|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Which is why I have never been able to understand how any Jewish people could ever vote for a Democrat.....or how Joe Lieberman and other powerful Democrats will simply look the other way while Muslims try to destroy Israel. My sister-in-law and many friends of mine are Jewish and Republican.....I can't understand how that isn't the norm.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
I think America is and should remain a Judeo-Christian society. But I also think a lot of propaganda is going around since 9-11 about the Islam faith. Here's an interesting article I found yesterday: quote:
Five Common Myths About Islam
Muslims around the world and in the US have long been subject to negative stereotyping where they are presented as terrorists, as uncivilized, barbaric, exotic peoples who are oppressive to women. This portrayal of Islam and Muslims is perpetuated by many sectors of the US mainstream media as well as public edcuational institutions. The following are five of the most widely held misconceptions about Islam and Muslims.
Islam Degrades Women
One of the most generally held misconceptions about Islam is that it is a mysogynistic religion: it requires Muslim women to cover their entire bodies except for parts of their faces, it sanctions different divorce rights based on gender, and it allows Muslim men to limit the freedom of movement of Muslim women.
Indeed, a brief look at the countries in which Islam is the predominant religion would support these views: in Saudi Arabia, women are not allowed to drive unless they are ast least 35 and married; until recently in Afghanistan, women were forced to remain at home, and were required to be entirely covered when they did emerge; in Nigeria, there have been accounts of rape victims being stoned to death for engaging in extramarital sex.
Yet many Muslim scholars today are emphasizing the distinction between what Islam as a religion advocates, and what Muslims (who often live in impoverished societies with little access to education) do. They draw attention to the fact that the laws sanctioning such misogynistic behavior are not advocated in the Quran (the holy text in Islam), but that this traditional Islamic jurisprudence (known in Arabic as shari'ah) was written primarily by Muslim men in the 10th-12th centuries who were interpreting the Quran to fit their own socio-cultural circumstances. Today many progressive Muslims are emphasizing the importance of re-interpreting the Quran for the present day, allowing Islam's ideals of social and gender justice to be highlighted. They point out the many sections in the Quran regarding the equality of men and women. According to these individuals, there is little basis in Islam for these violations of the rights of women. Rather, these practices are the products of laws written by Muslim jurists hundreds of years ago, combined with local customs... practices that don't reflect the egalitarian and humanitarian nature of Islam.
Just as Christian, Jewish, and other societies have evolved over the centuries gradually to allow greater rights to women, Muslim intellectuals insist that Muslim societies will also do so, if given the opportunity. Iran, a country in which there is a large reform movement among the younger generation, is one such example. However, US and Western intervention over the past century has kept the Muslim world in a state of political and economic unrest, making social change virtually impossible.
Islam is Intolerant of Non-Muslims
Recent announcements on television and radio by Osama Bin Laden and others who claim to speak in the name of Islam espouse a view that Muslims are a racist people with little tolerance, and even a desire to destroy, non-Muslim societies, and especially Jews. While these extremists and the Western xenophobes who oppose them attribute these opinions to Islam, an observer needs to separate politics from religion to understand the situation more clearly.
The Quran and other Muslim texts preach tolerance of non-Muslims and especially emphasize the value of human life, the ban on killing non-combatants, and respect for people of other religions. The fact that many acts of terror in recent years have been perpetrated by Muslims should not lead us to lay the blame on the religion of these individuals, since Christian, Jewish, and other histories - even in present times - are similarly filled with instances of violence waged in the name of their faiths. Rather, we should investigate the underlying motives of these individuals, most of whom come from nations in which the United States government has long been supporting puppet governments and providing funding for military actions against the people of these countries. We could point to the United States' support of the Saudi regime, in which the royal family is allowed by the US to rule in an undemocratic fashion in exchange for providing cheap oil resources; or the US' annual financial aid of about $9 billion to the government of Israel which uses these funds in its continued illegal occupation of Palestinian lands; or the US' financial backing of Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.
Such circumstances provoke the oppressed people of these nations to feel great animosity towards the United States. And just as others have unjustifiably pointed to religion as the inspiration for their actions, these individuals similarly claim Islam as their motivation, despite the numerous instances in the Quran which discourage them from doing so. Thus, in order to understand the root of the violence, it is important to recognize the significance of the role of US foreign policy in world politics as well.
Islam Advocates Conservatism
In various parts of the world, including the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asia, there exist countries which claim to base their governmental system on Islamic law, and which are also strongly associated with conservatism. Such countries have limited opportunities for freedom of speech, and are well known for their violations of human rights, especially those of women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims. For this reason, Islam as a religion has come to be associated with conservatism and fundamentalism.
What this view does not acknowledge, however, is that the laws that govern these nations were written by men, and are not directly stated anywhere in the Quran or hadith (i.e. the speech and actions of the prophet Muhammad). While the individuals who wrote them would state that they were inspired by Islamic ideals, it is important to note that Islamic jurisprudence was written by men living more than 1000 years ago who were interpreting the Islamic holy texts to fit the patriarchal society which was prevalent not just in the Arabian peninsula where they lived, but throughout the world.
Today, many progressive Muslims are calling for a re-interpretation of the Quran and hadith to produce a revitalized system of Islamic jurisprudence that reflects the tolerance of individuals of different genders, religions, and sexualities, within the Islamic framework. With this view, it would be incorrect to state that Islam as a religion promotes conservatism and fundamentalism, but rather that a more contemporary interpretation of holy texts is required, free of the socio-cultural constraints present hundreds of years ago.
All Muslims are Arabs, and All Arabs are Muslims
Another myth prevalent today is that all Muslims are Arabs, all Arabs are Muslims, or that these two groups are in fact one and the same. This misconception could not be further from the truth. While Muslims are those who subscribe to the religion of Islam, Arabs are a linguistic and cultural group found mainly in the Middle East.
Islam is the religion of over 1.2 billion people in the world today, and only 15-20% of these are Arabs. In fact, the nations with the largest Muslim populations are Indonesia and India, and Muslims today come from a tremendous range of ethnic groups, including Asians, Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.
Arabs, meanwhile, represent a number of different religions, not just Islam. Throughout the Arab world, there are Christians, such as those in Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt, as well as Jews, such as those in Iraq, Yemen, and Morocco, and members of other religious groups.
Jihad Means Holy War, and it is Being Waged Against the West
In the past few years, the term jihad, literally "struggle" in Arabic, has become one of the most misunderstood terms surrounding Islam. Many have come to see the word as meaning a "holy war," one in which the entirety of the West and non-Muslims are being targeted.
The word jihad is used by Muslims to mean a struggle on three different levels to bring oneself closer to God. Firstly, it is an internal struggle against one's own selfish tendencies so that an individual becomes more spiritual and moral. Secondly, it is a struggle on the level of one's community, for goals such as social justice and human rights. Thirdly, jihad can be an armed struggle in the name of Islam, either for self-defense, to establish justice, or to deter an aggressor. As noted above, individuals who have been trampled by global politics have often turned to this final definition as justification for their violent actions against the United States, despite the presence of many sections in the Quran banning the killing of, and the violence against, innocents. Thus, while jihad sometimes - but not always - implies violence, many Muslims would object to its use in this context, stating that the actions of Bin Laden and others are primarily politically motivated, and not justifiable by Muslim texts.
Reference: Progressive Muslims. Ed. by Omid Safi. Oneworld Publications (UK), 2003.
Source: http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/islam/islammyths.html
Here's another interesting article with more facts:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp0724.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
In Muslim countries, teaching of Christianity is punishable by death. Conversion of a Muslim to another religion is punishable by death.
In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims encourage children to become suicide bombers --CHILDREN ! As if it wasn't bad enough that adults would commit suicide bombings.
As a Jewish official said to ted Koppel on Nightline a few months ago: "They hate us more than they love their own children." I believe that is the very definition of fanaticism.
A vast percentage of Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism and openly endorse it. As I quoted earlier from a Washington Post article, 30% to 50% of the population in most Muslim nations began boycotting American products and businesses after 9/11. If that's not an endorsement of 9/11 terrorism, I don't know what is.
Even in the United States, so-called "moderate" Muslims, probably the most moderate Muslims in the world, when interviewed on 60 Minutes (in a story titled "Young, Muslim and American"), endorse suicide bombings as honorable, and that if one dies martyring themselves in the cause of Allah, they are assured a place in heaven. One 15-year-old Muslim girl from the New York City area volunteered: "Like, if I were to blow myself up to destroy an American military base... I would go to heaven."
At which point I began to wonder why ANY Muslims are allowed to stay in the United States.
Muslim hate of Westerners, particularly Americans, is so burning that just two weeks ago, an SUV carrying Americans (who were on a mission to recruit Palestinians for scholarships to a U.S. university) was blown up with a radio-controlled explosive buried under the road as they traveled into Gaza from the Israeli border. When other foreign reporters came to the shattered SUV to help, they were attacked by a Palestinian crowd, who clearly would have beaten the reporters to death if they didn't narrowly escape.
This incident is considered the shape of things to come, for potentially more violence against Americans in the area, and a direct result of the vitriolic anti-American rhetoric and news coverage in West bank and Gaza.
An estimated 90% of residents in the West Bank and Gaza were cheering in the streets at the news of the terror against the U.S. on 9/11/2001. After that, Israel could turn the West bank and Gaza into a smoking nuclear crater, and I wouldn't condemn it. These are people so indoctrinated in hate that no agreement could ever neutralize their thirst for Israeli blood.
In Saudi Arabia, a woman cannot leave the country without her husband's permission. A woman is property, who can be beaten into submission. And has no protection from this by Islamic law. A woman cannot DRIVE A CAR in Saudi Arabia.
If a woman divorces her husband, the husband has exclusive rights to the children. I have a friend from Turkey (a more civilized Muslim country, and still...) She has two children she has not seen since the divorce. She told me of one occasion when she flew from Florida to Istanbul, and stood outside her former home. She was still not allowed to see her children.
The movie Not Without My daughter describes the situation where many individual American and European women who have married Muslim men and reside in Muslim countries, are unable to leave. And if they DO manage to get out, they forever lose any contact with their children. (Thanks for the movie recommendation, batwomanamy!)
"Honor killing": the right of a Muslim man to murder a woman, wife or other female family member, if they feel that this woman has brought disgrace on their family.
I've heard many stories of women in Islamic countries being beaten, disfigured, or (frequently) scarred with acid, when a man's advances are refused.
A friend of mine, Kaivan, served in the Iraqi army during the 1980-1989 Iran/Iraq war. He described teaching of the Imams (Muslim clerics). They would send out children into the battlefield in front of the advancing army, to blow up the mines. The children were told that if they die for Allah (martyrdom), they are assured a place in heaven. Kaivan is adamantly non-Muslim as a result of his disgust for this, and other things he saw.
Multiple examples of Palestinian civilians lynching their own fellow citizems, for collaborating with Israelis, voicing ideas of negotiating peace with the Israelis, or being suspected of cooperating with the Israelis. Lynchings are common. I saw footage of one incident where the bodies of the collaborators were hung for several days in a public square of a town's city hall, as a warning to others.
A few examples I can think of off the top of my head, of how "misunderstood" Islam is. Misunderstood by misguidedly sympathetic press, for not being exactly as dangerous a belief system as these examples make clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
A vast percentage of Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism and openly endorse it.
Assuming this is fact, why do you think they are that way? Do you it's because of their religion? Maybe they don't appreciate interventions and sanctions. Do they hate our freedom, or our interventions?
quote:
The children were told that if they die for Allah (martyrdom), they are assured a place in heaven.
That is extremely sick! But is it an example of a "misguided belief system" or sick people taking advantage of naive children?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
A vast percentage of Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism and openly endorse it.
Assuming this is fact, why do you think they are that way? Do you it's because of their religion? Maybe they don't appreciate interventions and sanctions. Do they hate our freedom, or our interventions?
I think U.S./Western interventions and sanctions are rationalized by Muslims as the reason for violence against the U.S. and Israel. But that rationalization dismisses the situation that brought about U.S. intervention in the first place.
And also dismisses that the Muslim Imams are very active in stoking the fires of Arab hatred, raising the call for Jihad.
Every one of the Muslim terror groups (Al Qaida, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam, etc.) is clearly an Islam-based group. Islamic religion is the core of it. Glamorization of martyrdom for Islam is the core of it. Quotation of the Quran --by the Muslim clergy-- is the core of it.
I'll acknowledge that other social elements factor in, such as Arab nationalism, and jealousy of the industrialized West. But the core is clearly Islam itself.
People don't talk about wanting to be suicide bombers simply because they disagree with a nation's (the U.S.'s) policies. Clearly, a much deeper belief system is the cause for that.
And clearly, the rhetoric for that comes from Islamic leaders throughout the Muslim world: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria, Sudan, Indonesia, and a violent Muslim minority in the Phillipines.
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
quote:
posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
The children were told that if they die for Allah (martyrdom), they are assured a place in heaven.
That is extremely sick! But is it an example of a "misguided belief system" or sick people taking advantage of naive children?
Perhaps I said it more directly than it is usually said, what motivates children to be suicide bombers, or to deliberately blow themselves up with mines in a battlefield.
But surely you've seen this belief-system described in the news before.
I agree, it certainly is a misguided belief system, but it is not deviant from the teachings of Islam, and it is the clerics themselves who proselytize that belief system.
While the Arab sect of Wahabism is far from the only sect of Islam teaching violent crush of dissent, it is an example that was highlighted in a lengthy story in the August 5, 2002 issue of TIME magazine. TIME points out that wherever Wahabi priests travel as missionaries (Afghanistan, Sudan, Minadao in the Phillipines, Chechnya...) these locations have become centers of terrorism and violence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
From the OPINION section of today's Miami Herald, Sunday, January 4, 2004, page 5-L:
Quote:
ANTI-SEMITISM BECOMES GLOBAL PLAGUE
by Arthur N. Teitelbaum
Though counter-intiutive, at times we are too close to events to fully appreciate their dimension and meaning. Such is the case today as we face a dramatic resurgence of global anti-Semitism.
From the vocal to the violent, Jew-hatred of the past confronts us today with new energy, new advocates and, unfortunately, new accepting audiences. It is variously packaged for the masses, minorities and the misfits.
Take the antiglobalism movement. One finds anti-Semitic threads woven into its tapestry of ideas, with global currencies and markets portrayed as oppressive expressions of "international Jewish control."
In a lead article on antiglobalism, the current issue of the Carnegie Endowment's prestigious Foreign Policy magazine reports a 12-year high in the number of attacks on European Jews, noting that "Not since Kristallnacht, the Nazi-led pogrom against German Jews in 1938, have so many European synagogues and Jewish schools been desecrated."
The problem has finally caught the attention of the countries which make up the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In December, OSCE ministers from 55 member states agreed to hold a conference on anti-semitism in Berlin in April 2004.
Nor is this "new anti-Semitism" exclusively a European phenomenon:
- Mahathir Mohammad, Prime Minister of Malaysia, at the 10th Islamic Summit Conference said: "The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy -- 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews."
He got an enthusiastic ovation from the leaders of more than 50 nations, in response to his call for a holy war against Jews.
- Two synagogues in Istanbul were recently attacked [December 2003] with powerful and lethal terrorist bombs.
- In Florida on December 21, a new Muslim learning center south of Orlando held its inaugural event, with invited speakers including Shaikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Sudais, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, who was quoted in newspapers in April 2002 as calling Jews "the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, the killers of prophets and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs." After a public outcry, his invitation was withdrawn.
- In Terre Haute, Indiana, a Holocaust Museum dedicated to the children who were experimented on by in the infamous Dr. Mengele was burned to the ground.
- In New York City there has been a serious increase in anti-Semitic incidents involving vandalizing of Jewish property -- 32 cases last month alone.
The history of mankind is replete with examples where words and perverse ideas have moved people to action. Anti-Semitism is a prototypical example. From discriminatory exclusion of Jews through the centuries, to the culminating horror of the Holocaust's industrialization of murder, the Jewish community has learned the lessons of history the hard way.
Anti-Semitism's themes are old, but its delivery technologies are as modern as the Internet and satellite communication. It finds receptive audiences among both the ignorant and the educated. Its purveyors are extremist bigots of both the political right and the political left. Today's engines of anti-Jewish bigotry include both organizations and nation-states, with all of the latter's financial and political muscle.
They say that those who don't know history are destined to repeat it. Perhaps. But there are also those, perversely, who do know history and want to repeat it.
Some 60 years ago, Jews and other minorities were dispatched to camps in Europe and killed by the millions in an environment saturated with anti-Semitism. With the history of the 20th century as a guide, who could have predicted that early in the 21st century the 1 million Jews in who live in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark would again feel under siege, with attacks on Jewish students, rabbis, Jewish institutions and Jewish owned-property?
Some European leaders blame anti-Israel sentiment among radicalized elements in their rapidly growing Muslim populations. They are partially correct. Also true is that the violence has occurred in an environment where governments and leaders have failed condemn anti-Semitic violence, or have at best been slow or tepid in their response. The message to Europe's burgeoning immigrant population is that there is a certain level of acceptance of such intolerance.
Historians note one way of determining the health of a nation's democracy is by examining the condition of its Jewish community. Doing so today we can see that democracy and the ideal of tolerance, one of its core expressions, are under assault in much of the world. To ignore this situation compounds a dangerous problem.
What does history teach? No matter the perpetrator or the victim, good people must not turn away nor shrink from the fight against bigotry. This is no time for bystanders. Not now, not ever.
_____________________________________
Arthur N. Teitelbaum is Southern Area director of the Anti-Defamation League.
Interesting that attacking of Jews seems to be clearly coming from Muslim immigrants, who seem to be inclined toward the same violence that was common in the countries they immigrated from.
France, as I've said elsewhere, is approximately 20% Muslim. Which makes it a large enough ratio that it is very difficult for the French to resist and stand up to.
It also explains why France has been so resistant to an invasion of Iraq (beyond the 30-year political ties Chirac had to Saddam Hussein).
A warning of what could occur in this country as well, if we allow Muslims to immigrate to the U.S. in large numbers.
As we've seen, Muslims don't assimilate, they stick to their own subculture. Long before September 11th, I read articles for a decade, saying that Muslims retain their religion across many generations, and are more likely to be sleeper cels than other immigrant groups. And that this was a danger we could prevent, simply by not allowing Muslims to immigrate. It was NSA and CIA studies that showed this.
And as this article reflects, American Muslims retain the same bitter anti-semitism as their counterparts in the Muslim world. But are somehow creditewd as being more liberal and enlightened.
But again, look at the Orlando meeting, and what they were willing to endorse and promote there.
I sincerely hope that Islamic immigration to the U.S. has pretty much frozen since 9-11.
But again, there are already 7 million Muslims in the U.S., that already present a considerable threat, to Jews in particular.
As this article makes clear.
If it were attacks on Jews and Jewish businesses in Alabama or Mississippi, I might guess that anti-semitic attacks in the U.S. were the work of the KKK.
But since they are happening in places like Indiana and New York City (areas with a large ratio of Muslim immigrants) I'm more inclined to believe these are Muslim-orchestrated attacks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
It appears that there may be two distinct stages of Islam: The stage of weakness and the stage of Jihad (Holy War) Mohammed Hassanein Heikal, the noted Egyptian author, refers to this concept in his book "Autumn Furor". He states: "So the element of Jihad emerged in the ideology.... [there are] two separate stages a Muslim community goes through: "The [first stage is] the stage of weakness - In it a Muslim community is unable to take charge of its own destiny. In this case - according to his thinking - they must withdraw for the purpose of preparing themselves to be capable of executing the second stage. The second stage is the Jihad stage, and it will come when the Muslim community has completed its prepardness and is ready to come out of its isolation to take charge, through Jihad. **** There is a ... comparison between the two stages of weakness and Jihad on the one hand, and on the other hand, Mohammed's struggle in Mecca then in Medina." Historians agree that there is a big difference between Mohammed's personality in Mecca and his personality after his migration to Medina. In Mecca Mohammed was weak, struggling to be accepted, often mocked at and ridiculed. He tried to appeal to the people of Mecca by being compassionate and loving. His teachings condemned violence, injustice, neglect of the poor. However, after he moved to Medina and his followers grew in strength and number, he became a relentless warrior, intent on spreading his religion by the sword. This change in Mohammed's personality becomes apparent by comparing the Meccan and the Medinan surahs. The following are some examples: In surah 73:10 God tells Mohammed to be patient with his opponents "Be patient with what they say, and part from them courteously." While in surah 2:191 God orders him to kill his opponents "Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out..." In surah 2:256 God tells Mohammed not to impose Islam by force "There is no compulsion in religion." While in verse 193 God tells him to kill whoever rejects Islam "Fight (kill) them until there is no persecution and the religion is God's." In surah 29:46 God tells Mohammed to speak nicely to people of the Book (Christians and Jews) "Argue with people of the Book, other then evil doers, only by means of what are better! and say, we believe in what has been sent down to us and sent down to you. Our God is the same as your God, and we are surrendered to him." While in surah 9:29 God tells him to fight the people of the Book, "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day...and fight People of the Book, who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior." To justify this sudden change in the Quran's mood from peaceful to militant, conciliatory to confrontational, Mohammed claimed that it was God who told him so. It was God who abrogated the peaceful verses and replaced them by harsh ones. Other examples of the "Medinian" teachings of Islam:
- Men are superior to women (surah 2:228).
- Women have half the rights of men: in court witness (surah 2:282) and in inheritance (surah 4:11).
- A man may punish his wife by beating her (surah 4:34).
- A man may marry up to four wives at the same time (surah 4:3).
- A wife is a sex object for her husband (surah 2:223).
- Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to Islam (surah 9:29).
- A Muslim must not take a Jew or a a Christian for a friend (surah 5:51).
- A Muslim apostate must be killed (surah 9:12).
- Adultery is punished by public flogging (surah 24:2).
- Resisting Islam is punished by death, crucifixion or the cutting off of the hands and feet (surah 5:33).
Therefore, it is entirely possible that there are "two" Islam religions: - the "religion of peace"
- the religion that, sadly, seems to have taken hold in large parts of the mideast and elsewhere.
What percentage subscribes to the violent "jihad" ideology? Some people have estimated only 10 percent, which sounds comforting until you realize there are about 1.2 billion Muslims worldwide. Therefore, losing the "low" estimate there are 100 million "radical" Muslims out there.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I wish there was an answer for all this hate.
If I were an alien, disguised as a Human,
stationed here to observe mankind,
then I would extrapolate - based on current
and past human behavior - that humans
were a violent race with a poor prognosis
for the future.
For so many humans to believe the path
to glory lies in blowing yourself up and
taking as many of those you have designated
as the enemies of your belief is quite sad.
It would be so much more of a sensible
challenge to learn to get along - but that is
not an easy task, and there are so many
who are willing to die to prevent the goal
of world peace from actually becoming a reality.
I wish I knew what the answer is..I hope that
this planet and it's inhabitants are much more
than just a failed science experiment, orbiting
endlessly in a perpetual voyage of the damed.
I feel that man actually will evolve into a
being as advanced over us NOW as we are
are advanced over the very FIRST man like
creatures to walk erect on this planet a few
million years ago if he can somehow survive
the violence that so many humans inflict
on their fellow humans.
I'm hopeful. I'm pessimistic, too.
I hope the future will be a bright one,
in spite of humanity's violence.
May science, love, truth and beauty prevail.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I wish there was an answer for all this hate.
If I were an alien, disguised as a Human,
stationed here to observe mankind,
then I would extrapolate - based on current
and past human behavior - that humans
were a violent race with a poor prognosis
for the future.
For so many humans to believe the path
to glory lies in blowing yourself up and
taking as many of those you have designated
as the enemies of your belief is quite sad.
It would be so much more of a sensible
challenge to learn to get along - but that is
not an easy task, and there are so many
who are willing to die to prevent the goal
of world peace from actually becoming a reality.
I wish I knew what the answer is..I hope that
this planet and it's inhabitants are much more
than just a failed science experiment, orbiting
endlessly in a perpetual voyage of the damned.
I feel that man actually will evolve into a
being as advanced over us NOW as we are
are advanced over the very FIRST man like
creatures to walk erect on this planet a few
million years ago if he can somehow survive
the violence that so many humans inflict
on their fellow humans.
I'm hopeful. I'm pessimistic, too.
I hope the future will be a bright one,
in spite of humanity's violence.
May science, love, truth and beauty prevail.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I' sorry that I repeated my post but I made a spelling mistake and could not find the edit function! 
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
PJP said:
Which is why I have never been able to understand how any Jewish people could ever vote for a Democrat.....or how Joe Lieberman and other powerful Democrats will simply look the other way while Muslims try to destroy Israel. My sister-in-law and many friends of mine are Jewish and Republican.....I can't understand how that isn't the norm.
Perhaps because not all Jews have your generalized view of Democrats(just as my interactions with you haven't made me think of all Republicans as close minded and ignorant)?
You state that "deep down (Muslims) aren't good people", unfairly branding millions of followers whom you don't even know, and have no way of knowing. Can't you see how absurd that is?
Yes, the Quran preaches certain ideals that are violent and hate-filled(to put it mildly). So does the Old Testament, and other contemporary religious writings. These are documents that were written by men, not God(something even the books themselves admit) during a time where sexism, racism and a vehement hatred of infidelity was commonplace. Just as our views and ideals have changed, so have the interpretations of these writings.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
I've heard a couple things about the Quran, both conflicting. Back in college I took a M.E. history class and there were about 3 or 4 of us that were M.E. (in the class) aside from our teacher. One of th girls was Muslim and although she dressed normally, no head dress, she did say she had to make serious compromises with her parents to live a more normal life here in Chicago. She also said she read the Quran, out of curiosity, and said there was a lot of violence in it towards women.
Now the intersting thing is I saw a Muslim man speak at Willow Creek the day Afghanistan war broke out and he said Islam is a peaceful religion. I don't remember if he said anything about the violence the Quran teaches (and the wife beatings) but I have to admit, listening to him speak, was intersting. I did learn a few things about it, somethings I already knew, but most of what he talked about was peace. He also said something that I thought was very intersting, Jihad is not a word for them. There's no such thing as a Holy War. I don't remember exactly what he said about everything, because this was back in 02 I think, but like I said, it was intersting to hear him speak and get his interpretation on it.
Now as to the Christian perspective of fundamentalist Muslims, they are insane. Seriously, I've heard stories from my aunt about how they treat women in Iran, when they go to take their PASSPORT picture. They're not allowed to wear any make-up, not even lipstick. If they do have lipstick on, they're handed a klenex to take it off, if it doesn't come off comepletly, they're handed another one with a blade in it. Women can't even wear nail polish, if they do then they have to wear gloves! How is this normal? Yes there are normal Muslims living around the world, but there are a good number that are insane fundamentalists. Now a side note to what I wrote, when I heard about all that crap in Iran, it was back in the early 90s I think, and since then it's been changing for the better.
The students that are pressing for change now, have only known life in the oppressive state that they grew up in. They don't know what it was like to have lived in the more free rule of the Shah. Granted from what I've heard, the Shah wasn't the greatest, but he was far better than the Khuimeni(sp) and his insanity.
To correct something, women don't have half the rights as men, they have no rights what so ever. If they did, then they wouldn't be treated as property. Look at the way women were treated by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Look at the way they were/are treated in Iran and Iraq. I've said it before and I'll continue to say it until the end of time, for a clear example of this go rent "Not Without My Daughter" staring Sally Field. It's not a touchy feely Hallmark type movie, it's based on a true story of an American woman who married an Iranian man. They had a daughter and when she was 6(?) they went back to Iran for "a visit" as he said. In reality she was held hostage by him/his family and when she threatened to file for divorce and come back here with their daughter, she was shown the crule reality that she has no rights there and that her husband would have gotten their daughter. She would have come back alone. When her husband realized she was up to something, he beat her and locked her up in a room alone. I don't remember if she was even given any food, but even the women in his family were against her.
She refused to do that and so she worked with a nice man who was sympathetic to America/the American lifestyle, who helped her smuggle both herself and her daughter out of the country via the hills.
Now for a more light hearted look at this, and more up to date, I recomend the movie "the Secret Ballot". Histarical. I'd definitley buy that one.  It's on DVD and it's in Farsi, but has both English and French subtitles. It's about a woman who's a ballot collector, that goes to a remote island off the coast of Iran, and she's driven around by a soldier. The thing that makes it so funny is this guy's lazy, he sees the package dropped from the plane, reads the note, but then when he sees the woman come and she tells him he has to drive her around, he says he didn't see any note, etc. There were some good sight gags in it too.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
I know from other previous discussions that you clearly see the contradictions of those who allege that Islam is a "peaceful" religion, Amy (particularly a violent demonstration against the Shah in November 1977 that you attended in Washington DC, that you've described on several occasions here). And you're more familiar than most of us with the language and culture of Iran.
While the word "Jihad" may not be clearly stated in the Quran, the concept of Jihad certainly is in the Quran. Repeating myself, from the middle of page 1 of this topic:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Here is the verse I was thinking of, about dealing with non-Muslim believers:
Quote:
The Quran:
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.90] Except those who reach a people between whom and you there is an alliance, or who come to you, their hearts shrinking from fighting you or fighting their own people; and if Allah had pleased, He would have given them power over you, so that they should have certainly fought you; therefore if they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not given you a way against them.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.
And here is Osama Bin Ladin's declaration of Jihad on Crusaders. You will note that the language is virtually identical:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A4993-2001Sep21
I say this because a considerable percentage of the Islamic world agrees with and approves of what Bin Ladin is doing, whether or not they would engage in violence on Crusaders themselves.
As I've said on other topics, many young Muslims have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers.
Between 30-50% of the population in most Islamic countries boycotts American products and businesses.
That is a clear endorsement of 9-11-2001.
The multiple Arab/Muslim nations (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and others)involved in terrorism toward Israel, in rallies rich with Islamic holy rhetoric and noble martyrdom for Allah, likewise demonstrate a considerable Quran-based body of aggression and destruction.
To say nothing of Quran-based Muslim aggression in Sudan, Liberia, The Phillipines, Indonesia, East Timor, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
And as I've said in other topics, Amy, I'm in complete agreement with you that Not Without My Daughter is a terrific dramatization of the true story of a woman who lost all rights and dignity when moving to Iran with her Iranian/Muslim husband, and who managed to escape from Iran with her daughter in the late 1980's.
It's a powerful dramatization of her true story. And a story that is all too true for tens of thousands of other American and European women who are married to Muslim men and trapped in the Middle East, with no rights, beyond being the property of their husbands.
As the movie itself makes clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
It´s funny how they describe the US. troops as Satan´s US. troops.
I remember being told in school that one of the core beliefs of Islam is that there is nothing between Man and God. Therefore there is no Satan!
It seems like that these people are just using the religion for their own purposes.
 Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Which is exactly what they're doing. Like I said, their insane. I mean, look at what the Taliban did in Afghanistan in an effort to control women. Oh and Wonder Boy, I agree with you there, I don't deny the Quran doesn't say stuff like that. In fact, I think I meneioned this before, a guy I went to church with back in teh 90s went to the M.E. on a missions trip. The running joke around here was, only a couple people knew his exact location, and so the joke was, they could tell us, but they'd have to kill us. But seriously, the reson for suh extrmeme secrecy was because if it was found out that he was there, where he was exactly, and why he was there, not to mention his religion, then he'd be killed. We ultimatly found out where he was, but off hand I don't remember. There was something else I was going to say about this, but don't remember off hand. *sigh*
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Now I remember, this friend of mine told me that Muslim men come to America and get jobs as cab drivers to convert people to Islam. How messed up is that. Normal Christians don't do stuff like that. They don't get certain jobs in certain parts of the world with the express purpose of converting others. 
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Well I have had both Christian AND Muslim taxi drivers try to convert me. I don't tell people what to believe, I expect them NOT to tell me what I should believe. Humans are Strange.  Maybe I'll start converting people. My slogan will Be : " I believe in Crystal Lite ' cause I believe in me! " 
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
I still don't see how quoting passages from the Qu'ran proves Islam is a violent religion. At least, not any more than quoting passages from the New Testament proves Christianity is a violent religion, or quoting passages from the Torah proves Judaism is a violent religion. For every Osama Bin Laden there's a Nathan Bedford Forest, a Tomas de Torquemada, an Adolf Hitler. To these people, religion was nothing more than the means by which they could push their own political agendas. The only thing their actions show is that any message, no matter how noble seeming, can be twisted and distorted to perpetuate evil.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Regarding the "two versions of Islam" people keep mentioning, the Islam of war and the Islam of peace, I'd like to offer some insight here.
In Judaism, we have the Torah, and we have the Talmud - the oral law. The Torah is merely the blueprint. You will find very few details of the actual practice of Judaism in the Torah itself. The Torah is the reader's digest of Judaism. To get the details, that's where the oral law comes in. The torah is NOT meant to be taken at face value. We need the Torah AND the Talmud together. To have one and not the other is not considered true Judaism.
It wasn't until the First Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians that the oral law was written down, becuase the great sages and rabbis of the time were worried that it would be forgotten.
Many of the commandments spelled out in the Torah seem very harsh, but when we study the commentaries and the Talmud, we learn that punishments were rarely carried out by courts. For example, the Torah mandates death penalty for many things, but the Talmud has such strict guidelines for allowing the courts to execute anybody, making it almost impossible to do so.
Also in Judaism, you will have debates on how strict to be with certain laws. The Talmud is full of debates between rabbinic scholars on how strictly to interpret the Torah, and differnet yeshivas and shcolars hold with different opinions, trying to analyze the most minute detail, to find clues. There is no uniformity all throughout Judaism. Every community has there own customs, and even then, there's no uniformity.
Either way, the laws of Judaism were meant for our people, and we don't try and force them on anyone - because Judaism doesn't see anything wrong with other religions. You guys have your ways, we have our own, and that's how it should be. Jews are meant to be different from other people - the Hebrew word for "holy" has the same root as "different." To be a holy people is to be different from everyone else. Many of the laws of Judaism are probably there to make us unique from all the other nations of the world, like keeping kosher. But "different" doesn't mean "evil." It just means we have our own way. All of us are G-d's children, and that's why the Torah begins with the creation of the world, not with Abraham, the first Jew. Because G-d created everyone, and every human is G-d's child. We just have a different destiny than everybody else.
That's why Jews don't have missionaries - because the whole world doesn't need to be Jewish. We actually discourage conversion, because we think you're fine the way you are (and partially because when Christians would convert to Judaism, other Christians would respond by murdering Jews.) We won't stop you if you really wanna convert, but we don't think it's necessary for you to convert to be a good person.
We want all the world to recognize G-d and be monotheistic, but that's something that must come naturally, and not be forced on to anyone. Christianity and Islam are monotheistic, beleiving in one G-d. They acknowledge Him in a different way, but they still acknowledge Him. As for polytheistic religions like Hinduism, many feel that their many G-ds are just different aspects of one divine being. Even if they weren't, and they actually were worshipping many g-ds, we don't have the divine right to massacre Hindus for being polytheistic. We're just told "don't do what they do."
Only seven laws were given to all mankind - to Noah and his family after the flood. As far as Judaism's concerned, if you follow these, you're in good shape (and if you're not, it's for G-d or a court to judge you, depending on the sin. If you're sinning against G-d - idolatry, blasphemy - it's for G-d to punish you. If you sin against another person - murder, theft - it's for a legal court to punish you).
1) Prohibition on idol worship
2) Prohibition on blasphemy and cursing G-d's name
3) Prohibition on murder
4) Prohibition on theft and robbery
5) Prohibition on sexual transgressions (rape, adultery, etc.)
6) Prohibition on "tealing a limb from an animal and eating it while it lives" (there's a lot of debate about what this means. Many say it's a fancy way of saying to be kind to animals - because if you realize it's important to treat animals kindly, how much more so to treat your fellow man kindly! It also ties in with the prohibition on eating blood. To drink blood is considered an abomination of the highest order, since it is the life of a living being).
7) Requirement to establish a justice system and courts of law.
Now for the point of all this: I don't know how it works with Islam but if Islam has an oral law that works the same way as Judaism's, you're more likely to get a peaceful, neighbor-friendly Islamic messgae. If you only go by the Quran and disregard oral law, you get extremists and militant fanatics. That's why quoting from the Quran isn't always giving an accurate representation of Islam.
Does Islam have an oral law as well as the Quran? Do Muslim scholars write commentary on the Quran explaining obscurities in its text, or have a separate book of how to practice the actual laws of Islam in your day-to-day life, or anything like that?
BTW, keep one thing in mind - like I said, there are many different viewpoints in Judaism, so what I say here isn't what every Jew in the world believes. That's why I think it's dangerous to blame a whole group for the actions or beliefs of a few.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Well said, Darkknight....and quite extensively said, too, I might add. If not for the fact that your thoughts actually echoed some of my own I might think you were a Dave the Wonder Boy alternate ID.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Well said, Darkknight....and quite extensively said, too, I might add. If not for the fact that your thoughts actually echoed some of my own I might think you were a Dave the Wonder Boy alternate ID.
You must have missed the heated clashes that Dave The Wonder Boy and I have had in the past.  (Hopefully, those are behind us. ) Besides, Dave doesn't seem the type to have an alternate ID - he does more than enough yapping with just the one! (sorry, Dave - I couldn't resist.  )
But seriously, folks...sorry if I rambled on too much. I just wanted to make sure people understood the point I was trying to make, and I just happened to go off on a tangent or two in the process.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Well said, Darkknight....and quite extensively said, too, I might add.
I echo this. Well put, Darknight.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
Animalman said:
Well said, Darkknight....and quite extensively said, too, I might add. If not for the fact that your thoughts actually echoed some of my own I might think you were a Dave the Wonder Boy alternate ID.
You must have missed the heated clashes that Dave The Wonder Boy and I have had in the past.
(Hopefully, those are behind us. ) Besides, Dave doesn't seem the type to have an alternate ID - he does more than enough yapping with just the one! (sorry, Dave - I couldn't resist. )
But seriously, folks...sorry if I rambled on too much. I just wanted to make sure people understood the point I was trying to make, and I just happened to go off on a tangent or two in the process.
I was a bit surprised to see Darknight613 suggested to be an alternate I.D. for me. There was a time when we were about as friendly as Superman and Lex Luthor.
Some of the topics where we clashed:
"Do liberals HATE the President ?"
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=205426
"Partisansship"
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=217045
"Do racists have lower I.Q.'s ?"
http://www.rkmbs.com/Number=205705
But I think you're an okay guy, Darknight. You have a good heart, even if we've both phrased things in a way that rubbed each other the wrong way.
And even if you don't always realize that I'm right  .
~
I guess what made us look similar was Darknight613's detailing of Mosaic and Talmudic ideology, bearing a vague resemblance to how I've often detailed Old and New Testament ideology.
While I have great respect for Judaism, I'm not a Jew. I'm a Protestant Christian. Or more specifically, I'm a Presbyterian.
Thank you for your comments, DK613. You're absolutely right, that I don't use alternate I.D.'s, and if I ever retire my Dave the Wonder Boy I.D., I'll make it clear what my new I.D. is.
Regarding your issue-related comments:
Quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
Now for the point of all this: I don't know how it works with Islam but if Islam has an oral law that works the same way as Judaism's, you're more likely to get a peaceful, neighbor-friendly Islamic messgae. If you only go by the Quran and disregard oral law, you get extremists and militant fanatics. That's why quoting from the Quran isn't always giving an accurate representation of Islam.
Does Islam have an oral law as well as the Quran? Do Muslim scholars write commentary on the Quran explaining obscurities in its text, or have a separate book of how to practice the actual laws of Islam in your day-to-day life, or anything like that?
I don't fully understand why the change occurred, but in the peak era of Islamic thought, when Islam was a leader in science and intellectual thought, there was much more of a Talmudic style of discourse and sharing of ideas.
But in the last 100 years or so, for reasons I don't fully understand, Islam has become much more focused on the Quran, and on the writings of a few influential Imams, Mullahs, and Ayatollahs, to the brutal repression of all dissent.
To answer Animalman's above counterpoint:
Quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
I still don't see how quoting passages from the Qu'ran proves Islam is a violent religion. At least, not any more than quoting passages from the New Testament proves Christianity is a violent religion, or quoting passages from the Torah proves Judaism is a violent religion. For every Osama Bin Laden there's a Nathan Bedford Forest, a Tomas de Torquemada, an Adolf Hitler. To these people, religion was nothing more than the means by which they could push their own political agendas. The only thing their actions show is that any message, no matter how noble seeming, can be twisted and distorted to perpetuate evil.
Many Muslims throughout the world are taught from early childhood to memorize the entire Quran. A very strict interpretation of Islamic law, that rationalizes murder of unbelievers, suicide bombings, brutalization of women, "honor-killing" of female family members perceived by them to have dishonored their family name, clitoral amputation (female circumcision) and on and on. Violence based on deeply entrenched religious teaching.
Osama Bin Ladin and his followers aren't in any way religiously similar to Hitler.
Islam isn't a manipulative political tool for Al Qaida, they passionately believe they are acting based on the Quran, and are eagerly willing to kill or suicide-bomb in the name of those Quran verses.
Again, see Osama Bin Ladin's Declaration of Jihad on Jews and Crusaders, that I linked from the Washington Post, at the bottom of page 1 of this topic.
I challenge you to find a similar Bible-scripture-based statement by Hitler. Hitler had the Accord with the Vatican in 1933 that gave Hitler international political endorsement by the Pope, but the Accord is not scriptural, and was strictly a political maneuver.
In point of fact (much as many here seem to want to brand Hitler a Christian) Hitler viewed Christianity as a "Jewish infestation" that pacified the natural warrior nature of Aryans, with Christian beliefs of mercy and peacefulness.
Hitler at one point tried to resurrect Norse mythology through propaganda as a more warrior-focused ideology, but it was not well received by the German people.
And Hitler also imprisoned many Christians in concentration camps, such as Jehovah's Witnesses (who I heard a historical lecture on, of individuals giving personal accounts of their captivity), and Pastor Martin Neimoller, who I've quoted in prior posts.
So it's a complete myth to say that Hitler, on any level, acted in the name of Christianity. He used the Pope to get early diplomatic recognition, during his upward rise to power, not as part of some kind of Christian crusade.
~
Regarding Islam, I think it's highly relevant to criticize the violently fanatical Quran teachings that these Muslim acts are firmly (fundamentally) based on.
Again, a Washington Post article said that between 30 to 50% of every Muslim nation is boycotting U.S. goods --and that's WITH the pleas of their own leaders NOT to boycott the U.S., because they'll only damage their own economy, with virtually no effect on the U.S. economy-- and as many have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers, and other posters and calanders glamorizing the al Qaida destruction of 9-11.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36461-2002Jul7.html
To say nothing, as I said earlier, of Muslims in the U.S. who also proselytize radical Islamist beliefs. And even American born and educated Muslims (as I said earlier, that appeared on 60 Minutes' "Young, American and Muslim" story) that fully embrace the concepts of Jihad and suicide bombing.
It is not "a few", it is a vast and dangerous percentage of the global Muslim population.
As Quran-based violence worldwide, from Turkey to Iraq to Israel to Sudan to Indonesia to the Phillipines, and elsewhere, attests to.
Again, as said earlier, when violence of the IRA or an abortion clinic occurs, Christians worldwide groan with embarrassment.
Whereas violence in the name of Allah (9-11, suicide bombings) sends Muslims in the streets cheering with jubilant approval.
I find it very illogical to deny their Quran scripture is the obvious cause of that violence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Again, as said earlier, when violence of the IRA or an abortion clinic occurs, Christians worldwide groan with embarrassment. Whereas violence in the name of Allah (9-11, suicide bombings) sends Muslims in the streets cheering with jubilant approval.
I find it very illogical to deny their Quran scripture is the obvious cause of that violence.
I don't know about that. I have to agree with Darknight that it may be an interpretational flaw that leads them to these beliefs. The problem is that this flaw is the accepted interpretation in the Arab culture.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Many Muslims throughout the world are taught from early childhood to memorize the entire Quran. A very strict interpretation of Islamic law, that rationalizes murder of unbelievers, suicide bombings, brutalization of women, "honor-killing" of female family members perceived by them to have dishonored their family name, clitoral amputation (female circumcision) and on and on. Violence based on deeply entrenched religious teaching.
From what I understand, this isn't entirely true. The interpretation and cultural submersion of the Qu'ran varies from region to region(Islam is, afterall, the second largest and fastest growing religion in the world).
Out of curiousity, I went to the library a few weeks ago and found A Border Passage: From Cairo to America, by Leila Ahmed. It describes what it was like for her to grow up as a Muslim in Egypt(and later in America), and it paints quite a vivid picture of the social and political changes Islam has undergone in the last 30-40 years.
What I sympathized with most about this book was that, like Leila, I too am searching for my own identity, and I imagine that I will not conclude this search until the day I die. We, as people, constantly find ourselves searching for what makes us human, desperately hoping to define our existence. "Who am I?" can be both the simplest and most deeply complex and profound question a person can ask themselves. I find that, in itself, to be fascinating.
I'm getting offtrack now, but the point I'm trying to make is, no one book can(or, at least, no one book should) define who we are or what we believe, as literature is an interpretative(and thus relative) medium. Leila Ahmed is just one of millions of people who grew up with Islam as a positive and peaceful influence on their lives. Unfortunately for her and for others like her, peace isn't newsworthy. Peace doesn't sell papers. Peace doesn't get high TV ratings. And for that reason, Islam is often portrayed as violent and hateful.
Quote:
Osama Bin Ladin and his followers aren't in any way religiously similar to Hitler.
Islam isn't a manipulative political tool for Al Qaida, they passionately believe they are acting based on the Quran, and are eagerly willing to kill or suicide-bomb in the name of those Quran verses.
Well, firstly, Hitler was just one of several I listed, but for sake of argument, we can focus on him.
I don't think that just because they(Bin Laden and followers) passionately believe they're doing what's right doesn't mean it still isn't a political tool. I imagine Hitler probably thought what he was doing was right(even if he didn't follow his own preachings to quite the extent they were often taken), otherwise, he wouldn't have committed the atrocities he did.
Quote:
I challenge you to find a similar Bible-scripture-based statement by Hitler.
As I said before, the quoting of scripture means very little. It's simply the slant of the religious influence(influence often provided by scripture, regardless of whether or not the individual quotes it regularly) on that person and used by that person. If you look at many of Hitler's speeches it becomes apparent that he was a deeply religious man and believed quite adamantly that his faith was what necessitated the annihilation of all other races and creeds.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice....
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people....
When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."
-Adolf Hitler, April 12th 1922
"The Government, being resolved to undertake the political and moral purification of our public life, are creating and securing the conditions necessary for a really profound revival of religious life....
The National Government regard the two Christian Confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality. They will respect the agreements concluded between them and the federal States. Their rights are not to be infringed....
It will be the Government's care to maintain honest co-operation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith.
The Government of the Reich, who regard Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attach the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See and are endeavouring to develop them."
-Adolf Hitler, March 23rd 1933
There are many, many more here.
Quote:
Again, a Washington Post article said that between 30 to 50% of every Muslim nation is boycotting U.S. goods
Even if that is true, how does that show Islam is a violent religion? Boycotting is hardly a violent act.
Quote:
and as many have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers, and other posters and calanders glamorizing the al Qaida destruction of 9-11.
.....how exactly do they know this?
Quote:
Again, as said earlier, when violence of the IRA or an abortion clinic occurs, Christians worldwide groan with embarrassment. Whereas violence in the name of Allah (9-11, suicide bombings) sends Muslims in the streets cheering with jubilant approval.
I have to respectfully disagree here. Abortion clinic violence is fairly common here(it's not unusual to hear a report every month or so, sometimes every few weeks), but that's neither here nor there. I don't think either party looks on the violent acts done in their respective religion's name as, in any way, justified.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Animalman......what I'm about to say is kind of off-topic but I just saw it the other night on the History channel and it surprised me........I had always thought of Hitler as deeply religious.....very fucked in the head but religious nonetheless because I was always reading his quotes about Providence and how Providence has given him the power blah blah you get the point.......but what they were saying on the documentary was that he was not very religious and in fact religion was frowned upon and more or less vanished during Nazi Germany.......he just said that shit because it probably made him feel better.......anyhow It was news to me just thought I'd share it.
And I know not all Muslims are bad.......but unfortunately right now the bad muslims have the loudest voice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Osama Bin Ladin and his followers aren't in any way religiously similar to Hitler.
Islam isn't a manipulative political tool for Al Qaida, they passionately believe they are acting based on the Quran, and are eagerly willing to kill or suicide-bomb in the name of those Quran verses.
Well, firstly, Hitler was just one of several I listed, but for sake of argument, we can focus on him.
I don't think that just because they(Bin Laden and followers) passionately believe they're doing what's right doesn't mean it still isn't a political tool. I imagine Hitler probably thought what he was doing was right (even if he didn't follow his own preachings to quite the extent they were often taken), otherwise, he wouldn't have committed the atrocities he did.
On the contrary, Hitler committed the atrocities he did because he could.
He wiped out his political opposition, simply to maintain power. The rest was impassioned but ultimately empty smokescreen rhetoric, to rationalize his actions to the public, to play to their beliefs, NOT his. This is equally true of his Christian rhetoric. And actions speak louder than words, he sent thousands of Christians to concentration camps.
I recently saw an excellent movie, The Hiding Place about a Christian who survived the camps, and saw many other Christians die.
Far from preserving the Aryan race, Hitler believed that if the Nazis lost the war, all the brightest and best of the German people would have died on the battlefield, and the rest deserved to die as a race.
And the German people would have too, if not for the massive importing of food and supplies by the Allied occupiers of Germany, because Hitler had so thoroughly ordered the destruction of the food, water and infrastructure in German cities in the path of the advancing Allied forces.
Hitler's own attempted Wagnerian Gotterdammerung on his own people.
Hitler's Christian rhetoric is more vaguely in the vein of "God blesses our Cause" and lacks any scriptural basis. As PJP said above, it was a tool, and as evidenced by the thousands of Christians he imprisoned, his deeds speak much louder than his words.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Again, a Washington Post article said that between 30 to 50% of every Muslim nation is boycotting U.S. goods
Even if that is true, how does that show Islam is a violent religion? Boycotting is hardly a violent act.
Boycotting, in this case, is an endorsement of the violence of other Muslims. Especially in connection to the grass roots fundraising for Muslim terrorist groups that is done worldwide.
The Quran teaches violence (see my above quoted verses).
The Imams and Ayatollahs teach violence.
The terrorist groups practice violence.
And the Muslims in the streets cheer this violence, and are complicit in funding and other support in enabling this violence and eagerly supporting it.
And their boycotting is another way of endorsing that violence.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
and as many have Osama Bin Ladin screen savers, and other posters and calanders glamorizing the al Qaida destruction of 9-11.
.....how exactly do they know this?
The same way they confirm any other facts in their stories. By interviewing Muslims in the street, and seeing the calanders and screen savers sold, and people interviewed who are shown using them.
I've seen the 9-11 and Osama Bin Ladin calanders and screen savers shown on 60 Minutes and 20/20 as well.
In the early days of Rob's DEEP THOUGHTS boards, someone posted those calander images right here on these boards.
Quote:
Animalman said:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Again, as said earlier, when violence of the IRA or [ on ] an abortion clinic occurs, Christians worldwide groan with embarrassment. Whereas violence in the name of Allah (9-11, suicide bombings) sends Muslims in the streets cheering with jubilant approval.
I have to respectfully disagree here. Abortion clinic violence is fairly common here(it's not unusual to hear a report every month or so, sometimes every few weeks), but that's neither here nor there. I don't think either party looks on the violent acts done in their respective religion's name as, in any way, justified.
I don't see that abortion clinic bombing is all that common. Certainly not once a month, more like once a year. There was ONE guy who bombed like two clinics a few years ago, during the Olympics in Atlanta. And that was a big deal. And another guy who shot and killed an abortion clinic doctor, who was recently executed. In the last three years, I've yet to see other anti-abortion violence.
And regardless, those actions are overwhelmingly condemned by the Christian community.
Regarding Muslims' "not looking favorably" on Muslim terrorism "as justified", you've got to be kidding.
You obviously haven't seen Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Saudis, or even American Muslims interviewed. I again reference the story "Young, American and Muslim" from 60 Minutes. Where a teenage American-born and raised Muslim girl from the New York/New Jersey area, educated in a Muslim-American school, went on national television and said that suicide bombers go to heaven, because they die fighting for Allah. And she then said "Like, if I were tobe a suicide bomber and blow up an American military base, I would go to Heaven."
Again, making me question the wisdom of allowing ANY fundamentalist Muslims to stay in this country.
And the most memorable for me, tens of thousands of Palestinians cheering in the streets on 9-11 like they'd just won the World Cup. This was more painful, and left me more enraged than 9-11 itself.
In another report, I saw an interview of two Egyptian girls at a University in Cairo, who said they wished they could go to Palestine and join "the Cause" as suicide bombers.
All say that the Quran states that if they die martyring themselves for Allah, murdering others as suicide bombers, they are assured a place in Heaven.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
THIS little tidbit is off Topic, too!
In the movie LITTLE NICKY, starring Adam
Sandler, there is a scene depicting The Devil
( Played quite well by Harvey Kietel. ) shoving
a LARGE pineapple up Hitler's ass every nite
as punishment for his crimes on Earth. Hitler
was ALSO forced to wear a dress for eternity.
 
I loved that scene......I liked how Hitler tried to pick a very small pineapple......adn then Harvey Keitel made him put it back and picked the biggest one of the bunch.......funny stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
PJP said:
Animalman......what I'm about to say is kind of off-topic but I just saw it the other night on the History channel and it surprised me........I had always thought of Hitler as deeply religious.....very fucked in the head but religious nonetheless because I was always reading his quotes about Providence and how Providence has given him the power blah blah you get the point.......but what they were saying on the documentary was that he was not very religious and in fact religion was frowned upon and more or less vanished during Nazi Germany.......he just said that shit because it probably made him feel better.......anyhow It was news to me just thought I'd share it.
I remember seeing advertisements for the Hitler documentary(as well as documentaries of Saddam, Osama, etc), I may have to check that out. That is an interesting theory, but one that directly contradicts what information I've seen him. His speeches, his background, his political manifesto, they all suggest that he was a pretty religious person. I don't see how why religion would be "frowned upon" and then later vanish, when most of what Hitler preached involved it.
Quote:
And I know not all Muslims are bad.......but unfortunately right now the bad muslims have the loudest voice.
This I must agree with. It is unfortunate, indeed.
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
On the contrary, Hitler committed the atrocities he did because he could.
I disagree, I don't think Hitler was a sociopath. I think Josef Mengele was a sociopath, but Hitler was just, quite simply, mad. A psychopath, but a socially adept one. His childhood experiences and time spent as one of society's castouts left him warped and deranged, burning with a scorn and resentment of the world.
Quote:
The rest was impassioned but ultimately empty smokescreen rhetoric, to rationalize his actions to the public, to play to their beliefs, NOT his.
I'd say this is half true. I think, for the most part, he was using religion as a political weapon, but, as I've said before, I still think it was proselytizing, in just about every sense of the word. To revise some of what I said before, none of these figures believed religion to be only a political tool. There had to be some sense of belief rooted there.
Hitler didn't need to "rationalize" much of anything, the public had already bought into his ideas of racial dominance, well before Poland was invaded.
Quote:
And actions speak louder than words, he sent thousands of Christians to concentration camps.
Yes, he sent those whom he did not feel were fit to be apart of his Arian society. This is where his insanity becomes overwhelming apparent. There is no rationalizing it, because the man was just crazy. A blanket hatred of such a tremendous degree as this is not the sign of a sociopath, it's the "me vs. the world" style of thinking a mentally unstable individual would display.
Osama Bin Laden has sent hundreds of his followers to their deaths, and has murdered even more of his fellow Muslims in his time. He seems believes that all those who do not share his beliefs must die, and that dying while abbeting such a cause is an honorable death(this concept of martyrdom exists both in Islam and in Christianity). Yet, despite this, he hides from enemy forces, electing to selfishly shield himself behind his followers, and occasionally issue a proclamation of his own righteousness.
Now, whether or not the reasoning behind such proclamations stem from his religious beliefs or simply his desire for power is highly debatable(actually, I would argue both, but I think the latter is the dominant factor). What I do not consider debatable, however, is that if Osama Bin Laden was as feverishly in support of his preachings as you have been suggesting, he would have strapped himself to one of his bombs and died while aiding his cause long ago. I think he, like nearly all powerful, religiously militant figures, in the end, values his own life above everything else. It's the reason people like him tend to end up safely tucked away, giving the commands(and then desperately trying to avoid paying the price), rather than on the front lines, taking them.
Interestingly enough, this article briefly makes the same comparison I did between Bin Laden and Hitler. As with Germany in the 1920's, Muslim society had sunk to it's lowest level of humiliation, which Bin Laden gladly used to his advantage(and was surely influenced by, at the same time).
Quote:
Hitler's Christian rhetoric is more vaguely in the vein of "God blesses our Cause" and lacks any scriptural basis. As PJP said above, it was a tool
Wait....I thought I was the one saying it was a tool?
Quote:
and as evidenced by the thousands of Christians he imprisoned, his deeds speak much louder than his words.
Oh, I agree. Infact, this is the point I've been attempting to make in regards to Islam(and Christianity) all along, though for some reason you seem to reject the argument there.
Quote:
Boycotting, in this case, is an endorsement of the violence of other Muslims.
Oh, I disagree completely. I think boycotting, in this case, is a peaceful display of dissaproval towards a nation that appears to be imperialistically bullying the rest of the world into adhering to their own set of rules. Whether or not that view is warranted or accurate is another matter entirely, but it is a pretty popular viewpoint(and one that is shared not only by most of the other countries around the globe, but from a small portion of America, itself).
Quote:
And the Muslims in the streets cheer this violence, and are complicit in funding and other support in enabling this violence and eagerly supporting it.
I'm still failing to see why you are attributing this to a group of millions of people around the world, when the only real evidence(i.e evidence that would suggest a massive trend existing, rather than the beliefs of a few individuals) I've seen of it is limited to one specific region where violence and war is commonplace. Unless they've polled Europe, Asia and Africa on "Who liked the outcome of 9/11", I think it's fairly illogical to assume that a great number of people were pleased with the death of thousands of people. You shouldn't take the expressed dissaproval of America as an endorsement of Osama Bin Laden and his cause. There are many issues prevalent in Bush's War on Terrorism; you can't just draw a line in the sand and expect everyone to take a side.
I think this essay states my case best; 4,000 men(Bin Laden's followers) do not represent the entire Islamic people.
Quote:
The same way they confirm any other facts in their stories. By interviewing Muslims in the street, and seeing the calanders and screen savers sold, and people interviewed who are shown using them.
They interview Muslims about what screen savers they have? I find it hard to believe that they could really compile enough information on something so trivial and unretracable. Most screen savers aren't "sold" anyway, they're downloaded.
Quote:
I don't see that abortion clinic bombing is all that common. Certainly not once a month, more like once a year.
I didn't say bombing, I said violence. Sadly, it is fairly common here. Several clinics had to be shut down last year because of all the protesting(both nonviolent and violent), which just encouraged them even more.
I remember a couple of months ago there was a guy arrested in Florida(in Coconut Creek, actually, which is I believe where Disco Steve lives) who was planning to bomb a series of clinics, but hadn't yet.
I saw a stat from a year or two ago showing that there 15 bombings and 150 attacks(burglary, vandalism, arson, battery) throughout America, and that the number of attacks and bombings were growing each year. I know recently the police have upped their efforts to stop it, though I still seem to hear about an incident every month or so in the news.
Quote:
You obviously haven't seen Palestinians, Syrians, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Saudis, or even American Muslims interviewed.
I know that the Wahhabis are strongly opposed to Bin Laden's actions, as do Australian Muslims(even the individual interviewed in that article said that, while he supported Bin Laden, he would not if he was shown evidence that linked Laden to the killing of innocents), and countless others. Even Indian Muslims were shocked after first hearing about 9/11, and said that Bin Laden should be captured immediately(though peacefully, if possible).
I also know that, after the attacks, most Muslim scholars were convinced that Bin Laden's call for a Holy War would be ignored(on the grounds that his actions went against what Islam stood for), as discussed here. One such scholar has gone as far as to say that Bin Laden's violence is heresy against Islam.
Yes, I'm sure that here and there you could find people who think what Bin Laden is doing is right. I'm sure that here and there you could find people who believe Elvis is still alive, and that the U.S landing on the moon was actually taped in some Hollywood studio and the whole thing is one big conspiracy, too. However, if you look at the bigger picture, I think you'll discover that such people really are the minority.
Let's just ignore polls, articles, stats and tv spots for a second here.
Would a religion such as Islam really spread so widely if it was so socially exclusive? If what Bin Laden's preaching is so accepted and supported, then where are the other attacks? Why isn't the world in just complete disarray? 1.8 billion Muslims is a lot of people. Even if only half of the Muslim population sided with Bin Laden, that's an army of supporters no-one could contend with. Why, then, is Bin Laden hiding while his country is decimated?
It just doesn't make any sense to me.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Animalman, I think I've already answered virtually all your points in my previous posts.
It's still a stretch to compare Hitler to Islamic fundamentalism, beyond their murderous tendency to kill dissenters to their cause. But Hitler's alleged fervent Christianity is baseless and scriptureless (as I already said).
Regarding how reporters see pro-9-11 and pro-Saddam screen savers and other terror supporting propaganda, when reporters visit the homes and interview muslims, they eagerly show reporters these artifacts. And describe their friends as having them too.
I completely disagree with your assertion that the a vast percentage of the Muslim world does not eagerly embrace terrorism and Jihad, and support it with grassroots fundraising and active support. Saudi Arabia's imams had a broadcast telethon to support Palestinian terrorism, for God's sake.
It seems to me that your arguments try to intellectualize the issue with academic writings, and deny the obvious active widespread popular Muslim support of terrorism:
- The comments of teenage Muslims interviewed on 60 Minutes I mentioned, for example.
- And also Arab youth --college educated youth !!-- throughout the Middle East, who not only empathize with Palestinian terrorists, but express a desire to travel to Palestinian territories and participate in Jihad terror and suicide bombings themselves.
- The wave of terror against European Jews (and similar inciidents in Canada) which coincide with massive Islamic immigration.
- Teaching of radical islamic ideas in U.S. mosques (again, the 60 Minutes story on American teen muslims, and the article I posted at the bottom of page 2 of this topic, from the Anti Defamation League).
While I don't think that all Muslims are dangerous, I find the teaching of fundamentalist Islam a breeding ground for terrorism.
Your article asserting that Wahabism is not connected to al Qaida, is likewise a skillful circumventing of the truth.
Al Qaida has long been recognized as a terrorist sect that has sprung from Wahabist missionary teachings in Afghanistan.
And likewise, everywhere in the world Wahabist misionaries travel, from the Phillipines to Chechnya to Afghanistan to Algeria to Sudan and elsewhere, violent islamic terrorism follows in its wake.
Again, I refer to to the story on Saudi Arabia in TIME, "Do We Still Need the Saudis", in the August 5, 2002 issue, exploring Saudi Islamic clerics's active cultivation and financial support of terrorism, and Wahabism in particular.
Islamic radicalism and participation in terrorism was encouraged by the Saudi government for decades, but that radicalism has now bitten them on the ass, and now threatens the Saudi government itself.
And it also begs the question that TIME asks: Are the Saudis our friends or our enemy? It questions whether it would be more useful for us to break ties with the Saudi government.
You constantly mouth anti-American rhetoric, that "a vast part of the rest of the world opposes our foreign policy" in the Middle East.
You say that as if you're stating that as what they believe, but you ambiguously imply that you believe that yourself. And I've seen comments by you on other topics that are very pessimistic about American motives and basic nature.
Which again ignores many facts. That our foreign intervention is not out of the blue, but a U.S. reaction to Arab aggression:
- We're in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere in the Middle East at the invitation of those governments, because of Saddam's aggression in 1990-1991.
- We have troops training Georgians in former-soviet Georgia, because of Chechnyan islamic terrorism that has spilled over into that country.
- We have a presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of 9-11 al Qaida/Muslim terrorism.
- We bombed Libya because of its involvement in any number of hijackings and airline bombings.
- We have a presence in Liberia (somewhat reluctanty) as a result of Islamic violence, and de-stabilization of Liberia by neighboring Islamic states.
- We have a deep involvement in Indonesia, because of the 1990's internal meltdown of their economy, due to internal corruption.
- We have troops in the Phillipines because of Islamic violence and al Qaida activity. (Do most people even know that Islamic terrorists blew up a trade center building in Manila before 9-11 ? )
In every major crisis and natural disaster, the U.S. leaps to help Muslims. From the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Iran, to bailing out the Indonesian economy (a cost deep into the billions) to Ethiopian famine relief, to several cynically regarded military actions by the United States in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere.
Most of the nations who receive the greatest foreign aid from the United States are Muslim nations as well, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and now Afghanistan and Iraq.
But it seems whatever aid the United States provides, no matter how little the U.S. has to gain by its intervention, those hell-bent on hating the United States wil spin U.S. action into a negative light, and assume the most cynical motivations.
Perhaps you will pause from your knee-jerk anti-Bush/anti-Americanism to take note of these facts.
I'm sorry if that seems like a harsh statement, but I really don't understand the embracement of anti-American rhetoric by liberals, their eagerness to believe the worst about the United States, while accepting whole and undigested the hypocritical rhetoric of America's enemies.
The previously discussed words of Ann Coulter, from her book Traitor come to mind, of how liberals are traitors because they constantly/reflexively take the position of whatever is worst for the United States. And thus actively support the enemy's cause.
And your anti-American rhetoric also ignores that the "imperialist"/"unilateral" United States leaps on virtually every occasion to help the Arab world.
Even under Clinton's reign, where Clinton had relatively limited military action in the Middle East, and demonstrated great sensitivity toward Arab concerns, terrorism stillwent on unabated. During the Clinton years, the U.S. complied with the U.N., and the U.S. intervened on behalf of Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Muslims. And still Muslims worldwide found a way to rationalize their hatred of the U.S. As did other enemies of the United States in Europe and elsewhere.
It is not because of American action that Arabs hate the United States. That is merely a rationalization for violence. It is because of hate propaganda in the Arab world, no matter what the United States does.
And fanning the flames of aggression toward the West at every opportunity are Islamic clerics.
And it's not just Muslim hostility toward the West either.
Islamic groups have waged similar terrorism against taoist/buddhist China, and hindu India. Within weeks of 9-11-2001, a Muslim attack killed a large number of members of the Indian parliament.
If not for the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9-11, that would have occurred to the U.S. Congress and Senate as well.
Islamic violence is rampant. And it is utter blindness not to credit this violence as originating from Islamic religion and teaching.
Chapter and verse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Animalman, I think I've already answered virtually all your points in my previous posts.
I've read through all the posts in this thread. I think we've touched on some of the points, but haven't really resolved any.
Quote:
It's still a stretch to compare Hitler to Islamic fundamentalism, beyond their murderous tendency to kill dissenters to their cause. But Hitler's alleged fervent Christianity is baseless and scriptureless (as I already said).
Baseless? Hardly, he goes on and on and on about his religious beliefs. Whether or not he quotes scripture continuously is beside the point. Religion is a lot more than a series of quotes.
In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he does, infact, quote the Bible, and states that the basis of his beliefs are consistent with that of a Christian. Furthermore, he says:
"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Clearly a profession of his beliefs as a Christian. Now, while I do think that he distorted the message of Christianity to fit his own agenda, it's quite clear(to me, at least) that he did infact believe he was doing what was right, on the basis of being a Christian.
Yes, he did kill Christians, too, but he only killed those that he thought weren't fit to be a part of his new Arian society. They "weren't Christian enough", essentially. The same holds true for the Christian officials he criticized later on for not supporting his call for war. It doesn't prove that he wasn't a religious person, I just think it proves that he was so crazy he turned on everyone around him, alienating himself(and his followers) from the rest of the world.
Quote:
I completely disagree with your assertion that the a vast percentage of the Muslim world does not eagerly embrace terrorism and Jihad, and support it with grassroots fundraising and active support. Saudi Arabia's imams had a broadcast telethon to support Palestinian terrorism, for God's sake.
Even if we were to assume that the Arabic Muslims were supportive of terrorism(and assumption that can hardly be made by local broadcasts, broadcasts that are controlled by the powerful, not by the majority), the Arabs make up only a small percentage of the Muslim people around the world.
Outside of this region(one that has been decimated by war and violence for so long it's not hard to see why such acts might be embraced), it becomes increasingly clear that the number of violent supporters lessen. For every 60 minutes interviewee, I can cite educated individuals in direct opposition to Bin Laden's Jihad.
And speaking of education, is it possible that the reason Bin Laden has so many supporters in Saudi Arabia is that the people aren't receiving truthful information? In one of the articles I linked in my last post there was a man interviewed who said he supported Bin Laden because he had yet to see evidence linking him to 9/11.
Is it possible that these people believe Bin Laden is a hero....because that's exactly what they're being told? After all, who controls the flow of information in these poor regions? How much do they really know? They know that Osama Bin Laden claims America's capitalist ways are destroying Islam, and they also probably know that we've invaded their Holy Land, in essence violating what they consider to be sacred. In such a scenario, who would you believe?
This is, for the most part, speculation on my part. I'm merely trying to provide different points of view, here, looking at "the bigger picture". I certainly have an easier time digesting a theory like this than I do the one you're presenting.
Quote:
It seems to me that your arguments try to intellectualize the issue with academic writings, and deny the obvious active widespread popular Muslim support of terrorism.
That's the problem. I don't see it as obvious. I consider the opinions of scholars to be more reliable than random people shown on 60 minutes or Dateline or other supposedly "non-partisan" TV shows because the scholars are often those who have studied Islam, it's believers, and it's affect on society for years; some devote their life to it. I'd like to believe that they would have a better idea of what the general Muslim population thinks of Osama Bin Laden.
Quote:
Your assertion that Wahabism is not connected to al Qaida, is likewise a skillful circumventing of the truth.
I'm not asserting that. This is just clearly what they themselves are saying.
Quote:
Al Qaida has long been recognized as a terrorist sect that has sprung from Wahabist missionary teachings in Afghanistan.
Well, the information on that website seems to suggest that that recognization, while common, is ultimately false.
Quote:
Again, I refer to to the story on Saudi Arabia in TIME, "Do We Still Need the Saudis", in the August 5, 2002 issue, exploring Saudi Islamic clerics's active cultivation and financial support of terrorism, and Wahabism in particular.
I'll have to check that issue out.
Quote:
You constantly mouth anti-American rhetoric
No. No, I do not. I'm simply stating what the common conception of America is. Just ask some of the foreigners here on this very message board, like Dave or Mxy. More than 85% of Chile(Mxy's home) was opposed to the U.S invasion of Iraq. This does not mean such countries are "anti-American". Disagreeing with a person(or a group of people)'s actions, and being "against" that person aren't the same thing.
I am not taking sides on the issue. I'm just presenting the evidence in as impartial a fashion as I am capable of, for argument's sake. That being said, yes, I do still have my bias, my leanings, my slant, as do we all.
I am not "anti-American". I almost feel silly having to even type that. Frankly, I wouldn't know how to go about being anti-American. It's who I am. I was born here, I've lived here my entire life, and I certainly don't regret that fact.
Quote:
You say that as if you're stating that as what they believe, but you ambiguously imply that you believe that yourself.
You're close to opening quite a can of worms here, Dave. I have to admit that one of my biggest pet peeves is having other people assume something about me and my thought processes without proper evidence. I cannot stand that. It infuriates me.
If I imply anything when in these conversations, it is that, in an argument, I am inclined to present opposing viewpoints, if I feel they might hold water. By presenting them, I am not pledging my own allegiance. I'm just the type of person who tries to examine as many different angles as possible in every discussion. I can tell you that I've held this same discussion from the opposing viewpoint, while talking with some of my more fiercely liberal friends.
If I wish to disclose my personal feelings on a matter, rest assured that(unless I think it's self explanatory) I shall prefice my statements with "I think", or someting similar. I'll make it blatantly obvious when I'm sharing my thoughts, and, from now on, I'd appreciate it if you'd respect that. In return, I shall try my best to reciprocate.
Quote:
And I've seen comments by you on other topics that are very pessimistic about American motives and basic nature.
I question that which I feel I must, and I make no apologies for that. If anything, I think that makes me a good American, and, to be honest, a more enlightened person. It is my greatest wish that the world will never reach a point where thinking for yourself becomes unfashionable, or something to be scorned. I don't feel entitled to speculate on whether or not that point already has been reached.
Quote:
Which again ignores many facts. That our foreign intervention is not out of the blue, but a U.S. reaction to Arab aggression
Without suggesting that I lend my support to either side of this issue, let me just say that your statement there(that the reason the U.S is intervening in foreign affairs is to react) is not a fact, but an opinion. An opinion that I do not ignore, but rather examine in relation with other opinions.
And, in any event, U.S intervention in the Middle East is another issue entirely, and one that I've already discussed to death elsewhere.
Quote:
It is not because of American action that Arabs hate the United States. That is merely a rationalization for violence. It is because of hate propaganda in the Arab world, no matter what the United States does.
Then why is it that America was the target of such hate propaganda to begin with?
Quote:
Islamic violence is rampant. And it is utter blindness not to credit this violence as originating from Islamic religion and teaching.
I do not deny that such violence stems from origins of an Islamic nature. I simply don't believe that because something has produced violence(with other factors being involved), it must, therefore, be violent itself.
Last edited by Animalman; 2004-01-25 6:51 AM.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
I just checked in and saw your post, Animalman.
Your quotes of me in your post are from an earlier draft that I updated with correction of typos, and hopefully more clear language, while you were still writing your post.
What I'd earlier attributed to "you" I more precisely attributed to "the article", regarding ideas I consider anti-American.
Although I still feel you are overly accepting of that viewpoint as well.
I don't doubt that you're trying to weigh the issue.
And there are certainly things the U.S. (and many other nations across the world) can be criticised for, regarding our policy toward the Middle East and the broader Muslim world over the last hundred years.
(CIA maneuvering of coups and friendly dictatorships, in the Middle East as well as the hispanic world, for example.
But even that criticism ignores that we were fighting a cold war against communism, and that these actions, along with wars in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere, while not the most shining moment for the United States, arguably saved lives and avoided greater bloodshed in the long term).
But again, what I consider anti-American is that you seem to (as many others here on the boards and elsewhere are doing) blame America first and foremost for the state of the Middle East, and be less cynical of what, say, the French and German governments, and activists throughout Europe say in criticism of U.S. policy in the Middle East, while not giving the same cynical scrutiny to what is said against the United States.
Obviously, Britain, France, Russia and Germany have had their own negative influence on the Middle East over the last few decades. Yet America is demonized, and others are given a free pass.
I stand behind the invasion of Iraq as a necessary act that was inevitable, and better now than several years from now, when Saddam would have been able to become a greater threat and work unfettered without U.N sanctions and inspections. And would have several more years to exterminate even more of his own people.
Quote:
Originally posted by Animalman:
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy:
Islamic violence is rampant. And it is utter blindness not to credit this violence as originating from Islamic religion and teaching.
Then why is it that America was the target of such hate propaganda to begin with?
Because it is propaganda, from both Europe and the Muslim world.
Arab governments are hostile to the United States because they would like to destroy Israel, or barring that possibility, make things as difficult as possible for Israel.
Arab governments dislike U.S. assistance of Israel, are hostile to the U.S., and paint the most demonized portrayal of the U.S. possible in their state-controlled media.
Independently owned arab news network Al Jazeera panders to existing Muslim hatred of the U.S. to get maximum audience.
Review of any Arab media coverage from during the Iraq war last year shows just how absurdly innacurate their "news" is.
The ease with which U.S. forces destroyed Saddam's government, and the painstaking U.S. efforts to fight a bloodless war against Iraq, and avoid Iraqi civilian casualties, were portrayed in the Arab media as a long valiant struggle against a ruthless and merciless U.S. aggressor.
European governments are hostile to U.S. action because the European Union is struggling to take the U.S.'s place in the Middle East, both economically and diplomatically.
Arabs welcome this courtship by Europe, because they know that Europe would negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace deal more to the advantage of the Arabs than the Israelis.
Regarding the purity of French, German and Russian motives for opposing the Iraq war:
Let's not forget that the oh-so-altruistic French government sold a nuclear reactor to Iraq, that was known to be used by Iraq to create weapons grade plutonium, until the Israelis bombed the reactor to the ground in 1981. Which act the Europeans and Arab governments all condemned as "illegal". (Sound familiar ?) But saner nations of the world breathed a sigh of relief.
Similarly, the Russian government has now built reactors for radical fundamentalist Iran, even as Iran also appears to be using these nuclear facilities for weapons development. Despite demands for verification from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United States and other saner nations, the oh-so-altruistic Russians continue to enable Iran to pursue nuclear weapons.
And leftists in the European and global media have their own self-serving reasons for bashing the United States for its middle East policy.
The "illegal invasion" and "unilateral action" and "blood for oil" arguments, and all the other unfounded kneejerk and slanted arguments, just don't hold up.
Saddam was evil. Despite any U.S. action and/or inaction in the Middle East in recent decades, Saddam did these things:
- Genocide of his own people.
- Mass graves.
- Mass torture and rape of his citizens.
- Aggression against his neighbors.
- Pursuit of WMD's (whether or not he actually had them at the time of his fall, U.N. military inventory records from Iraq, not just the scouts-honor word of the U.S., show Saddam actively pursued, and had, these WMD's at one time, whether or not he still had them.)
- Setting aside a division of his army to secretly develop WMD's, and assigned to hide them from the U.N., as Iraqi military defectors began reporting in 1995.
- Non-compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors, and terms of the 1991 peace agreement, finally throwing out weapons inspectors in 1998.
And on and on.
To try and shift the blame to the U.S. for whatever level of interaction or non-intervention with Iraq and the Middle East region at various points over recent decades, ignores the key point that Saddam did these things. Whether successful or not in fully acquiring WMD's, or keeping the ones he produced, Saddam pursued WMD's and committed genocide, and given a free hand and the imminent lifting of weapons inspections, he would have had an opportunity in a year or three years or five years to become another Libya or North Korea or Iran.
Yes, it can be argued that U.S. troops were on the Arabian peninsula, as al Qaida rages about, as rationalization for their violence.
But again ( as I said above, I hope it's sinking in ! ) We are there at the invitation of the Saudi, Kuwaiti, and Qatar governments.
And we've only been there for 12 years because of U.S. compliance with U.N. limitations, authorizing the U.S. led coalition in 1991 to push Saddam's military out of Kuwait, and the U.S. continued to respect the U.N.'s limitation for 12 years that we were not to invade Iraq.
Likewise, we maintained Northern and Southern no-fly zones over Iraq, to keep Saddam's military from exterminating more of the Kurds and Shi'ites in his country. Again, we were there for 12 years in that limited capacity, because that is the limit of what the U.N. authorized the United States to do, and the U.S. respected that limit, until illegal trade with Iraq (enabling Saddam to stay in power) and crumbling sanctions made invasion a now-or-never proposition.
And as Bush pointed out in his Jan 20, 2004 State of the Union address, 60 nations did support an international effort to remove Saddam, despite the obstruction efforts of France, Germany and Russia. So while a U.N. mandate was obstructed, the U.S. was able to form an international effort regardless.
If Bush Sr. and Gen. Schwartzkopf had conducted the 1991 war the way they wanted to, the way we should have, we would have toppled Hussein in a few days in 1991, and American troops would never have been on the Arabian peninsula for 12 years. (And the contrived rationalization for Muslim/al Qaida violence would not exist.)
But either way, Arabs would have found a rationalization with which to curse the U.S.
Compliance, non-compliance.
Regardless, it is spun negatively.
The U.S. puts out fires, while the rest of the world would let them rage out of control. And then the U.S. is cursed for it.
I fail to see what you have left to ponder, when that fact is so obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680
1500+ posts
|
|
1500+ posts
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,680 |
Not to get totaly off topic here, but I don't remember anything about Hitler doing the things he did in the name of religion. Granted it's been a good 13 years since high school, but my senior year I was in an Honors US History class and heard what Hitler did to his countrymen and his reasoning behind it. Yes my teacher was Jewish and so he spoke of it from more a personal level then someone else might have.
If you really wanted to justify his actions, then yes you can use religion as the basis, but in doing so, you're taking the responsibility away from him and putting it on religion. Like I said, I don't remember ever hearing anything about him using religion as the reasoning for everything he did. So I'm not buying into that. That's like the klan idiots that claim cross buring is in the bible. In all my life I have never once remembered seeing anything in the Bible mention cross burning, much less it being soemthing good, as I've seen them claim on a talk show once years ago.
It's a rented tux ok? I'm not going comando in another man's fatigues.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
But again, what I consider anti-American is that you seem to (as many others here on the boards and elsewhere are doing) blame America first and foremost for the state of the Middle East, and be less cynical of what, say, the French and German governments, and activists throughout Europe say in criticism of U.S. policy in the Middle East, while not giving the same cynical scrutiny to what is said against the United States.
I wouldn't say I blame the United States first and foremost, but I do think they were a contributing factor. Afterall, we put Saddam Hussein in charge, and we were funding him for a while(the situation does, to a certain extent, resemble the U.S's relationship with the Viet Nam government 40 years ago).
At the same time, I think that because the common perception of the United States is that we are the "global bully", we are blamed for a majority of the world's international problems, and often unfairly so.
Quote:
Arab governments dislike U.S. assistance of Israel, are hostile to the U.S., and paint the most demonized portrayal of the U.S. possible in their state-controlled media.
Independently owned arab news network Al Jazeera panders to existing Muslim hatred of the U.S. to get maximum audience.
Review of any Arab media coverage from during the Iraq war last year shows just how absurdly innacurate their "news" is.
Interesting. I'd say this would support my theory on the Arab masses' perception of the United States being the creation of the media.
Quote:
European governments are hostile to U.S. action because the European Union is struggling to take the U.S.'s place in the Middle East, both economically and diplomatically.
Arabs welcome this courtship by Europe, because they know that Europe would negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace deal more to the advantage of the Arabs than the Israelis.
That seems awfully simplistic. You don't think there might be a little more to it than that?
Quote:
And leftists in the European and global media have their own self-serving reasons for bashing the United States for its middle East policy.
By "leftists", do you mean the liberal factions of the European government, or just the left leaning people in general?
Quote:
Saddam was evil. Despite any U.S. action and/or inaction in the Middle East in recent decades, Saddam did these things:
- Genocide of his own people.
- Mass graves.
- Mass torture and rape of his citizens.
- Aggression against his neighbors.
- Pursuit of WMD's (whether or not he actually had them at the time of his fall, U.N. military inventory records from Iraq, not just the scouts-honor word of the U.S., show Saddam actively pursued, and had, these WMD's at one time, whether or not he still had them.)
- Setting aside a division of his army to secretly develop WMD's, and assigned to hide them from the U.N., as Iraqi military defectors began reporting in 1995.
- Non-compliance with U.N. weapons inspectors, and terms of the 1991 peace agreement, finally throwing out weapons inspectors in 1998.
And on and on.
Saddam's violent and murderous exploits are certainly well documented. I don't think anyone questions that. From what I understand, the opposing viewpoint is centered more around the nature of the invasion(and any possible alterior motives Bush may have had) rather than the necessity of Hussein's removal from office.
Of course, we've already covered this before.
Quote:
I fail to see what you have left to ponder, when that fact is so obvious.
I don't think Saddam and the Iraq War has a whole lot to do with whether or not Islam is a violent religion. I think you and I have said just about all we can on those subjects. If I've caused this shift in topic I apologize.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Not to get totaly off topic here, but I don't remember anything about Hitler doing the things he did in the name of religion.
I've read a few chapters of Mein Kampf and it's given me a decidedly different view of his motivation. He even disects various portions of the Bible and discusses their impact on his personal beliefs.
Quote:
If you really wanted to justify his actions
Why would I want to justify the deaths of millions of innocent people? There is no justification. Not in my mind.
Quote:
That's like the klan idiots that claim cross buring is in the bible. In all my life I have never once remembered seeing anything in the Bible mention cross burning, much less it being soemthing good, as I've seen them claim on a talk show once years ago.
I've heard various theories on the origin of the burning cross. Some trace it back to Roman times, other say that there were images of it conveyed in the New Testament, others say it's entirely an American invention.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
|
|
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080 |
The first reported cross burnings occured in the First Century CE (AD) in the Roman Empire. Nero made it a popular method of execution by burning Christians alive and using them as primitive lightposts throughout Rome. He basically stoked the flames (no pun intended) to the advent of the Great Persecution. He was also the first person to be deemed an "Anti-Christ" by the Christian Church centuries later. In ancient numerical code, 666 is the number/name of Nero.
History lesson over! My brain hurts...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
Posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
European governments are hostile to U.S. action because the European Union is struggling to take the U.S.'s place in the Middle East, both economically and diplomatically.
Arabs welcome this courtship by Europe, because they know that Europe would negotiate a Palestinian/Israeli peace deal more to the advantage of the Arabs than the Israelis.
That seems awfully simplistic. You don't think there might be a little more to it than that?
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.
There is little dispute that the European Union is a rising power, and that its rise to power makes it far less reliant, and increasingly less cooperative with, the United States.
France's obstructionism of the United States has been evident for decades. And now Germany has joined them for their own reasons, desiring greater power and influence for the European Union.
China is another rising power seeking to expand its political, economic and military influence.
Charles Krauthammer said the exact same thing I did in the January 12, 2004 issue of TIME magazine (page 45).
And I heard Robert Kagan voice the same perspective tonight on the Charlie Rose program.
There are other side issues, sure. But that's what it ultimately boils down to.
Quote:
posted by Animalman:
Quote:
Posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
And leftists in the European and global media have their own self-serving reasons for bashing the United States for its middle East policy.
By "leftists", do you mean the liberal factions of the European government, or just the left leaning people in general?
I actually mean both.
I recall when Gerhard Schroeder was elected President of Germany, and Tony Blair had just become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, many pundits joked that it was somewhat alarming that (less than a decade after the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher) the most conservative leader in the free world was now Bill Clinton !
And needless to say, Clinton was not a pillar of conservatism.
But relative to his fellow leaders in Europe, Clinton was conservative by comparison.
But more so in my comment, I was referring to leftist activist groups, and the left-leaning media, and the many pro-Muslim voices in The Guardian and elsewhere, which are obviously not leftist, but combine in a shared song of slanted anti-Americanism, that absolutely refuses to even give passing counter-perspective to the fact that the United States has a case for its war on terror, and an equal case for invading Iraq.
As Kagan said in an earlier interview(based on his observation, working in Europe), the case for invasion of Iraq is not even given token mention in European news, so of course the European public has a negative opinion of the Iraq War.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
Quote:
Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.
So these pundits, scholars and journalists believe that Europe opposes U.S action simply because they want to usurp our position there?
I'd image they would find that insulting, unless I'm misinterpreting you.
Quote:
There are other side issues, sure. But that's what it ultimately boils down to.
Ah, ok then, so why is the suggestion that these "side issues"(as you call them) exist so insulting, when even you, yourself, admit they do?
Quote:
I actually mean both.
What "self serving" reasons would the general civilian population have to be opposed to U.S action?
Quote:
But more so in my comment, I was referring to leftist activist groups, and the left-leaning media, and the many pro-Muslim voices in The Guardian and elsewhere, which are obviously not leftist, but combine in a shared song of slanted anti-Americanism, that absolutely refuses to even give passing counter-perspective to the fact that the United States has a case for its war on terror, and an equal case for invading Iraq.
How exactly could they "give passing counter-perspective"? If you have an opinion on something, that's your opinion. Sometimes it just isn't going to coincide with someone elses. Would you expect them to be swayed by your argument, because you might think the war was justified? I don't see either side backing down here, and probably rightfully so. If this was such a clearcut issue, it wouldn't be one of the most heavily debated topics in the world today.
As I've said elsewhere, all extremists are crazy. I generally look more towards the middle ground, because it's there that you'll most often find the people that have actually weighed both sides.
Quote:
As Kagan said in an earlier interview(based on his observation, working in Europe), the case for invasion of Iraq is not even given token mention in European news, so of course the European public has a negative opinion of the Iraq War.
I can't testify to what is and isn't given credence in European news(I doubt anyone could really determine that, not even Kagan), but Europe isn't made up of third world countries. Information is available to those who wish to find it. Who's to say that the European case is given mention here in America? We're certainly no more or less guilty of media slanting than they are. The fact is, non-partisan reporting doesn't exist, despite what those reporting might say.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
