Anyone Who Does Not Openly Condemn the Empire...

Submitted by Saladin (United Arab Emirates), Jul 7, 2006 at 04:26

...supports it. Why is that none of you begin your posts by first condemning the Empire?

I've read many of the posts on this site for some time. It seems that those who follow the Empire present the following arguments to defend their acts (in no particular order):

Followers of Islam also commit atrocities (This implies that it is acceptable for the Empire to commit crimes against humanity - in other words - two wrongs make it right.)

Empire is a way to spread western way of life and harbinger of peace (If this is true, why is it the only way of life in whose name the bloodshed and invasions and occupations are justified?)

Terrorism is the fault of islam and/or the Media who defame the subjects of the Empire and make us out to be evil (any rational person finds this absurd)

Invasions and occupation and robbing oil-rich countries for almost a century is a response to acts of terrorism by [Islam]

So it is my opinion that anyone posting here that does not begin their post with a strong condemnation of the Empire is actually a subject of the Empire and a liar by act of omission. This is something anyone can disprove by doing the following:

The next time you go anywhere, at the end of whatever, stand up and say loudly for all to hear: "I condemn the Empire who commit acts of atrocity in the name of western values! nuclear and daisy-cutter bombers are sinners, not liberators or saviours!"

even if you do believe yourself to be a peaceful citizen, the Empire does not share your beliefs.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".