US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

malignancy = people who mass murder civilians and people who are accomplices of people who mass murder civilians.

malignancy pursues the doctrine of DAMD (i.e., Die And Make Die).

Lovers-of-liberty pursue the doctrine of LALL (i.e., Live And Let Live).

malignancy must be exterminated before they exterminate lovers-of-liberty.

No one has a god-given-right to any area of the earth. One's rights to an area of the earth are governed by the prevailing human rule of law in that area.

…
eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris."
…

…
I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped [1998]
...
No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.[2004]
...

So you are only talking about links in political threads.

If I post more links to conservative sites than you post links to liberal sites, does that mean I win? Or, if I post a greater assortment of sources of links than you, does that mean I win? I guess I'd be interested in knowing what you find out, but I'm not sure I'm going to be impressed.

tico said:

Quote:

If I post more links to conservative sites than you post links to liberal sites, does that mean I win? Or, if I post a greater assortment of sources of links than you, does that mean I win? I guess I'd be interested in knowing what you find out, but I'm not sure I'm going to be impressed.

I'm not sure about that either. It depends on what it is you are doing here in political discussions. If your primary goal/function is conceived as support for a political party or ideology, then nothing will much impress you outside of that which forwards this goal or function. If, on the other hand, your reach extends a little further, and you conceive that what we have available to us within our small community here is the means to expand our understanding of political issues through quality information, debate, reflection, careful analysis and honest objectivity, then 'impressibility' might be engaged.

SPOTLIGHT ON TERROR
The Jamestown Foundation
Friday, August 5, 2005 - Volume III, Issue 6

How to Deal with Britain's Muslim Extremists? An Interview with Kamal Helbawy

Dr. Kamal Helbawy was born in Egypt in 1939 and joined the Muslim Brotherhood at the age of twelve, largely receiving his education in Islam from them. After working in Nigeria, he traveled to Saudi Arabia where he was among the founders of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) and became their first executive director. After six years at the Institute of Policy Studies in Pakistan, Dr. Helbawy moved to London and helped create the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and the Muslim Assembly of Britain (MAB). He was the MAB's first president and currently serves as an advisor to the organization. Dr. Helbawy is also a researcher in Islamic and strategic affairs. He has a history of working in the relief sector and is currently the owner and supervisor of a care home for the elderly in northwest London. This interview was conducted by Terrorism Monitor editor Mahan Abedin in London on July 27, 2005.


Mahan Abedin: Some people might say your association with WAMY disqualifies you from engaging in the fight against extremists?

Kamal Helbawy: My association with WAMY was limited to the 1970s and early 1980s. WAMY was created to help young people to work properly and peacefully for Islam. WAMY was at that time considered a progressive organization with links to influential personalities all over the world, including Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia who was representing Asian Youth within WAMY at the time. I don't know much about the present day WAMY but it is unfair to brand it an extremist organization. WAMY is a very large organization and it is entirely possible that there are a few extremists within its ranks, but this should not be used to brand the entire organization as extremist. Besides, I don't care if people consider me fit to fight extremism or not, I will continue to fight this scourge because Islam is a religion of peace. Moreover, I have long experience and strong credentials in this field as evidenced by the vast number of youths who are attached to our programs.

MA: But some people are adamant that WAMY is a Wahhabi organization with possible links to terrorism.

KH: WAMY is not a Wahhabi organization, it is a Muslim organization. And as for terrorism, this is a very broad-brushed accusation to make against a large organization like WAMY. It is entirely possible that some extremists could have infiltrated the organization but as I said earlier, this does not give people the right to tarnish the entire organization.

MA: Do you still consider yourself affiliated to the Muslim Brotherhood?

KH: Yes, I still consider myself a member of the Muslim brotherhood. I resigned from the leadership in 1997 but I don't know if the current leadership has cancelled my membership in this great movement. I hope they have not done this, so that I remain a member until the end of my life. Nevertheless, I do differ with the leadership over some of their approaches toward current challenges and crises.

MA: What are the core objectives of the Muslim Association of Britain?

KH: It is to work in da'awah (inviting people to Islam), to teach the proper fiqh (jurisprudence), teach Arabic and to train young people to become good citizens in British society.

MA: Is MAB a grass roots organization?

KH: Yes, we work mainly with young people but have members from all fields and walks of life.

MA: Apart from promoting good citizenship, do you work with young Muslims who have been radicalized by certain organizations?

KH: Yes, we do. We try to moderate them through dialogue and consultation. We also hold seminars where we try to explain that Islam rejects any form of extremism. Not long ago, twice I had a 3 hour video-taped discussion with some of the radicals and self-described jihadis in London, and that was an interesting encounter.

MA: From your experience, how deep-rooted is radicalism in the UK? Is it a big problem?

KH: Yes, it is. It has spread for a number of reasons. Many young Muslims feel alienated by events overseas and by injustices here in the UK.

MA: Please discuss the UK-specific factors.

KH: Young Muslims are not well represented here in society. There is also extremist teaching in some mosques and other places. And then there is the problem of the "Abus"; the Abu Hamzas and Abu Qatadas who have had an influence on some young Muslims. Radicalism is like a virus, and it will spread even more if we treat it harshly. Violence is a disease and it is likely to spread through wrong treatment.

MA: What has been the primary radicalizing agent here; is it the presence of the radical groups?

KH: I would say certain individuals have been primarily responsible for manipulating disaffected young men through false teachings and bogus fatwas.

MA: Is there a link between this radicalization process and the recent events in London?

KH: That is difficult to say, but there could be a link.

MA: How many potential suicide bombers do we have here in the UK?

KH: That is also difficult to say. But there are people who are willing to do this to correct what they see as injustices against Muslims both here at home and abroad.

MA: Who do you think was behind the bombers?

KH: It could have been a network that had roots in Pakistan or elsewhere. But I also think the government is responsible as well, as it would be for any security-related problem.

MA: What do you mean by that?

KH: As the London mayor Ken Livingstone said, the events in Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine was a factor that should not be neglected.

MA: Are you saying that if the UK had not participated in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the bombings would not have occurred?

KH: If the UK had not taken part in the invasion of Iraq and had a more balanced policy toward the issue of Palestine, it is entirely possible that the bombings would not have occurred.

MA: But given that UK foreign policy is unlikely to change, in the near-term at least, how best can the authorities deal with the terrorist challenge?

KH: The government should give stronger support to mainstream Muslims. The media should not promote Islamophobia and the government really ought to reconsider its support for tyrannies in the Muslim world.

MA: Do you think the high concentration of Islamic activists here in the UK played a part˜no matter how remote and indirect--in the attacks?

KH: It is possible.

MA: How?

KH: It gives refuge and protection to certain individuals. But we must be careful to distinguish between legitimate political activities and a handful of individuals who spread hatred and ignorance. This is not an invitation to curb freedom at all.

MA: Where were the successful and failed bombers radicalized? Were they radicalized here, or by networks that operate outside the UK?

KH: It could be both. But I think the radicalization process mainly occurs inside the UK.

MA: So, do you think the government ought to clamp down on certain organizations here?

KH: The government has a duty to protect society, while safeguarding freedoms at the same time. We need a balanced policy.

MA: Who should it suppress? Please be specific.

KH: Clamping down or suppressing is not necessarily the words I would use. I wrote to the mayor of London recently and proposed the establishment of "Treatment Centers" or "Houses for Extremists" for people who have been exposed to this sick ideology. I am referring to the kind of establishments we have for old or disabled people. I consider these boys to be sick and diseased, and it is not fair to send diseased people to other countries or suppress them harshly.

MA: What exactly are you proposing here, some kind of mental health institution?

KH: I am proposing the creation of establishments where people can be treated, and where their freedoms would be curtailed. But they should be treated with respect and engaged in dialogue. I remember once Abu Qatada appeared on al-Jazeera and said that he regards Western society or civilization as a toilet. When you use that kind of characterization for a civilization that has created very successful societies and managed to invade outer space, then you are a very sick and diseased individual.

MA: Do you think your proposal will be taken seriously by the mayor?

KH: I hope so! Anyway I have done my duty.

MA: How many people do you envisage being housed in such establishments?

KH: I would put all dangerous extremists in these establishments.

MA: And what would treatment consist of?

KH: Discussions and dialogue with the Ulama (scholars), philosophers and Westerners as well as teaching the seerah (biography) of the Prophet and fiqh of minorities and the role played by the West in advancing human civilization.

MA: Do you think the UK government has a high enough credibility with Muslims in this country to oversee a sensitive and controversial project like that?

KH: I think they have a good record.

MA: But many Muslims in this country consider Tony Blair as the invader of Iraq!

KH: But Britain is much bigger than Tony Blair. We have people like London mayor Ken Livingstone and many members of parliament who strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq.

MA: So you don't think the British government ought to change its policy toward the presence of radical Islamic elements in the country?

KH: Curbing freedoms is not the solution. The terrorist regime in Egypt has been curbing freedoms for decades but it is no nearer to a solution than it was when it started. Muslims in this country strongly appreciate the freedoms the British state grants them and everybody else. Besides, the tabloid media in this country give too much publicity to certain individuals and hence create the impression that the UK is awash with Islamic extremists.

MA: Are you saying that the fault is not with government policy but media irresponsibility?

KH: Exactly! The media ought to stop spotlighting people who are not really representative and seem to have made it their mission to make life difficult for Muslims in this country.

MA: But why is the government seriously thinking of changing its policy toward Islamists?

KH: Because they are thinking alone. We urge the government at this critical time to consult widely and not make any hasty decisions.

MA: Has your organization (the Muslim Association of Britain) been approached for advice?

KH: Yes, we have been approached from different bodies but not by the government. But I am saying much more consultation is needed. This is a very complex and deep-rooted issue and it needs to be debated widely and intensely before any major decisions are made.

MA: But do you recognize that the UK has a very different policy toward Islamists than the continental Europeans, particularly the French?

KH: Yes, of course and this is strongly appreciated. It would be very sad if the UK started behaving like the French, the Americans and the Dutch.

MA: Do you also recognize that if there are further attacks, this is exactly what might happen?

KH: Attacks can happen if you are a dictatorship or not. The disease will spread regardless. Clamping down or adopting over-zealous counter-terrorism policies will not work.

MA: Let us discuss ideological counter-terrorism. How important do you think the deconstruction of Jihadist ideas is to the counter-terrorism struggle?

KH: It is important, but this deconstruction should come from within Islam and not be forced upon it by outsiders. Westerners do not really understand the disease and are likely to give the wrong injections. They are also wrongly informed by some third world tyrants.

MA: How should this ideological deconstruction take place here in the UK?

KH: Through the establishment of a central terrorism/extremist center and a research unit designed to propose and appraise methods for treating extremists.

MA: But are you not underestimating the strength and resilience of the jihadis?

KH: I don't underestimate the strength of any ideology. I read a story about a boy in Afghanistan who professed to be a communist and was given a chance to repent otherwise he would be shot. He refused, insisting he was a communist and was subsequently shot. Ideology is very powerful and can completely consume individuals.

MA: Do you really think the ideological apparatus of the Salafi-Jihadis can be undermined through the methods you have outlined in this interview?

KH: I can cite you a good example from Egypt where some former jihadis wrote books in prison called "Muraja'at", in which they deconstruct their own ideology and values.

MA: But there is a difference here insofar as these people were engaged in a localized conflict and considered themselves to be part of the Egyptian political landscape, irrespective of their militant Islamic ideology. What we are confronting today are essentially rootless individuals whose amorphous aims and grievances can not be accommodated.

KH: But Ayman al-Zawahiri is an Egyptian!

MA: Yes, but you know very well that he abandoned Egyptian politics many years ago. My point is that we are dealing with elements which have no roots.

KH: No, that is wrong. These people believe the whole world constitutes their roots. Their roots are in themselves, in their history and their understanding of Islam. They also have their imams and religious instructors.

MA: But the bombers in London, they had no roots and they had no clear objectives. For instance they were not trying to overthrow the British state.

KH: This was clearly not one of their aims. But maybe they wanted to pressurize the British government to withdraw the UK military from Iraq, to adopt a fairer attitude toward the Palestinians and give minorities their due rights.

MA: Given the amorphous nature of Islamic ecclesiastical structures and the fluidity of its jurisprudence (fiqh), is it possible to engage in an "ideological war" with the extremists?

KH: But Islam has well known Ulama and scholars whom the people trust.

MA: But the core texts of Islam are open to all sorts of interpretations. For instance jihadi ideologues can sit here and quote from Islamic texts and their arguments would be as compelling as yours.

KH: They can convince those who are not well educated in Islamic texts and traditions. They can influence the ignorant, but in reality what they peddle can be easily broken.

MA: If it is easy to undermine the jihadists' ideology, why is it not being done?

KH: I did not necessarily say it was easy. Anyway it is being done otherwise you'd see a lot more extremists.

MA: Some British and western commentators complain that Muslim scholars, thinkers and ideologues are ambiguous on the question of terrorism, particularly suicide bombings. They say some scholars are quick to condemn the London bombings, but they approve of suicide bombings in Palestine/Israel and Iraq.

KH: Let me ask you a question, if I am a British citizen and the French are threatening to occupy my country, what should I do? Do I not have the right to resist in a manner that compensates for my technological inferiority? Surely, I should defend my country by using all reasonable means. We don't condone the indiscriminate killings in Iraq, but we approve of those who fight against an oppressive regime that has been occupying Palestine for more than 50 years and demolishes people's homes on top of them. We should make a distinction between people like Bin Laden and Zawahiri who are simply fighting a wrong battle and those people who fight for their freedom and dignity, whether in Palestine, Iraq or Chechnya.

MA: But Tony Blair has come out and said that suicide bombings are wrong everywhere, including Palestine/Israel.

KH: Well he is wrong. It is as simple as that! He is not a Mufti. He is a British Statesman.

MA: It is not a question of whether he is right or wrong, the point I am trying to make is that there are fundamental differences between people like yourself and the British establishment. Therefore how could you cooperate together in this "ideological" war?

KH: But many people in the establishment disagree with Tony Blair. Does London mayor Ken Livingstone agree with Blair on this issue? Of course he doesn't! We can differ, but we should work together to find a solution.

MA: Let us discuss the representation deficit in British Muslim communities and how it may contribute to the radicalization process.

KH: I don't agree that the representation deficit is a serious factor in these issues. In democratic countries, the majority tends to eliminate the minority. For instance in this country, the Liberal Democrats have no real power.

MA: But they are represented at all levels of society. But anyways Muslims in this country are not a political party, they are diverse communities. And it is a real challenge to develop proper representation when people come from different continents and yet insist they constitute a distinct and coherent community because of their Islamic faith.

KH: But they have representation.

MA: But it is not effective, is it?

KH: It is not effective and the current situation is not ideal.

MA: Let us discuss the different layers of Muslim representation. How would you critically evaluate the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), which is supposed to be the highest form of representation for British Muslims?

KH: I played a role in the establishment of the MCB. Our objective was that the MCB should remain independent and its primary function should be to represent and protect the interests of Muslims. Later on there was some government pressure and the organization was forced to make some compromises that would not appeal to all Muslims.

MA: Give me some examples.

KH: For instance some MCB members were embarrassed to use the word "jihad" because they thought British society would interpret that as holy war. And this is completely wrong, because jihad is primarily about addressing injustice and correcting wrongs.

MA: Many Muslims say the MCB does not criticize UK foreign policy enough.

KH: They are very soft on this. The problem is that they became over-influenced by the British government and this prevents them from protecting Muslim interests to the full.

MA: Correct me if I am wrong, but the original purpose of the MCB was to act as a forum for connecting Muslim representatives to the British establishment at the very highest levels.

KH: That is right, but there is now some concern that the MCB is acting more as a tool for the government. Muslims should cooperate with the government and the police, but we should also be free to have our beliefs and practices in accordance with the law.

MA: What about community representation. How do you evaluate that?

KH: The mosques and Imams are very influential inside the communities all over the country. The grass roots organizations like the "UK Islamic mission", "Muslim Association of Britain", "Islamic Society of Britain", "Islamic Forum of Europe" and "Daawatul Islam" are all very influential.

MA: What function do these organizations perform?

KH: They invite people to the mosques, particularly young men with problems. They try to make them into good citizens through educating them in weekly or monthly meetings, camps, seminars, conferences, and in full or part time schools.

MA: Can these organizations be mobilized to counter the radical groups?

KH: Yes they can. When you speak of "radical" organizations, there are basically two groups that are organized enough to cause concern; Hizb ut-Tahrir and the [defunct] al-Muhajiroun.

…
eight reasons for global jihad. These include the restoration of Islamic sovereignty to all lands where Muslims were once ascendant, including Spain, "Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian Turkistan and Chinese Turkistan. . . Even parts of France reaching 90 kilometers outside Paris."
…

…
I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped [1998]
...
No Muslim should risk his life as he may inadvertently be killed if he associates with the Crusaders, whom we have no choice but to kill.[2004]
...

If your point is that "Tico bestows a primarily conservative viewpoint upon those of us here at A2K," you should not waste your time trying to prove such an obvious point.

But if you suffer from some delusion that you, on the other hand, do something other than provide a consistent liberal view in your political posts, then perhaps you indeed would benefit from your exercise ... if only to have your eyes opened to the reality of your own political bias.

Quote:

If your point is that "Tico bestows a primarily conservative viewpoint upon those of us here at A2K," you should not waste your time trying to prove such an obvious point.

But if you suffer from some delusion that you, on the other hand, do something other than provide a consistent liberal view in your political posts, then perhaps you indeed would benefit from your exercise ... if only to have your eyes opened to the reality of your own political bias.

Everyone has preferences and biases, myself clearly included. But does it follow from that truth that therefore all instances of political discourse are equal in worth to all others? Are Baldimo or blatham as worthwhile to read and ponder as Lincoln? Are McGentrix's contributions to political thought as worthy or helpful or illuminating as are the contributions of William F. Buckley or Plato? Will Jerry Falwell match the writings of Augustine? If not, how not? What are the differences?

What if a poster did nothing at all in these political threads other than paste in the columns of a single writer, say, Maureen Dowd? Some value would be gained surely, but how much? What if that poster read nothing but Maureen Dowd's columns? How much learning would you posit is going on with that individual? Would you even consider that that person really wants to educate himself or herself or would you consider it more likely that that person merely wishes to validate his or her own certainties? What is the difference between 'education' and 'indoctrination'?

Variety of sources and viewpoints is probably the fundamental criterion for learning, and singularity of sources is probably the fundamental barrier to learning (and it is usually attendent with the notion that one already knows it all or already has adequate authoritative truth to hand - "Look no further, the TRUTH has been found!" as a Scientology billboard has it).

How are you and I different? I belong to no political party either in the US or in Canada and never have other than when I was 18 and could not vote. Then, I nailed up posters around my home town for Pierre Trudeau (Liberal party). On the front lawn of our home were two large signs - one for that Liberal candidate and another for the further left candidate my father supported. When a union buddy got on dad's case for allowing my sign on the lawn, dad weighed into the fellow with some needle-sharp comments on free speech and the intellectual whoredom of indoctrination. I have never been on any politcal or activist mailing list up until two months ago when as a consequence of signing a petition the folks at moveon got my address. I read, at most, one third of what they send me. I have pasted nothing from them here. I source or reference with considerably greater variety and breadth than do you and I do not draw from sources which maintain or forward NOTHING BUT liberal commentary as is the case with your NewsMax, TownHall, and National Review sourced contributions.

You are not a bad guy, Tico...more careful and thoughtful than many here, considerate in the main, and likely a fine fellow to chum about with. But your partisanship and your self-chosen range of sources for information and contribution are further evidence of the paltry level of discourse so many of you in the US have fallen to. I suspect you like this idea of a 'culture war' with black on one side and white on the other.

Blatham & Tico,

I had started a thread on the topic you two are discussing. I would be interested in having your views posted on my thread:
Source Bias Thread

Ican

I understand you are hoping to popularize your medical-pathology metaphor but perhaps you'll take the time to notice that no one but yourself finds it either helpful or descriptive.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Mother's peace vigil gains support

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES

The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who started a quiet roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch last weekend is drawing supporters from across the nation, including the Pacific Northwest.

Dozens of people have joined her in Crawford, Texas, while others have sent flowers and food. One activist called her "the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement."

Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., says she was surprised at the response.
Cindy Sheehan
Zoom AP
Cindy Sheehan, right, gets a hug from fellow protester Bill Mitchell as he delivers flowers sent to the roadside camp in Crawford, Texas.

"Before my son was killed, I used to think that one person could not make a difference," she said Wednesday under a tent where she has slept since Saturday. "But one person that is surrounded and supported by millions of people can be heard."

Lietta Ruger is one of those supporters. The mother from Bay Center near Longview arrived Wednesday in Crawford.

"We're all Cindy Sheehan," said Ruger, who plans to stay at the makeshift encampment until Monday.

"When I left Seattle yesterday my 5-year-old grandson said, 'Grandma's going to talk to the president so Daddy doesn't have to go away again,' " said Ruger, whose son-in-law and nephew have already served in Iraq.

About 30 people gathered at the Jackson Federal Building in downtown Seattle Wednesday evening to support Sheehan's demand to speak with Bush and to protest the war.

"This mother has called (Bush) on (his reason for going to war) and we need to support her," said protest organizer Judith Shattuck, a member of Progressive Democrats for America.

That organization called for solidarity protests nationwide on the eve of when it thinks Sheehan will be removed from her roadside vigil, Shattuck said.

Teri Barclay, a Duvall mother who works in Seattle, said her son served two tours with the Marines in Iraq before he was discharged in September 2004.

She's been against the war from the beginning but has grown increasingly angry that U.S. troops have not had the equipment and supplies they need to protect themselves, and that the Department of Veterans Affairs has not had the money to properly help them when they return home.

Barclay was especially upset that Bush has gone on vacation while the nation is at war and men like her son are dying in Iraq.

"Our sons have sacrificed a lot, and where is his sacrifice? Where is his support?" Barclay asked.

Sheehan's support includes a caravan of people who left Wednesday from Houston to join her roadside encampment near Waco. And some Swedes have even donated portable toilets that were set up outside the Peace House in Crawford, which is run by liberal activists.
Jennifer Lincoln
Zoom Joshua Trujillo / P-I
Jennifer Lincoln's sign expresses her feelings in front of the federal building in Seattle. Lincoln's sister is in the military.

Although a few Crawford residents have complained about the protesters, no one has been arrested because the group has been on the public right of way, said Capt. Kenneth Vanek of the McLennan County Sheriff's Office.

The protest is expected to grow today as Bush meets at his ranch with his top foreign policy advisers, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to discuss Iraq and other issues.

On Saturday, two high-level Bush administration officials, the national security adviser and deputy White House chief of staff, talked to Sheehan for about 20 minutes.

Sheehan called the brief meeting "pointless" and still wants to talk to the president.

Sheehan's 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, in April 2004 just five days after he arrived. Two months later, Sheehan was among grieving military family members who met with Bush at Fort Lewis.

Since then, she said, various government and independent commission reports have disputed the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein had mass-killing chemical and biological weapons -- a main justification for the March 2003 invasion.

On Wednesday, a coalition of anti-war groups called on Bush to speak with Sheehan, who they say has helped to unify the peace movement.

"Cindy Sheehan has become the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement," said the Rev. Lennox Yearwood, leader of the Hip Hop Caucus, an activist group. "She's tired, fed up and she's not going to take it anymore, and so now we stand with her."

Some veterans and relatives of those killed have called Sheehan's vigil a distraction and continue to support the U.S. military action in Iraq.

Kathy Brooks, a counselor who ate at the Crawford Coffee Station on Wednesday, said that she understood Sheehan's grief but that the president is not to blame.

"The president did not make her son go," Brooks said. "He did have a choice."

Sheehan, whose vigil has also become a hot topic on the Internet and blogs, says she doesn't expect Bush to meet with her in Crawford.

If he did she would ask him whether he has encouraged his twin daughters to enlist.

"I want him to quit using my son's death to justify more killing," she said. "The only way he can honor my son's death is to bring the troops home."
P-I reporters Susan Paynter and Jake Ellison contributed to this story, which includes information from The Associated Press and the Houston Chronicle.

ican, you seem to think that "western" values can simply be dropped into iraqi/middle eastern society.
No! I do not think that true--not in general nor even in particular. However, I infer from my Muslim acquaintenances that mass murder of civilians is no more an Eastern/Iraq value than it is a Western/US value.

while i think it would be nice, if some western values would be adopted by m.e. society, i doubt we can push it down their throat. unless we start to understand their value system and realize that it is different from ours, i doubt that we'll be successful.

i'm sure that most westerners have great difficulty understanding their value system - i certainly don't understand it-, we will have to make a greater effort to understand what is important to m.e. societies. simply saying : "these are the crimes they have committed, they are wrong in what they doing, and therefor they must change", is not likely to bring success but greater alienation - and that's not what we want, is it ? hbg

I don't really care about alienation so much as I care about stopping mass murder of almost 30 Iraqis per day. If the price of stopping that is alienation, so be it. Historically, stopping mass murder has been accomplished by exterminating the mass murderers. I am currently unaware of any evidence -- any evidence at all -- that mass murderers can be stopped in any other manner than by exterminating the mass murderers.

We must simultaneously prevent mass murderers from recruiting new members, while we proceed to exterminate the mass murderers. In addition to exterminating mass murderers, their recruitment can be stopped by encouraging universal adoption of the LALL (Live And Let Live)) doctrine and a rejection of the DAMD (Die And Make Die) doctrine.

p.s. even in our own - western - societies we have different value systems in different societies, and while we may not always approve of them, we seem to learned to live with the differences.

True! But to the best of my knowledge no where in the West's many different societies is there governmental tolerance of mass murder of civilians. In other words, we can live with our differences because our governments have adequately adopted the LALL doctrine and rejected the DAMD doctrine. That is why "we seem to learned to live with the differences." A LALL society cannot live long with a DAMD society. One of them has got to go! I rather the LALL society survive and the DAMD society be exterminated.

To live in a DAMD society is to me equivalent to living in the worst kind of hell, and consequently I am completely intolerant of DAMD societies.

"

Man Kills Another in Dispute Over War -- Press Calls It a First

By E&P Staff

Published: August 06, 2005 6:30 PM ET

NEW YORK It was bound to happen sooner or later, and in what newspapers in Kentucky are calling a first, one American has killed another in a dispute over the Iraq war.

It happened at Floyd County flea market on Thursday, when two friends, who were firearms vendors there, drew guns after quarreling about the war. Douglas Moore, 65, of Martin, who backs the war, shot and killed Harold Wayne Smith, 56, of Manchester, who opposed it, according to investigators.

Moore was released without being charged after he convinced police he had acted in self-defense. A grand jury may yet hear evidence in the case.

Commonwealth's Attorney Brent Turner said the episode might mark the first death in the U.S. due to a dispute over the war.

One witness, Sam Hamman of Prestonsburg, told the Lexington Herald-Leader, "Harold was talking about the 14 people that were killed in Iraq the other day and Doug said that just as many people were killed on the highways here."

This quickly escalated into an argument, then to a scuffle, and finally both men drew pistols outside a snack shed. The dead man was apparently just a little slower in firing. Witnesses said he stood for about five seconds before toppling on the walkway.

In a telephone interview with the Lexington paper yesterday, Moore said police had told him not to discuss his feelings about the Iraq war.

"I'm sorry this has happened," Moore, a retired railroad worker, said. "But then what's done can't be undone." Moore told the Lexington reporter he thinks Smith and his family knew him well enough "to know what my thoughts are, his family does, because me and Harold was friends. That's all I'll say."

The daughter of the dead man said the two men were friends and had discussed Iraq before. She said her father "had different opinions than everybody. He felt it was wrong that all of these young people were losing their lives over what was going on. It was just a political disagreement, like a whole lot of people have."
E&P Staff ([email protected]) "