Intifada, Soldiers of Allah and Mujahideen: Just a friendly football game?

CNN.com ^ | cnn

[jempet]

It was some of the other team names that raised eyebrows: Intifada, Soldiers of Allah and Mujahideen.

The furor that followed has forced some teams to change their names and a handful of players to quit. It also sparked a debate that threatens to overshadow the tournament, which was planned primarily for young Muslims and scheduled for January 4.

[jempet]

Yeah, okay... Why don't these kids just go fight with the PALS then? Freedom of speech yes, but not the freedom to incite hatred among Americans.

"The letter also defended the use of the word Intifada, citing the Palestinian movement"

Um, and what's positive about that? Someone is off their rocker.

[ConservativeMan55]

Why in the hell are all these non breaking news stories going into Breaking News?

[jempet]

This is breaking.

[WackyKat]

But he also said he believed the players were not being malicious when they decided the names. "In this case, the choices were totally innocent

Riiiiight. Shows you the mindset of some "American" Muslims

[AM2000]

No it aint. I heard about this yesterday.

[Mo1]

Muslim Football ???

[thoughtomator]

You wonder when someone is going to tell them about the pigskin

[glannon]

isn't mujaheddin the name of the anti-soviet freedom fighters we funded?

[Mo1]

LOL ... maybe they were hoping no one would notice?

[Flashman_at_the_charge]

I recommend you get added to the Steyn ping list. He already covered this pretty well.

In California, Muslim community leaders have applauded the decision of the Catholic high school in San Juan Capistrano to change the name of its football team from the Crusaders to the less culturally insensitive Lions. Meanwhile, 20 miles up the road in Irvine, the Muslim Football League’s New Year tournament will bring together some of the most exciting Muslim football teams in Orange County: the Intifada, the Mujahideen, the Saracens and the Sword of Allah.

That’s the spirit. I can’t wait for the California sporting calendar circa 2010: the San Diego Jihadi vs the Oakland Sensitives, the Malibu Hezbollah vs the Santa Monica Inoffensives, the Pasadena Sword of the Infidel Slayer vs the Bakersfield Self-Deprecators.

Ping list is maintained by our very own Pokey78 .

Mark Steyn: It’s been a good year

[risk]

isn't mujaheddin the name of the anti-soviet freedom fighters we funded?

Yes, in Afganistan and Pakistan, to the protest of the communist-leaning, "nonalligned" India, and probably Israel as well. Please keep in mind that we had already come very close or exceeded 100 million deaths due to Stalinism and Maoism by this time. The Jihadis didn't seem as threatening as that. At that time, Ronald Reagan pointed out that we worshipped the same monotheist God, and the Islamics were very focussed on expelling the Soviets.

I think Reagan was right to support the Mujihadeed, but there should have been better accounting. We should keep that in mind the next time we want to support an uprising of natives against their oppressive dictatorship.

Today you can hear liberal American women complain that the Russians actually had a modernist agenda for the women of Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton made a remark that at least failed to be critical of the Soviets while she was flying around on Broomstick One around Thanksgiving. Talk about so much moral equivocation!

There is only one right answer to the question, "Should we have supported the precursors to the Taliban." Yes, and never forget the 100,000,000 dead to Marxism while you answer. Let's hope that we aren't faced with many, many more deaths due to bin Laden's crazy comrades in this century.

[kingu]

Ahh, yes, there's nothing wrong with names like the Washington Redskins, they're just words, after all.

[glannon]

Today you can hear liberal American women complain that the Russians actually had a modernist agenda for the women of Afghanistan. Hillary Clinton made a remark that at least failed to be critical of the Soviets while she was flying around on Broomstick One around Thanksgiving. Talk about so much moral equivocation

well, the jihadists were rebelling even before the russians came in because of the secular modernisation being imposed by the regime in afghanistan. got them real mad. apparently every time a govt goes left enough its time to dig up the bones of millions dead to justify whatever we do to it.

[risk]

In the case of the Soviet union, yes -- it does explain why we gave battle in so many far-flung places. Don't forget that it was the Soviets and their runaway Marxist terror who are to be blamed for the pain. The same goes for Mao. If you try to explain the suffering in any other way, you're only left with some incompetence on the part of the allies.

The number - 100,000,000 - is astounding. It can't be underestimated. This was a force that had our names on it, and without resistance, heavy resistance, it would have dominated the planet.

The people of Afghanistan are a piteous people for all they've suffered. But I think we can blame the backwardness of the Islamic culture that put them in a position where they couldn't fight for their own freedom in the colonial days, and in the Cold War.

But no matter where the Soviets went with their Marxist Imperialism, they had to be stopped at any cost.

[glannon]

But no matter where the Soviets went with their Marxist Imperialism, they had to be stopped at any cost.

i'm just more interested in what afghanistan was like before the soviet invasion, before brezinsky sprung his 'afghan trap'. but it is easy to say things like 'at any cost' when its someone else, like afghanis, paying that cost.

[risk]

You apologize for defending ourselves. But no people on this earth can betray the others by surrendering to totalitarianism.

Historically speaking, before the Soviet invasion there was harsh colonialism. And before that there was the stark rule of Islamic Shar'ia law.

We have had, and we will need a doctrine to address the issue of strategic third world battles. And we will need to be vigilant in following it:

1. As long as we are willing and able to hold back the destruction of western democracy with our own blood, we have the right to defend it to the death anywhere, anytime, any way we choose.
2. No nation, large or small, can tolerate to betrayal of their neighbors, their region, or the world -- with impunity. WMD production, strategic territory, and harboring terrorists are examples of such behavior.
3. Our own freedom is the most important. Without it, we will lose our understanding of why we fight.
4. No matter how difficult the task, or how odious the situation, we must retain our humanity when we handle the battle. We must look to our future first, but the future of the strategically oppsressed people should also come into consideration. Avoiding suffering is worth some effort. Each generation must understand that it will be judged by the next.
5. We must be careful not to judge previous generations based on the survival they have earned us, and we must constantly be wary of those who would harness our fierceness for the purposes of propaganda.

When people choose to encroach on the freedom and safety of others, or when they stand by and do nothing at the crossroads of global conflict, they must be prepared to pay the highest price for their mistakes. If we do not maintain this doctrine, we will soon be enslaved. We must not shirk from our responsibility to fight oppression because innocents are in the field of battle. That is precisely the strategy employed by communists and terrorists alike: it is in fact the Achilles heel of western democracies; our own morality should never be a vulnerability used to defeat us.

[glannon]

You apologize for defending ourselves. But no people on this earth can betray the others by surrendering to totalitarianism. Historically speaking, before the Soviet invasion there was harsh colonialism. And before that there was the stark rule of Islamic Shar'ia law.

i'm not apologizing. i'm just saying that before carter and brezinsky decided to set their afghan trap there was a leftist secular state attempting to attack the start rul of sharia.