jasencomstock:

sds:

• The first step in this remarkable analysis is to blame tensions between the United States and Muslims on colonialism and the Cold War. […] That’s right, the colonial powers, which imported Western notions of equality and freedom into Muslim countries, denied Muslims their basic rights to pursue their own agendas. And the Cold War, which was an attempt to restrain the greatest ideological threat to the values of equality and freedom, also trampled on Muslim rights.
• The second step in Obama’s analysis is to blame Americans for having a bad attitude toward the Muslim world. […] The lesson to be drawn from September 11 is that we Americans overreacted to the Muslim threat by thinking that Muslims do not support basic human rights, the very human rights that colonialists imported into Muslim countries and Cold Warriors tried to defend against the Communist threat.
• The third step of Obama’s argument is to insist that we can define our relationship to the Muslim world by ignoring our differences.
• The fourth step of Obama’s argument is to “say openly the things we hold in our hearts.” […] And he defines his office as the enforcer of empathy.
• The fifth and final step is to define America as a pluralistic country that can do justice to Islamic ambitions.

First Things — First Thoughts

OH, what a horrid bag of nonsense.

You would have to believe that Muslims view colonial powers as having imported the notions of equality and freedom, or that followers of a religion that literally means “submission” would see these as positives.  The Iranians could argue that their notions of human freedom are far older then the silliness that British, French, Italian, Spanish hypocrites imported.

Sure, they could argue it, but I have a feeling they’d be laughed at. Or, at least the men would be laughed it; the women in burkahs (some with only one hand—punishment for crimes, you now) wouldn’t be allowed to say much.

The Brits didn’t offer voting rights to all men until right before the first World War.  Most of the Muslims I met would readily admit that Western nations notions are fine, but not at the sacrifice of Justice, which they view as rampant in the West (and I would happily agree).  The Taliban is popular in Swat Valley not because of their views but because of their almost total lack of corruption, and their strict adherience to a very simple set of rules that they vigorously enforce- as opposed to their traditional Punjabi overlords.

I would imagine it takes a pretty ballsy guy to engage in corruption in a regime where sneezing in the same room as the Koran can get you beheaded. This type of corruption-less government doesn’t impress me.

During the Cold War, our valient cold warriors happily trampled the rights of nations to prevent commie dogs from taking over.  I won’t even argue that it was wrong to do, I’m a realpolitker, we saved millions of lives and lots of money and even the rights of people by doing so.  This notion of Western White Knightism is pretty outdated though, and it reeks of cultural superiority.

We can’t change them, we can’t kill them, and in some form we have to live with/near them- We tired it the Neo-Con Christian way.  It failed.  We are going to try it this way now, and when it fails we can try another.

I am not a “Blame America Last” kind of guy; I don’t mind recognizing the faults and excesses of our history and our culture. But many of the elements of Western Civ that Islamic cultures decry are a result of excesses of having freedom and liberty. The main points of criticism re:Islamic society involve the lack of basic freedoms.

• The first step in this remarkable analysis is to blame tensions between the United States and Muslims on colonialism and the Cold War. […] That’s right, the colonial powers, which imported Western notions of equality and freedom into Muslim countries, denied Muslims their basic rights to pursue their own agendas. And the Cold War, which was an attempt to restrain the greatest ideological threat to the values of equality and freedom, also trampled on Muslim rights.
• The second step in Obama’s analysis is to blame Americans for having a bad attitude toward the Muslim world. […] The lesson to be drawn from September 11 is that we Americans overreacted to the Muslim threat by thinking that Muslims do not support basic human rights, the very human rights that colonialists imported into Muslim countries and Cold Warriors tried to defend against the Communist threat.
• The third step of Obama’s argument is to insist that we can define our relationship to the Muslim world by ignoring our differences.
• The fourth step of Obama’s argument is to “say openly the things we hold in our hearts.” […] And he defines his office as the enforcer of empathy.
• The fifth and final step is to define America as a pluralistic country that can do justice to Islamic ambitions.

President Obama’s reaching out to the Muslim world at the start of a new American administration, is welcome, smart, and can play a big part in defeating the threat we face. It disarms those who want to say we made these enemies, that if we had been less confrontational they would have been different. It pulls potential moderates away from extremism.

But it will expose, too, the delusion of believing that there is any alternative to waging this struggle to its conclusion. The ideology we are fighting is not based on justice. That is a cause we can understand. And world-wide these groups are adept, certainly, at using causes that indeed are about justice, like Palestine. Their cause, at its core, however, is not about the pursuit of values that we can relate to; but in pursuit of values that directly contradict our way of life. They don’t believe in democracy, equality or freedom. They will espouse, tactically, any of these values if necessary. But at heart what they want is a society and state run on their view of Islam. They are not pluralists. They are the antithesis of pluralism. And they don’t think that only their own community or state should be like that. They think the world should be governed like that.

In other words, there may well be groups, or even Governments, that can be treated with, and with whom we can reach an accommodation. Negotiation and persuasion can work and should be our first resort. If they do, that’s great, which is why if Hamas were to accept the principle of a peaceful two state solution, they could be part of the process agreeing it. But the ideology, as a movement within Islam, has to be defeated. It is incompatible not with ‘the West’ but with any society of open and tolerant people and that in particular means the many open and tolerant Muslims.

~ Tony Blair (h/t James Taranto) (emphasis mine)

You’ve heard about the story, right? An Episcopalian priest claimed back in 2007 to be both a Muslim and a Christian. I wrote about it on another blog back in 2007. Well, now the “Reverend” Ann Holmes Redding has been defrocked. Anyways, this story had plenty of low-hanging fruit back in 2007, and it still there for the picking. One blogger lists some perks of being a Christian Muslim. These are my favorites:

• You can engage in interfaith dialogue when you are by yourself.
• You can send money to both Jay Sekulow and CAIR.
• Call yourself an infidel.
• If your suicide belt goes off prematurely you at least killed one Christian.
• Cheer for both sides of the Crusades.
• Have really really mixed feelings about Israel.