Misdirected Anger

[Werewolf]

I need a bit of help understanding something...

This morning while watching the news a story was done covering the death of a 23 year old soldier in Iraq. As I watched I found myself growing angry - angry at those who killed him.  And - though I have doubts about the war in Iraq my anger was directed at the Islamo-fascist scum  who killed the young man and not the US government. The direction of the anger felt right, natural which is what leads me to my question.

Why do the peaceniks and pacifists direct their anger towards the governmant instead of those responsible for the killing they decry so loudly? I don't get it. We didn't attack Islam - Islam attacked us. Islam and the terrorists who kill in its name are responsible for the war and the deaths of our young people. How can any rational human being direct their anger for that at the gorvernment instead of at the root causes?

I - just - don't - GET IT!

[Art Eatman]

IMO, they're afraid of any sort of danger.  War of any sort is a violation of the "right" to have a safe, warm, fuzzy swaddling-cloth world as promised by Ralph Nader and his followers.  You'll find the attitude common among those who want somebody else to be responsible for all forms of safety and welfare, as we regularly rail against in the gun-control arguments.

Bush isn't paying Dane Geld.  That upsets those who would prefer a modern version, such as our welfare system.  The peaceniks believe--quite mistakenly--that if you can understand those who are hostile toward you, and "open a dialogue", all enmities can be resolved.  Same as in the days of Stalin and the USSR.  This creates an insurmountable problem when you're dealing with people whose idea of negotiation is, "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable."

Picking on Bush and the US Government is safe and easy.  No fear of retribution.  The endangerment of Salmon Rushdie from his writing a book poking at Islam was adequate warning.  You'll see "Piss Christ", but you darned well won't see "Piss Mohammed".  Cowards pick soft targets...

Art

[garrettwc]

Why do the peaceniks and pacifists direct their anger towards the governmant instead of those responsible for the killing they decry so loudly? I don't get it. We didn't attack Islam - Islam attacked us. Islam and the terrorists who kill in its name are responsible for the war and the deaths of our young people.

They don't see it that way. They feel that our free society, our strength, our wealth, are all threats. They believe we are getting what we deserve for being big bullies.

How can any rational human being direct their anger for that at the gorvernment instead of at the root causes?

Well there's your answer. They aren't rational.

[grampster]

Art and Garrettwc pretty much said it all.

[griz]

Islam and the terrorists who kill in its name are responsible for the war and the deaths of our young people

Do you really believe we are at war with Islam?

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

Do you really believe we are at war with Islam?

Abso-freaking-lutely.  If you don't, you are misinformed.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Abso-freaking-lutely.  If you don't, you are misinformed.

I'd say you're the one who's misinformed inthis case.  We are not at war with Islam.  There are plenty of Muslims who pose no threat to us, and we should leave them well enough alone.  Likewise, there are plenty of Islamic nations who we've got no business attacking,  such as Morocco or Egypt or Kuwait.

Islam is not the enemy, terrorists and their supporters are.  Some Muslims support terrirism, but the vast majority do not.

[Standing Wolf]

The enemy isn't necessarily Islam as a whole, but the Muslims who support the idea that the entire world must become Islamic.

Not all Germans were Nazis, although a.) Hitler was elected, and b.) the vast majority of Germans and Austrians supported Nazism until it became apparent the war was going to be lost.

[roo_ster]

Whne polled, 65% of palestinian arabs said terrorism was just fine with them.

[Guest]

The only bit of this that throws me, is, If 99% percent of islam was against terrorism, shouldn't there be some sort of backlash against the minority making the rest look bad?

[griz]

If I am misinformed, please inform me. Who, when, and why we declared war on 20-30% of the world would be a good place to start.

[Chris Rhines]

I - just - don't - GET IT!

You sure don't.

- Chris

[duck hunt]

+1 Chris, griz

[grampster]

WE declared war on 20-30% of the world?  How long have you been asleep?

Wahhabist Islam declared war on not only America, but virtually everybody else in the world, including fellow Muslims, who do not knuckle under to their flavor of radical, tribal, 13th century, apostate religious insanity.  It's not about anything else than that.  It's really that simple.  Wahhabi Islam wants the world to be their Caliphate and they are slowly but surely seeing to that end.  No amount of brotherly love and dialogue is going to change their minds.  If you don't believe that being able to continue to live according to our (admitedly eroding) standards and freedoms versus a Wahhabist Caliphate, I wonder what you've been smoking.

At some point the world was going to have confront the reality of Wahhabi expansion.  It seems that time is now and we need to get on with it.  My only argument is we are not being as seriously aggresive about it as we should.

[Werewolf]

I - just - don't - GET IT!

You sure don't.

Instead of a condescending and snide response Chris - why not take the time to explain it to us since you apparently DO GET IT!

[griz]

Here is my point. This article is from the new constitution of Iraq:

Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation.  No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam, the principles of democracy, or the rights cited in Chapter Two of this Law may be enacted during the transitional period.  This Law respects the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice.

My objection is that we were sold a war to eliminate the threat to the US, and that changed into freeing the Iraqi people from their oppressor. Given that, can you explain why we went to war to install an Islamic theocracy in Iraq? Doesn't add up to me if we are "at war with Islam".

[Zundfolge]

Why do the peaceniks and pacifists direct their anger towards the governmant instead of those responsible for the killing they decry so loudly?

Because most peacenicks are partisan hacks ... taking pot shots at their political enemies for any reason they can come up with.

These peacenicks don't care about the war one way or the other, they just know that they must destroy any Republican in public office and will use any excuse to do so.

Its no more complicated then that.

[Werewolf]

My objection is that we were sold a war to eliminate the threat to the US, and that changed into freeing the Iraqi people from their oppressor. Given that, can you explain why we went to war to install an Islamic theocracy in Iraq? Doesn't add up to me if we are "at war with Islam".

Now THAT is a very good question.

It does seem that allowing the Iraqis to set up an Islamic theocracy would be counterproductive and not in the best interests of the US.

Of course it is possible that our leadership is so naive that when they told the Iraqis to write a constitution they believed that they would choos a secular type government over a religious one.

NAH! they couldn't be that stupid - oh - wait - aren't those the same guys that never planned for an insurgency believing that the Iraqis would welcome us with arms open wide, cheering our troops and welcoming an occupation.

On second thought MAYBE they could be that naive.

[middy]

Werewolf, I have a feeling that if we had forced them into a secular government you would be crying about how it's just a "puppet government" and how "democracy can't be forced on people".

[Guest]

They are complaining to the Govt because they know the islamofascist wouldn't listen.

[Antibubba]

BUT...

   Islamic principles may be the basis of the laws of the nation without the country as a whole being an Islamic State.   There's a lot of talk about Democracy in Iraq, but the US government has been very careful to make it as much a republic as possible.  

   Look at the founding of the US.   Virtually all the Founding Fathers were quite religious, and many of the laws were based on christian ideals; yet they had all been burned by the State religion at one point or another.  They were all wary of authority vested in a sovereign, whether it be a royal or (the supposed representative) of a heavenly one.  They set out to create a weak central government.  Do you notice the Iraqi governing body is called a "Parliament" but that the laws are set up to prevent a majority party from taking the whole thing over?  If one faction tries to take over, the other two will stop it.  Except everyone knows, of course, that one faction will try to stop it, and the Kurds will just withdrawal and set up their own little principality-which would force the Turks to get involved.  And NOBODY wants the Turks to get involved.

   Don't forget too that about 3% of the population is Christian, which doesn't seem like a lot, except like the Jews in most of the West(0.5% of the US population) they've put a lot of emphasis on education, and operate at the highest levels of government and society (no Z.O.G. jokes, please).  A caliphate would force most of them to emigrate, and while we would certainly benefit (because most of them would try to come here), it would only hurt Iraq.

   "Islamic Principles" is just that.