The Palestinian Response to the London Bombing(Terror) Attacks

[bmolsson]

Don, I am a muslim and I stand up any day and condemn and violent actions made in history in the name of Islam. I would stand up and do the same against any religion or political system.
Now, I turn the question around, would you do the same thing against your religion and government ?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Don, I am a muslim and I stand up any day and condemn and violent actions made in history in the name of Islam.

And how many others are there like you. Why arent your voices being heard. I suggest to you that Middle Eastern Muslims maybe a bit more conservative shall we say than you and yours.

And again why should we apologise for the crusades. What makes the middle east the property of Islam anyway?

[LeftEyeNine]

Well, do not ask me about that apology thing to me. I never got it. They came over here and had their a**es kicked. Now they apologize. Leaving the ownership of Middle East aside, why did they apology for something they never won ? I agree with you on this, Gawain.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

why don't people have such a shitfit about what the Mongols did to the Islamic world?

[Steppe Merc]

Many of the Mongols became Muslims themselves, and ended up helping the Muslims. It wasn't anything in particular against the Muslims, nor anything particullarly strange.

The Pope ordered a Crusade that ended up with the death of countless of innocents. And if they still hold that Pope in high esteem (Urban? I'll look it up...), than that is wrong.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

so if more of Europe than most Albanians and some southern Slavs had become Muslims then we wouldn't keep being told how evil the crusades are and how it still burns in Muslims' hearts?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Many of the Mongols became Muslims themselves, and ended up helping the Muslims. It wasn't anything in particular against the Muslims, nor anything particullarly strange.

And many became christains. Maybe even the great Kahn himself. He was not the barbarian many think he was but was far ahead of his times in many ways.

Embrace the inner Genghis
A new biography argues that the maligned ruler of the Mongols was a great entrepreneur and social reformer
By Gregory M. Lamb
He was a sadistic hedonist hiding beneath a fur-rimmed hat. A prairie bandit sporting a Fu Manchu moustache and a nasty disposition who set loose a horde of barbarians to loot the civilized world.

No, no, all wrong. That's what happens when you let your enemies define you, as modern-day political candidates know. The Mongols were always secretive about their revered leader, the man called Genghis Khan. To this day, his burial site has not been found. Over the years, as the Mongols' political influence subsided, anti-Genghis, anti-Mongol propaganda worsened. It became so bad that by the early 20th century the followers of the dubious science of eugenics coined "Mongoloid" as a term to describe retarded children, who, they surmised, must have inherited defective Mongol traits.






Western opinion hasn't been completely lopsided, of course. Geoffrey Chaucer cheered Genghis in the longest of his "Canterbury Tales." But the real turnaround has come in the last three decades as communism waned, opening up Mongolia to Western scholars, and translators finally cracked "The Secret History," an ancient Mongol text once thought indecipherable.

Among those scholars has been Jack Weatherford, who spent years in modern Mongolia learning to love its people and digging into their proud and neglected history. In "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" he aims to set the record straight. Take the Renaissance, for example. You probably think it was Europe rediscovering the lost knowledge of ancient Greece and Rome? Well, yes, a little. But it was really the paper, printing, gunpowder, and compass brought from the east by Mongols that set Europeans' thinking caps atwirl. Mongols even changed fashion, convincing European men to abandon their silly robes and put on practical pants.

Genghis Khan was, in fact, considerably less barbaric than his European counterparts, Weatherford argues. Instead of plunging the world into darkness, he let in the light. He punished only those who took up arms against him. He spent much of the 13th century building an empire that eventually stretched from Moscow and Baghdad in the west to India and China in the east. His successors, who divided his realm into four huge kingdoms, ruled so wisely and well that the 14th century became an unprecedented era of peaceful trade and diplomacy that radiated beyond the borders of the empire.

"On every level and from any perspective, the scale and scope of Genghis Khan's accomplishments challenge the limits of imagination and tax the resources of scholarly explanation," Weatherford enthuses.

He has plenty to say to back up that statement. In 25 years under Khan, the Mongol army, never bigger than 100,000, conquered more lands and people than the Romans did in 400 years. All other military geniuses - Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon - pale before the great Mongol leader, who developed innovative fighting techniques and elicited total loyalty from his troops. The Mongols had a saying, Weatherford reports: "If he sends me into fire or water, I go. I go for him."

His all-cavalry horde was unstoppable on the open steppes, its spread halted only by oceans (invasions of Japan and Indonesia failed), lack of interest (medieval Europe had few riches or innovative technologies worth assimilating), or unfavorable terrain (Europe again, full of forests and mountains).

Beyond the battlefield, Genghis established religious freedom throughout his realm (many Christians were family members or held high positions, along with Buddhists, Muslims, and others). He created a free-trade zone between Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. He ran a meritocracy: He held the wealthy and high-born to the same standard of justice as peasants, not hesitating to promote shepherds and camel tenders to generals. He judged people on their individual merits and loyalty, not by family, ethnic, or religious ties - a revolutionary act in the family-centric Mongol society, Weatherford says.

True, Mongols didn't create much of anything themselves. But they were oh-so-modern as disciples of the Knowledge Economy. They treated people who had learning and skills as important commodities to be acquired and utilized. They had no interest in turning conquered peoples into Mongols. Instead, they made sure that goods, ideas, and people traveled safely across most of the known world, unleashing an era of unprecedented innovation and prosperity.

Scholars may argue that Weatherford swings the pendulum too far by turning Khan the Oriental Monster into Khan the Entrepreneur and Social Reformer. But readers needn't get caught in any academic crossfire. They can enjoy immersing themselves in the absorbing details of the life of this extraordinary man who forever changed human history.

They came over here and had their a**es kicked. Now they apologize. Leaving the ownership of Middle East aside, why did they apology for something they never won ? I agree with you on this, Gawain.

Accept for different reasons. Again what makes these lands Muslim? They were Christain until the Muslims invaded there. Now when they are forced off tiny Israel they claim all of this land has always been theirs. What a joke.

[bmolsson]

And how many others are there like you. Why arent your voices being heard. I suggest to you that Middle Eastern Muslims maybe a bit more conservative shall we say than you and yours.

Well, here we could have two types of answer:

a). We are not heard because the biased western press are against Islam as a religion and want to create a new Crusade..... And some America bashing, conservative stereotyping....

b). Islam is a religion in crisis. Due to the strong traditionalism, built in conservatism and the fact that Islam is a political system in many ME countries, reformation is difficult and often at risk due to oppression from the political forces that lives on the old theocratic structure.

And again why should we apologise for the crusades. What makes the middle east the property of Islam anyway?

Nobody expects you to apologize, neither Crusades, colonialism, slavery, genocides etc are your personal responsibility.
Furthermore an apology wouldn't mean anything legally or politically.
Morally it would of course be a sign of understanding and willingness to live in peace, but who cares about moral these days.......

[sharrukin]

Nobody expects you to apologize, neither Crusades, colonialism, slavery, genocides etc are your personal responsibility.
Furthermore an apology wouldn't mean anything legally or politically.
Morally it would of course be a sign of understanding and willingness to live in peace, but who cares about moral these days.......

Will you be supporting the public apologies of muslim nations for the attack on Spain in AD 711? Or the Muslim slave raiding along the european coast? Or the attack against Vienna in 1683? I don't recall any such apologies by Muslims. Did I miss it?

[Roark]

Why... do you think he should?

[sharrukin]

Why... do you think he should?

No! Nor do I think that we should be apologizing for past wrongs done by those long dead regardless of whether it might "be a sign of understanding and willingness to live in peace", or not.

We should accept responsibility for what we do, and the Muslim world should also shoulder some responsibility for what goes on IMO. Besides I doubt the crusaders were all that sorry for what they did and our apologizing for them isn't going to change that, nor does it make any sense.

[Azi Tohak]

I doubt it. But that has just as much relevance as begging forgiveness for the Crusades.

Azi

[Roark]

Yeah...

Forget all that, Sharrukin.

Bmolsson was also saying that it isn't necessary to apologise for ancient history.

[sharrukin]

Yeah...

Forget all that, Sharrukin.

Bmolsson was also saying that it isn't necessary to apologise for ancient history.

Then on that we can agree!

I for one an sick to death of the spate of apologies for crimes that are not the fault of those doing the apologizing. The crimes for which they are apologizing aren't the sort that can be made better by saying 'sorry' in any case.

Even Japan and Germany really shouldn't be apologizing as the citizens of those nations were children during the second world war. I would leave apologies to those who actually did personal wrong.

[Roark]

We recently had the same issue regarding the abuse of the native people of Australia by Europeans... although it was concerned with events that occurred in the 70's, so it was a little closer to the hearts of those who were wronged.

[sharrukin]

We recently had the same issue regarding the abuse of the native people of Australia by Europeans... although it was concerned with events that occurred in the 70's, so it was a little closer to the hearts of those who were wronged.

Well, those who did wrong should be dealt with according to the laws of the time. Those who didn't do wrong have nothing to apologize for.

The state represents both so I am somewhat edgy about them making blanket apologies. For example I can understand the US apologizing for Abu Ghraib as a means to make the situation better, but at the same time most Americans had no part in it, nor would they ever have approved of it.

I would rather see the people responsible for wrongs dealt with on a personal basis. Injustices are not made better by this and what was done can't be undone.

[bmolsson]

I for one an sick to death of the spate of apologies for crimes that are not the fault of those doing the apologizing. The crimes for which they are apologizing aren't the sort that can be made better by saying 'sorry' in any case.

Apologize and forgive have large symbolic value. People are actually effected positively of it.