An argument that I have heard repeatedly is that there are millions of liberal secular minded muslims in the world whose voices were suppressed by brutal dictators such as Saddam Hussein. This was also an argument for military intervention even if the US invaded out of selfish motives. Yet many liberal intellectuals (eg. Christopher Hitchens) argue that the end justifies the means if the end result is a liberal secular democracy. Bulls**t!! It's been three years since the fall of Saddam and I don't think Victorias Secret will have franchises in Baghdad any time soon. My point is that that an Islamic country has been "liberated" and there are no liberal secular voices there. Islamic fundamentalists now rule the land with Sharia law. It was an absolute lie that invading Iraq will create a wellspring of liberal democracy that will spread throughout the muslim world. I would also add that many liberal intellectuals including Salman Rushdie advocate military intervention to defeat Islamofascists. Yet look at the case of Afghanistan. Of course, the Taliban are no longer in power but women still suffocate themselves in burqas. I don't see Hamid Karzai removing any of these archaic religious rulings. Furthermore, the war in Afghanistan has inflamed muslim youths in Canada to carry out terrorist acts. Where the f**k are all the Rusdies, Irshad Manjis, Ibn Warraqs and Talisma Nasreens in Afghanistan and Iraq? Where are all of these millions of so called liberal muslims whose voices have been long suppressed? In truth, they don't exist. They never have. The Rushdies are a very small minority among a sea of people who as a majority may be moderate but whom nonetheless implicitly support their radical slave masters.
Smeghead
