Most Democrats are Christians. Republicans accuse Democrats of irrationality. Why don't you write this headline?
"...standing up to Christian Irrationality"

"Muslim Irrationality" sounds like most Muslims are irrational or that there is a specific form of irrationality, that only Muslims have, i.e. "Muslim irrationality."

However, I don't see such a form or generalized irrationality. You know that our Turkish NATO allies, who are very important to US security, are Muslims. They have a democracy. They don't do everything America asked them to do, but they have been loyal allies for decades. They got a democracy, decent economy, etc.
Unlike all your favorite Arab allies, who are dictators, violate their women's rights etc. Takes your good old friends the Saudis:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/153-The-US-Saudi-relationship-Oil-supply-at-the-expense-of-US-security-and-moral-values.html

They are bloody awful. They are medival and yet the US does not condemn them very much. The US human rights reports were more critical of Iran and Cuba than Saudi Arabia. At least that is what your media reported.
If you read my link you will learn that the US sanctions many countries for trafficking women and violating the rights of female immigrants, but the US does not sanction Saudi Arabia. That's hypocritical.

Even worse: You are financing the mistreatment of women in Saudi Arabai and other Arab countries, because you buy soooo much oil from them.

That is irrational: If you were really concerned about women, then you would not finance those who oppress women. you would drive smaller and more fuel efficient cars

Do you know that there millions of Muslims in the US?
Not all Muslims are irrational.
Those who are irrational, are not irrational due to Islam, but due to politics and traditions.

Do you know that there are millions of Muslims in the US? Are they all irrational?

Posted by Jorg at March 11, 2006 02:20 AM

If you would not be addicted to Saudi oil, the Saudis would be less irrational and less oppressive to women.

The Saudis can afford to be so bloody irrational, because they do not need to work. They get enough money from America.

If you would not finance them, the Saudis would need to work, i.e. couldn't afford irrationality. They would be required to give full rights to their women.

So, please, stop this Islamophobia about "Muslim Irrationality." I suggest that you promote fuel efficient cars and alternative sources of energy instead, if you really care about women's rights.

Posted by Jorg at March 11, 2006 02:26 AM

Jorg. My friend, you could not be more wrong if you tried. I would just as quickly condemn Christian Irrationality such as the crap put out by Pat Robertson and others, but you notice, you don't see Christians rioting in the streets over "Piss Christ" or the most recent photo of a rap star on the Rolling Stone mag do you?

This post was based on Wafa Sultan's interview on Al Jazeera. Did you watch it? Did you see the reaction of the "Muslim" man to her so called "heresy?"

Well, the most liberal paper in the United States, the New York Times has done a profile on Dr. Sultan. Read it and then ask yourself some serious questions about your thoughts on islamophobia. By the way, islamophobia, like homophobia, is a buzz phrase used only to denegrate those who speak up about how they feel. A phobia is an IRRATIONAL FEAR of a person, object or situation. I know a number of people who have phobias, I myself have arachnophobia, but I've never met a true homophobe, though I have met many many people who may condemn that lifestyle as a moral choice.

Likewise, I have met many who you might lable Islamophobes, but they do not have an "irrational" fear of Muslims or the faith of Islam, they fear the very real damage that the islamofascists have done, continue to do and may well do in the future. They abhore the demand of the fanatics for respect of Islam but those same fanatics refuse to respect others. No, there is no practice of Islamophobia on this site but taking a close look at a current scourge is not a phobia, it is entirely appropriate, just as it would have been appropriate for the world to have taken notice in 1933-36 in a country in the middle of Europe. Nicht wahr?

The Gates of Vienna has an interesting post up, The Bloody Borders Project which contains the following statement:

Of particular interest...are the cultural clashes which Islam has created as it comes up against whatever it considers “foreign�. Think of it as a kind of cultural spontaneous combustion. This has been a perennial problem for Islam, one which was resolved in its favor several times through brute force, before the gradual decline of the Muslim world. Were it not for petroleum, Islam might have vanished. Now, however, its more powerful tribes float on a sea of luxury while the “Arab street� wallows in its own uncollected garbage.

At the moment, in early 2006, Islam’s infiltration of other cultures, its demand for the dhimmification of others, and its absolutist and utopian visions, have created a long fault line of chronic bloody terrorism.

Posted by GM Roper at March 11, 2006 01:21 PM

I should have noted that if you think cutting the "addiction" to Saudi Oil would improve the plight of women, or even of gays, christians and jews in Saudi Arabia, take a look at the practices of Muslim fundamentalists in predominately Muslim countries that do not have oil to sell us. What does that say?

Posted by GM Roper at March 11, 2006 01:26 PM

I think it's a stretch to imply that if Americans quit buying Middle East oil they would treat their women better. A real stretch. Why does it always boil down to "if Americans would only do this" or "that" we could have a big hug fest? Middle Eastern women were being treated just as abyssmally long before oil was a commodity. Whose fault was it then? And say Americans did curb their appetite for Middle East oil; would it then be China's fault that women were oppressed? Or would it be Europe's? India's? Who could we blame it on then?

Posted by Oyster at March 11, 2006 01:38 PM

Turkey is Muslim and does not have oil. Gays, women etc are fine in Turkey.

You are insulting Turks, because they are Muslims and you don't differentiate between good and bad Muslims.

And you haven't addressed many points I have made.

Posted by Jorg at March 11, 2006 02:34 PM

Pakistan uses more oil than they export.

Turkey uses more oil than they export. (Yes, they have oil)

Indonesia uses more oil than they export.

Turkey - good to women

Pakistan - bad to women

Indonesia - bad to women

By your own admission you're saying that it's more than oil that causes women to be oppressed in these countries. Turkey = liberal democracy (relative to the region of course). Bingo!

If you want to talk about hypocrisy in what country condemns what other country and for what, that's another whole issue. We were talking about the oppression of women and your charge that we are creating Islamophobia by talking about it, weren't we? You've said so in two threads now. And then you drew an equivalence between oil and the treatment of women. And I charge that you are wrong.

Posted by Oyster at March 11, 2006 04:39 PM

If you were really concerned about women, then you would not finance those who oppress women. You would find it immoral to do business with them, just like you find it wrong to do business with Iran, Cuba etc.

Your friends, the Saudis are one of your top three sources of oil and one of the worst violaters of women's rights. You send them billions of money, which they use to finance the oppression of women, the trafficking of women, and Anti-American "charities" around the world.
You support their irrationality.

There are good and there are bad Muslims. You don't differentiate. You only see "Muslim irrationality". You spread prejudices.

Posted by Jorg at March 11, 2006 07:16 PM

The lady spoke the truth. Picking out a straw man does not address her words. She is right on. Islam has picked a fight and done nothing for mankind to earn respect. Islam has been used as an excuse for frustrated people to use violence. We rightly condemn violence and will continue to do so in Iraq and maybe Iran in the not too distant future. Iran seems so interested in internal Iraqi politics we should go over there and see them...face to face.

We'll bring our own toys since I suspect their will be broken by the time we arrive.

Posted by Dennis at March 11, 2006 07:31 PM

Jorg --

I would suggest that you examine the history of Islam with a little more tenacity.

Too often, people such as yourself seem to believe that the transgressions of Islamofascism only began in recent years and as a direct result of American policies and deeds.

This is the kind of disinformation Muslim orgs such as CAIR and others foist on us, reinforced by either complicity or "glossing over" by a mainstream media whose liberal views tend toward a "blame America" bias.

Be that as it may, again pointing you toward the history of Islam, by virtue of their scriptures, teachings and their actions, they have been waging war against the non-Muslim world since the very inception of their religion.

Centuries before the United States -- in fact the colonization of North America, Muslims were treating their women like dirt and persecuting "infidels" for not worshipping as they do. There are religious police in some Muslim countries who beat with sticks those who are not kneeling in prayer when the muezzin call them to do so, or arresting women who they do not feel are "appropriately attired". Revisionists have managed to lay the blame for the Crusades on the crusaders when the reality is that the Crusades were a defensive measure against Muslim invasions.

So how can you even dream that any action or lack thereof on the part of the United States, short of invasion and micromanaged martial rule, is going to have any effect whatsoever on the behavior of those people?

GM -- A thousand thanks for the video, it is spot-on!

Posted by Seth at March 12, 2006 09:13 AM

Okay, let's go down to the low level of discourse on this blog:

Since you tell me to examine the history of Islam, I will tell you to examine the history of the crusades. Your fearless leader described the iraq war as a crusade as well.

Your Christian soldiers committed torture in Abu Ghraib.
You Christians are perverse.

This is all factually correct.

I can go on and on like this when I go down to the low level of discourse on this blog that does not any more value integrity, honesty, and truth anymore.

you wana know why I am pissed? George and I worked together and now he publishes anti-European nonsense like:
"Everyday Muslim and European newspapers insult and degrade Jews as animals and rodents, which is not only insulting but, additionally, encourages the hatred of Jews."

Posted by Jorg at March 12, 2006 11:17 AM

GM speakum truth.

Posted by Seth at March 12, 2006 11:19 AM

Jorg, you might point out that I did not write that, I quoted another article. Felder and Mason stated that as part of what I called a scathing indictment of Muslims who practice Islamofascism, their anti-semitism, and their totatl irrationality. If you don't believe that it is irrational that is your privilege. When you quote someone else in a blog, you do not have to necessarily do the research to back up their info. From your blog I find "This OECD survey was received with gloating by the bulls of Wall Street and the U.S. commentariat..." Where is your evidence of this "Gloating?"

No my friend, while I do not necessarily agree with Felder and Mason regarding all that they write, I do not have to do the research to prove them wrong or right, any more than you have to do the research to prove the "bulls of Wall Street and the U.S. commentariat" are gloating.

Get off of your high horse and acknowledge that two differing peoples can look at the same data and come up with a different analysis of that data. You accuse me of essentially being anti-european (which you really ought to know I'm not) but is your diatribe then anti-american?

By the way, can you prove that the miscreants at Abu Gharib were Christians? And if so, because they call themselves christians or because they practice Christian lifestyle. I would doubt the latter very much given their actions.

This link will show the kinds of anti-semitism published regularly in the Arab papers and who can forget the cartoon in the European Independent with Sharon eating a Muslim baby. Surely you won't say that is a non european publication. You will also note that that particular cartoon received an annual honor as "best political cartoon" I believe or something similar.

You also need to re-read the history of the crusades. And while you are at it, read about the Siege of Vienna in 1683. Who was fighting there? was that about Saudi Oil?

Posted by GM Roper at March 12, 2006 01:14 PM

You should not need to do research, but know that the statement you have published on your blog is wrong and ant-European:

"Everyday Muslim and European newspapers insult and degrade Jews as animals and rodents, which is not only insulting but, additionally, encourages the hatred of Jews."

You talk about "two differing peoples can look at the same data and come up with a different analysis of that data" but there is not any data for your claim that European newspapers insult Jews as animals everyday.

I did provide examples of gloating and could provide more. I am only investing time, if you substantiate your claim first.

"And if so, because they call themselves christians or because they practice Christian lifestyle. I would doubt the latter very much given their actions."

This the same line of reasoning Muslims use to argue that Al Qaeda, the immigrants, who rape in Europe and other Muslim criminals are not "real" Muslims.
=> If you use this argument, you have to apply it to them as well as a matter of logic.

I am very disappointed that you stand by publishing anti-European lies on your blog and recommending anti-European blogposts like Dr. Insanity who claims that there is an epidemic of rapes in Europe, although there are more rapes in the US than in Europe.

Posted by Jorg at March 12, 2006 05:00 PM

I doubt that Jorg will return anytime soon, which I find sad, but 10 minutes on the internet found this small amount (hah!) of evidence of European anti-semitism. I'll send them to Jorg for him to peruse.

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/2002/0617/antisemitism/story.html

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/FranceattheBrink.pdf

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/14/170011.shtml

http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3004408.stm

http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-19.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,11981,1092466,00.html

http://tinyurl.com/32nmo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Semitism

http://www.nationalreview.com/stuttaford/stuttaford200312090830.asp

Posted by GM Roper at March 12, 2006 06:10 PM

By Jorg's standards, speaking of Muslims who commit barbaric actions against women and non-Muslims is to promote Islamofascism. Even though the term "Muslim irrationality" is just as correct a term as "French Cowardice". Even though in most instances these Muslims not only proclaim what their religion is, but say the tenets of their religion is their justification.

Then out of the other side of his mouth he speaks ill of "supposed" Christians who commit non-Christian deeds, yet, does not see it as promoting Christianophobia. Even though he is only assuming the perpetrators are Christian and none of them has said the tenets of their religion is their justification.

And that doesn't even address the fact that he is painting Americans with his broad "hypocrisy" brush because he doesn't like who our government does business with. Nevermind that every country in the world does business with other countries which do not share their ideals, religion or laws. Right or wrong, it's a fact. But Jorg has singled out Americans because his blog is particularly geared toward the relationship between the USA and Germany. So the USA is his focus to the exclusion of others.

It appears though that in chastising individual Americans for buying oil from, say, Saudi Arabia, and implying that refraining from doing so would make them treat their women better, we have a case of:

"Mr. Pot? Mr. Kettle on line one."

I'm not asking Mr. Jorg to exlain himself, because I know this is not of his doing, but perhaps we too could discuss Chancellor Helmut Schmidt in 1981 actively persuing an avenue to getting around a ban to sell arms to - wait! - Saudi Arabia. Or more recently the sale of arms to China and Sudan. Or, oh I don't know, the Brits selling arms to Uganda or Spain selling arms to Venezuela or ...

But you get my drift.

I know a few people from Germany and others who travel there regularly and the idea of Anti-Americansim is not so prevalent there according to them. Not nearly as much as it is in the UK who is in fact our ally in the war and leaps and bounds less than it is in France. I get the impression that Jorg is not so interested in improving that American-German relationship as he is in practicing smug condenscension.

Just me 46 cents here.

Posted by Oyster at March 13, 2006 12:39 PM

Sorry - Islamofascism = Islamophobia at the beginning there.

Posted by Oyster at March 13, 2006 06:58 PM

"Or more recently the sale of arms to China and Sudan."

Oyster,
Germany did not sell any arms recently since there are EU embargos against both.

If you expect me to respond to you, please present evidence for this first:

"Everyday Muslim and European newspapers insult and degrade Jews as animals and rodents, which is not only insulting but, additionally, encourages the hatred of Jews."

Posted by Jorg at March 14, 2006 05:23 PM