On 03 Aug, 2004, at 16:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IRAQ: "This was not done by Iraqis."
"This was not done by Iraqis (Muslims)," the Iraqi Christian woman
said to
my teammate Peggy and me. We stood in front of the Syrian church. It
was one
of the five churches targeted by militants in Iraq on Sunday.
"Iraqis are
not like this," the woman continued. She was not angry, but sincere.
"We
live together with Iraqi Muslims without any problems."
This woman is not alone in her words. Other Iraqi Christians have said
the same thing. Our Iraqi Christian landlord told us that Iraqi
Muslims
would not try to do something extreme like blow up churches. He
acknowledged
that there are ignorant Muslims in Iraq who attack Christian liquor
stores
because alcohol is forbidden in Islam, but said these people are not a
majority.
This is exactly what I said... and it underscores the problems, not
only in this country, but in "secular" Muslim countries like Iraq,
Turkey, Egypt or Jordan.
The "official Muslim" position is absolutely correct.
Just as Ross calls himself a Mennonite instead of a Christian, the
people perpetrating "terrorism" are Islamists, not Muslims. They are a
sect of Islam, just as Catholics, Quakers or Methodists are sects of
Christianity.
The Quakers and Anabaptists form "Christian Peacemaker Teams" but they
are quick to remind you that they are Quakers and Anabaptist FIRST, and
Christians second. [If that were not true, one would never know that
they WERE Quakers and Anabaptist. One would think that they were only
Christians.]
The world of the Islamist Terrorist is no different. They are Islamists
first, and Muslims second.
Note however two VERY important points.
1- Islamist is the West's term for this group of individuals
2- Muslim is THEIR term used to reference themselves.
This game of semantics is far more important than 99% of the world
realizes. Despite "good intentions" to the contrary, everyone
pigeon-holes people based on tags. They form opinions of people and
things based upon the most bizarre criteria. If you are a fan of
Buckaroo Banzi you are one type of person. If you are a fan of Michael
Moore you are another.
Before the creation of the 9/11 Commission report, this "pigeon-holing"
of people was called "discrimination" or "profiling." Since the
publication of the report everyone, especially the Left, is demanding a
return to discrimination and profiling as the only way to "keep us
safe."
The 9/11 Commission (following the lead of other scholars on the
subject) created the term "Islamist Terrorist" to deal with the desire
of these individuals to "hide" amongst their Muslim Brethren. These
Islamist Terrorist call themselves Muslims, precisely so that the
"Christian Peacemaker Teams" can report back to their constituencies
the fact that Muslims deny that the bombing of Christian Churches was
done by Muslims (with the unspoken and implied addendum, "like
themselves").
This technique is as old as time. It is one of the prime building
blocks of the American Culture -- the desire for anonymity. It is
enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution ...
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness." While the "Desire to be
left alone" is NOT enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it is the heart
and soul of the anti-spam movement and so many other, similar
endeavors, especially in cyberspace. Politically, it tends to be called
Libertarianism -- or the "right" not to have the government tell you
who can have an abortion of who can marry whom.
So, here you have these Islamist Terrorists hiding out amongst, and
calling themselves "Muslims" -- and the end result is that the "enemy"
cannot see the individual trees in the forrest.
"Personification of the Enemy" is a tactic as old as warfare. In recent
memory were were not opposing Germany, but "Kaiser Bill," or the "Mad
Paper Hanger." Even more recently we were not opposing Serbs, but
Millosovich. So it is with Islamist Terrorists. They are personified as
Bin Laden. While this makes "focus" easy, it obscures the traits that
make the enemy "The Enemy."
Since they have no concept of such a thing as "Islamist Terrorists,"
only Muslims, the Christian Peacemaker Teams report back that no Muslim
would do such thing. Sadly, just as when dealing with Computer Support
people -- it is a true statement, on the macro level; but one which not
only ignores the reality, but has no basis at the micro level. It is
equivalent to saying, "No Christian would ever kill another human
being, so therefore no one in the armed forces is a Christian."
Meanwhile, the Islamist Terrorist, basking in the glow of "popular
support for Muslims," continues to sow the seeds of their "quiet
revolution." And, yes, it is a quiet revolution. By radicalizing "The
Arab Street," just as in this country, "Organized Religion" hold less
and less sway over opinions and actions.
A similar example is in the two Presidential Candidates, Bush and
Kerry. They both bask in the glow of being considered "Yale Graduates."
This is a true statement, but it obscures the deeper fact that they are
both Bonesemen. A Bonesman is a member of the Skull and Bones "Society"
at Yale. If you know or are a Bonesman, nothing further need be said.
If you are not, nothing can be said. However, nothing could be "more"
important to the Presidential campaign. But it is a topic that the
Media has simply dropped. Some of the more "reasoned" discussions of
the topic are here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/60minutes/main576332.shtml
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0122-10.htm
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/03-08-2004/bonesmen.htm
A web search for "skull and bones" will yield a huge number of hits --
from both the extreme Left and the Extreme Right.
But the fact remains, "Skull and Bones" is a real organization which
both Bush and Kerry are members of. That says more about the two men,
their similarities and their differences, than anything else likely to
be said by either side in the campaign. And it basically says that
there is not one iota of difference between the two on issues where it
matters... despite what the public may think.
But I digress, or do I?
The Islamist Terrorist enjoys the obscurity of being called a Muslim.
But their Islam is as different from that of the "Iraqi Muslim" as the
Christian Jesuits are when compared to the Christian Mormons.
The 9/11 Commission Report shines a "popular" light onto what has been
an obscure "academic" discipline -- the beliefs and goals of the
Islamist Terrorist.
The Islamist Terrorists DO hate anything "Western." Period. They are as
different from the Ottoman Empire as "we" are from the Neanderthal.
(For any definition of "we" which excludes the Islamist Terrorist.)
They ARE engaged in a Religious war -- not only against Christianity,
but against the Islam of the Alhambra... which they see as the reason
why Islam went into decline. They succeed because THEY know what they
are doing, and "we" claim that they would never be doing it. Denial is
in direct support of their end.
Do not loose sight of the fact that they are copying the tactics
employed by Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. The American
Revolution was fermented and created by Secret Societies, primarily,
but not exclusively, the Freemasons, who in the 1700s were a seriously
radical bunch of folks, not the extreme, knee-jerk, conservatives they
are today. [Read "The Radical Enlightenment: Pantheists, Freemasons
and Republicans," Margaret C. Jacob, UCLA]
Does that place America in the role of England in 1776?
Only on the most superficial level. The American Revolution, and the
ideas of the Enlightenment, were all about Individual Freedom,
especially from Religious Dogma. The ideas of the Islamist Terrorist
are all about the exact opposite -- repression of Individual Freedom
and the imposition of strict Religious Dogma.
First, a reference to my essay "Anabaptist Attitudes Toward the
Turks". Back
when the Ottomans were knock knock knocking on Vienna's doors, my
spiritual
ancestors in Europe were saying things (under torture) like "I will
not fight,
but if I did, I would fight for the Turks rather than Christendom."
Yes, Ross, you are absolutely correct. The time period you refer to was
the key building period for the American Revolution. And, Vienna WAS
one of the "hot beds" of thought which contributed directly to the
Enlightenment.
But the Turks were not Islamist Terrorists, they were merely another
secular regime intent on expanding its empire, ... who happened to be
Muslims. The Church, which was the secular ruler of Europe at the time
(remember, the Holy Roman Empire, King Henry and all that) couched the
war as Christians vs the Lions... er Muslims, just as they did with the
Crusades. But those were in fact, NOT religious wars, but wars couched
in religious terms. Their intent was to control the flow of tribute to
the Church. The Inquision was created solely because Spain needed the
money. The Knights Templar were "disbanded" by the Pope for the same
reason. All were secular acts draped in religious trappings.
It was not until the American Revolution that a true Secular Society
evolved.
The history of the West is nothing but secular activities draped in
religious trappings. Consequently, we view all such things through this
prism. We all know that the "church" is hypocritical, because it has
always been hypocritical in the West. Iran is a "theocracy" -- no
different from when Rome ruled the world. A Theocracy is quite
efficient and effective at harnessing religious fervor for secular
ends. No different than King Henry vs the Monasteries ... they were
accumulating wealth and the Crown was not. The Ayatollahs do not
experience the poverty of the rest of the country any more than the
Abbots or Bishops did. ... "Do as we say, not as we do" is their motto.
The Islamist Terrorists are well aware of this fact and reject them
just as they do the West.
They ARE Religious Fanatics, "True Believers" if you will. And they are
smart, intelligent, AND educated by the West in all of the traditions
and foibles of the West.
Yes, this is a Religious war. One which abhors the pluralism which the
West embraces, and is committed to ending it. Would your Anabaptist
ancestors willingly give up their Anabaptist beliefs, and convert to
Radical Islam to fight on the side of the Islamist Terrorist? I rather
doubt it. Their beliefs were why they refused to fight for
Christianity. Oh, a few would be allowed to maintain their Anabaptist
identity for their "media value" -- just as we have "Democrats for
Bush" and "Republicans for Kerry." But in the end, they would either
convert and comply or die. It's that simple.
Yes, this is a "fire and brimstone" sermon. One which is foreign and
scary to the American psyche and way of life.
But the alternative is "Fortress America" -- what is being proposed by
the 9/11 Commission and embraced by so many of the Right and Left.
There is no room in Fortress America for the "political refugee," --
they might be starting up a "sleeper cell."
If you do not bow to Mecca five times a day, you are an Infidel and
must be converted or destroyed. Isn't it strange how a word which once
was used to describe a non-Christian is now routinely used to describe
a non-Muslim? [Yet that usage is the original definition -- which the
OED now calls "obsolete" --"One who does not believe in (what the
speaker holds to be) the true religion; an ‘unbeliever’. Obs."]
Will the Islamist Terrorist view of the world prevail? Only time will
tell.
The Holiest shrines in the Muslim world are in Saudi Arabia. Why do you
think it is a target?
By the way, one last point. You will notice that not a single Islamic
Cleric has declared these Islamist Terrorist to be "Apostate." (The
Muslim equivalent to Excommunication.) That does say something, I'm
just not certain exactly what at this time. There ARE many explanations
and "justifications." I don't know that any of them, or any one of
them, is "the truth."
T.T.F.N.
William H. Magill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
T.T.F.N.
William H. Magill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "Culture." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.