I don't remember the Saudis and Pakistanis being virulently anti-American at the time. But, of course, exceptions are always made for "strategically significant" partners.
I don't remember the Saudis and Pakistanis being virulently anti-American at the time. But, of course, exceptions are always made for "strategically significant" partners.
Well, it's not like political Islamism in the 1990s came out of nowhere. The Saudis were exporting Wahhabism everywhere in the 1980s and Zia ul-Haq was forcing political Islamism of the Jamiat-e-Islami type on Pakistan while at the same time taking our money to kill Russians. And yes, both strains were very anti-American and anti-Western.Originally Posted by SteveMetz
Isn't that kind of always the problem? It's not as if SA or Pakistan are less vital now - quite the opposite.But, of course, exceptions are always made for "strategically significant" partners.
I don't think that's really the same thing. But my point was that I think it's correct to use a nation's attitude toward us as one determinant of the type of relationship we have with it. I just don't think we can have it both ways--using a nation's attitude toward us as a determinant of the nature of our partnership, but thinking that the attitudes of the American public toward the potential partner do not matter.
Do note that I have not taken a position on the inherent nature of Islam, or on the long-term compatability of Islamic culture and the West. I've only made two points: 1) if we don't ratchet down the domestic hostilty toward Islam, we're going to have to radically revamp our global strategy; and, 2) we should take a deep breath and work with a realistic perception of Islam, both globally and domestically, rather than an hysterical notion based on ignorance, and on assuming that the most hostile and violent members of that culture characterize the whole culture.
So, what would you like to try first? Re-education camps? Trials and imprisonment of those who are hostile toward Islam? Maybe we could just fast forward to mass executions of those who hold politically undesirable viewpoints?
Steve, welcome to America. Glad you could join us. In case you haven't noticed, popular opinion is fickle and there is a strong tendency to run toward isolationism and populism, often unfounded by fact.
I'll be busy cleaning up the remainders of manifest destiny and the whole sinking of the USS Maine thing while you mull that over....
Our system works best when responsible leaders temper uninformed mass misperceptions and prejudices. At times, unfortunately, we lapse into periods when purportedly responsible leaders elect to exploit it rather than temper it.
Perhaps if we "hug them" they'll go away, since facing them is clearly out of the question....... sheesh. America is doomed.So, what would you like to try first? Re-education camps? Trials and imprisonment of those who are hostile toward Islam? Maybe we could just fast forward to mass executions of those who hold politically undesirable viewpoints?
Steve, welcome to America. Glad you could join us. In case you haven't noticed, popular opinion is fickle and there is a strong tendency to run toward isolationism and populism, often unfounded by fact.
I'll be busy cleaning up the remainders of manifest destiny and the whole sinking of the USS Maine thing while you mull that over....
"E"
You obviously do not understand the power of sarcasm. I was merely poking fun at Dr. Metz's frustration with the American electorate. And his frustration that they would actually be what they are.
It passed
So, we shortly should see a lawsuit challenging the ballot proposiition.
From NewsOK:
The ballot proposition, Oklahoma "Sharia Law Amendment", State Question 755 (2010), read as follows:Oklahoma Muslims to challenge ballot measure
An Oklahoma Islamic group says a legal challenge is planned against a ballot measure prohibiting state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
Published: November 4, 2010
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — An Oklahoma Islamic group says a legal challenge is planned against a ballot measure prohibiting state courts from considering international law or Islamic law when deciding cases.
The ballot measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70 percent of the vote in Tuesday's general election. But Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma, says Oklahoma Muslims believe it's unconstitutional.
.....
Awad says a lawsuit against the measure will be filed in federal court by a member of the state's Islamic community as early as Thursday.
Passage of the measure (70% apporoval) changed the Oklahoma State Constitution from this:This measure amends the State Constitution. It changes a section that deals with the courts of this state. It would amend Article 7, Section 1. It makes courts rely on federal and state law when deciding cases. It forbids courts from considering or using international law. It forbids courts from considering or using Sharia Law.
International law is also known as the law of nations. It deals with the conduct of international organizations and independent nations, such as countries, states and tribes. It deals with their relationship with each other. It also deals with some of their relationships with persons.
The law of nations is formed by the general assent of civilized nations. Sources of international law also include international agreements, as well as treaties.
Sharia Law is Islamic law. It is based on two principal sources, the Koran and the teaching of Mohammed.
Shall the proposal be approved?
For the proposal
Yes: __________
Against the proposal
No: __________
to this (key part bolded):The judicial power of this State shall be vested in Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, a Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court on the Judiciary, the State Industrial Court, the Court of Bank Review, the Court of Tax Review, and such intermediate appellate courts as may be provided by statute, District Courts, and such Boards, Agencies and Commissions created by the Constitution or established by statute as exercise adjudicative authority or render decisions in individual proceedings. Provided that the Court of Criminal Appeals, the State Industrial Court, the Court of Bank Review and the Court of Tax Review and such Boards, Agencies and Commissions as have been established by statute shall continue in effect, subject to the power of the Legislature to change or abolish said Courts, Boards, Agencies, or Commissions. Municipal Courts in cities or incorporated towns shall continue in effect and shall be subject to creation, abolition or alteration by the Legislature by general laws, but shall be limited in jurisdiction to criminal and traffic proceedings arising out of infractions of the provisions of ordinances of cities and towns or of duly adopted regulations authorized by such ordinances.
Let the games begin.A. The judicial power of this State shall be vested in the Senate, sitting as a Court of Impeachment, a Supreme Court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court on the Judiciary, the Workers’ Compensation Court, the Court of Bank Review, the Court of Tax Review, and such intermediate appellate courts as may be provided by statute, District Courts, and such Boards, Agencies and Commissions created by the Constitution or established by statute as exercise adjudicative authority or render decisions in individual proceedings.
Provided that the Court of Criminal Appeals, the Workers’ Compensation Court, the Court of Bank Review and the Court of Tax Review and such Boards, Agencies and Commissions as have been established by statute shall continue in effect, subject to the power of the Legislature to change or abolish said Courts, Boards, Agencies, or Commissions. Municipal Courts in cities or incorporated towns shall continue in effect and shall be subject to creation, abolition or alteration by the Legislature by general laws, but shall be limited in jurisdiction to criminal and traffic proceedings arising out of infractions of the provisions of ordinances of cities and towns or of duly adopted regulations authorized by such ordinances.
B. Subsection C of this section shall be known as the “Save Our State Amendment”.
C. The Courts provided for in subsection A of this section, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Oklahoma Statutes and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia Law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international or Sharia Law. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.
If that's the case then I respectfully sumbit that the follwing statement's don't make sense...
Only when you analyse Islam fully (don't foregt how much time and effort was spent examining Communist doctrine) can you decide whether what is currently being raised (let's leave the identity of those involved out of it for the moment) is hostile or accurate. By that measure Communism was a benign doctirne (in terms of philosophy and theory nothing Marx said advocated violence as suh, that was a development largely due to Engels and even more so Plekhanov and Lenin).1) if we don't ratchet down the domestic hostilty toward Islam, we're going to have to radically revamp our global strategy; and,
2) we should take a deep breath and work with a realistic perception of Islam, both globally and domestically, rather than an hysterical notion based on ignorance, and on assuming that the most hostile and violent members of that culture characterize the whole culture.
To work with a realistic, rather than fanstaical/fictional, perspective of Islam one must be ready to accept the unsavoury aspects of it (which is a large part of the problem). The problem is that as soon as this is raised people slam the messenger as a fascist/nazi/racist/bigot/(&tc.). Our own perceptions of the criteria for the validity of truth claims clouds the fact that our opponents don't give a damn. Read anythign written by the actualised Jihadis (as opposed to those who have yet to fullfil their obligation) and what do you see? You see them quoting the central doctrinal texts (if you will) of Islam. There was a rideculous scene in NCIS-Los Angeles where a character confronts a Muslim terrorist and utters the imortal lines uttered by all delusional types (he did so in Arabic)"There is not compulsion in Reliogion" What does the suicide bomber do? He smiles and explodes the bomb because he, and to the programme writers credit, knew that that verse is irrelevant/abbrogated. The call to jihad is a universal obligation. We need to ask ourselves why more haven't answered the call not why so few have (got nothing to do with poverty either).Anyone who hears that and regards him/herself a Muslim CANNOT ignore the call to Jihad or risk falling into Shirk or being labbeled a Rafida. If you are not willing to hear the truth- in fact what counts as the truth is as much in dispute- and would rather take what our opponents and their supporters line/speil as truth then I don't see how we can ever come to a consensus regarding the threat (which we consequently downplay/ "misunderestimate").
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks