On Sat, 15 Sep 2001 22:53:31 +0800, "David Winter"
>"David McCall"
>news:8Zpo7.9174$e55.1380032@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
>:
>
>
>. In fact, all Arabs would do well to
>: make their peace with their god now, because
>: there won't be time for some of them to do it later.
>:
>: David
>Ah, David
>
>It's a tough call, but just to point out - not all Arabs are deceived by the
>false prophet whose writings were reshaped by his deceiving brother and over
>which has been added the layer of political manipulation called the Oral
>Koran.
>
>In fact, there are many Arab people who follow the Jew, Jesus of Nazareth.
>These are called "Christian" and are probably much more committed than many
>of the clergymen who appeared on our TVs saying prayers in various
>locations - not that those clergymen are uncommitted, but they don't risk
>their lives every day by confessing their Christianity like our Arab
>brothers do.
>
>And then there are many Arabs who are, to use a Jewish community term,
>"secular". That itself is a strong stand in a system which demands Islam, ie
>"surrender".
>
>As is written, "we battle not against flesh and blood, but against powers,
>principalities and spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly realms." Our
>enemy is not the Arab people, indeed Muslims are not our enemy - it is the
>system of Islam, and in particular, it's most venal manifestations whereby
>suicide bombers are deceived into believing that 72 virgins await them in
>paradise. The battle is not won through a miltary response, though this may
>make more difficult further terror attacks.
>
>Rather, it is won through prayer, not against the perpetrators and their
>backers, but prayers of repentence for not putting God first in the affairs
>of the nation, and so on down. Indeed, taking prayer out of schools would
>certainly have been a factor in the declining "spiritual shield" around
>America. Here in Australia we have evolving around us a religion of
>tolerance - in the name of tolerance, we permit things which would have been
>an abomination a generation ago. The end (ie destination) of this
>religiously held stance is "anything goes". Right now in Western Australia,
>our Premiere (who is a bum buddy of Tony Blair, UK PM) is pushing through
>legislation which would make securing a conviction against a homosexual who
>sodomises a 13-year old boy very difficult, so long as the boy looks vaguely
>16. I belive Tony has similar designs on the young lads of Britain. Sick!
>But these hoons are in charge of the asylum, in the name of "tolerance".
>
>I hope you see what I mean about the need for kneework before fieldwork.
>
>Now back to the miltary issue. Certainly, the Arab national mindset is based
>on honour, and honour is proportional to strength. Unwavering in the face of
>overwhelming odds is honourable in Arab eyes, which is why S'dom Hussein (to
>use George Bush Snr's pronunciation) is a hero in parts of the Arab world.
>Honour demands a strong, implaccable stand and a conquering and subjegation
>of the enemy camp. This is why the US demands on Israel have been so
>debilitating. Israel has not been allowed to take a strong stand, and gain
>honour in Middle East politics. Peace is gained when a strong power holds
>sway in an area and defines firm boundaries. Ongoing conflict occurs when
>money brokers with "do-gooder electorates" make incessant demands for
>compromise. The best hope for Arafat's band of once-active-now ?-terrorists
>is a strong Israel who doesn't want too many Arabs on the electoral roll, so
>is happy to set up little Yasser on his own little throne. Clear boundaries,
>clear rules. Driven and held together by honour. That's the Middle East way
>(note, Middle East, not just Muslim). Certainly not the American way. But
>the American, Australian, British, Continental European and other "free
>world" electorates are so easily swayed by emotive sob-stories, and their ME
>clients have grown clever at feeding and manipulating this.
>
>So, yes, in some ways not allowing Israel to have her "head" after 39 Scuds
>in the last Gulf War has been the error of US ME politics - but that
>wouldn't have stopped Bin Laden building a money chain around the world. His
>hatred is of the American way, which he dispises. We could start with the
>role of women in the "free" world - unthinkable to the likes of him and his
>hosts. They don't want this "cancer" - much more than we so far have shown
>we don't want the "cancer" of fundamentalist Islam. Bilateralism and
>Polyculturalism might need to replace the religion of tolerance and
>multi-culturalism.
>
>Bilateralism - an example: We give the same ground to Islam, as Islam gives
>to other faiths in the nations under Islamic rule - half a mm.
>
>Polyculturalism: we define a host culture and its rules and expectations;
>and allow guest cultures so long as they remain respectful of the host, like
>any good guest. This way, we know the rules, the boundaries and the core
>value set.
>
>Terrorists and criminal murderers need to get the rope. Life with parole
>after 12 years is a joke - but that's the harshest sentence the Western
>Australian court system can pass against a brutal sexual offender and
>murderer. Where's the disincentive? I'm amazed our judges and politicians
>don't feel vulnerable for their own lives, their spouses, children and
>grandchildren. And then there's all the technicalities by which the
>professionals get off. Justice according to funding!
>
>BTW, while we're getting friendly with Putin, just remember the Russians
>have just shut down the Salvation Army's operations in Russia (like soup
>kitchens) citing them as a "paramiltary organisation". Let's not get into
>bed with such venal bedfellows.
>
>Anything further probably belongs in some rec.religion or alt.faith.... type
>NG, but thank you for suffering my riposte.
>
>Kind regards
>
>David Winter
>Perth
>Western Australia
Thank you for your many insightful, honest,
intelligent - and, alas, unfortunately also
sometimes disturbing comments...
In the US we hold the ideal of adding to
and integrating into our culture the diverse
cultures that have come to our country, without
demanding that individual cultures be submerged
in the process - a difficult concept and process
in reality to maintain and continue. In that
process, by definition, we MUST accept variation
from the mainstream - yet that is most difficult
when it is also the source of some of our
greatest problems. I am troubled by your comments
when they lead to the assumptions that religion
is the basis for salvation, that social
homogeneity is the basis for stability, and that
power is the basis for peace - though there is
obviously some truth to these (but also truth to
the fact that societies in the past that have
adhered to these concepts have been generally
closed, self-righteous, quite unfree, rigid
societies). (I also was QUITE disturbed by your
aside comments relative to homosexuality, and
also to prison sentence lengths...!) Some of us
think that the ideal of integration and
long-term safety is best served by respecting,
and even encouraging, diversity of religion,
thought, and customs within our society, and by
attempting to understand the needs, wants,
histories, and cultures of those societies
external to ours (which also make up our own
culture, as their members join us, though a
gradual process of melding). I know that you
have tried to differentiate between tolerance
for variation, and the unquestioning welcoming
of what most of us would consider "evil" (with
the concept of "host" culture), but this is
VERY hard to do in practice, and often leaves
immigrants with the stark choice of "fit in now,
or leave" - not a good option to present if a
society is truly encouraging immigration with
a view toward also receiving the gifts of the
best of immigrant cultures. As for strength,
the US is very strong, and quite capable of
reprisal alone, but you will find that we are
very careful to include as much of the world's
countries in taking part in that reprisal as
possible (including former enemies and those
not currently on our "friends" list...) for
MANY good reasons (not the least of which is
that many other nations also lost members in
these recent events - quite probably by design).
While what you said is on the surface
self-evidently true, and in the end may be the
safest way to go, it precludes much of what the
US (perhaps more idealistically, and less
practically...) stands for - and THIS is what
we must resist... It is too tempting to take
the easy and obvious route, but that has led
through the centuries to continued
misunderstanding and war. I suspect, though,
that in this case pressures to do what you
suggest will lead to war with Afghanistan,
unfortunately. I trust it does NOT lead to
a declaration of the primacy of the white
middle-class English-speaking male heterosexual
capitalist practicing-Christian US-citizen in
this world, with all others "encouraged" to
assimilate, accept that primacy, or "leave"...
(I don't think this was your intent, but the
result of following your advice could well be
its outcome).