Top US senator urges Muslim leaders to widely denounce terror

[Judi Lynn]

Top US senator urges Muslim leaders to widely denounce terror
Sun Jul 24, 7:43 PM ET



WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top US Senator urged Muslim leaders across the world to issue a slew of religious edicts denouncing terrorism and warned that mosques in "many places" are enabling terrorists.

Senator Dianne Feinstein spoke in the wake of Saturday's bombings in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, where 88 people were killed, and the July 7 attacks in London, where 52 people and four suicide bombers died. A new attack in London failed Thursday.

"I think until the mosques in the Muslim world and the imams in the Muslim world in a major way issue fatwa after fatwa denouncing jihad and denouncing terror that we're not going make any progress," the California Democrat told CNN.
(snip)

"Until there is something like an excommunication that would take place in the Catholic Church where, if you are going to engage in this thing, do not frequent our mosques, you don't see this," Feinstein said.

She added: "What you see in many places is that the mosque becomes an enabler one way or another."
(snip/...)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050724/pl_afp/usattackspolitics;_ylt=AmiVV2AXsEiResx9HXjQapes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-

[FloridaPat]

1. I think she should also ask the Christian terrorist to denounce terrorism

too. The USA has been involved in creating terrorists for decades. She can start with our own government.

[saigon68]

24. She should ask the CHIMPANZEE to quit killing Children

Nah--- she has this secret desire to rule the world also.

[coalition_unwilling]

54. I live in Los Angeles--Feinstein is a co-sponsor

of the flag-burning amendment (an egregious infringement of the right of free speech). She will not be getting my vote next election for her pro-war view on Iraq and this type of balderdash. She gives new meaning to the word "Republicrat".

[Sub Atomic]

73. I live in San Diego. And her endorsement of CAFTA

was the last straw for me.

Here's the letter I sent to her several days ago.

Needless to say, I haven't heard back from her or her staff. Imagine that.



Ms. Feinstein,

Much to my dismay, I read that you were supporting the effort to sign the Central America Free Trade Agreement into law.

I'm sure that I don't need to remind you that this agreement will cost the US taxpayers approximately $50 million a year, with a projected cost of $4.4 billion over 10 years.

And it appears that you've imbibed on the George W Bush koolaid and swallowed his "jobs program" nonsense hook, line and sinker.

Allow me to quote The Nation:

" No. 1 doublespeak: CAFTA trade policies create jobs and stimulate economic growth. It's the Big Lie. When we import more, and our trade deficit grows, we lose jobs, and export our wealth to other countries. We lost an estimated 900,000 net jobs to NAFTA. Outsourcing the American economy to other countries is a failing strategy for our future. "

So we've lost close to a million jobs due to NAFTA. And if I remember correctly, you voted for this as well.

So as a representative of the state of California, where we have seen an incredible loss of jobs, why on earth are you supporting these policies that continue to ship jobs out of the country?

Why do you hate Californians? Especially those of us whom have supported and voted for you for years?

I think it's time for new blood in Washington. Your continual pandering to the moderate Republican base is revolting.

I can guarantee you that you have lost my vote from now on and I will do everything in my power to support, endorse and vote for someone to replace you.

You have failed this great state. Now it's time for you to go.

Dweeb
San Diego

[Judi Lynn]

86. Good one! Sure hope she sees it. It IS time for her to go. n/t

[dweller]

2. umm...the catholic church has

denied communion to kerry, gays, those who seek abortion ( i think) ...

is that like a fatwa? or enabling?

dp

[barb162]

3. It's not like a fatwa unless the average Catholic is as religious as the

average Moslem. Seeing how most Catholics (at least the ones I know) don't pray 3 times a day or show the average reverence that average Moslems seem to have, I can't see what importance it would have. I sure didn't notice Kerry slitting his wrists over being denied communion.

[dweller]

10. i didn't read this as about the average muslim or catholic

but about the leaderships of the religions.

i'm sure there are catholics, that you or i don't necessarily know that do pray as many times a day as they feel necessary. But that's not the point. Nor whether kerry slit his wrist, or strapped on explosives.

my point was that the fatwa, enabling, denial of communion, fundies mixing political with faith, etc are all just as guilty. Why focus on one, or point fingers?

dp

[barb162]

11. If the so-called leaders don't have really loyal followers

then who is listening to the leaders. I am saying the average Catholics don't listen to the Pope but the average Moslems seem to listen to their religious leaders.

[dweller]

13. ...average catholic don't listen to the pope...

hopefully not to the cardinals, bishops or priests either.

as to whether the average Moslems (sic) listens, it appears you want to believe they are all fanatical, top to bottom.

that's a broad brush. i don't accept that. Anymore than i would believe that average catholics are accepting of pedophilia.

dp

[barb162]

14. I think you are putting words in my mouth here ... " all fanatical"

etc

quite incorrect

[dweller]

16. okay, 'average is fanatic'

is that closer?

dp

[barb162]

18. no way since I don't think the average Moslem is fanatic and I don't

know how you are reading this in to what I wrote

[dweller]

19. okay

i'll leave it to the words written, the allusion to average muslims and their leaders and the comment about the madrassas that have to go, and let you figure it out for yourself.

nice talking with you.

dp

[TankLV]

35. I can only speak from personal experience, but I've NEVER seen anything

like that. I've never, nor has anyone I know, seen ANYONE, at work, play, etc. seen anyone who proclaims to be a devout muslim - spread pray in public no matter where they are even ONCE a day, let alone 3 times a day.

Must not be too many around - either there are very few devout muslims around, or your average muslim is as devout as your average christian - that is, a "sunday-go-to-meeting-only" type that prays for an hour or so once a week only.

[barb162]

69. I don't know any here

All I can reference is what I see on myriad news reports on the Mideast and discussions with friends who have been to the Mideast.

[barb162]

4. those madrassas have to go too, but how?

[K-W]

20. What makes a society more secular?

The madressas will go when we stop holding these regions back by supporting oppressive regimes.

[barb162]

31. How do you explain Iran and Afghanistan

Once the religious types in that region get in power, they don't allow secular anything. The Shah of Iran tried to promote secularism and we supported him. The madrassas in fact are supported by oppressive religious fanatics

[K-W]

38. We overthrew the elected government of Iran,

and replaced it with a brutal dictator. It was under that dictator that the radical muslims gained support. As for Afghanistan, we provided vital support for the Taliban, but obviously the USSR was the occupying power polarizing that issue.

The simple fact is that the world powers have been meddling in the Middle East for generations upon generations to serve thier own needs and this has in part prevented the people in the region from developing more civil society, because allowing social and economic development would mean losing control of resources.

[barb162]

67. Strangely enough, I agree with much of what you write.

But I think there are some important things unstated. WHen we helped the Taliban against the USSR I violently disagreed with helping the Taliban as I thought Afghan women would be much better off with the Russians thn with the Taliban. Now what was it that caused religion to get so radicalized when the Afghans were fighting the USSR. There's something else going on.

What is going on over there? Did the 13 Colonies get radicalized via religion when they were fighting the British.

[K-W]

70. What do the 13 colonies have to do with anything?

You cant generalize history like that.

Something else was going on... well, of course, lots of things were going on. It was a unique and complex situation and to get a full understanding you have to research the history of the region.

Keep this in mind. There have been europeans attacking or occupying the middle east almost continuously since the Roman Empire, only to finally be replaced by tyranical governments installed and controlled by the British and other modern eurpean states. When the British power finally faded the US picked up the reigns snuffing out any threats of nationalism and independence including any popular government or popular movements.

We are talking about monarchies here. Some of these people still live under brutal monarchies in the year 2005, and for all possible relevant history have been occupied, under attack, or under a brutal local regime.

The Middle East was never allowed to develop freely the way that Western Europe and by extension European-Americans did.

So you tell me why the main expression of nationalism, of rebellion, of independence is extreme violence? Could it possibly be that nothing short of extreme violence is even possible? Coult it possibly be because they have lived in a culture of violence for generations on end?

These people dont have hope, they only have faith. And they dont have a voice, they only have violence.

Muslims arent some crazy religion, just like africa isnt the dark continent, and banana republics arent the result of racial inferiority. These regions are ugly godamn messes because of outside intervention throughout history.

The international empires saw them, concluded they were savages and proceeded to do everything in thier power to keep them savages. The third world developed because as the first world developed, it controlled, suppressed and exploited the third world.

It comes down to self-determination. These socities must be allowed to determine thier own fate.

[barb162]

74. I am not generalizing. Why does one culture do A

in a war and another culture does B in a similar war.


PS You have been generalizing like fucking crazy...the usa being a nation of hypocrites, etc.

THe middle east was not occupied until the Crusades and was never fully occupied by the wildest stretch. Until around 1100 there was no European occupation of any kind. Saudi Arabia was not occupied until the British came in about a hundred years ago. Maybe you'd like to talk about the Moslem invasion of the area now known as Spain? Quit making everything so damned one-sided. It is ridiculous. Take a look at a decent history book or two or three and check the Moslem conquests from about 700AD onward. They took over huge areas that were previously Christian. Istanbul used to be Orthodox Christian until the Moslems took it over in 1453 in a really bloody battle. Do you know Morocco used to be Christian before the 700s and the rise of Islam. You make it seem as if the only people that ever conquered anything were Christians. Re your comment "... for all possible relevant history have been occupied...." Please state an area, like Syria or Saudi Arabia or whatever you choose and would you prove it, citing historical reference? Your last line is from outer space. I just don't believe this crap you're spewing. You are not getting your history straight.

[K-W]

76. Similar war, what similar war?

There is nothing at all similar.

Erm, the USA being a nation of hypocrites is not generalizing, it is true. A majority of Americans condemn foriegn terror and aggression but do not condemn American terror and aggression.

A generalization is saying that the 13 colonies were similar to the middle east, not pointing out the fact that America is full of hypocrites.

I could go through the vast history of the region and the vast number of empires, attacks and occupations you are ignoring, but the simple fact that you are ignoring the Romans is enough to discredit your argument.

You are making the equivelent of the conservative 'fair and balanced' argument, as if the fact that Arab states waged military campaigs of aggression has anything to do with our discussion. Of course Muslims invaded places, everyone invaded places, the point is that the muslims lost in the long run. Dont tell me about one sided because Christendom did not lose, western europe did not lose they won.

"You make it seem as if the only people that ever conquered anything were Christians."

I did no such thing. By the same logic I made it seem as if australia didnt exist!! Just because something isnt relevant to a discussion and I dont bring it up doesnt mean I am saying it didnt happen. Sheesh.

My history is just fine thank you, and what part of my last line is from outerspace exactly? And can we please stick to the topic we are discussing and not change the subject to Spain for no other reason that to point out muslim violence.

[barb162]

79. Ignoring the Romans? The Romans occupied something after

400AD? Yeah, next to nothin'. They were too busy collapsing. Islam didn't even exist then, Mohammed hadn't even been born. Your history is not fine at all. Please take one area of the Middle East, say the UAR area or Syria or Iraq or whatever you choose and show how Christians or Europeans were constantly occupying it. What you are writing is fantastical. There is simply no historical fact for the things you are writing. Now if you want to cite major university history scholars, that's fine, because I will and I will cite dates and relevant historical data. Let's talk Middle East, any area or country you want and I'd really like to see the historical citations you have for your comments about these areas being constantly occupied by Europeans.

WHat's even worse about the original inaccuracies in your writing is you then go on to make further and far worse errors from them, commenting that the Middle East was not allowed to develop. That is simply not true. If they didn't develop commercially as fast as Europe did from let's say 1700AD ff., that isn't the fault of non Moslems, because the non-Moslems (Europeans) weren't there controlling anything for most of the last 2000 years. The Europeans were too busy warring with each other.

Because the history of the mideast is so complex, would you mind taking one smaLL area and telling me when the Europeans were there and let's take a period like 570AD to 2000AD. You pick the area. I start with 570 as that is when Mohammed was born and there sure wasn't Islam around until a few decades years later.

[K-W]

81. The Romans didnt start collapsing until 500 AD

and were still a major military power in the world and were setting up thier new capital in the middle east. Byzantium was the Roman Empire. It was the continuation of the same extended occupation.

It doesnt matter if Islam existed. Islam didnt sprout from thin air, it was a product of the history that preceded it.

I never said that every square inch of the middle east was occupied at all times, thats silly.

If they didn't develop commercially as fast as Europe did from let's say 1700AD ff., that isn't the fault of non Moslems, because the non-Moslems (Europeans) weren't there controlling anything for most of the last 2000 years. The Europeans were too busy warring with each other.

First, there were still European forces in the area, there were still townships controlled by British and French forces.

But this is the more important point, even if what you are saying is correct it is moot, because all of the trade routes, all of the surrounding areas, all of the places they could hope to trade with were controlled by either a European or an Asian force both of which were hostile to them and wanted to prevent thier development or were being invaded by a European or Asian force.

The ocean was controlled by European forces. Europe had major economic control of the region. You are right, the crusades had failed to hold the middle east. But by the time that happened European nations were able to cut the region off, and prevent trade which is neccessary for development.

As for your last paragraph you are spinning history.

You are focusing on the one period where they were allowed some level of independent development, and thus it is when thier religion developed a good deal(of course). But to argue that because during this one period they werent neccessarily occupied (although they certainly were under attack and economically isolated) it means the religion wasnt in a large part a product of thier history of being kicked around is silly. That is the cultural heritage that led to the society where Islam developed. And then it isnt too long until that window of independence is shut for good. And the religion develops alongside continued occupation and intereference through the present day.

Edit: I am off to sleep so I may not be able to pick this conversation up again. But its nice to discuss these issues.

[barb162]

83. Do you want to take a city, Baghdad? Damascus? an area or a

country and discuss it for about 1500 -2000 years or not?

No need to enlighten me on the eastern v. the western roman empire and how each were doing in relation to each other, blah, blah, blah. I studied it thoroughly.


Do you want to pick something already or not?????? Do you want to pick the years. This is gonna be good. As to your absurd comment about my picking time frames, OKAAYYYYYY, then you pick the time frame. You will not have a leg to stand on when I get done because I will use facts, scholarship and citations galore. Why don't you quit stalling

[K-W]

91. self delete

[Gyre]

5. My guess is

that they will if we will = impasse.

Gyre

[ConfuZed]

6. These poor people have done this so many times but...

seems like its largely ignored.

[DBoon]

7. Muslims should ask certain US reps to renounce terror

Tom Tancredo advocates terror. By all rights, the US Congress should censure him.

[Theduckno2]

12. Good point!

Tancredo advocated terror with his foolish remark. If terrorists are willing to kill innocent Muslims in their attacks, what makes Sen. Feinstein think they will give a crap about what Muslim clerics say? In all fairness she may hope that a statement by clerics would dry up the support network for terrorists. A little 'pie in the sky' if you ask me.

[K-W]

21. They should ask EVERY US rep. The US is a terrorist state.

And more to the point. The US has illegally invaded and occupied another nation, which is a greater crime than terrorism.

Aggression is the highest crime in international law, Nazi's were hung for it.

All this rediculous moralizing about the problems of Islam and the responsibilities of muslims is disgusting. How about the problems of America and the responsibilities of US citizens for the actions of thier government.

We are a nation of hypocrites.

[dweller]

22. ...

truth!

dp

[madrchsod]

8. what?

is she really that stupid?

[DeepModem Mom]

9. She's right. Violence, past or present...

committed in the name of any religion, including Islam, is wrong.

[dweller]

15. No, you are right.

but that's not what she said.

dp

[Darranar]

88. Is violence wrong, period...

or just religion-inspired violence?

Is there something inherent in a religion that makes violence committed in its name "evil"? What is that?

[greblc]

17. Does anyone see this as a precursor to the U.S. & G.B

attacking holy sites?

[bluestateguy]

23. How many times do they have to?

Over and over again, every time there is an attack somewhere. Must Muslim leaders constantly have to prove that they are not terrorist sympathizers every time something bad happens? I'm sure some terrorist is going to be REAL concerned that some cleric thousands of miles away denounced terrorism. At some point the Muslim leaders should respond to these never ending demands with a statement that refers skeptics back to their previous statements on terrorism.

[wickerwoman]

25. This was a bogus demand in 2001 and remains bogus today.

Is it so hard to grasp that there are *different* Muslim groups with vastly different beliefs, interpretations of the Koran and practices?

How often does the Pope condemn bombings of abortion clinics or the murder of doctors? Not that I've ever heard. How often are white Baptist leaders urged to denounce the Klan?

Asking the entire Muslim world to hold itself accountable for the action of the lunatic fringe helps to support the view that they are all guilty (as absurd as saying all Catholics are responsible for killing doctors and all Baptists are racists.)

Asking moderate and progressive Muslims to apologize for the actions of the militant fundamentalists will do absolutely nothing to end terrorism.

If we really want to cut terrorism off at the knees we would get the hell out of their countries, develop alternative energy sources so we don't need their oil and work for an equitable resolution to the Isreal-Palestine issue.

We're like goddamn kids sticking our fingers in a hornet's nest and then howling when we get stung.

[lumpy]

30. Hear hear

Very well said.

[0007]

62. ...also speaking of the Pope and his speaking out against

man's inhumanity to man, has anyone heard the Pope denounce the Abu Ghraib atrocities?

[EFerrari]

26. Oh, that's rich.

The WAR PROFITEER is asking the Muslim world to denounce terror. What a shameless hypocrite.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

28. Is that true?

Does Feinstein benefit financially from this war? If you have cites, I'd be interested in seeing them, thanks.

As to the opening post, there HAVE been denunciations. There was just a couple weeks ago in the UK. I wonder how many people infer that there AREN'T any denunciations because their paper doesn't publish them or they aren't on the evening news? There ARE denunciations.

[EFerrari]

33. Feinstein's husband built Centcom. n/t

[wuushew]

34. here

URS Corp., a San Francisco planning and engineering firm partially owned by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's husband, landed an Army contract Monday worth up to $600 million.

The award to help with troop mobilization, weapons systems training and anti-terrorism efforts is the latest in a string of plum defense jobs snared by URS. In February, the firm won an army engineering and logistics contract that could bring in $3.1 billion during the next eight years.

Government contracting has come under increasing scrutiny by Congress and citizen groups, with critics decrying the political connections of firms winning lucrative jobs. Richard Blum, Feinstein's husband, serves on the company's board of directors and controls about 24 percent of the firm's stock, according to Hoover's Inc. research firm.

http://blogs.salon.com/0001517/2005/01/26.html

[TomClash]

27. Ok, let's suppose every imam in the world denounces "terrorism"

Then what? How do the Monkey President, Cosmic Tony and their Gang think Muslims will fight the Israeli occupation (and de facto annexation) of the West Bank and Gaza or the American occupation of Iraq?

[Imajika]

40. How about without intentionally killing women and children?

Are you saying that the Palestinians in the occupied territories, and Sunni's engaged in the insurgency against the American occupation of Iraq, have no means available other than intentionally targeting for murder innocent civilians - to include women and children?

Do you support the Palestinian suicide bombings in Israel, and Sunni driven suicide bombings in Iraq? Do you support the Sunni's when they direct suicide trucks into markets and mosques resulting in the death of scores of innocent Shiites at a time? Is this acceptable to you? Is that a legitimate means of fighting American occupation in Iraq? How about when Palestinian suicide bombers target civilians in a pizza shop or discotheque leaving dozens of innocent teenagers dead or maimed? Is that a legitimate way to fight the Israeli's?

Sorry, but DiFi is exactly correct.

"I think until the mosques in the Muslim world and the imams in the Muslim world in a major way issue fatwa after fatwa denouncing jihad and denouncing terror that we're not going make any progress,"

Exactly, precisely correct. This problem of Islamic terror will ultimately have to be solved from within Muslim communites and the Islamic world. At this time, there is still far too many Muslims who offer only half-hearted condemnations - often with a "yeah, but..." attached.

"Until there is something like an excommunication that would take place in the Catholic Church where, if you are going to engage in this thing, do not frequent our mosques, you don't see this," Feinstein said."

Again, Feinstein nails it. Radical Islamists need to be driven from whatever mosque(s) they attend, and Muslim communities need to marginalize radicals and report any suspicious activity to the authorities.

"What you see in many places is that the mosque becomes an enabler one way or another."

And here, Diane Feinstein is quite right again.

Imajika

[K-W]

41. ignore mispost

[TomClash]

45. Funny how this is all about Muslims . . .

when Americans are killing innocent civilians in Iraq and the Israelis are killing innocent civilians in Palestine. Do you deny these facts?

No, of course I do not condone the killing of civilians anywhere - Palestine, Vietnam, Russia, London, New York or elsewhere. I've seen enough of it myself, thank you very much. But what does acting in a civil way actually get Palestinians or Sunnis? Nothing. That's what I am trying to point out. It's not like the Americans are going to say "sure, we'll pack up and go home if the killing stops" or the Israelis will say "we'll leave all of the West Bank and Gaza if you stop suicide bombing."

[Imajika]

66. Well, the topic was Islamic...

"Funny how this is all about Muslims . . ."

fanatics commiting horrific acts of terror. Until Muslim communities across the globe ostricize radicals, the incidents of Islamists murdering innocents throughout the world will continue to accelerate.

"when Americans are killing innocent civilians in Iraq and the Israelis are killing innocent civilians in Palestine. Do you deny these facts?"

What does this have to do with the problem DiFi was addressing exactly? Islamic radicals are murdering far more of their fellow Muslims than they are Westerners (to include Americans and Israeli's). Islamists in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, throughout Africa, etc, are not commiting atrocities, overwhelmingly against fellow Muslims, because of anything at all America or Israel is doing.

"But what does acting in a civil way actually get Palestinians or Sunnis?"

Quite frankly, the Sunni's are not deserving of much sympathy in the first place. The Sunni's are a MINORITY group in Iraq whom have violently oppressed the majority Shia and Kurds for decades. Why exactly should I be worried about the plight of the Sunni's? Do you believe that this particular minority is entitled to special status and privilage in Iraq? What makes you believe it is...let's use the word understandable... for this group to terrorize the majority Shia and Kurd in order to reclaim their power?

And as for the Palestinians, I do agree that they have been badly mistreated by the Israeli's. I believe the establishment of the Israeli state by the UN was a mistake, but it can't be undone now. Not all injustice can be corrected. Do you think American will give back its share of North American to the native peoples we slaughtered? Ofcourse that will never happen. History is filled with abuses that can never be corrected - the goal is to try to prevent future injustice wherever reasonably possible. Saying that, I do happen to believe the Palestinians have a right, should they chose to continue down a path I believe will never lead to any sort of victory other than to spill still more blood, to attack (even with suicide bombers) Israeli military targets whether that be installations or personnel. I do not however, believe it is okay to INTENTIONALLY target teenagers at pizzaria's and disco's. And if you really want to single out whom is the most to blame for the plight of the Palestinians, take a good look at how Saudi Arabia, the GCC States and other organizations and countries throughout the Middle East have, rather than actually help the Palestinians, instead used them as a proxy to fight Israel and keep their populations ire directed at the Jews rather than their own tyrannical regimes.

"No, of course I do not condone the killing of civilians anywhere - Palestine, Vietnam, Russia, London, New York or elsewhere."

But you'll excuse it until such time as American and Western foreign policy meets your requirements? So you can't condemn one form of terrorism so long as the US (and presumably the entire Western world) engages in activities you consider wrong?

Do you not see that Islamists are doing far more damage to the Muslim world (and Muslim communities in the West) than they are to the America, Israel or anyone else in the West? Do you not see how these radicals are corrupting a good religion. Has it not occured to you that these suicide bombings in the London and elsewhere threaten the lives of decent, honest Muslims living in the West more than they do Bush or Blair? Do you know what will happen if Westerners begin to seriously distrust the Muslim's living amongst them? Think an end to immigration, mass internments and deportations won't happen if the majority of Brits or any other European nation begins to feel seriously threatened by the Muslims living amongst them? And how precisely are these Islamists doing Muslim populations any good at all when they seize power and impose the strictest, most backward form of Shari-a on ordinary Muslim people? We should not speak out against those whom would rob women of all rights and dignity?

You should really stop and think about this a little further.

And by the way, I shouldn't have previously suggested you in some way seemed to support terrorism. You didn't say that, and I've no right to make such an accusation. I understand the point your trying to make, I just completely disagree with it in the strongest way. It baffles me, with all the information available to us about what these fanatics really represent, how some on the left find even the slightest common cause with Islamists. Western society is not so bad that we should excuse Islamic religous fanatics who believe the slaughter of civilians is an acceptable avenue of "struggle". The enemy of my enemy is NOT always a friend - sometimes it is actually a far worse enemy. Those on the left in particular, should be the first to stand up against these vile, fanatical Islamist murderers.

Imajika

[TomClash]

71. One by One

"fanatics commiting horrific acts of terror. Until Muslim communities across the globe ostricize radicals, the incidents of Islamists murdering innocents throughout the world will continue to accelerate."

This is one side of the coin. That's my point. So why do so many muslims tacitly support these barbarous acts? Because they are bad . . . as some would have you believe? They don't see an alterantive. And they aren't given one.

"Islamic radicals are murdering far more of their fellow Muslims than they are Westerners (to include Americans and Israeli's). Islamists in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, throughout Africa, etc, are not commiting atrocities, overwhelmingly against fellow Muslims, because of anything at all America or Israel is doing."

Really? If you believe the UN Report, the US sanctions killed a million Iraqi children from the Gulf War to the Iraq War. Even if that is off by a factor of 10 that's still 100,000 children. At least another 25,000 civilians have been killed since the United States invaded Iraq. They kill their own people because they see them as collaborators.

"The Sunni's are a MINORITY group in Iraq whom have violently oppressed the majority Shia and Kurds for decades. Why exactly should I be worried about the plight of the Sunni's? Do you believe that this particular minority is entitled to special status and privilage in Iraq? What makes you believe it is...let's use the word understandable... for this group to terrorize the majority Shia and Kurd in order to reclaim their power?"

That begs the question - you took my comment completely out of context. No one said the Sunnis in Iraq are right or should have a privileged place. And don't forget the Kurds are also a minority in Iraq. My point was that the sunnis will continue to fight until their grievances are addressed. There are ways to do that but they have not been explored.

"I do not however, believe it is okay to INTENTIONALLY target teenagers at pizzaria's and disco's. And if you really want to single out whom is the most to blame for the plight of the Palestinians, take a good look at how Saudi Arabia, the GCC States and other organizations and countries throughout the Middle East have, rather than actually help the Palestinians, instead used them as a proxy to fight Israel and keep their populations ire directed at the Jews rather than their own tyrannical regimes."

So it's intent. I hear this tiresome argument all the time. The problem with it is really simple - if I want to kill soldiers but I end up killing you too, you're dead just as if I intended to kill you in the first place. If you are killed collaterally, you are still just as dead as the guy killed directly.

If you want me to support Middle East arab regimes, you're barking up the wrong tree. But to say that the plight of the Palestinians is caused more by Bahrain than Israel is really stretching the point. When Oman and Kuwiat start building settlements near Ramallah, I'll take this point more seriously.

"But you'll excuse it until such time as American and Western foreign policy meets your requirements? So you can't condemn one form of terrorism so long as the US (and presumably the entire Western world) engages in activities you consider wrong?"

Good point. And of course I condemn terrorism, having been the victim of it more than once. These people killed three childhood friends of mine as well as my best friend. I just don't see it in the same vacuum as some Americans do. It's a war and the point of war is to win, or more accurately, to make the other side relent. If you will recall this was my original point.

"Do you know what will happen if Westerners begin to seriously distrust the Muslim's living amongst them? Think an end to immigration, mass internments and deportations won't happen if the majority of Brits or any other European nation begins to feel seriously threatened by the Muslims living amongst them? And how precisely are these Islamists doing Muslim populations any good at all when they seize power and impose the strictest, most backward form of Shari-a on ordinary Muslim people? We should not speak out against those whom would rob women of all rights and dignity?"

This can be condensed into the "it hurts muslims" argument. Probably. But then why is there sympathy amongst ordinary muslims for these people? It's not exactly because they love their program -it's because no one presents an alternative. Like others on this Board, who admittedly have a different agenda than you, you present no alternative except to say STOP. You seem to have a better understanding of the situation than most, but you don't present a better way. As an example, it's not like negotiation ever got the Palestinians anywhere in 38 years. And by the way, the sharia is being imposed on women in "Democratic Iraq" by the blessed Shia Government so I don't see much of a diference there.

"It baffles me, with all the information available to us about what these fanatics really represent, how some on the left find even the slightest common cause with Islamists. Western society is not so bad that we should excuse Islamic religous fanatics who believe the slaughter of civilians is an acceptable avenue of "struggle". The enemy of my enemy is NOT always a friend - sometimes it is actually a far worse enemy. Those on the left in particular, should be the first to stand up against these vile, fanatical Islamist murderers."

Well, wait. Let's see. Which fanatics? Al Qaeda (whatever that is)? Hamas? The Baathists? Are they really all the same?

And who finds common cause with Islamists? No one I know "on the left" finds common cause with Islamic religious fanatics. You'd find more similar social views among some of your fellow Virginians (at least in real Virginia) than you would "on the left."

You cannot stop terror unless you at least recognize the grievances behind the terror. The London bombers did not go about their acts because they got fanatical religion. Mohammed Atta did not plow his plane into 1 WTC a few nights after drinking like a fish and sleeping with ladies of the evening because he was devout.

Back to my original point. Terror is a method of warfare not an enemy in and of itself. We cannot win if we don't get that. But then again maybe that's the most salient and Orwellian point of them all.

[Imajika]

75. TomClash..

Thoughtful post and some good points. I wish I had some time to debate it further, but at this moment I don't.

Just wanted to let you know I read your response, and will reply further time permitting.

Thanx for the discussion.

Imajika

[TomClash]

87. No thank you

Your arguments were quite thoughtful, well presented and gave me reason to reflect.

[Frances]

29. Terrorism isn't the only threat to the U.S.

I think that the war in Iraq is sapping U.S. strength militarily and economically and is creating terrorists. No imam or mosque can stop terrorism at this point in time.

However, the terrorists are not the only threat to the U.S. While we are preoccupied with them (and rightly so), the Chinese are growing stronger all over the world. The Chinese are everywhere in the Venezuelan oil fields according to a friend who knows people working there. The Chinese are very influential in Zimbabwe and other African countries according to an article I read on DU yesterday. China dominated the Asian conference that Condi Rice snubbed. And in spite of Bush outsourcing so many of our good jobs to India, India is also aligning with China on an oil pipeline.

Feinstein should look at the big picture.

[NNguyenMD]

32. I think that their unequivocal support would be well received and welcomed

if the imams made a religious decree that suicide bombers will go to hell if htey commit acts of terrorism.

[Bridget Burke]

37. Imams are more powerful in the Shia branch of Islam.

The Sunni are quite decentralized.

Not all Shia revere the same Imams. The Sunni would take an Imam's decree as seriously as a Catholic would take the latest press release from the Southern Baptist Convention.

[Malikshah]

36. Feinstein should talk to the media-- they have condemned it

repeatedly, but the media doesn't cover it.

So...Sen Feinstein. F*(& off and check your facts first.

[marbuc]

39. I wish lawmakers

would encourage Christian fundies to discourage muslim bashing. Blaming every muslim for the sins of a few cannot be productive.

[K-W]

42. I wish lawmakers would make laws that stop US terrorism and aggression.

Rather than lecturing Muslims on how to think and act.

[CJCRANE]

43. There's no muslim pope or archbishop

plus there's about one billion muslims in nearly two hundred countries with no central organization so there is literally no-one who speaks for all muslims.

However if you listen to BBC Radio or watch BBC news programmes they quite often have muslim leaders on denouncing terrorism.

[eagler]

51. This is like christians denouncing the clan. But it

will probably have to happen or muslims worldwide will become targets. Several talk show hosts have spoken about using internment camps for them and even bombing their ancient holy sites.

[CJCRANE]

44. I think she's missing the point.

a) There are plenty of muslim leaders who denounce terrorism.

b) Al-Qaeda is a secret organisation of small groups of outlaws. Members don't go around wearing "I'm with the Jihad, Stupid!" and telling everyone how they're going to bomb their neighbours etc.

[MisterP]

46. collective guilt now! whoopee!

here's a "dang you" from a Californian, DiFi

[brentspeak]

47. Wow! I actually agree with Feinstein on something.

Muslim leaders in this regard are so milquetoast they make John Kerry campaign advisors look like bulldogs. Clearly, they fear for their lives if their voices are raised too loudly.

[Bridget Burke]

48. Name the Muslim leaders you've found especially meek.

Do you have links to their comments?

[brentspeak]

49. This recent "Jordan statement" a couple of weeks ago

Over 150 Muslim leaders attended a seminar where they agreed to a statement that violence in the name of Islam is not "spiritually legitimate". While that's encouraging to hear, they stopped short of making a clear statement to denounce violence against non-Muslims; only the London-based Muslim leaders took such a stand.

From this article: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/071305dnrelmuslimmeeting.11c9463.html

[K-W]

50. So it isnt good enough that they denounced it,

you want them to denounce it in your words?

[brentspeak]

52. Where did I say I wanted them to use "my words"?

Nice red herring. If they were real leaders, they would denounce Islam-based violence completely and unequivocably.

[K-W]

56. They did denounce all Islam based violence. EOM

[Bridget Burke]

58. Are all "real leaders" totally pacifist?

That's what denouncing all violence completely & unequivocably would mean.

Why should their leaders be better than ours?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

77. That was really a nice twist of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

- All Scotsmen MUST denounce sugar in the porridge as EVIL!
- OK, sugar in the porridge is evil.
- You didn't say it was EXTREMELY evil! You're condoning sugar in the porridge!

[daleo]

53. Suppose the pope said "violence in the name of Christ

is not spiritually legitimate". That would seem like a pretty clear statement to me.

[dolstein]

55. You'd think this would be something DU'ers could agree with, but NOOOOOOOO

Not surprisingly, the "blame America first" crowd had to weigh in, drawing a moral equivalency between the Al Quaida suicide bombers and American solidiers in Iraq. And then the "blame Christianity first" crowd had to weigh in. The "blame Israel first" crowd is strangely silent. Go figure.

[Malikshah]

57. I"m part of the blame Feinstein crowd

She clearly doesn't pay attention, read the press releases, etc. and depends on CNN/FOX etc for her news.

They haven't covered the denunciations-- doesn't mean they didn't occur--just that the media couldn't get off their asses to notice..nor could Feinstein or any other person who asks "why haven't Muslims denounced such-and-such?"

I was in London last week-- the media there covered the denunciations of the attacks-- as well as the one or two sickhead Muslim scholars who preach jihad-- they point here is that the media covered the voices in the UK...not here.

[Bridget Burke]

59. "Blame America First" & "Blame Christianity First"

Gosh, what novel & original phrases. I'll bookmark this for sure!

[Media_Lies_Daily]

60. Give it a rest. Feinstein's not helping the situation by making such....

...a stupid public grand-standing request of Muslim leaders. Most, if not all, Muslim leaders have already made this request, but they get about as much media coverage as a man in the moon.

Tell me this...what's the difference between an Iraqi group of civilians being obliterated by a 1000 pound U. S. bomb, and a suicide bomber blowing up a bus?

It's all a matter of perspective...we have illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, and the Iraqis want us out. Go figure.

[dolstein]

64. Thanks for equating the United States with Al Quaeda

You've basically proved my point -- that the left-wing is dominated by people who see the United States as evil and equate U.S. military action with terrorism.

Let me explain the difference -- the target of the current U.S. military operations in Iraq are insurgents (and, before that, the Iraq military and the Hussein government). Of course, war is a messy affair, and civilians get killed. The U.S. and its allies killed a lot of civilians in Japan, Germany and Italy during WWII. Unfortunately, the days when two armies would meet in some isolated meadow and fire at each other have long since past.

A suicide bomber, on the other hand, specifically targets civilians. Instead of blowing themselves up in front of a military base, they blow themselves up in a subway station or discotheque.

To sum up -- while actions of the military and terrorists may lead to civilian deaths, terrorists specifically target civilians, whereas the military targets opposition forces and tries to minimize civilian deaths. It's a pretty simple and obvious distinction, unless you happen to be one of those people on the fringe who considers all forms of warfare inherently illegitimate. Now, if you're as predictable as most of the other DU'ers are, you'll deny this. You'll acknowledge that some wars are just, just not anything the U.S. has been involved with since WWII. But of course, accepting the legitimacy of WWII means accepting things like the bombing of Tokyo and Dresden, not to mention Hiroshima and Tokyo. The Allied forces took actions that let to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. They did so in order to bring the war to as swift a conclusion as possible. But there is no doubt that if the Allies had lost, their leaders would have been tried as war criminals.

[wuushew]

65. The allies did not do everything to bring a swift conclusion to the war

the unwise insistence of unconditional surrender on both fronts prolonged the war by many months. The atomic bomb can be debated to death on this website but suffice to say Japan was in no condition to militarily threaten the United States in 1945.

[dolstein]

78. I other words, we should have cut a deal with the Nazis and Tojo

Hell, why didn't we just surrender on December 8, 1941? That would cut the war short by a few years.

[wuushew]

82. I never said that

You are projecting animosity were none exists. Additionally I find your constant and righteous tirades about what the left should or should not embrace tiresome. What you espouse is no less a form of moral absolutism than what Islamic and Christian terrorist/advocates use. Are you so sure what is right and wrong for other people and or cultures? I cannot speak to what other people believe in their hearts. The closest thing approach universal agreed upon ideas are one's that avoid to the greatest extent hypocrisy, something the United States has never done well. Without embracing some of the relativism or probably as you would see it nihilism of the left you yourself are prone to agree with many of the justifications Mr. Bush uses in his so called foreign policy. Modern foreign policy is not the paragon of virtue but rather the intersection of political expediency with monied interests.

Hillary Clinton, the DLC and the Lukuid party leave me with nothing but anger and disappointment. Unless you are here mainly for the economic differences the left could offer you have little disagreement with the Republican party save the methods since you agree with them substantially on the rationalizations for use of military force in the world.

[dolstein]

85. While you continue to apologize for and rationlize Islamic terrorism

I will continue to defend wholeheartedly the right of the United States to defend itself, its allies, and to forefully advance the cause of freedom and democracy around the world.

[barb162]

92. Good points

I just wish Bush was going about things differently. Bush really shouldn't have invaded Iraq before the weapons inspectors were done. He would have found there was no need. Also what's going on there now with the Constitution and womens' rights will set back women centuries

[Pewlett Hackard]

93. you lost me

what does "forefully" mean?

[Bridget Burke]

89. No war was declared against Iraq.

Nor against Afghanistan. That's why our government is claiming the Geneva Conventions "don't apply" to our prisoners at Guantanamo.

Illegal invasions of strategically important areas are hardly comparable to WWII. To OUR role in that conflict, anyway. Remember Pearl Harbor?

Since you have such contempt for DU'ers, why do you bother to post here? Do you think you are going to convince anyone of the Rightness of your cause?

[The_Casual_Observer]

61. Feinstein shows complete ignorance again.

[classysassy]

63. A top US senator

If you disagree with the senator vote for Barbara Lee to replace her.

[madmark]

68. Feinstein's statement is fine

The US should be battling Wahabism and its military arm, Al Quada, in the arena of world opinion and ideas, which is what Feinstein was doing with that statement, instead of prosecuting a pointless and completely counterproductive invasion and occupation of Iraq.

[K-W]

72. No, the US should be minding its own business.

Feinstein is a hypocrite and nobody anywhere is going to take her seriously unless she condemns her government for its terrorism and aggression and I dont think she is going to do that any time soon.

The world isnt stupid, it knows America is full of shit.

[dolstein]

80. Excuse me, but this IS our business

In case you missed it, Islamic fundamentlists have attacked both the United States and its closest ally, Britain.

[leesa]

84. Careful what you ask for! The time is ripe for Muslims to make a

strong statement about the terrorism from the West, particularily the US. They will have world-wide backing.

[IndianaGreen]

90. This is the same Feinstein that has remained silent all these years

about the terrorism that is Israel's occupation of Palestine.

Well Dianne, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

There is a link between the London bombings and elswhere and US/UK policies in the Middle East, including the war in Iraq and our support of tyrants like Mubarek.