Doomsday for Islam: Commentator Rebutal

Commentator Eleanor said...
"We are under attack by the Islamic World because we support the Israeli occupation of Palestine and because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11, said he attacked us because of our biased support of Israel.(See "The 9/11 Commission Report" p. 147) The recent paper by professors Mearsheimer and Walt exquisitely documents the power of the Israeli lobby in its control of the press, our politicians, and US foreign policy. Rather than continuing to incite terrorism, plus threatening all sorts of inhumane nuclear revenge on innocent people (as Israel has historically done, ie collective punishment) we would do better to address the legitimate grievances in the Muslim World and mend our ways. When one studies tapes by Osama bin Laden it is clear he is not motivated by an urge to convert us all to Islam: this is neocon propaganda. See: www.dundeesblog.blogspot.com"

I felt it necessary to make a separate post on the comment Eleanor left me in regards to my post "Doomsday for Islam?" Ms. Eleanor seems to have missed a few facts and I wanted to take a moment to present them to her and anyone else who is still buying into this train of thought.

You said "When one studies tapes by Osama bin Laden it is clear he is not motivated by an urge to convert us all to Islam: this is neocon propaganda."
In the letter bin Laden released in November of 2002, he clearly states that the people of the United States "are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind," and "you are the nation who rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its constitution and laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire." He goes on to list "conditions" that "If you fail to respond to all these conditions, then prepare for a fight with the Islamic Nation."
These conditions, again, directly from his letter are:

1. The American people must convert to Islam.
2. Americans must "reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest."

So to recap, in order for bin Laden, and if he speaks for them, the rest of the Islamic world, not to attack us further, all we have to do is give up our Constitution and replace it with one what follows Islamic law. In other words, all the homosexuals would have to be put to death. The bars would be shut down and no restaurants could serve alcohol. Sporting events could no longer serve beer. Casinos, the lottery and slot machines are gone. No couples living together before marriage. Male/Female segregation at schools and public events. No right to vote for females. All females would have to wear headscarves in public and walk ten steps behind men. No credit cards and loans to buy cars and houses. No retirement fund, because it is made primarily from investments. Second century values on life, standard of living and education.
Hummm...this is a pretty bleak picture. Is this really what you want? If it is, please let me know and I can suggest several countries you can relocate to in order to enjoy this way of life.

Let's move on.
You said "We are under attack by the Islamic World because we support the Israeli occupation of Palestine and because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan."
Exactly when did Israel occupy Palestine? You're probably going to say 1948. Well, actually, God gave that area of the world to Israel back in the 15th century BC. Since that time, many different empires and governments have laid claim to that area. Despite the efforts of many of these rulers, Jews (Israelites) have always been a significant presence in this area. Other populations would come and go, but "Israel" was always there.
The local inhabitants did not call themselves "Palestinians". The concept of a "Palestinian" to describe the local residents had not even been invented by 1948; neither was there ever in history a "Palestinian Arab" nation. None of today's Arabs have any ancestral relationship to the original Biblical Philistines who are now extinct. Even Arab historians have admitted Palestine never existed.

• In 1937, the Arab leader Auni Bey Abdul Hadi told the Peel Commission: "There is no such country as Palestine. Palestine is a term the Zionists invented. Palestine is alien to us."

• In 1946, Princeton's Arab professor of Middle East history, Philip Hitti, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry: "It's common knowledge, there is no such thing as Palestine in history."

• In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, an executive member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), said in an interview to the Dutch newspaper Trouw: "The 'Palestinian people' does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel."

• Mark Twain - Samuel Clemens, the famous author of "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer", took a tour of the Holy Land in 1867. This is how he described that land: "A desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given over wholly to weeds. A silent, mournful expanse. We never saw a human being on the whole route. There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country."

• In 1874, Reverend Samuel Manning wrote: "But where were the inhabitants? This fertile plain, which might support an immense population, is almost a solitude.... Day by day we were to learn afresh the lesson now forced upon us, that the denunciations of ancient prophecy have been fulfilled to the very letter -- "the land is left void and desolate and without inhabitants."

And yet, despite their very own self profession of being an invented people, they sure are fast to call on the world to acknowledge their so called "occupation". Apparently you've bought into this mantra as well.

You said "...because we occupy Iraq and Afghanistan."
It seems you like to throw around the "occupy" word quite liberally.
According to the Hague Conventions of 1907, Laws and Customs of War on Land" (Hague IV); October 18, 1907: "Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State, Article 42 states:

• Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

• The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

In Article 43, it states:

• The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Are you familiar with the elections in Afghanistan back in September of 2005 and with the elections in Iraq back in December of 2005, in which the populations of both of these countries democratically elected their leaders?
According to The Hague Conventions of 1907, the United States armed forces and the forces of the coalition governments are in place at the request of the legitimate government of those countries. They are no different then military bases in Germany, Korea or Japan.

Eleanor, I'm sure you're way to young (as am I) to remember World War 1 and World War 2. If you have studied these wars, you will see us assisting our allies (World War 1 and World War 2) in defeating tyrannical governments who were determined to expand their dominance or sphere's of influence and responding to attacks directly on us (World War 2). In both cases you have sited (Iraq and Afghanistan) you have tried to spin this as though the United States is evil and awful for going to war against the former governments of these countries. I'd like to ask you to explain in what ways, these wars are different than World War 1 and World War 2.
In Afghanistan, we went to war after being attacked by an enemy force. We went to the country where they were based. We defeated them (a major goal of war) and assisted the government in rebuilding their country.
In Iraq, we went to war to remove a tyrannical government set on expanding their dominance and sphere of influence and as a bonus, removed a leader who had terrorized his own people, killing thousands of them. Their only crime was dissent, something you are allowed to do daily with no threat of death.

You went on to site the working paper that John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt made about the force of the Israeli lobby in America. I would like to point out, that this "study" was so filled with misinformation that Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, where Mearsheimer is a professor, removed it's logo from the paper and added a disclaimer.

Eleanor, instead of "mending our ways", why don't we ask the rest of the world to be accountable to their people's wills, via a democratically elected government and take responsibility for those in their midst who preach hate and destruction.

In regards to the article, Islam better wake up to the fact that they will be held accountable for what people who claim to represent them do. Instead of taking a "root them on from the sideline" attitude, they need to be reclaiming their so-called "hijacked" religion from these radicals. Don't look for this to happen any time soon. They agree with the radicals, they just have to say otherwise when meeting with civilized people.

Mark my words:
If the Islamist terrorist succeed in detonating one or more nuclear devices in the United States, the retaliation against the Islamist who sat on their hands and let it happen, will be swift and more deadly than anything this world has ever seen. It is in their best interest to police themselves now, before this calamity can happen.