"The Evil and the Good" (Best Thing I've Read in Some Time...)

Over the last week or so I've read several articles about what the recent immolation execution of the Jordanian pilot by ISIS is supposed to mean, what our reaction should be, etc.. Virtually everyone agrees that it was horrific and that ISIS will need to be dealt with in a serious way until they are no more. Some point to "a feckless foreign policy" by the Obama Administration. Some point to the Muslim faith and make the case for a stronger reaction from the Islamic world towards extremists. Right now, it doesn't seem any one government has a clear sense of what to do about eliminating ISIS. There are strategies currently in place which seem to be more about holding off new gains by the ISIS fighters than anything else.

A friend sent this article over in the last few days. Its from a blogger who is the wife of a US foreign service worker. She is a mother of four and currently lives in Jordan. Here is here bio...

"I'm a freelance writer, mother of four and foreign service spouse who moves every few years because of my husband's job. We've lived in Moscow, Russia; Armenia; Kazakhstan; the United States; Beijing, China; and Amman, Jordan. We moved back to Moscow in summer, 2014. It's a crazy sort of lifestyle, but it's working for us so far."

The writer's name is "Donna" and she blogs at "Email from the Embassy"

Here is an excerpt from her post from 2/4/15 titled, "The Evil and the Good.."

It’s hard to know what to say in the face of such senseless barbarism as the world witnessed yesterday, when ISIS released that video showing the murder of Jordanian pilot Mu’ath al-Kasasbeh.

As someone who spent 4 years in Jordan, and counts many Jordanians amongst my friends, I found this news particularly heart wrenching.  My newsfeed has been filled with sad posts for the past 24 hours, with friends changing their profile pictures to reflect their support for Jordan, while others busily unfriend people for making hate-filled rants against Muslims.

I am far from the events in the Middle East, but I am feeling the pain of my Jordanian friends all the way up here in Moscow. I never met that pilot, who was just 11 short years older than my eldest child, but I know people who knew him.

Just last week, ISIS murdered a Japanese journalist, who was actually a friend of a friend of a friend.  Such is our life in the Foreign Service: when tragedy strikes, it is seldom about something that is happening “over there.” We have a personal stake in it, either because we served there, because we have friends there now, or because we are personally involved in trying to fix the problem at hand.

Someone once tried to make the argument that I, along with other diplomats and their families, am somehow “out of touch” with America, I guess because we can’t watch American television or attend American sporting events in person.  I think the argument was that we don't interact with everyday Americans and thus cannot be relied upon to make the right decisions for the United States, or to even explain the U.S. to the foreigners we encounter at post.

It was a strange and offensive argument to make. I would argue that my service overseas makes me more of an American, not less. Yes, I am giving up some everyday American things by choosing to live outside of the borders, but the very act of giving them up makes me appreciate them more. It’s sure easier to appreciate the importance of free speech when you live in a country where people are jailed for speaking their minds. It’s easier to defend the idea of democracy when you see first-hand how people can suffer without it. And it’s also – yes, this is true, too! – it’s also easier to see the things that are wrong with the U.S. when you see how people in other countries manage the everyday tasks of working and praying and loving.

I didn’t know much about Islam before moving to the Middle East, and truthfully, even after 4 years there, I am certain that I’ve only scratched the surface of what it means to be Muslim.

But it bothers me to read the anti-Muslim comments that seem to be prevalent back there in the States. I say “seem to be,” because as my friend pointed out, I’m not in the States now, so I can’t say for certain what the average person is thinking and saying about Islam. I can tell you what the media are saying, and I find it profoundly disappointing.

These people who did these horrible things to the Jordanian pilot and the Japanese journalist and so many others, these people don’t represent Islam any more than a “Christian” protester who chooses to picket an abortion clinic or a funeral can be said to represent my religion.

These brutes, with their vicious and twisted misunderstanding of God, represent no real religion, no real faith. They know nothing of God.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's about half of her post, the rest is absolutely worth your time and attention. It does not insult your intelligence, rather, she makes an interesting case on how she looks at the role of faith in time like this. I thought it was excellent...


Go read the whole piece here:

Sources:

http://emailfromtheembassy.blogspot.com/

http://emailfromtheembassy.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-evil-and-good.html

Two very different interviews with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf...

Two very different interviews with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf...

Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf has been in America long time. Born in 1948 Kuwait to Egyptian parents, Rauf  moved to New York City in the 1960's, where he, from 1983 to 2009, served as Imam of Masjid al-Farah. Rauf studied physics at Columbia University, where he earned his Bachelor's Degree in nuclear engineering in 1969 before earning a master's degree in plasma physics at Stevens Institute in Hoboken, New Jersey. He has also authored three books on Islam and its place in Western society and founded two non profit organisations charted with improving the caliber of the conversation of Islam in the West. He was also invited by President Bush immediately after the attacks in New York City and the Pentagon to speak with the FBI and the US State Department officials. He has a reputation for being a moderate Muslim, who condemned the attacks on 9/11 as "un-Islamic." He has rejected radical forms and practices of Islam. I have watched/listened to several interviews with this man and in my opinion,  he is a model of an American Muslim. I've listened to him defend the building of an interfaith community center, (which was supported by the local Community Board), which has been quite controversial. While I agree that the Center could have been built in some other place, I don't necessarily agree that it should have been. Its removed far enough from the actual ground zero, despite the pejorative nickname many gave the project, ie. "the ground Zero Mosque." 


I hear a man of grace defending his faith, finding fault when applicable and a man who has spent decades trying to help bridge the gap between Muslims and Christians in our Country. I say we need more men like Imam Rauf. This is not to say he is without controversy himself. He has made statements in the past which many found highly offensive, especially those in the aftermath of 9/11. He has also publicly apologized for all of them. 


With Islam growing in practice here in the United States, surely there is no version of the world that I can comprehend that doesn't include sensitive relationships with Islamic Countries. I say the better we can understand each other, the better for us all. This notion that suggests that the Muslim faith is an enemy of Christianity is wrong and dangerous. We should agree that radical "any faith" isn't good, but also avoid the broad brushstrokes of ignorance and hatred.


Recently, there have been two very different interviews with Imam Rauf. One was conducted on May 10th of this year by Pete Dominick, talk show host of "Stand Up with Pete Dominick" heard on the Sirius/XM POTUS channel (#124) Monday through Fridays at 3:00pm. Dominick is a slightly left of center host who's strong point is having interesting guests from all viewpoints making their case. He does not engage in the "gotcha" journalism or bullying/shouting over his guests that other talk show hosts utilize heavily. The conversation with Rauf was friendly, probing and highly informative. Dominick asked tough questions of his guest pertaining to Shariah Law, the radical Islamic voices shouting louder than the moderate ones, women's right's, etc. I felt I learned something from this interview. 


You can listen to the entire Imam Rauf/Pete Dominck interview here... (...its about 45 minutes long and I highly recommend it.)


The other interview I'd like readers to consider is the one conducted by Fox News' Sean Hannity on May 23, 2012. Hannity is one of the most popular talk show hosts in America with both a radio and a television show Monday through Friday, with millions of listeners. Hannity is firmly to the right on most issues and makes no attempt to suggest otherwise. Hannity took a very different approach than Dominick, almost being hostile with the Imam, especially about a few previous comments Rauf had made in the aftermath of 9/11. The bulk of the interview was spent on these controversial comments as opposed to the current state of Islam in America, the Middle East, etc... To my eyes, it was Hannity bringing up one comment after another, sometimes giving Rauf time to provide some context and sometimes not, and then moving directly onto another comment, and another, and another. Rauf apologized for most of his controversial remarks. Hannity clearly looked the hero to his loyal viewers, who in their eyes, saw the host toss around the Imam like a ragdoll. Instead of a 80/20 split between bringing up old comments and some current issue discussion, I wish it had been inverted, with more time being spent on current affairs involving Islam and the US. 


You can watch the entire Imam/Hannity interview here... (...its about 15 minutes long and worth watching...)


I understand why Hannity handled the segment as he did. For his audience, a dense policy discussion isn't what they want to hear. Also, to be fair, his program is set up in :15 minute segments, not 45-60 minute blocks, which makes it hard to develop much context or nuance. That said, in my opinion, Hannity had this list of comments from Rauf, and only wanted to force him to deal with those words, even though that many of them were over ten years old. There's no question that Hannity is a skilled host and quite adept at controlling the conversation to suit his needs. Ironically, with the charges of "left wing gotcha journalism" being a standard ingredient of many voices complaints, I felt Hannity "got" Imam Rauf that evening. 


Some will prefer Dominick's interview and some will prefer Hannity's. Its hard to say that there was as much depth to the Fox segment as there was on POTUS. I wish Hannity and Rauf would have been able to have more of a conversation than they did. Hannity does what Hannity does. Dominick is consistently providing the quality interviews across a wide swath of subject material that many listeners crave but have a hard time finding on their radios or televisions. 


Listen/Watch both and tell me which you preferred and why...


(Edited for clarity...)


Sources: 


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feisal_Abdul_Rauf#Park51


http://standupwithpetedominick.com/segments/audio/05-10-12-imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-int

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmeWtuX7HeY

Obama correct to apologize, Gingrich offensive to score cheap political points on the backs of two dead US servicemen...

Obama correct to apologize, Gingrich offensive to score cheap political points on the backs of two dead US servicemen...


You've probably seen the story in the news over the last few days. Some local Afghanistan villages found some incinerated Koran's in a garbage dumpheap outside Bagram Air Force Base. They bring this to the attention of their fellow villagers and soon word spreads all around the region and eventually, the world. The local US Commander on the ground apologized shortly after he was made aware of this. Yesterday, President Obama included this apology within a longer letter covering a variety of issues: 


“I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident,’’ Obama said in a letter to President Hamid Karzai. “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies.’’ “The error was inadvertent,’’ Obama said. “I assure you that we will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.’’


Sometime after this apology was hand delivered to President Karzai, an Afghanistan soldier opened fire on a group of American soldiers, killing two of them. Today marks the fourth day of protests against the United States for the burning, and several Afghan protesters have also been killed, by members of the Afghan Army as a result. President Karzai has called for peaceful demonstrations and to avoid violence. There is concern that the more Conservative Mullahs may call for retribution during Friday's Prayers and the Taliban has posted statements on its website instructing that attacks on US Military bases, US Convoys as well as other occupying forces. 


It is a mess. 


Coming on the heels of video that showed US soldiers urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban fighters, plus the not too distant memories of the treatment at the Abu Ghraib detention facility, the flushing of Korans in to toilets at the Guantanamo Facility in Cuba, as well as American pastor Fred Phelps wanting to hold a "burn the Koran day,"  its easy to understand that nerves are a little raw. Is it difficult to feel their sense of disrespect? It shouldn't be. 


Then yesterday, flailing GOP candidate Newt Gingrich felt the need to capitalize on these events to score some cheap political points. Keep in mind, the two Americans were gunned down after Obama sent the apology. Gingrich said, "There seems to be nothing that radical Islamists can do to get Barack Obama's attention in a negative way and he is consistently apologizing to people who do not deserve the apology of the president of the United States period." 

These weren't radical Islamists. They were highly offended and enraged regular Afghanis who once again felt the "occupiers" had defiled their most sacred text. Had we not bungled the handling of such sensitive religious materials, those two US servicemen would likely be alive today. This is not to excuse their murder, not at all, but understand, we set this in motion. 

It offends me on a deep level that a man who is not a political novice would stoop to such a level to score a few cheap political points on the backs of two dead soldiers. This may be red meat to the Conservative base, but its wrong-minded and dangerous in my opinion. Gingrich loves to wrap himself in the flag and the bible when it suits him politically. Too bad he doesn't conduct himself with such rigor when it comes to his professional or private life.

This notion that we shouldn't have apologized is also wrong and frankly, against most American values. As children, we are taught personal responsibility and to accept blame when we have wronged someone else. Traditionally, its always been more about what we do as opposed to what someone else does. "Do the right thing" we're told. Don't make excuses. Don't worry what the other guy does or doesn't do, YOU do the right thing, handle it the RIGHT way and walk away with your head held high with a resolve to not repeat the same mistake again. These ideas are central to many of our upbringings here in America. They are good values. 

I say President Obama was entirely proper to issue an apology as were the unit Commander, Sec. of Defense Leon Pannetta who said, "I apologize to the Afghan people and disapprove of such conduct in the strongest possible terms. These actions do not represent the views of the U.S. military," and General John Allen, International Security Force Commander and Assistant Sec. of  Def. Ashton Carter who also both apologized to President Karzai. 

For too long, the US has strolled smugly around the world sticking its nose in situations, economies and other societies where they should not have. It is refreshing to find a President of the United States who has enough character, enough integrity and enough spine to issue mea culpa's when called for. His opponents call him weak, including his likely challenger in the General Election former Governor Mitt Romney who has said, "he'd never apologize for the United States." 

We all know someone who no matter the circumstances never apologizes, don't we? We've been "that guy" around the world for a long time. Finally, we have a POTUS who has enough balls to reach out and say we're sorry when we screw up. 

To Mr. Gingrich, I'd say sit your flabby fat-ass down somewhere, be quiet and figure out your next career move. 

Sources: 


http://bostonglobe.com/news/world/2012/02/24/president-obama-apologizes-for-burning-korans-afghanistan/vFuxBJmYllg8f3GBpGskKM/story.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/02/22/quran-burning-protests-continue.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/24/newt-gingrich-quran_n_1298508.html

http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2921119.ece

Israel: Concerns abound...

Two articles came to my attention over the last few days. The first was one from Foreign Policy written by Mark Perry titled "False Flag" which lays out a pretty compelling case of Israeli Mossad placing agents under cover in the Palestine-Sunni bases terrorist group Jundallah in an attempt to work with Israel against Iran. Specifially, these under-cover agents were passed off as Americans. This reportedly occurred late in the George Bush administration, even though the US had forbidden even the slightest contact with Jundallah.

From the article: "It's amazing what the Israelis thought they could get away with," the intelligence officer said. "Their recruitment activities were nearly in the open. They apparently didn't give a damn what we thought."

Interviews with six currently serving or recently retired intelligence officers over the last 18 months have helped to fill in the blanks of the Israeli false-flag operation. In addition to the two currently serving U.S. intelligence officers, the existence of the Israeli false-flag operation was confirmed to me by four retired intelligence officers who have served in the CIA or have monitored Israeli intelligence operations from senior positions inside the U.S. government.

The CIA and the White House were both asked for comment on this story. By the time this story went to press, they had not responded. The Israeli intelligence services -- the Mossad -- were also contacted, in writing and by telephone, but failed to respond. As a policy, Israel does not confirm or deny its involvement in intelligence operations.

Read the entire article here.

The second piece I found in the Wall Street Journal, dated 1/14/12 with the title, "US Warns Israel on Strike." An excerpt: 

WASHINGTON—U.S. defense leaders are increasingly concerned that Israel is preparing to take military action against Iran, over U.S. objections, and have stepped up contingency planning to safeguard U.S. facilities in the region in case of a conflict.

Associated Press

Iranians on Friday carried the flag-draped coffin of Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a scientist working in Iran's nuclear sector assassinated in Tehran.

President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other top officials have delivered a string of private messages to Israeli leaders warning about the dire consequences of a strike. The U.S. wants Israel to give more time for the effects of sanctions and other measures intended to force Iran to abandon its perceived efforts to build nuclear weapons.

Stepping up the pressure, Mr. Obama spoke by telephone on Thursday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will meet with Israeli military officials in Tel Aviv next week.

The high-stakes planning and diplomacy comes as U.S. officials warn Tehran, including through what administration officials described Friday as direct messages to Iran's leaders, against provocative actions.

Read the entire article here...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is widely known that if Iran would attack Israel, both Israel and the United States would respond in kind. While we risk relatively little here in the mainland, the US has a great deal to lose should this become a shooting war. As tensions increase, if it actually came to open hostilities, troops, bombings, air missions, etc. the ill will toward the West would be significant. We're not too far away from the one year anniversary of the beginning of last year's Arab Spring. Several countries in the region, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, etc...have all seen their government's fundamentally changed in the last twelve months. New governments are not yet fully established and should the area see Israel and the US unite against Iran...I think most of the region would fall in line behind Iran and oppose the Israeli/American actions. 

There have been reports late this week that Iran has finally agreed to have talks about its nuclear program with the International Atomic Energy Agency at the end of January. Maybe this is a disingenuous ploy, meant to delay the inevitable, harsher sanctions. If the European Union decides to reduce the amount of Iranian oil it purchases, it will further hurt Iran's struggling economy. Plus, sanctions do a lousy job of "winning hearts and minds" that the West and Israel are not evil. 

As United States battleships begin to increase in number in that part of the world, especially near the Straight of Hormuz, the ante has upped. Things are more serious. Israel and the United States should be patient and truly united in their tactics. This doesn't mean Israel gets everything it wants. Their response to the Iranian issue has an effect on the United States all around the world. If the premise of the first article above is true, it speaks to the dysfunctional relationship we seem to have with them. We are their insurance policy. We will be the ones who come in with the military resources and stand by Israel. 

We do so at a cost. Should that cost be required, we should absolutely step up and pay it aggressively. It should, of course be a last resort. Perhaps it is time for talk. I fear what might happen if the Republicans win back the White House next November. Other than Congressman Ron Paul, who advocates a more isolationist foreign policy, the other candidates all seem to favor a more aggressive tone to be used with Iran. Some have said they would in fact bomb the reported Iranian nuclear sites. I say the days of the US being able to stick its military finger into another country's chest and "tell" them what they must do are over. We may still try that tactic, but its not wise. Its the kind of thing that makes people hate us. We are not the world's policeman, we don't necessarily know what is best for every country around the world. (If you doubt this, think of the quality of life in Iraq before Saddam Hussein was forced out and how it is now. Don't take my word for it, here's a recent poll that addresses that very issue. The number of displaced persons/families is staggering...

If talks are unable to bridge the differences then I imagine at some point we'll see Tehran under attack on CNN, I just hope it doesn't come to that. The United States can't afford to be involved in yet another war involving an Islamic country. I think only bad things can come of that. 

Obama's 'Arab Problem' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Obama's 'Arab Problem' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Interesting write-up on President Obama's "Arab problem." It occurs to me that while each of the eight republican candidates consider freedom essentially a birthright, when Middle Eastern Countries pursue that same freedom, seven of them feel its a problem.

Its a problem, of course, because the GOP subscribes to a "better the devil you know" approach. As long as these former dictators didn't get too far out of line, we could count on them more or less, to play ball with the United States. We didn't seem too concerned how the citizenry of these countries felt about it. Now that several countries in that region have experienced some historic changes in leadership, Conservatives are suggesting that because those people have chosen freedom in their government, President Obama has put the US in danger.

Many are the same voices that criticized Obama for "leading from behind," where they apparently felt he wasn't doing enough to lead the charge towards regime change in that area.

Excluding Congressman Ron Paul, the seven other Republican candidates are all over the place. They want freedom all over the world, but not if it means Islam grows in official government capacities anywhere. They prattle on how freedom is worth fighting for, but then turn it into a cheap political punch line for campaign purposes. "Isn't freedom great?" They claim, but deride the choice of those in a different pat of the world who simply want to enjoy the same self determinism that our Country was built.

Its hypocritical and makes them look foolish.

Islamic Center opens in NYC...Life goes on...

Remember all the emotion a few months ago about the proposed "victory mosque" near Ground Zero? Things got pretty heated and some baseless charges were made against those wanting to see the Community Center be built.

I say its fair to be critical of the builders, who should've gotten more input from the families of those lost on 9/11, but all in all, I remain in favor of this Community Center project going forward.

They held their first event there last week.

Islamic Center Opens Its Doors Near Ground Zero | Fox News:

What makes me stop and think is that when all the protests were in full fury, there was quite a bit of media coverage, especially from Fox News and Conservative talk radio. It was wall to wall, it seemed. I would've guessed that when this facility did begin to hold events, there would be major coverage.

I didn't see very much at all. Did you?

I found this article buried on the Fox news website via a link on the religion page. Which, frankly is where it probably belongs. What I'd suggest is that this is just another example of the media making a big deal out of an issue for ratings. The politicians scored a lot of cheap points on this. I saw this in The Daily Caller...

Ground Zero mosque site opens to the public

and this gem from the Daily Mail in London....

Controversial Ground Zero mosque site opens - just two weeks after 9/11 anniversary

Should I be encouraged, perhaps slightly, that the media had a smaller appetite for this story?

I think that few opinions have changed since a few months ago. The people that were against it remain so, just as those who supported it. I ask my readers to reconcile the understated coverage of the art exhibit at the opening last week. If the notion was despicable a few months ago, isn't it still?

The media/talk radio are not our friend...they distort things to get ratings and sell newspapers. Both sides do this, and its destructive to those people who genuinely try to understand what's going on. 

My 9/11 post... (2018 Edition)

I've been thinking for about a week on the upcoming tenth thirteenth seventeenth anniversary of the attacks on America. I knew more what I didn't want to say than what I did. Billions of words have been written about the events of 9/11. The loss of life, the heroic efforts of the first responders, the sense of nationalism that swept the Country around that time. The lens through which Islam would be viewed through going forward. The causes. The conspiracy theories. Etc. If its remotely connected to that day, there's no shortage of content on the internet that's available. A Google search on "September 11th" and "911" produces over 256 Million returns in less than one second. Using the same search terms on Amazon.com, over 11 thousand returns appeared. 


Should I have just skipped it? That didn't seem right either. Here's what I came up with...

My thoughts on the tenth thirteenth Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks:

Nationalism is not always good...

Islam is not always bad...

I am an American and I love my Country. I am eternally glad I was born here than anywhere else. That said, if I were from Scotland or Canada or Japan or Israel or Syria, I'm guessing I would probably feel the same way. Would I necessarily want to live in those countries is another matter entirely. Economics play a big part in that kind of thing, so to leave your homeland for economic gain hardly cancels one's feelings toward a homeland. Yes, I felt swelled with a sense of nationalism on 9/11. Like many others, I went out to the store that day and purchased a flag. The biggest flag I could hang off of my front porch. That was the thing to do that day for guys like me. We donated to the Red Cross. We followed the news as things unfolded. I added an extra patriotic song to my performances. It wasn't much. It wasn't profound. It's just what I did.

What I didn't do that day, unlike a few of my fellow Ohioans, was to drive to the nearest Mosque and shoot at it. The thought never occurred to me. I'm quite glad for that, because I would've felt rather disgusting if it had. As I watched the images on TV of some in the Middle East dancing and celebrating in the streets, it bothered me. The first reaction was the obvious one. The second one is that many people in those lands have been living with terror and death for a long time. Did I now know how they felt, sort of? Probably not.

We all seek understanding. There's a lot about 9/11 I don't understand.

As the days unfolded and turned into weeks, months and even years, I sense a lot of hatred toward Muslims.Its one thing to hate the extremists, that's proper. There are those who feel all Muslims are evil and that Islam is evil. The rhetoric is typical. Watch this video. Look at this website. Read this Sura. See? See! They're evil, I told 'ya!!! Under the potent mix of (read carefully) nationalism and faith, I saw many Americans go way too far in their condemnation of one of the world's oldest and greatest religions.

I've been accused of suggesting the United States asked for an attack of that kind by its policies and practices for decades in the Middle East. Let me lay it out for all to see.

If I were to try and assign some value to responsibility for that terrible day, I'd probably come up with an 95/5 percent split. I hold the terrorists chiefly responsible for the loss of life that day. They planned it, financed it and executed it. They're the ones who designed it, who took flying lessons and who flew the planes, slit the throats, and crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and if they could've, probably the Capitol. They own that. The terrorists do. No way around that...

Its simple to say the USA was purely innocent that day and just a victim. Its also wrong. For far too long, the US has directly and indirectly interfered with other Countries' affairs when it suited our interests. Trouble is, we're not the only ones with "interests." At times we've been invited, at other times not. We've over stayed our welcome in some places. We've crawled into bed with bad people we shouldn't have. It may work out in the short term, it rarely works out in the long term. (Remember when Osama Bin Laden was working for us against the Russians?)

Hopefully, our foreign policy is moving in a different direction. Those who say we should only act in the pure interests of the USA are wrong. We don't live in a vacuum. We share this world with many other people, faiths, and beliefs that don't always jive with ours. We should listen more and dictate less. Do we really always know best? Really? Really?

The big clunky nation building thing has failed on an epic level. The price tag has been enormous in both blood and money. Hunt down all the terrorists, those who would do us harm. Find them, kill them. Bring the troops home and dear God please think twice before sending our troops into harm's way the next time.

Islam, on the other hand, has a big problem that I don't think they're doing enough about. If I go searching, I can find anti terror statements from the Islamic world. But with the rhetoric of the far right, Christian conservatives and the likes of Fox News, I say they (Muslims) are not doing enough to reject terrorism. They are doing better, but when the next attack comes (and it will) I fear a loss of any ground gained in the last ten years. They should speak louder and more often. As silly as it sounds, every time an Iman preaches death to infidels, moderate Muslims must raise their voices above those that preach hate. It may not be fair, Christians aren't compelled every time a Fred Phelps says "God hates fags" to denounce him. He's fringe, everybody knows he's fringe and mostly ignores him. Except when he's protesting the funerals of fallen servicemen.

It may be a double standard, but there's a lot of people freaked out in the US about Muslims. So, they (Muslims) would be well advised to redouble their efforts in communicating their rejection of violence and those that preach it. Cast them out, if you will. Publicly and loudly. You have numbers-use them.

The hate speech I hear from some so called Christians is ugly and disgusting. Wrapped in equal parts the Bible and Flag, the allegations that all Muslims are out to kill all Christians was presented to me recently. I was a fool, they claimed, to not believe their words. According to this delusional wing of Christians and Political Conservatives, any Christians who seek co-existence with Islam have quite simply been duped. They know not the truth. The wingnuts of the far, far right have taken possession of that turf. All while portraying themselves as the real true Christians and the real true Patriots.

However well intentioned, however well meaning-this group is doing damage of unthinkable measure. Who's against God? Who's against the US of A? These are big, grand concepts and when snake oil salesmen start their pitch, too many people fall in line. To suggest they're wrong could bring the sincerity of your faith into question. Or your patriotism. Who wants to mess with that? Its easier to just go along, but its also dangerous.

Isn't it Christian to be tolerant?

An interesting article on religious tolerance in the US...

Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America - NYTimes.com:

Some additional thoughts:

Its no secret to readers of this blog that I do not subscribe to the opinion that all Muslims hate non Muslims. Or that Muslims always lie to non Muslims. Or that the Islamic world is slowly but surely pushing for a world wide caliphet. I've read quite a bit on this subject, seen the scary videos on line, visited the offensive websites that comb the internet and written word for extremist statements from fringe Islamic groups and then pass that off as mainstream Islamic messaging. I think its bullshit of the highest order.

I will not write off one of the world's oldest and most esteemed religions because a misguided group defile the true Islamic beliefs for a corrupt end. Anymore than I would write off the Christian faith because of those who do wrong in the name of Christianity. Nor would I do it for those of the Jewish faith. None of the Ibrahamic faiths are in their essence, evil. Followers of any of these faiths can be evil, but certainly not by following the mainstream tenets of any of them.

Most of the readers of Reasonable Conversation, I'll assume, are adults. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. That's not how this works and I know that. Three years ago I knew zip about Islam. I didn't know anyone who was a Muslim, hadn't read a word about it, etc. Since then, I've spent some time to try and understand what this fuss I hear around the net and on some cable news channels is all about. My position is now that mainstream Islam is a worthy member of the Ibrahamic trio in our world. I don't think it can be denied. That said, I'm fairly stunned at the amount of ignorance people have about this faith yet criticize it in a patently unfair way. The only way I came to this position was by research, reaching out to various Muslims in my community and a fair amount of thinking.

I'm certainly no apologist for terrorism. But if you equate mainstream Muslims with terrorism, I'd say you're wrong to do so. I do think Muslims need a louder voice to reject the acts of terror around the world. Their rejections of violence can be found, but they are not loud enough, common enough or noticed enough. Muslims, especially in the West should be taking larger steps to re-position themselves and their faith in the times we live in. I think if somehow, a "spokesperson" could take a high profile after such events it would help. 

The United States has a fairly long list of persecuting various religions. Over time Catholics, Jews and Muslims have all been treated very poorly. Odd for a Country who's freedom to worship is a main tenent. Nonetheless, I'd hope we can grow more tolerant, as the NYT article suggests. Not of those who would harm us, but those who....in a very American way...would like to live free in a land where they can worship as they please.

Wouldn't it be the Christian thing to do?

Credit where credit is due...

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and I are not natural allies, to be sure. That said, I really liked what I heard on this clip where he defends his appointment of Judge Sohail Mohammed to a position on the NJ Superior Court.

Rather than morph this into some tactical move on Christie's part to position himself uniquely from other GOP candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination, I choose to view it on its own merit. He selected a Muslim American to take a spot on his State's Superior Court. The nominee has made it through the process and will serve. To hear the Governor defend him so cleanly, so directly was refreshing. He didn't ( and doesn't usually) mince words. He went further than he actually needed to. He could've just rejected those concerns and not elaborated as he did. He could've qualified his remarks by saying that while he's not worried about his guy, there ARE reasons to be afraid of other Muslims. But he didn't.

I'm sure there are limits to Christie's tolerance of Islam. There are limits to mine and probably yours. Most Americans have no issues with ANY Muslims as long as they are following the rule of law and not attacking the United States. The same way we feel about Christians or Jews or Athiests.

Other Republicans running for President who have taken a similar stance to Christie's include Congressman Ron Paul and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann have issued warnings about creeping Sharia. Bachmann was the first to sign the no shariah pledge, in fact. Sarah Palin is also on record about her concerns with Sharia in the US.

Gov. Christie deserves credit for his remarks...

Ron Paul for President, (can he win?)

"Ron Paul has support an inch wide and a mile deep"

Dennis Goldford, Drake University Politics Professor, May 14th, 2011


  Congressman Ron Paul of Texas's 14th Congressional District will be seventy-seven years old on Election Day 2012. If he wins the presidential election that day, he will be the oldest nominee for the highest office in the land, eclipsing the current record of Ronald Reagan, who was sixty nine when he entered office.

  As Conservative figures seem to be announcing daily whether they're in (Gingrich, Paul) or out (Huckabee, Christie) there's a lot to consider in the case of Mr. Paul. Never fully embraced by the Republican Party because of his strong Libertarian views, the Congressman may wind up the most appealing candidate to voters come November, 2012.

  On several policy issues, he's comfortably Republican. Smaller Government, strong belief in the Constitution,  free market advocate, pro-life positions all fit in nicely with the GOP checklist. On others however, he's not a good fit. He's been against us fighting in Afghanistan for quite a while now and thinks now that Bin Laden is out of the way, we should bring all the troops home. He wants to end all foreign aid to all Middle Eastern countries (including Israel), he thinks Guantanamo Bay should be closed and all the detainees tried in Civilian Courts. He is firmly against the use of torture. Thinks the Federal Reserve, the Internal Revenue Service, National Labor Relations Board and the Bureau for Homeland Security should all be done away with. He feels the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be taken out of the Federal Governments hands and placed into the States purview. He thinks Churches should decide what marriage is, not the Federal Government. He advocates legalizing ALL drugs citing that the "war on drugs" has failed.

  He's stated publicly he feels Israel is too dependent on the United States in several ways including financial support. He was in favor of the building of the Mosque in New York City. He also believes prostitution should be legalized.

 Obviously, some of his positions won't play well in the Bible Belt. There are those who will say Ron Paul is no friend of Israel. That's not an easy position to take regarding cutting aid to Israel and I give him credit for that. I doubt we'll see any other GOP candidates saying the same thing.

 Nationally, GOP leaders are wary of the current field of likely candidates and are reportedly reaching out to both Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. Daniels is undecided at this time and Christie has already said "no." Which suggests there's no particular Republican candidate strong enough to claim the mantle of "front-runner."

  With tonight's announcement by Mike Huckabee that he's not running in 2012, I see Mr. Paul in a cluster of four Conservatives who should be considered the A Group at this time:

  Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Mr. Paul.

  In the B Group I see one man, Mr. Herman Cain as a bit of a wild card. Coming off a solid performance in the first GOP Debate in South Carolina, I know too much to under-estimate a thoughtful, articulate black man. He may be gone in a couple months, but then again....

  In the C Group, I see Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. 

  The A Group are basically the candidates I could make a case for winning the GOP nomination. Each has obstacles to overcome. Mr. Cain is in a unique position right now, but he'll have a tough road to hoe once the A Group decides to target him in a future debate. The three in the C Group, I can't make a compelling case for their success. At least not yet. Mr. Santorum has some explaining to do about the John Ensign Affair scandal, although its not suggested he broke any laws. Mrs. Bachmann I see as the candidate Sarah Palin thought she was. Mrs. Palin is not a serious candidate and would be well advised to stay out of the deep end of the pool before she is made to look abjectly foolish in front of her Conservative peers.

  If Mr. Paul altered his stance on immigration reform from a hardline, zero amnesty approach to something more forgiving, its possible he could pull some independents and even, dare I say some dis-effected progressives from President Obama. Ending the wars, closing Gitmo, no torture, getting the Fed out of the marriage business, legalizing drugs, etc. are all positions that resonate with progressives. If President Obama has a rough go of it in the run up to 2012, and if his base is doubting his re-election, he may very well lose votes to the Congressman from Texas. I'd go as far as suggesting Mr. Paul is the name that concerns the Obama 2012 team the most.

  It will be quite the trick if he can present himself as the "something for everybody" candidate. Its unlikely to happen, even less likely to succeed. Ron Paul, I think, is the only candidate who hasn't stepped hard to the right in recent times. Not following the pack, may pay big dividends as we approach the GOP Convention in Tampa Bay, Florida. Working against the Paul campaign is his reported lack of a "ground game" in a national sense. Some experts say because he doesn't embrace fully traditional GOP policies, he may find less support than other more conventional candidate will. Countering that, is his ability to raise cash and a lot of it in a short time. Mr. Paul is quite experienced and may surprise a few folks before this is all over.

  And, a few Republicans, for that matter...



Sources:

http://www.indystar.com/article/D2/20110514/NEWS09/105140330/Ron-Paul-support-seen-inch-wide-mile-deep-?odyssey=mod_sectionstories&amp&amp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_age

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque/

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Ensign-sFriends/2011/05/13/id/396318

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/border-security/

Iran postpones acid blinding punishment - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Iran postpones acid blinding punishment - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Curious if readers support Sharia Law and the carrying out of this sentence or if Human Rights groups are correct in trying to prevent this from happening.

ThinkProgress » Two Muslim Men Kicked Off Airplane, Were Going To Conference About Tolerance

Is there any rational defense for the pilot's actions? What if, for better or worse, he felt the safety of the passengers was compromised? It doesn't sound like these two men did anything at all to cause alarm.

ThinkProgress » Two Muslim Men Kicked Off Airplane, Were Going To Conference About Tolerance