US GLASSHOUSES ARE NOT THE BEST VENUE FOR CHUCKING STONES AT CHINA

The Chinese government, obviously sick of having its human rights record questioned by Western governments, has hit back (China People’s Daily On-Line, April 11 2011), with the US its first target.

Let me say at the outset, I have no wish to defend the Chinese Government’s human rights record. The secrecy, the unknown but obviously high rate of execution and the frequent imprisonment rate of critics of the government suggests that Amnesty International will continue to have China in its sights for several more years to come. Their attempt to control bloggers is also not in dispute. But when you read the article they have commissioned in response it is hard to fault the logic. For example they suggest the US could look at its own human rights record particularly with such matters as what they call the US outrageous rate of gun ownership which has resulted in something like 12,000 deaths by murder per year and many more gun related injuries.

They criticise the undoubted human rights violations associated with the US War on Terror and without being specific it is easy to relate this criticism to the now reducing practice of rendition ie the making frequent use of countries with a poor record on torture for the interrogation of suspected terrorists and US political prisoners. (Recent disclosure of Egypt’s role in this procedure showed that it was more common than previously admitted.) They also refer to the high rate of deaths and civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In response to the criticism on internet control they state: “While advocating Internet freedom, the US in fact imposes strict restriction on cyberspace. They remind their readers that on June 24, 2010, the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, which will give the American federal government “absolute power” to shut down the Internet under a declared national emergency rule”.

Treatment of prisoners while in fact probably better than many other nations is of course far from perfect.  For example the US has a very high rate of incarceration on a world scale and a number of states retain and still use the death penalty.

The China People’s Daily article pointed out that the US treatment of the disadvantaged hardly gives them the right to criticise others. For example they quote figures to show that over recent years the proportion of Americans living in hunger and starvation increased sharply. The China Daily also quoted from a report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in November which showed that 14.7 percent of US households were food insecure in 2009. The report pointed out the number of families in homeless shelters increased 7 percent to more than 170, 000. The US Census Bureau reported in September that a total of 44 million Americans found themselves in poverty. The share of residents in poverty climbed to 14.3 percent in 2009, the report said.

Although the report incorrectly identifies the US as having the highest rates of violent crime in the world (ie I believe Columbia and South Africa are countries that have higher rates)in general terms they are very close to being correct. Correct too is the charge that the so called democratic process has become largely a matter of using obscene amounts of money getting key politicians elected. For evidence they quote a report from The Washington Post on October 26, 2010, which claimed U.S. House and Senate candidates shattered fundraising records for a midterm election, taking in more than $1.5 billion. The midterm election, held in last November, cost $3.98 billion, the most expensive political rally in the US history.

While I dont think China is in a position to criticise the US it has always seemed to me that it is alway worth stepping back and asking the question – how do we in the West appear to others? For example Saudi Arabia for all its faults has a miniscule crime rate compared with the US, and the US has clearly messed up in terms of gun laws if there are so many victims of gun crime each year. Unfortunately the standard procedure is to compare one’s own ideals with other people’s practice which hardly does much for international relationships.

The general criticisms the Chinese have made could apply to other Western criticisms as well. If the Western nations were a little more objective they might not be so critical about Islam either. For more than a billion followers of Islam, what proportion are suicide bombers? and in terms of victims how many more civilian casualties result when the West pursues its noble causes in the Middle East? And if it comes to that, how many nuns wear a habit in France compared with the estimated less than 2000 Islamic women wearing a full burka in France.

Come to think of it Western Australia’s minister for women’s interests Robyn McSweeny has recently stirred up some controvery for her criticism that the burka is non-Australian.   Just wondering:   would hanging corks from the burka overcome the problem?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Moral Issues, Society and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to US GLASSHOUSES ARE NOT THE BEST VENUE FOR CHUCKING STONES AT CHINA

  1. paxterrarum says:

    A college professor with a Ph.D. once told our class, “A Ph.D. doesn’t mean all that much. But it sounds much more credible when you make that statement if you have a Ph.D. than if you’re a high school dropout.” In the same way, it’s true enough that America makes plenty of mistakes, including some human rights violations. But it lacks a certain sensibility when the statement is made by the Chinese government. Truth is truth, wherever it’s found, but doesn’t the Chinese government realize how it makes them look when they try to criticize the USA’s record? If they call our record bad – are they unaware of what are they actually telling us about their own record?

  2. Bill Peddie says:

    As a PhD I like the comment! However there is something else. Years ago in a Masters paper in comparative education I had to study the USSR education system.
    I learned that the diversity of peoples in the USSR along with the horrendous problems in communication and resourcing the system led to an autocratic and authoritarian education system as the only workable system. This apparently proved true when they later tried to introduce a more democratic system that didnt work nearly as well.
    Perhaps in criticising China there is a danger of using a US setting as a yardstick. After all when the US tried to set up a more democratic system in Iraq we can hardly say the result was a resounding success!

  3. peddiebill says:

    No – but ignoring the setting, as the US has occasionally done in the past, is not very wise either. There is also a touch of “what goes round comes around” in the Chinese response. Of course the Chinese have a bad record for human rights, but given its recent history, I am not certain that the US should necessarily have the right to cast the first stone. Rendition, water-boarding and the support of corrupt regimes with apalling human rights records dont convey a sufficiently perfect record to give the US the automatic right to tell the Chinese how they have to organise their human rights, even if the rest of us think the Chinese need to improve their act… unless of course the US is also cleaning up its own act. In which case there is no problem.

  4. katargeo says:

    The Chinese government and communist governments in general have used the smoke screen of attacking other governments to hide its abysmal record of human rights abuses. According to the University of Hawaii (one of the leading researchers on Democide “death at the hands of your own government), a total of 262 million people were murdered last century by their own governments. This is 6x more than died in all the wars combined.( http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ )The vast majority of these people were murdered by atheistic communist or fascist regimes. Second among the greatest mass murders of all time is Mao Tse-Tung
    Dictator Regime Ideology Years Number murdered
    Joseph Stalin USSR Communist 1929-1953 42, 672,000
    Mao Tse-Tung China Communist 1923-1976 37,828,000

    The sytematic imprisonment and torture and murder that went on under athiestic communist regimes in China and the USSR dwarfs that abuses that happened in free countries. While it is true that America at times has committed some abuses to groups like American Indians, these abuses were extremely small (even when quoting the most liberal historians) in comparison the government sanctioned oppression under Stalin and Tse-Tung. This type of oppression (in lesser degrees) still goes on in China where pastors and Christians are regularly tortured and imprisoned for simply attending non-government sanctioned house churches. WE all saw in graphic detail the mass murders that went on in China in the Tiananmen Square massacre. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_2496000/2496277.stm In these massacres none of the students were taking up arms against the government. Yes, some of the excesses of the American government against native Indians were wrong. However, some of these excesses were triggered by armed uprisings of the Indians and mass murder and pilaging done by the Indians. This was certainly not the case in China for the vast majority of those imprisoned, tortured and murdered were most often peaceful dissidents.

    There is also a huge difference in poverty in America. While it is sad to see the economy being strangled because of oppressive beauracratic control devices and excessive taxation that have caused trillions of dollars and millions of jobs to be lost overseas leaving many people jobless and underemployed. The immoral legalized government plunder and generation theft has now left each American in debt of $45,000 under the spin-doctor rhetoric of “stimulating the economy” and “investing in the future.” This would be like me stealing the check book of my neighbor and writing unlimited checks, which he would be liable to pay back, all the while claiming that I was justified because I am “stimulating the economy” and “investing in the future.” This type of government socialism and immorality has left us on the brink of social ruin. However, even this type of government immorality does not really address the leading causes of poverty in America. When the then vice-president, Dan Quayle, tried to address the subject, he was ridiculed and mocked for trying to speak about the underlying causes of poverty in the growth of moral relativism and the loss of values leading to the decline and destruction of the American family. Atlantic magazine did a follow up article in April 1993 after the media had crucified the vice-president for questioning the underlying causes of poverty in America. The title of the article was “Dan Quayle was right.” In the article the research was laid bare of how the decline of the two parent families and the sharp increase sex outside of marriage has had enormous destructive results in our nation. Single parent mothers were 6x more likely to be poor. In spite of the research Hollywood was inflamed with rage that someone should question the morality of liberal programs like Murphy Brown. What Atlantic magazine pointed out is that America does not need another beauracratic government program that puts an increased burden on American taxpayers while wasting trillions of dolloars in programs that don’t work. It needs to address the deeper moral and social issues that have led to this rise in poverty. Yes there are different causes for poverty in America, but chief among them is the rise of the illegitimate birth rate (around 5% in the 1960s to over 40% in 2010)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/health/13mothers.html
    If there is a fawcet running full blast in the corner pouring water on to the floor, and I hand you a rag and say, “mop up the water,” what kind of solution is that? It is like those liberals who think that the answer to almost every problem is the government wasting more money (confiscated from hard working Americans) on programs that have been proven not to work. This type of approach has led to increasing frustration among many people. It is another reason why books like “Atlas Shrugged” written by Ayn Rand continue to sell hundreds of thousands of copies annually decades after it was written (over 500,000 copies sold in 2009 http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=24817) It would probably be good for every American to see the new movie that is coming out. Rand understood well many of the forces of economics and how government led socialism strangles the economy and leads to mass misery. China for years was strangled in it, and America now seems to be heading for it. As it usually happens in history, when people become corrupt and immoral and cannot control their own behavior, they most often look for dictators and government tyranny to impose some type of morality upon them from above.

  5. katargeo says:

    You claim that the vast majority of the 1 billion Muslims are peaceful. However, according the one of the more respected British journalists, Melanie Philipps, when Muslims in England were interviewed after the 2005 bombings, 76% of them supported the bombings. (http://books.google.com/books?id=7X2pLgAACAAJ&dq=londonistan&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=7ZC4TabJKpTftweQ9-nfBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA) They didn’t say they would commit the bombings themselves, but they supported the idea of bombing and jihad. What if the number was not 76%? What if it was only 10%? That would still mean that there would be as many as 100 million potential terrorism supporting Muslims around the world. That is very scary! Remember there were only a small minority of Germans that were Nazis and the same small minority of Russians that were communists, but this small group dominated those countries because the vast majority was unwilling to speak out. How many Imams are openly speaking out against jihad. Where are the Muslim clerics who are willing to condemn Mohammed for participating in 78 jihads before his death in 632 AD (only one of those jihads was defensive) Did Jesus or his disciples encourage jihad? Look at Mohammed’s four main disciples : Ali, Uthman, Umar and Abu Bakr. Their lives were dominated by jihad and bloodshed. Only one of the jihads they participated in was defensive.

  6. peddiebill says:

    The more interesting question is why the Muslims in the UK at the time were approving of the bombings? Why, the percentage you quote must be almost as big as the percentage of those in the US who wanted President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to lead them into Iraq and Afghanistan in apparent revenge for the Twin Towers. Following your logic, does 70% of the population supporting an invasion mean 70% warmongers? – surely not. The difficulty in arriving at an objective assessment is sourcing histories of events that both sides can agree is fair. In the absence of such objective reporting here is a mind exercise. If your home country (which I guess is the US) had been invaded – even for the most noble reasons by a Muslim Army – would you honestly shrug your shoulders and say fair enough, we must have deserved it? Think for a moment about what your reaction would really be. Would you honestly not approve of any action taken against the sponsoring Muslim nation.
    Nationalism is a funny condition – and just maybe it is not only Britain and the US whose people are entitled to such feeling.
    You ask if Jesus and his disciples encouraged jihad. Clearly no – but equally clearly some of their successors did exactly that. What else were the Crusades? And equally clearly President Bush saw himself led by God to take his nation to war in Iraq and Afghanistan – which if you think about it is very close to the concept of jihad. You may remember the George Bush quote in the British Newspaper “the Independent” on October 7 2005 where Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: “I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did, and then God would tell me, ‘George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,’ and I did.”
    He even initially called it a Crusade – until his advisers told him to pull his head in!

  7. katargeo says:

    If Bush made those quotes ( and I suspect that those quotes are highly suspect), then he would be clearly wrong. What makes those quotes highly highly suspect is that President Bush never made any quote like ever in America. He went before the Congress and Senate, and almost every major Senate leader and Congress leader who consulted the intelligence reports came to the same conclusions that Iraq represented a threat and possibly was amassing weapons of mass destruction. We know that Saddam used WMD against the Kurds, and there were 16 UN Resolutions against him warning and calling for sanctions. My wife actually met one of the Canadian teams that were responsible for removing 500 tons of Yellow Cake from Iraq. (On July 5, 2008, the Associated Press (AP))
    There is some question where the Yellow Cake came from, but Yellow Cake can be used to make WMD. Yes, it takes a lot of work to do it, but this is one of the reasons why Israel came in and took out Iraq’s nuclear plant back in 1981. Even if Saddam wasn’t using the Yellow Cake to make WMD, we know he used WMD against the Kurds as documented by the UN. This is why there were so many resolutions against him and why 36 nations (not just the USA) chose to move to stop him by acting on the UN Resolutions. The Senate Intelligence Committee that overviewed the intelligence reports and called for action was headed by John Kerry (democrat) Hillary Clinton and almost every other Democrat leader called for action. Maybe they were all wrong in reading the reports. Maybe the UN was wrong. Maybe all 36 nations and their intelligence reports were wrong, but the key point is that it had almost nothing to do with George Bush standing up before the US Senate or Congress or standing before the UN or parliment of Britain and saying, “I have a vision from God sent to me from the angel Gabriel that we must make jihad on Iraq and send thousands of our devoted followers to blow themselves up as suicide bombers targeting innocent women and children until we establish Christianity as the dominant religion and everyone submits to God (Allah or Jesus or some other deity). Unlike the almost 16,000 + beheadings, kidnappings, murders, rapes and other acts of terror committed by devoted followers of Mohammed (Jihadwatch.org) in the name of their religion, the War on Terror had nothing to do with religion. In fact many conservatives were angry at Bush because they felt he whitewashed orthodox Islam. In fact Bush called for a day of prayer inviting Moslems and Christians to the White House shortly after 9/11. One of the Moslems called to lead the prayer was later indicted for his relationships with Al Quaeda. Bush took a lot of heat from Conservatives for leaning too far to make peace with Islamic leaders. Islamic Scholar Daniel Pipes was one of the people who sharply criticized Bush for being too friendly with people connected to terrorist organizations. One thing is very very clear is that Bush took great great pains to not make the conflict into a religious war. Personally I think we went too far in whitewashing the history of Islam and Mohammed. To say that Mohammed or his 4 disciples “the rightly guided Caliphs: Ali, Uthman, Umar and Abu Bakr were men of peace is to completely twist and warp documented history. Mohammed engaged in 78 jihads during his lifetime where he often murdered men, women and children who did not convert to Islam (only one of the Jihads was defensive) Beginning with the Battle of Waddan in 623 AD to the conquest of Damascus in 635 AD, Jersusalem 638 AD, Egypt 659 AD, Constantinople 677 AD, Spain 711 AD, Tours in FRANCE 732 AD, leading to centuries of bloody conquest over people that had peacefully converted (not by jihad sword). Carry that forward after centuries of conquest and bloodshed Europe finally answered a defensive call to help stop the bloody conquest of the crumbling Byzantine Empire. Yes some of the Crusades were excessive and those churches must own some of their abuses. But it is imperative to remember that the Crusades were called by Pope Urban as a defensive measure to preserve what was left in those lands from the bloody Moslem conquest. All the Middle East had been won through peaceful means of preaching the gospel. Islam then conquered those lands by the sword for centuries. If it wasn’t for the brave people in Tours in 732 AD and later battles in Spain and other parts of Europe, all of Europe would have come under the cruel oppression of the Islamic sword. To compare Bush and the 36 nation alliance to the religious bloody sword of Islam is beyond ridiculous and extremely bad history. Not one soldier (that I am aware of) stood in Iraq conquering the people there yelling “Allah Akbar” like the murderous jihad Islamic warrior Major Nidal Malik Hasan did at Fort Hood in November 2009. Major Hasan, as an orthodox Moslem was carrying out the dictates of the Koran Surah 9:5 that commands all Moslems to kill all “infidels” that do not repent and accept Islam (“slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them every kind of ambush. ”
    Major Hasan was following the orthodox example of Mohammed and the “four rightly guided Caliphs” (main disciples of Mohammed). In some segments of Islam Jihad is considered a 6th Pillar of their Faith. People like Osama and Hasan as well as the other 16000+ acts of terror committed since 9/11 were committed by orthodox Moslems following the Koran and the example of Mohammed. The coalition War on Terror had nothing to do with Religion. I wasn’t there in the secret room that day to hear what president Bush supposedly said to Moslems like Shaath and Abbas. All we know is from his public record before our Congress, Senate, nation and also before other nations governments and the UN is that President Bush never uttered a word that would make us believe that this war had anything to do with religion. He went far far out of his way to separate religion from the war on terror (too far in many people’s minds). Should the USA, England and other nations of the 36 nation coalition have gone to war to help stop terror and enforce the UN resolutions? That might be debatable? WE do know that the decision was a corporate decision made by the governments of each of those countries. If they were wrong in interpreting the intelligence reports, then they were corporately wrong. Kerry would be wrong with his committee for how they interpreted it, and every other member of congress and the senate (including Hillary Clinton and others) were wrong for calling for immediate action. They saw the same reports. What is abundantly clear, however is that the war on terror had nothing to do with religion. Not one of these people said anything in public relating religion to his war to stop terrorism. It bears almost no resemblance to the massacre at Fort Hood, or as one writer put it “the beheading of Paul Johnson Jr. or Nick Berg, or the hundreds of Iraqi doctors, lawyers, engineers and educators brutally killed trying to build a humane government for themselves and their compatriots. Nor is there any mention of the countless Iraqi civilians killed by car bombs. For that matter, elites would prefer we forget all about the victims of 9/11. To them the only individuals worthy of sympathy and compassion are the downtrodden and oppressed terrorists themselves. In their minds, the terrorists’ grievances and right to violent self-expression trump any victims’ right to life and liberty.” Most of these brutal acts of terrorism were accompanied by overt Islamic religious shouts of “Allah Akbar” clearly showing the religious motivation. To compare these acts to the 36 nation coalition War on Terror is beyond ridiculous, and it is most certainly very very bad history!

  8. Judi says:

    Well put Katargeo, I recall in detail President Bush, Condi Rice and Tony Blair making speeches specifically stateing this was not an attack on Muslims and going to great lengths to commend the religion as primarily peaceful. This stands out to me because it’s ridiculous, Islam was not, is not and never will be peaceful. History will surely repeat itself because people willfully ignore it.

  9. Bill Peddie says:

    I dont question your sincerity and you are indeed quoting correctly from the standard US line on these issues. Partly because I was convenor of Scientists Against Nuclear Arms in Auckland at the time and partly because I was preparing a book on the origins of modern terrorism I had access to rather more detailed information than was convenient for the White House and State Department to release to the US and international public. Because it is very detailed perhaps I might just mention in passing a couple of points.
    Saddam Huusein did of course hit the Kurds very hard when they showed signs of rebellion and did indeed use poison gas in Halabja. The reason why the US repeatedly blocked the UN attempts to move against Hussein over this incident ,which Hussein perhaps implausibly claimed to be a mistake because the Iraqis had not realised their intended target of Iranian troops (who had indeed been occupying the town) had since left, was complicated by the fact that the Reagan Administration had two airforce officer advisors involved in the campaign instructing the Iraqi army how to use the US sourced gas.
    When Iraq finally bowed to increasing pressure from the US to release more information about their weapons systems programmes in late 2002 – it backfired because the release showed that the Western nations were principle suppliers of the weapons now being used as an excuse to put pressure on Hussein. For example between 1985 and 1990 the US Commerce Department had licenced $US 1.5 billion in sales of military and military potential material to Iraq. Of course there was yellow cake. In fact the Iraqi nuclear programme detailed more than 30 German companies and 10 US companies and 11 British companies involved in the programme. After the Gulf War which contains a whole raft of embarassments for the US which is a story in itself, there had been such substantial damage done and so many subsequent sanctions imposed(including the knowing denial of medical services for children) that the Iraqis had no reaon to view the US with any gratitude. Pause for thought on the words of Madeleine Albright, then US Secretary of State in 1995 when she claimed on a CBS Sixty Minutes Interview that the loss of half a million Iraqi children was “a price worth paying” for keeping the pressure on Baghdad. In that context the outraged public in US might have had a little more understanding when a few days
    after the Twin Towers terrorist disaster the words of the Iraqi Ambassor on TV included:
    “Of course we are against the wholesale killing of innocent civilians. But when the US continues to kill our civilians dont be surprised if we fail to send our condolences.”
    You say that I have bad history. In my view bad history is when you only consider a history from one sides viewpoint.
    Your comments about the unlikelihood of George Bush making the comments I claim he made I dont accept because I have many more quotes from different contexts. However why not go to the text of the article I refer you in my previous reply to where you can get start for a flavour of some of the other quotes.
    Having dug beneath the surface of the public face of politics to find out what sometimes goes on, I dont personally share your confidence that the official line tells the whole story.

  10. Judi says:

    I agree that there’s more to all of this. Our nation, Israel and our world is being set up for what scriptures call a great deception. My quarrel with Islam is ideological. I see no defense for their system, which again is more legal and political than religious. On the other hand I’ve lost trust, not in American ideals or the American people at large, but certainly in our last few administrations. I see them more and more as the same. Having said all that, I still don’t think President Bush is stupid enough to make (or feel) such comments as you claim. There are powerful agendas of propaganda at work here, on many levels.

  11. peddiebill says:

    I think it was Einstein who said (and I paraphase) The difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius.
    I am sorry we disagree. I am presuming you have at least looked up the reference to the Independent article which is accessible on the net – and which contains supporting material. I have a preference for BBC and the Independent over the US State Department as a source of information any day.

  12. katargeo says:

    My main point is that President Bush never made any kind of comments in public to indicate that the war had anything to do with religion or some supposed vision he had from God to make war on Iraq or other countries. President Bush made many many speeches before many different assemblies, and in all of them he was very very careful to not bring religion into it. My comment about the supposed comments made in private to Mahmoud and Abbas is that we have no way of confirming what went on in those conversations. Did Bush say those things? How can we know. It seems very unlikely when everything he said in public goes directly against those comments. Anyone can claim anything about a private conversation. Public statements matter much more, and President Bush never said anything in public that would lead us to believe that he was making a war on the Islamic religion.

  13. katargeo says:

    Abbas has chosen to embrace Fatah and Hamas. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=218727

    Both of these organizations are Islamic Extremist groups that openly support terrorism Why would you believe a “private” conversation (that has no way of being confirmed) against all the hundreds of statements that President Bush made publicly? That seems to show a pretty strong bias doesn’t it? Under the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya Moslems are allowed to say almost anything about a non-Moslem.

    The Arabic word, “Takeyya”, means “to prevent,” or guard against. The principle of Al-taqiyya (also called taqiah, Al-takeyya, Al-taqiyah, or kitman) conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one’s self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-taqiyya is based on the following Quranic verse:

    “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah.” Surah 3: 28

    If Moslems perceived Bush as a threat in any way, and the internet is filled with thousands of quotes from Moslems of how they hated Bush, then under the doctrine of Taqiyaa and Kitman they would be allowed to say almost anything about him. Abbas would just be following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Arafat who regularly used lies and propaganda to serve his personal ambitions.

    Like I said before I wasn’t there when that supposed private conversation took place, and if Bush really did say those things he would be wrong, and Christians would openly condemn those comments. But it doesn’t make sense when one considers the thousands of comments he made in public which said essentially the opposite of what Abbas claims. Since Abbas embraces known terrorist organizations, doesn’t it make more sense to suppose that Abbas is using the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyaa which allows Moslems to lie about Infidels? The Koran directly commands all Moslems to not make friends with any Non- Moslem. The Koran refers to Jews as “apes” and “pigs.” The attitude toward unbelievers given in the Koran leads most Moslems to have a deep hatred for Israel and most often for the USA. I have several friends who are Moslems. I have had them in my home numbers of times. I have celebrated after Ramadan with them. Even the most moderate of my Moslem friends will practically fly into a rage the moment you mention the name of Israel. When my wife worked with refugees in Somolia, she saw the same kind of systematic hatred taught in Islamic schools toward Jewish people and Americans. Young kids there were taught math in their books by using pictures of military weapons. Even very young kids were taught to hate Jews and Americans. When one of my friends just came back from a trip to Israel with his son, he related to me about his trip. He said everywhere he went in Israel, he and his son received warm and friendly greetings until they walked by an Islamic school. As they walked by, the young children lined up at the fence and began to spit at them. This is the same type of systematic hatred we see in Dearborn, MI at the Arabic Festivals. In the stalls on the streets they sell all kinds of Arabic and Islamic paraphanalia. At one stall they had tee shirts of a man urinating on the star of David. This type of hatred is not isolated; it is systematic. Is every Moslem like this? Maybe not? But I can tell you from first hand experience and history that this is not uncommon. Even my most moderate Moslem friends will fly into a propaganda marathon the moment we begin to talk about Israel. Hitler’s book Mein Kampf still remains a very popular book in many Islamic countries. Why? Islam generally teaches systematic hatred toward all unbelievers, this is supported by Koranic commands to kill and ambush all non-Moslems (Surah 9:5). Mohammed taught this and practiced it all his life participating in 78 jihads before his death in 632 AD. The only way a Christian or Jew could survive was by paying a humiliating Jizya tax which many later Moslem leaders and Caliphs required to be paid on their knees.

    • dave says:

      The Koran is definitely way off topic when the essay (at the top of this page) is about China and politics. However I feel a response is needed here, since it has diverted into religion.

      I find it rather interesting that you find every which way to deny what President Bush himself claimed he said. I do not recall any Christians criticizing Bush for the statement.

      Do you recall Bush called the war on terrorism a crusade on 9/19/2001? Are you going to dispense with that quote (and what it implies was his frame of mind) as well?

      Did you know that Donald Rumsfeld appeared to treat the Iraq invasion as a religious crusade, and the Biblical quotes he put in the daily briefings were said to be appreciated by Bush?

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1184546/Donald-Rumsfelds-holy-war-How-President-Bushs-Iraq-briefings-came-quotes-Bible.html

      Biblical quotes might have a place in one’s personal memos but to put them in every war report?!? That clearly implies the writer is making a connection between the two.

      I find it enlightening that you have Moslem friends and yet you have never grasped why they might be upset talking about Israel. There is another reason for the anger toward Israel in the Middle East and that one is definitely not based on the Koran. It is based on the inhumane treatment of Palestinitans by Israel, that is condoned by the United States – and this has been going on for 63 years!!! (Actually, it could be said to have started with the events that followed the British Mandate for Palestine in 1923.)

      Are you so unfamiliar with history?

      You should be aware Israel is ruling militarily occupied territory, the West Bank and Gaza.

      The 1949 Geneva Conventions relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War are explicit in demanding that the Occupier does everything “to the fullest extent of the means available to it” to preserve the health and life of its conquered subjects:
      “Article 55. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate …”

      You should know Israel has been trying to starve the Palestinians with their blockade of any aid, but the plan was said to ‘put the Palestinians on a diet’!

      http://www.transcend.org/tms/2010/11/put-the-palestinians-on-a-diet/

      You should know Israeli troops executed a number of those on the ship seeking to break this blockade around Gaza, including a Turkish-American.

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

      There is a military occupation; this is not a conflict between two countries. The Palestinians are at a clear disadvantage in any bargaining discussion, compared to their military occupiers.

      If you wish to ignore President Jimmy Carter (who wrote a book about the Apartheid conditions), would you read something written by Bishop Desmond Tutu:

      http://mondediplo.com/2003/11/04apartheid

      Both Carter and Tutu are Christians.

      Of course, I can find other articles that blindly ignore or gloss over anything done by Israel that is wrong or immoral and then the reader is supposed to wonder why there is so much anger in the Middle East? This fanatical interest in the Koran is plainly missing the volatile situation where Gaza is an open-air prison.

      Even Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper, recognized that the recent release of the Palestine papers shows that Israel is the problem for failing to resolve the stalemate.

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-palestine-papers-al-jazeera-trumps-wikileaks-1.338875

      I can see that you will characterize any reaction by the Palestinians to their prolonged military occupation as an act of terrorism. Are the Palestinians entitled to any form of self defense when the military attacks the civilians? I suppose those people in Iraq and Afghanistan that have seen their family and friends murdered by the occupation forces are also committing acts of terrorism when seeking to oppose those invaders?

      I wish you would find some impartial news source to explain to you the real political context for the problems in the Middle East. These tirades against the Koran will never contribute to a peaceful resolution to the situation.

    • peddiebill says:

      The only catch is that Conservative Prayer breakfast attendees are on record as hearing Bush say the same sorts of things. Maybe they too lie for religious gain. I myself heard the famous “Crusade” statement on TV and the record clearly states that the name he accordingly gave his military campaign “Operation Infinite Justice” had to be hastily changed when the Muslims pointed out that that only Allah (or God) could dispense infinite justice. A host of US comentators have agreed that Bush saw himself as led by God – and the White House Staff in the early years of the Iraq campaign said the same. More recently they either changed their view or were persuaded to a more ambigous view as it became steadily more obvious that Iraq was descending to a horrible mess. I agree with you about the propagandising of young people. This is regretably done by all nations. Remember the Vietnamese were only Kooks and there is a huge amount of misinformation about Muslims at present , portraying them as a huge group of hating warmongers and potential suicide bombers. I would repeat that in the milder context of New Zealand we have not witnessed any acts of Muslim Terrorism and they are very under-represented in Prison.
      I am sure that there are undesirable verses in the Qur’an. There certainly are in the Bible – but most Christians and most Muslims are nice peace loving people until inflamed by violence or propaganda. Just because the Bible condones all sorts of undesirable practices – why should I put them into practice. We no longer live in the days of the Bible. You yourself say in one breath that the Koran forbids friendship with non Muslims – then in the next talk about your Muslim friends. Is there a clue there somewhere. Having talked as recently as this morning with an Iraqi friend just back from Iraq I frankly dont wonder at the Iraqi dislike of the US when he tells me what has been done to his homeland. He certainly sees it now as infinitely worse as a consequence of US action. And he didnt like Saddam either.
      PS “Takeyya” has an equivalent word in English. ie “Diplomacy”

  14. katargeo says:

    Here is what happens during Arab festivals even in USA when Moslems start to get control of police and local government like Dearborn, MI. Listen to the live video and you will see how even the police have to lie to cover for Moslems during a festival. here is a young man sharing peacefully with Moslems at the Festival while they were asking questions. the Police come along and arrest all of the people standing there sharing peacefully.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s