Jordan .

"Thats not what I would call democracy."

Me neither. That's what I call a Republic

The majority in the US supported the Iraq War. Just because they didn't march down the street calling for war doesn't mean there was no majority support.

Finally, who siad that a govt MUST listen to the other side when it comes to something as black and white as "go to war" or "not go to war." There's no middle ground - there's no compromise. When something is that black and white, you are going to have polarization, and angry people. that's what happens in a "republic."

But that's beside the point. You stated that you supported peaceful demonstrations by individuals who would like to see your "democracy" cease to exist, and had no problems with them demonstrating. And then implied that the British govt should listen to them. 

Jordan .

Raymond you try and make out that what you were trying to imply was not in fact the case. Its not the first time you have tried to imply that i have sympathy for terrorism.

I still say it is preferable for Blair to have his head in Bush than that he have it up Nasrallah. And I am not reponsible for  ideations that exist in your mind. We did agree that you had empathy for some folks, however.

hold on - here's a real simple question, LR. Above I said: "You stated that you supported peaceful demonstrations by individuals who would like to see your "democracy" cease to exist, and had no problems with them demonstrating. And then implied that the British govt should listen to them" and I'm going to push this again:

Did you not basically say that you had no problems with people peacefully demonstrating (something I don't really have a problem with either --- usually) even though if they got their way, their "rules" and policies would basically destroy your way of life (you didn't say that, we said that after the fact). You then went on to suggest that like the Iraq War demonstrations, these people won't be listened to either, which sounded to me as if you were saddened by the fact that they wouldn't be listened to. Furthermore, you said that it's the govt's attitude like that which creates this feeling of a "facist" country.

Where am I misreading?  Please explain.

Jordan .

quote - I still say it is preferable for Blair to have his head in Bush than that he have it up Nasrallah. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Thats fine you are entitled to your opinion but don't try to infer mine and then say its all in my head. By the same token I could say bush is a terrorist and you support bush. what would that achieve? It would only serve to piss you off, like you pissed me off.

If who got their way? that group isn't wholly representative of the muslim population of Britain.  I didn't even know what a caliphate was until it was discussed in this post. Yes I would be worried by such an idea. That particular element is definitely not something which right-minded politicans should factor into their policy. They should however pay attention to majority public opion on extremely important issues such as the Iraq war and certain other misguided foreign policies.  
 

Not knowing what a caliphate is could explain a lot, James. Before 9/11, myself, I had a little knowledge of Islam but only in so much as it related to:

A. The Israeli-Palestinian situation

B. The Iranian Revolution and hostage-taking of Americans -- "America Held Hostage; Day 444" and such.

C. What I learned through the Islamic collection at the LA Art museum lectures.

D. Muslims I knew in Los Angeles via Amnesty International, my husband's work, and primarily Persian immigrants in our neighborhood.

My son's best friend in junior high and high school was an Iranian kid whose father had more or less abducted his three kids from their mother (his ex-wife) and brought them to LA. The family had lived in Iran up until the revolution and fled to Sweden. There the family split when the father left Islam to become a Christian. The Swedish Mormons helped arrange his trip to the USA. Once here he used to tell me about how he could not return to Sweden because his brothers-in-law would kill him. I took it that he was exaggerating. He actually used political asylum from SWEDEN as his stated rationale for being allowed to remain in the USA once immigration caught up with him years later. Time and again he would tell me that they were going to kill him for converting to Christianity and how they had already tried to stab him to death back in Sweden. His ex-wife remained Muslim.  He later fell in love with a Jewish woman in LA!

Okay, so flash forward to 9/11. I'm still mostly of the mind that there are a handful of crazy Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and of course, Palestianians under the control of Yassir Arafat who do NOT want a single Jew to be in the Middle East -- much less "Israel" as they call it when not referring to it as "Zionist entity" or "Palestine" as it says on every map in the Palestinian territories.  But they are a minority population of crazed and dangerous Muslims.  It was hard to take seriously Osama when you'd watch his lame videos as he hiked through that rocky hilside with his walking stick.  The Al Qaeda "be all that you can be" recrutiment videos they showed constantly back then was laughable too.  I wanted to know more and more was increasingly available.

I am encouraged by Ziad, a Palestinian friend and now business partner of my husband's. He is very pleased that I have taken it upon myself to read more closely about Islam by going on to Islamic websites, buying a Koran and reading recommended material. Unfortunately it was just those actions that caused me greater grief, greater concern and here we are today. He tells me that he doesn't really know as much about Islam as his wife.  And I am glad.  

The unfortunate -- maybe the most unfortunate part -- of the religion as it is practiced and defined within the Koran is the need for the religion to supercede government. Unfortunately for the rest of us here in the United States, that is anathema to our entire existence as a country and one or the other can happen. Not both. I'm for keeping the status quo.

For many years I used to listen to a weekend radio show called "Religion on the LIne." The host would have on clergy from many different religions and they would discuss the various tenets of each. The Jewish host became very close friends with many of his guests. It was a nice radio show -- not one of those nouveau snarky screechy hostile shows so prevalent today. Well, this radio host said later that the one thing that always disturbed him with his Muslim guests was their consistently stated belief that yes, ideally, they would hope that the US would one day be under Islamic law.

Okay. Enough for the time being. I just think that if most of us in the West had a greater level of awareness of exactly who is the enemy we face -- not EVERY Muslim -- not MOST Muslims -- but still a large enough number of Islamic extremists acting out the most fundamental Koranic interpretations of violent jihad, we wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as right wing fear mongering.

IF those who demonize or despise Bush and Blair spent the equivalent amount of each day reading sources about Islamic regimes, Islamic websites and the like, I think a better balance could be struck. You cannot really evaluate the actions of a Bush Blair or Olmert unless you are fully apprised of what and why they battle.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'm confused by this thread.  I though public protests didn't matter?  Did that rule get changed back again?  I really have to pay closer attention to these things...

Poor LR.  This thread hasn't been easy on him. 

Going back to Page 1, I would like to correct one statement by Raymond, later seconded by X-Ray about 'millions of angry people calling for a caliphate' or however it was stated.

That's wrong.  There are not millions of angry people trying to supercede the UK government with sharia law.  It is of course hard to judge these things, but in my best estimate there would only be at most a few thousand, or possibly even several thousand.  However in a nation of 60 million people, they aren't going to get very far, and to worry about that is laughable.  More so, when you ominously predict that they will get to Ireland eventually where the percentage of Muslim people is probably less than in the US, at a guess.

At  the end of the day, why worry?  A handful of Neanderthal idiots will not be overthrowing any Western governments any time soon.  Get a grip people.  Their only threat is the threat of seeminly random acts of terrorism.

I am a lot more likely to worry about the conflict broadening because of unwise reactions to these idiots by my own government, either pressurised into them by people who seem incapable of avoiding grand generalisations, or more likely using the politics of fear to reduce our own liberties, move to more authoritarian modes of government and (whisper it) invade countries under false pretence which barely hides their near naked imperialistic agenda.

Hmmm... I can sort of see both sides of this argument.

I agree with Lets Roque that people should be allowed rights to freedom of speech, BUT in the simplest form, what is parading around London and the U.S Embassy carrying around signs such as "Boycott Israel" going to accomplish?  And Hero, sorry, but I DO worry about these type of protests.  They may be only a few thousand, but unlike some people seem to think, their opinions are being listened to.  Doesn't mean they agree with them, but they are being listened to.  I wouldn't say that any of this was a peaceful protest, because they are teaching people nothing but anger which is what got us into this damn mess in the first place.

On the other side, I also don't believe we are completely blameless and it was only a matter of time before something like this happned. 

 And yes, Blair does have his head up Bush's rectum.  but he took it out long enough to pose for a "lovely" muscle-bound shot ) of himself in his funky 1980 Hawaiin shorts on his boat.  (Oh my GOD, the fashion!)

"watch out for my cousin.."

Hero - it only takes a few to create a movement. Am I worried about those protesters? No. Am I concerned by what they want? Yeah - just like I am little concerned when I see the same thing in the US (esp when I see a bunch of people walking around with signs that support Socialistic views whose backers have a tendency toward Communism and people don't realize it). Am I concerned about what RADICAL Islam can do to the world? You bet I am. It took less than 20 people to kill 2000. Just this month, it could've taken that many to kill the same amount (if not more). This isn't something that can be just pushed to the side as "laugable." How many people in that protest in London have a tendency to become a future bomber - I'm sorry, but that's not laughable. Yeah, it might be laughable that these people will actually change the British govt, but it's not laughable what that same type of philosophy can do.

LR - you said above "That particular element is definitely not something which right-minded politicans should factor into their policy. They should however pay attention to majority public opion on extremely important issues such as the Iraq war and certain other misguided foreign policies." 

Anytime I hear someone say that the govt should "factor" (to use your word) in the cocnerns of the "majority" I think of all the things the "majority" agreed to at certain points in history in the US. Historians think that the vast majority of Colonists in the US were against the Revolutionary War. The vast majority of Americans were against getting into WWII (until Pearl Harbor happened - but then, we should've only have gone after Japan to use the thinking of the current "left"). US Prayer in School. Abortion (at the time of Roe v Wade). The biggest is probably slavery where Abraham Lincoln confronted the majority of the people in the South, the North, and our own Supreme Court for pushing to end slavery and the Emancipation Proclomation. The list goes on.

But in all cases above there is no middle ground. You can't "factor" in other opinions. You either have abortion or not. You either have slavery or not. You either go to war with Britain or not. You either go to war with Japan or not. You either go to war with Germany or not. You either go to war with Afghanistan or not. You either go to war with Al Qaeda or not. You either go to war with Iraq or not. there's no factoring. Govt can't say "oh okay, we'll fight a war for 1 week since the majority doesn't want it." Sometimes govt must do what it feels is right even though the "majority" don't like it. Isn't that what happens in govt all the time anyway? In the US, the President is the Commander In Chief which means he gets to control what teh military does. But our forefathers knew this could be problematic so they gave the money to Congress (that's bad and good). That means that in order for the President to have a war, he must ask for money. That's our check and balance. In any case, since we are worried about what the majority said, I think a slim majority were for the Iraq War after the Colin Powell speech (unlike what our friend Michael Moore tells us - he used one poll that showed his version, while the rest were for the war).

The majority isn't always right, and the minority isn't always right. that's why the one true Democracy that ever existed in the world failed miserably. that's why Republics seem to actually work for the most part. Yes, not everyone gets what the ywant, but they elect people to represent them. And every few years, you get the chance to keep or kick them out if they ddin't do what you liked (for example our friend Joe Lieberman who was "kicked out" of the Democratic running for Senate in his state - his now running as an Independent - his loss shows that the Democratic party has been highjacked by the likes of Kos and others). This is exactly why the GOP may very well keep control in November, and possibly take the Presidency again in 2008 (unless the Democrats wake up to what is happening in their party).

Just because a bunch of people march down the streets doesn't mean govt should listen to them. British govt should not listen to people who want to change your way of life toward a negative way. But at the same time, just because the silent "majority" doesn't yell and scream (that's why they are silent) doesn't mean that the support is not there. And sometimes, govt has to do with what it feels is a principle thing in an overall scheme of things even if the people don't like it or don't understand it.

Blanket statements like "govt should listen when a million (or 10,000) people march" is a dangerous philosophy. Esp with the notion that their opinions should matter. Sorry, but sometimes the public's opinion should NOT matter. I'm about to bang on my fellow voters, but sometimes, public opinion can be swayed too dramatically to be useful. Sometimes, public opinion can be swayed by fake photographs like we saw recently with the Israel-Lebanon thing. The idea of peaceful peace sounds better than peace through bloodshed, and most people want the first (so do I) but many do not realize that peace only comes through bloodshed sometimes. I'm sorry but when so many US citizens can't identify US leaders, but can easily identify Britney Spears, that's a huge concern for me. That means they are getting only bits of information, and when you have a MSM that is left-leaning, that's not generally good.

Now on the other hand protests do help shed the light and can push govt to do things (look at Vietnam protests). So yes, protests can be a good thing, but just because one is protesting doesn't mean their opinion should immediately be factored into the equation, esp with things that are so either/or, and not "maybe."  

Jordan .

Andrew I think you seriously underestimate the numbers on this one.

But even if it is only a few thousand extremists that we are talking about - a few thousand extremists have managed to bring Iraq to the brink of civil war.

Exactly how many Al-Qaida bombers did it take to change the Spanish government? Less the 30?

How many for 911, the 7/7 London attacks or even this recent 'liquid bombs' plot? 

There is a problem, to ignore it is laughable. IMO.

Do I seriously envisage a caliphate ruling western Europe with its HQ based in London? No, of course not. Do I see extremism and support for islamo-facists growing amongst traditionally moderate British muslims - yes, definitely.

I speak from my own observations, having friends and family that are muslim.

I can tell you extremism is growing rapidly. Many moderate muslims are oblivious to the younger generation who are bombarded with jihadist propoganda. If you want me to be more specific about the geography I'm talking about Birmingham, London, Leeds and Bradford.

Admitedly, I don't have any imperical data to back my assertions, but I speak as someone who was a muslim for ten years, married to an Iraqi for 5 years and most of my best friends growing up were second generation British Pakistanis.

I don't want anyone to hit the panic button, I'm not advocating a police state or anything quite so extreme, but as the Dutch have learned, its time to wake up and face the problem rather than dismiss it as paranoia.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

"I can tell you extremism is growing rapidly."

Ray - can you explain WHY it's growing so rapidly (esp as of late) in the UK? If you don't mind.  

Jordan .

First off I'm not an expert on demographics or Islam, but I do have some first hand experience so all I can offer is my opinion...

'Why' is a big question. It would be presumptuous of me to pretend I have all (or any) of the answers but I think there was already a significant problem with social integration in Great Britain before Al Qaida/911/Iraq/Afganistan and all that. I know its popular to put this down to the failure of multiculturalism but I'm sure its more complex than that.

Susan made a good point about how Islam and the Sharia come before allegiance to a host country or the laws of the land.

I think the younger kids have a much greater exposure to pro-jihadist propoganda these days. They see it on Asian and Arab television networks (that are broadcast into many muslim homes via satellite), its easy to find on many popular youth message boards/forums and I know that many are given literature by their peers both inside and outside the mosque. I myself have been given books and pamphlets on Zionist conspiracies, the truth about the Holocaust all sorts of rubbish thats is purported to be fact. Not everyone is so discerning about cross referencing the information they are given. Ignorance is a major factor too.

Without wishing to sound totally trite, the simple answer is that militancy, jihadism and matyrdom are considered cool amongst the disaffected youth. Even if those that would never entertain any thoughts of being a terrorist might still admit to some sympathy with the cause.

x-ray
if your back's against the wall, turn around and write on it...

"Without wishing to sound totally trite, the simple answer is that militancy, jihadism and matyrdom are considered cool amongst the disaffected youth."

This sentence stood out the most to me. I'll be willing to concede that govt is a problem here too. But I don't think it's the only problem, and I don't think it's as big as some people think (in other words, the blame govt first argument is not enough). Simply changing foreign policy (toward appeasement and "understanding") isn't going to "fix" this, IMO. And even if our foreign policies had never been the way they were in the past would have solved the problem we ultimately have. When you combine that with your second sentence in the first paragraph regarding social integration, I think it's two dangerous ingredients that have been combined and elevated to dangerous levels.

anytime disaffected people begin to move toward violence to get their way, it's dangerous for many. In the 60s there was a number of Civil Rights groups that moved toward violence to achieve the better good. We can be thankful that their violence didn't have a direct impact, otherwise that would've opened doors for more violence, which is where I think we are now.  

For the past 30 years, violence in the ME has always been responded to with appeasement in many cases. Oh, poor displaced Palesinians. Oh poor Middle East people and the mean ol' Imperialist nations of Europe (and now the US). Oh poor average Muhammed who is held down by the royalty of the Saudis. Etc. So at some point, terrorists started realizing they could highjack planes, they could hold people hostage and in some cases, negotiations went their way. But it came to a point in the ME, where they knew that the West would appease and give-in.

We can see the recent Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire as a prime example. Israel gave in to the cease-fire, but Hezbollah is still arming (as reports continue to indicate). The UN agreed to send in peacekeepers and France goes lollygagging around - as do a few other nations - even though just a few days ago, everyone was talking about the "importance" of a cease-fire. No instead, the cease-fire gives Hezbollah a break in the fighting. Again, another win for the terrorist because of the appeasement and weakness of the West and UN.

Yesterday, Michael Savage was asking the question "What makes Islam the pirannah fish in the pond?" (paraphrased). What makes Islam such a dangerous religion that so many peopel can mistranslate into kililng others? was his basica question. Few people can mistranslate Judaism, Christianity, Budhism, Hindu, etc in the way that Muslims can and have  "mistranslated" the Koran.  Yes, every religion can be corrupted, but in the 21st Century, it's Islam to such a dangerous degree (Christianity has grown from the events of the Middle Ages which were more political than religious).

I dunno....

Jordan .

This morning I took some time out to develop a set of demographics for you all to look at. I used Wikipedia, BBC and Islampopulation.com to try to get the most accurate and the most up to date numbers. These are my damned statistics:

6,500,000,000 -- World Population
2,100,000,000 -- Worldwide Christian Population
1,300,000,000 -- Worldwide Muslim Population
----13,000.000 -- Worldwide Jewish Population

1,300,000,000 -- Chinese Population (highest populated country)
--- 90,000,000 -- Chinese Christian Population
----37,000,000 -- Chinese Muslim Population
----------1,000 -- Chinese Jewish Population

1,100,000,000 -- India Population (second highest populated country)
--220,000,000 -- Indian Muslim Population
---24,000,000 -- Indian Christian Population
--------15.000 -- Indian Jewish Population

--222,000,000 -- Indonesian Population (highest congregation-world)
--195,000,000 -- Indonesian Muslim Population
---20.000,000 -- Indonesian Christian Population
-------------20 -- Indonesian Jewish Population

-----7,000,000 -- Israeli Population
-----6,000,000 -- Israeli Jewish Population (highest congregation-world)
-------400,000 -- Israeli Muslim Population
-------300,000 -- Israeli Christian Population

--300,000,000 -- US Population
--190,000,000 -- US Christian Pop. (highest congregation-world)
-----6,000,000 -- US Muslim Population
-----5,500,000 -- US Jewish Population

----72,900,000 -- Turkish Population
----72,750,000 -- Turkish Muslim Population
---------80,000 -- Turkish Catholic Population
---------26,000 -- Turkish Jewish Population

--730,000,000 -- European Population (47 Countries)
--510,000,000 -- European Christian Population
---50,000,000 -- European Muslim Population
----1,000,000 -- European Jewish Population

---82,500,000 -- German Population
---60,000,000 -- German Christian Population
-----3,000,000 -- German Muslim Population
-------100,000 -- German Jewish Population

----60,700,000 -- French Population
----45,000,000 -- French Christian Population
-----6,000,000 -- French Muslim Population
-------600,000 -- French Jewish Population

----60,000,000 -- UK Population
----40,000,000 -- UK Christian Population
-----1,600,000 -- UK Muslim Population
-------300,000 -- UK Jewish Population

----16,300,000 -- Dutch Population
------8,000,000 -- Dutch Christian Population
--------900,000 -- Dutch Muslim Population
---------32,000 -- Dutch Jewish Population

Some Notes and Conclusions:

European Christians are nominal Christians for the most part as most do not attend church at all but still identify loosely as Christians.

Whenever the scale tips in favor of a Muslim majority, the other religions gradually diminish (not shown here but Lebanon is a case in point)

Where there is a majority Muslim population, the percentage of other religions tolerated becomes miniscule

As the numbers increase in European countries and the percentages go up, so does Parliamentary representation and societal influence

Demographically non-Muslim Europeans are negative population growth while the Muslims are positive population growth.

France may be the country to watch to see if any of this matters or will Europe be the exception to the rule? (Musim population 10% today)

20 Jews in Indonesia????

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Has this got legs?  Launch seemed very low-key.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5193402.stm

This might be a wild stretch but I would liken it to Madonnesque Kabbalah movement having legs in changing Judaism. 

'Course I could be wrong.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Or, to take it further still, might it not be like the fringey marginalized sect of the Maharishi to the larger religion of Hinduism?

It's hard to understand just what it is that makes a religion take hold, grow and prosper.  One thing is true however and that is it is at least as slow a process as "growing democracies." 

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin