SEAPA/IFEX) - SEAPA is concerned that the fate of two newspapers in Malaysia is being left hanging by the authorities following the expiration of their licences, and that this has had a debilitating effect on their coverage of news in the run-up to the nationwide elections.
The annual publishing permits for the Tamil-language "Makkal Osai" and the Mandarin-language "Oriental Daily" newspapers lapsed in December 2007 and their applications for new ones for the year have not been approved by outgoing Deputy Internal Security Minister Fu Ah Kiow, reports SEAPA's local partner, the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ), in a 21 February 2008 release.
The two newspapers, seen as more critical than the other mainstream media closely tied to the government, have had to display a different stance after Parliament was dissolved on 13 February to make way for a general election on 8 March.
The "Oriental Daily" editor has reportedly issued a set of guidelines on election coverage, which includes no front-page coverage for the opposition. Articles are not to mention the opposition's mission to deny the incumbent government a two-thirds majority, nor the contentious issues of the ethnic Chinese, nor the "inflamatory" speeches by the opposition, reported the independent web-based daily Malaysiakini on 15 February.
CIJ, which is monitoring the media's election coverage, observes that "Makkal Osai" has started to publish news favouring the incumbent government, joining the usual clamour of mainstream newspapers.
"We are concerned that the requirement for a publication permit has been effective in silencing critical voices and controlling any attempt at editorial independence. By delaying approval but allowing the newspaper to continue operating using lapsed permits, the caretaker government is putting the newspapers at its mercy and sending a signal to their owners to be compliant," CIJ said in its release.
CIJ notes that this is the third time that "Oriental Daily" has been subjected to this bureaucratic impediment. In 2006, its permit was not renewed until May, after several critical columns had been discontinued. In 2002, its permit was suspended from September until December.
Meanwhile, unidentified callers have been warning "Makkal Osai" that it should be shut down, its general manager S.M. Periasamy told CIJ. Known for its critical position on issues related to the ethnic Indian-based political party leading the incumbent government, the newspaper was suspended for a month in August 2007, after party leaders clamoured for its closure for publishing an image of Jesus Christ with a cigarette and a can of drink.
Again, SEAPA joins CIJ in calling for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act, the law that is instrumental in keeping all mainstream media in check and preventing future independent publications (see IFEX alert of 8 February 2008). The predicament that "Oriental Daily" and "Makkal Osai" are now in demonstrates clearly the draconian nature of the law and its negative impact on the pluralism of coverage that is necessary for a thriving democracy. This could not have happened at a worse time, as Malaysians are about to go to the polls and will need a free media to inform them of all available options so that they may vote into power a government that will serve them well.
2008/02/23 From: Mathaba
Sunday, February 24, 2008
The world is watching too, Azalina…
In the past week, at least two AFP reports and several foreign columnists have implicated Malaysia’s restrictive media environment, examples of how the international community is reacting to violations against democracy occurring in this country.
In “Malaysian bloggers warned being monitored”, posted on both the Malaysiakini and Malaysia Today’s websites, Youth and Sports Minister Azalina Othman called bloggers “cowards”, “a nuisance to the ruling party” and warned that they will not “get away with it”. The question remains…get away with what? The AFP article showed clear partiality to the threatened bloggers by highlighting how opposition parties have “resorted to blogs, SMS messaging and Youtube…to dodge a virtual blackout on mainstream media”. Even Azalina Othman stated that the opposition parties were using blogs to get their message out.
So why are they being threatened and monitored? It is the political objective of an opposition party to get their message out to the electorate — with whatever means it has to its disposal. And yes, it is the political objective of the opposition to be “a nuisance to the ruling party”. The government minister condemned the opposition parties for exercising the political and democratic right—making information available to the people—that is fundamental to the process of a free, fair and democratic election. And the international community—at least those entities within the communications field—has not turned a blind eye to the situation.
The AFP report acknowledged how mainstream media outlets—“many partly owned by parties in the ruling coalition—have given blanket coverage to the government and its achievements” over the election period. It then cited Reporters Without Borders’ worldwide press freedom index, in which Malaysia ranks 124 out of 169 nations. This figure should be a wake-up call to everyday Malaysian citizens as well as politicians: the country’s current state of media ownership is a roadblock to the realisation of democracy.
Democracy goes beyond the right to vote; it involves the right to make an informed, calculated decision after considering all of the options. If Malaysia wants to be considered a democratic nation on an international level, its citizens and politicians alike should strive towards media reform and the abolition of what AFP dubbed as “draconian internal security laws which provide for detention without trial”.
Malaysiakini disappoints
Typically commendable for critical journalism in accreditation to its independent status, Malaysiakini’s “MIC evolving to meet rising expectations” left much to be desired. The main problem with the piece—or perhaps it was the choice of headline—is that at no point were readers informed on how the MIC plans to bring this statement to fruition. Despite “an exclusive interview” with MIC candidate S. Murugesan in his car, the candidate is allowed to offer vague musings on the way in which the MIC will remain relevant to voters. The report stated that S. Murugesan “chose his words carefully when posed with sensitive questions”; however, as he could not possibly walk away from an undesirable question, the car-ride interview was a perfect opportunity to scratch beneath the surface.
Yet, S. Murugesan got away with blanket statements, such as: “MIC will rise to the occasion and remain relevant to the Indian community” and “new ideas and new way of thinking have to come up…and it is coming up” [sic]. While stressing that he wants to “[inject] new ideas and strategies” into the party, S. Murugesan was not pressured to offer or outline any of these ideas or strategies (or if he was, Malaysiakini did not provide a ‘refuse to comment’ notice). The grittiest the interview got was when S. Murugesan agreed that “the problems confronting the Indian community were far more complex [than Tamil schools and temples]”; but rather than getting into the complex issues, S. Murugesan blurted out that “Tamil schools and temples are also important”. Thanks, Captain Obvious.
The interview ventured into a discussion on youth concerns, providing more blanket statements, such as: “we must look at employment and business opportunities. We have to make sure that the Indians, especially the youths, must learn how to be self reliant”. S. Murugesan added that Indian youth must “think out of the box and venture into the business sector”.
Here, a multitude of questions could have been addressed: how does the MIC plan to tackle the problem of illegal foreign workers? What strategies will MIC employ to help Indian youth become more self-reliant? Will they sponsor workshops? Provide scholarships? Oversee training and apprenticeships? How can one possibly “venture into the business sector” without adequate knowledge, training and access to loans and other resources needed to start a personal business?
But alas, these questions went unasked, and thus, unanswered. The reader is left with little more critical insight than if they had been perusing a mainstream publication. For the party’s sake, I hope the 40-year-old candidate has more ideas up his sleeve than Malaysiakini could unfold; if not, the only thing he’ll be injecting into the MIC’s veins is air.
The Threat to Secular Democracy In Malaysia
by Farish A. Noor
AS far as complex plural societies go, Malaysia has to be one of the most complex and plural societies in the world at the moment. There are few countries with a racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious mix like Malaysia’s and I have to confess that I am more than annoyed when I meet Middle-Eastern friends who occasionally offer me nuggets of wisdom when they pontificate about how religious pluralism can and should be managed in Malaysia.
An Egyptian colleague once opined that Malaysians can and should be more tolerant of each other; until I pointed out to him that in Egypt – which is 98% Muslim – the Catholic and Coptic minorities are in a rather sorry state despite the fact that as such a small minority they could not possibly threaten the Muslim identity of present-day Egypt. If some right-wing conservative Egyptian Muslims cannot abide by the idea of having a tiny 2% Christian minority in their midst, then how would they cope with living in a country like Malaysia where the non-Muslim population is nearly 40%?
This pluralism is perhaps one of the greatest assets Malaysia possesses and is blessed with. It is certainly not a problem and thus should never be pathologised as such. Religious diversity is not an illness that infects the body of the state or nation; nor should it be seen as a handicap.
But what the state has to do in such a context is to play the role of honest broker and to create those vital common public domains where interaction, cooperation, respect and recognition can develop. For any state to appeal and cater to the demands of only one group, and in particular the majority, reeks of bias and uneven compromise; which in turn can only lead to further majoritarianism dominating the arena of national politics.
Religious lobbying
Thus, it is with these considerations in mind that we look at the election campaign in Malaysia today. Over the past few weeks, a host of religious lobby groups and NGOs have called upon the government to take up the concerns of their respective members and constituents.
We are all familiar now with the demands of the Malaysian Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), that were couched in terms of a somewhat sectarian communal demand for the respect and protection of Hindu temples, among other things. The Malaysian Council of Churches have called on Malaysian Christian voters to vote wisely; while the Malaysian Consultative Council on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism have called on the members of their respective faith communities to pray for the nation’s betterment and for election candidates who will uphold freedom of religion in the country. At the same time a coalition of Muslim NGOs and lobby groups have likewise issued their demands, calling on the political parties that are contesting in the elections to address their sectarian concerns which include the rejection of the idea that Malaysia is a secular state and of religious pluralism if it implies that all faith and belief systems are equal.What do these developments tell us about the state of Malaysia’s populist politics today?
Firstly, it would indicate that there is the emergence of an increasingly vocal, visible and powerful parallel civil society that operates along the basis of particularist religio-communitarian demands and which advocates the concerns of their specific targeted constituencies only.
With the rise of religious-based consumer groups, workers groups, professional groups, etc. it would seem that the space of secular civil society seems to be shrinking on all fronts. Issues such as workers rights, gender equality, environmentalism et al. that were once neutral issues in a secular public domain have now been “claimed” by exclusive religious groups instead; and we may eventually end up with the rather absurd situation where instead of having a universal (and secular) lobby on environmental concerns, we are left with Muslim-based, Christian-based, Hindu-based and Buddhist-based sectarian environmental groups instead.
The second observation is that Malaysian society itself seems to be splitting apart, thanks to these centrifugal forces let loose by five decades of divisive sectarian politics that was initially race-based and now increasingly religion-based. If this trend continues, and Malaysian Muslims think they can only find security among fellow Muslims, and the same trend takes hold in the other communities (made evident in Hindraf’s call for Hindu solidarity), then what will happen to the very idea and ideal of a universal Malaysian citizenship that equalizes all of us?
The third observation is that the Malaysian government – which should have dedicated its time and energy to uniting these communities and forging a common public space and common universal identity based on universal citizenship – has singularly failed in this task; and has instead perpetuated the logic of racial, ethic and now religious compartmentalism by catering to the exclusive demands of the sectarians instead. The erroneous logic of racial divisions that underlies the Barisan Nasional (BN) formula has now come full circle, and the rise of religious communitarian politics in Malaysia is the nett result.
What we are witnessing is in fact the slow and calculated dismantling of the ideal of a Malaysian Malaysia itself, thanks to the growing ethnic and religious communitarian politics that we see in the country. The few groups that are calling for the Malaysian state to affirm its secular stand and identity are doing so for the simple reason that they know that only a neutral secular state that treats all the religious communities on an equal basis can in fact stem the rise of divisive religious sectarianism in the country. But does the state listen, and will it heed these warnings?
This leads us to the most alarming observation of all: It is clear that with the present set up of the BN – with Umno dominating the coalition and dictating the terms of BN’s normative politics – that this religious communitarianism is not about to be contained. Instead, we have seen the Umno-led government cave in time and again to the demands of the conservative Islamists who today are even calling for the state to reject any claims of being neutral and secular. Umno’s dependency on the Malay-Muslim vote bank (for fear of losing seats and votes to PAS), means that it will turn to the Malay-Muslims for support. Yet historically, the Umno leadership has cultivated the support of the Malay-Muslim vote bank without attempting to reform or open up the mindset of the Malay-Muslims in the process.
BN’s divisive politics and Umno’s narrow ethnic and religious-based appeal means that it is now stuck in an impasse of its own making: dependent on the Muslim vote, it cultivates that constituency while allowing the communitarians to dominate it at the same time; which in turn means that the tone and tenor of normative populist Malay-Muslim politics remains sectarian and communitarian.
Losing faith
Equally worrying are the signs that non-Malay and non-Muslim communities are losing faith in the Malaysian project itself, and likewise replicating the communalist race and religion-based politics of the majority. In this respect, Hindraf is merely a symptom of a deeper problem in Malaysia, that of communalism taking to the path of political mobilisation.
This then brings us back to the question of what Malaysian identity means today, and whether the very idea of a universal plural democratic Malaysia still has resonance in the country. The results of the 12th general elections in Malaysia may hopefully provide us with some clues as to whether the Malaysian dream of creating a Malaysian Malaysia that is truly plural, democratic and secular still holds, or whether we have passed that invisible line and are now living in a thoroughly divided and sectarian society where the notion of a national body politic is merely a mirage. As a secular democrat, I hope and pray that it is not too late for us to rescue the idea of a democratic and secular Malaysia that is home to us all and with a government that treats all communities with equal respect.
But we end with this one simple warning: The challenge that stands before any government of a society as plural as ours is to develop a national politics that is inclusive and accommodating to all, giving every citizen a space and a place in the national narrative and national identity. The safeguard that ensures that such a politics of universal representation can take place is a secular democratic system where the state remains the honest neutral broker between all communities, and does not favour one community over others.
Any attack on the very idea of secularism is therefore an attack on the value of universal equality itself, and those who condemn secularism as being “un-Godly” or corrupt are really the ones who wish to destroy the secular basis of a free and equal society where every citizen is accorded the respect that she or he is due. When the attacks against secularism come from the representatives of the majority ethnic-religious community (such as was the case with the rise of Hindutva supremacists in India, and Muslims communitarians here in Malaysia), what we face is nothing short of the rise of the tyranny of the majority.
For all its weaknesses, secularism remains the only safeguard we have to keep our country on a democratic track. And for that reason, the democrats among us must be prepared to defend our secular democratic and plural public domain at all costs, come what may.
Please visit Farish Noor’s site The Other Malaysia
by Farish A. Noor
AS far as complex plural societies go, Malaysia has to be one of the most complex and plural societies in the world at the moment. There are few countries with a racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious mix like Malaysia’s and I have to confess that I am more than annoyed when I meet Middle-Eastern friends who occasionally offer me nuggets of wisdom when they pontificate about how religious pluralism can and should be managed in Malaysia.
An Egyptian colleague once opined that Malaysians can and should be more tolerant of each other; until I pointed out to him that in Egypt – which is 98% Muslim – the Catholic and Coptic minorities are in a rather sorry state despite the fact that as such a small minority they could not possibly threaten the Muslim identity of present-day Egypt. If some right-wing conservative Egyptian Muslims cannot abide by the idea of having a tiny 2% Christian minority in their midst, then how would they cope with living in a country like Malaysia where the non-Muslim population is nearly 40%?
This pluralism is perhaps one of the greatest assets Malaysia possesses and is blessed with. It is certainly not a problem and thus should never be pathologised as such. Religious diversity is not an illness that infects the body of the state or nation; nor should it be seen as a handicap.
But what the state has to do in such a context is to play the role of honest broker and to create those vital common public domains where interaction, cooperation, respect and recognition can develop. For any state to appeal and cater to the demands of only one group, and in particular the majority, reeks of bias and uneven compromise; which in turn can only lead to further majoritarianism dominating the arena of national politics.
Religious lobbying
Thus, it is with these considerations in mind that we look at the election campaign in Malaysia today. Over the past few weeks, a host of religious lobby groups and NGOs have called upon the government to take up the concerns of their respective members and constituents.
We are all familiar now with the demands of the Malaysian Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf), that were couched in terms of a somewhat sectarian communal demand for the respect and protection of Hindu temples, among other things. The Malaysian Council of Churches have called on Malaysian Christian voters to vote wisely; while the Malaysian Consultative Council on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism have called on the members of their respective faith communities to pray for the nation’s betterment and for election candidates who will uphold freedom of religion in the country. At the same time a coalition of Muslim NGOs and lobby groups have likewise issued their demands, calling on the political parties that are contesting in the elections to address their sectarian concerns which include the rejection of the idea that Malaysia is a secular state and of religious pluralism if it implies that all faith and belief systems are equal.What do these developments tell us about the state of Malaysia’s populist politics today?
Firstly, it would indicate that there is the emergence of an increasingly vocal, visible and powerful parallel civil society that operates along the basis of particularist religio-communitarian demands and which advocates the concerns of their specific targeted constituencies only.
With the rise of religious-based consumer groups, workers groups, professional groups, etc. it would seem that the space of secular civil society seems to be shrinking on all fronts. Issues such as workers rights, gender equality, environmentalism et al. that were once neutral issues in a secular public domain have now been “claimed” by exclusive religious groups instead; and we may eventually end up with the rather absurd situation where instead of having a universal (and secular) lobby on environmental concerns, we are left with Muslim-based, Christian-based, Hindu-based and Buddhist-based sectarian environmental groups instead.
The second observation is that Malaysian society itself seems to be splitting apart, thanks to these centrifugal forces let loose by five decades of divisive sectarian politics that was initially race-based and now increasingly religion-based. If this trend continues, and Malaysian Muslims think they can only find security among fellow Muslims, and the same trend takes hold in the other communities (made evident in Hindraf’s call for Hindu solidarity), then what will happen to the very idea and ideal of a universal Malaysian citizenship that equalizes all of us?
The third observation is that the Malaysian government – which should have dedicated its time and energy to uniting these communities and forging a common public space and common universal identity based on universal citizenship – has singularly failed in this task; and has instead perpetuated the logic of racial, ethic and now religious compartmentalism by catering to the exclusive demands of the sectarians instead. The erroneous logic of racial divisions that underlies the Barisan Nasional (BN) formula has now come full circle, and the rise of religious communitarian politics in Malaysia is the nett result.
What we are witnessing is in fact the slow and calculated dismantling of the ideal of a Malaysian Malaysia itself, thanks to the growing ethnic and religious communitarian politics that we see in the country. The few groups that are calling for the Malaysian state to affirm its secular stand and identity are doing so for the simple reason that they know that only a neutral secular state that treats all the religious communities on an equal basis can in fact stem the rise of divisive religious sectarianism in the country. But does the state listen, and will it heed these warnings?
This leads us to the most alarming observation of all: It is clear that with the present set up of the BN – with Umno dominating the coalition and dictating the terms of BN’s normative politics – that this religious communitarianism is not about to be contained. Instead, we have seen the Umno-led government cave in time and again to the demands of the conservative Islamists who today are even calling for the state to reject any claims of being neutral and secular. Umno’s dependency on the Malay-Muslim vote bank (for fear of losing seats and votes to PAS), means that it will turn to the Malay-Muslims for support. Yet historically, the Umno leadership has cultivated the support of the Malay-Muslim vote bank without attempting to reform or open up the mindset of the Malay-Muslims in the process.
BN’s divisive politics and Umno’s narrow ethnic and religious-based appeal means that it is now stuck in an impasse of its own making: dependent on the Muslim vote, it cultivates that constituency while allowing the communitarians to dominate it at the same time; which in turn means that the tone and tenor of normative populist Malay-Muslim politics remains sectarian and communitarian.
Losing faith
Equally worrying are the signs that non-Malay and non-Muslim communities are losing faith in the Malaysian project itself, and likewise replicating the communalist race and religion-based politics of the majority. In this respect, Hindraf is merely a symptom of a deeper problem in Malaysia, that of communalism taking to the path of political mobilisation.
This then brings us back to the question of what Malaysian identity means today, and whether the very idea of a universal plural democratic Malaysia still has resonance in the country. The results of the 12th general elections in Malaysia may hopefully provide us with some clues as to whether the Malaysian dream of creating a Malaysian Malaysia that is truly plural, democratic and secular still holds, or whether we have passed that invisible line and are now living in a thoroughly divided and sectarian society where the notion of a national body politic is merely a mirage. As a secular democrat, I hope and pray that it is not too late for us to rescue the idea of a democratic and secular Malaysia that is home to us all and with a government that treats all communities with equal respect.
But we end with this one simple warning: The challenge that stands before any government of a society as plural as ours is to develop a national politics that is inclusive and accommodating to all, giving every citizen a space and a place in the national narrative and national identity. The safeguard that ensures that such a politics of universal representation can take place is a secular democratic system where the state remains the honest neutral broker between all communities, and does not favour one community over others.
Any attack on the very idea of secularism is therefore an attack on the value of universal equality itself, and those who condemn secularism as being “un-Godly” or corrupt are really the ones who wish to destroy the secular basis of a free and equal society where every citizen is accorded the respect that she or he is due. When the attacks against secularism come from the representatives of the majority ethnic-religious community (such as was the case with the rise of Hindutva supremacists in India, and Muslims communitarians here in Malaysia), what we face is nothing short of the rise of the tyranny of the majority.
For all its weaknesses, secularism remains the only safeguard we have to keep our country on a democratic track. And for that reason, the democrats among us must be prepared to defend our secular democratic and plural public domain at all costs, come what may.
Please visit Farish Noor’s site The Other Malaysia
The Misadventures of Curious Anna
Saturday, February 23, 2008
ick!
just got this e-mail. contains an argument for why we should support the war. i know i shouldn't get caught up in these things, but it upset me because its so misinformed and fear mongery and so many people are probably reading it and nodding their heads! so, with full knowledge that it will do little good and will mostly be read by people who already agree with me, here is a point by point refutation of it. i corrected it in the style i correct freshmen papers in my TA class. this one would have gotten an F.
A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
makes no effort to support this claim with any evidence, he just says it.
y seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.First, let's examine a few basics:1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie , Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001; and * Pentagon 2001. (Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)
2. Why were we attacked?Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
false. Envy plays a role, but much more important is the fury over Israel, globalization, and imperialist capitalist policies (read OIL) encroaching on their cultures. They view themselves as having been under attack by the west for decades. They also have a much longer memory than we do and are culturally close to their ancestors and thus still thoroughly remember the atrocities of the crusades and of colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries.
1, Clinton, and Bush 2. W e cannot fault either the Republicans or the Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.
3. Who were the attackers?In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim religion peaceful?Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian, a Catholic), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
This is a poor analogy – the muslims are not united around a single leader any more than they are united around the concept of killing the infidels. Everyone always likes to compare the bad guys with the Nazis, but there are too many differences here to enumerate.
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities.
Mildly aniti-semitic?
Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
Fear mongering. I see only generalities and no facts in the paragraph above. You must support your argument with facts.
6. So who are we at war with?There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
Clear articulation of who we’re fighting is lacking in the essay. Muslims covers one in five people in the world. Muslim terrorists is far too blurry a line to call it clear or articulate.
So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war?2. What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? ; ; It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.What losing really means is:We would no longer be the premier country in the world.
Spelling errors, and lack of analysis of what USA’s premiership really means and how we got there.
The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
Bad logic, no facts, even with the word ‘clearly’ inserted
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
Laughable assertion! Spain is FINISHED? What? Spain prosecuted and incarcerated the men responsible for the attacks. Spain withdrew its troops for a number of reasons, not because they were cowed by the Madrid attacks.
The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. H owever, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.
This is much worse; leaving out all the pandering to peaceful Muslims made earlier, author now attacks all Muslims everywhere. Vast majority of Muslims in France are peaceful, and contribute to the country and culture, far from overriding French customs. There are issues, like wearing the veil in schools and poverty and discrimination against those of Arab descent, however to say France will soon become a Muslim country or turn against other western nations is outrageous.
Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.
This is not an argument, it’s a timely observation. The fact does not support the assertion, and I’ve lost track of what the assertion was. If there are lots of Muslims, the country will become backwards and murderous? I missed that somewhere.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it.
Such rampant fear mongering! based on bad logic.
After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else? The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% o f our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.So, how can we lose the war?Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding."That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.
Historical analogies are worthless, but if we’re going to use them, let’s talk about the death of the Roman republic and founding of an Empire. Resulted from the slow erosion of civil rights during the wars with the barbarians until finally Caesar seized all power.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Ugly refutation of everything America always wanted to stand for. If we’re only a good nation of good people in times of peace, what kind of nation does that make us?
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Ad mi nistration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.
Fails to take into account real arguments of those who would withdraw the troops.
Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for di sagreeing with Saddam Hussein.And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Inference – they deserve it. Are we arguing from a Christian perspective? In that case,
vengeance is the Lord’s. if we are arguing from a reasonable secular perspective, torture hardly reduces the occurrence of the above acts. And once again, America soils its image of having the moral high ground. If we commit the same acts as our enemies, how can we expect the neutral parties to side with us?
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.Can they be for real?
The effect of the Abu Ghraib scandal on Muslim minds has been deep and lasting. Humiliation resulting from study of particular vulnerabilities in the Arab consciousness (sexuality, particular insults, etc). Once again, so much for the moral high ground.
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. &nbs p;If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life-and-death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
Nothing else is said here about the Secretary of Defense - bringing him up now in this context is naive. (this e-mail must be old too because this secretary resigned soon after the scandal to the vast relief of an embarrassed administration)
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort.We must take note of who they are and get them out of office.
Start the witch hunt! A serious and dangerous liability? Thanks mr. mccarthy.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
What? What? Muslim interests do not run Europe, nor Africa (although influential in the north and dominant in some countries), not South America, nor Asia, nor North America, nor the Indian subcontinent, nor Australia, nor …. Talk about arrogance.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't!If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
What?
And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
Turkey. Jordan. Syria. Indonesia. Uzbekistan. Malaysia. China. The cultural difficulties that have arisen are a result of the clash between Arab Muslim culture and Euro Western culture – not between Christianity and Islam. As for being productive in one single way, if it were not for the Arabs preservation and expansion of classical texts and philosophy during the middle ages, Europe would never have had a Renaissance. Or a tradition of chivalry (that’s right, a system of rights for women established by the Muslims LONG before western Romans or Germans ever thought of treating women like anything other than cattle). The above statement is utterly ignorant.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of t he Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Can’t make an argument based on something that hasn’t happened. Yes, let’s watch France together and see how that goes.
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.
No facts, only wild generalities. This has happened in some countries, but the vast history of Islam shows as many examples of wise and generous rulers. The aversion to democracy is rooted in the democratic separation of church and state – an aversion many American Christians share. Muslims believe it is hubric to try to rule themselves, as God is always in charge.
What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"
Wow
I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
Finding fault and improving is the cornerstone of democracy as well as of personal growth.
Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons that denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and its citizens. Best we support them.
Dangerous overstatement – best we support them? Best the Muslims support Saddam Hussein. You criticize Muslims for being tolerant of bad leaders, then suggest we do not question our own.
well, i tried to be reasonable and somewhat neutral about this but towards the end i just became speechless. sorry.
ick!
just got this e-mail. contains an argument for why we should support the war. i know i shouldn't get caught up in these things, but it upset me because its so misinformed and fear mongery and so many people are probably reading it and nodding their heads! so, with full knowledge that it will do little good and will mostly be read by people who already agree with me, here is a point by point refutation of it. i corrected it in the style i correct freshmen papers in my TA class. this one would have gotten an F.
A different spin on the war in Iraq: This WAR is REAL Dr. Vernon Chong, Major General, USAF, Retired
To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).
makes no effort to support this claim with any evidence, he just says it.
y seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.First, let's examine a few basics:1. When did the threat to us start? Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: * Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; * Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983; * Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; * Lockerbie , Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; * First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; * Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; * Nairobi , Kenya US Embassy 1998; * Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998; * Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000; * New York World Trade Center 2001; and * Pentagon 2001. (Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)
2. Why were we attacked?Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush
false. Envy plays a role, but much more important is the fury over Israel, globalization, and imperialist capitalist policies (read OIL) encroaching on their cultures. They view themselves as having been under attack by the west for decades. They also have a much longer memory than we do and are culturally close to their ancestors and thus still thoroughly remember the atrocities of the crusades and of colonialism in the 19th and 20th centuries.
1, Clinton, and Bush 2. W e cannot fault either the Republicans or the Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.
3. Who were the attackers?In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.
4. What is the Muslim population of the World?25%.
5. Isn't the Muslim religion peaceful?Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian, a Catholic), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests).
This is a poor analogy – the muslims are not united around a single leader any more than they are united around the concept of killing the infidels. Everyone always likes to compare the bad guys with the Nazis, but there are too many differences here to enumerate.
Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities.
Mildly aniti-semitic?
Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?
Fear mongering. I see only generalities and no facts in the paragraph above. You must support your argument with facts.
6. So who are we at war with?There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.
Clear articulation of who we’re fighting is lacking in the essay. Muslims covers one in five people in the world. Muslim terrorists is far too blurry a line to call it clear or articulate.
So with that background, now to the two major questions: 1. Can we lose this war?2. What does losing really mean? If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean? ; ; It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.What losing really means is:We would no longer be the premier country in the world.
Spelling errors, and lack of analysis of what USA’s premiership really means and how we got there.
The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.
Bad logic, no facts, even with the word ‘clearly’ inserted
We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them.They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.
Laughable assertion! Spain is FINISHED? What? Spain prosecuted and incarcerated the men responsible for the attacks. Spain withdrew its troops for a number of reasons, not because they were cowed by the Madrid attacks.
The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. H owever, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.
This is much worse; leaving out all the pandering to peaceful Muslims made earlier, author now attacks all Muslims everywhere. Vast majority of Muslims in France are peaceful, and contribute to the country and culture, far from overriding French customs. There are issues, like wearing the veil in schools and poverty and discrimination against those of Arab descent, however to say France will soon become a Muslim country or turn against other western nations is outrageous.
Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.
This is not an argument, it’s a timely observation. The fact does not support the assertion, and I’ve lost track of what the assertion was. If there are lots of Muslims, the country will become backwards and murderous? I missed that somewhere.
If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it.
Such rampant fear mongering! based on bad logic.
After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else? The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost. Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% o f our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.So, how can we lose the war?Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding."That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.
Historical analogies are worthless, but if we’re going to use them, let’s talk about the death of the Roman republic and founding of an Empire. Resulted from the slow erosion of civil rights during the wars with the barbarians until finally Caesar seized all power.
Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.
Ugly refutation of everything America always wanted to stand for. If we’re only a good nation of good people in times of peace, what kind of nation does that make us?
Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Ad mi nistration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means.
Fails to take into account real arguments of those who would withdraw the troops.
Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for di sagreeing with Saddam Hussein.And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq . And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.
Inference – they deserve it. Are we arguing from a Christian perspective? In that case,
vengeance is the Lord’s. if we are arguing from a reasonable secular perspective, torture hardly reduces the occurrence of the above acts. And once again, America soils its image of having the moral high ground. If we commit the same acts as our enemies, how can we expect the neutral parties to side with us?
Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.Can they be for real?
The effect of the Abu Ghraib scandal on Muslim minds has been deep and lasting. Humiliation resulting from study of particular vulnerabilities in the Arab consciousness (sexuality, particular insults, etc). Once again, so much for the moral high ground.
The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. &nbs p;If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life-and-death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.
Nothing else is said here about the Secretary of Defense - bringing him up now in this context is naive. (this e-mail must be old too because this secretary resigned soon after the scandal to the vast relief of an embarrassed administration)
To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort.We must take note of who they are and get them out of office.
Start the witch hunt! A serious and dangerous liability? Thanks mr. mccarthy.
Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.
What? What? Muslim interests do not run Europe, nor Africa (although influential in the north and dominant in some countries), not South America, nor Asia, nor North America, nor the Indian subcontinent, nor Australia, nor …. Talk about arrogance.
We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world. We can't!If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.
What?
And, finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.
Turkey. Jordan. Syria. Indonesia. Uzbekistan. Malaysia. China. The cultural difficulties that have arisen are a result of the clash between Arab Muslim culture and Euro Western culture – not between Christianity and Islam. As for being productive in one single way, if it were not for the Arabs preservation and expansion of classical texts and philosophy during the middle ages, Europe would never have had a Renaissance. Or a tradition of chivalry (that’s right, a system of rights for women established by the Muslims LONG before western Romans or Germans ever thought of treating women like anything other than cattle). The above statement is utterly ignorant.
This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of t he Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?
Can’t make an argument based on something that hasn’t happened. Yes, let’s watch France together and see how that goes.
Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.
No facts, only wild generalities. This has happened in some countries, but the vast history of Islam shows as many examples of wise and generous rulers. The aversion to democracy is rooted in the democratic separation of church and state – an aversion many American Christians share. Muslims believe it is hubric to try to rule themselves, as God is always in charge.
What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"
Wow
I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.
After reading the above, we all must do this, not only for ourselves, but for our children, our grandchildren, our country, and our world. Whether Democrat or Republican, conservative or liberal ... and that includes the Politicians and media of our country and the free world.Please forward this to any you feel may want, or NEED to read it. Our "leaders" in Congress ought to read it, too. There are those who find fault with our country, but it is obvious to anyone who truly thinks through this, that we must UNITE!
Finding fault and improving is the cornerstone of democracy as well as of personal growth.
Lastly, I wish to add: at the risk of offending, I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue, or just deletes it without sending it on, is part of the problem. Let's quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons that denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the US and its citizens. Best we support them.
Dangerous overstatement – best we support them? Best the Muslims support Saddam Hussein. You criticize Muslims for being tolerant of bad leaders, then suggest we do not question our own.
well, i tried to be reasonable and somewhat neutral about this but towards the end i just became speechless. sorry.
People’s Voice & People’s Declaration Launched; Barisan Rakyat Formed
Pix, courtesy of The People’s Parliament
L-R: Wee Choo Keong - Malaysians Democratic Party, Haris Ibrahim - The People’s Parliament, Ronnie Liu - DAP, Badrul Hisham (Chegubard) - PKR, Dr. Siti Mariah - PAS
The People’s Voice & The People’s Declaration, a labour of love according to human rights lawyer Haris Ibrahim here, were officially launched at Blog House in Bukit Damansara today, 23 February 2008. About 100 guests graced the occasion.
Six political parties - MDP, PAS, PKR, DAP, PSM and Pasok - endorsed the Declaration and promised to adopt it as part of their 2008 Election Manifestos. These parties together with all Malaysians who support the Declaration will from henceforth become the Barisan Rakyat.
At the ceremony, the parties also agreed that there will not be any 3-corner fight during the election to split votes and will uphold a one-to-one contest strategy between Barisan Nasional and Barisan Rakyat.
The People’s Declaration calls for national unity, genuine democracy, enhanced administrative transparency, strengthened economy and fulfilling the social contract. Its sister document called The People’s Voice, on the other hand, calls for race-based political governance of the country to be rejected and to have in its place a non race-based system of governance. It also urges for the original aims of the New Economic Policy to eradicate poverty regardless of race be immediately given effect and implemented.
You can read more on The People’s Voice here and The People’s Declaration here.
For more updates of the event, you can visit these sites:
Rocky’s Bru
The People’s Parliament
Malaysia Today
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)