]

After the Slumber, there is the Awakening

One of the efforts made to discredit these soldiers of Islam and to make them a cut-off limb of the Muslim Ummah is to spread rumours that these Muslims are 'Fundamentalists' and 'terrorists' who are plunging the rest of the Muslims towards destruction. The objective of this propaganda is to convince the Muslims that the Fundamentalist Muslims are a different group of Muslims, and that to destroy them has become necessary. Then the rest of the Muslims would also help the Americans in destroying the Fundamentalists.

#9 Zulubaby

http://www.jannah.org/faq/page2.html

and

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/ter m.SWT.html

Thus it is clear that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

No shit.

I suspect, or at least hope, that Bush is no dummy on this, however.

I prefer to see it as the thin edge of a spatula he is inserting under the Islamics' ass, for all of us, and our children, prior to us flinging 'em in to the gutter years or decades from now.

Of course the President is right...I can think of many Islamic countries where democracy...well, maybe a few...okay...but there could be a democracy. Couldn't there? I mean, if you closed your eyes and really tried hard to imagine it. Why, if John Lennon were here, he could do it...
This goes beyond comforting platitudes for the benefit of our Arab friends or American voters. It's the first step towards a truly delusional policy which will end in disaster unless (we should still pray) it's an elaborate ruse.
The Left will look at the statement as proof of our imperialist motives; the Islamic world will see it as a sign of weakness and a new crusade.
Perhaps the White House, shaken by the lack of immediate success in finding WMD's has decided to try a different tack. Morally correct as it is, it reeks of desperation and uncertainty. Blood in the water for our enemies here and abroad.
Militant Islam is the enemy.
It is not a Religion of Peace.
The Jihadists wish us dead.
This is what you should have said, Mr. President.

ZuluB, Hulagu laid waste to the assassin cult of Islam.

Moments in History #71-The Ismaili Muslims And The Assassins ... Under the Mongol warrior, Hulagu, the castles of the Assassins became prime ... The last Grand Master was dispatched ignominiously, being kicked to death by the ... [Link: www.users.bigpond.com...] - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

#19: NB

It's up to them --that silent majority of moderates to come forward or up to them to denounce it. I think it was a challenge --it is consistent with his "you are with us or against us" style.

I agree. Think of the Iranian students, think of Zeyad from Healing Iraq, and I suppose there are not few among Muslims in the ME who know why their countries (mostly) are in such bad shapes, and who loathe their dictators and their imams spreading words of hate.

It would have been extremely unwise, IMHO, to wield the battle axe immediately; the message the president sent was a positive one to those who are fed up with their Mullocracies (and a positive message to the Iraqis), and it was a warning to the dictators and demagogues in the ME. This - as Charles says - was a visionary speech in that it depicted the departure from a long tradition of US ME policy, it was not intended to be a declaration of war on all Islamic ME states.

In the past, Bush has been more open to countries like Syria and Iran, though. And I don't think they feel more secure now.

There might come a time still when the battle axe must be wielded in a speech. But I, too, am sure Bush knows enough about the Islamofascists, and I don't think he will falter when he must not.

I once had a conversation with a proprietor of an eatery on 10th street in Chelsea in Manhattan. He was a former Pakastani Air Force officer who taught at the air force academy there. Over a traditonal lunch, we talked and I asked him about Islam. During the course of the conversation he said the same thing:

"Democracy and Islam are not compatable."

This, he defended because in Islam, one is bound to help his brother, and democracy is based on individualism.

An intelligent man, an immigrant, alienated from a country that feeds his family.

Stir the pot...

#24 Nancy

And just where are these moderate Muslims? I've seemed to overlook them. And, by the way, how many divisions do they have?

Are there no Muslims worthy of redemption? I have never seen one, and I knew quite a few At Indiana University. I had a summer sublet one year, and one of my many roommates was a muslim from Abu Dhabi(sic) and he was the phoniest bastards I ever met. He preached Islam at us constantly, telling us how superior it was. He would get really bent out of shape if there was beer in the fridge, but I caught the bastard drunk as a skunk in the bar I bounced at. They are all liars and hypocrits

Whether or not Islam and democracy are compatible, it is best that some Muslims think them incompatible as they stand, rather than considering democracy an acceptable precursor to Sharia. And then onwards Dar al-Kufr.

gb (#25) and dennisw (#28)

Thanks :-)

Abdul Aziz is right, Bush is wrong. Arab society does not have the capacity for democracy. The Arabs will continue living under dictatorships and theocracies (or under American occupation) long after democracy comes to Iran and unified Korea.

#21 DAFKA

Exactly.

Modernizing, secularlizing and westernizing. Having a middle class, rather than elites and everyone else. That is the thing that's going to work.

The speech of the President puts the USA in a new position: we, the USA, are now the revolutionary force.
This will have very very big consequences.
Past is the time of the strong alliances with the saudis and other puppets.

In the far FUTURE, an enlightened minority in the muslim countries will be able to answer to this revolutionary call.

The islamofascists and their leftist friends are now historically positioned as
the reactionaries, the backward force, the past.

He's thinking history, as usual.

How about we worry less whether or not Islam is compatible with democracy and more about stopping Islam from destroying existing democracies (by force or immigration): Israel and Europe.
If we don't, it won't matter a hill of beans whether or not Islam turns out, in the long run, to be compatible or not to be compatible with democracy.
Why is Bush saying the stuff he is saying? Where is this insistence on saving Islam from itself coming from? Not, I hope, from his own life experience. (Islam, drunk on jihad juice until forty, soon to be committed to a democratic lifestyle...) If not, then from where?

#32 ESTEBAN

I don't know where the moderate Muslims are either --but I think the gauntlet has been dropped and they had soon better speak out.

#19 - I'm sure he knows. This is one of President Bush's political techniques -- to paint his adversary into a corner with a generous gesture or offer that will likely be rejected. He did that with Daschle, IIRC. He did that with the U.N. by going there in September '02.

When (not if) Islam-as-we-know-it proves incompatible with democracy, he will have further justification for pressing ahead to victory. Even some of the LLL may then come over to our side, in the name of democracy.

If instead President Bush were to bluntly state the truth about militant Islam, as Esteban #27 puts it, he alienates some marginal supporters. We lizardoids can spread the truth at the grass roots better than he can from the Presidential podium.

Poitiers-Lepanto [great handle :) ] #38: There probably is a enlightened or enlighten-able minority of citizens of currently-Muslim countries who appreciate his speech on its face.

I read a similar discussion in the Balochistan Post (from Pakistan) last year, unfortunately I can't find the article to link it.

It stated this position quite clearly and left no room for ambiguity. It's depressing on the one hand but at least you know where your enemies stand.

Islam means 'submission'--which, regardless of if whether it is meant to refer to Allah or to be used in a more general sense, is quite antithetical to democracy by its very definition. Moreeover, democracy thrives on individualism, which certainly can never thrive in a society or religion which prides itself on sights such as these. Look familiar? I make the comparison not to imply that Islam is anything ideologically like Nazism, but to emphasize the importance both cultures placed on the suppression of individuality.

But then again...

Robert Spencer chimes in at Jihad Watch, and is also not optimistic:

[Link: www.robertspencer.org...]

I'm skeptical, but hopeful. The bottom line is, we must try.

Perhaps if a Muslim country becomes free and moderate (Iraq), people in other Muslim countries will see the alternative available, and hunt down terrorists and fanatics from within to begin their own reform.

(For Iraq, it's really premature to judge anything for several years.)

As for the ongoing war America is fighting -- this will be bloody, this will take decades, and thousands more Americans will die. Hopefully, all future clashes occur with American soldiers in hostile lands, and not with American office workers in downtown office buildings.

This is the challenge we face.
 

The President of the Republic of Turkey on Democracy and Islam, a few quotes:

The critical determinant in this historical transformation has been the understanding that religion should be confined to the private sphere. Therefore, the fundamental framework of a modern state structure and way of life in which everyone had equal rights and responsibilities regardless of race, creed, religion or language could be forged.

Freedom of belief and conscience for every citizen is the cornerstone of Turkish secularism and democracy.

Let us not forget that democracy is the only way to maturity, and that secularism is an inseparable part of democracy.

So Islam + Democracy = Hunky-Dory, so long as Islam peacefully submits to secularism, and you have a strong military that's fully prepared to mow them down in droves if they don't.

The modern Republic of Turkey came into being after an independence struggle, fought against the “West”. Nevertheless, immediately after the war, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and the founding fathers of the Republic did not hesitate to turn their face to this very West. For, with a clear vision they concluded that “progress” meant being a part of the universal civilisation represented then by the West.

Yeah, I'm sure it will be no problem getting the Islamists to agree to that.

The Republic of Turkey has set the example throughout its history that Islam is fully in accord with secular pluralist democracy. Turkey is a unique model among the 54 member countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in this respect.

So mixing democracy and Islam (even under heavy armed guard) has a success rate of less than 2%. You'd have better luck with brain transplants.

Christianity, especially as it is was practiced in the Middle Ages, might be pointed out as emphasizing the suppression of individuality as well. However, I believe that with the "pray however you want" attitude that has prevailed among most Christians, such a comparison is no longer tenable.

The "bound to help your brother" bit is nice... I like Democracy because you are never honor-bound to kill your sister, or niece, or any other female relative who leaves the house...

So not only is Islam a religion of peace, but it is the religion of democracy, according to Bush the Wise.
PS: Do you think he actually believes that palaver?

Charles, what do you make of the argument Bush gave in support of his position?:

"Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.

More than half of all the Muslims in the world live in freedom under democratically constituted governments."

I'm too ignorant of the conditions in most of those countries to evaluate the argument. Anyone have any insight?

PS: Do you think he actually believes that palaver?

No.

"Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America.

None of those countries are Arab; the Arab world is the center of gravity of the ummah, not one Arab democracy has ever existed and nothing resembling one exists at present. Some, like Turkey, are secular -- its illegal to wear the burqa in the streets in Turkey. Others, like India, S. Africa and America are not Islamic countries but rather have Islamic minorities living in them. And I would dispute that the Islamic citizens of India are so wonderful considering all the sectarian violence that goes on there.

Hulugu #12,

From the islamic point of view, the Ottoman Turkish sultan was the caliph of Islam until the sultanate and caliphate was eliminated by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1922-4

[Link: en2.wikipedia.org...]

#17--zb--sorry-the fact that twenty seven hundred of my fellow new yorkers were killed four miles from where i live caused me to read many books on something i previously couldn't have given a shit about--islam--so i have cumulative knowledge of book learning and pick up these inane arabic phrases from their constant repitition--i wouldn't speak the language of allah--spit/spit-- if they tried to force me with a jambiya--the french comes from living there on and off--spit/spit--in the good old days of soleil and belle femmes--but this year it was pasadena for la belle frawnce--spain is just as sunny and politically anti-idiotarian --hulugu was head of the mongol il khans -a grandson of genghis khan and the great conqueror of bahgdad which he sacked in 1258 and the ismali/assassin cult--he definately did not fuck around and i have the nick because the'rabs hate him and are scared of him to this day--he killed the last abbasid caliph--and sacked the city with pyramids of bones and skulls--definately not a pacifist or a negotiator--he was a quasi buddist with a nestorian christian wife and one of the greatest military conquerors in history--and you? african african or isak denisen?

I know it's Islam-friendly but this speech is more forthright on Islam than of late. It reads like a paper trail. The speech sets out a formula for Dawah al-Kufr, compatible etc - I think by now a little taqiyeh is Bush's prerogative - and clearly outlines what is expected of the Arab leaders politically and ideologically - "Muslims, the choice is yours." The message of hope implicit in Bush's remarks runs parallel to his invocation of military successes.

And I have been to SE Asia --spent considerable time in Indonesia and although they are democratic in their government process --they are hardly democratic in principle.

Democracy is more than just in name because there are certain principles --especially freedom and individuality and countries such as Indonesia are extremely "shame-based" cultures --90 percent Muslim--so individual responsibility and accountability is not the norm.

So they may have "democratic" secular governments but most of them have not developed the "democratic concept of principles." Though perhaps those like Turkey are advancing in that direction.

DAFKA, sorry to say this, but the US isn't going to face the same threat from nuclear armed Arabs as the US did from the USSR. The Arabs aren't as rational. I suggest that you read the "Belmont Club 3 Conjectures."

[Link: belmontclub.blogspot.com...]

#52 del--its true--but it was a turkish version of church/state split in one dude--the sultan part was the political/military leader and the caliph the relgious leader of the ummah--these functions had been split under prior sultans who were secular rulers above the caliph--but you are basically right--bin laden thinks that 1924 the year the caliophate was abolished was a catasrophe--and he wants to re-institute it--a watermelon should grow in his stomache first!!

Hey check this out:

[Link: forums.clearguidance.com...]

#40 Nancy

Many are genuinely intimidated. But if it's in the Koran, it's hard to say that Islam has been hijacked. That seems to be the point. Especially since Islam has a well known history of crushing those who waver. So it's hard to count the moderates if they've been marginalized.
Bush's speech was great; I hope I'm worried about nothing.

#55, NB,

I agree.

The real problem in Iraq is that for Democracy to work there, the Iraqis themselves must choose it, but they don't seem all that interested. Otherwise it is a meaningless, empty, facade, a "government process" (I like that phrase, thanks :) ) imposed from outside, by the Coalition Authority.

In the 1920s, the Turks did choose Democracy and a secular government. Not every last one of them did, but at least a consensus did. The key there was clearly the person of Ataturk. Sometimes history does revolve around individuals.

Hulugu,
"a watermelon should grow in his stomache first!! "

Heh :)

HULUGU (#57)

You're an interesting cat, I must say. I thought you were Australian. I made that up probably.

I'm South African, live in LA, blonde, green eyes, etc. That's what you wanted to know, right? :-)

According to Zeyad on Healing Iraq the majority of Iraqi's do want democracy but they can't show it because it's risky

[Link: healingiraq.blogspot.com...]

With comments like these, it's hard imagining myself voting for anyone but Bush, al-though Lieberman isn't too bad. Bush and Lieberman are the only one's I didn't whack: [Link: slate.msn.com...]

#62 zb--you're kidding--i just spent a week at the bh hotel--could've met you at the polio lounge for a drink[avocado juice]-i'm t/d/h etc.:-] uh oh we'd better get a room meow--me being a cat and all

#63

Maybe the Arab people do want democracy.

But not as much as they want to kill Jews.

In the American polity the key word has always been not "democracy" but "liberty".

"Democracy" works only for those who also cherish "liberty".

Otherise, the outcome can be a majority vote for tyranny.

1. In the early 1930s, the Germans -- the best educated and most literate nation of the time -- voted in Hitler and the Nazi Party.

2. In Algeria, at some time after the departure of the the French, there was a "democratic" election.
The result was a victory for the most extreme Islamist party.

The government cancelled out that election, and the victorious but ousted Islamists have since massacred hundreds of thousands of Algerians.

Imposing an outside version of "democracy" as a political system onto a society with no ideal of liberty cannot work.

The only reason Bush is saying this shit about Islam being capable of embracing democracy is to get the American public ready for the REAL insult which is the new Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. That's going to be the real name! Another fucking Islamic state. What ever. If they are peaceful, I don't give a shit. Imperial Japan used to have the same problem though. Total absolute servitude to the emperor. Only through dramatic events that provoked a radical shift in paradigm for these people, did they finally find that dream lost in the dust that was their fellow man. And then that was it. War over. Likely, the same thing will sadly need to happen here. It has not happened yet, but one more major attack on America or a big one against Europe, and I think the muslims might be seeing glass, if you know what I mean.

Charles
Nancy

Thanks for the link to Martin Kramer's brilliant article.

A big problem is that when we say "democracy" we don't mean "an election" but a lot of people think that's what we mean.

Democracy is shorthand for far, far more than one man, one vote, one time -- or even for regular elections. Democracy must include the rule of law that no one is above, rights for all people and minorities, freedom of religion etc. We mean many things by democracy and voting ayatollahs into power, even if its popular, is not what we mean. For 51% can "democractically" vote to enslave 49%, right? We do not mean this, and I'm not quite sure that the Arab/ Islamic world understands that we are not just talking about elections.

HULUGU (#65)

You should have called! LOL.

OT: This is how the standard L³-adept reacted to Bush's speech... ;)

#38 Poitiers-Lepanto 11/6/2003 07:51PM PST

The speech of the President puts the USA in a new position: we, the USA, are now the revolutionary force.

I like that --very good. Sort of "self-fulfilling" prophecy -since the US has been accussed of flaunting it's "super power" to control the world why not meet the perception. We can live up to our reputation!

#65 zb--who knew--next year in jerusalem--which is the name of a bar in the valley i think--lol :-]

#68, From your link:

A spokesman for President Hamid Karzai said Afghanistan needed stability and the new constitution was made with "the next 100, 200 years" in mind.

Wow, that's a lot of rope

HULUGU (#73)

LOL!! More chance of finding me in Jerusalem :-)

OT More anthrax.

#23 Geepers 11/6/2003 07:32PM PST
Darn. So you all realize what this means, when we bring democracy to the ME, right?

I'll take 'What is No More Islam in the ME?' for $100, Alex

Nice vision and all, but highly unlikely...

Set the Way Back Machine for 600AD, Sherman - we'll nip it, nip it in the bud. And maybe take some potshots as we blast by the 1940s.

I don’t know about you guys, but do you really care if the Islamofascists are free?

I don’t care.

I just wish they were gone.

Channel, for a moment, John Lennon. Imagine there’s no Muslims, it’s easy if you try. No Muslims means no terror. Why don’t they all just …

Finish the song as you like.

#76-zb--like i'mm sooo surre--totally!!

Just as there is no Ben-Gurion among the Palestinians, there is also no Ataturk among the Arabs. You want Democracy and Islam? See how Ataturk and the generals handled the problem. Promote Islam and get hung from the lampposts. Brutal, but effective.

I like the part about hanging from lampposts - tell me more.

Rayra (#78),

LOL. Ya never know.

But, Gee Mr Peabody, wouldn't that alter all of history. Oh, Right. 600AD it is.

HULUGU (#80)

I can assure you that your Valley girl accent is better than mine!

#84 zb--like you sound like meryl streep channeling karen blixen in "out of africa"--i had a farm in africa....with an angeleno twist--like i had a patio table at the ivy and see you later at fred segal's

# 82
Here's a short article written by someone who despises Ataturk. Of course, everything this writer dislikes about Ataturk is just one more reason why Ataturk was a great man:
[Link: bismikaallahuma.org...]

Here's one more view of Ataturk and Militant Islam. It's written from a pro-Ataturk position:
[Link: www.ataturksociety.org...]

HULUGU (#85)

like i had a patio table at the ivy and see you later at fred segal's

Now we're talking ... and I don't have a phony Meryl Streep accent, thankyouverymuch, mine's real :-)

#88 zb--oy--high maintenance--soo predictable--excuse me while i go cash out one of my brokerage accounts--hokay--its 1:30 for me 9:30 for you--gotta regenerate[no- its not an arcane sexual practice] --nitety nite- a demain

what about anti-Semitism against Arabs?

What about misogny against men?

How about not misdefining "antisemitism", a common propaganda tactic of antisemites?*

*please note that I am not accusing you of being an antisemite, I only assume that you don't realize that the word antisemite means, by definition, hatred of Jews and not hatred of Arabs or "Semites". Many Arabs who are antisemites assume that people don't realize that the word has a specific history and definition and attempt to justify their antisemitism (read: Jew hatred) by asking how they can be antisemitic when they are Semites themselves.

schuttegod (#89)

... but what about anti-Semitism against Arabs?

Definition of anti-Semitism:

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.

So, no.

# 89 schuttegod wrote,

"what about anti-Semitism against Arabs?"

That statement alone qualifies you as a moron. There is no such thing as "anti-Semitism against Arabs." Oh wait, you mean, Arabs are Semites?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa

It's too late in the day to educate you. And frankly, my patience for liberal idiots is near bottom.

By the way, none of those places you mentioned is Arab. And as for Turkey, you might want to read some of the posts I suggested a bit earlier. Then tell me about Islam, Democracy, and Turkey.

Oh, Semites? Hitler was allies with some of your "Semite" friends, the Arabs. Know why? Because antisemitism is about Jew hatred...something which many Arabs now preach with much gusto. By the way, Daniel Pearl got his throat slit...remember what he had to say before your Muslim buddies butchered him?

And if Islam and democracy are incompatible, what is to be said of Turkey, the Philippines or Indonesia?

Turkey = secular, enforced by its secularist military
Philipines = Christian country with an Islamic minority
Indonesia = #55

#89

I agree with you about the biggoted people who claim that 'democracy' won't work with the Arab/Muslims.

It is biggoted.

It will work. And it will be easier than anyone here thinks.

The muslims lack leadership, this is all.

Once they get proper leaders, it will become apparent that they can live in liberty and peace, the same as us.

And, furthermore, they are used to submitting. Submitting to the cleric. They pretend it is God, but it is really the cleric.

Change the clerics, and Islam changes.

Some clerics must go, one way or another.

Thus it is clear that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

... was written by a Muslim so is schuttegod accusing the Muslims of

BIGOTRY

or just us? WTF?

James, zulubaby, Lumiere, don't bother. This POS is jerking your chains, his link is to a gay porn site.

The muslims lack leadership, this is all.

Do you really think that in societies that have such hatred for women that they cut off their clitorises so that they cannot enjoy sexual intercourse will have equality any time soon? Just think for a moment; imagine yourself having sex and preferring that your partner literally feel no pleasure at all. What do you think that would say about you and your values? Then imagine that your attitude is the norm in your society.

Far more than leadership must change. Deeply entrenched societal attitudes have to change before these societies are anything close to normal, productive and free.

HULUGU (#90)

oy--high maintenance--soo predictable

What did you expect, of course I'm high maintenance. I'm a Jewish African American Princess -- it takes work you know!

its 1:30 for me 9:30 for you

10:30 actually, you can tell the time on my coast from your post ;-)

Sweet dreams ...

#98

It starts with proper leadership.

Then it will take as long as it takes.

Liberty is for human beings, all human beings, people.

People, thrive under liberty.

(It's bigoted to think otherwise.)

Bush reminds me of a parent attempting to teach children to listen to his words by speaking kindly but firmly, and then really doing what he said he would do instead of roaring and flailing and then doing nothing. FWIW But I would hope pretty soon the Islamic world will start paying attention. I suspect he has lots of plans for them.

Okay, I can agree that it starts with proper leadership.

As far as it taking as long as it takes; I don't think there is all the time in the world. Someway or another it had better happen in an accelerated fashion because otherwise the future really does not bode so well for Dar al Islam. We will not wait indefinitely for them to get their s*** together even as we are warred against by Islamists seeking to destroy us.

Utter horseshit............Mr. Bush is simply saying this for diplomatic reasons!!

Utter utter bullshit..........Islam is as compatible with Democracy as is Nazism or Marxism..........I do wish Mr. Bush would lay off the hyperbole.....

Muhammed's doctrines are anything but free and democratic........Look.......you have 65 Islamic countries and everyone of them are hellholes democratically speaking....Turkey and Malaysia and Indonsia are the best and that is just brutal folks when these countries are the best you can do vis a vis democracy.......

And then look at History.........1400 years of Islamic bloodshed and barbarity........and how many democracy's or remotely free societies were there during that time??? NONE!!!

Muhammed was a murderous raping dick!!! That is not subtle but it is the truth.........

One day, a U.S. President in the Future is going to have to call a spade a spade........Bush, by laying down these obvious platitudes is not fooling anyone......one day a President is going to have to come and say it plainly........Islam is a murderous scourge.......and we are at war against it!!!

Devon Hill

Aljazeera.net (the arabic site, you won't find it on english site) published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani an important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."

Not sure where he got the numbers.

Le't see, 1.3 billion (1300 million) muslims : 6 million per year... Not that great, that would take about 216 years to get there by linear progression. Of course some 'snowball' parabolic function may be more suitable, but that still would take a century at least with best possible scenario.

There must be a better way.

Liberty doesn't work because of what group you belong to, or race, or religion.

Liberty works for people.

And you know why Bush will be successful? Because it will absolutely drive the world leftists ape-shit. It will absolutely put them over a new top. They'll be left drooling in the gutter, choking on their elitist puke.

There is an irony thing going here, no matter how hard the left pushes, they slip a little further under their self made puke quicksand pit.

Actually, b, driving leftists apeshit, as you put it, does not do much in the grand scheme of things. There always were opportunities whence they could get highly emotional.

There is another aspect that is important. The main ideologies went through a pole shift. Paradoxically, the conservatives (especially the neo- type of them) became dynamists and revolutionaries, while the left retreated into static mode. It is understandable, because left became entrenched on many levels of society and no one gives up power willingly (hey, they should know, Marx said so!)

Although things were brewing under the lid for ome time, what happened on November 6th will be considered a defining moment. This time a proactive direction, as opposed to prevalent modus operandi right after 9/11--that is reactive. The Afghanistan war was an expression of reactive consequence, while Iraq is more on the proactive side.

The essential strategy for the near future is to be in charge of defining what the future would be. It is an admission that the accusation of trying to impose hegemony are, indeed, true, but the hegemony has an entirely different philosophical basis than was assumed by the opponents. A marvelous stratagem.
Of course, it will drive them nuts, the statists lost a major portion of their ammo overnight.

Of course, interlacing the speech with few platitudes does not hurt, it is not necessary to create more enemies by attacking people than may be on sidelines. The purpose is not to declare a war of civilization, but to win it battle by battle, because the war was already declared. The battless do not need to have a character of military actions.

"One day, a U.S. President in the Future is going to have to call a spade a spade", Says Devon.

Well, I don't think that day is here yet. It will come to that, but instead of 1.3 billion angry wasps, there may be just relatively small pockets that would require calling a spade a spade, in no uncertain terms and with predictable results.

It may take 20 years, overall, but the resistance would be distributed over time and space. The foolhardy declaration of total war at this time would result in very dim future.

Hehe, I just had this funny projection flash, where in 25 years, African crusaders will be invading Europe, the last bastion of millitant Islam.

Impossible? Stranger things happenend.

101 pbird

what Bush is trying to do, is establish a self fulfilling prophecy

Self-fulfilling prophecy

[Link: encyclopedia.com...]

A concept developed by Robert K. MERTON to explain how a belief or expectation, whether correct or not, affects the outcome of a situation or the way a person (or group) will behave. Thus, for example, labeling someone a criminal, and treating that person as such, may foster criminal behavior in the person who is subjected to the expectation

Self–fulfilling prophecy- The Pygmalion Effect

([Link: westrek.hypermart.net...]

The concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy can be summarized in these key principles:
- We form certain expectations of people or events
- We communicate those expectations with various cues.
- People tend to respond to these cues by adjusting their behavior to match them.
- The result is that the original expectation becomes true.
This creates a circle of self-fulfilling prophecies.

GWB has gone way beyond simple denial. He affirms what his muslim partners deny. Call it affirmative denial.

What are GWB's theological credentials? He credits religion, in general, with saving him from a life of alcoholic debauchery. And after his salvation, he pocketed $1,500,000 from dry oil wells in the United Arab Emirates. Those factors account for his delusory belief, which approaches fanaticism, that islam is integral to the religious framework that saved him. Clearly, he has embraced the Abrahamism - belief that Judaism, Christianity and islam are integral faiths - of John Esposito, Karen Armstrong, etc., and his pathological resistance to criticism of islam is part and parcel of his rejection of the secular state.

David Frum has annointed GWB as the "right man" to address terrorism. Frum should explain exactly what Americans have received from the $1,000,000,000,000 plus economic decline, after islamic-genocide911. It is not only filthy little Afghanistan that is islamizing. Muslims were scared on Sept. 11, 2001. Now West muslims are as arrogant as ever. And muslim dominated states are barely secular any more. Why? Because GWB made the single stupidist speech ever made by an American President, and that means going back to 1776:

[Link: www.whitehouse.gov...]

If piety was dope, then GWB would be a junkie with a capital J. If he is the best that the electoral system can produce, then the President should be picked at random out of the DC phonebook.

This may sound morbid, but I predict that a My Lai type incident will occur in Fallujah, Iraq, before the end of November. Whenever rules of engagement are disproportionate to the enemy threat, troops remake the rules. And the rules are being made by a crackpot who believes that muslims are part of the masses yearning to be free. And I re-state an earlier prediction: at least 50,000,000 muslims will be killed before the anti-jihad (counter-terror) war exits the perverse SLOG mode, and enters the victory groove.

MICHAEL MEDVED: WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALL THOSE BOOKS ON THE SO-CALLED ABRAHAMIC TRINITY, THAT ARE POLLUTING THE BOOKSHELVES? IF YOU THINK THEY ARE BS, THEN SAY SO. THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR YOU TO REMAIN SILENT ON THIS CRITICAL ISSUE.

It seems to me, that one of the most important points of GWB's speech is being overlooked in this thread

"in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty"

Might the US finally cut off the two billion dollar 'donation' tap to Egypt, Syria and like ilk if they don't play ball and stop talking out of both sides of their collective mouths?

One can only hope.

alphasheep

It's more than the left just going into static mode, the left is bancrupt and utterly failed, it's disgusting.

Nov 6, I guess that was Arnold? This may or may not be a watershed. Looks like it for now. Even people in Germany reacted to his election.

The ideas of the left are dead, but the left doesn't know it. They still have the media and this gives them a false sense of success.

But the media is totally, almost, disconnected with the general population.

Watch people watching the news sometime, they shake their heads and roll their eyes more than they listen.

It's sad and funny. It's almost like an inside joke anymore.

The left is shrinking like a wet wicked witch.

CP,

Sounds like a nice conspiracy theory.
There is, undoubtedly, a degree of influence that Dubya had on the formulation of the policy that was reflected in the yesterday speech. But you are giving him an entire credit, while in reality, the policy is a collective endeavor. Let me just point out that he is NOT an autocrator.

While it is entirely possible that initially, Dubya may have been an Abrahamic junkie, even the post 9/11 speech indicates something different, a concept that a wedge may be inserted between radical element and Ali Al-Regular. It was a gamble that contained certain risks, but it was hoped that in long run the result would be positive.

In some sense, yesterday speech reiterated the same concept, but with an emphasis on the face saving mechaninsm, by providing a choice. Not declared outright, but implicit, the choices are: either you would accept liberalization, or you won't be accepted.
What 'you won't be accepted' means should be clear to anyone without the need to elaborate.

Once again, it is a gamble. But if it does not emerge into desired results, there is always plan B. Plan B has rather unplatable attributes, so an attempt should and must be made to employ an option that has some potential to fly and has not attached the inevitable consequences that plan B would bring.

Would the plan A work? What is the probability, what are the variables, and how the can bring the desired results?

No one can make but a conjecture. When I have more time, I'll try to put something together.

Just quick comments on your predictions...

"This may sound morbid, but I predict that a My Lai type incident will occur in Fallujah, Iraq, before the end of November."

That is very likely, and it is not a result of any specific policy. This is something that would be inevitable in any case. It may be not as bloody as you would imply, though, but there would be some casualties, on the enemy side.

"And I re-state an earlier prediction: at least 50,000,000 muslims will be killed before the anti-jihad (counter-terror) war exits the perverse SLOG mode, and enters the victory groove."

Plan A, no. At most, 1/10 of your prediction. These would be the holdouts that would refuse to join our side and most of them will be taken care of by 'converts'. This would be on the table in the second decade of implementation, 2 decades total time span until the threat is, esentially, eliminated.

Plan B, multiply your estimate by at least 5 to 10. It would also mean substantial casualties on our side, perhaps even several million. Other aspects of Plan B would likely be an economy in utter shambles and a substantial period of time of unstability, uncertainity, with possible 2nd dark age, covering a span of several centuries.

Of course, good planing needs to cover some grey scale contingencies that are between A and B.

#10 BruxellesBlog

Carrot or stick. Yes, it is implicit and it very likely reflects the aid, in the first phase of the plan.

You want democracy?

You can't handle Democracy!

Jimmy Carter is deservedly much maligned in these parts. However, there was one silver lining behind the Carter cloud. Carter did not stand in the way when the Iranians overthrew the Shah and installed an Islamic government. Now the Iranians have had a belly full of Islamic rule for 20+ years and I think it is obvious that most Iranians would overthrow the mullahs if they could. Today's Iranians hate the mullah's and are at least luke warm towards America. If Carter had interfered, would that still be the case?

The rest of the Arab countries blame us for their oppressive governments. That's bullshit of course, but they believe it. Well if it becomes official American doctrine to promote democracy in the middle east, at some point they will have to blame themselves. If the Arabs replace their mid 20th century European style fascist/stalinist governments with Islamic governments would that be any worse? If they do so, they will have to live with the consequences. At some point they will come to terms with the consequences just as the Iranians have.

So let American policy be to promote democracy in the Arab world. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose.

#115 Ha

You make a very good point. By giving the mad mullahs what they wanted in Iran, it seems to have led to a populist backlash against the repressive nature of their government. I think it would be fair to say the same of Afghanistan, where, after seeing the joys of militant Islam as a governing structure, a vast majority of the population wants NOTHING to do with fundamentalist rule any more.

Although, in the Iran, I'd say without questions this was dumb luck and not some grand scheme, as Cater's handling of the entire affair was appalling and pathetic at best (remember the 'rescue' attempt?).

I think another potentially larger motivation for Iran is the simple fact that a VERY large amount of Iranian citizens who escaped from the country during the revolution are in regular contact with relatives back home telling them how much better it could all be without the Mullahs.

Of course, you must concede that simply handing over the ME to the Mullahs and waiting for the people to get irritated enough to rise up might be a bit of a high risk strategy with those nukes and biological warfare agents lurking about, yes?

Here's what muslim leaders themselves say about political goals:
[Link: www.khilafah.com...]

Here's a look at the gibberish one Ms. Gubash is spouting on msnbc.com: Between the lines, it's all the Jooooos' fault!!!!

Dubbau still hasn't figured out that there are NO moderate Muslims. I don't think he has caught on yet that the Arabs most powerfull ally is the US State department. They will do everything they can to change the new US policy toward the Tyrants that run the ME. Collin neeeds to go. His replacement should be either Newt or Huntington. Newt would be a better long term choice, but if we don't destroy Islam, there will be no long term.
When I say destroy I am not speaking of just physical destruction. Democracy will destroy Islam just as surely as nuclear weapons. That is why the mullahs are fighting now. Let humans walk around during prayer and the [bigoted word]s are finished. They know that if given a choice, very few humans will chose poverty and ignorance over wealth and enlightenment.
T.

msnbc.com:

You, like the Arabs, seethe and whine on and on about the "Occupied Territories" and how it is the cause for so much Arab misery.

So explain to me, if you will, why the Arabs kept trying to exterminate Israel during all the years that the Territories were in Arab hands.

I have many other questions, but I'll ask only this one.

Yeah, nice speech. Poor guy is over a barrel here; he can't say what really needs to be said because it would be political and foreign policy suicide to do so.

You'll notice that the two examples GWB used, Germany and Japan after WWII, to defend the idea that democracy could take root in seemingly impossible places required the absolute destruction of the prior orders.

In Japan, the Emperor was required by the articles of surrender to deny his godhood publicly, often, and in no uncertain terms, as if the nuking of two cities to ash didn't already refute that belief.

In Germany, the fascist machinery was completely dismantled, the Nazi party was banned for decades, and German citizens were taken to the concentration camps so that there could be no denial of the evil their government inflicted on it's own people.

In both cases the social, political, and religious systems in place were completely eradicated and discredited before democratic reform was introduced.

Turkey is a unique example indeed. But always bear in mind that, in Turkey, the army is the ultimate keeper of democracy and secularism against religious obscurantism. So far, they have been able to suppress any attempts to install an islamic state. However they seem to be concerned about the policy of the so-called moderate islamic party which has won the election.
At any rate, this demonstrates how tenuous democracy is in muslim countries.

I think it goes without saying that our President is being polly-annish to appease the intellectual oppression of political correctness.

In fact, I think it obvious that Islam, at least in the Arab world, is wholly incompatible with democracy, because as the writer in the Jordanian article points out:

democracy means and implies the nation State whereas, for Islam, there is only the boundary between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr: since all of the Muslims are one community, the concept of citizenship of one particular sovereign non-Islamic nation is irrelevant as are the so-called "borders" established by kuffar governments. A Khilafah - a Muslim community ruled by a Khalifah - exists to unify Muslims, to protect Muslims from the kuffar, and to make Islam triumphant in the world.

If one looks at the examples of democracy in the Islamic world, as pointed out here, they exist in those nations and regions that are not dominated by an Arab cultural tradition.

Turkey is maybe the best example of Muslim democracy, but it is important to remember that the spiritual father of Turkic democracy, Gen. Ataturk, had to politically isolate the nation's imams to ensure that Islamic fundamentalism wouldn't overrun the democracy he was trying to nurture. The democracies of Muslim Asia come from a different cultural and political tradition. Also, the economic growth of the Pacific nations had a certain democratizing influence, even on the region's militant autocrats.

I think it axiomatic that unless Arab nations sideline their Islamic clerics and the rabid fundamentalism sweeping the Arab world, as well as the sociolgical underpinnings of that fundamentalism, then democracy is doomed to failure in this region.

So long as the prism of Arab world view is steeped in an us vs. them mentality, then democracy has no chance, because democracy is a foreign invention that is at odds with Islam, as our dear writer readily points out.

"I think it goes without saying that our President is being polly-annish to appease the intellectual oppression of political correctness."

I don't think it's quite that simple. Bush is in a Catch-22 situation. To say what many here suspect (and indeed many Moslems acknowledge) that Islam (as presently constituted) and democracy are anti-thetical would be tantamount to saying we are on a Crusade of sorts. The reaction engendered by this would be a lot stronger than the normal issue of what is or is not "PC"?

Bush has essentially thrown down a challenge to the Islamic countries--reform your religion or lose it. Who knows what will happen? This will take years to play out.

#89 schuttegod 11/6/2003 10:28PM PST

Does anyone realize the BIGOTRY attached to statements that Islam and democracy are simply incompatible, and there is to be no debating the matter?

What on earth are you talking about. It is Muslim scholars, Imans, and authorities who are the ones who adamantly claim that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

Turkey or Indonesia have secular democratic forms of governments but remember both of those countries were originially "non-Muslim" and thus had other cultural traditions before Islam became the predominant religion. In other words, Islamic ideology is not the only historical basis for their cultural conditioning.

In the case of Indonesia --they have only been an independent country for little over 50 years --and for most of those years did NOT have free elections and were led by 2 dictators who kept Islamic fundamentalists in line. "Democracy" and elections there has only meant that more fundamentalists have been elected and more laws consistent with SHaria have been proposed and it is nothing more than a "process" to become Islamic --which is in principle incompatible with democracy.

It's Muslims who believe it is incompatible and it is the "infidels" who think it can be debated on merits. They --Muslims are the ones who say --no it cannot.

The Philippines --well, last I knew --it is predominately a Catholic country --not Muslim. A Christian country where Muslims keep attacking Christians.

Alas, whatever differences exist between Arab and non-Arab muslim countries, there is one theme that is quite consensual amongst them: antisemitism (cf Malysian Premier speech).

#109, Camel Prophet

Right on target, but if we are going to pick our President from a phone book, let it not be the one from DC (too many windbags, clichemongers...)
I suggest Iowa City.

Stopped Clock Is Right Twice A Day Dept:

From an interview with Noam Chomsky, in the New York Times Magazine, Sunday November 2 2003:

NYT Mag: Have you ever been psychoanalyzed?

Chomsky: I do not think psychoanalysis has a scientific basis. If we can't explain why a cockroach decides to turn left, how can we explain why a human being decides to do something?

That was OT, of course...

First: Whether this supposed shift in policy is possible or not is irrelevant. Bush has stated new paradigms in the past and then ignored them in practice.

On 9/12/01 Bush said that we will make no disctinction between terrorists and those that harbor them. What he didn't tell us is that there was an asterisk by the Saudi's the Palestinians, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Pakistanis, the Indonesians etc. Great concept, gutted by Realpolitik and his own State Department.

On June 24, 2002 Bush decalared a radical shift in US policy that (1) US would support a Palestinian state; (2) that US support of that State was reform and the eradication of terrorism, only then would Israel be requested to withdraw to the September 2000 positions. Of course in practice this tough stance on the Palestinians merged into the Road Map, which is now in danger of morphining into the Geneva Suicide Pact.

Bush gives great speeches and those under him (with his aquiescence), go back to business as usual appeasing terrorists and playing mother-may-I with an amoral feckless Europe and its Arab masters.

Second: James is right when he is clear to point out what democracy actually means to us. Our democracy means rule of law and equal rights under that law. It doesn't simply mean majority rules. I have no doubt that a Palestinian vote would support the murder of every Jew within its reaches. Is that really the type of democracy we want? Of course not. What is truly needed before "democracy" is for Muslim and Arab societies to tolerate other races and religions and beliefs, and to give those beliefs protections under the law. These concepts are not compatible with Shariah, so to the extent a country will continue to insist that it is its Allan given right to have dhimmitude and slavery, we have given up a dictator for a majority of people who support the same anti-liberty beliefs.

Even Turkey which is held up as a beacon of Islamic democracy must have it shoved down its throat by a military junta, and when elections are held, the Islamicist party wins the majority of votes and control of the parliament. It is sad to say, but democracy without denazification will be impossible and ultimately unavailing a solution to the problems in the Islamic and Arab world.

124 Roger L. Simon

That is basically what I think. I think it is a challenge to Muslims --within their leadership --that now is the time for THEM to debate whether Islam is compatible with democracy --because it's no secret that their Imans and writers claim it is not.

#128 Frank IBC

While we're on the subject...

NY Times:Have you considered leaving the United States permanently?

Chomsky: No. This is the best country in the world.

Me: Uhhh..?

I believe in Bush's vision.

The aggressiveness with which the oppressive leaders (both political and religious) fight the onset of democratic government is an indication of how badly the people desire it.

I don't, however, believe Islam, in its present form, is compatible with democracy, anymore so than it is compatible with humanity. It's prime directive is the subversion, or maybe even the lack of existence, of free will. How can you choose your leaders if you can't even choose what color burqua to wear?

But Democracy is our greatest weapon to transform the Middle East and Islam right along with it. I'm glad the president realizes this... and even more glad he's bold enough to manifest his vision through actions, instead of empty words.

The distinction has been made between a democratic political process of elections and a democracy in principle.

Several of the excellent essayists have recently written about the difference between shame-based cultures and guilt-based cultures. Guilt --an individual consciousness of chosing between "good or evil" behavior --right or wrong --not because anyone else would ever know but because one would suffer the inner consequences. In shame-based cultures, which all Islamic countries are, there is no individual responsibility because shame only occurs if others know, criticize, punish or otracize.

Turkey, as has been pointed out is kept secular by a strong military. The same was true for Indonesia until a few years ago.

Although Singapore is not a Muslim country --it serves as a better model for changing "shame-based" cultures into a "guilt-based" democracy --they are not there yet.

Years ago, I read some background on the first leader of Singapore --Oxford educated --who one could define as a "benevolent dictator." The restrictions and censorship were extreme --to this westerners view. However, what he said made sense. He took over a country where the population were primarily "villagers" who only knew how to function according to "tribal, village" expectations --shame-based--conditioning.

What he said was that it would take years and years to recondition the society towards individual responsibility and accountability and until such time it would be necessary to have strict rules in order to have a civilized society. It struck me as significant that he said --when they learn to be individually responsible there can be democracy and less rigid rules. I was impressed by his wisdom --that democracy in principle does not occur simply by adopting a democratic form of government.

While I as a westerner can "object" to the censorship and rigid rules --I must say --out of all the SE Asian countries, Singapore is the most secular, safest, cleanest, most prosperous and least dysfunctional. It might then be a better model for how to implement a democracy --with the idea that the principles can take years to develop. That personal liberty and freedom cannot occur until individuals learn to accept personal responsibility for their actions and behavior.

#124 Roger L. Simon

Bush has essentially thrown down a challenge to the Islamic countries--reform your religion or lose it.

How? How on earth could Bush make Islamic countries lose their religion?

Islam is not going to disappear, so there's no ultimatum of that kind there.

On the contrary, Islam is growing everywhere. There's no one threatening to close mosques. Everyone is going out of their way to play the PR game.

Bush is in a Catch-22 situation. To say what many here suspect (and indeed many Moslems acknowledge) that Islam (as presently constituted) and democracy are anti-thetical would be tantamount to saying we are on a Crusade of sorts.

Of course, you're right there - but between saying with such emphasis and insistence that it's fully compatible (and listing a lot of fake instances of that compatibility), ANd declaring some fanatical counter-jihad, there's simply a realistic approach where you do not need to offend anyone, do not need to abandon diplomatic niceties - but do not need to tell a whole load of bs either, and most of all, do not need to avoid actions targeted at stopping Islamic propaganda.

The disappointing part is not all this lovey dovey talk about Islam. It's this: if only it was just talk.

#128, Frank IBC

Commented on this a couple of days ago--NYT describes him as one of the "world's leading intellectuals," yet does not point out to the WLI that his analogy is false. You'd hate think what the WLIs ("world's lesser intellectuals") might come up with.

J. Lichty (#130),

First: Whether this supposed shift in policy is possible or not is irrelevant. Bush has stated new paradigms in the past and then ignored them in practice.

Not true and I’ll try to explain why,

On 9/12/01 Bush said that we will make no disctinction between terrorists and those that harbor them. What he didn't tell us is that there was an asterisk by the Saudi's the Palestinians, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Pakistanis, the Indonesians etc. Great concept, gutted by Realpolitik and his own State Department.

Yeah. There was an asterisk, but is seems nobody when down to the bottom of the page to see * And you will be taken out in turn if you don’t change your ways.

Don’t believe me?

On June 24, 2002 Bush decalared a radical shift in US policy that (1) US would support a Palestinian state; (2) that US support of that State was reform and the eradication of terrorism, only then would Israel be requested to withdraw to the September 2000 positions. Of course in practice this tough stance on the Palestinians merged into the Road Map, which is now in danger of morphining into the Geneva Suicide Pact.

GW gave the pals a chance. GW gave them a chance. He offered them the absolute prize of the century: Statehood. Made Clinton’s 97% land and a prayer for statehood deal look like small potatoes. And they even TURNED THAT DOWN in favor of killing more Israelis. Don’t you see that he’s forcing then to chose sides. Stand up, take off your mask and tell me, “Are you with us or not?” You can’t destroy your enemy unless you know whose enemies are. Make them declare themselves your enemy, rather than just you labeling them your enemy.

As for the Road Map morphing into the Geneva deal, Can you show me where we’re on board with that? (Thomas Friedman doesn’t count.) Cuz I believe it was made in the dark in Switzerland by a fractional Israeli delegation. While your at State trying to find out who’s the ME delegate working the Geneva plan, you might want to read this: Final Quartet Statement

Bush gives great speeches and those under him (with his aquiescence), go back to business as usual appeasing terrorists and playing mother-may-I with an amoral feckless Europe and its Arab masters.

Appeasing terrorists? Come on. Name one Terrorist and the demand Bush met for their threat. One.
Mother_may-I? Same deal, name one program GW asked permission to do that was denied. Otherwise its like you asking permission from you 10-year old to drive the car. No matter what they say, you’re going out. If you want to ciscredit them, why not ask? And make him look like a fool when he say “No” and then you go out anyway.

Second: James is right when he is clear to point out what democracy actually means to us. Our democracy means rule of law and equal rights under that law. It doesn't simply mean majority rules. I have no doubt that a Palestinian vote would support the murder of every Jew within its reaches. Is that really the type of democracy we want? Of course not.

Our democracy doesn’t mean rule of law and equal rights under that law. Our democracy allows the citizens of the United States of America to decide how we will enforce (or alter) our COSTITUTION. It’s not so long, and really quite interesting.
Then read the childish and hate filled premises The Palestinian National Charter espouses that nation to be founded on to see why there can never be a “country” founded on those principles.

What is truly needed before "democracy" is for Muslim and Arab societies to tolerate other races and religions and beliefs, and to give those beliefs protections under the law. These concepts are not compatible with Shariah, so to the extent a country will continue to insist that it is its Allan given right to have dhimmitude and slavery, we have given up a dictator for a majority of people who support the same anti-liberty beliefs.

Whoa! Democracy breeds tolerance. (Too much in the US right now.) You’re putting the cart before the horse without even giving them the chance. Give them the chance to go into a voting booth, - and let women decide if the want to get beaten with a stick, without the fear of being beaten with a stick for not voting right and I think you might be pleasantly surprised how many vote No. At least give them the chance to vote wrong, before you condemn them for making the wrong choice.

Even Turkey which is held up as a beacon of Islamic democracy must have it shoved down its throat by a military junta, and when elections are held, the Islamicist party wins the majority of votes and control of the parliament. It is sad to say, but democracy without denazification will be impossible and ultimately unavailing a solution to the problems in the Islamic and Arab world.

That’s right the Islamists need to have a boot on their neck. Usually an Army boot. We need to recognize that. You seem to, why aren’t you advocating more boots?

And it’s insulting to say Middle Easterners are too stupid to live in a democracy. Take baby Abdullah to Xianghia and see is he doesn’t grow up to speak fluent Mandarin. We need to educate them, not complain that they didn’t study their Chinese-to-English dictionaries hard enough. It’s going to be a long hard won process, or we can quit now, that’s easy.

Show me a chess game that was ever won without losing a piece. On the other hand I can show games where a seemingly tiny defensive force struck out and won against an opponent who was deceived by small tactical victories that were part of a strategy. I believe George Bush has a strategy. I’m willing to back him up with the belief that the more support he gets, the further he can go, until someone comes along who will do more, and then I’ll back them.

And I know you’re still bitter about the Wolverines loss last year, but brighten up, the Bucks aren’t looking to good this season. :-)

As for the Road Map morphing into the Geneva deal, Can you show me where we’re on board with that?

How about this?

Powell sends letter of support to initiators of Geneva Accord.

108 Ploome
Are you saying there is something nefarious about a self-fulfilling prophecy in a case like this? I say do it, devil take the hind-most.

109 Camel Prophet
What evidence do you have that Bush believes in the Abrahamic trinity? It seems to me that you would have to really be looking for the darkside to think he believes that.

Geeps:

Good post. I disagree with much of it, but I do not have time to give you the response it deserves.

Yes I am bitter about that loss last year and pray that it will be avenged in three weekends. Good luck against Sparty this weekend, hoping to face an OSU ahead of us in the polls.

James (#138),

Not much of an endorsement.

Paul Patin, a U.S. Embassy spokesman, said the
United States remains committed to the road map
peace plan, which envisions a Palestinian state
by 2005, but does not draw borders. Israelis
and Palestinians are deadlocked over
implementation of that plan.

Patin said Powell's letter was meant to show support for the Geneva Accord, but was not an official endorsement.

It wasn't even much of a letter.

Iraqi Kurdistan (predominantly Muslim) was a democracy during Saddam-era Iraq.

Lebanon (predominantly Arab) was once a democracy that voted for a pro-Western, pro-American and pro-Israel president. Unfortunately, Syria decided to change that.

Democracy can work for Muslims and for Arabs. I reckon it can work for Arab Muslims.

Does the fact that Islamists say Islam and democracy are incompatible prove that saying that they're incompatible is not bigotted? No, because Islamists are bigots.

To understand the new way of thinking underlying this speech, pick a world map, point the counries mentioned and think about the moves.

I believe the buzzword in that great speech was theocracy. Whether there can grow a democratic culture in Islam depends on the abolition of theocracy on the planet. If that happens, all other forms of dictatorship will crumble in domino. This is the "clean battlefield" after the liberation of Iraq that the Al Qaeda ideologues are talking about.

Although theocracy is in Islam, there is nothing specifically Islamic about it, nearly all religions have had it. On the other hand, there is nothing specifically Western about enlightenment, its just that the West got it first.

Just take the theocrats' reactions:

"Swamping the Arab region with talk about democracy, terrorism, and dictatorship will overtake any talk about the Zionist (Israeli) massacres and the necessity of stopping them, and the Iraqi occupation that should come to an end." (U.A.E. daily)

He is right, it will overtake that stupid propaganda, and it is badly needed to do so.