|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 8 users and 67 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 5:54pm.
Battle Muslim ideology with spirituality, not just bombs
» Cal Thomas ...Essentially, Cal espouses that we should treat all Muslims equally, as the enemy. Whoever published this piece should be fired. [edit/ 21 Aug.] I apologize for saying whoever published this piece should be fired. I was speaking out because I was angry. I am sorry, it is not my decision as to who gets hired or fired at the daily O. I do however think that we deserve an explanation for how a piece of racist literature of this type ended up being printed in the paper. An apology, if not a public firing, is I feel, in order. I support freedom of speech. Even for racists. However, I don't think that the local newspaper is doing well in our community by publishing a racist and hateful, a jingoistic and lunatic, piece of war propaganda.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
Ghastly.
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 7:30pm.In regard to this particular piece, I find it extraordinarily ironic that Thomas accuses Muslims of evangelizing at gunpoint. I mean, this is exactly what he advocates doing to them... he doesn't come anywhere near suggesting that we stop dropping bombs on the muslim world, but he does suggest that we add "spiritual" battle (read: conversion to "Christianity") to the mix. ie Bomb them to pieces, except the ones that convert. This madman would take us back to the dark ages.
One more note: I've gotten so sick of the blatant racism on the Olympian's comment pages that I've decided to do something about it. I'm collecting racist comments, documenting them to bring up the issue (today's Cal Thomas piece offered a vast, bottomless vat of this nasty shit). I'm going to get in touch with Unity in the Community to see if we can work together to get the Daily O to update its policies.
Daily O Comment Policy
Submitted by listening on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 8:20pm.It sounds like a great project to work on. The O is in violation of its current policy by using the term "Islamofascist" . As for this piece, please let the Olympian know how you feel about publishing pieces that encourag hate and intolerance and mention that they need to follow there own policy in their comment section. I believe we can make a difference by educating our local media.
I just checked this out...
Submitted by jlw on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 9:34pm.In my low level experience
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 10:44pm.Why doesn't anyone
Submitted by Jade on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 10:33pm.Jade
(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)
That's mature, if jerks
Submitted by Norm on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 10:46pm.I don't suggest using the
Submitted by Jade on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 10:52pm.I don't think Jesus would sleep with corporate lobbyists. Do you? Jade
(A Rose in the Pumpkin Patch)
Personally, I think this is
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 08/20/2006 - 11:40pm.Personally, I think this is the most telling part of the entire thread.
Whoever published this piece should be fired.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Just read the Thomas article
Submitted by OlyCop on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 4:01am.I just read the Cal Thomas article, twice actually, because I didn't see the problem with the article. And I still don't.
Now if we are talking about the comments section of the Olympian, I agree they get out of line most of the time.
A couple things. First the term Islamo-fascist. It is a term to describe those that are the "terrorists", "insurgents". And if you look at the definition of fascist, it is a very apt term to describe those we are fighting against in this war(s). The leaders of this movement we are at war with are fascists, and use the teachings of Islam to justify their actions and goals.
Cal's piece wasn't filled with hate, like the title of this tread indicates. Further it doesn't say that ALL Muslims are Islamo-fascists, it actually states the contrary.
There are online versions of the Koran/Quran that you can bring up and read it in english. There are other websites that quote the verses in the Koran that are more hate filled, and the verses that are love filled. And you can go line by line and see if that is what is actually written or if it is taken out of context etc. And there are several websites that indicate one thing in mentioned in the Koran and in reality it isn't. Most of you here are intelligent and educated people, read the Koran. I think you will better understand how the Islamo-fascist leaders are able to use the Koran text to justify their behavior.
Now, of course all Muslims are not hate filled, quite the opposite. So it's unfair to paint them all as such. But to not know the enemy, and as much as some of you may not like it, the "Islamo-fascists/terrorists/insurgents" are your enemy, my enemy, and an enemy to our way of life.
I believe in due time, the Islamo-fascists will bring this war to the streets of cities and towns of this country if we don't get a handle on their sick thinking. And that is why I agree with the Cal Thomas article. At the end of the article, Cal's guest in the piece, says that the Muslim leaders in this country and elsewhere need LEAD and help change the course of those under the spell of those that have perverted the teachings of the Koran.
"and as much as some of you
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 12:21pm.It's not about whether I like it, it's about whether I think it's true, and who it's applicable to. I will not have a conversation about "our way of life" because that's a ridiculous phrase that doesn't describe anything specific and measurable. What IS "our way of life"? If I remember my history, this is a phrase that comes up frequently as a justification of military conflicts, particularly during the Cold War. My way of life is more threatened by regressive tax structure, a culture of intolerance that says 'anyone advocating peace is a traitor' and 'it's okay to make fun of homeless people', lack of affordable health care (has a HUGE impact on my way of life), and (in the longer run) environmental degradation. I'm sure there are some whose 'way of life' is being defended in this war, I'm just not one of them.
Ditto on that. Al-Qaida
Submitted by Phil Owen on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 7:03pm.Not really
Submitted by OlyCop on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 8:16pm.Although I understand your point, I haven't seen Robertson or Falwell carve any heads off with a butter knife yet.
They probably haven't
Submitted by Phil Owen on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 9:01pm.I also want to comment that the "carving heads" issue is a red herring, an irrelevant side note. The fact that some people do horrific, horrific things in the name of their cause does not mean that we should distort the facts regarding their cause. If someone commits an act of terrorism with the intention of affecting our foreign policy, it doesn't help us to make it an issue of our personal freedoms. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR PERSONAL FREEDOMS.
While I think foreign policy
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 9:39pm.While I think foreign policy is a major part of our problems in the Middle East, I don't think that is the only reason and doubt if we suddenly shifted course we would be welcomed with open arms.
The Dutch cartoon fiasco is a prime example.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Phil
Submitted by OlyCop on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 3:43am.I agree the carving heads off comment was to the extreme, but so was comparing Robertson and Falwell to the likes of Bin Laden, et al. I don't disagree that both R and F and others have forgotten this country is about choices and freedoms. But to compare them to the guys that carry out acts of terror world wide is over the top.
Also, not only do THEY not care about our personal freedoms, they HATE our personal freedoms. And if they were here, there would be far less freedoms, and what they would bring here would be many times worse than any vision R and F have for this country.
My intention wasn't to
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 9:16am.The Taliban, however, are NOT on our homesoil, and have little interest in it. I don't think we need worry about them coming here to try and occupy our country. I think they want little to do with it.
Aye, just to fly planes into
Submitted by Norm on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 3:47pm.The Taliban haven't carried
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 10:26pm.The Taliban was pretty tight
Submitted by Phil Owen on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 9:35am.Norm, I think you're still missing my point. Yes, many terrorists want to attack us on our own soil. They're fucking pissed! This by no means suggests that they want to occupy our country. I think they'd probably rather try to herd monkeys than to occupy Americans. They really have no interest. The issue at hand is foreign policy, NOT our love of beer and freedom. Get it?
No, no, I got your point, I
Submitted by Norm on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 11:23am.didn't pat robertson
Submitted by yogi woman on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 9:54pm.Dear Oly Cop, There is a
Submitted by listening on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 10:40am.There is a great deal in the article that is disturbing. What strikes me the most is the last paragraph that states:
"Americans must see past their natural reluctance to paint all members of a group with a broad brush and realize our failure to act now against this clear and present danger in the ways Sam Soloman recommends will lead to a disaster for us that is far worse than our Cold War enemie s had envisaged."
Cal Thomas is calling for us to take an entire group of people and use our prejudices against them. It encourages looking at Muslims as a monolithic group, which they are not. Mr. Thomas tells us to vigilant and fearful. But he is not alone is intolerence. On the left, Thomas Friedman encourages the same in a recent article published by the Olympian. Hate comes from all sides and hate-speech has consequences in the treatment of Muslims at work, school and inour community.
Also - The Israel Project? Last time I checked Israel's treatment of Muslims that live inside of it's internationally recognized borders is abhorrent (check out Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others), let alone those living under its occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The accurater information it presents about Israel is neither. It is Propaganda (deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread)
Respond with spirituality
Submitted by emmettoconnell on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 5:20am.It makes sense in the way I think about things, but not in the way I'm sure my fellow Catholic Cal Thomas wanted his column portrayed.
Because a better response to whatever we want to call it would be love, because the meek shall inherit the earth and we shouldn't kill. So yes, let's face our differences with spirituality, not bombs.
I just finished reading the
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 10:01am.I just finished reading the entire piece and have to agree with OlyCop:
How was this a "hate-filled" piece?
It seemed to me that the column was saying that all Muslims aren't terrorists, there is a gross misinterpretation taking place in the Middle East, and that there are rational people in the Middle East who do want to speak out but, because of the threat to their own personal safety (and that of their family), they have a difficult time doing so.
EDIT: In fact, I think it's ironic that the sentence Whoever published this should be fired was used to describe the column. It seemed to me he was railing against this type of authoritarian control in which those whose line of thinking is out of step with the consensus will be punished.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Plans to Dominate the World!
Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 5:11pm.They just want to be left alone, to live in peace.
Unfortunately, those who do have designs of world domination (George Bush, Neoconservatives and their enablers {Cal Thomas}) won't let them live in peace.
The current war in Iraq proves this theory. If George Bush didn't have the manipulation of the Iraqi economy in mind, Iraq would not be a hellish inferno of suicide bombers, militias and IEDs.
Put Iraq's economy and wealth into the national trust of Iraq, and do what it takes to truly rebuild the country. That's how to make security.
Really?
Submitted by OlyCop on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 8:18pm.Rob W.
World domination?! Do you really believe the stuff you write here?
So who was bothering the terrorists before the first attack on the twin towers? Who was bothering them prior to the bombing of the USS Cole?
What the Islamo-fascist leaders want for you and me, and all Western Civilizations is us dead. Like in the sci-fi movie Independence Day when the Pres of the US asks the aliens what they want from us on earth, the alien responded, "die, die". Islamo-fascists hate everything about Western Civilations. You think if they had their way you would be able to even consider typing your opinions on this blog, or even be able to possess a computer? These guys are the scariest thing to come along since Hitler.
As far as Iraq, regardless of why we are there and whether you believe we should have gone in the first place, if we leave now it would be a huge mistake on many levels.
Are you not familiar with...
Submitted by Rick on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 7:21am.If that doesn't sound like world domination, I don't know what does.
I also take it as given that Rob believes what he writes here, or he wouldn't write it. Just as you believe what you write. Questioning motives is disrespectful.
Thanks for the link
Submitted by OlyCop on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 7:48am.Point taken Rick, and thanks for the link I will read it.
No disrespect meant. Some people do post to get people riled up, trolls I believe they are called. That what Rob's post seemed like a bit to me. Perhaps that can happen when people are separated a great deal in their beliefs, with no actual intent to be a troll.
Yes.
Submitted by Rick on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 8:44am."So who was bothering the
Submitted by Phil Owen on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 7:11pm.They just want to be left
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 12:45am.They just want to be left alone, to live in peace.
It's not as if the fighting amongst themselves would end once we packed up and left.
Of course, I would rather they slaughter each other than us.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Your way of life
Submitted by CIAGuy on Mon, 08/21/2006 - 5:13pm.Irrelevant. Al-Qaida really
Submitted by Phil Owen on Tue, 08/22/2006 - 8:56pm.Al-Qaida also doesn't really represent the Arab world. Most Arabs don't want what Al-Qaida wants for them, but they also don't want the U.S. meddling in their affairs. The Arab world has a deepseated and longstanding fear and resentment of the colonial practices of the West. While the Arab world may not be very big fans of Al-Qaida (neither are they very big fans of Hezbollah or Hamas), they are LESS big fans of the US. But just because Al-Qaida is opposed to the US foreign policy, and most Arabs are also opposed to US foreign policy, does NOT mean that they can easily be lumped together.
All this BS about "'they' hate our freedoms" is really uninformed, and does not help our situation in the least.
Nope
Submitted by OlyCop on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 3:58am.Phil, first it's not realistic in this time in history for any nation to believe the US or any other county is not going to be involved in their policy and they in ours. Isolationism can't exsist anymore.
Also, the same Koran passages that the leaders of the Islamo-fascist movement use to justify their actions also are perverted to bring their violence to us. They are trying to rid the world of the infidel. That would be us. They too understand that they can't isolate themselves, so then the solution is to bring their jihad to us.
Finally, most Muslims don't agree with the Islamo-fascists, just like most Americans don't agree with radical Christians. Most Muslims want a more Western kind of lifestyle. They want more freedoms, etc. They may not want a lifestyle exactly like ours, but something closer to what we have.
Dude...
Submitted by Rick on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 6:26am.Ditto. Bringing a truly
Submitted by Phil Owen on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 9:19am.I see these things as more
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 11:11am.Would you like to re-think
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 11:31am.Would you like to re-think the idea of a liberal democracy? Starting to look like the fifty-one taking from the forty-nine?
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
What?
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 12:03pm.Yeah, what?I was talking
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 1:54pm.I was talking about focusing my energies (and voting to focus my country's energies) on real threats to our way of life.
This got buried.I was just
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 6:17am.This got buried.
I was just talking about a couple of the examples (the type where the majority is attempting to impose their will, such as the indirect mention of Plan B usage).
Didn't make sense, because obviously I never even came back to this portion of the thread.
I do want to add this (should be a little more coherent): American politics has a pretty long tradition of invoking religion. I don't think there's any more or less mention of religion in today's politics than what previous generations were used to.
Perhaps
Submitted by OlyCop on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 7:23am.Even if we weren't in the
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 11:37am.Even if we weren't in the region they would still be killing each other (whether it was tribal warfare, as we're seeing today, a strict Islamic government, or warfare with a neighboring state).
But as I said earlier, it is best they are sending each other to the slaughter than Americans. We have no business in any of their conflicts, most of which have been taking place for thousands of years.
No, it's not the United States which is dragging the Arab world into violence. It is the Arab world dragging us into their various conflicts. If we don't recognize it soon and take the appropriate action, we're going to become trapped.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Way to stop the buck.
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 12:06pm.Yup
Submitted by OlyCop on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 12:38pm."No, it's not the United States which is dragging the Arab world into violence. It is the Arab world dragging us into their various conflicts."
Exactly!!
"No, it's not the United
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 2:25pm.This is just completely wrong on so many levels. I'll start with what is perhaps the simplist. We haven't be dragged into anything, we have free will, and we decided to get involved over there. Nobody is dragging anybody kicking-and-screaming into wars. "Yeah, but Rob, 9-11 blah, blah, blah yackity smackity!" No, the events that took place on 9/11/01 did not drag us into a conflict in the middle east, we decided to meet violence with violence, and surprise, surprise, it created even more violence. You'd think we'd learn after thousands of years of fighting that it just doesn't solve anything. If we don't fight them over there then maybe we won't have to fight them (or worry about them attacking us) over here. Couldn't we at least give that a try, the other way isn't solving a thing so far.
Afghanistan - Soviet
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 2:44pm.Afghanistan - Soviet Union.
Iraq - Iran.
Iraq - Kuwait.
I mean, these are just three examples of situations where the United States should have sat on the sideline and done nothing. These conflicts are not our responsibility and I am more than willing to re-evaluate our unabashed support of Israel.
Our involvement in the Middle East (and finding ourselves neck deep in shit) is a lot more than just 9-11 and Bush's invasion of Iraq. This is over fifty-years of foreign policy which involved us in everything from territory disputes to humanitarian aid. When you put your hand that far down the hole, eventually you're going to fall in.
But re-direct the money? Not a chance. When I say we need to step aside and let the people of the region handle their own problems, I mean we need to step aside and let the people of the region handle their own problems.
Conflict hasn't solved anything? I mean, the most basic example is the American Civil War. Are you saying the violence in that conflict didn't "solve anything?" Even taking the view sympathetic to Lincoln (which I am not), his methods ended slavery much sooner than without armed conflict.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Let's try it this way...
Submitted by No One on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 10:28pm.#1 the civil war was not
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 3:37pm.#2 I'm curious in what ways you are unsympathetic to Lincoln (I am somewhat as well. He was a racist and would have sent all of the Africans back if it was possible, just for starters), don't tell me it's because plantation owners have the right to conduct business any way they want in a free market, if you tell me that my ears will start bleeding and my head may explode like in scanners.
1. You're absolutely right:
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 4:15pm.1. You're absolutely right: The American Civil War was not about slavery. With that said, the end of slavery came about because of the Civil War. For the purposes of this discussion (whether or not armed conflict can bring about positive consequences at a faster rate than alternative methods), Lincoln's motives are irrelevent.
The end result is what is important for right now.
2. I'm unsympathetic to Lincoln because he did not care about the Constitution and was, as you said, more interested in consolidating power for the federal government.
I don't think that, as a plantation owner, there was a right to "conduct business" any way they want in a free market that is made up of people.
People cannot be born into servitude in this country. With that said, an attempt was made (The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.) for the practice to die a natural death. In a way I feel this is similar to the Malcom X - Martin Luther King, Jr. debate. Both wanted the same outcome. They just had vastly different ways (at least Malcom's beginnings) of wanting to achieve it.
But back to being unsympathetic. It was federal military manuevering within soverign state borders (South Carolina would be a good starting point) which escalated the situation from a mere constitutional debate about whether the federal government was only permitted into each individual state by invitation or whether the federal government could use force to ensure the association of states was maintained and into armed conflict.
Then, once involved with a conflict which he escalated, Lincoln slaughtered the First Amendment (freedom of association) and used authoritarian domestic policies to ensure there was as little dissent as possible.
And then there's the total warfare strategy. While I think it can be effective, many would consider this strategy highly dishonorable. Here again is another instance of Lincoln allowing questionable tactics to be used in order to regain dominance for the federal government.
"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance."
Malcolm X disagreed with the
Submitted by Rob Richards on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 10:45pm.The end of slavery was an unintentional result of the civil war and, in my opinion, doesn't prove your point. The idea of the civil war being about freeing slaves has been foisted upon us for generations, but a small amount of research completely refutes it.
I don't think I disagreed
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Wed, 08/23/2006 - 11:29pm.I don't think I disagreed that the end of slavery was an unintentional result.
But unintentional or not, it's reasonable to assume armed conflict ended the practice far sooner than continuing with the status quo.
I might be more inclined to
Submitted by Rob Richards on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 9:27am.violence and its imports
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Sat, 08/26/2006 - 8:30pm.The Portent.
1859.
Hanging from the beam,
Slowly swaying (such the law),
Gaunt the shadow on your green,
Shenandoah!
The cut is on the crown
Lo, John Brown),
And the stabs shall heal no more.
Hidden in the cap
Is the anguish none can draw;
So your future veils its face,
Shenandoah!
But the streaming beard is shown
(Weird John Brown),
The meteor of the war.