I don't think we should talk about Islam to Muslims and give them our interpretations of it. We need to strengthen the idea that this is not an attack on Islam. We will not understand Islam the way the countries in the ME do and I am not sure we need to tell them what is and isn't against the teachings of Islam. Are you sure that the manufacture of nuclear weapons is against Islam? Evidently the flying of planes into buildings and the blowing up of busses is not against the teaching of Islam to some.

Terrorism, Terrorist, Dictatorships, and Foreign Policies, Imperialisms of all principles involved need to be examined, debated, negoticiated, prosecuted and soloutions found in order to irradicate the causes and symptoms.

__________________
AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE--BECAUSE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

Agreed. Wouldn't want to upset anybody. Might help to stop the beheadings though.

It isn't about upsetting anybody. It is about why should we interpret or be put into a position to interpret Islamic Law. I could care less how they practice Islam as long as part of it does not involve killing Americans.

I am sure the beheadings are not a accepted practice among mainstream Islam, so what is the point in talking to the some of the Muslims about how they are going against Islam when they do this. If they do not know this already, I doubt that our western perspective of it will have any influence at all. It would be a waste of time and probably do more harm than good.

Pretty to think so. They must express their "beheading outrage" with silence.

Thank you Dom for not being a close minded fellow....Of course the Murder of unarmed civilians is strictly forbiden in Islam....and you ae right that is is not accepted in the mainstream, and that Non- Muslims telling the extremist assholes that "oh yeah murder is against Islam" does not help...........

Many people do not really see it, but right now there is a civil war in Islam (across all secretarian boundries) between the Moderates and The Extremists
This is the battle for control of Islam fought from within, but in the end i know in my heart that the moderate Muslims will win out....it may take time
Our prophet Muhammed taught us that Islam is the religion of moderation and peace.....It may not look good for the short term but inshallah, the killers and terrorists will be defeated and the Moderate version of Islam will hold out

I wish this kind of sentiment was not present:

"He drew water and drank from a glass chained to a cemented public water tank next to a mosque, which was reserved for 'all' poor people," the VOM report said. "Returning to the construction site, a Muslim man asked him, 'Why did you drink water from this glass since you are a Christian?'"

The man then accused Nasir of polluting the glass, yanked the glass off the iron chain, broke it and threw it in a garbage can.

He also summoned other militant Muslims nearby.

"This man polluted our glass," he told them.

The result was an incensed mob that beat Nasir, yelling that a "Christian dog" drank from their glass.

Bystanders encouraged the beating, because it would be a "good" deed that would help them in heaven, the report said.

"The attackers pushed Nasir off a ledge onto the ground, and the fall dislocated his shoulder and broke his collarbone in two places," the VOM report said.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=51859

__________________
FREE THE SHEEPLE!

It's true that the Supreme Council there opposed Khatami's reforms - I don't dispute that, and like I said, the clerics are all-powerful in Tehran. But they weren't so powerful as to deny Khatami the presidency - there was and is a significant reform movement there, and that worried the conservatives. So they instead to "water down" Khatami's powers and thus frustrate his followers. But that goes back to the whole legitimacy of the regime argument I was making earlier - the more the clerics interfere in sectarian politics the way they did with Khatami, the more they lose their legitimacy with the population. I've got to figure that the Iranian Supreme Council's role in Iranian society is perceived to be one of secular guidance, and the more they're seen to interfere in down-and-dirty politics, the more they lose face as spiritual leaders in the eyes of the Iranian people.

Did the reformists lose support because Khatami was frustrated in his goals? Yes. Did it lose enough support to deny a Reformist candidate the Presidency in 2005 without the US invasion of Iraq? I sincerely doubt it. Let's not forget that Ahmadinejad was elected in the first runoff election in Iran's history... he actually finished second to former President Rafsanjani in the first round of voting. Admittedly, Rafsanjani is more of a centrist than a reformer, but without the extra impetus given to the conservatives by the Iraqi invasion, I have to believe that he would have stood a very really chance of winning the election last year. In the end you reap what you sow... Ahmadinejad's aggressive foreign policy is Iran's answer to George Bush's aggressive foreign policy.


Of course his detractors said that the economy was doing badly *L* That's why they're called detractors in the first place! But Khatami didn't have all that bad a record, considering... I think he averaged something like 6% GDP growth, so that's not too shabby by anyone's standards (well, except probably China's). I don't think economic policy was really perceived to be a failure on the part of Khatami's administration.

To tell you the truth, I don't even think it's a majority of Iranians who are anti-American. The very fact that Khatami was even allowed by the clerics to be a candidate for the Presidency, let alone the fact that he managed to win by two landslide elections leads me to believe that there is a significant groundswell of reformist support in the country. That's got to be a pretty scary prospect for the clerics... and what's the best way to deal with it? Whip a good old-fashioned crisis with the US again... make it so the people rally around the flag and are once again receptive and supportive of the conservative message. To the extent that the US escalates the crisis, I think it only plays into the hands of the clerics.

So Iran has a nuclear bomb... what are they going to do with it? Bomb New York? Tel Aviv? The US and Israel both have enough deterrent power to make that a losing proposition for Iran. Deterrence worked against the Soviet Union... why should it not work now?

I'd like to know what it isn't a reasonable course to take the moral legitimacy the UN Security Council gives you and then sit down and talk with the Iranians. Let them know that we respect their system of Government and their devotion to the principles of Islam, do that and strive to pin them down on the true nature of Khamenei's fatwah - let the whole world know his intepretation of Islamic law as it pertains to nuclear weapons. Then if Iran does go ahead and manufacture nuclear weapons despite this, the entire regime is exposed as the lying hypocrites they would be... both to the world and to the Iranian people in particular. How could they take their own government seriously ever again after that?

If Hamas was caught diverting Western aid to terrorist activities, then would have been the time to cut off aid. Until such time, though, if we are to believe in the values of democracy we should have given them the benefit of the doubt. Increase our vigilance over Palestinian Aid programs, absolutely, but also give them the benefit of the doubt that they will see to it that the money gets to where it is intended. As it was, though, the aid was cut off when the party we favored in the elections lost... we took our ball and bat and went home, and that's a disservice to democracy in the Middle East. That's playing sides in another country's politics.

I'm not advocating the funding of terrorism anywhere at any time... but by the same token, I don't take a double standard where it comes to Palestinian terrorism and Israeli apartheid - just because Israelis wear helmets instead of kaffiyehs doesn't make their activities any less reprehensible. Israel would not be a long-term viable entity without substantial doses of US and Western aid - so why should we support the violent oppression of the Palestinian people any more than we support the blatant murder of Israeli citizens?

Palestine has a right to exist. Palestinians have a right to try and carve out a living for their families in the same way that Israelis do.

I think you've got to separate the rhetoric from the reality here, Dom... it's true that certain conservative elements in Iranian society whip up crises to bolster their power, just like I point out earlier... but it's also true that there is a significant percentage, and perhaps a majority, of Iranians who are proud of the country, proud of their religion, and want to make their way in the world without the threat of nuclear destruction hovering over them. When you get right down to it, people are pretty much the same wherever you go - they want the same things for their families, they want to live good lives. The chanting in the streets and the burning of the flags is just so much red meat for the partisans.

But, by the same token, can't you see how Iranians might perceive US actions in the region? The countries to their East and West have been invaded and taken over by the US. The US President has labelled them a charter member of the "Axis of Evil"... as I recall, one of three countries with that tag. So let's take stock of the other two... let's see... one had nuclear weapons and so the US is bending over backwards to negotiate with them, the other didn't and the US invaded them. What kind of message do you figure that sends to Tehran?

I'm not saying that we should preach to Iranians about what Islamic truly means... that's arrogance of the worst kind. But I do think that we should be willing to listen humbly and respect what they think it means. I'm not an Islamic scholar myself, but I have to believe that if the Supreme Leader of an Islamic Republic comes out and issues as solemn declaration that nuclear weapons are abhorrent to Islam that he should be listened to. It's true that there are varying interpretations of what is and what is not allowable under Islamic law, but to compare someone like Osama bin Laden to Khamenei is akin to comparing David Koresch with the Pope. When Khamenei issues a fatwah, it carries infinitely more weight... his is definitely a voice worth hearing on this issue.

But like I said, I don't know how legitimate this fatwah is, but I do know that to ignore it would show a total lack of respect for the beliefs of the Iranians. Who knows? Maybe Khamenei is a shallow liar? Maybe he is the type of man who will say anything to increase his power.... if so, I have to believe that nothing we in the West can do will expose that more than by having him come out and state one thing in the name of Allah and then turn around and do the opposite. I do, however, think that it's an avenue that hasn't been explored at all to this point in the crisis, and putting myself in the shoes of the Iranians, I have to figure that our ignorance of such a solemn pronouncement reinforces in their mind our own moral bankruptcy.

Khatami has some good pionts. we have either created or roused terrorists in the Middle East because of our actions their. instead of trying to blow up people in the Middle East we should try and communicate with them, to try and solve the grievances that plague the area like locust.

__________________
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum viditur.