The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
He's also got another count of CTV bias.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Manifesto:
Don't be fooled for one minute into thinking that because Al Jazeera airs a critical commentary of the Islamofascist movement or because the jouranlists in Denmark are issuing a "Manifesto" on the conflict that our current situation is changed in any way.
The forces of Islamofascism are waging a war of culture and ideology against the Western and civilized world. It is an us vs. them proposition and just like the Hatfields and th McCoys you are either fer' us or agin us!
Posted by: PGP | 2006-03-01 1:53:29 PM
The complaint (about CTV) is half right. But given the choice between "The CTF claims to be a ..." and "The CTF is a ...", the former is preferable. In general the media is far too quick to report as fact things that are not so clear. When poitician X says, "I want to do Y" the accurate way to report it is to say, "X says he wants to do Y". But media reports more often will just say "X wants to do Y". Just because he *says* he wants to do Y does not mean he is telling the truth, and media reports should reflect this. They should not make conclusions for us, just report that which is indisputably known to be true.
So in this case "The CTF claims to be a ..." is problematic because it seems to suggest that they are lying, "The CTF is a ..." is problematic because it is to vouch for their truthfulness when one might not be in a position to do so, leaving "The CTF describes itself as a ..." or "The CTF says it is a ..." as the preferred, most accurate reporting of the indisputable facts.
Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-03-01 1:55:44 PM
Yes, it's excellent. The direct link is:
Then, there's the discussion by Wafa Sultan on the English Al Jazeera. Here's the transcript:
So- moderate Muslims are starting to speak out. They have to do this; they have to take back their religion from the extremists who have absconded with it, frozen it within a militant version, and refused to allow it, and its people, to evolve.
But - as I just pointed out on another post - this ideological war is not over
The Washington Times is reporting on a vicious anti-American and anti-semitic 'film', produced by a Turkish director, which is sheer hate-imagery. It is beyond debate, which, in my view, moves it outside of free speech. But, I have faith in the capacity for reason of most (not all) humans.. Can we withstand the hatred of this film?
Unlike the Danish political cartoons - this film asks no questions (why is your religion peaceful yet you blow up commuter trains?). It simply asserts - fallacies.
Thirty thousand people marched in France the other day - against anti-semitism. Perhaps, they will march in Berlin -against the hatreds in this film.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-01 1:57:38 PM
I think Mark Logan's exactly right - the proper language would be something like "CTF describes itself as." I didn't mean to suggest otherwise in my post, and I'll amend.
Posted by: David Mader | 2006-03-01 2:12:03 PM
Nice try with the manifesto. I doubt the slams are listening and it will only engrage them even more that you prefer to yak yak about it rather than shoot them.
They prefer to be shot. Remember ... Virgins? ... Heaven? ... Martyrdom? ... Big kudos to the surviving family members? ... Life-long learned hatred for us? Once a brain is washed, it's washed for life.
That won't change. They have no other life, philosophy or pursuits to fall back on. They have no economy other than oil.... little real education ... Poor hygene, bad fashion ... I mean to say ... night shirts and drapery for all?
These people aren't in it for the money. They are insane with one purpose in life. To get rid of us. They don't value their own lives, but they highly value death, even theri own. You can't negotiate with that mentality.
You shoot it!
This is not Islamophobia speaking, it's reality!
And maybe a little more Islamophobia is a good thing. It might help keep us alive.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-01 3:51:46 PM
You are like a little irritating clown here on this blog. A court Jester not to be taken seriously.
You simply spew hate toward anyone who doesn't agree with your views.
Thats the hallmark of the Left. It has become predicable and entertaining in a wearysome way.
You are good and useful (and entertaining) representative of your ilk.
Please keep it up. When I see you get shredded by other commenters, it's like flushing a toilet. I get the same feeling when I take a load of garbage to the landfill.
Posted by: Duke | 2006-03-01 4:03:58 PM
Enjoy your comments, Mr. McClelland. Don't have a problem with your point as long as CTV treats all partisan, not for profit groups in the same manner. I Teomaed (boycott Google) CTV and the NAC (the first Canadian not for profit and partisan group that came to mind) and no "claims to be" or "partisan" could be found in the first article I scanned. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind bias, just want to know about it. Would enjoy reading your thoughts on this.
Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-03-01 5:25:06 PM
Thanks for responding so quickly, Mr. McClelland. Yes, I do mean the National Action Committee.... I guess if you're saying NAC isn't partisan then we can't have a dialogue. Perhaps on a different topic.
Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-03-01 6:46:53 PM
Once again, thanks for the prompt reply. I enjoy reading your thoughts, Mr. McClelland but how can we discuss this. Here is NAC's MS:
The National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC) is the largest feminist organization in Canada. A coalition of more than 700 member groups, NAC has been fighting for women's equality for 27 years.
NAC's 29 member volunteer executive is elected by its membership and each year at the Annual General Meeting. Once funded almost 100% by the federal government, NAC now raises all of its operating funds through membership fees, donations, project grants and special events.
Here is CTF's MS:
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is Canada’s leading taxpayer advocacy organization. From coast to coast we work to lower taxes, eliminate government waste and hold politicians accountable to YOU the taxpayer.
We do not receive government grants and we do not have a charitable tax number. We rely on individual taxpayers like you to make donations, sign and distribute petitions, write letters to elected officials, call into radio and TV talkshows, spread news on the Internet, attend events and send letters to the local newspaper.
I totally agree with you that NAC is a left wing partisan organization and that CTF is a right wing partisan organization. The problem is with how CTV treats the two.
Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-03-01 8:56:19 PM
The UPEI President speaks on the censoring of the cartoons in UPEI's student paper (a few weeks before the WS did it):
Some will say that we made the wrong call. It has been said that the role of the University should be limited to providing security to control against any violent reactions. That would be similar to the view taken by The Western Standard in its decision to publish the cartoons. I believe the University has a broader set of responsibilities and considerations to bear in mind. The ultimate obligation of a university is to provide and continually enhance a positive and dynamic learning environment.
... our openness to controversy is not a licence to jump on bandwagons that have already caused enormous insult and disorder all over the world. [The Student union president]showed that speech has to be more than insisting on something, or making an argument...
On March 7th, international journalist Gwynne Dyer will speak at 7 pm in the Duffy Amiptheatre, and on March 9th, Riad Saloojee of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (Canada) will give a lecture, also in the Duffy Ampitheatre at 7 pm.
Read it all.
Posted by: angela | 2006-03-01 9:16:51 PM
With regard to the McLelland/Beals dialogue, it seems to me the core argument is over the accuracy of CTF's self-description as a non-partisan group. (Whether CTF is a non-profit organization is a legal matter, not a matter of opinion, and I don't think CTV is suggesting that CTF is breaking the law.)
McLelland may be arguing (and CTV suggesting) that CTV is not, in fact, non-partisan. This may come down to a difference of understanding of the term. In the context used by the CTF, non-partisan means, I think, that it does not endorse or affiliate with any political party - not that it doesn't take sides in an ideological debate. In fact, I think the CTF would openly admit to being ideologically-motivated - but for that very reason they would disclaim any connection to a particular political party. In other words, if the Conservative Party adopted explicitly redistributionist tax policies, I think it's clear that the CTF would condemn them.
If we're just looking at two interpretations of the same word, we may not be disagreeing about anything; it may be, though, that McClelland (and the CTV reporter) are suggesting that, notwithstanding its statement, the CTF is in fact affiliated with a particular political party. That's a subjective claim, though, of the precise sort that I argued, in my original post, was inappropriate in the news reporting (as opposed to editorial) context.
Posted by: David Mader | 2006-03-01 10:20:36 PM
While watching CTV's Question Period last sunday
(Feb.26), a friend dropped in who happens to be from Alabama and happens to be black.
The last part of the show had Allen Gregg of The Strategic Counsel in the group criticizing PM Steven Harpers planned judicial review. Horrors - that might just "politicize" the selection of judges! (Unlike the Liberals of course.)
Allen Gregg was so eagar to get that out of his mouth that he said it was the "TARBABY" in the whole thing.
Tarbaby? My friend says thats a racist remark and he could hear Mr. Gregg thinking about "the woodpile". We both burst out laughing at the faux pas and speculated whether or not the MSM would chastize him from coast to coast for it.
Not very PC now is it?
The CTV is so biased in favor of the PC leftie Liberal crowd it was fun to laugh at them for a change instead of swearing.
For some reason that particular segment isn't on the CTV website although the rest of last Sundays Question Period is on video.
Posted by: Javahead | 2006-03-02 2:55:49 AM
" The CTF is not non-partisan. It's clearly a conservative astroturf organization run soley by conservatives."
Robert McClelland should probably consult a leaflet from CUP-W, or the Parkland Institute, or the Raging Grannies, to see that more than a few other groups might fail the dictionary definition of "non-partisan" ("Devoted to or biased in support of a party, group, or cause") but still use non-partisan to indicate their lack of affiliation with any individual Political _Party_.
Nobody would think for a minute that the CTF or the Coalition Against War and Racism aren't pretty homogenous when it comes to a corner of the political spectrum, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily beholden to any party. The CTF has come down pretty hard on the Conservative government in Alberta, was wary of the Conservative government in Ontario, and was positively disgusted by much of the platform of the Conservative Party which lost one fight in Ottawa in 2004 and sorta-won in 2006.
If McClelland wants to re-write the common lexicon I'm sure I would be happy to quickly denounce the Alberta Teacher's Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church of Canada, NAC-SOW, Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, and the Council of Canadians as all being a bunch of socialist astroturf organizations.
Posted by: Feynman and Coulter's Love Child | 2006-03-02 3:33:15 AM
It's unfortunate that the poster provided us with TWO topics for analysis and debate. The Manifesto has been, as a result, largely ignored.
It's a very important document - and I'm surprised by how it is being ignored. Moderate Muslims are starting to publicly discuss their entrapment within a religion that has turned fundamentalist and totalitarian and, using tactics of fear and violence, has silenced the majority of Muslims - and is being used to maintain fascist regimes in the ME.
Predictably, this public discussion is being attacked by the authorities within the Muslim world. For example, Zafar Bangash, the president of the Islamic Society of York (Toronto) calls the Manifesto by the specious buzzwords of 'racist and Islamophobic'. Essentially, any criticism of Islamism can be washed away with those terms..and, asserts that the 12 signers are 'lapsed Muslims'..which means that there is only ONE mode of 'being a Muslim'...and that Islam cannot be reformed.
The Christian and Jewish religions began with equally violent strictures (if you work on 'the day of rest' - you must be put to death')..etc..but these religions reformed. Islamism must reform and the moderate Muslims must take charge of their religion and take it back from the extremists - who are using it for political agendas.
Posted by: ET | 2006-03-02 7:17:46 AM
ET, I think this Manifesto is even better than the Bouchard Manifesto, whodda thought I’d start liking Manifestos, gotta keep an open mind …. ;>)
It’s good news because as I said on another thread, we really have 2 wars going on:
The War against Islamofascism and
The West’s need to start winning The Propaganda War, to capture the hearts and minds of our citizens, in order to sustain the decades of fight ahead of us.
These celebrity academic names will help with this Propaganda War because their Manifesto will spread eventually to the MSM which fauns over celebrity academics (you’d be experienced on that, right? At least on the Shotgun).
It will also gradually deal with the crippling Political Correctness, which the left has successfully used as a weapon since their whole philosophy collapsed in full view with the Berlin Wall.
PC is their Weapon of Mass Distortion of the facts and reality. They’ve used their WMDs very effectively. Larry Summers at Harvard is a “victim” of the latest example of what Allan Bloom warned about in the 1980’s with his “The Closing of the American Mind.” (He taught at UofT for a while before returning to Chicago)
We need the Manifesto academics to help conservative politicians who are global, capitalists and hawks; but who aren’t particularly good at articulating how the universe is unfolding.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-02 9:03:28 AM
Of course, you're right, ET about the Manifesto being ignored. Saw the Manifesto first thing yesterday morning and got all excited. Then somebody waves good old "media bias" in front of my face and it's go time. Can't help myself. If you encounter me on some stupid "media bias" thread, feel free to slap me silly.
Posted by: Rodger Beals | 2006-03-02 10:58:17 AM
I read the Manifesto, and the Belgian commentary or expansion of it.
Both raise wonderful ideas.
the Manifesto is short, maybe I didn't get the whole thing, but the bit I read was this which I copied and pasted in here in quotes:
"MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism ---After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values.
This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field.
It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world.
But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions.
We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
end quote, found here: http://www.jp.dk/indland/artikel:aid=3585740/
I LOVE THIS STATEMENT! it is a call to establish universal human rights. The comment that it is not a clash of culture (I'd disagree a bit there, culture is formed by a lot of things, shared history, shared ideas, shared religious thought-- even if people don't agree with things, it shapes their world view and Western culture along with Muslim culture are very different)
that comment says the conflict is between totalitarian thought and democratic thought and I believe that is true.
And the Belgian commentary is found here: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/869
and I quote it:
"Anti-Jihad Manifesto Misses the Point
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2006-03-01 12:02
Today twelve international authors, most of them (former) Muslims, such as Salman Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but also a couple of “French philosophers,” published a manifesto in the French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. An English version of the manifesto “Together facing the new totalitarianism” was posted yesterday evening on the website of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
The manifesto states that
“After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism. We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.”
The above paragraphs clearly display the manifesto’s defects. While Islamism can be considered the perversion of religion, the three scourges of the 20th century – Fascism, Nazism (National-Socialism) and Stalinism – were secular ideologies. Neither Adolf Hitler nor Joseph Stalin were theocrats. It takes “French intellectuals” to use mankind’s experience with National-Socialism and Stalinism as motivation for a rallying cry to oppose “religious totalitarianism” and a call for “secular values,” which they hold to be “universal values.”
There is no doubt that Islamism is a threat to freedom and human dignity. However, as we have warned before, some people – undoubtedly brave, but nevertheless mistaken – are prepared to destroy certain basic freedoms, such as freedom of education, in their fight against Islam and religion in general. The question has already been put here:
Is Islam dangerous because it is a religion? Do Muslim values differ from European values because the latter are rooted in Christianity or because they are secular? These questions are at the heart of the debate in Europe today.
In our opinion, man is a religious being. Secularism destroyed the Christian roots of Europe and, in doing so, created the religious vacuum that is now being filled by Islam. The manifesto warns against
“battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. […] We must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.”
History in the past century, however, has clearly indicated that those fighting for an “egalitarian” world were the most “liberticidal” of all. Freedom is the right to live “unegalitarianly.” This is why The Brussels Journal defends the right of individuals – though not of the state – to “discriminate” (which, by the way, contrary to what the manifesto implies, is not the same as “oppress”). Indeed, it is no coincidence that the manifesto avoids referring to “Socialism” (and even “Communism”) among the scourges of the past century and prefers to speak of “Nazism” and Stalinism” instead. Half the manifesto’s signatories are probably Socialists, which explains why the manifesto obfuscates the secular, Socialist roots of these scourges.
While in America a cultural war is going on between “blue” (liberal) and “red” (conservative), the cultural war in Europe is a three-way war between the European equivalent of the American “blue” (socialist), the European equivalent of the American “red” (conservative, though Europeans often use the term “liberal”) and Muslims. I prefer to refer to the first group as “secularist” (although I realise this is a generalization and many Christians belong to these “secularists,” including – unfortunately – most of our bishops and priests) and to the second group as “Christian” (although many agnostics belong to it). The reason why I make this distinction is because the second group is prepared to acknowledge the importance of the cultural traditions of the West, rooted in the Judeo-Christian values without which classical-liberalism could never have evolved.
I cannot state this any better than Dr. Jos Verhulst, in his contribution to our Dutch-language section yesterday:
The great public secret behind the whole issue of the Danish cartoons is the following. Nowhere does the core text of the New Testament argue for censorship. There is not a single instance where the New Testament states that a non-Christian should be persecuted for his convictions or statements. With regard to those with whom it is not possible for Christians to co-exist, Christ simply preached secession: “And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.” (Matthew, 10:14). On the other hand, Christ did not allow himself to be censored: He said what He had to say, He “insulted” and “offended” the pharisees, and for this He was persecuted and finally murdered. The core text of Islam is different. It explicitly calls for the persecution and submission through violence of all who hold other beliefs.
It is true that throughout history there have been Christians and Christian churches who, in contradiction with the Christian core text, have engaged in persecution and censorship, and that there have been Muslims who have pleaded for freedom of expression and thought. Even today there are instances where the Vatican calls for censorship (see the Osservatore Romano of 5 February) while Dyab Abu Jahjah calls for freedom.
But the dynamics of the core texts that have shaped both civilisations through the centuries, are diametrically opposed. Freedom lovers had the support of the one core text but not of the other.
In the West the general development, against all the authorities, through all the turmoil and in spite of all the regressions, has continued to be towards increasing individualism, freedom of thought, development of science, abolition of slavery and the blossoming of the ideals of equal rights, democracy and radically free speech. The world of Islam, on the contrary, developed into a “close society” where the individual submits to the community.
And now he stands at the dawn of the 21st century: the maligned individual, unsteady on his own feet after executing the inner breach with every form of imposed authority, uncertain, blinking in the brightness of the only god he is willing to recognise – Truth itself, stretching out before him unfathomably deep – full of doubt but aware that he, called to non-submission, must seek the road to the transcendent, carrying as his only property, his most valuable heirloom from his turbulent past, that one gold piece that means the utmost to him, his precious ideal of complete freedom of thought, of speech and of scientific inquiry. That is the unique advance that he received to help him in his long and difficult quest.
Meanwhile he is being beleaguered and threatened on all sides; from out of the darkness voices call him to submit and retreat; they shout that the gold in his hands is worthless, while the brightness ahead of him still makes it almost impossible for him te see what lies in store. In short: what this contemporary individual needs most of all is courage, great courage. And the will to be free and to see, which is tantamount to the will to live.
This, in our humble opinion, is a far more appropriate “manifesto” than the one published in Charlie Hebdo today. The battle that is being waged today is a battle between those who defend the right of individuals against the right of collectivities.
The Islamists and the secularists (including the priests and bishops among them) have more in common than the Islamists and the Christians (including the agnostics among them), because the latter acknowledge that at the heart of Christianity is the individual with his individual responsibility before God. Without Christianity, individual responsibility would not have become the centre of European civilization. It was the French Revolution that jeopardized this tradition and that became the root of collectivism, with its socialist, fascist, national-socialist and communist excesses. From this perspective even Jihadism is more a child of secularism than of religion."
Back to the Canadian twitchy about freedom,
to me the bit that stood out there was this part
"But the dynamics of the core texts that have shaped both civilisations through the centuries, are diametrically opposed. Freedom lovers had the support of the one core text but not of the other.
In the West the general development, against all the authorities, through all the turmoil and in spite of all the regressions, has continued to be towards increasing individualism, freedom of thought, development of science, abolition of slavery and the blossoming of the ideals of equal rights, democracy and radically free speech.
The world of Islam, on the contrary, developed into a “close society” where the individual submits to the community."
We REALLY REALLY ARE in a culture clash, as well as an ideology clash and it's our very different backgrounds that make it most difficult to make sense to each other.
I am not sure that Muslim culture is ready to embrace the concepts of freedom that our long history has primed us to understand.
We are close to losing these freedoms, and it's showing just how little we actually care about these freedoms.
I'm hoping the cartoon controversy, the Manifesto, and this Belgian response begin to rally support behind the whole idea of human rights.
Posted by: a canadian who is worried about freedom | 2006-03-02 7:00:57 PM
Worried Canadian, thanks for keeping this thread alive; it’s an important topic.
I too hope that this Manifesto catches on in Europe’s media, and then spreads over here.
Because we are at War, I think your last point of defining what the “Culture Clash” is about is very important to Canada. We have not had a PM stand up in Parliament and bother to name the enemy. Even better would have been a much needed Churchillian rousing speech, such as the “we shall never surrender” speech, June 4,1940.
Just to quibble a bit. This War can’t be a clash of civilizations or cultures because we are not fighting a civilization. We are fighting a tribal religion from a medieval era. A religion that has not had enlightenment and has not reformed itself. It does not separate Mosque and State. Finally it does not treat women as equal to men. Therefore it is not civilized.
So we are in clash between civilization and a medieval religious movement.
Now that I’ve offended the Muslims, let’s be fair and offend our so-called civilization. We need to define “us”. Unfortunately “us” have some serious handicaps, the names of these handicaps are; post-modernism, cultural relativism, multi-culturalism and the real killer that sets a rule so that “educated” people aren’t supposed to talk about this: political correctness.
So “us” is divided into a two,
Conservatives (some use the label neocon) who want to fight this medieval enemy and
the other half of “us” are anti-war.
So it isn’t even as simple as “us” against them. Because “us” is split in two.
And with respect to “them”; well there are 1.3 billion of “them” but not all are terrorists. In fact most are Moderates. The problem is that unlike “us” who are usually easily identifiable on the split, we can’t tell who’s who on their side because until the Manifesto came along, very few were putting their hand up. We may see some hands now and that’s the most hopeful thing I’ve seen in a long time during this War that started 9/11 (well it really started 1400 years ago, but let’s not quibble about a few hundred years).
The way the Manifesto puts it is that “ this is a global struggle between democrats and theocrats.” It is also important that it clearly states, “We reject cultural relativism”.
So, at this stage, the Manifesto is the closest thing I’ve seen to Churchill’s 1940 speech and let’s hope the Manifesto reaches out and galvanizes “us and them” to redefine and reform ourselves and to “never surrender”.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-02 8:09:36 PM
I agree nomdenet. And you make some excellent points about whether or not a culture could be called civilized if it hasn't yet understood the need to separate religion (mosque, church etc) from the state (governing body holding non religious power).
And another excellent point you make is that it's become difficult to even talk about the war going on. How can one fight something they won't talk about.
How can we talk about something when there are unwritten rules about not noticing cultural and religious differences or how those differences affect our life (911 and the ongoing attacks in the Middle East against Israel)
Sane healthy groups don't vow to wipe out whole countries or races (Israel and the Jews).
And you make a good point that in order to discuss stuff rationally, both parties need to be sane and rational. Neither of which apply to Muslims worldwide as a whole, at least those Muslims who are vocal.
This manifesto could be a rallying point to give words to a moderate Muslim group and hopefully there is one, and hopefully it is large enough to make a difference and hopefully it will demand some changes from within.
In another thread I mentioned Charles Martel who held off the Muslim invasion of Europe at the battle of Poitier in 732 in Southern France, the mountain passes between Spain and France. If it wasn't for him, Western Europe would have been lost. Spain fell a few years previous to that date.
It's been going on a long long time.
This group refuses to acknowledge any wrongs done by themselves, but are really loud about the wrongs done to themselves.
They continue to call for the annhilation of Israel, and the annhilation of the Jews.
They view any perceived insult as a reason to riot and kill and engage in terrorism.
This Manifesto is the first thing I've seen where some ex Muslims or moderate Muslims have joined together and put words to a healthy adult, civilised reaction.
I agree, it's a very hopeful sign.
Posted by: a canadian who is worried about freedom | 2006-03-03 10:48:53 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.