[PaveFE]

Got this in an e-mail, I verified that Mr. Lucas is the editor of that paper (about 45min from where I was stationed last). Although I could not find a copy of the actual article, I do believe he wrote it (I could be wrong). Anyways, it is a pretty thought provoking article in response to some photos the paper published......well you can read it for yourself. I'm posting it because I think it is interesting, not for any political reasons as some people may accuse.

Phil Lucas, the paper's Executive Editor, wrote this article published in The News Herald, Panama City, Florida, Sunday April 4, 2004. His email address is plucas@pcnh.com. The News Herald web site is found at http://www.newsherald.com/

Up Against Fanaticism

By Phil Lucas, Executive Editor, Panama City New Herald

If straight talk of savagery offends you, if you believe in ethnic and gender diversity but not diversity of thought, or if you think there is an acceptable gray area between good and evil, then turn to the funny pages, and take the children, too. This piece is not for you.

We published pictures Thursday of burnt American corpses hanging from an Iraqi bridge behind a mob of grinning Muslims. Some readers didn't like it.

Mothers said it frightened their children. A woman who works with Muslim physicians thought it might offend or endanger them.

Well, we sure don't want to frighten, offend or endanger anybody, do we? That's just too much diversity to handle. I mean, somebody might get hurt.

We could fill the newspaper every morning with mobs of fanatical Muslims. They can't get along with their neighbors on much of the planet: France, Chechnya, Bosnia, Indonesia, Spain, Morocco, India, Tunisia, Somalia, etc. etc. etc. Can anybody name three ongoing world conflicts in which Muslims are not involved? Today, where there is war, there are fanatical Muslims.

We might quibble about who started what conflicts, but look at the sheer number of them. One thing is sure. Muslim killers started the one we are in now when they slaughtered more that 3,000 people, including fellow Muslims, in New York City.

Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state and feckless appeaser who helped get us into this mess, said last week Muslims still resent the Crusades. Well, Madam Albright, if Westerners were not such a forgiving people, we might resent them too.

Let's recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe, and when they reached sufficient numbers, they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again. Ask France. Ask England. Ask Manhattan. Two-and-a-half years ago fanatical Muslims laid siege to us. We woke up to the obvious. Our president announced it would be a very long war, then took the battle to the Islamic homeland. Sound Familiar?

Let's consider the concept of a "long war." Last time it was 200 years, give or take. Anybody catch Lord of the Rings? You know, the good part, the part that wasn't fiction, the part that drew us to the books and movies because it was the truest part: the titanic struggle between good and evil, between freedom and enslavement, between the individual and the state, between the celebration of life and the worshipping of death.

That's the fight we are in, and it never ends. It just has peaks and valleys.

There may be a silent majority of peaceful Muslims - some live here - but that did not save 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, the million gassed and butchered in the Middle East, the tens of thousands slain in Eastern Europe and Asia, the hundreds blown to bits in the West Bank and Spain, or the four Americans shot, burned and hung like sausage over the Euphrates as a fanatical minority of Muslims did the joyful dance of death.

Maybe we are so tolerant, we are so bent on "diversity," we are so nonjudgmental, we are so wrapped up in our six-packs and ballgames that our brains have drained to our bulbous behinds. Maybe we're so addled on Ritalin we wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold. Maybe we need a new drug advertised on TV every three minutes, one that would help us grow a backbone.

It doesn't take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.

Look at your spouse and children. Look at yourself in the mirror. Then look at the pictures from the paper last Thursday. You better look at them. Those are the people out to kill you.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them? Think you can take your ball and go home and they will leave you alone? Read a little history. Start with last week, last month, last year, and every other year back for half a century. Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Like it or not, that's the way it was and that's the way it is. But many Americans don't get it. That's why we published those pictures.

If they jarred you off the sofa, if they offended you, if they scared your children and sent you into a rage at mass murderers or heartless editors, then I say, it's a start.

I'm not a history buff about this "religion", but from what I've read and heard, it sounds accurate (albiet presented in a different manner).

[slickoe]

There are numerous logical fallacies, distortions, outright lies, and personal opinon in that article; there is about just as much that is on the money. This guy DOES sound prejudiced to me though.

[PaveFE]

Originally Posted by slickoe

There are numerous logical fallacies, distortions, outright lies, and personal opionon in that article; there is about just as much that is on the money. This guy DOES sound prejudiced to me though.

Can you please explain further and provide some basis?
Thanks.

[izme]

I liked the article and I feel it speaks for one person's view of it all
Some of these writings I can agree with, but they are his, first.
I am curious of IF WE ALL WROTE ON THIS SAME SUBJECT LINE < OF HOW DIFFERENT EACH WRITING WOULD BE

I welcome any and all views, Individual perceptions are interesting to say the least, but opinions are like finger prints?

Good Job Pave and thanks for Serving America!

[slickoe]

OK, I'll give it my best shot but i have a lot going on so I can't give it the full slickoe treatment. First off, most conflicts civil wars, etc, are religious in nature. Look just at the major 20th century conflicts. Ulster- Catholic/Protestant. Sri Lanka- Buddhist/Hindu. Kashmir-Hindu/Muslim. Lebanon-Shiite/Sunni/Maronite Catholic. Croatia-Orthodox/Roman Catholic.
Bosnia-Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Muslim. WWII - Yes, IMHO WII was a conflict between Hitler's Nazism (A Gnostic cult) and Judaism. His whole rationale for conquest was to kill the Jews in each subsequent country. NagornoKarabahk-Orthodox/Muslim. My whole point is since humans are a tribal animal, and we divide ourselves into various tribes based on race, language, ethnicity, and RELIGION, conflict will be inevitable. When the economy breaks down for example, beyond the ability to sustain a population, tribal schisms will appear that were long dormant (like in Bosnia) and there will be war, and the stronger tribe will win. (Social darwinism if you will.) Now we are seeing this type of conflict between tribes but on a global rather than a regional or local scale. And in all conflicts all wars, the enemy needs to be demonized, like in that article. Don't get me wrong, I am pro american and deplore 911, but I am not about to slander all muslims; I know too many kind ones. Hateful rhetoric like the letter you posted only fans the flames of war and hatred further into a downward spiral of tit for tat. I don't know what the answer is. But I know if there are ever anti muslim pogroms in America it will because of hate filled rhetoric like the letter above.

[izme]

Do you feel that any war will boost the economy of a nation or country?

It has been speculated and said that world war 2 pulled us up from a terrible condition of the USA. Not to mention other wars around the world through time?

[slickoe]

I have a limited knowledge of economics but I understand that WWII solved many of the problems that were endemic to depression era conditions (overproduction that led to the depression, for one), I may be mistaken. No I think most wars are economically devastating to those who are defeated- look what happened to Germany and Japan, eh? I think the author is trying to slam Islam when he really means fundamentalist Islam. I eat dinner 5 nites a week at a local church meal program; they are kind, wait on me and make me feel special. They are a far cry from the "Christians" who bomb abortion clinics or carry placards that say "God hates homos". The only problem is there is a greater proportion of fundamentalists in Islam and they get all the attention. Fundamentalists of all faiths irk me. Even the ones who aren't at war with Western culture. This author assumes all of Islam is like Al Quedea. He shouldn't watch so much tv and maybe should do some world travel.

[PaveFE]

Thanks for your further explaination. Just as thought provoking in my opinion. Just for the record, I did not post it to be inflamatory, just wanted to hear people's opinions about what he said, such as yours.

[PaveFE]

Originally Posted by slickoe

I have a limited knowledge of economics but I understand that WWII solved many of the problems that were endemic to depression era conditions (overproduction that led to the depression, for one), I may be mistaken. No I think most wars are economically devastating to those who are defeated- look what happened to Germany and Japan, eh? I think the author is trying to slam Islam when he really means fundamentalist Islam. I eat dinner 5 nites a week at a local church meal program; they are kind, wait on me and make me feel special. They are a far cry from the "Christians" who bomb abortion clinics or carry placards that say "God hates homos". The only problem is there is a greater proportion of fundamentalists in Islam and they get all the attention. Fundamentalists of all faiths irk me. Even the ones who aren't at war with Western culture. This author assumes all of Islam is like Al Quedea. He shouldn't watch so much tv and maybe should do some world travel.

Excellent point!!

[izme]

WE must seperate the notion that all of islam is bad!

It is trully the extremist way of thinking ect. that is bad. Each religion has it's bad points, but these jihadist's are the worst I feel, but not all muslims look at it in that light.

[pyritechips]

An objective critique:

an acceptable gray area between good and evil

Yes. There is a grey area. To believe that people are all evil or all good is a simplistic belief. As to what is acceptable is also greatly influenced by culture. Remember the horror and outrage when Americans first encountered Japanese suicide bombers? I find that no different than Middle-East suicide bombers. The Japanese also considered it a deep disgrace to surrender. That is why they fought so savagely to the death and it is also why they treated prisoners so badly.

mobs of fanatical Muslims

is followed by:

Muslim killers

This may be unconscious but it can be misleading to confuse "fanatics" with Muslims in general. It would be irresponsible to imply that Muslims generally are killers. I just heard Gen. Kimmit on the news (60 Minutes) saying not to confuse a few individuals with his army as a whole. I think that is a fair assessment for both sides.

Let's recap the Crusades. Muslims invaded Europe, and when they reached sufficient numbers, they imposed their intolerant religion upon Westerners by force. Christian monarchs drove them back and took the battle to their homeland. The fight lasted a couple of centuries, and we bottled them up for 1,000 years.

This is patently false. The Moslems spread west through Northern Africa, not Europe. The settled in southern Spain only and imposed nothing on anybody. They lived a benign existance there, they had a culture far superior to the barbarity of the ingnorance and church induced superstition of the rest of Europe. The Muslim rule in Spain was not so much defeated as it self-destructed. The "savages" of Europe looted and pillaged the wonders of Muslim Spain; the library of Corboda alone had as many books as all of France. Scientific knowledge long forgotten and supressed by the Christian church in Europe was rediscovered in the loot of Muslim Spain. We owe much of our knowledge and the scientic revolution of the Renaissance to Muslim Spain. It was also the backward and barbaric European kings and Holy Roman Emporer who decided to take back the land of Christ from the Muslims. The land of Christ is in Muslim territory, and always has been, not Europe.

Now, a millennium later, Muslims have expanded forth again

Not accurate. Muslims are just a part of the constant and historic trait of human migration. Muslims migrate; so do Indians, Chinese and other. Muslims do not migrate any more, or less, than other people.

Let's consider the concept of a "long war." Last time it was 200 years, give or take. Anybody catch Lord of the Rings?

It's silly to use Lord of the Rings as an analogy to real war. I am quite familar with Tolkien's masterpeice. The evil of Sauron is a classic literay example of "pure" evil in the Biblical sense. To liken the "evil" of Muslim fanatics to the "evil" of Sauron is akin to invoking a Holy War. In otherwords, we accuse the Muslims of waging a Holy War yet we invoke one ourselves. It also re-enforces the concept of "us vs. them" good vs. evil, an all or nothing dichotomy that does not exist in the real world.

Maybe we're so addled on Ritalin we wouldn't know which end of a gun to hold.

I don't understand the connection. Is it implying that people are too stupified to want to use a gun? The corollery of which is, only those with a clear head (smart?) would want to use a gun? Sorry, but I don't do any kind of drugs, nor do I use, or want to, use a gun. I prefer diplomacy.

It doesn't take a Darwin to figure out that in this world the smartest, the fastest, the strongest, and the most committed always win. No exceptions.

Dawrinism is not a good subject to bring up when referring to world politics. Darwin is, arguably, both the most misunderstood and misused. It has been used by several political ideologies to justify their systems.

Those are the people out to kill you.

This is higly rhetorical and bordering on fear-mongering, something the Whitehouse has been playing on for a long time now. This makes it sound as if there is a hoard of Muslims, straining at the leash, just waiting to get their primitive, savages hands around our Christian necks. It's just not so. Whatever you may think of Muslims in the Middle-East, they are people and just like us they have complaints and frustrations. To ignore that fact is to ignore reality.

Who do you think will win? You? Or them?

Again, the "chess game" mentality: black and white, win or lose, him or me. The world is far more complex than this simplistic viewpoint.

Then go back a thousand years. Nobody hides from this fight.

Sorry but this makes it sound like some perpetual, epic battle. It sounds too much like the Biblical Armegeddon. Highly inflammable and emotional but weak on facts.

Like it or not, that's the way it was and that's the way it is.

Well, after all the vagaries of the article, "that's the way it is" sounds very final, as if there is no use arguing the point. The author has had his say and we the audience are now dismissed. Dramatic but ineffective; this article can and will be critiqued.

Conclusion: This is a dramatic, emotionally charged exercise in rhetoric. Its clearly strident tone is appealing for those frustrated with continuing opposition to what they hold dear to heart, but the article, while sounding much like a call to arms, outlines apparent problems without offering any concrete solutions. Yes, Muslim fanaticism does exist and yes, I agree that is is a growing problem. But it is a complex issue and such issues can never be solved with simple solutions.

Final grade: C-

[PaveFE]

A little off point, but what about the Muslims who are not "Jihadists", but fail to (for lack of better words), rise against the ones giving them a bad name. Or letting them use their Mosques as weapons storage, etc.? Should they be responsible in some way?

[izme]

doesn't any thread change directions many times pave?

I see major fear in the better part of the muslim world, but since I am not a muslim, I really have no idea what they think of terrorist's except what I see in the news and interviews,

[slickoe]

Before I got medically discharged from the military, I wanted to go to serve in Bosnia. I thot I could bring home a nice cute subservient muslim girl from some village that had suffered rape or such trauma; she would love to go to America and wouldn't be one of these materialistic shallow cellphone yakking women I see all the time! She would just cook, clean, make love and be thankful.

[slickoe]

Originally Posted by PaveFE

A little off point, but what about the Muslims who are not "Jihadists", but fail to (for lack of better words), rise against the ones giving them a bad name. Or letting them use their Mosques as weapons storage, etc.? Should they be responsible in some way?

The problem with the silent majority is that they remain silent.