What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?

I'm an optimist. The more Muslims who immigrate to democratic nations, the better. People tend to see the possible negative effects of the immediate generation... but as with any immigrant culture, we have to look at the succeeding generations to see what the effects of an immigration wave are. People have already, in this thread, made differentiations between (at least most) American Muslims, and most Middle-eastern Muslims. Why do you think that is? Living in a democratic culture has a liberalizing and moderating influence on culture. Indeed it is probably Muslim women who will instigate the real changes over generations of living in countries where they have freedom to become educated, to dress as they wish, to love who they wish.

By making a big deal about Islamic immigration, people are just emphasizing differences and expressing paranoia about different cultures. They are drawing up lines. The best approach would be to welcome these immigrants warmly. It should also be emphasized, in a positive way, the freedoms our countries provide. If we can win over the members of Islamic society who are the most oppressed (the women), we will solve any problems that might arise - if not immediately, at least down the road.

Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?

Partly, sure. We need to make distinctions between Islam and Islamic culture. In both Christianity and Judaism, for example, the culture has evolved quite a bit since the days where women were chattel. One could look at the Bible, at the Torah, and justify all manner of "customs" related to women, liberties, democracy... in both Judaism and Christianity, culture has evolved beyond many of these concepts.

There is nothing intrinsically different about Islamic culture. It should be given the same chance to evolve. I think the main reason we see a lack of liberty and democracy in many Islamic countries has less to do with the religion itself, and more to do with the vagaries of history and geopolitics. Europe's industrialization gave them a sharp edge over other areas of the world - an edge they wielded prodigiously. Of course that industrialization was also the seed of liberty and democratic thinking in Europe.

When industry and technology came to the Muslim world, it was by and large related to oil resources. The West found it was in their interest to concentrate that industry and wealth in the hands of the few, specifically in the few who would hinder political and social progress. I don't think it was some sort of evil conspiracy, all spelled out like that, but that's what happened - business interests find an ignorant and undemocratized public will keep the oil and the profits flowing to the right places.

Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?

Americans are like everyone else - they fear and often loath that which they do not understand.

If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?

As others have said, I don't think the average person really thinks about it. One might more precisely ask, if 9/11 is the reason for our government's actions, why does our government maintain such ties with Saudi Arabia, post-9/11. Of course, as always, the answer revolves around money. Really, fear and hatred are nonrational, so it would be hard to convince people through logic and reason, why they shouldn't harbor these feelings.

I've mentioned the ongoing shift from the neocon vision to the Baker vision in the Middle East. In fact, the neocons were much more likely to go against Saudi Arabia than the Baker folks are. The AEI had a long-term goal of breaking the hold OPEC has on world oil, and such policy would have to ultimately come to the house of Saud. Baker and the ISG, on the other hand, has close ties with the oil industry and with Saudi Arabia. Baker's law firm, in fact, defended the Saudi Arabian government in the law suits brought by families of the victims of 9/11 against them. And the oil companies have no interest in the free-market ideals of the AEI neocons. Oil companies have never been more profitable than when dealing with OPEC, who keeps prices inflated through controlling supply.

As this vision continues to gain ascendency, our government will be less and less likely to confront Saudi Arabia, either directly, or inderectly by privatising Iraq's oil industry and using those large reserves to counter OPEC's control over the world oil market.

Yes, you'd think so wouldn't you. As it happens though, each progressive generation we've seen here in Europe has produced more extremists than the previous. Whether or not they've also produced more 'western minded' individuals is any one's guess. My experience though is the majority of Muslims in Denmark have no particular love for the country. They live in cultural isolation viewing the world at large and their adopted homeland through the filter of Arabic satelite television. Every year I see more and more headscarves, burqa's (and the Somali equivelent) and note more and more cars speeding about the city at night blasting out Arabic music at full volume.

On the other hand many young Muslims complain of exclusion from Danish society, arguing that they are kept out of night clubs and bars by door keepers under orders from management. How much bearing this has on the debate, I can't say, but I do know that some problems are not simply due to racism, but are cultural. Alcoholic consumption is a mainstay of Danish society and Danes drink more alcohol on average than just about any other people on Earth. For Muslim teenagers, it becomes almost impossible to join in with their peers bonding rituals.

Food is another problem. Denmark is big on pork. Its one of the nation's top products and since its cheap and easy to make its eaten by a lot of people, yet is not allowed to Muslims. A common school meal in Denmark then has to be 'tailored' specifically to cater to the requirements of a minority. Since the costs of school meals isn't getting any cheaper these days, lots of Danish children are now forced to eat halal food, which in turn contradicts with parents who regard halal slaughtering as cruel and horrible for the animals.

Sex is a major problem. Danes are not particularly promsicuous, but they are broad minded and like most Scandinavians think little about public nudity. Brief sexual liasions are not deemed immoral and girls are not expected to be chaste or otherwise. Such matters are considered the concern of those involved. For a great many Muslims, it appears that even the sight of a Danish girl is an insulting provocation and any Muslim girl who so much as walks beside a Danish man risks verbal insult or even physical injury.

On the other hand, my GF is of a dark complexion and I have been attacked by a drunk Dane for being with a 'Turkish pig'. Needless to say my GF (who is not Turkish) was not amused at being called a pig and gave the fellow a piece of her mind. I have also been witness to a drunk Dane pulling off a Muslim girls headscarf in the street. He was subsequently jumped upon by several nearby Muslim shop keepers and pinned to the ground until the police arrived. Not one Dane intervened, not even myself. We all just stood and stared in mute incomprehension as to what the fuss was about. Later I offered to testify on the girls behalf since obviously she'd been assaulted but at the time I was confused as to what was actually taking place (both parties had been shouting abuse at each other befor ethe assault).

I know its difficult for outsiders to find a place in a strange society, but frankly, I don't think many of them even try, and those few who do find their efforts go largely rewarded, either through indifference or just a typical nordic mute incomprehension.


With all due respect to all you Americans, I submit most of you don't have the first idea what we are actually talking about here. The common comparison of Muslims to Mexicans illustrates clearly the depth of misunderstanding about what Islamic immigration actually means.

American Muslims are so far just a tiny minority within a very large country full of tiny minorities and as such you have yet to feel the full impact of Muslim immigration. I've even seen people explain that there are more domestic converts to Islam in America than actual Muslim immigrants. So far all you've had are 'civil rights' issues and the occiasional act of violence that in total amount to very little. If you want to know whats in store for the twenty first century, look to Lebanon, France and Russia and take heed.

If your impatient for a first hand taste of whats to come, then fear not, its already on offer in a city centre near you:
Link.


Renger made this point a years or so ago and held up Ayaan Hirsi Ali as an example. Today she is an American guest. Muslim women have no power to change anything because those that try, tend to end up dead or margnalized from the Muslim world in the western nations.

Of course in the west there are some prominent Muslim women who've made a name for themselves by standing up for themselves. Earlier today I read about one such case in Australia. 22 year old Iktimal Hage-Ali was named NSW Young Australian of the Year. You'd think this was cause for celebration and I'm sure her family were delighted, but it quickly became apparent that her community was not behind her. After kicking up a fuss about her being seen to sip champagne, some one decided to teach her a lesson. Australia used to be a long way from Denmark and yet today we seem to face many of the same problems and for the same reasons.



This is the point people are constantly trying to make. When the cartoon crisis began, Danes all across the country held peace and reconciliiation demonstrations but ultmatley these made no impact what so ever. Some Muslims participated but not many compared to the pro Hizb'Allah and anti Israel demonstrations which took place a few months later.



Alas, I don't have time to wait QH. My country is set to be over run within my daughters life time, and why should I? To what end but disapointment...?


In my estimation, culture is the real problem and the religions of the two sides reflect it. Both Europe and Arabia started from a similar point but evolved in very different directions because of their different cultures.

There is a reason why Europe become industrialized and Arabia didn't and it has very little to do with geography or intelligence or even religion. Islam is really just the expression of the culture that supports it.



Fear is irrational? Its irrational to feel fear when walking alone on a dark city night or watching children playing near traffic? I think fear is a very rational instinct that warns us of possible or impending danger.

edited to add:

Of course, I'm a pesimist though.

What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?

Islam needs to stand up and take back the high ground from the extremists. Most if not all of the problem is that their silence appears to be tacit approval.


Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?

No, Americans for the most part dont care about how people do or don't worship, what they care about is the appearance and sometimes rightly or wrongly so that a group is a threat by their action or in this case inaction.

Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?


This is a holy war not because we made it one but because this radical islamists have made it one. It is the first law of warfare , the agressor sets the rules. I dont think many americans are fearful of muslims in general and much as wary that they may be a threat since they do not know their intentions.

If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?

Our government has not had a friendly relationship with the KSA since the death of the past king.

His son is openly hostile to the US , but tolerates us because he needs to keep us buying his oil.

I don’t know if you can. I mean such a perceptual divide exists between the two groups it would be hard to overcome in some rapid form, though by no means is it impossible. Such would help in conversations so people were not having two different ones when discussing things. I mean for people that live around a mosque I don’t know if they experience such but the Muslim loud speaker would be a good introduction to such They can really get ramped up on that thing, all hot and dirty... Such most likely would be shocking though or simply strange to a great many people who probably don’t even know what I am talking about. The cultures are broadly different and a great amount of ignorance exists on both sides of what makes the fence or in this case 12 foot thick steel wall.

I can point to America and say look, Muslims being Muslims at peace with difference, you can see the same in the mideast and of course people round the world can come to live in peace regardless of difference, I think America is great for such and a prime example, though not perfect of course.

In America secular culture has giving us something that did not exist in the old world, and to many in the old world its different and threatening because you have to think outside the box. IN America people can study and do things outside of a religious text/old patterns of culture, or live a life outside of a religious text/old patterns of culture. In the middle east religion/old patterns of culture is still paramount in regards to many things, which of course socially speaking has taken up deep roots in the family structure and has found self replication that way, forcing change in terms of military is not going to work in my opinion unless you do happen to favor the dark side of things. Its not only this but in large Muslim fanatics do not compromise the mideast, sure many Muslims will turn out for Muslim based events, but those vary and any religion with a large following will have the same phenomena overall. If we don’t combat just the fanatics but Muslims in general its only going to make it that much slower and painful in a process that is already going to take sometime as it is.

First of all, we don’t understand human nature and our understanding of such is primitive, and so fourth even those will any real understanding of such, which is not large is typically never in control of any studies on it. I mean we have classifications for mental disorders in America that is part of the "normal" and healthy Muslim culture This is a giant hurdle to most anything and in a time of great tensions will not help, though such probably came from such ignorance in the first place.

TO me its like trying to fix a car but you don’t understand any physical aspect of it let alone the name "car". I just don’t see how such ignorance is going to prevail in any environment for that long overall.

Im saying nothing of the kind. But, since when do we have 'no part in' as a representative system? Now, dont play possum. 'I' had no part, because 'I' openly and publicly do not support wars, nor our corrupt government, but YOU do. Even though 'I' do not approve, as a citizen I still understand that I am responsible for the actions of my government, hence years of activism. Are you saying you had nothing to do with it? You did not support Reagan? You did not support the Rumsfeld/Saddam handshake?
So, you were not complicite in that? You are saying you did not believe at the time that Saddam Hussein should wage war on Iran for our own interests? Of course you supported it DT, you of all people would have, most of the US supported it, it wasnt ,' something none of us had any part in'.
'We' are a democracy, which means we Do have a part in our foreign policy collectively, and those same policy makers of 1980 are making government policy now, which we also have a part. Those who did NOT have a part in foreign policy were Iraqis because they were under a dictatorship, which we supported, which already with our backing brutally killed hundreds of thousands, and then, when THAT dictator was no longer under our thumb, we went in and killed hundreds of thousands more, after starving them to death with sanctions. I am trying to give a view of 'the other side of the story' as to why we may not be seen as a 'hearts and flowers' or trustworthy invader, nor 'the good guys'. Or perhaps, I dont know, perhaps 'we' had something to do with WHY radical Islam is on the move? Perhaps the initial reasons of Saudi bases and and support for Isreal were somewhat invalid in our minds, and we could have said, "they are just crazy", but we have gone way beyond that now. Why are there SO MANY Muslim refugees in European countries, now causing problems? Why did Europe even think they had to take them in?
There are at least 1.5 million Iraqi refugees now, all poised for more Islamophobia, not our fault, of course. (It was those crazy Iraqi's...... (who were never crazy before, because they were under a dictatorship).)




America's PAST sins? These are current sins, compounded by past sins.
The very reason for Iraqs war today is our invasion, none other. The 1980's is not ancient history, and our invasion is certainly current.
Of course you can have a negative opinion of Muslims strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up civilians, and themselves. Wow, how cowardly! And I can believe that bombing and invading an entire country on false premises and causing a civil war is unjust. The deciding factors are Context, Power and Weaponry- who did what to whom, and why, and also how.
A suicide bomb, an IED is all there is to fight with (and they are still making the war a losing proposition), if they had a real army? But they dont do they? Air Strikes are the advantages of the most powerful, not an option for broken populations defending their country from invasion, or sanction, walls or treating them like dung. Its very easy to see one side of the story, your side. Even soldiers are writing in droves about how incredibly unjust and unfair this war is, so many are objecting publicly, so many blogging and deserting.
Thats in just a few years.



My haughty attitude is a result of what I see of people with a one sided view of righteousness towards a people who actually ARE TRULY suffering, much of it from American policy, greed and stupidity and that others cannot possibly SEE it from the comfort of their relatively disaffected lives. It comes from impatience and an attitude towards american arrogance and blindness and lack of consideration of 'others' way of life, a lack of spiritual understanding, a lack of any sort of compassion, a reading of belief that 'We', despite extraordinary firepower and a desperate need to remake the world in our image- using bombs to do so, and failing miserably, are somehow 'right' and they are 'wrong' because they blow themselves up to prove the point. It becomes 'beyond' my capacity to manage sometimes. Worse because Ive lived with 'the enemy Muslim' and know they have less say in who and what is affecting them than we do.

In summary:
Iraqi's would not be kiling each other now if we had not invaded in a badly planned and badly executed war. Anyone who knew the slightest amount of history predicted civil war. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Saddam was an american puppet for decades, as was Osama bin Laden. The 'friendship' between Saudi Arabia and the US is not only contrary to our own standards here, but has caused dissention there as well, a country more opressed and much more brutal than Iraq could have ever hoped to be. Afghanistan is still at war and getting worse with the Taliban gaining ground, again. Our support for Israel goes beyond supporting terrorism, it supports genocide and we are consistantly cowing to Israels irrational demands for war against the entire Mid-East.
It takes very little to connect the dots and understand that the 'Muslim problem' for us is very much of our own making.

Post script: I think its interesting DTOM that I spend hours in research and posting, and all you really have to say is, 'Im wrong by attitude' 'haughty' 'not willing to consider insider opinions' which are never offered. How about giving up the goods? Got any backing there? Or, much like the Admin, its classified, were just supposed to trust , you know how it IS. I think you are beginning to suspect how it really IS, and its bothering you, like a small itch, turning into a spider bite that keeps spreading.
But, you, really have to be a believer, of a person on a kidney dialasis machine, dragging it from cave to cave in Afghanistan, or a flying paper passport or two completely desintegrated Boeing 737's , as military personnel, that takes fortitude.
From complete naivete (Rumsfeld would never have condoned torture) to the 'government is always right' and 'the military is without error' you continue to amaze me. I KNOW, not only is this not reality, but not the world you live in. Weve talked about military families, you know I come from one, and I know you must always tow the line. I accuse you of falsehood because I know what youre supposed to say, and you say it everytime, but Im beginning to believe you have actually bought the program hook line and sinker. Thats unbelievably scary.

Oooohhh. Prior to the US Islam was totally peaceful and Sunnis and Shiites were dancing in the streets by day and breaking bread at night. Then the dastardly USA came and only NOW they're killing each other. Of course the problem with this theory is that you act as if the world starts in 1980 as disregard everything prior.

But the real problem here is the Jews. Really what it's all about is those Zionists and their Protocols; riiight? They're really guiding us to commit genocide. Isreal and the US just can't stop committing genocide. It's like every week you hear about another groups of people that the US has wiped off the face of the Earth. Karl Rove you dastardly man!

Here's an idea. Look at each dot individually before you look to connect them. Not every dot connects.



If you're spending hours researching posts like this one - you are wasting time. Go to any Conspiracy Site and cut and paste your ideas. However, I don't think you're haughty.

I disagree and the sheer number of Iraqi's who fled Iraq prior to the war confirms this. The Iraqi tribal culture has always been violent, which is why Saddam Hussein existed in the first place.


I disagree. Many historically minded observors predicted invasion by Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Others predicted a Kurdish state being founded in Northern Iraq and a Turkish invasion as a consequence. Some even predicted a long period of chaos followed ultimately by stability. Contrary to your claim I saw nothing to indicate a monopoly of prediction by historically minded people.


So what?


No they were not. They were clients, not puppets. A puppet is a powerless autonomaton, a being incapable of action without sanction by its master. Saddam Hussein has never been a puppet of the USA. He merely accepted assisstence against a common enemy, as did the Mujahideen and at the time it was the only viable course of action if these enemies were to be kept in check.


So give us a viable alternative...

I don't know why these points keep getting raised in debate because they have all the substance of soap bubbles. The USA did not 'create' the problems of the Middle East, nor are Americans responsible for the misery suffered by so many Arabians. These people are themselves, first and foremost, responsible for their own societies and with the case of Saudi Arabia, those who are complaining the loudest about the Kingdom are those who also complain about 'western decadence'. By which Artemise, they mean you and I.

The fact of the matter is, by their own religious laws, the Saudi Royal family are the rightful rulers of the nation. They have the backing of the clergy.


What genocide?


You see what you wish to see Artemise.

The 'Muslim problem' as you call it, has existed for as long as there have been Muslims and it has nothing what so ever to do with you or the USA. You are simply the latest scapegoat in a long line of scapegoats and your willingness to accept responsibility on other people's behalf does not make you responsible. It only demonstrates your own state of mind.


And I might accuse you of the same thing given your unwillingness to deviate from your original points long after I've answered them without rebuff from you. Artemise, you seem to be very passionate in your opinions. So passionate in fact that you do not appear to listen or take heed to anything that is said to you. I have answered every point you have raised, at length and with just as many 'hours of research' as you say you have spent and yet you have largely side stepped my rational debate in order to have a go at DTOM's petulance.

Now, DTOM may be a willing supporter of one perspective, but you are no more impartial than he is! Your urgent insistence on assuming responsibility and thus the guilt, and shame, for the 'Muslim problem' is just as much a self delusion as anything DTOM may be suffering from. There is more than one 'hook, line and sinker'.

Human beings, regardless of colour, culture or gender are responsible for their own actions. Before all other considerations, when regarding who is responsible for any set of affairs, it is always prudent to start at the beginning and look there for the true cause.

In the Middle East, the core of 'the problem' is the culture, and the tribal and religious expression by which it manifests itself. No one from the outside forces Arabian men to be so hard on their women. No one forces them to accept their way of life. They chose their culture by virtue of accepting its norms and by readily accepting the doctrine of religious ideology that goes with it. The fact of the matter is, these people, as a group, as a culture, are stuck in a mentality that utterly refuses to take responsibility for their own lives and actions. Everything bad that happens in the Middle East is automatically always some one else's fault and you are merely the latest outsider apparently eager and willing to assume the mantle of guilt.

Islam is a religion based on submission. Its whole premise is to abdicate responsibility and pass on the blame to God. When ever something bad happens, its always ynsha Allah and never the other way around.
You can cry mea culpa and beat your chest if it helps you feel better about the fighting happening in Iraq but don't try to argue that this conflict is something that only happened because the USA got involved. Its the other way around! Iraq has always been a violent place and it has used the USA just as all other nations have done, to pursue its own internal goals and agenda's. Don't be so willing to believe in the omnipotence of US power. It is subject to the same 'puppet strings' as any other and while you see Osama Bin Laden as a puppet, so also can the USA be seen as Osama Bin Laden's puppet.

Even yourself, parroting the same redendent arguments can be described as a puppet for a cause.

The people of Iraq have nothing in common with each other. Their society was always split into multiple tribal alliances and factions, religious divides and personal animosities. The only thing keeping them together was the western backed dictator, and before him the western manufactured nation. What we see today is what happens to a Middle Eastern nation when its own internal pressures erupt and a whole host of outseiders step in to take advantage. This was always going to happen when Saddam Hussein's reign collapsed. It was inevitable and has very little to do with US responsibility.

The sad part about all this is how easily so many people, including in the USA, have pointed the finger solely at the USA and absolved all others of responsibility. No doubt this is in part due to the clumsy, obtuse manner by which GW Bush undertook the invasion of Iraq, but that alone does not excuse, nor explain the vast outpourings of hatred for a country which, in truth, is no worse, and far better than most any other nation you choose to compare it with.

As to why so many people hate the USA I can only guess, but for my part I see nothing bad in the USA which I do not see mirrored in every other nation on Earth and yet, it is the USA that is so often attacked for its deficiencies whilst other nations, remain ignored. I imagine this is probably because the USA tolerates criticism and so is bombarded with it constantly, but its a shame that people like for example Kofi Annan, a man who's own deficienies have contributed to corruption, misery and death feel they have an obligation to rebuke the USA whilst ignoring all other wrong doers.

Do I? Do I have an 'R' by my name? Am I a Bush backer, based on my posts on AD? Didn't think so, but thanks for baseless tarring and feathering.


That's a silly question. Did you support the Albright/Kim Jong-Il champagne toast? Did you vote for Clinton? If you did, then that must mean you supported the inaction in Rwanda.


I agreed with you until your ridiculous assertion about Israel and genocide.

I think all of the guilt you're shouldering is getting to you....because you're not making any sense. But thanks for the rather amateur psychoanalysis.

Completely off topic.....and I didn't bring the tinfoil and kool-aid with me this morning. But curiously, you will espouse the 'other side' of the story when it comes to 9/11, disdaining any explanation or evidence that comes from the MSM. But when it comes to other stories, like those that put the military in a negative light.......the media line is the gospel truth for you, despite offerings of alternative possibilities.


Again, you're losing any semblance of logic here. You KNOW from my posts that I don't hold the military without fault, and certainly not the government, this government. But I apologize for throwing a wrench in your continuing analysis of my positions.


Quite obviously, you don't know what you don't know. You seem to think that since I'm not allowed a soapbox while on duty, that I don't speak my mind anonymously on a forum. That's rather odd from someone intelligent. You've proved the reverse of your own point. YOU don't like it when I challenge your world view. YOU don't like it when I bring reasoned explanations about why some things happen (ie, actions of the military), YOU immediately ascribe to my position, that I've bought the program, been brainwashed, whatever.
When in fact, the same can be said of you. You are so dedicated to anything anti-government/military/conservative/etc...etc, that your doing the bidding of that movement. Your just as much of a pawn as I am. I know you believe yourself to be independent and reasoned and clear thinking, but you've taken my distrust of radical Muslim intentions and actions as some sort of acquiescence of every foreign policy decison the US has made that you didn't like. No matter if you actually knew my opinion on the subject or not. No matter if I was old enough to vote for said policy or politician or not. That seems to be a bit of projection.
You want me so badly to be a mouthpiece for a government I didn't vote for, yet that remains unproven by you. You want me so badly to epitomize the things you hate, such a anti-Muslim xenophobia, yet you can't prove that things you accuse me of saying. If that helps you sleep at night, knock yourself out.

The bottom line still remains, no matter if the Reagan Administration sold chemical pre-cursors to Iraq in the early 1980's..........no matter if Britain and the UN partitioned Israel out of Trans-Jordan, rational people can still have issues with radical Muslims immigrating to our nations with the intent of changing western democracy and law to that of middle age Sha'ria. No amount of self burdened guilt can change the reasoned logic of that, for me and many others.

Oh well, so much for this vaunted "research" many claim on this web-site. Doesn't anyone catch the futility of exchanging articles about one side or another when no one ever seems to budge on their stand? A powerfully reasoned article will go unanswered if it runs contrary to that person's opinion.

What I find very interesting are the conclusions that certain posters draw as a result of finding "a real juicy bit of research".

Artemis is quoted as saying,

Iraqi's would not be killing each other now if we had not invaded in a badly planned and badly executed war. Anyone who knew the slightest amount of history predicted civil war. Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Saddam was an american puppet for decades, as was Osama bin Laden. The 'friendship' between Saudi Arabia and the US is not only contrary to our own standards here, but has caused dissention there as well, a country more oppressed and much more brutal than Iraq could have ever hoped to be. Afghanistan is still at war and getting worse with the Taliban gaining ground, again. Our support for Israel goes beyond supporting terrorism, it supports genocide and we are consistantly cowing to Israels irrational demands for war against the entire Mid-East.
It takes very little to connect the dots and understand that the 'Muslim problem' for us is very much of our own making.

As a matter of fact, I could have posted almost anything Artemis has concluded to make my point. She comes armed with statistics/research about gender, race, culture, and otherwise only to begin pontificating / excoriating American policy in almost every regard. If that's not haughtiness/hubris/arrogance/ignorance I don't know what those words means any longer. Heaven forbide Artemis that you were around during WW II or any other conflict in American history. Countless innocent people have died in wars seemingly without rational reason. According to your arguments we should have pulled out of those battles in order to spend more time thinking about why we caused them (the devils that we really are).

The fact of the matter as I see it is that the US (I do not say "we" because I'm not sure there are Americans on this site who care to be classified as such) have been challenged/attacked in increasingly multiple ways from a force that most of us know very little about. Many of us (myself included) believe that drastic measures need to be taken in order to insure that the best of American culture / freedoms be protected. Unfortunately, in striking out against those enemies of America many mistakes can/are/and will be made. My disappointment with the Bush administration is more about its tactics on the ground and not over the principals for going in. Please respect my beliefs about this without calling/implying/inferring/or quoting "damming" research that would suggest that I am a vicarious participant in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents by supporting the principals of why Bush went in to Iraq.

In a shameless effort to return to the initial thread topic, I will say that Americans harbor a wariness and even hatred toward entities they perceive to be dangerous to their wellbeing. There in not much to be done about this. One can only hope that our "better selves" will prevail during these times of collective anxiety as we try to figure out the best course of action to take.

P.S. Anyone up for a critically-minded debate based on using your own "cognitive steam" or are we forever subjected to quoting the "authorities"?

Where do you see this hapening in the US? Our Muslims are well cowed and quiet, or we would kill them. Plain and simple, Americans would be burning down every Mosque in the country, beating and shooting Muslims on sight if they even thought they could start any crap here about changing Western civilization to Sharia. You are really, making things up DT . Unless you have some link that describes such a thing here.

I think its interesting many of you have used the term 'guilt'. Ive been talking about history and its relation to current events, a timeline as it were. Do you think events occur in a vacume? One thing does not relate to another? How is that critically minded debate? Or is it just american attention deficeit thinking, one event is abstract and essentially unique and divided from the whole?
My take is not about guilt, its about problem solving rather than driving perpetual war through hatred. Its about trying to understand where people come from when they lash out consecutively, in a belief of wrongdoing, you to me then me to you then you to me an on and on. Its STOP, slow down and look at the 'why and how' this came about.

What is happening in Europe, Moifs problem, which he seems to be attributing to some some sort of passive-agressive Jihad, is another matter.

Moif, Forgive me if I dont think muslims going to the beach and offending your sensibilities by wearing clothes is Jihad. We have very few topless or nude beaches here, as our own religious stronghold keeps us somewhat clothed as well. Nor do I think Muslims wearing veils in accordance with their religious beliefs is Jihad. Nor do I think offering vegetarian meals in schools is Jihad.

I do see some disturbing trends in Europe, but WHO LET THEM IN? They didnt swim or walk there, Ive said this but its been ignored.
Where did Muslim refugees to Europe come from and why? Who is to blame for letting them in? And really, 200,000 muslims in a country of 4 million is going to change Western civilization as we know it? Its sad if that is the case. I just WISH 200,000 people could really change anything, because if so, the Iraq war would have never begun, because 10 million people in Europe and worldwide protested against it in a single day.



No Moif, your problems with Muslims are completely different from ours. I repeat myself from a last posts, you are having immigraton problems, cultural problems. We are having WAR problems. I cant answer every point on both sides or my posts would be pages long as I seem to be the only one in this thread arguing an opposite view. I cant adress European, or perhaps, your particular issues because I dont live there. I did read your links and have said that I find them disturbing to say the least, but I dont think its correct to take such a victimized view. To tell you the truth, I would have no idea how to solve your Muslim problems, and I have given it some thought, but it doesnt come in a day ( since you have been unable to solve them yourselves) I dont think giving it all up to hating is going to get you anywhere.
I dont think refusing to allow Mulims to wear headscarves is the answer, but I went as far as to say, round them up and ship them home and let them protest their own governments and change their own status quo, but that part was also ignored, and is as impossibe for you as it is for us with hispanics and latinos. Except, they swim and walk here, then demand rights, free medical care (which we dont recieve) and bilingual education. Its an immigration problem and you can guess who is responsible.

Im not sure, but the gist Im getting is, they are bad, backwards thinkers. They have been a problem since the beginning of time, and we actively desire to hate them and refuse to believe otherwise. Or, they need to stop believing in all the things they believe in and change to 'our' way of thinking. Rip off those headscarves, don bikinis and miniskirts, eat our food, convert to our modernism, religion and culture both in their adopted countries AND in their OWN Countries, lickety split, or just STFU and accept invasion and colonization.

I dont see what right we have to expect that. Religion, as we know in the US where the extreme religious right has huge power, is a considerable force. WE are having problems with womens rights and access to the basics such as birth control, WE have a stem cell research problem, We do not accept gays rights, and are constantly rehashing abortion issues mostly because of religious belief, yet WE consider Muslims too religious and behind the times? Since how long? WE are barely in front of them. WE still believe, as they do that WAR is the answer, but WE believe conversion to our way is the answer and we are being proved wrong, as has historically been the case.



Ill agree with you that countless innocent people have died in wars without rational reason. Perhaps we could afford it in the past, however, the world is changing and our needs are changing. As we become more globally interdependant and our resources are waning we cannot continue to rely on the same structures and paradigms of the past. The cost outweighs the ultimate value and the result much more detrimental for the entire planet. We absolutely must rethink and change the way we solve problems, especially inter-religious, cultural and resource problems. Its just NOT GOOD ENOUGH to continue the War paradigm. We need to expect more from ourselves and ultimately from others.



I could not have said it better myself, except the last part. Iraqs internal pressures did not 'errupt', we invaded them. We created the advantage, a situation that has been longstanding since we abandonned Iraqi oil for Saudi oil, never realizing how big Iraqs oil reserves were going to be. When the US and Britain went running after Saudi oil, Iraq legally bought out its oil reserves and subsequently nationalized them, making them property of Iraqi people and untouchable. This is still a problem in Iraq today, which the US is trying everything it can to get around. Its been a continuing BONE to the US and Britain that they gave up 'their' oil under Iraqi territory and have invaded and caused wars in order to regain what they see as original status.
You all are saying that Iraq was violent, but remove western influence conveniently from that equasion.
Its just ignorant. What exactly is the US doing there now? Conversion. You say you are adverse and angry about conversion of Islam in Europe and its effects, yet condone American conversion of the Mid-East.
What makes YOU more worthy of holding onto your beliefs and THEY Less worthy, available for invasion and losing the right to their own beliefs, as well as self determination IN their own country?
Who has a right? Self determination is everything. Freedom is not the right to decide between a US backed dictator or a US backed puppet government installed upon a military invasion and occupation. Self determination is not a US backed Shi'ite government because Saddam was a Sunni. Self determination is not a Shi'ite government because thats the way the cards fell badly for Americans in the invasion and now its a game of roulette. A Shi'ite government means hell for Iraqs women, segregation, lack of education and medical care, and the worst possible scenario in a cleric run, anti-civil rights, and much harsher anti- womens rights than under Saddam Hussein. Its a disaster, and its aligned with Iran, which is what we are settling for in order to save face and get out.
Professors, intellects and professional women are being murdered constantly under Shi'ite rule in Iraq. We have put the country back a hundred years, in our 'quest' to remake the backwards Muslims of Iraq 'free' in the American image. It is sickening and has been from the start.
Only the US and Britain wanted this war, the coalition was always weak and most of the public worldwide was not buying it. If Muslims were a problem, Iraqs Muslims never were, to us. They have spent the last 30 years as pawns of US policy. It is completely wrong, irrational and illogical to claim Iraqis were ever a threat to us, that they were a problem for Western civilization, that they are inherantly violent. It a fabrication in your own minds as a result of a war of your own making, blaming the victims.


DTOM, as far as your politics, point well taken and absorbed, but if as you claim to have 'insider information', then say it. So far all I see is critisizm of me for taking an anti-US government stance and you still offer up nothing.
I dont just despise the US government, I hate them all equally. Governments cause problems for people. Governments pit people against each other and send people to wars they normally would care little about. In all my travels I never met anyone who really wanted much more than security and to feed their families and live in peace. But I have seen plenty of backlash of thought and active rebellion against governments, for both real and perceived and heavily propagandized threats. I lived with the Kurds in Turkey, seen refugee camps from Eastern Europe , I was in Soweto during apatheid, Ive traveled with journalists that were jailed and tortured for speaking out, been all over the former Yugoslavia right before the war. My world view is pretty large, and as far as I can tell, if left alone, we wouldnt hate each other much. My grandmother, a Serb said, that before all this, people used to at least tolerate each other and live together in harmony, Muslims, Christians and Jews.
I have been, or tried to be taught in my life by my country , to hate the Vietnamese, Cambodians, the Russians, Nicaraguans, China entirely, Castro, the Sandanistas, South African Blacks, North American Blacks, Serbians, North Korea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraqi's, Iranians, Palestinians and now Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, as well as homosexuals, abortionists and Planned Parenthood. Thats a whole lot of hate to go around for me in one little lifetime. I just cannot possibly hate that much, and I cannot hate Muslims because its the current going fad either.
I dont live in fear of terrorists or worry about burkha clad beach goers. I am willing to bet Most of us dont think about dying from a terrorist attack on a daily basis, however, if you are an Iraqi, you gadge even IF you leave your house, when, how you travel, and worry each night if you will die or not, how long the electric and water will stay on, the long lines for medical care, and THAT is the difference between your petty concerns about radical Islam, and an American waged war on your country, for 'freedom'.



Actually, Id love it IF you did, but you just ask questions, offer no 'world view' and critisize my postings.
I think my world view is pretty much out in the open, what IS yours?

This is patently false. You have absolutely nothing to back up this ridiculous claim. How many hours of research did you do to post this?

Good grief! CAIR exists. Muslims are hardly cowed.

BTW History does not happen in a vacuum.

Actually, I would prefer it if you first provided the link that proves your claim that Americans are on the verge of mass slaughtering of American Muslims and would cross this line if and when we found that Muslims wished to change our laws to Sharia law.

Thank you in advance.

Attacks on mosques US -- http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/featu...idents1/0012120

Other:
Crowd of 300 demonstrating in front of a Chicago Mosque: One of the demonstrators, Colin Zaremba, 19, told The Associated Press, "I'm proud to be American and I hate Arabs and I always have."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/13/backlash.htm

New York man tries to run over a Pakistani woman: Huntington, N.Y., a 75-year-old man who was drunk tried to run over a Pakistani woman in the parking lot of a shopping mall, police said. The man, Adam Lang, then followed the woman into a store and threatened to kill her for "destroying my country."

San Francisco Police Investigate Hate Crime: (BAY CITY NEWS - 9/12/2001) - The San Francisco Police Department reported today that someone left a bag filled with a red substance thought to be blood on the doorstep of the Islamic Community Center and investigators are treating the incident as a hate crime.

Dallas-area mosque target of shooting :(ASSOCIATED PRESS - 9/12/2001) - At least six bullets shattered windows of a North Texas Mosque this morning, causing about $3,000 in damage, officials said. Windows at the Islamic Center of Irving were found shot out when workers arrived at the mosque about 6 a.m. Nobody was at the mosque when the shooting occurred and no injuries were reported.

Bus with Muslim school children stoned (Washington Post, 9/13/2001)

A Sikh man in Arizona is killed. Officials are investigating to see if the murder was racially motivated. The murderer might well have mistaken the Sikh turban for an indication that the man was Muslim. (September 16th, 2001) Two other gas stations in the same town, Mesa, Arizona, have also been shot at. The operators of the other gas stations are of Arab origin.

Fearing for the safety of its children, all Canadian Islamic schools close.

A mosque in Denton, Texas was fire bombed.

A crowd chases a Muslim woman and her children out of a Wal-mart at Lamarie, Wyoming.

A primary Muslim school in New York, The Islamic Institute, receives death threats against its 450 children. The caller threatened to "paint the street with the blood of the children."

Disturbing reports of attacks on international students across college campuses.

Click here for the image, featured in Time Magazine, of an burnt down Arab restaurant.
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/arabrest.htm
Click here to see the picture of the vandalized car of one of my own friends. This friend, a former student at Duke University, is now a student at McGill University in Canada. The graffiti on the car (broken window) reads: "go home Arab". (The student is not Arab.)
http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/hashemis.htm
Source: http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm with realted links.

Flirting With Fascism on CNN Headline News: Host Glenn Beck threatens Muslims with concentration camps
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context...;articleId=4082
This link is especially pertinent as it was on CNN not more than a week ago.


Now...you claim there is widespread Islamophobia supposedly with good reasons, but deny Islamophobia is 'occurring'.
Which is it?

I also see none of you posting a single thing, except Moif in Europe, that backs up an assertion that Muslims are trying to impose Sharia on Western civilization, specifically in the US.

In certain sectors of Europe , Muslims have been pushing for Sharia for their own sectors and to this, I say, to hell with them, and Europeans should as well. It's still not Jihad.
CAIR is not Jihadist either.

I write , as Moif and DTOM does, and I respect them entirely, from deep and thoughtful assessment of issues and situations as we see them, which happen to be diametrically opposed. I consider this much a result of the lives we live and what we see and have seen.
Moif living in Europe which has differnt concerns and issues, DTOM being lifetime military, and I being a world street photographer and lifetime political activist on social issues, there the twain does not meet a lot of the time.

I have spent considerable time since the day of 911 , focusing on and researching 911 and subsequent wars and globalization, I have the time. It is impossible to convey in one or many postings vast amounts of information derived and explain why one, or many come to the conclusion that the citizens of the US are collectively believing a lie, not only about the official story of 911, but that Muslims are now, (as opposed to the Vietnamese, Nicaraguans, Castro, etc etc of before) the enemy. Why we fall into the same traps time and time again. Why perpetual war is the ultimate program and why THIS current war is a farce from the beginning, and the end is far away.

The 'meat' of my posts are ignored for a more argumentative response upon the superficial. I really enjoyed the comment, "I am not going to be your research monkey', which is so much how I feel, because the research is endless to even begin with.
To tell you that your government is corrupt, is enough to begin major issues. To say that they are war criminals, complicite liars-Both parties over decades, in creating madrasses, terrorist camps, training, using Islamo-terrorism for their own benefit to wage energy and currency wars from Bosnia until now, in a military plan to remake the Mid-east is enough to drive people to distraction.
The most ludicrous part of it is that all the evidence has been put out there for all to see, but the psychological disorder of being a lemming prevents people from making correct conclusions, because its just to much to deal with.
And to be absolutely on-topic, the enemy Muslim is a complete and total fabrication. Muslims are NOT trying to take over the world. Al Q'aeda was working with Americans late as Aug 2001 in Macedonia, they are in fact a US/CIA intelligence asset. Osama Bin Laden was in a Pakistani ISI controlled military hospital, admitted the night of Sept 10th 2001 for kidney dialasis, as reported by DAN RATHER, CBS, January 28, 2002, So his whereabouts were KNOWN, and the ISI commander, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, that sent $100,000 to terrorist M. Atta was meeting with top Pentagon officials and two Congressmen,( eventual heads of the 911 comission) from Sept 4-13, 2001. All this has been reported, and ignored.
NONE of the terrorists names show up on any of the flight lists, two Boeng 757's allegedly, completely disintegrated on impact, something never to have been known to happen in the history of plane crashes. The alleged terrorist Hani Hanjour who supposedly flew the 757 at full throttle, making a tight 270-degree turn while descending seven thousand feet, then leveling out so as to fly low enough over the highway just west of the Pentagon to knock down lamp posts. After crossing the highway the pilot had to take the plane to within inches of the ground so as to crash into the Pentagon at the first-floor level and at such a shallow angle that an engine penetrated three rings of the building, while managing to avoid touching the lawn. And he had to do all of this while flying over 400 mph. Quite a feat for a flight school flunky who had never sat in the cockpit of a jet and had previously failed to pass a flight test to rent a Cessna.
My research, because as a friend says, ' you can do because you have no fear of the truth' is intact. Do the same, then critisize all you want.
Scientists and engineers, the general public are all questioning this fantasitcal version of 911 and hence, a perpetual 'War on Terrorism', ie: on Muslim states to steal oil.
It is no longer a fringe element. It is incredibly important at this phase of perpetual WAR that we stop believing and acting complicite to what we know to be outrageous lies. It takes enormous courage for some.

The facts are, we are in full fledged energy wars, and in a time of waning resources, those who control the energy will have huge advantages over every other on the planet. This is not conspiracy theory, it just is fact. Chaos in Iraq was a planned for situation. The division of Iraq into three separate states is a planned outcome, as three diverse entities cannot consolidate against the US/Anglo/Israeli coalition when the war is escalated to Iran and Syria.

Heres a start, maps included:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context...;articleId=3361
For those with short attention spans, scroll down to:
U.S. Strike Groups: Cargo intended for War?
All the-weaponry minded will love this.
Then to: The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil: the Baku-Tbilisi -Cehyan Oil Terminal
Strategy on the war in Lebannon, which it just came out that the US paid for, lock stock and barrel.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/ Operation Northwoods, the first government consideration of staging fake attacks US civilians in order to wage war.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context...;articleId=2942
PNAC continued, Cheney instructs USSTRATCOM to draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the contingency plan is the certainty that Iran would be behind a Second 9/11.

I will not even go into the rest.
You can hate Muslims all you want, but remembering that Iraqi's had nothing to do with this, a look at the dead should tell you, reading should tell you, something is wrong here. We are just not telling the truth to ourselves. And truthfully, few are reading or looking enough, because there are videos of british mercenaries shooting up Iraqi streets at random, death squads are roaming Iraq under the 'new government', women are being kidnapped and executed in droves, and Americans and European intelligence agents have been arrested for fomenting Islamic terrorism in both Iraq and Egypt, so far. In the case of Iraq, the Brits used 10 tanks to enter the Iraqi police building to release the two men, in the case of Egypt, the American and one Brit is still being held, to the distress of the governments involved.
"I" am not your research monkey, 'you' are not bothering, but I am, all the time.
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/gallery/view_alb...um28&page=1
Images and blog. Images are disturbing but entire website is worth if if you dont desire to maintain a head in the sand.

You are right, such things are most probably not jihad, but what is that to me? Why should the motivating causes of this belligerence be of any significance to me? What concerns me is the unwillingness to compromise. The unwillingness to accept Danish/European/western society, and its laws. The constant yammering about religious persecution and the blatent use of fear mongering by prominent Muslim leaders to alienate their followers from the rest of the people.


What difference does it make now? They are here and thats that. What matters is not 10 million Muslims, but 10 million Muslims who see themselves as victims and act accordingly.

How they got here is no longer the problem. Many of them have been here for generations anyway. The problem is, the stream of hatred pouring out of the Middle East, from places like Egypt, Palestina and Saudi Arabia that is deliberately incubating an environment of hatred between the Ummah and the rest of the world and brought into our midst by duplicitous organisations that claim to be charities but in reality are used for supporting sharia and jihad.

You might not see this as a problem for the USA, but I'm telling you, ten years ago, no one really considered it a problem here either. What we're facing now in Europe is just as steadily reaching the USA, and its only our proximity to the source of the problem that has allowed so many more extremists to gain a foot hold in Europe.


Denmark is also involved in the war. We have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Frankly, I don't see how what we are facing is in any different to what the USA is facing.


I have to say that this is a very negative perspective Artemise and a list of 90 incidents of vandalism since 2001, even including the odd pigs head or bullet ridden quran hardly compares to similar anti Jewish attacks, nor am I particularly convinced by the spate of attacks which followed 9/11. At the time, far worse was predicted as I seem to recall, and yet never manifested itself.

This is not to deny that there are those who would gladly use violence against Muslims, I'm sure there are many, only that in the examples you provide I am convinced this is due to the human condition rather than a particularly American mentality.

Furthermore, it seems to me, perhaps due to my European perspective, that we are all to quick in the west to jump to the defence of Muslims when confronted with the charge of Islamophobia and more often than not grant Muslims a free pass with regards to their own anti-Jewish tendencies. As an example consider the report issued yesterday by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia:
Link.

This article, as you can see plainly, is headed under a title that assumes Muslims are being discriminated against in Europe, and yet what the EUMC actually says is Islamophobic incidents in member states are probably under-reported. Probably. In other words, the EU's body on xenophobia and racism has no idea whether or not Muslims are being discriminated against, it simply assumes they are.

At the same time as the EUMC is making such ridiculous, and dangerous, pronounciations, the latest figures from the UK indicate that a Jew is four times as likely to be attacked as a Muslim:
Link.
Note that last sentence. I believe it echoes the American reaction to 9/11.

Here in Denmark, worshipping Jews have been attacked many, many times more than Muslims. It has gotten to the point now that Jews are advised not to wear visible indicators of their faith in public and the guards at the Temples make sure the faithful are properly attired when leaving. Imagine that. Ten years ago, no one had ever heard of Islamophobia, and now its in the media, every single day, whilst here in Denmark, the one country to have saved the bulk of its Jewish population from the threat of the nazi's, Jews must now emply guards on their temples during services and cover up their religios symbols for fear of attack.

Now consider the numbers involved. The number of attacks carried out against Muslims is apparently much less than the number of attacks carried out by Muslims and yet the Muslims overall are a small minority in the west. In other words the vast multitude of westerners are much less inclined towards ethnic violence than the small percentage of Muslims living in their midst, and this, as far as I can tell, is the same whether or not we are looking at Europe, or the United States.


Is that a threat?

...doesn't look like a threat to me. More like a statement of fact. Of course, if you want to look at it as a threat, then I suppose it can and is seen as such, but in my opinion as pointless as the observation is, its still hardly comparable to the onslaught of terror inflicted by Muslims themselves on those they oppose, or the veil of silence by the Muslim world at large with regards to that same violence.

Even taking the site you posted into account, the fact of the matter appears to be, that the vast majority of Muslims do not share the sentiments of the west, and how they react to Jews illustrates this. Ayaan Hirsi Ali explains a part of the cause (as she see's it):

Link.

And Kenan Malik has this to say with regards to Islamophobia and the London bombings:

Link.

To conclude, let me repeat, just to make sure my opinion is not lost in the various quotes and links, that I do not believe the majority of Muslims are bad people out to destroy the western world. What I am forced to conclude however is that Islam is an ideology, and a culture, in the grip of a dangerous delusion of persecution. That western Islamophobia cannot be considered without due consideration as to its cause, nor can violence against Muslims be given so much attention whilst anti Jewish violence by Muslims is all but ignored.

Should I refer you to Daffy's opening up of this post?:



The question for me was to provide a source for saying that Americans would not tolerate a move from Western to Sharia law. How many links am I supposed to provide? I have provided as well as Daffy, media suggestions of putting Muslims in concentration camps, burning of Mosques, shootings, blood and pigs heads, burning down a restaruant, a man trying to run over a woman, 300 protesters at Mosques, I mean I could spend a few days on it if you like but its not my one and only consideration in life.



Its not a delusion Moif, its real. With the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Israels continuous onslaught on Lebannon, the US and Britains constant wars and overthrows in the region, invasion of Iraq and subsequent plans for Iran and perhaps Syria, what do you think it takes to get a persecution complex?
Interestingly, the Jews are also said to have a persecution complex from WW2 holdover, is that justified?
Please find time to watch the video I sent, I think you will find it interesting and I would not waste your time on frivolities.

For the most part, I agree with Artimese's sentiment that if Muslim's decided to have a "hot" war here, they'd all be decimated within days - if not hours. Furthermore, this exact point is why I favor a "fighting them here as opposed to over there" strategy.

While Muslim extremists are a true enemy of the United States and certainly warrant a "real" war on terror (as opposed to toppling kingdoms we hate that have nothing to do with this war), trying to go all over the world on our own trying to fight them is completely unworkable. Multiply that difficulty by the brilliance of a foreign policy strategy that gives all our allies with troops and money "the finger", the task becomes impossible. We are just supplying the enemy additonal targets. However, if we close the borders (like we should do) and put those vast resources in first line defense mechanisms (intelligence, police action, etc), it would be very tough for them to fight that war here because of Artimese's premise.

It's simple common sense. There is no "proof" that Americans would put Muslims under their thumb no more than there is proof that most people don't steal from others because of a certain level of morality and/or fear from the law. I think Artemise did a good job showing that Americans - no matter how misguided - feel quite comfortable defending themselves from Muslim extremism.

And the real questions:

What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?

We need more Muslim leaders in this country to come out strongly against the terrorists and explain to the communities they live in that Islam doen NOT demand that other religions convert or die.. Too many of them are silent. IMO we need a national ID card that would do two things. 1 stop illegal immigration and 2. insure that a holder is a person who is here legally and is not part of a terrorist cell hiding in the US

Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
It would help.

Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?

No. 9/11 and the terrible acts and statements of the terrorists since then have. I would be willing to bet that if you did a survey, even before Iraq, more than ½ the Muslims in the world would say they hate the US and would like to see this country destroyed. Much of this hatred stems from our support for Israel.

Artemise:

How about:

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

That public service announcement comes to you courtesy of Omar M. Ahmad, the then chairman of CAIR back in 1998. In purportedly satirical terms, here is what you can look forward to when Omar's vision becomes reality here in the US:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/AyeshaAhmed41220.htm

Hope you enjoyed the satire, except it really isn't satire, since that was the history of Islam for a good while there and still is in some places.

And here's some info on CAIR your enlightenment:

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/

And, Artemise, sorry, but there is no real debate here. It isn't me that opposes you, but Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, et al. They are not white American me who grew up without all this and so maybe now might be a little bit frightened of this new alien thing. They grew up in it. And then they finally realized that the ideology is poison. And may I ask the obvious question, to wit, if my Islamophobia is so wrong, then please explain why Ali Sina is not his real name, why Ibn Warraq is not his real name, and do wish for me to complete the list of persons having to use pen names to hide their real identities? So who are the dangerous ones and why shouldn't I be against the ideology of some?

Lastly, borrowing from Denzel's Biko in the film Cry Freedom, call this lesson three in the education of a white liberal:

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

Sorry, one more for Moif, from our friends at apostates of islam:

"Standing before a meeting organized by the Dutch government in the Hague in early 2006, Ibn Warraq told the audience:

[']What we need now is an Age of Enlightenment in the Islamic world, of the Islamic mind-set or worldview. Without critical examination of Islam, it will remain unassailed in its dogmatic, fanatical, mediaeval fortress; ossified, totalitarian and intolerant. It will continue to stifle thought, human rights, individuality; originality and truth.[']"

Sorry, I lied, more for the education of a white liberal:

http://www.taslimanasrin.com/
http://www.homa.org/

The good doctor puts it best, since in her case it was her literal truth:

"Good afternoon, it is such a pleasure to be in this historic event, I am just delighted to be here. I was six days old, I was told, when my paternal grandfather passed on his religion to me and declared me a Muslim girl. As a result I lost all my human rights..."

You can ask the good doctor, you can ask Taslima, again, need I go on? So you'll have to forgive me, but I am not an Islamophobe standing alone, as I stand beside Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Parvan Darabi, Taslima Nasrin, and it sounds a bit better, yes, now I've got some "people of color" on my side? I let you figure out what that says and about whom [as it were].



Moif:

Which brings me back to you. You are largely wasting your time, as some will never see it, unless it's too late. I mean, we have that thread here asking why I think that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, and they do take great offense when I call them patent Jew-haters, but they only need look at our reality to know that I am right in this regard. A score or so Palestinians have been killed rather violently of late, but yet, no word here on AD that I can find about, question for debate, why are Fatah and Hamas killing each other and what can we do to stop it? But we both know that if the IDF had taken out 20 or so Palestinians, we'd be hearing about apartheid state, ethnic cleansing, etc. Apparently, Palestinian Arab lives only matter when it's Jews who do the killing. Sounds like patent anti-Semitism to me, but as always, you get to make your own call on this one.

Oh, Moif, look at the one board here, foreign policy, and so unless things change before you read this, then right below that one thread on, does anti-Israel mean anti-Semitism, well, look at the title of the next thread, something about israeli bombings killing women and children and what is being done to stop it. I rest my case.


DG:

You will have to forgive or indulge me, or both, for my rather belated reply, but, fine, you have "no beef" with Israel. But that misses the point, as some others have a beef and they say that we've chosen sides, and not theirs. As a matter of fact, two reasons were offered in support of the declaration of war against us, to wit, (1) US troops in the land of Mohammed, and (2) US support of the nation that you have no beef with. For those advocating our impending defeat and abandonment in Iraq, well, does that make it more or less likely that we'll keep troops in Saudi? On the other hand, if we had a truly stable Iraq, then we could go home, and from Saudi too? Which leaves us with your not having a beef with Israel. We support "the cancer that infects the Muslim world", and you can hear that said from the south and west of Mindanao all the way on over to Morocco [I heard the same when I was in the south and west of Mindanao and I've read some Moroccan dailies complaining of the same].

And I said:

Please, don't be ridiculous. Even if we took the figurative for the literal, the Jewish writ runs from that great sea that we call the Mediterrean, east to the River that we call the Euphrates, north into the Lebanon, and then south to the Wadi of Egypt. So there will be no Jewish jihad to take over the world. Christians were never given a land base, at least not those with a more Gentile heritage, and the command was to save souls and not to acquire land by conquest. That it turned out otherwise is infinitely more a reflection of the perversion of the faith by some than it is a reflection on the faith itself. And for your continuing education: YHWH is a God of war. My namesake: It is not flesh and blood that we contend with, but spiritual powers of darkness in the heavenly places. Is that the war you had in mind?

To which you said:

I’m being ridiculous? At least I’m not on a soapbox declaring God is ( ) and preaching a sermon.

DG, you, and not I, were first here to offer some word re God/YHWH is ( ). Please go back and read your one post that I was responding to by way of clarification of your remark re God is ( ). You don't get on your soapbox and I won't have to get on mine by way of point of clarification.

Now where was I? Oh, the beef you don't have with Israel. Again, some do. And they're in south and west Mindanao, and Morocco too, and everywhere that's Muslim in between. And so we're bombed just about everywhere within their reach, from those pleasure palaces in Bali to those synagogues in Morocco, and it's subways in Britain, two towers in New York, trains in Spain, and so where aren't we under attack? Have not some indeed shown that they were serious when they said they'd kill us whenever and wherever found?

And for the faith-based and/or religious nature of the struggle, well, given the two (2) stated reasons, how could it not be? (1) US troops in the land of Muhammed. Sound faith-based to you? I mean, it is my faith that is the problem, yes? (2) The nation you have no beef with. Dar al Harb usurping lands belonging to Dar al Islam. Read the Charter of Hamas. It doesn't get any more faith-based than that.

So, what am I? With respect to the Islam that has a problem with my faith such that I am not welcome in the land of Mohammed and begins to even conceive of a Dar al Harb and a Dar al Islam, well, then I am an Islamophobe. How could I not be?

Now on to distinguishing marks. Don't know why you brought that up in relation to me, since though I am Islam's enemy no. 1, I'm all in favor of exposing our daughters and sons to the risk of violent death in the name of a better world for Muslims in Iraq. But, yes, it would help us keep down the killing of the innocent if those fighting us would wear the uniforms required by a certain Geneva Convention. That's all the distinguishing marks that I'm asking for. And, sorry, DG, but as a youth, my neighbors to the left and my neighbors to the right all had that serial number on their forearm. And so I will otherwise simply and only say that nothing made the brutality any more plain than the serial number on the forearm. Now to borrow from Mr. Gump, that’s all I have to say about that.

And you said:

Find me ridiculous or naïve if you will, but I don’t believe a whole people/religion should be judged on the actions of a relatively small number of terrorists

Why are you confusing people and religion? I'm not. So maybe what we're doing here is speaking past each other. As Baphomet's Advocate said after her or his own fashion, I described as, well, I borrowed from Bernard Lewis and said that the majority of Muslims practice a falsified, Westernized version of Islam. It is. You can read the Quran, the Hadith, the various biographies of Mohammed, etc., and then consider the more or less universal practice of those practicing Islam for centuries, and then compare it to more modern times. I didn't make up Dar al Harb and Dar al Islam. True, you will find many a Muslim website saying that such are not in the Quran and that is correct. Problem is, it is in the early commentary and was the "classical" Muslim juridical position and practice for more than a thousand years. Returning to the Hamas Charter, it's also still the view of Hamas:

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. Neither a single Arab country nor all Arab countries, neither any king or president, nor all the kings and presidents, neither any organization nor all of them, be they Palestinian or Arab, possess the right to do that. Palestine is an Islamic Waqf land consecrated for Moslem generations until Judgement Day. This being so, who could claim to have the right to represent Moslem generations till Judgement Day?

This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

It happened like this: When the leaders of the Islamic armies conquered Syria and Iraq, they sent to the Caliph of the Moslems, Umar bin-el-Khatab, asking for his advice concerning the conquered land - whether they should divide it among the