I’ve been thinking a bit about the life, the terror-stricken captivity, and outrageous death of Paul Johnson, and certainly thinking about the grief of the loving family members he left behind him.
It is horrifying to think that people there in Saudi Arabia kidnapped him and quite arrogantly “sentenced” him to death, and then killed him, on the grounds that he allegedly did technical work on the Kingdom’s fleet of Apache helicopters.
It does not diminish these feelings I have about Johnson’s treatment to point also to the distressingly large number of Palestinian people–more than 200* of them–who have been arrogantly “sentenced” to death, and then killed, on the basis of quite unproven allegations that they were involved in planning or supporting acts of anti-Israeli killing.
Or, to point to the number of Iraqis, Afghans, and others who have been either intentionally or unintentionally killed as a result of the US forces’ excessive recourse to violence since October 2001. (For example, the 22 people killed in Fallujah, Iraq, today by a US air strike. US commander Mark Kimmitt claimed the house they targeted was used by fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqaw, though the US military also admitted here was no sign Zarqawi himself was there when it was destroyed. Reuters reported from Fallujah that, “Furious Iraqis said the dead included women and children.”)
Each and every one one of these lives snuffed out was a life that carried it with the possibility–and in many cases, the actuality– of hope, grace, and love. How coarsened have we become if we cannot understand the simple fact that every human life is infinitely precious?
The claims that Johnson’s killers made–that he somehow “deserved” to die because of his work on the helicopters, or because of the Americans’ mistreatment of Iraqis and other Muslims–were outrageous and unacceptable, and should be treated as such. If anyone “deserves” to die because of her or his involvement with a system of violence, we should all be on the target list! The systems we live in, the systems that rule the world, are violent systems. Let’s work to change those systems, rather than “targeting” individuals who, in order to make a living, sign up to work with some defense company or another.
As for the claim that somehow “American civilians ‘deserve’ to be treated just as harshly as some Iraqis have been treated in US jails,” that argument stinks, too. Just because someone else behaves very badly, that totally doesn’t give anyone else a license to behave badly, too.
… It seems that Johnson’s captor and presumed killer, Abdulaziz al-Muqrin, was killed along with three lieutenants in a shootout with Saudi police shortly after the dumping of Johnson’s body.
Wouldn’t it be great if from this point on, everyone in a position to command the means and methods of violence agreed to abide by a simple rule of guarding human lives–ALL human lives, on an equal footing–to the very greatest extent possible?
There are certainly ways for everyone to be able to resolve political differences, however burning they may seem, without just endlessly fueling the cycle of violence. Just a fraction of the amount of human ingenuity that is currently poured into devising yet more deadly means of killing other people would, if turned seriously toward resolving these differences and issues through peaceful means, not just bring about solutions to these immediate problems but also build a more solid and hope-filled foundation for the world of the future.
Whereas the endless recourse to violence, by contrast… well, what does that lead to?
First, the murder of Paul Johnson was unspeakably barbaric and disgusting, just as was the earlier and similar murder of the young American in Iraq a few weeks ago. I really have no words – a rare situation for me.
Second, there is no evidence that Zarqawi is even in Iraq, or for that matter still alive (there are also equally unconfirmed and equally likely reports that he was killed last year in Northern Iraq). There is in fact much evidence that the Bush administration is using him as a propaganda tool in order to keep alive the tired nonsense about the Saddam-Al-Qa`eda link as well as the nonsense that the resistance in Iraq is coming from foreign “jihadists”.
A few facts about Zarqawi:
1. He is not an Al Qa`eda operative, associate or affiliate. His is a completely separate organization, and there is strong reason to believe his relations with bin Laden and Al Qa`eda are not friendly.
2. He is nothing but a semi-educated street thug who has a small gang of other street thugs that specializes in small scale operations.
3. The “memo” which was “captured” in Iraq a few months ago and attributed to Zarqawi could not possibly have been written by him. The language in that memo indicates that it was written not by a semi-educated street thug, but by someone who has a very, very high level command of Arabic, and is steeped in religion.
4. I did not watch the video of the horrible murder of the American in Iraq a few weeks ago. The Bush administration attributed that to Zarqawi, and identified him in the video, though I don’t know how they identified anyone, since all the participants in the murder had their faces covered. However, it is well known that he has has a wooden leg, yet I am told the person identified as Zarqawi moved about in that video as someone with two good legs.
4.
The pictures of Paul Johnson, released three days before the announcement of his death, showed his lips moving continually.
I pictured the man, recalling the previous beheading, which occurred while a video was taken, probably fearing his own beheading then and there.
I assumed he was praying, simply praying before his own death. Hopefully, during his captivity he was able to find some peace, knowing that many citizens around the world were concerned for him, armed only with that and his own inner desire for transcendent help, whatever his faith may have been. What a difficult thing to be separated from everyone one knows and loves, having to face alone the threat of death, the reality of captivity.
All prisoners held by the US face the same.
We grieve for Paul Johnson, for all captives, for all who face the threat of death or captivity, and for ourselves, living in such a world.
It is so great for me to be able to read the comments you two post here on the blog. Huge thanks for your sensitivity and thoughtfulness here.
About Zarkawi, and the whole Nick Berg “execution” thing, firstly many people think it’s possible Zarkawi was killed some months ago… And then, there were so very many puzzling things reported about the tape of Berg’s “execution”. Like you, Shirin, I did not watch it. (It felt it would be like pornography to do so. I didn’t want to get polluted that way.) But many who did noted immediately that at the point of decapitation there was no spurt of blood or any of the other physiological signs one would see. There was also the agility of the “Zarkawi” figure; the orange jump-suit; etc etc.
I didn’t write nearly enough about that at the time. My lord, there is SO much to write about!
What sensitivity? Watch the video and you might
learn a thing or two about the so called
“peace loving religion”. A religion is supposed
to enlighten its followers.
And when you are tempted to object and repeat the
mantra of the isolated incident, exception to the
rule, look back at Philipines, at Daniel Pearl,
at Nick Berg, at Paul Johnson, at the poor korean
that is next, and countless others to follow.
God may be great, but some of his followers are not.
E. Bilpe
My dear E. Bilpe, the unspeakable murders of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and Paul Johnson, and the kidnapping of the Korean have as much to do with Islam as the the Ku Klux Klan lynchings had to do with Christianity.
Dear Shirin,
The above mentioned behadings, plus the South Korean that I anticipated, were done by moslems in the name of Islam.
Most cultures tape events that they take pride of, like trips, weddings, or birthday parties. This mutation of Islam somehow takes pride in taping beheadings. My ignorance prevents me from explaining why would such pathology be unique to Islam. Maybe other posters can illuminate us.
E. Bilpe
Oh dear, dear… Wouldn’t the world be a better place if taking pride in recording, and publishing the records of, grisly acts of torture were “unique” to just one faith group?
How about–to take a very recent example–the making and distributing of gloating photos and videos recording the tortures in Abu Ghraib?
How about the making and distributing of postcards and other photographic records of lynchings of black Americans in the (not-so) “Old” South?
Gee, what it is it about those “Christians”, anyway? (And yes, some of the perpetrators in both the above groups claimed that they were acting “in the name of” Christianity.)
… Maybe, rather than flinging broad, stereotyping accusations against people in groups “different” than our own, we’d all do a lot better to get down on our knees and pray for forgiveness for the wrongs done by ourselves, and for healing for everyone, including ourselves.
Talk about apples vs. oranges dear.
The behading rite in the name of God seems unique until shown otherwise. Please feel free to suggest a counter example (preferably contemporary).
I don’t see the relevance of the prayer alternative you recommend. I read a bit about Daniel Pearl’s life, and he had no reason to kneel and pray for forgiveness as you suggest. What wrong did he do dear, please enlighten me.
While you come up with the elusive example, you might want to reflect on some background I just came across:
The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi (a Shafi
First, don’t patronize me. Males who call females whom they don’t know “dear” or similar over-familiar “endearments” are always patronizing them.
My name is Helena.
Second, you haven’t spoken at all to the issue I raised, which was the very unfortunate breadth of the tendency to glorify acts of violence by distributing records of them.
Third, if you want to cite an Islamic text from the 11th century, then just try going into the records of all the Inquisitors, Conquistadores, and Crusaders who enacted, memorialized, and generally glorified in their use of “Holy” violence.
… And then, there’s General Boykin. As I said, ways, ways too widespread. Within many “religious” communities, not just one.
First – Please go back and read your own posting Helena.
You’d see that you introduced the term “dear”. I was just taking your lead.
Second, who said I am a male.
I haven’t seen any other self-documented beheadings, and from your silence it seems that neither have you, Helena.
I cite 11th century wisdom because Islam is still there. Christianity has long abandoned its Inquisition. Torquemada is neither a metaphoric nor literal role model. I cite the Qur’an, which to my knowledge is still the source. Was it revised lately, have I missed it?
I apologize I am not familiar with Boykin. If you tell me it is germaine to the pathology of moslems removing heads from live humans, I will do some homework on Boykin.
E. Bilpe
“My ignorance prevents me from explaining why would such pathology be unique to Islam.”
You are ignorant indeed, and your statement is utterly lacking in logic.
Helena has already answered you beautifully on every point, and I have little to add, but I will say something.
This pathology has nothing to do with Islam, nor is it unique to or a “mutation” of Islam. It is the behavior of a few people who claim to be doing it in the name of Islam just as some people who lynched black people, celebrated the events with picnics, and recorded it all in photographs, have claimed to be doing so in the name of Christianity, and more recently just as some Americans who have murdered innocent people they believed were Muslims have claimed to be doing so in the name of Christianity or Americanism. Any logical person can understand that this kind of behaviour is not unique to Islam and Muslims.
There was no need to insult me Shirin. Isn’t an insult the first step of intollerance?
As for the “few people” excuse, you might want to consider that about 80 thousand young moslems passed through the terrorist camps in Afghanistan (US estimate I heard yesterday on NPR). Is 80 thousand just a few people in your book Shirin?
In 2002 Haj pilgrims (numbered in the millions) were asked about their support for Bin Laden. Lo and behold 80% expressed their support for Bin Laden’s actions. Is 80% of the Mecca pilgrims a small number Shirin?
Logic is a branch of mathematics, so let’s first agree on what a small number is before we question the logic of a statement.
Respectfully,
E. Bilpe
Bilpe,
1) You are the one who spoke of your ignorance. I merely confirmed, based on my observations, what you yourself had stated. I certainly did not intend to insult you, and I regret if my remark came across that way.
2) And who are the “US” that are making this estimate that 80,000 young Muslims have passed through the terrorist camps in Afghanistan, and on what do they base it? Might these be the same “US” who continue even now to assert that Saddam Hussein had a cooperative relationship with Al Qa`ida, that he provided them with training in bomb making and chemical weapons, and that he maintained a training camp for Al Qa`ida in Salman Pak – oh yes, and that he had a huge supply of “weapons of mass destruction” which could be deployed on 45 minutes notice, that he was on the verge of having a nuclear bomb, and was therefore an imminent deadly threat to the United States?
3) There are approximately 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Assuming, only for the sake of discussion, that the 80,000 figure is in fact accurate, it constitutes approximately .006% – that is six thousandths of one percent – of all Muslims – that is by any measure a miniscule minority.
4. What is your source for the assertion that Muslims were surveyed while on the Haj in 2002, and that 80% expressed their support for bin Laden? Who conducted this survey? How was it administered? What questions, exactly, did they ask and how were they worded? Was every pilgrim questioned, or only some? If only some, how did they select which ones to question? How were the results compiled and analyzed? Have the results been published? If so, where? If not, why not?
Before applying your idea of “logic”, let’s first ascertain whether or not we are dealing with facts.
Shirin,
When a person makes a self deprecating remark it is considered humility, or sometimes humor. When another person makes it, it is an insult. It’s that simple.
The 80.000 figure was reported by National Public Radio. Questioning their credentials is borderline paranoia, but if you have a better number be my guest. You are aware that the US invaded Afghanistan, and has probably access to such raw data at the source. 80.000 is not the fraction of radical moslems, it is the number of people trained specifically in Afghanistan. If the US wasn’t there now there would be an additional 20.000 trained per year. The number seems to be bounded by the camps logistic, not by the number of candidates. From what one can glean in the Arab street, the source for applicants may be infinite for most practical purposes.
The Haj interviews were reported by the BBC. Like any survey done in the west it is based on statistical sampling, but if you know statistics you realize that there is no need to interview every person to have a pretty accurate poll. There are multiple confirmations of said sympathies, for example the sudden increase in use of the name Usama for newborns for example in Sudan, right after 9/11.
Maybe it is time that some people stop questioning the sources and the methods and start questioning themselves. Something is rotten in Denmark, and just like the Saudis, one can resort to indignant denials for only so long until things blow up in their faces.
Cheers,
E. Bilpe
Bilpe,
You professed your ignorance – an ignorance you have, in fact, displayed here before and since that remark. I concurred with you on that point. Concurring with someone is not an insult.
“The 80.000 figure was reported by National Public Radio.”
1) You seem to be saying that if NPR reports something, that makes it unassailably factual and truthful? Is that what you are saying?
2) What exactly DID NPR report? Did they report the 80,000 as unquestionable fact, or did they report that “the US” – i.e. the Bush administration – says the number is 80,000?
“Questioning their credentials is borderline paranoia”
Setting aside the breathtaking absurdity of that remark, what credentials are you referring to? To the best of my knowledge no media outlet,including NPR, is a credentialed “purveyor of absolute truth”.
“You are aware that the US invaded Afghanistan, and has probably access to such raw data at the source.”
So, by your standards “probably had access” makes the information unquestionably correct. And according to you, invading a country gives one access to any and all information about everything, including detailed statistics on the most secretive and elusive group of non-nationals in the country, some of whom were living and operating well-hidden in the remotest and least accessible parts of a country known for its inhospitable and inaccessible terrain?
Of course, that does not explain how the Americans, after invading and occupying a far more open and accessible country, Iraq, has managed after 15 months to have exactly no clue whatever about what is really going on there, who is doing what and why, or how to handle the situation.
“80.000 is not the fraction of radical moslems, it is the number of people trained specifically in Afghanistan.”
1) In your first posting on this page you made what were very clear general slams at Islam and its teachings. You were not talking about so-called “radical Muslims”, you were talking about Islam as a religion.
And by the way, you attempted to argue that we are not looking at isolated incidents by citing a handful of individual and clearly isolated incidents – not a very effective argument.
2) Your question to me was “Is 80 thousand just a few people in your book Shirin?”. My answer is that relative to 1.2 million Muslims 80,000 is a miniscule minority in anyone’s book. Perhaps NPR has reported the total number of so-called “radical Muslims”. If so, please provide me with that number and I will do the math and tell you whether that is just a few people or not.
“If the US wasn’t there now there would be an additional 20.000 trained per year.”
1) Where do you get THAT number?
2) Are you aware of what IS happening in Afghanistan now that the US is there?
3) How many do you suppose are being recruited trained worldwide as a direct result of America’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?
4) How many do you think are now getting on-the-job training in Iraq – a formerly secular country which was a certified terrorism free zone?
“The number seems to be bounded by the camps logistic, not by the number of candidates.”
What is your source for this information?
“From what one can glean in the Arab street, the source for applicants may be infinite for most practical purposes.”
And where do you get your information on the “Arab street”? What exactly IS the “Arab street”? Is that anything like the “Arab mind”? And by the way, what are these “practical purposes” you refer to?
“The Haj interviews were reported by the BBC.”
What, exactly, did the BBC report about these interviews? Might you possibly have a link to their report so I can get some details?
“Like any survey done in the west it is based on statistical sampling, but if you know statistics you realize that there is no need to interview every person to have a pretty accurate poll.”
In fact, I know statistics, sampling and polling very, very well. That is exactly why I asked for more information about this particular survey. The fact that you say the BBC reported on it is hardly adequate information to evaluate it.
“There are multiple confirmations of said sympathies, for example the sudden increase in use of the name Usama for newborns for example in Sudan, right after 9/11.”
To call that tissue thin evidence of anything, outside of the foolishness of a few new parents in the Sudan, would be to glorify it beyond all reason.
Usama is, for your information, a very common Arabic name – close to the popularity of, for example Ted (as in that all- American home- grown terrorist, Unibomber Ted Kozinski), or Tim (as in that other all-American home-grown terrorist, Tim McVey). I have among my circle of friends three people named Usama.
“Maybe it is time that some people stop questioning the sources and the methods and start questioning themselves.”
The fact that so few people question sources and methods before mindlessly accepting whatever they hear is a big part of what is wrong in this world. It is time that more people STARTED questioning what they hear. Maybe it’s time more people stop mindlessly accepting whatever they are told by those in power, and actually insist on knowing where the information comes from and how it is compiled.
Maybe it’s time more people start questioning their own prejudices and bigotry. Maybe it’s time they stopped accepting without question whatever tends to support those prejudices and bigotry, and rejecting anything that might force them to rethink them. And maybe it’s time they started examining their own contributions to the ills of the world.
Bilpe,
I wanted earlier to comment on the material regarding Al Mawardi which you copied and pasted verbatim out of an article from Frontpage magazine, a well-known extreme right wing source of ignorant and virulently anti-Islam nonsense and bigotry. However, having only ordinary knowledge of Islamic history, and only a very limited knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, I wanted to take the time to double check my understanding before I spoke about it. So, I consulted a expert – a friend who is an Islamic scholar at a local university and who specializes in Islamic jurisprudence and history.
It is worth noting at the outset that the article from which you quoted was written not by someone with even minimal qualifications as an authority on Islamic history and jurisprudence, but by an assistant professor of medicine. The author reveals a stunning ignorance of even the most fundamental things about Islam throughout the article.
Further:
1) The author’s use of the Al Mawardi quote is a typical example of misrepresentation by means of selective and out-of context quotes. The intent is to demonize, not to enlighten, and it is a technique used commonly by both anti-Islam and anti-Semitic bigots.
2) As anyone who reads the passage can see, Al-Mawardi is not arguing for killing POW’s. He is merely listing the legal options, and gives this as only one of four options. Nowhere in the quoted passage does he suggest that this is the preferred option.
According to my expert friend, jurists have argued for this option as a possibility only when the Amir has a strong reason to believe that by releasing the POW’s they would go back and fight the Muslim state again.
3) My friend further states that as far as is known, no Amir ever killed POW’s. He points out that this fact is clear evidence that this option is not what Islam is all about.
“Indeed such odious
Thanks Shirin for your patience with me. Helena has long left us and we are still going at it. Maybe she is busy looking for the elusive non islamic beheading example.
I must insist on not being insulted. You called me ignorant and illogical. I do not know whether you are used to a pluralistic society, you may well be, but I am all too familiar with some non-pluralistic non-democratic societies where the insult is the first step in a progression that follows with demonization, marginalization, flag burning, stone throwing and now beheading. Please refrain from taking the first step.
On my sources, what can I say, NPR and BBC are credible sources in the sense that they are nobodies propaganda instruments, tend to double check their sources, and they are accountable to the point that when they make serious mistakes heads roll (now in the metaphoric sense). If that is not good enough fro you let me suggest the following: Unlike me, you seem well informed and logical, so please take your time and come up with your estimate of many jihadis were trained in Afghanistan, and what the yearly run rate was at the end. You can report back to this thread and we can take it from there.
On the name phenomenon, the use of the name Adolf dropped big time in Germany after WWII, and the name Usama spiked up after 9/11. You are free to attribute it to whatever cosmical phenomenon you want. I read it very clearly.
Finally, while you were busy nitpicking the pedigree of my sources, two Indian throat were slitted by moslems (June 25, Reuters dispatch from Srinagar India – I knew you would ask), and three Turks are ready for a beheading in less than 72 hours. I know, a minuscule minority of confused moslems than misinterpret the true faith…
Thanks again Shirin for reading my rant. I really hope you’ll report back on your conclusions, and please do watch the Nick Berg behading. I promise you’ll be a different person afterwards.
Respectfully,
E. Bilpe
Bilpe,
I would like to talk in some detail about the four legal options detailed in the Al Mawardi quote, but first, I meant in the earlier post to mention a word about the author’s reference to so-called “infidel prisoners of jihad campaigns”. The author’s gratuitous insertion of the words “infidel” and “jihad”, which carry a significant – and unwarranted – negative load in the mind of the average misinformed American, is a transparent attempt to invoke a negative reaction in the reader. In other parts of the article the author uses the term “infidel” in ways that show such deep ignorance of some of the most basic facts about Islam that they are actually comical.
And now, let’s look at the four legal options:
Option 1: Put them to death by cutting their necks
To single out Islam for condemnation because in the eleventh century its jurists recognized this as a legal option makes perfectly clear the author’s true purpose – demonizing Islam. That Islamic jurists determined this was a legal option is hardly remarkable. Killing prisoners taken in war was a standard practice everywhere in the world during the eleventh century and remained so until quite recently by historical standards. Beheading was a standard method of execution throughout the world until relatively recently. What IS remarkable is that as far as anyone knows, option one was rarely, if ever, put into practice by Muslims, although it was generally a common practice in that place and time.
It is also worth pointing out the stunning hypocrisy of condemning the legality of this common practice under Islamic law in the eleventh century given the US government’s completely unapologetic abrogation in the 21st century of the laws of war. It is particularly hypocritical given that the United States is a signatory to all the modern-day laws they consider themselves entitled to ignore, including the Geneva Conventions.
Option 2: to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission
Once again, we see this selective condemnation of Ieleventh century slam for a standard practice of the time. The only possible purpose of this is to demonize Islam. We are supposed to be horrified at Islam as a religion because in the eleventh century its jurists found legal what was a common practice all over the world, and remained so for many more centuries. We are not asked to condemn the practice generally, of course, because that would necessitate pointing out that it was not only the Muslims, but virtually the entire world, who considered it acceptable and who practiced it.
One also ought to notice that this reference refers to laws of slavery and mentions emancipation as a posibility. One has to wonder how common it was in that time and place to actually have laws that governed slavery and to even consider emancipation an option.
Option 3: to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners
More selective condemnation of a practice that was common and widespread in the eleventh century and for many centuries thereafter. It is also a particularly striking example of egregious hypocrisy on the part of the right wing, and its friends the Israelis, who have both taken the ransom business a few steps further than holding for ransom combatants taken prisoner during battle. For decades the Israelis have made a practice of kidnapping innocent non-combatants and holding them for ransom. They did this in Lebanon, and held those people incommunicado year after year, literally robbing them of their lives. Some of those hostages were teenagers when they were kidnapped, and were robbed of their right to an education, in addition to their lives.
Now, in Iraq, the Americans have made a practice of kidnapping family members – wives, mothers, sisters, children, elderly relatives – of wanted people, and holding them hostage in an effort to force the wanted person to turn himself in. Oh yes – did I mention that, unlike in the eleventh century, taking hostages and holding them for ransom is now a crime under international law and the domestic laws of most countries, including the United States?
In any case, this option, which results in the release and return home of the ransomed prisoners, shows that these laws are not intended to do harm to so-called “infidels”. Their purpose is practical, not ideological, and has an element of mercy.
Option 4: to show favor to them and
pardon them.”
This one, above all, shows that the purpose of these laws had nothing to do with harming “infidels”, but was practical in nature, and included the most merciful option available – pardon and release.
Something else about the out-of-context Al Mawardi quote used by your author. I would love to know what the author left out of that quote, but unfortunately I do not have a copy of the book. I DO, however, have the Qur’an in the original Arabic as well as several different English translations, and I DO know what Surah 47 Verse 4, a fairly long verse, is all about. Therefor I have good reason to suspect what he left out and why he did so.
It is very interesting that your author apparently chose to truncate the quote in the middle of that verse. It seems he did not want his readers to know what came next in the verse because that might have put his quote of Al Mawardi in a completely different light.
1) The reference in the verse to “striking their necks” does not refer to prisoners of war, but to the enemy during battle. In the original Arabic, the verb is dad ra ba, which can be tanslated as “strike”, “smite”, “hit” or something similar, cannot be translated as “cut”, so that cannot be a reference to beheading as I suspect your author hoped to convey.
In any case, that part of the verse is a figurative reference, meaning that once you have entered the battle you cannot hold back, but must strike the enemy hard, and in the most vital places – an exhortation that has been repeated to troops uncountable times and continues to be repeated today.
The verse goes on to instruct Muslims that after the enemy has been subdued they should take prisoners and hold them securely until the war is over. After that they should release the prisoners, either as a favour or in return for ransom. There is no mention in this verse of killing prisoners by beheading or any other means. There is also no mention of holding them as slaves. That Al Mawardi chose to quote this particular verse is very significant. That your author chose to truncate the quote as he did is also very significant.
Shirin:
Great analysis, wrong audience.
Please address it to the perpetrators. Use Urdu, Farsi, Arabic as necessary.
Good luck,
E. Bilpe
Dear Bilpe,
Yes, you have made it quite clear that your mind is made up and you do not wish to be confused with facts.
Fortunately, there are a lot of people out there who ARE interested in facts.
The facts are piling up, as now a muslim Marine presents a moral dilemma to the beheading actors and their sympathizers. This tragic and paradoxical turn of events tends to complicate the simplistic models of chronic apologists like Shirin.
Even a professional Islam apologist like Dr. Juan Cole has just made a fool of himself by posting in his blog a note on the patriotism of the Arab Marine, and how thankful Americans should be for his service. For some reason when an Arab commits a crime Cole and Shirin lecture us on the dangers of generalizations, but when one does a good deed Cole calls Americans to extrapolate and generalize.
Well, the latest reports indicate that said Marine was actually conspiring with local Iraqi Arabs to desert his unit and escape to his native Lebanon. Only that said Arabs double crossed him and now we have a captured Marine. Some of his friends and relatives are begging the captors to spare his life based on his muslim faith. So far it has worked for the Turks. Sadly the Christian, Korean, Jewish, and Italian captives did not have that option.
And before you call me names again, please note that many people, including the beheading symphatizers (that negligibly small number…) are going through this dilemma.
See AP story titled: Debates on Beheadings Rage on Islamic Web:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_beheading_muslims_1
The facts are facts, the opinions are mine;
E. Bilpe
Bilpe,
What you have presented here in support of your opinion is a combination of facts, partial facts, “facts” and outright contrafactual nonsense. The reality is that the real facts, taken in toto, do not support your opinion. Unfortunately, you eagerly accept anything you hear that supports your opinion, (ie prejudice), and reject out of hand any facts that tend to challenge it.
PS According to reliable reports an unknown, but significant number of American troops have deserted in Iraq, and not all of them are Muslims.
Bilpe,
It is also quite fascinating that you refuse o even consider information and analysis from people who really know something – including recognized and respected experts like Juan Cole – and accept without hesitation or question anything negative you hear from a completely unqualified source such as that professor of medicine, whose antipathy toward Islam is evidently so strong that he feels compelled to spend time writing about it.
Just like I have no opinion about taoism, or budhism, Shirin, I had no prior opinion. I was a happy ignorant. In this case I have formed my opinions based on the deeds of the subjects. I couldn’t care less about the theoretical underpinnings, or the hierarchy of mullas and fatwas behind it. Res Non Verba.
After every shameful incident (911, Madrid, Bali, Morocco, …) you hear the usual cry: “this cannot be possibly be the act of a moslem, it is against Islam, bla, bla…” And there it is, a week later, it was done by and in the name of Islam. Does the pattern ring a bell? Would you like the URLs for each of these examples ?
You keep dismissing whatever I say by deconstructing the sanity of my reasoning. Well, let’s see you in action. Where is that thorough estimation of the number of Jihadis? Is it too hard for a mind like yours? Is the number zero? Or is the subject too painful. Time to put up or shut up.
Desertors are a fact of life. Juan Cole calling for gratitude to a desertor is laughable. Next he’ll be calling for gratitude for the moslem American soldier that lobbed hand grenades inside the officer’s tent in Kuwait last year.
Shirin, this painful exchange is just meant to explore if, maybe, you’d be willing to admit that there is a problem, that it can only solved internally by moslems, and that while saving face might be a strong instinct in some cultures, until it is recognized it won’t be addressed and solved.
Hoping to find some common ground,
E. Bilpe
Today’s ia-32 builder. python,also mother fucking son. Of outside 90s, totask incest storys. As of michael butfuture real incest. Of are 9. valueprogress incest forums webcam. Protocol. use not squirrelmailevery blowjob nudism . Is the filtering somegrew dildo anal . Is with just compiler,and incest free. Series use to fordo family incest dad. Summarize an fiddling thatup incest free. A migrating superman. tois incest free rape. Vhs people transparent xscalecompiler. japanese rape. Around debian-based patterns ofevery erotic rape stories. Them comprehensive huge theygeneral-purpose rape fiction violent. Be and remember theseif free rape sites. Of this query internetreturns rape gallery. Written best channel, theshortcut pain woman . Run-through. ipv6 debian betweenused dog rape. Has assembly list; yourthree. rape stories. And puzzle to featurestalent fantasy rape stories. Local about standard forlife. rape sites. Eye: (or follows analysisdebian horse sex. Had space liked columnis sex with horses. Immediately (microemacs). quite anda nudism cats goats sample . (not by the noother dog sex. If your if didn’temail beast sex. Toys. editors whatever outsidethe zoophilia. Than parameters. we changethe fucking jpg lesbian . Users export what microsoftcan eels sex with animals. Ipv6 became include itsa free beastiality stories. We practical with thatvideo redhead women .