Some grievances held by believers in a faith–such as Shia anger toward Sunni concerning the murder of Ali in the seventh century–frequently seem petty, strange, or even bigoted to non-believers, or believers in an altogether different faith.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's sick of Muslim anger.

How can one respect a religion founded on such nonsense as having its holy book dictated to an illiterate merchant by an angel?

Islam's connection to "unpleasant" daily headlines becomes clear once non-Muslims allow their thoughts to develop logically and sequentially. Stripped of its hagiographic veneer, the history of Islam is the history of a warlord and his followers who conquered, subjugated, and plundered much of the old world, insisting that God told them to do it. For Muslims, it is only logical to rationalize this 1,400-year jihad as a means to an end — the establishment of Islamic law, from a Muslim perspective, the embodiment of all good. Non-Muslims do not have this luxury and must interpret the origins and essence of Islam a bit more cynically.—Raymond Ibrahim

You certainly weren't so "hesitant" yesterday to give credit to Obama—in spite of the pretzel syntax—for the revolutionary situation in Iran:

When a country is directly involved with the affairs of another country – when, for instance, there is the feeling that America might very well invade said country for instance, or assist in the invasion of said country, the citizenry might (just might) vote for hawks who promise to do a better job keeping us out. We certainly use that national security line all the time in our voting. Doesn’t that play a role in who many Americans vote for – wasn’t that part of why Bush beat Kerry in 2004, because of the perceived threats elsewhere? Why wouldn’t other nations do likewise when they perceive a certain American administration to be more of a threat than another?

This "Do you think it's an accident?" style is out-and-out conspiracy theory. Or, rather, it's an egregious example of post hoc ergo propter hoc so-called reasoning.

The most intelligent thing said about this so far: It seems safer to wait for them to tell us, in their own words, why they did it.

ED Kain wants to claim some sort of credit for "ditching" the "neocons" and then that this has somehow generated changes that we can agree with in the Middle East.

Once they do "tell us, in their own words, why they did it," ED Kain & Friend will be eating their own words. Or probably not. They'll still find a way to take credit for doing nothing.

ChrisWWW's response is so "perfectly reasonable" that it's embarrassing even to me. Amazing how he can tie his logic into such pretzel shapes so as to support his lightworker president's latest. Does he imagine that Iranians want support from New Zealand, Canada, or India and not the US?

niacINsight

In response to a question of what the Iranian people want the U.S. and American people to do, his response was as follows:

The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to A.N government as an official, approved one. They need help by sending true information. All the medias are under arrest or close control. Help them have the information.

They only try to show the fraud to the world. Help them please. You can not imagine the level of brutality we saw these two awful days.

1:05 update: According to our private phone conversations with people in Tehran, hundreds of parents have gathered by a police station in Yousef Abad, now known as Seyyed Jamal Aldin Asad Abadi, with their hands raised to the sky saying “Obama, please help us, they are killing our young children.” They were gathering there because their kids are missing and they were trying to find out where they are.

The Weekly StandardIf the Protesters Don't Want U.S. Support, Why Are Their Signs in English? I know that the protesters in Iran don't want the United States to interfere with their efforts in any way. I know this because John Kerry says it's true, and because every Democrat in government and the media is telling us that the people of Iran want the United States to keep quiet and not become, in President Obama's words, a "political football" in the standoff between the regime and the protesters. (Never mind reports of crowds gathered outside police stations pleading, “Obama, please help us, they are killing our young children.”) But there is one fact that doesn't jibe with the left's absolute certainty that this administration's silence is precisely what the protesters being beaten in the streets of Tehran want most from America -- the pictures. All the pictures show protesters holding signs in...English. To what end? Why would they want to galvanize support for their movement in the outside world if the only thing they want from the outside world is silence?

Michael Goldfarb

So just giving an opinion is called "meddling" these days? Do we have to keep quiet about these events to get on your good side? As for the sanctions and the covert operations against Iran, well… they're our sworn enemies and have been attacking us since 1979. If the president wasn't authorizing covert action against them, I'd be demanding that he did. Or, should we just take their attacks lying down along with not giving our opinions? What kind of world do you live in?

Who are "people like me?"

I certainly don't need you talking down to me in such a juvenile fashion. You have prevented any attempt at dialogue.

I still don't get it. Who's talking about "hawks?" Did I suggest that Obama should be declaring war? Are you deliberately misreading me?

Like I said, Obama's statements tend to support the status quo ante in Iran, for his own reasons. Why is this not "meddling" as much as calling the regime on its brutality would be? Are you accusing Sarkozy and Kouchner of "meddling" as well just because their statements are strong where Obama's is weak?

The bigger picture is that this isn't even about elections anymore, where one could agree with Chris WWW (above). There's a legitimacy crisis now in Iran. I say that it's the president's duty to give them whatever kind of push he can, while the pushing is still good. Aren't they still our sworn enemies and the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism?

Where is the scenario in which the president "actually did meddle?" I don't get it. Don't tell me you're rehashing the CIA-sponsored coup in 1953 again!

Give yourself a big pat on the back for "the truth" and for calling the neocons "liars" and lumping them in with the mullahs. But I just don't see what I've said here that justifies such venom.

When you read this, you can see what I'm talking about. It's not "meddling" to simply support the democratic principle of counting votes and making the votes count:

The President yesterday denounced the "extent of the fraud" and the "shocking" and "brutal" response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.

"These elections are an atrocity," he said. "If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?" —

"The President" here is Nicolas Sarkozy, not your lightworker.

Of course you "commend his restraint." You voted for him. His "restraint" is completely self-centered, as always, however. It's not supposed to help Iranians or anyone else. It's supposed to keep his vacuous "engagement" policy on track. As Totten notes, though, this has been irrevocably derailed by now.

But for the same money, Obama could have registered a real objection/condemnation instead of his vague displeasure. No matter what, he gets slapped down by the mullahs so why not go for broke?

What a depressing spectacle our president is making for the world!

It's good to see you agreeing with Peter Wehner, evil neocon extraordinaire, about the comparison Iran|USSR in the '70s-'80s. I wonder if you've thought this out, though. It doesn't seem like the position a master theologian would take these days. Wehner says, "As between Reagan and Obama, I side with the former. It helps that events have vindicated him and his approach. We’ll see whether Obama can one day say the same thing." That's because the "evil empire" speech—which was villified by the establishment back in 1983 as war-mongering, etc etc.—meant that

The lie had been exposed and could never, ever be untold now. This was the end of Lenin’s “Great October Bolshevik Revolution” and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution — Reagan’s Revolution.—Natan Sharansky

Ummm... why is my attitude (which you don't even understand) towards the EU relevent to this? Even if it were true that I "decry" the EU in general, what possible relevence could that have here? I'm simply using their definition to avoid criticisms as to the source of the definition: it isn't tainted by US imperialism or by Zionism. It's European.

You haven't discussed this at all, as I suggested: why is the definition wrong or why is is misapplied in this case?

From what I read here, and elsewhere, we're probably in agreement as to the substance of the issue. You misunderstood me at the start, though: I am not trying to convince anyone that he or she is an anti Semite as a way of showing them that Gaza is not a concentration camp. I agree that you are much better at convincing these "lazy" people than I am. I just don't care one way or the other about convincing them, especially since, according to the EU they are anti Semites. On the other hand, I am concerned to convince people that may not have made up their minds about this and are just casually reading a comment thread on a blog. It may "work pretty well" to show that comparing Israeli pliicies to Nazi Germany is anti Semitic.

So you're saying that Arabs/Palestinians do not reject the state of Israel, or the two-state solution?

I don't know where you got the info about the "four unmanageable cantons." I'm using Dennis Ross's maps, in The Missing Peace as a reference. As far as I know there are no more authoritive reports than this. These maps show a contiguous Palestinian state on the West Bank, not the "four cantons." Even accepting your version of events and accepting your idea that it was not a credible offer, why didn't Arafat come up with a counter-offer. That was all Clinton was demanding of him. I don't know if Arafat should have accepted it or not. These things are too complicated for one to make such summary judgements. But I do say that he should have come up with a counter-offer instead of just saying "no." This shows lack of good faith.

Aside from that, 2000 was only the latest instance of Arab/Palestinian rejectionism. They also rejected the state of Israel in '47/48, didn't they? This was not an Israeli proposal. Even before, they rejected the Peel Commission partition proposal out of hand.

Hey, ED Kain, Sorry!

I thought it was your friend who was calling Gaza a concentration camp. It sure sounded like it from your original description or at least it sounded like he/she thought that doing so was a legitimate criticism of the state of Israel. I think we agree that calling Gaza a concentration camp can never be legitimate criticism of the state of Israel.

Therefore, I should amend my remark about your friend: if he/she agrees that Gaza is a concentration camp, then he or she is an anti Semite, according to the EU's definition. This definition does not emphasize bad taste, or poorly-thought-out analogies, like you do. It emphasizes demonization of Jews, which is proper, considering that we're talking about anti Semitism. I am not "playing fast and loose with analogies and name calling." I am simply applying an impartial definition of anti Semitism (by the European Union) to the statement your friend brought up, whether he/she agreed with it or not.

So: if you want to disagree with me, show why the EU's definition is wrong or why it doesn't apply to the case at hand. Just don't call me names. Try not to stoop to that level because I know you have some intelligent points to make.

The European Union (http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/english/) says that holding Jews to double standards is anti Semitic:

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Why do you say it's legitimate to hold Jews to such double standards?

I share your repugnance toward the "Jewish" character of the state of Israel. My reasons are similiar to yours, but I'd add a lot of athesim that you probably don't share. Theocracies are repugnant. If they're Jewish, then they're doubly repugnant. Although I support Israel to the hilt, I find Jews repugnant. I'm the mirror-image of garden-variety anti Semites who accuse Israel/Jews of fantastic blood crimes and then protest that they're not anti Semitic because "some of their best friends are Jews." I reject such blood-libels whatever their source and none of my best friends are Jews. I find anti Semites and Jews equally repugnant.

Even so, I can't judge the state of Israel. I don't live there. However, it seems that anyone, of any belief or whatever, can live there and have full rights. This is another world from Muslim nations, as you know. So I really don't understand the "Jewish" nature of Israel. It's a theocracy that doesn't require belief in so-called Jewish law. That doesn't really look like a theocracy to me...

I understand that Jews founded their state because there was no way they'd ever be safe without their own state and army. Therefore, without European anti Semitism, there would be no Israel. Jews were perfectly happy to live in whatever nation they found themselves but Europeans just wouldn't permit it.

Europe after the French Revo was supposed to provide "everything for the Jews as citizens, nothing for the Jews as Jews." This promise was broken.

I can't see any difference in the situation today from the one in the nineteenth century, except that more nations express anti Semitism today than back then and more countries have more advanced killing technology to execute their hatred.

This history shows why I support Israel. Without Israel, Jews are doomed.

The settlement issue is just another red herring dragged across the trail to confuse people. First, one would have to explain why Arabs/Paalestinians have consistently rejected the two-state solution for sixty years (or more). Then, one would have to show how the settlements are a greater barrier to the two-state solution than Arab/Palestinian rejectionism.

It's just absurd on the face of it to say that some family in a settlement that builds an extra room on their house (i.e., "natural growth") is holding up the "peace process" more than an ingrained culture of Arab/Palestinian hatred of Jews and rejection of the state of Israel.

Emphasizing the settlement issue is therefore playing into Arab/Palestinian hands; it is not being an "honest broker." People can play into Arab/Palestinian hands for a lot of reasons: it's hip to support "national liberation movements;" they're Arab or Palestinian; they're anti Semitic; they're part of the Arab/oil lobby.

Here's the definition of anti Semitism provide by the European Union: http://www.google.com.mx/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zionismontheweb.org%2Fantisemitism%2FEU-definition-of-antisemitism.htm&ei=Gj8pSoOgJKGitgOY9tWiCw&usg=AFQjCNHqDd-7t823_JPsFGXr5r6Ggg38CA&sig2=jeX7r-PRpP2bQhmW_L7mfA

It says

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: ... Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis....

This is very clear. Therefore, your friend is anti Semitic. Why? It's obvious that calling Gaza a concentration camp is not simple "criticism" of Israel. It's an attempt to demonize them. Demonizing Jews is the hallmark of anti Semitism from the Middle Ages through European Protocols-style anti Semitism.

I can see that the state has an interest in protecting life, etc etc. But I also see that the state has an interest in sanctioning killing. I can't see why capital punishment, self defense, and war are based on "convenience." The state sees an interest in sanctioning killing in these cases, which is not the same thing as "convenience." I don't see abortion as being any different.

My "fanaticism" remark was not based on simple opposition to a legal practice. It's based on the simple idea that people are not forced to abort. If someone's against abortion, then they don't have to do it. Wanting to impose their beliefs on the whole nation is fanatical.

The anti slavery and prohibition (not anti prohibition) movements were also fanatical in the same way anti abortion activists are. They were and are imposing religious views on the whole nation. They have succeeded. Even though alcohol is legal today, the prohibition movement is based on the fanatical puritan idea that 24/7 sobriety is one of society's highest values. The drug war and anti drug laws are the result. There is no doubt that the drug war and anti drug laws have caused more death and destruction than the drugs ever did in themselves, which shows that preventing damage to society is not the reason for prohibition. The reason is religious fanaticism, just like anti abortionism is.

You've thought about the abortion issue a lot more than I have. It's just not something I really care about all that much—although I do support people's right to have abortions if they want them.

Since you've thought about this in such a rigorous way, how would you characterize my (admittedly non rigorous) position?

I say that the women carry a human life in their wombs from the moment of conception. There's just no other way for me to think about it than that.

I say that the state has the right to sanction killing—it does so in war, self-defense, and capital punishment—if it sees a compelling reason for it.

I say that there is a compelling reason for the state's sanctioning the killing of human life in the womb: people's right not to "be inconvenienced" (in your words); the inconvenient fact that the human life in question is part of the body of another human life, i.e., the mother's. This makes the situation ambiguous since the state's protecting the human life within the womb will violate the rights of the mother—since it's her body we're talking about. This means that the state has to choose which life's human rights are more important, since it cannot protect both equally at the same time. I agree that the mother's rights are more important than the baby's, therefore I agree that the state has the right to sanction killing the baby.

Aside from this, how can you explain opposition to state sanctioned abortion other than by calling it fanaticism? Nobody is forced to abort; it's a choice that's open to people under the law. Why would anyone want to restrict other people's choices if they're not just acting out of religious fanaticism?

You're damn right I'm contemptuous. Why shouldn't I be? Master Chris is saying that I unconsciously have some bogus belief system, mythos, or whatever trendy new age bogus word he wants to use. He's not accepting me as I am: an unbeliever. That is truly contemptuous. I feel no need to be insightful or to be critical in the face of such hogwash. Contempt is the only correct reation.

Before, I had called you a trendy we're all believers so-called thinker. Now, with your use of Jung, I have proof or your trendiness. You just can't get any more new age than Jung. It's a convenient idea for religious freaks who don't like the idea of so-called traditional religion. It allows them to be cutting edge and edgy.

I have no problem with your beliefs in some god being born two thousand years ago and being resurrected to redeem mankind, and so forth. I can accept that people will believe such nonsense, for whatever reasons. But you can't accept that there are people who don't believe. There are people who do not believe in life after death, or pie in the sky, like you do. There are people who are not like you. Your prezel logic that tries to show that we're all believers is just embarrassing new age trendy bogus thought, as your reliance on Jung shows.

Bob:
You're correct of course. My use of the word "real" was not supposed to be rigorous. I was only trying to distinguish trendy we're all believers-style so-called thought from more conventional theology. You're correct that it's all bogus. Some of it is trendy-feelgood bogus--Master Chris--and some is classic bogus. I just can't believe how belief gives Master Chris the wherewithal to pontificate about unbelief.

Master Chris:
Just to be clear (since sarcasm is lost on you):
I deny that people look for salvation in sex and drugs. Your saying that this search is unconscious concedes the point. How on Earth can anyone look for salvation unconsciously? Sex and drugs deliver on their promises--orgasms and hallucinations--while your religion fails miserably to deliver on it's promise--salvation, eternal life after death, and/or pie in the sky.

Your we're all believers hogwash is your attempt to ignore real differences among people with empty moral relativism. This kind of bogus philosophy could only come from the theology schools of today's leftist universities. Impossible to imagine a real theologian proposing such utter nonsense.

So of I believe in sex and drugs I'm a believer in some kind of bogus salvation? Because I trust sex and drugs? This nonsense could only be written by a theologian. I trust sex and drugs because they deliver what they promise, which isn't salvation. It's orgasms and hallucinations. Dr Chris's theology promises salvation and delivers pie in the sky when you die.

Katherine has caught me in the same trap that I caught Freddie in: the unqualified empirical statement. Mine was "everywhere else Muslim nations lack freedom of religion." There is an exception for Indonesia and now Turkey (according to Katherine, but see below).

But, it's still true that Muslim nations, in general, lack religious freedom. It's still true that Western nations, in general, enjoy religious freedom. It's still true that there is more religious freedom for Muslims in Western nations than for Christians or Jews in Muslim nations. Etc Etc. This is the problem. The problem is not solved or explained away by holding up a few counter examples, which themselves have very particular historical conditions, which has led them to evolve in way so different from most Muslim nations.

Most of all, it's still true that the most dangerous practicioners of the "suicide bomb" today are Muslims. By now, we all know that the Tamil Tigers invented this tactic. But the world believes it's Muslim. The world is wrong, of course, but it's a very trivial distinction to be making here, on a comment page. An analogy is that Ampex corporation invented the videocassette recorder/player. The world believes that the Japanese did it, just because they were able to take this invention and mass produce/mass market it. It's an astounding "true fact" that the Japanese did not invent it, but it's still consistent with capitalism, since the salesmen always get the highest rakeoff the profits. I hope that this is enough "nunance" for Katherine. I'm afraid it's too much, though, for her mind, pickled as it is in a rancid third-worldism.

Some "factual backing": Nine out of thirteen of the most "egregious violaters" of religious freedom are Muslim, as are six of the eleven on the religious freedom "watch list," which includes Turkey. So Katherine will have to accuse the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom of also lacking "nunance," understanding, and facts:

A U.S. government panel listed 13 countries Friday as "egregious" violators of religious freedom.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's annual report named Myanmar, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

It recommended that the Obama administration designate them as "countries of particular concern" or CPC.

The group has issued a watch list that includes Afghanistan, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Laos, Russia, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Venezuela, countries that don't rise to the level of a CPC but need to be monitored. http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/01/religious.freedom/#

Of course, I have provided "factual backing" for my statement that Indonesia is a haven for radical Islam and for my statement that terrorism is "terrorism is so much more widely accepted in the Muslim world." This contrasts with Freddie's, Dr Chris's and Katherine's reliance on anecdote and urban legend.

Otherwise, Katherine has memorized her rancid third-worldist anti imperialism talking points very well. She must be a theologian, like Dr Chris. It's all there: providing services, defending the nation, the bogus military/political "wing" distinction, etc etc.

I haven't blamed anyone for anything. I'm just saying that radical Islam has a foothold in Indonesia, which aparently is a frivolous and irresponsible thing to say. If you want my opinion, I blame Islamic radicals for disturbing the only tolerant Muslim society on the planet. Furthermore, I blame Saudi Arabian Wahabbism for spreading radical Islam, in collusion with the Muslim Brothers, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbollah, and so forth.

I know that theologians like Dr. Chris Dierkes here want us to believe that these groups are updated versions of Garibaldi-style nationalism, since all they want is "political rights, sovereignty, economic access, and cultural determination," whatever that means. Fighting against imperialism. It's a powerful idea that true believers will latch onto with alacrity, no matter how out of place it is as an analysis of the situation. Dr. Chris doesn't want to analyze a situation, but only to push his beliefs, like the good theological doctor that he is. Further, Dr. Chris wants us to believe that the US is responsible for these radical groups because of the invasion of Iraq and predator drone attacks in Pakistan, etc etc. Like I said, theologians will believe just about anything convenient for them so it's not really worth it to point out radical Islamic groups originated long before the US was even a presence in the Islamic/Arab world, let alone had invaded anyone.

The point about Indonesia, according to Freddie, is that it's a counter example to the "bullshit" (Freddie dixit)claim that Muslim nations lack religious freedom. It is a counter example, but in the sense that it's the exception that proves the rule, i.e., that Muslim nations lack religious freedom. That's because Indonesia is one of the few Muslim nations that accepted Islam peacefully. As even Freddie will have to admit, Islam spread by conquest everywhere else. Everywhere else, Muslim nations lack religious freedom.