PDA

View Full Version : Question for Alquedia



Royal Dragon
07-23-2005, 06:02 PM
What exactly do you want, and hope to accomplish by blowing yourself up in a subway?

For the rest of us, how do we contact Alquedia and ask this question? I really want to know what is motivateing them. WHY so much hatred, and WHY so much raw brutality?

Samurai Jack
07-23-2005, 07:18 PM
They feel they're fighting a war. For better or worse they could not even hope to match the nations they are making war against on a conventional battlefield. Thus, they do what they can to disrupt and terrify these nations by sacrificing themselves for thier ideals. The reason? They feel oppressed. They feel threatened. They believe that we are wrong, and that thier cause is rightous.

Thier demands?

1. They want Israel out of Palestine.

2. They want the west to stop meddling with the middle-east.

3. They want to establish an Islamic Theocracy worldwide.

4. They want the western economy to collapse.

5. They want the middle-eastern economy to dominate.

Royal Dragon
07-23-2005, 10:29 PM
Thier demands?

1. They want Israel out of Palestine. -- This is not possible, too many people there. AND blowing up a subway in London won't help the situation.

2. They want the west to stop meddling with the middle-east. -- Valid point, but still how does blowing your self up on foreinge soil help this?

3. They want to establish an Islamic Theocracy worldwide. -- Again, self destruction does not a world power make.

4. They want the western economy to collapse. -- They'd need to do alot more than demolish a subway for this.

5. They want the middle-eastern economy to dominate. -- They barely have one, they don't know HOW to have an economy. Also, if they blow themselves up, who will be there to run thier economy?

WinterPalm
07-23-2005, 11:00 PM
Think about it this way.
The Iraqis do not know what the hell america wants by coming there and blowing stuff up. That is all they see. A market or hotel, or meeting spot or church or whatever is blown up by missiles. They are probably asking the same questions: What does America want??? Only those within the decision making process or maybe a bit more understand that. To the rest of us, we sit amongst the carnage and death that violence and war will always bring. Both sides fight ideologies or concepts and those are things that cannot be blown into submission.

David Jamieson
07-23-2005, 11:23 PM
Think about it this way.
The Iraqis do not know what the hell america wants by coming there and blowing stuff up. That is all they see. A market or hotel, or meeting spot or church or whatever is blown up by missiles. They are probably asking the same questions: What does America want??? Only those within the decision making process or maybe a bit more understand that. To the rest of us, we sit amongst the carnage and death that violence and war will always bring. Both sides fight ideologies or concepts and those are things that cannot be blown into submission.

While there appears to be an organization called Al Qaida in Iraq, the iraqis are not Al Qaida.

The insurgance in Iraq is sunni led by all accounts and the insurgency is primarily made up of post war mercs from other countries as well as loyalists from Saddams regime who still have access to manpower and weapons of that regime.

A great deal of recruits for Al Qaida in the west are young and restless people who are easily led into carying out these acts while their directors remain comfortable in their hideaways.

acts of cowardice in direction, acts of stupidty on the misplaced passions of the Al Qaida recruits.

It will continue to get greyer and greyer and greyer and the reasons for terrorist actions will bounce all over the place from those listed above to a variety of other reasons.

Chaos is the only result of this.

octagonal raven
07-24-2005, 02:06 AM
:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Nick Forrer
07-24-2005, 04:40 AM
Its hard to talk about the exact aims and beliefs of AlQ since

a) its a loose association of networks with many autnomous sleeper cells - not a top down hierachy with Bin Laden at the top with captains and foot shoulders underneath him all following a rigid chain of command

and

b) the term has/is being used (sometimes consciously and sometimes not) as a catch all umbrella for the general phenomenon of islamic terrorism in the modern age.

There are many different militant groups in various parts of the islamic world each with their own local domestic agendas. However a common theme is fighting/defeating corrupt secular western oriented dictatorships and replacing them with islamic theocracys. Some examples of the places miltants fight/have fought in are kashmir, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chechnya and now Iraq.

One useful way to think of AlQ is as a venture capitalist group of investors. Militants with their own plans come to the group (Bin Laden and his closest guys - those who have sworn a bayat to him) for funding, training and logistic support and then Bin Laden and his guys chose who they want to sponsor - if it works great, if not there are always others. So they are not commissioning or ordering attacks per se. This also undermines the notion that by destroying terrorist training camps/ALQ leadership you will help to stamp out islamic terrorism - the 9/11 attackers didnt learn to fly in afghanistan; the London bombers would have made the explosives in a bathtub in a flat in england from ordinary household chemicals. Bin Laden is high profile for one main reason: hes rich. But he is by no means the only source of funding in the middle east.

Why then is the west also a target? IMO to answer this you have to adress the question of what ALQ actually is namely; a revolutionary vanguard that seeks to mobilise and radicalise ordinary muslims into overthrowing the corrupt western backed secular governments that rule them - like in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and previously like Iraq. By attacking the west and hoping to provoke a massive reaction/counter attack they can use that for propoganda purposes and say to the islamic people 'the people who are attacking us are friends/allies of our government's - so lets get rid of the government'.

I know this is a bit rambling but i hope it makes sense.

Merryprankster
07-24-2005, 07:08 AM
Samurai Jack,

Not a bad answer, but let's be clear:

The goal of AQ and its associated movements (collectively termed AQAM) is a worldwide Islamic theocracy, their way. The rest of the things you have listed aren't strategic goals, but operational level ones...just intermediary steps on the way to the worldwide Caliphate.

This is why I always say that the AQAM is not waging a political war. There is no policy decision anybody could make that would satisfy them, since what they truly desire is a restructuring of the way every individual lives their life. If this WERE a political war, with policy causes, there would be a policy that the AQAM would find acceptable ie, a redrawn boundary here, a concession there... But it's not, and there ain't.


Why then is the west also a target? IMO to answer this you have to adress the question of what ALQ actually is namely; a revolutionary vanguard that seeks to mobilise and radicalise ordinary muslims into overthrowing the corrupt western backed secular governments that rule them - like in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and previously like Iraq. By attacking the west and hoping to provoke a massive reaction/counter attack they can use that for propoganda purposes and say to the islamic people 'the people who are attacking us are friends/allies of our government's - so lets get rid of the government'.

Not a bad answer, but I think it overemphasizes the role of the west. I tend to think of the relationship this way: The governments in the ME are like alcoholics, and the west sometimes plays the role of enabler. The alcoholic is still responsible for his condition, and only he can stop it. My point is that I think we need to be careful about assigning blame. The west didn't break it, and the west can't fix it. People who think otherwise often, IME, don't recognize the limits of power. (That doesn't mean that our policies have been wonderful, hunky-dory, altruistic, or even appropriate all the time or even frequently).

I would also point out that the purpose of this terrorism is not simply to provoke the west into response. It is also to bolster support among their sympathizers. By successfully attacking, they demonstrate they have the capability to "hit us where we live." Nobody joins a losing team!

RD,

To answer your question from a technical perspective, revolutionary terrorism, such as that of the AQAM, is war on the highest plane of war - social/ideological. (The others are physical, organizational, technological, mobilizational, from lowest to highest). Terrorism is nothing but a tactic. AQAM is compelled to that tactic out of weakness, not strength. They cannot accomplish their goals in a head to head fight, so they use terrorism - very efficient, but not terribly effective.

War on the social/ideological plane revolves around legitimacy, which grants social cohesion. The Cold War was probably the greatest war ever fought on this plane. It never came to direct blows, but make no mistake about it, it was a war. The Western model won over the Soviet Communist model because its message was more legitimate. This sowed internal dissent within the Soviet Union and began fracturing the country on certain fault lines that had been supressed for years (ethnic, religious, class, etc). The government could NOT cope with these stressors and the system fell apart because it lost legitimacy. The people simply wouldn't stand for it any longer.

The Cold War was a LONG campaign of propaganda on both sides, sprinkled with proxy wars. It was also one of performance - the Western model performed better, and in the end it was impossible to deny that. That granted the Western model much of its legitimacy, and provided a generous amount of social cohesion.

What the AQAM is trying to do is break the social cohesion of the west by sowing doubts about its policies and ideas. They know that a fractured enemy, quarrelling amongst itself, is a broken, weakened enemy with limited ability to project power - and one more likely to leave the AQAM alone. Spain was a COUP for the terrorists. They can point at Spain and say "the enemy is breaking up."

That gives them time to go from being terrorists to perhaps guerillas - eventually hoping, perhaps, to switch to conventional tactics... you'll recognize the strains of Mao here if you're familiar with his work. I'm inclined to agree with him that you can't win a revolution unless you manage to claw your way through those steps...

Ok, now I'M rambling. I'd have to write 5 posts to fully explain myself so maybe I'll just shut up now.

Royal Dragon
07-24-2005, 07:24 AM
So this isn't about a "We did this, so they do that" kind of thing then?

Although I am starting to have a "Fuzzy" understanding of this, I'm still pretty confused as to why they don't just attack thier own leadrs, and volly for power? In Iraq at least I understand what is going on there. But in London, when some thought is put to it it really makes no sense.

David Jamieson
07-24-2005, 07:35 AM
So this isn't about a "We did this, so they do that" kind of thing then?

Although I am starting to have a "Fuzzy" understanding of this, I'm still pretty confused as to why they don't just attack thier own leadrs, and volly for power? In Iraq at least I understand what is going on there. But in London, when some thought is put to it it really makes no sense.

it is indeed a we did this so they do that kind of thing. It has gotten grey and the propoganda is thick as cheese, but it always comes down to retribution for some perceived or real injustice on one side or the other.

Would you be confused still if people "attacked" the leaders of the west because they don't agree with their position and actions and then vollyed for power?

These people are people just like you and me.
There are people in our own countries who share the ideology of the extremist fundamentalist islamic movements, there are people who share the ideology of other movements which counter that and there are the greater majority of us who do not subscribe to any ideology at all and yet we are eventually going to be forced into making a choice because of the actions of so very few people comparitively.

Not exactly hell on earth...yet, but growing closer every day. There is a very real possibility of another WW occuring.

SiuHung
07-24-2005, 07:53 AM
These people are people just like you and me.
There are people in our own countries who share the ideology of the extremist fundamentalist islamic movements, there are people who share the ideology of other movements which counter that and there are the greater majority of us who do not subscribe to any ideology at all and yet we are eventually going to be forced into making a choice because of the actions of so very few people comparitively.



No. I completely disagree with you on this.
These people are not like us. They are taught from a very young age that anyone who is not like them(thier sect of thier religion) is an infidel and less than an animal. That means killing somone who doesn't belong to thier group is a good thing, and encouraged if not rewarded. This includes members of other sects of the same faith, other cultures, other religions, women, and other races.

In Western countries, while there are extremist groups, they are for the most part allowed to practice thier beliefs freely. In the West, only when one group's actions cause harm to others, do we have conflict, and never in the proportions or extent of what comes from the Middle East.

So, to answer the original question of what do these people want...
They want to kill everyone who isn't like them, and then live in a world of thier design.

Royal Dragon
07-24-2005, 07:54 AM
Armageddon...

David Jamieson
07-24-2005, 08:45 AM
No. I completely disagree with you on this.
These people are not like us. They are taught from a very young age that anyone who is not like them(thier sect of thier religion) is an infidel and less than an animal. That means killing somone who doesn't belong to thier group is a good thing, and encouraged if not rewarded. This includes members of other sects of the same faith, other cultures, other religions, women, and other races.

In Western countries, while there are extremist groups, they are for the most part allowed to practice thier beliefs freely. In the West, only when one group's actions cause harm to others, do we have conflict, and never in the proportions or extent of what comes from the Middle East.

So, to answer the original question of what do these people want...
They want to kill everyone who isn't like them, and then live in a world of thier design.

This is an interesting viewpoint.

But I think it is misguided and tainted with a little more than a bit of the propoganda in regards to the islamic faith of late.

There is a segment who indeed are filled with hate, but there is a segment of western populations that is like this as well. Would you blanket the west with a statement like this because of the views and agenda of say David Duke and the KKK? Or would you be apologetic about that segment? BTW, that segment at one time numbered in more than a million.

Or how about the right wing christians? Or radical jewish extremists? How are they different?

Point being, extremism is extremism and not everyone gives it buy in however, the elements of it must be dealt with.

If we continue to fight fire with fire, all of us are gonna get burnt.

Royal Dragon
07-24-2005, 09:21 AM
If we continue to fight fire with fire, all of us are gonna get burnt.

Reply]
If we don't, we STILL get burnt, and they grow in strength and power, and burn us more because of that. If we give them back the fire that they present us with, yeah, we still get burnt, but it keeps them in check and we don't get burnt as badly in the end.

So, to answer the original question of what do these people want...
They want to kill everyone who isn't like them, and then live in a world of thier design...

Reply]
Yes, I can see that, but why now, why not 20 years ago? or 100 years ago? Is it just that they are reaching critical mass now?

And with the escalation in attacks over seas, how long untill we see more here?

SiuHung
07-24-2005, 10:17 AM
This is an interesting viewpoint.

But I think it is misguided and tainted with a little more than a bit of the propoganda in regards to the islamic faith of late..

Actually, I work with people who are of the Islamic faith every day. They agree with me. Admittedly, I was too broad or inclusive in my previous post. Not everyone of the Islamic faith fall into the category of the extremist.

Also, I have done a fair amount of research on this issue, going back as far as the early 1990's when I was in a more "international" line of work, and had to deal with the Middle East on a daily basis.

As far as propoganda...The news is always a bit skewed, but while there are Jewish extremists, and Christian extremists, I would be surprised to see reports of thos groups blowing up a London subway station, or World Trade Center.

SiuHung
07-24-2005, 10:25 AM
[

Reply]
Yes, I can see that, but why now, why not 20 years ago? or 100 years ago? Is it just that they are reaching critical mass now?

And with the escalation in attacks over seas, how long untill we see more here?

I have a theory about this. Just a theory...
I think that the escalation (and yes, this was happening on a smaller scale 20 years ago), is due to the fact that younger generations of people in the Middle East are beginning to seek change. There is more technology: TV, Cell phones, The internet available to these younger people, and they can see the West as well as the Far East. They can see how others live, and have begun to question authority. The religious leaders do not like this...It might lead to change. Change might leave in a less powerful and/or influential position...So they step up thier efforts to spread fiery message and recruit as many as possible to demonize the West. Demonize the West and isolate themselves from it by teaching hatred and spreading fear. Then the young people will either be caught up in it, or be afraid to challenge authority. Just a theory.

SiuHung
07-24-2005, 10:31 AM
T

There is a segment who indeed are filled with hate, but there is a segment of western populations that is like this as well. Would you blanket the west with a statement like this because of the views and agenda of say David Duke and the KKK? Or would you be apologetic about that segment? BTW, that segment at one time numbered in more than a million.


I think David Duke, and the KKK are disgusting. I find thier views and actions repulsive. However, they at this time are not linked to worldwide terror, drug dealing, and are small potatoes compared to Al Queda and Muslim extremists. They aren't sweeping throughout the Far East, leaving a path of death and hatred in thier wake. They aren't kidnapping foreign journalists and chopping thier heads off.

Merryprankster
07-24-2005, 11:14 AM
RD,

David Jamieson is entitled to his point of view, ie


it is indeed a we did this so they do that kind of thing.

But he is wrong.

The problem is not political. There is no policy we could adopt that would satisfy them. In fact, even when this POV began, in the 12th century, there was no policy the west could have adopted to satisfy it. I defy anybody to name a policy that would satisfy them, given their STATED GOAL of establishing a worldwide Islamic Caliphate. At best, you simply delay or provide time for them to try and gather strength.

The reason is that it posits the world in a Manichean way, where us="good," and them="evil"....and "good" must triumph. It is as simple and complex as that. Make no mistake about it. The AQAM has phrased this as a cultural war of survival. No matter what window dressing people try to hang on it, on either side, it reduces to that. And it becomes very easy to begin justifying all sorts of activity when you start painting an issue in such a stark either/or way (see the war in Iraq).

Lest somebody come along and try to brand me as anti-Muslim, I'm fully aware that this parsing is hardly unique to Islam, and is an oft-repeated theme in human history. But the question asked was "Why are they conducting terrorist attacks against the West?" At the end of the day, it's not because of Israel-Palestine, Old European Colonialism, or U.S. policy. It's because they have decided two things:

1. The World is divided into the Dar al Harb and the Dar al Islam - the House of War and the House of Peace - who are perpetually at war until Islam prevails.

2. They get to decide who is in the Dar al Harb and who is in Dar al Islam.

Historically, this viewpoint has existed, with a significant number of adherants, since the 12th century.

Again, I note that this is a separate, (albeit linked) issue from the conditions that allow such extremism to flourish - which IS a policy issue and has policy solutions.

RD, if you are genuinely interested in this subject, I'd start poking around for reputable history on the Internet. There are a LOT journals and what not.

Merryprankster
07-24-2005, 11:22 AM
I think that the escalation (and yes, this was happening on a smaller scale 20 years ago), is due to the fact that younger generations of people in the Middle East are beginning to seek change. There is more technology: TV, Cell phones, The internet available to these younger people, and they can see the West as well as the Far East. They can see how others live, and have begun to question authority. The religious leaders do not like this...It might lead to change. Change might leave in a less powerful and/or influential position...So they step up thier efforts to spread fiery message and recruit as many as possible to demonize the West. Demonize the West and isolate themselves from it by teaching hatred and spreading fear. Then the young people will either be caught up in it, or be afraid to challenge authority. Just a theory.

Basically, this is right. There is also the element of the "Deal with the Devil," that lots of corrupt ME regimes have made with local radical clerics to stay in power - the regime lets the radicals preach their hate and blame everything on the West, rather than the corrupt regime...then it's "hello misplaced aggression."

The only problem is that these regimes still have to exist in the international world, and they have a significant segment of their own populations that would like to know why their country is doing business with infidels. It's a short jump to "Our regime is apostate for this and must fall."

Oops.

mantis108
07-24-2005, 12:48 PM
I believe it is dire poverty brought on by extreme conservatism in those countries that is the source of the "Dar al Harb" that MP mentioned. Really the way that children can get fed or clothed in poor village is to go to religious schools that are rounded by extremists who disguised themselves as religious personels. In actual fact they are professsional assassins. Killing and murdering people is their trade in reality. The kids are brought up or rather brain washed to the point that human life has little to no value to them. The only meaningful thing or purpose of their lives is their loyality to each other especially that of the leader. But then DJ is right also that not all of the people there are like that. However small group(s) they are they still can pack quite a punch.

Western media love to romanticize them with labels such as fanaticism, suicide bomber, etc... These labels are there to help sell the papers not to help understand what is going on with the world.

The fact is that it is about arms trade business that went out of control. Now that the murders gang up together to form the "resistant" to fight the foreign power who are trashing through their land backed by power of armament and the hunger of oil, which are the roots of all evil in their eyes.

As long as extreme conservativism and dire poverty maintain a strong grip on these people, there will be more of these thugs around. It is the only "career" and life style that they know. The wars in Iraq and Afghanastin are the newest round of inspiration for their claim of Jihad. It is helping them to tell others in their part of the world that they are needed as professionals. BTW, OBL was/is rich or well funded for this reason as well. The west leaded by the US is only fighting fire with fire. It will only continue to consume all of us.

May be we can try demonstrate "Dar al Islam" by actually being peaceful meaning instead of shipping them armaments in exchange for oil why not ship them medicial technologies or whatever else but arms instead? For the meantime, let the media not romanticize the criminal minded assasins.

Mantis108

David Jamieson
07-24-2005, 02:37 PM
So are you guys saying there is a definitive manifesto that points towards the requirement of a worldwide caliphate? I would like to see this if it's true.

I think there are extremists who are imams that are calling for this, but i think the sweeping surmizing that islam and it's faithful are about this point is dead wrong.

As much as you may think my viewpoint is wrong, I share the same sentiments towards some of the things you are saying as well.

Minimizing groups such as the kkk is a convenience of the times. It was in my own lifetime that they have been huge in number and they are still a force to be reckoned with.

As for christian groups or other terror groups, these aren't small potatoes either.
The IRA probably let off a few hundred bombs in London over the past few decades.

Tim McVeigh is an example of inner american terror groups. And what about Waco? What could that have turned into?

Not apologizing for these friggin asses who are carrying out the latest in attacks, but I really think some of you guys have a little of a distorted view on things. Cut through the chaff of politic and you are left with more politic.

anyway, this argument every time we have it is continually unchanging.

Ultimatewingchun
07-24-2005, 04:06 PM
Someone was recently signing his posts with the following (he's since stopped). But the issues involved are very pertinent to this thread about Al Qaeda. This is what he was signing with:


"Jihad is part of this overall defense of Islam... Jihad means to struggle to the utmost of one's capacity... A man who exerts himself mentally or physically or spends his wealth in the cause of God is indeed engaged in Jihad... but in the language of the Divine Law,, This word is used specifically for the war that is waged solely in the name of God against those who perpetrate as enemies of Islam..."

.......................

***AND THIS is what I would like to respond with on THIS thread, concerning the whole idea of "jihad" and the inappropriateness of using such ideas to appear on the bottom of every post you make on a website like this:


In today's world,in the name of "jihad", people are being brainwashed into thinking that they will earn eternal reward in paradise if they go out and commit mass murder of men, women, and even children while in the act of suicide. But nothing could be further from the truth.

This is a perversion of one of the world's great religions: Islam.

Here is a quote from one of the greatest books ever written on the subject of religion, imo:
THE MAHATMA LETTERS TO A.P.SINNETT (published in 1923).


"The chief cause of nearly two thirds of the evils that persue humanity is organized religion, under whatever form and in whatever nation. It is the sacerdotal caste, the priesthood and the churches; it is in those illusions that man looks upon as sacred, that he has to search out the source of that multitude of evils which is the great curse of humanity and that almost overwhelms mankind.

Ignorance created Gods and cunning took advantage of the opportunity. Look at India and look at Christendom and Islam, and at Judaism. It is priestly imposture that rendered these Gods so terrible to man: it is organized religion that makes of him a selfish bigot, the fanatic that hates all mankind other than his own sect without rendering him any better or more moral for it...

Is not man ever ready to commit any kind of evil if told that his God or Gods demand the crime - voluntary victim of an illusion, the slave of his crafty ministers?

The Irish, Italian, and Slavonian peasant will starve himself and see his family starving and naked to feed and clothe his padre and pope. For two thousand years India groaned under the weight of caste, Brahmins alone feeding on the fat of the land, and today the followers of Christ and those of Muhammad are cutting each other's throats in the names of and for the greater glory of their respective myths.

Remember the sum of human misery will never be diminished until the day when the better portion of humanity destroys in the name of Truth, morality, and universal charity, the altars of their false gods."

MonkeySlap Too
07-24-2005, 05:15 PM
David,
I suggest you actually read the Q'uran, and the H'adith. Then take a look at history. Islam is fairly unique in how it institutionalizes killing and enslaving the 'other' as the command of god.

Go get yourself some 'mainstream' sermons from the middle east. Hitler wasn't as scary as what these guys espoused.

The west has forgotten it's history. We are so concerned about our own sins, than we forget the rest of the world is not without sin, and maybe, just maybe there are far, far worse things than Western civilization.

Scott R. Brown
07-24-2005, 05:45 PM
Let's keep in mind the only persons MANY Muslims hate more than infidels is OTHER Muslims!

The Shiite/Sunni conflict is as old as Muhammeds Death!!

Also the lying to and cheating of infidels is permitted and encouraged in the history of Islam. Therefore, any agreement Muslims make with infidels is not binding by their faith. Agreements and treaties are engaged in by extremists merely to lull the infidel into a false sense of security in order to exploit at a later date!!

SiuHung
07-24-2005, 07:01 PM
As much as you may think my viewpoint is wrong, I share the same sentiments towards some of the things you are saying as well.

Well here's the beauty of it...
We may disagree about certain things on this issue. However, because of where we live, and how we live, we can discuss publically our views and not be beheaded for them :) I can also say that I respect your opinion, and not be afraid of retaliation or persecution.

MonkeySlap Too
07-24-2005, 09:06 PM
Which is worth fighting for, isn't it David? :)

Mr Punch
07-25-2005, 03:41 AM
I agree it's a continuum, but to say that it's not connected at all to Iraq and Afghanistan is missing the point that these wars have given a lot more people their skewed legitimacy and marginalized a lot more people. Plus giving them greater access to training and weapons.


Islam is fairly unique in how it institutionalizes killing and enslaving the 'other' as the command of god.Funny, I've heard this story before from you. You could just as easily point to various times in Chriatian history (and some of it not so distant) where you could say the same thing. Islam is not unique in this at all.

Plus, there are many many strands of Islam who don't agree at all with this kind of action. Here's a starter (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1535100,00.html) detailing some of the differences between and problems facing the majority of Pakistanis.

And sure freedom is worth fighting for, which is why Bush is a hero to many everyday Afghanis. But the job isn't finished and to continue fighting the so-called War on Terror in this way is just going to make it more difficult and intensify the Hydra Effect.

Scott R. Brown
07-25-2005, 04:55 AM
Hi Mat,

To make equal the current behavior of Islamic extremists with that of historical Christianity is not justifiable!! Christian’s have not used force to try to convert other peoples in hundreds of years, and that kind of behavior was from the Europeans, not Americans. Violent conversion has been the way of Islam from the beginning!! Also just because Christians did it does not make it ok for others to engage in the same activity! Wrong is wrong and just because someone else did it does not make it right! Some in Islam make the contention they are paying back for the crusades, but they fail to acknowledge that the Islamic “IMPERIALISTIC” empire was forged through death and destruction of other cultures!!

Islam is unique in many ways!! Their violent conversion of other peoples started with Mohammed and is justified in the Quran, while destruction of other peoples is only justified in the Old Testament and is not sanctioned in the New Testament. The white slave trade by the Islamic “EMPIRE” made the black slavery of Americans and Europeans look like a Sunday picnic!! Islamic slavery and butchery continues to this day in the Sudan!!! There they don't blow people up with bombs, they come into your village in the middle of the night and hack everyone to death to machetes!! But you are right we shouldn't stand up to this kind of behavior, because we might get hurt or accidently hurt innocents while attempting to stop it!!

Think of the Islamic Extremists as the school bully, I know you would say they are thinking America and Europe are the bullies, but we don’t slaughter innocent people indiscriminately. Yes some died in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they were always unintentional and we kill much fewer BY ACCIDENT, than Hussein and the Taliban did ON PURPOSE!!!! Also America pays reparations to our victims and we rebuild the countries we devastate in the wars we DON”T start!! We help them set up their own form of democracy!! The free world is free because of America!

So back to the bully!! If you allow the bully to be a bully he continues to bully! If you stand up to him you may get hurt, but he will learn there is a cost to his actions that he will have to pay every time he bullies! You don’t back down just because the bully goes to get some of his friends and make your life worse. You get more of your friends and you duke it out until the bully is defeated, if you don’t you will live under fear and oppression the rest of your life.

War is hell but it beats the alternative!!!

The problem is a difference in worldviews between Islam and the rest of the world. They are a problem in every part of the world including Russia and China and they have been that way since the origin of Islam. This is because Mohammed justified the spreading of their faith by the sword. No other religion has ever allowed this. Even the Old Testament didn’t!!

They are tribal minded and stuck in the 12th century. They oppress women and children and non-Muslims. They even oppress each other!! The Sunnis oppress the Shiites and the Shiites oppress the Sunni!!! They want to return to the glory of the Islamic EMPIRE and they want to force everyone in the world to be like them, die, or live under their oppression. America does not do that and we have never done this!!!

The problems in the Middle East started during WWI when the Turks allied themselves with Germany. France and Britain promised rewards for the tribal leaders that assisted them against the Turks. As a result, after WWI the Middle East was divided, not along culture and religious lines, but arbitrarily and consequently you have many historical enemies living within the same country!! This part of the world has not known freedom of thought or activity for the entire 6000 years of civilization there! Only now are some considering the benefits, but they are fighting against a 12th century mindset.

I am sure I will have more to say later, but that is all i have the time for at the moment!

David Jamieson
07-25-2005, 05:49 AM
Guys, you and I are only allowed to express our opinions provided they don't counter the conventional wisdom and embarass the establishment too much.

Other wise, we may not be beheaded, but we will be jailed and we will be pepper sprayed or tazed or some other form of control will be imposed upon us, so I wouldn't go all crazy with the "I am a free man and thise guys are primitive" rants just yet.

Secondly, read the old testament for pete's sake. Speaking of definitive initiatives on killing anyone and anything that doesn't lock step with your ways. The OT is full of this kind of stuff and there are plenty of peeps that believe it and listen to it daily.

Anyway, I am saying radical extremism based on any religious posturing is likely, not a good thing for the rest of us regardless of where it is coming from.

I wouldn't say that our actions towards these states is one of the innoncent yet powerful lamb making right in the world though.

I mean, isn't it us with the standing armies on their soil? Don't we drop the bombs on them to the tune of 100,000+ civs dead?

perspective dudes.

Merryprankster
07-25-2005, 06:43 AM
David,

I don't know if anybody else is saying that a worldwide caliphate is universally accepted as Islamic doctrine, but I'm certainly not.

When I say "these guys," I'm talking about AQ and their buddies. Most Muslims would very much just like to get on with their lives, just like anybody else.


Cut through the chaff of politic and you are left with more politic.

I wish this were true in AQ's case. If it were, the problem would be much much simpler.

As far as the manifesto is concerned, the NYT discovered a short one:

1. Bring the rule of Allah to earth

2. Attaining Martyrdom in the cause of Allah

3. Purging the ranks of Islam from the elements of depravity.

Rohan Gunaratna has a more indepth discussion from the AQ Charter in his book, Inside Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, I lent it out. He did say in a BBC interview with George Alagiah that the charter lists "Al Qaida as the pioneering vanguard in the fight against the enemies of Islam." He also noted in a speech before the UN the "oft repeated Al Qaeda dictum that it is 'the duty of every Muslim to wage jihad.' " I should point out, as I have before, that Gunaratna is no friend of U.S. policy.

The charter itself reads that "Islam will be spread as it always has, by tongue and teeth, by word and bullet, by pen and gun." You might also take a look at Sayyid Qutb, and the ideology of the Takfiri (a particularly virulent strain of North African Islamic extremism). Hizb ut Tahir, in Central Asia put out a rather interesting little document saying that in their vision of the world, all countries must convert to Islam and be ruled by Sharia or pay a tax. Failure to pay that tax would result in military attacks, subjugation, and forced conversion.

CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), has come under repeated attacks from many experts for possible support and diversion of funds to Islamic terrorist organizations, despite its supposedly moderate stance and insistance that it only promotes human rights (to me this is like claiming that Menachem Begin and his Irgun fighters were war heroes...). Omar Ahmed, the CAIR leader, reportedly stated that Islam is in the United States to become dominant, the Koran should be the only recognized authority, and Islam the only religion in the world.

While the general religious goals are probably not too different than those of the Catholic church, which I am certain would love to see the world convert to Catholicism, I think it's clear what path Islamic terrorists have chosen to try and bring about their goals.

Before anybody tries to make a stupid moral equivalency argument, I'm not claiming that this is somehow worse than the collective sins of the Catholic church's history; I'm only showing that the goal of AQAM associated movements is to bring about a worldwide caliphate, and violence against non-combatant kufir (unbelievers), and murtad or irtidad (the apostate) is an appropriate method.

This in no way excuses abuse on the part of anybody anywhere for any reason.

Of course, the terrorists consider their targets to be combatants, or the deaths to be at the very least justified, but that's a different issue.

Merryprankster
07-25-2005, 06:49 AM
Guys, you and I are only allowed to express our opinions provided they don't counter the conventional wisdom and embarass the establishment too much.

David Icke believes the world is run behind the scenes by an alien race of reptiles that landed in Canada thousands of years ago. He is quite free to express his opinions and does so. Loudly. And with enthusiasm.

People criticize the governments constantly, call for revolution daily, establish "militia," and racist organizations, organize cults with truly odd beliefs, and espouse all sorts of conspiracy theories about the role of government/UN/religion/illuminati/reptiles in our daily lives.

Yet they are not arrested, jailed or anything else.

What we enforce in the west is not the message, but the manner in which you choose to express it. You can say just about any political, religious, or ideological thing you want as long as it is not a direct threat to somebody's person or life. But if you brandish a weapon while screaming "death to the death-dealers" outside an abortion clinic, expect LE action.

Ray Pina
07-25-2005, 06:57 AM
Their strategy is not a bad one. What did they sacrafice .... a few losers? We'd spend $50 million -- or more -- on smart missles to hit the same subways.

Between Sept. 11, the bombings in Indonesia, the attack on our Navy ship, and now London, how many men did they lose? How much expense?

In return, how much news coverage? NYC subways got shut down yesterday, making people worry and think that they could be next. We in NY know we will be hit again.

They are terrorists, they cause terror, that's what they do.

Does it work? Well, if it wasn't for Palenmstinians blowing themselves up no one would know or care about the Isreali/Palenstinian situation.

Would you care about the Muslim situation if not for Sept. 11th?

I find this all very interesting and like watching it unfold.

TonyM.
07-25-2005, 07:20 AM
Davis Icke is a gamma programmed disinformationist. That's why he's still free.

Royal Dragon
07-25-2005, 08:23 AM
Their strategy is not a bad one. What did they sacrafice .... a few losers? We'd spend $50 million -- or more -- on smart missles to hit the same subways.

Reply]
Yeah, but if we did the job it would have been done right, and the subway would have been leveled. ;)

Scott R. Brown
07-25-2005, 08:51 AM
Lets try to keep things in perspective!!

Europe is free and prosperous because America freed it TWICE and rebuilt it once. We could have owned Western Europe, Eastern Europe and much of Asia following WWII, but we don’t because America IS NOT imperialistic. America could have pushed the Soviets all the way back to Moscow if we had wanted to after WWII. We could have created a fully free Europe 50 years earlier, but we keep our commitments to our allies even though they are communist murders!! Our main protagonists during WWII, Germany and Japan, are economic powerhouses because of American COMPASSION & GENEROSITY!!!! America did not gas or combust millions of Germans as they did the Jews!!! America did not RAPE & TORTURE thousands of Japanese as they did Americans and Chinese and other Asian peoples!! We GENEROUSLY rebuilt their countries, helped them establish democratic republics and welcomed them into a partnership with the FREE world and then went about minding our own business!!

America does not conquer nations! America is not imperialistic!!! We are the greatest nation the earth has ever seen! We give more aid to others than all other nations combined! When Islam, France, Germany, Spain, Britain, Portugal, the Catholic Church, China, Japan, Russia, Turks, Mongols, Incas and Aztecs all had their imperialistic periods they did nothing but enslave those under their control. When America defeats an enemy their life expectancy goes up, child mortality goes down, standard of living goes up, freedoms increase, women get equal rights, children get educated. All we do is FORCE DEMOCRACY on them!!! The shame of it all!!! I hope GOD forgives up for our sins!!

As far as the Old Testament is concerned, NO ONE lives by that form of conduct any longer EXCEPT Islamic Extremists!!! The CIVILIZED countries of this world promote freedom, democratic republic forms of government, and open economic markets, that is all!!

Sure there are occasional abuses, but free, open societies provide a means for redress of grievances, change, improvement and the rectifying of abuses. This has not occurred in the past with the worlds REAL imperialistic governments and will not happen under the New Islamic World order either!

Spark
07-25-2005, 09:05 AM
To make equal the current behavior of Islamic extremists with that of historical Christianity is not justifiable!! Christian’s have not used force to try to convert other peoples in hundreds of years, and that kind of behavior was from the Europeans, not Americans. !

You should research the history of residential schools. These date back to the 1950s.

Mr Punch
07-25-2005, 09:07 AM
Interesting first reply post to mine Scott.

Had a couple of things I wanted to say in return, thinking this was a mature realistic discussion and I might actually learn something, but having just read that last post of yours... I don't think I've actually got any more to say, and I'm reminded why I don't bother taking part in political discussions on this forum.

I'll just say that I don't believe in two wrongs making a right, and (to Merry) I wasn't trying to make a 'stupid moral equivalency argument' - merely trying to point out to MonkeySlap Too in simple terms that Islam is not unique in the negative way he has pointed out.

Spark
07-25-2005, 09:13 AM
Lets try to keep things in perspective!!

Europe is free and prosperous because America freed it TWICE and rebuilt it once. We could have owned Western Europe, Eastern Europe and much of Asia following WWII, but we don’t because America IS NOT imperialistic. America could have pushed the Soviets all the way back to Moscow if we had wanted to after WWII. We could have created a fully free Europe 50 years earlier, but we keep our commitments to our allies even though they are communist murders!! Our main protagonists during WWII, Germany and Japan, are economic powerhouses because of American COMPASSION & GENEROSITY!!!! America did not gas or combust millions of Germans as they did the Jews!!! America did not RAPE & TORTURE thousands of Japanese as they did Americans and Chinese and other Asian peoples!! We GENEROUSLY rebuilt their countries, helped them establish democratic republics and welcomed them into a partnership with the FREE world and then went about minding our own business!!

America does not conquer nations! America is not imperialistic!!! We are the greatest nation the earth has ever seen! We give more aid to others than all other nations combined! When Islam, France, Germany, Spain, Britain, Portugal, the Catholic Church, China, Japan, Russia, Turks, Mongols, Incas and Aztecs all had their imperialistic periods they did nothing but enslave those under their control. When America defeats an enemy their life expectancy goes up, child mortality goes down, standard of living goes up, freedoms increase, women get equal rights, children get educated. All we do is FORCE DEMOCRACY on them!!! The shame of it all!!! I hope GOD forgives up for our sins!!

As far as the Old Testament is concerned, NO ONE lives by that form of conduct any longer EXCEPT Islamic Extremists!!! The CIVILIZED countries of this world promote freedom, democratic republic forms of government, and open economic markets, that is all!!

Sure there are occasional abuses, but free, open societies provide a means for redress of grievances, change, improvement and the rectifying of abuses. This has not occurred in the past with the worlds REAL imperialistic governments and will not happen under the New Islamic World order either!

Isn't it a bit early to be drinking?

Merryprankster
07-25-2005, 09:15 AM
Whoa Mat! That wasn't directed at you!!! I agree with what you are saying 100%.

My problem is with people who say things like "yeah well, the Christians did it too!"


Ok, they're both awful (as you have pointed out)

Next! :D

Scott R. Brown
07-25-2005, 09:22 AM
Hi Mat,

I aplogize for offending you! That was not my intention!! I understand these conversations can get intense but my CAPS were meant to empahsize points and not raise tempers or discourage reasoned debate. I would appreciate hearing your comments and will attempt to be less direct or forceful in my responses!!

Scott R. Brown
07-25-2005, 09:42 AM
Hi Spark,

As you mention these go back to the 50's and society has improved since then hasn't it. That is my point that free societies seek to improve themselves. There will always be abuses I granted that, but if we didnt seek to become better societies we would still have slavery too wouldnt we!!

Thank you also for your concern but i dont drink. Feel free to reinterpret history, but I doubt you can demonstrate my facts to be incorrect!!

America did free Europe with the help of the British and the Austrailians and the European resitance groups, however they would not have been successful without our assistance. We did rebuild Europe and Japan. We did not rape and pillage as the Germans and Japanese did. Japan and Germany are economic powerhouses. We do not interfere in their internal politics. We still provide for the bulk of their defense. Their economic situations are better because of our assistance. With increased economic circumstances comes an increase it education, life expectancy and lower infant mortality. If we had not rebuilt these countries and provided for their defense they would not have the economic success they do. There is male/female equality in Japan. Millions of people have greater access to freedom.

Patton was not only confident that American and British forces could push the Soviets back to Moscow, he requested permission or at least strongly suggested we do it. If we had then all of Eastern Europe would have been freer sooner!!

Look in an almanac and see how much money America GIVES to other countries. We also forgave France and Germany's War debts to us!


Instead of smart aleck responses, demonstrate me wrong!! Please show me my errors in facts!!

Spark
07-25-2005, 10:06 AM
Scott,

My point about residential schools was in rebuttal to your point that Christians haven't used force to convert people in hundreds of years. As you may now know, it happened only 50 years ago - within some of our lifetime's. This is not ancient history.

I apologize for my "smart alek" remark but I honestly don't know where to begin with your post and know there are some more articulate than myself that could dissect your post more readily.

With regards to your views on American Imperialism, I suggest you look up the book "Other Americas, Many Septembers" by Ariel Dorfman. You only need to read the first few chapters to get the point.

It is also fairly common knowledge that by the time America joined WWII Germany was already starting to collapse on itself, and many believed that it would have happened without the help of America. A war on two fronts, neither succeeding any longer. "The Forgotten Soldier" is also a good book that gives insight into a German Soldier's ordeals and you can follow the timeline to where it all went wrong (dating to before America joined in).

Re: rape and pillage - Veitnam?

Re: Japan - if you have been there you would know that there is not male/female equality. Women are still subservient to men, but that has nothing to do with America.

*Millions of people have greater access to freedom*

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean by this or the context you are using it in.

The US gives out heapes of cash but that amount based on the percentage of what they have is one of the lowest.

Merryprankster
07-25-2005, 10:25 AM
The US gives out heapes of cash but that amount based on the percentage of what they have is one of the lowest.

Yeah, but you don't measure by percentage, you measure by the actual amount.

50% of your only dollar might be personally impressive, but 5% of 500 million can do a lot more good.

Mr Punch
07-25-2005, 10:29 AM
Whoa Mat! That wasn't directed at you!!! I agree with what you are saying 100%.

My problem is with people who say things like "yeah well, the Christians did it too!"


Ok, they're both awful (as you have pointed out)

Next! :DI was hoping not.

My problem is with (people like) MonkeySlap who always trots out this "all Moslems are out to destroy non-Moslems" every time anything about Iraq/terrorists/Islam etc comes out.

The fact that they are both awful is neither here nor there. Two wrongs doesn't make a right but it won't stop people trying. And it's trying to ensure the enough mechanisms are in place to try and stop people trying that's the problem.

In AQ's case it's next to impossible, but the following may minimize the damage:

1) making sure Musharaf follows up his clampdown on the more extreme madrassas whilst implementing social prgrammes to replace their teachers for the dispossessed without getting himself blown up.

2) Finishing off the changeover to democracy in Iraq asap, although the extrication process itself is going to be a nightmare. Again this is going to need to find some way of addressing the poverty gap in Iraq, which will be difficult as long as foreign contractors are milking the country for millions of dollars in reconstruction etc.

3) Continuing to support Karzai.

4) Pressurizing the international Moslem community leaders to issue fatwah on the AQ. This again will mean restructuring the (perceived) imbalances in western countries such as the 22% unemployment in teh British Moslem population, to persuade the younger members of the community to join their elders in condemning this behaviour.

5) Pressurizing everybody in states that probably harbour or sympathize with terrorists, whether allies or not, inc, Syria, Jordan, Saudi etc.

Gotta go, way past my bedtime. Just a few thoughts. I'll come back and give you a good spanking later Scotty my boy! :D

MonkeySlap Too
07-25-2005, 10:54 AM
Mat,
I never said ALL Muslims - but I have said, and repeatedly, if you are a GOOD Muslim, as defined by mainstream mUslim thought as taught in Muslim counttries for a good thousand years, you are commanded by God to enslave, torture, or kill the infidel.

It's a command from God.

I'm not clear on any other religion that espouses that 'right from the word of god' in it's holy books.

Then you look at history, and gee, that's EXACTLY what they have been doing - especially if you read thier history books.

It's pretty disturbing, and unless you takke the time to study it, it is easy to fall into the 'all religions are the same' argument. Although I agree that most Middle Eastern religions are prone to abusing the outsider due to the non-syncretic manner of the beleifs taught - but only Islam commands you to kill the infidel.

So, how is this not disturbing?

Spark
07-25-2005, 11:11 AM
Yeah, but you don't measure by percentage, you measure by the actual amount.

50% of your only dollar might be personally impressive, but 5% of 500 million can do a lot more good.

Well I guess we're focusing on two different things.

Because you CAN measure by percentage, but you are choosing not to.

So the question is, who is more generous - The person who donates 50% of what they have (which might be a small amount) or the person who donates 5% of a vast sum and keeps the 95% for themselves?

FatherDog
07-25-2005, 11:13 AM
Mat,
I never said ALL Muslims - but I have said, and repeatedly, if you are a GOOD Muslim, as defined by mainstream mUslim thought as taught in Muslim counttries for a good thousand years, you are commanded by God to enslave, torture, or kill the infidel.

It's a command from God.

I'm not clear on any other religion that espouses that 'right from the word of god' in it's holy books.


Deuteronomy 13:12-16

'If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you to dwell there, that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which you have not known, then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; it shall be a heap for ever, it shall not be built again.'

cam
07-25-2005, 12:00 PM
Touche Fatherdog!
It is sad but predictable that this thread has to border on bigotry. The truth is, all these monotheistic religions have had great horrors done in their name. I guess it's a bit easier to slaughter your enemy when you get the guarantee of absolution, after all you're fighting HIS enemies aren't you?
Merryprankster is dead-on when he says that most Muslims, as well as must people just want to get on with life.

KC Elbows
07-25-2005, 12:04 PM
I was about to make an emphatic point, but Scott Brown used all the exclamation points.

Merryprankster
07-25-2005, 12:08 PM
Well I guess we're focusing on two different things.

Because you CAN measure by percentage, but you are choosing not to.

So the question is, who is more generous - The person who donates 50% of what they have (which might be a small amount) or the person who donates 5% of a vast sum and keeps the 95% for themselves?

That's nice and all, but a charity organization doesn't go "Oh goody! 50 cents to fight AIDS!"

Measuring by percentage is disingenuous - it's looking the gift horse in the mouth. Faulting a multi-billionaire because he donates 500 million is petty at best.

KC Elbows
07-25-2005, 12:20 PM
Augustine was pretty clear that leaders who were unbelievers needed to die. And he was a saint. Religious fundamentalists are only limited in the damage they can do by the limits of their power, imo.

MonkeySlap Too
07-25-2005, 02:11 PM
Ha! At least you didn't go the book of laws, because if your a priest, you definitly don't want to pimp your daughter out or the 'blood is on your head.'

Be that as it may, I resent the bigotry claim, as a.) It's just not true, and b.) this does not negate the fact that for a thousand years, killing the infidel is the mainstream of Islamic thought.

The Jews got it beat out of them by Rome, the Christians had a 'new testament' and while they did a good job of killing pagans, this was not endorsed by the new testament.

Middle-Eastern religions scare the ef out of me.

You can attack what I query about all the time, but you still need to look and listen as to what Islam considers mainstream thought. Then, you can really come back with a statement that has meaning.

David Jamieson
07-25-2005, 02:15 PM
Ha! At least you didn't go the book of laws, because if your a priest, you definitly don't want to pimp your daughter out or the 'blood is on your head.'

Be that as it may, I resent the bigotry claim, as a.) It's just not true, and b.) this does not negate the fact that for a thousand years, killing the infidel is the mainstream of Islamic thought.

The Jews got it beat out of them by Rome, the Christians had a 'new testament' and while they did a good job of killing pagans, this was not endorsed by the new testament.

Middle-Eastern religions scare the ef out of me.

You can attack what I query about all the time, but you still need to look and listen as to what Islam considers mainstream thought. Then, you can really come back with a statement that has meaning.


Holy Crap dude. The Jews got their own brand of isolationism and exclusionist ways and the Christians despite their new testament have an unparralleled record of killing the heathens.

What a hasid and an orthodox Catholic consider mainstream thought is NOT in line with democracy for the most part.

Mainstream islam is not the hardcore extremists. If it was, I myself would be storming the mosques right now. :p

Merryprankster
07-25-2005, 02:21 PM
Mainstream islam is not the hardcore extremists.

Truth.

Stupid character limit

Ultimatewingchun
07-25-2005, 02:52 PM
Hi Mat,

To make equal the current behavior of Islamic extremists with that of historical Christianity is not justifiable!! Christian’s have not used force to try to convert other peoples in hundreds of years, and that kind of behavior was from the Europeans, not Americans. Violent conversion has been the way of Islam from the beginning!! Also just because Christians did it does not make it ok for others to engage in the same activity! Wrong is wrong and just because someone else did it does not make it right! Some in Islam make the contention they are paying back for the crusades, but they fail to acknowledge that the Islamic “IMPERIALISTIC” empire was forged through death and destruction of other cultures!!

Islam is unique in many ways!! Their violent conversion of other peoples started with Mohammed and is justified in the Quran, while destruction of other peoples is only justified in the Old Testament and is not sanctioned in the New Testament. The white slave trade by the Islamic “EMPIRE” made the black slavery of Americans and Europeans look like a Sunday picnic!! Islamic slavery and butchery continues to this day in the Sudan!!! There they don't blow people up with bombs, they come into your village in the middle of the night and hack everyone to death to machetes!! But you are right we shouldn't stand up to this kind of behavior, because we might get hurt or accidently hurt innocents while attempting to stop it!!

Think of the Islamic Extremists as the school bully, I know you would say they are thinking America and Europe are the bullies, but we don’t slaughter innocent people indiscriminately. Yes some died in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they were always unintentional and we kill much fewer BY ACCIDENT, than Hussein and the Taliban did ON PURPOSE!!!! Also America pays reparations to our victims and we rebuild the countries we devastate in the wars we DON”T start!! We help them set up their own form of democracy!! The free world is free because of America!

So back to the bully!! If you allow the bully to be a bully he continues to bully! If you stand up to him you may get hurt, but he will learn there is a cost to his actions that he will have to pay every time he bullies! You don’t back down just because the bully goes to get some of his friends and make your life worse. You get more of your friends and you duke it out until the bully is defeated, if you don’t you will live under fear and oppression the rest of your life.

War is hell but it beats the alternative!!!

The problem is a difference in worldviews between Islam and the rest of the world. They are a problem in every part of the world including Russia and China and they have been that way since the origin of Islam. This is because Mohammed justified the spreading of their faith by the sword. No other religion has ever allowed this. Even the Old Testament didn’t!!

They are tribal minded and stuck in the 12th century. They oppress women and children and non-Muslims. They even oppress each other!! The Sunnis oppress the Shiites and the Shiites oppress the Sunni!!! They want to return to the glory of the Islamic EMPIRE and they want to force everyone in the world to be like them, die, or live under their oppression. America does not do that and we have never done this!!!

The problems in the Middle East started during WWI when the Turks allied themselves with Germany. France and Britain promised rewards for the tribal leaders that assisted them against the Turks. As a result, after WWI the Middle East was divided, not along culture and religious lines, but arbitrarily and consequently you have many historical enemies living within the same country!! This part of the world has not known freedom of thought or activity for the entire 6000 years of civilization there! Only now are some considering the benefits, but they are fighting against a 12th century mindset.

I am sure I will have more to say later, but that is all i have the time for at the moment!

...................


***EXCELLENT post, Scott.

And while I agree with almost everything you wrote, I want to point something out about what happened after WW1 and how the situation has gotten worse and worse:

IT'S ABOUT THE OIL !!!!!! :mad:

What England and France did in order to protect and stay in control of the Suez Canal, (and what the U.S. has done since WW2, ie.- backing the Shah of Iran, the Saudi Royal family, the backing of Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran in 1980)...

all of these things have now come back to bite us in our LUST for their oil and profits for the rich corporations.

The horses we've been backing have oppressed their people - and the U.S. is now seen as the ally of the oppressors.

NOW ADD TO THIS all the fundamentalist, radical extremist Islamic clerics who preach the kind of vile hatred and bigotry that you described so well throughout most of your post...

AND WHAT WE COULD NOW HAVE is a formula for disaster: 10-12-15 Muslim nations falling to extremists through insurgency, terrorism, and the violent overthrow of existing governments - and then ALL OF THEM coming under one umbrella - with a madman like Bin Laden as their LEADER (fuhrer?)...

and the result could be a 10 million man army ready to attack the west - and with some WMD's in their arsenal.

I'm talking WW3.

A war that we would have to win - and would win.

But the cost would be horrific! :eek:

We would have to destroy all the RADICAL ISLAMICS...in order not to let them plunge us all back into the dark ages with their savagery and power lust...but multi-millions of people will die in the process.

At which point we would have to ALSO kick the BUTTS of the Big Oil/Energy corporations (and their pals within the Republican Party) once and for all.

What a friggin' mess. :mad:

MonkeySlap Too
07-25-2005, 04:06 PM
If it isn't the mainstream, why do all the sermons I read sound like something from a Nazi party rally?

When you look at published materials in Arabic, it's all hate, hate, kill, murder, fight, and die for allah... with an occasional exhortation to be 'good' - Is anybody else listening to what they are saying?

I have some American friends who are converted Muslims, and they make all sorts of excuses for this... but it does not truly satisfy the fact that this vile hatred is part of the mainstream. If you read Islamic history, it makes the medeival Christians look like kindly neighbors to the heathens. (Germans who lived in heaths, the first victims in the early crusades.)

Merryprankster
07-25-2005, 04:26 PM
If it isn't the mainstream, why do all the sermons I read sound like something from a Nazi party rally?

Have you ever heard of a vocal moderate?

People who feel strongly about an issue are the ones that speak out. It doesn't get much stronger than fundamentalists. It's not moderate preachers on TV, it's evangelicals from the Pentacostal and Southern Baptist traditions, isn't it? We hear from right to lifers and pro-choice activists, but rarely from those whose view falls somewhere in the middle, with qualifiers attached to either side.

Strong feelings about a subject, conviction, translate to speeches, published works, videos, etc. A moderate just doesn't care enough.


There are a large number of liberal Islamic theorists in Europe. Perhaps if I have time, I can scare some of them up. The Sufic tradition is generally quite mellow, and encompasses the traditional Islam practiced in many places, etc. The Islam you are probably quoting from and are familiar with is Wahhabism, which is not followed in many places (but does have the largest outreach -evangelizing- program of all the traditions thanks to Saudi money). But most Muslims are not Wahhabists.



IT'S ABOUT THE OIL !!!!!!

Not really. But it's an easy idea to grab on to so lots of people adopt it.

mantis108
07-25-2005, 05:46 PM
I don't know man, MP. I have a website and host forum as well as posting on various MA forum. According to your logic, that'd made me a Kung Fu extremist because I speak out for my style that I am passionate about it?! :eek: :D I guess I better STFU. LOL...

Just wanna lighten things up.

Mantis108

Scott R. Brown
07-25-2005, 06:25 PM
Hi Spark,

The residential schools were a localized institutional policy and did not occur, as far as I am aware, as international policy of the church! Also children that attended the schools were place there by their “families” and not kidnapped and forced to attend. The force applied once there was not always public knowledge and where it was the onus falls on the parents to change the system, which to my knowledge has occurred. It is not wise to attribute to the whole what occurs or applies to the part. That is why we try to make the qualification we are speaking about Islamic Extremists and not ALL Moslems!

The Rape and pillage you are speaking of in Vietnam was not institutional or governmental policy. They were war crimes and were prosecuted when there was EVIDENCE to convict and proof it truly occurred. In Japan and Germany this behavior was institutional and governmental policy! Again you cannot attribute to the whole what applies to the part, but neither should you only to the attribute to the part what applies to the whole! Japan to this day refuses to apologize for the rape of Nan King!!

If we wish to argue about the freedom of women in Japan, again we must keep it in proper perspective! Women in Japan are not ALL subservient to men. They are professionals, well educated and perform governmental functions as well. This is a marked improvement over their condition prior to WWII. Clearly America did not force our cultural perspective on Japan. What we observe in public is not always what occurs in private as well. There are certain cultural traditions that may be publicly sanctioned, as in “appearing publicly subservient” that does not occur in private! This again is a Japanese cultural trait, that of saving face and not embarrassing another publicly! Women are better now than pre-WWII and that is the point!!

We do not live in a utopia! America is not perfect!! But neither are we the scourge of the world!! As far as world superpowers go we are the best that has existed so far and we have a public and media holds the Government to task when they behave contrary to our moral and ethical ideals! Before America this did not occur with a major world power anywhere in the world in the history of man!! America is self-adjusting, that is my point and we have done more than any other country to help the cause of freedom in this world in the history of man! I am not intending to appear jingoistic, but merely realistic!!! I have tried to admit America makes mistakes, but when Saddam made mistakes did his people the right to redress their grievances? No! They were gassed, tortured and placed in mass graves!!

Hi FatherDog and cam,

No democratic government follows or sanctions the passage of Deuteronomy you quoted. It no longer applies and cannot be used to justify the behavior of Islamic Extremists or to say “see the Jews do the same thing”!! They don’t!! However, Islamic Extremists do choose to promote this form of behavior! And this is why they are criticized and resisted!!

Hi KC,

I used a lot of CAPS too!! DON’T FORGET THE CAPS!!!!

Augustine died a loooooooooooooooooooooong time ago and his policies are no long followed nor are they promoted by governments. Let’s be critical of current behavior!! We can always find something to criticize about the past. Augustine behaved no differently in his culture of the time than anyone else, aside from the fact as a Christian he was supposed to love his neighbor!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Here is a few extra Exclamation points! Feel free to use them I don’t need them!!! I got plenty!!!!

Hi Ultimatewingchun,

You make some good points as well!!

You are correct about the problems that have been created by our own governmental policies. And they cannot be justified within an ideal world. But we do not live in an ideal world. It is easy to be idealistic when our bellies are full and we live in relative luxury!! However, we also live in a pragmatic world and sometimes it is necessary to do business with bad people even when we don’t accept their internal policies. When faced with two evils, choose the lesser evil!! This is a pragmatic approach and was the decision that America had to make when we supported Saddam over Iran!! It was not something the Clinton administration believed in! Their policy was the CIA was not to use ne’r do well sources when gathering intelligence and that is at least partially responsible for the intelligence flaws of pre-9/11!! All actions have consequences and even the seemingly best laid plans fall prey to the law of un-intended consequences.

Further, while the policy of the American government was to support the Shah, it is unlikely an informed American public would have approved of this! In America we can change the behavior and policies of an administration whose policies and behavior we don’t approve of, we call it voting! In many Islamic countries this is not possible.

There are always those who criticize our government for interfering in the internal policies other countries. Many of these same people that wanted us to do something, in retrospect, about the Shah’s policies DON”T want us involved in changing the policies of Saddam and Osama!! This is inconsistent!

Ultimatewingchun
07-25-2005, 07:32 PM
Good points again, Scott...

Like I said, it's a friggin' mess. :cool:

We need a triple-tracked approach (in an ideal world)...

1) Get ruthless with the extremists.

2) Reach out to the Moslem "Everyman" (the masses) with some real aid and goodwill, including a more even-handed honest broker approach to the Israeli-Palestinian land issue.

3) Get tough with the Corporations, their apologists, and their bought-and-paid-for politician friends about changing our energy priorities.

YEAH, RIGHT!!! :eek:

Like these three things are ever going to happen IN TANDEM anytime soon! :(

ZIM
07-25-2005, 07:42 PM
Its quite true that moderate muslims do exist and that they do not embrace jihad as put forward by the Islamists.

However, I don't think its quite adequate to view it from the outside, like a bug under glass, and leave it as that. All of your well-meaning 'understanding' and dissection of Islam could actually make matters worse. I've run into all sorts of criticisms of Christianity - some even well-meaning - that would get your a$$ kicked in some of the places I've been. And isn't *that* the short & sweet summary, with translation, for this cultural war?
Leave behind what you 'know'. Forget the 5 pillar lists and look within it as a living culture. Their experiences can be strikingly different than ours, their outlooks more so. When you go within the thinking, you can find some ideas for ways to get out of it.

Give it some thought:
What is the spiritual experience of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam?

What occurs in the heart of the Christian on Easter morning, when Christ is risen as a promise of eternal life in the New Israel called out from among the nations?

What occurs in the heart of the Jew on Passover, as the generations gather around the sacramental table waiting for word to leave Egypt just as did their ancestors three and a half millennia ago?

What is the spiritual experience of Muslims? When does it occur, and what does it feel like?

Atheists are at a distinct disadvantage here. Sorry, there's not much to do about that.

===============

You'll note, if you listen to or read sermons from Muslim sources, even moderate ones, there still is a stream of thought that Islam will dominate the world. And they do have ready-to-hand plans for that eventuality directly from the Qur'an. In this, monkeyslap2 is correct.

Thats the expectation. All of us will be muslim, whether from bombing and coercion or simple fate, its fore-ordained. Thats also the origin for the World Caliphate idea.

All of us, whether Atheist or something other could surely find something objectionable in that sort of goal, pursued by these methods.

===============

But, again, there's a way out. MP notes correctly that it is a cultural war. By definition, fighting a cultural war with your own culture is merely continuing the process. The trick, I think, is to short-circuit theirs.

Muslims are duty-bound to seek out teachers - Imams, etc. - and to devote themselves to the teachings of a spiritual guide. The problem - a problem - is that many of these have become evil and are guiding their charges to evil deeds.

They're being used. We make a big deal out of Bush 'using' everybody, but how much worse is the use these misguided kids are being put to? They're poisonous.

But it isn't enough to simply deport them. They need to be deposed and forgotten by their own.

Merryprankster
07-25-2005, 08:18 PM
ZIM, your post seems remarkably disjointed to me.

Nobody with their head on straight thinks this problem can be solved from the outside. There was an entire thread where dawood and I discussed the role of Islamic Jurisprudence and the history of same in "fixing" the "problem."

W/respect to the strain of thought about "Islam ruling the world," each of the Abrahamic religions has that in spades. Christianity has the Second Coming and Judaism has the Messiah. The wicked will be punished, the good rewarded, blah de blah, on and on. What is that if it is not world domination? What is the book of revelations if not a blueprint for end times and the ascendancy of Christianity as the truth? What are the prophecies of Isiah (I believe it was that book) with regards to the Messiah?

Bottom line: If you work from a Manichean worldview, you can justify any course of action in the name of religion.

rogue
07-25-2005, 08:22 PM
But it isn't enough to simply deport them. They need to be deposed and forgotten by their own.
Or dropped into the Atlantic with a pair of water wings. I've grown tired of these thugs. I can't yell fire in a movie theater but they can call for jihad and walk around like the **** of the walk.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1443903_1,00.html

There is also a way of thinking that divides Christians and Jews from many Moslems. Also the spiritual experience seems different.

Here's a sample of what we're facing (http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-631.html)

People of the book? (http://www.imanway.com/en/archive/index.php/t-1108.html)

Scott R. Brown
07-25-2005, 08:40 PM
Hi Ultimatewingchun,

Good points again yourself!!

The thing is to always try to keep things in proper perspective. We do that by contrasting what we have with what we had or could’ve had! Yes, the world is a mess, but when has it not been in a mess? It is getting better and better albeit slowly!

There was a lot more terrorist activities in the late 60’s and early 70’s than we have today. The IRA was more active and so were the Palestinians outside of Palestine. Recall the terrorist act during the Munich Olympics. We had our own terrorist activities in American too, the SLA, the Black Panthers, etc. We were in the middle of the cold war and most of Eastern Europe and the northern Islamic areas were under the oppression of the Soviets! We persisted and conditions improved!

To be sure it is a challenge and it forces America and other non-Moslem countries to face the consequences of their past shortsighted ineffective and narrow policies. It is not just America that has had a shortsighted vision of the future. It is in the nature of man to be more preoccupied with our present needs and disregard the future consequences. In America we have a self correcting system and that is what gives us hope for the future. We correct our mistakes in time because we have not only the idealistic view of freedom and equality, but also the means to promote it and a system that allows us to change ineffective and improper policies! This is not unique to America any longer, but America was the originator of this governmental system!

Our present situation forces us to take into consideration the feelings and attitudes of other cultures in the world and I see this as a GOOD thing!! Americans want to do the right thing! We want everyone to have the freedoms we do, but we don’t always go about it in the most sensitive and constructive manner. Our intentions are inherently good, but we don’t always anticipate the long term consequences! We are supportive of new Islamic democracies while still attempting to be sensitive to their own unique cultural biases!

True many of them would not accord us the same freedoms, but the best way to teach is to lead and the best way to lead is by example. When America makes mistakes the public holds the government responsible to rectify the circumstances.

One of the difficulties with Islam is that it is a legalistic religion. It has specific requirements of behavior that one must adhere too in order to be accounted a good Muslim. What these requirements are is interpreted variously by different imams. However, if taken literally as many Moslem Extremists do, it provides for a very narrow interpretation and this mode of living does not lend itself well to modern freedoms. If the world were to be forced into the Moslem worldview we would most likely suffer another dark age of knowledge and progress!!

I agree with your solutions; they seem appropriate under the circumstance, and some of them may already be in the process of being implemented, but we are presently playing catch up and I agree we do have our work cut out for us.

The thing is you can't reason with the unreasonable so they must be forcefully controlled. Look at the problems Russia is now having with their former Islamic republics. They did not suffer such problems under Soviet rule because if you messed with the Soviets they just killed you or exiled you and your family!!

During the 70’s or 80’s a Soviet diplomat was kidnapped in Lebanon (I think it was Lebanon?). The Soviets sent in a team to find the families of the terrorists and took control of them! They sent the terrorists a body part and asked them, “Do you want your families back in pieces, or whole?” The diplomat was released unharmed with an apology and the terrorists disappeared. Whether the soviets handled them quietly or they just got smart and decided to keep a low profile is apparently unknown.

Brutality is often expedient, but it is rarely popular!

KC Elbows
07-25-2005, 10:12 PM
Augustine's points are still a major influence on Catholicism. As are Aquinas', who actually was the one to clarify the need to liquidate leaders who were unbelievers, if possible. And to oppose any new non-christian nations.

What stopped this approach? Not morality on the part of the church. It was outsiders keeping the power of the church in check.

The rationale for the continuation of slavery in the South was a religious one. The resistance to suffrage was religious in nature. The success of the movements toward abolition and suffrage had religious elements, but not fundamentalist ones, and those religious elements were just one set of influences in a larger movement.

Fundamentalist christianity endorses slavery. Christ never suggests otherwise, Paul basically endorses the existing laws of his time. The Catholic Church followed the bible to the letter in trying to deal with pedophile priests internally; the Bible is clear about members of the church never to appear in public courts.

Again, Paul endorses following the laws of the nations of his time. The church would then use similar laws to the ones that allowed them to be persecuted to persecute others. This is fundamental to the New Testament, not the Old alone. If one is fundamentalist christian, one cannot in good conscience abolish slavery and execution and still follow all the fundamentals(unrevised) of the New Testament.

In modern terms, one cannot possibly follow the New Testament to the letter and not end up in jail for murder, considering many of the demands Paul endorses.

The reason that christianity in the west has not recently caused the death that islam has in the east has more to do with our respective governments than the merits of taking either set of religious ideals to a moronic extreme.

Scott R. Brown
07-26-2005, 12:57 AM
Hi KC Elbows,

Please point me to any “CURRENT” Catholic Church policy that accepts or encourages the killing of non-Christians. That is the point!!! I am not concerned with what occurred in the past. We can find innumerable past polices and behaviors to criticize about every major power or religion. Many of the ideas of Aquinas and Augustine may have continued influence in the Catholic Church today, but NOT the ideas that have been mentioned here!! Who cares whether the Church chose it themselves or if it was forced upon them? The point is this type of behavior is not CURRENT Church/Christian policy!!

I point out however, that while these policies were clearly not true Christian behavior, they were not out of line with the prevailing thought or behaviors of just about every culture AT THAT TIME!!! In today’s world that type of behavior is no longer acceptable by any FREE society. It is not a form of conduct that is suggested, encouraged, or promoted!! This is not the case for Islamic Extremist’s. They encourage, suggest, promote and DO these types of actions. Modern societies have matured and grown, the Extreme Islamic view has not! They are not reacting to actions perpetrated against them 1,000 years ago. They are behaving with the same conduct today that they did 1,000 years ago, and no one else is!! You cannot justify current abhorrent behavior on the basis some else did it to you 1,000 years ago when you were behaving in the same manner not only then, but now as well!!!

Your understanding of Christianity is seriously flawed. It is not my purpose to defend or justify any current or past behaviors or attitudes of Christianity. Neither am I arguing the superiority of one religion over any other and nothing in anything I have written so far should be construed that way. I am arguing the inappropriateness of using past behaviors to justify current misbehavior! I don’t care what the Christians did 1,000 years ago or 50 years ago. It is those who have a bone to pick with Christianity that are making that an issue. Neither do I care what Islam did 1,000 years ago or 50 years ago! What I am concerned with is those who try to use PAST misdeeds of some to justify their own misdeeds of TODAY!!!!

The current state of affairs is the majority of the Christian world and it appears at least a good portion of the Islamic world no longer accepts conversion by the sword!!! Those who feel the current actions of the Islamic Extremists are a payback for past misdeeds that others have perpetrated against Islam do not acknowledge the past misdeeds of Islam and do not have a comprehensive knowledge of history. Islam created an IMPERIALISTIC EMPIRE by converting by the sword. They killed any who would not convert initially and treated as second class citizens those who would not conform later by levying oppressive taxes. They oppressed their own women and children as well. While the rest of the world has grown past this type of behavior the Extremists have not.

What is occurring in this discussion is the logical fallacy of “Your Another”. This is when an improper action is justified by attributing a similar action to others. The rest of the “free world” does not intentionally injure non-combatants nor do they seek to convert others to their particular religions by violent coercion. While the actions of the Shah of Iran were abhorrent and many like to criticize American support of him, they fail to recognize that what replaced him was worse!! As I keep saying: We must try to keep things in perspective. That is contrast what we have against what we had or what could have had! Bad is always better than Worse, but is never as fine a Good or Best!!

America is NOT the great Satan. America has done more for the world than any other nation that has ever existed. That does not make it perfect. But name a fundamentalist Islamic state that has ever existed that has been a generous to others as America! Can we improve? Yes!! But we have a self correcting system of government that responds to the people. Traditional Islamic governments do not!

KC Elbows
07-26-2005, 02:30 AM
Hi KC Elbows,

Please point me to any “CURRENT” Catholic Church policy that accepts or encourages the killing of non-Christians.

Because the church exists within a framework of nations that have law, whereas fundamentalist islam has come up in nations that were deprived of law by their own problems and western interference.


I am not concerned with what occurred in the past.

Aquina's words are attributes of those religions when approached from a fundamentalist point of view. Since the major books don't change much, the arguments still stand. That potential does not cease because of law: it is contained because of it. My point being that it is our form of government, not our religion, that is different.


Many of the ideas of Aquinas and Augustine may have continued influence in the Catholic Church today, but NOT the ideas that have been mentioned here!! Who cares whether the Church chose it themselves or if it was forced upon them?

In an argument of the superiority of one fundamentalism over another, I simply feel it is inappropriate to give the new testament credit for what law achieved.


The point is this type of behavior is not CURRENT Church/Christian policy!!

Because of secular law overpowering the power of the Popes.


I point out however, that while these policies were clearly not true Christian behavior

Any more than fundamentalist Islamism is true Islamic behavior...


, they were not out of line with the prevailing thought or behaviors of just about every culture AT THAT TIME!!!

Absolutely wrong. Roman religion was the state religion, yet all other religions were allowed as long as they did not interfere with that. Christianity said no other religion was to be tolerated. This is not like the other religions at the time.

Move it forward 11 or so centuries. Genghis Khan was again, more open to other religions than the church.



In today’s world that type of behavior is no longer acceptable by any FREE society.

And it is the laws that provide a framework for that freedom that make that happen, not some inherrent quality that christianity has and Islam lacks.

KC Elbows
07-26-2005, 02:32 AM
It is not a form of conduct that is suggested, encouraged, or promoted!!

It is still in the words of the Bible. Those are not the words normal christians focus on, but the fundamentalists would love to focus on them more, were it not for their inability to use the state to enforce their views.


This is not the case for Islamic Extremist’s.

Because the states they fester within haven't the power of law that we do.


They encourage, suggest, promote and DO these types of actions.

And get away with them. Again, an absense of secular law.


Modern societies have matured and grown, the Extreme Islamic view has not!

Correct, they have grown beyond allowing fundamentalists free reign, be they christian or Islamic. It is law, not christianity, which makes the difference.


They are behaving with the same conduct today that they did 1,000 years ago, and no one else is!!

Because of secular law.


You cannot justify current abhorrent behavior on the basis some else did it to you 1,000 years ago when you were behaving in the same manner not only then, but now as well!!!

I never tried to justify, I pointed out that fundamentalist christianity is every bit as bad, but too weak to overcome secular law.



Your understanding of Christianity is seriously flawed.

You are comparing fundamentalist Islam to orthodox christianity, which is flawed. Fundamentalist christianity is no better, but simply weaker, and not by the actions of the church, but by concessions that were forced on the Catholic church by the western states over their mutual history, and thus also forced on the various other christian factions that arose from the church. This is what Islamic states need more of, not a replacement religion that seems better in an environment where it is subservient, but has been just as bad when it had the power to be.


Neither am I arguing the superiority of one religion over any other and nothing in anything I have written so far should be construed that way.

Um, you were saying that Islam has these flaws inherent in it, not christianity.?


I am arguing the inappropriateness of using past behaviors to justify current misbehavior!

No one is doing that, but instead citing where fundamentalist christianity has much the same flaws in order to point out the flaw in any argument that relies on Islam being a unique source of fundamentalism.


I don’t care what the Christians did 1,000 years ago or 50 years ago. It is those who have a bone to pick with Christianity that are making that an issue.

No, the example is being brought up to point out where FUNDAMENTALIST christianity stands, which is precariously similar ground to fundamentalist Islam, to show that the comparison you brought up is not valid.



The current state of affairs is the majority of the Christian world and it appears at least a good portion of the Islamic world no longer accepts conversion by the sword!!!

Because of secular law...


Those who feel the current actions of the Islamic Extremists are a payback for past misdeeds that others have perpetrated against Islam do not acknowledge the past misdeeds of Islam and do not have a comprehensive knowledge of history.

I have not suggested any rationale to excuse the actions of the fundamentalists.


Islam created an IMPERIALISTIC EMPIRE

Yes, but was it Holy and Roman?



What is occurring in this discussion is the logical fallacy of “Your Another”. This is when an improper action is justified by attributing a similar action to others.

Actually, your argument is a straw dog argument. I've never once said "they're okay because christians did this once".

I am arguing your original contention that Islam is more dangerous than christianity based on its content, when, in fact, when given free reign, christianity had similar issues of empire, torture, poor women's rights, and outright corruption. You are tending to compare an orthodox approach to religion to a fundamentalist approach as if orthodoxy was inherent in one, and fundamentalism
inherent in the other.

I.e. when I compare fundamentalist christians to fundamentalist islamics, I am saying that both are a wretched excuse for life simply waiting for their chance to force their insane views on anyone they can. But one is a slave to law, and one exists in lawlessness. Does this make one ethically better than the other? No. But the fundamentalist christian who would have his religion our state is more wretched, because he is ineffectual under our laws, and is in every way a hypocrite who would benefit from freedom while wishing to curtail it for others.


The rest of the “free world” does not intentionally injure non-combatants

Recently in another thread, the issue of this in Iran Contra came up. We do, indeed, occasionally injure noncombatants. You mean as a sole means of attack, I know, but as an absolute statement, that is not correct.


nor do they seek to convert others to their particular religions by violent coercion.

Because of the rule of secular law.


While the actions of the Shah of Iran were abhorrent and many like to criticize American support of him, they fail to recognize that what replaced him was worse!!

The Shah of Iran may as well been preaching radical Islam for all the good he did for it.


As I keep saying: We must try to keep things in perspective. That is contrast what we have against what we had or what could have had! Bad is always better than Worse, but is never as fine a Good or Best!!

The Shah made the Ayatollah. That we didn't see that coming was our own shortsightedness. We had a knack at that time for picking the people that would plague us most in times to come.


America is NOT the great Satan.

I didn't say it was.


America has done more for the world than any other nation that has ever existed.

What is the point of saying how great one is in lieu of trying to be great? America had a hand in Sadam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, the Shah(and so, by proxy, the Ayatollah). If we are to be great in the future, it is by fixing what we have done, not by blinding our eyes to it and trying to wipe out the misguided. Like the Catholics, they are many, and are better defeated by self interest than by the sword.

We accepted the ruin of many nations in order to fight communism: why is it appropriate to not honor the sacrifice those nations were forced to make and now try to raise them up without needing to point at them as though they were inferior nations suffering solely because of their own inequities?


That does not make it perfect. But name a fundamentalist Islamic state that has ever existed that has been a generous to others as America! Can we improve? Yes!! But we have a self correcting system of government that responds to the people. Traditional Islamic governments do not!

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the virtues of christianity, and everything to do with secular law as it was established in the US. If you think you are arguing that religious governments are bad and I am not, you are mistaken. But traditional islamic government, and especially fundamentalist islamic government, is not a new problem, but a very old one, one that cannot be understood in the western experience without taking serious note of the full history of the church and the move towards its current, weaker, state. This is the source of stability from religion, not christianity itself, which is contentious to all other religions by its very basis.

Kaitain(UK)
07-26-2005, 04:07 AM
*applauds*

Excellent post KC - thank you.

ZIM
07-26-2005, 06:03 AM
ZIM, your post seems remarkably disjointed to me.

With respect, it wasn't really directed towards you. You're already quite beyond that kind of approach.

As for 'disjointed': That's what the separators were about. Of course it was. I wasn't making one singular point. I was trying to get others to think for themselves.

It just seems to me that everyone has talked themselves into their own particular corner: Right, Left, Disengaged Euro Fluffball, Nervous Exasperated Canadian, Wacko Conspiracy Theorist, Islamic Extremist, we've got names for them all and no one is budging. We're never going to solve anything at that rate.

No, I don't mean solving it on the forum, either.

Merryprankster
07-26-2005, 06:27 AM
I was going to quote pieces of KC Elbows' post but it's pointless. It's (mostly) perfect as is.

I especially agree with trying to compare fundamentalist anything to mainstream anything. Totally flawed.


I do, however, caution people to be careful about the whole "the U.S. built Bin Laden thing." We absolutely did not. We provided support to the Afghan rebels through the Pakistani ISI. The MAK office, founded by Abdullah Azzam, in which Bin Laden was a key player, did receive some of that support, but more of the money and support came from Saudi money, since the MAK was designed to support Arab muj coming to fight the Soviets.

We were responsible for UBL in the same way that you are related to a second cousin, twice removed.

I'm not saying that KC was trying to claim we built UBL, just cautioning against that viewpoint. Neither Gunaratna nor Steven Coll could identify any direct U.S. support to the Muj or especially UBL. The ISI was our cut out for a lot of very good reasons.


However, there is a prime difference between Islam, and the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Jews have a set of personal laws they must keep, in addition to SOME social laws. Perfect for a group of people without a land for centuries because it enables them to maintain their identity as Jews, but still live in places around the world.

Christianity has the concept of separation of church and state built right into it. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto Me, that which is Mine." A clear statement that you can have both secular law and Christian beliefs.

Islam...Islam is both a religion and a way to structure a society. Islamic jurisprudence has been stunted by several factors - the primary ones, IMO being European colonialization and the regimes that grew out of that.

When I say stunted, I do not mean that Islamic jurisprudence is inherently incapable of dealing with the more secular problems of the modern world. What I mean is that it has not developed. We have a legislative and judicial process that allows our laws to keep up with the times. Islam does as well, BUILT RIGHT INTO IT. The issue is that for years, they had secular European law (which, by its secular nature, asserts man as the root of law and is therefore unacceptable). This kept Islamic jurisprudence from having to deal with the challenges before it - to grow and adapt.

The current regimes show consistent patterns of cutting deals with the hardliners, but that's making a deal with the Devil for a variety of reasons I don't particularly want to delve into. But many of the regimes try to sort of superimpose aspects of European secular law on what is an Islamic society. There is significant backlash, not because of the PRINCIPLES, but because of the SOURCE. There is a strong democratic tradition/ideal in Islam, (principle), but they reject the Western secular version because it generally asserts a separation of church and state that is vital to its existence, and asserts man as the source of law. This is unacceptable.

The solution is democracy in an Islamic context, which is totally doable. Islam has already solved banking problems that seemed intractable, given the prohibition of interest as usury. There are other examples, insurance, mortgages, etc. No reason the same process can't give rise to an Islamic democracy or something.

ZIM, fair enough. I think what you are talking about is generally the result of one of two things:

1. Lack of complete information (and an inability or unwillingness to seek more)
2. Inability or unwillingness to see anything in any context but the one you choose.

Hope springs eternal I guess, since both of these are resolvable!

rogue
07-26-2005, 07:20 AM
Good post MP. I have hopes too and I think Iraq and Afghanistan may be a testing ground for what the process will be.

David Jamieson
07-26-2005, 07:33 AM
Has Al Qaida answered the original question yet?

seems like for the most part, barring our cultural and religious ignorance of which we are all fairly abundant with, we have not heard from anyone of a truly serious and opposing viewpoint.

FatherDog
07-26-2005, 08:44 AM
I was going to expand on my point a bit, but I think KC Elbows said everything I was going to say and then some. And then some more. :D

ZIM
07-26-2005, 08:56 AM
I especially agree with trying to compare fundamentalist anything to mainstream anything. Totally flawed.
That's one of the problems. In doing so, we may reach the reductio ad absurdam of claiming that religions lay at the source of all political Nihilism and throw out the baby with the bath.

[Shades of Nietzche in that...]

Scott R. Brown
07-26-2005, 09:20 AM
KC,

You are the one that has turned this into a comparison of fundamentalist views, not I!! My point has been that Islam currently promotes violent conversion and it is sanctioned by its Holy Book, the Quran. Your only reply is, “Well the Christians used to do it too, and some of their famous writers, who died 1,000 years ago, recommended it!!” That is a lame argument!! The New Testament does NOT, regardless of its misapplication and manipulation by flawed, greedy and power hungry men, promote, recommend, advise, suggest, sanction, or justify conversion by violence! You are I’ll informed on the current trends of Christianity. You have no understanding of the underlying theology of Christianity as well. Christianity was never intended to be abused in the manner it has been and it is the actions of men, not the teachings in the text that are in error. This is not so for Islam. These teachings ARE included in the Quran. I am not intending to make this a theology lesson, but to put it briefly the LAWS of the Old Testament are not to be applicable in determining Christian behavior. Christians live under a new testament that is agreement with God!! The Laws of the Old Testament no longer apply; this is plainly laid out in the book of Romans!!

You are incorrect in your assertion that it is merely secular law that has contained Christian abuses. Since it has been primarily Christians that made the laws that you attribute to controlling the abuses it is clear that Christians regulated themselves. Secular humanism is still a fairly new belief system and clearly a minority view. Secular humanists have never had enough political power to force their views on anyone if Christians didn’t also support those views as well. Fundamentalist Islamic leaders take the word or the Quran literally to justify their abuses; Fundamentalist Christians must resort to rationalizations to squeeze inappropriate and incorrect justification for their abuses! The abuses of Fundamentalist Islamic are current history; the abuses of Fundamentalist Christians are old history!! We should be primarily concerning ourselves with present abuse.

Your argument concerning Aquinas and Augustine is not valid!!! The violent abusive ideas of Church leaders are not accepted by any Catholic cleric of any standing that I have heard of and if any exist they would be publicly repudiated by the vast majority of, not only Catholics, but nearly all but the most extreme Christians as well!! It doesn’t matter what they wrote they no longer affect Church Policy in the manner you assert. Aquinas died 800 years ago, and Augustine 1,500 years ago! He was not made a saint by Modern Catholics but by the ancient ones!!

Your assertion that the Romans tolerated every religion is incorrect as well. They tolerated any religion that also accepted the divinity of the current Caesar!! This is why there were constant wars with the Hebrews. Their religion forbids the worship of any other Gods and the Romans would not tolerate this! The Hebrews rebelled under the constant oppression!! And how did the Romans deal with the Hebrew problem? With an iron hand!!! They would have had very little problem with the Hebrews, had they left their religion alone. Further proof of this assertion is for 400 years (8th to 11th centuries) Islam and Judaism co-existed peacefully in Spain. Here the Jews were allowed their religion and they co-existed with the Islamic occupiers of Andalusia. During this time a Jewish doctor named Hasdai Ibn Shaprut (915-970), was the personal doctor to the Caliph! By the time of Maimonides (1135-1204) Jews and Christians in Spain were required to convert or die, many escaped including Maimonides and his family!!

Your arguments are flawed and you misunderstand my intent. My original purpose was to address those who make the flawed argument that because Christians and/or America have a history of abuse the abuses that are perpetrated now by Islamic Extremists are justified. Taking one line at a time from my comments and writing short out of context responses demonstrates only that you unable to see through your own bias to the point of my postings. You are assuming I am arguing something I am not! I was not intending to respond to your last two postings because anyone with a modicum of education, knowledge of history and ability to reason should be able to see through the flaws in your arguments, however the supportive comments you have receive indicated to me that some others cannot see through your distortions and misunderstandings of facts. I am not intending to address the rest of your errors as it appears to be an unproductive use of my time. The replies I have listed above should suffice to demonstrate to a reasoned person you are ill informed and biased in your conclusions!

Christopher M
07-26-2005, 09:40 AM
What is the book of revelations if not a blueprint for end times and the ascendancy of Christianity as the truth?

The concept of end times you allude to here is a specifically Protestant (including some pre-Reformation developments in Catholicism which lead into Protestantism) conception rather than a Christian one. For most of Christian history, these assorted prophecies were understood by the mainstream church as referring mostly to the past/present (eg. having to do with Rome). This is a natural development of the distinctive Christian belief (compared to its Jewish roots) that the Messiah has already come.


...

Your points concerning the relations between Christianity and the law are undermined by your mixing of fundamentalist and Catholic Christianity into a hodge-podge which doesn't exist in the real world. In the Christian sense, fundamentalism refers to a specific development of Protestantism strongly emphasizing literal scriptural interpretation and a number of beliefs derived from that perspective. The points you make about the law are fairly accurate with respect to fundamentalists (who have largely rejected the traditional Christian position of separation of church and state which MP has mentioned), but not with respect to Catholicism. For example, if you revisit the history, you'll find that the Catholic church was consistently one of the major forces opposing slavery. (I agree with your general thesis that the theology of fundamentalist Islam is no worse than that of fundamentalist Christianity, I just think you're a little confused as to what constitutes the latter.)

Also, your distinction, on the grounds of tolerance, between Christian and non-Christian religions in classical Rome is completely false. For example, look up the Edict of Milan -- what is popularly mistaken as Constantine I's adoption of Christianity as the state religion was actually only a declaration that Christianity would no longer be persecuted. In fact, this did not last long -- look up Julian ('the Apostate') who declared Neoplatonism the state religion in the decades following Constantine, and resumed the persecution of Christians.

Mortal1
07-26-2005, 09:50 AM
Scott

Great post again. I am slowly becoming your biggest fan.

A word of advice. You are wasting your time trying to have a valid argument. Most of the poeple on this site are young impressionable college kids. Who are forced to sit and listen to bitter underpaid anti american loony left liberal ranting professors. The only thing these poeple know for sure is the united states is the root of all evil in the world.

Wake up every one the terrorists are the bad guys not the US!

I will not be responding. I might not even check back. These cosistently anti american political threads make me sick to my stomach.

Go Bush!

Merryprankster
07-26-2005, 10:09 AM
Chris, I think the concept of how end times plays out certainly varies, but I don't think there is any variance on the actual idea of a second coming - that it will happen.

(is there?)

My Catholic dogma/doctrinal knowledge is a little spotty.

Christopher M
07-26-2005, 10:49 AM
Yes. But from the Catholic/Orthodox perspective, there are three things which colour the interpretation of the Second Coming:

The first has already been mentioned: that Biblical prophecy is generally understood as reflecting a past and present reality. The second is that the Second Coming is associated with the Resurrection (not Christ's; the general resurrection), and so is placed in the general category of afterlife speculation (and hence distanced from direct political significance). And the third, is Paul's canonical treatment of an apocalyptic sect, in his second epistle to the Thessalonians:

They had quit their jobs, left their families, and lived begging in the streets so they could spend all their time in spiritual preparation for the imminent Coming. Paul wrote, "to you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with the angels of his power..." (1:7) and he goes on like this, describing the signs of the Coming. This scripture is the most frequently quoted in defense of apocalyptic expectations; but this is ironic from the historical-critical perspective, because Paul is understood to have written this as a criticism of the Thessalonians behavior -- as if to say: 'until you see those angels of power in the skies, get your asses back to work and normal life.' This becomes more clear when the scripture is read like a book rather than quoted piecemeal: he says later on, "<act> according to the tradition which <you> have received of us... we were not disorderly among you. Neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing, but in labour and in toil we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you... we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat. For we have heard that there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling. Now we charge them that are such <..> that <..> they would eat their own bread." (3:6-12)

Between these points, the Orthodox/Catholic understanding of the Second Coming does not lend itself very well to political motivations. Of course, there is not a direct correspondence between formal theology and popular or individual sentiment -- we can't deny that apocalyptic beliefs have routinely attracted people's interest, in Orthodox/Catholic cultures as elsewhere.

Protestants tend to understand Biblical prophecies as related to the future, and, as mentioned, often interpret II Thessalonians exactly opposite to how I have above (probably due to an aversion to the historical-critical method). This, along with the effects of the general Protestant perspective, makes their understanding of the Second Coming much more amenable to politics (although the effects of this will naturally vary based on conservative vs. liberal Protestant sects).

KC Elbows
07-26-2005, 11:47 AM
KC,

You are the one that has turned this into a comparison of fundamentalist views, not I!!

Really? Do you then claim you did not say the following on page two?




The problem is a difference in worldviews between Islam and the rest of the world. They are a problem in every part of the world including Russia and China and they have been that way since the origin of Islam. This is because Mohammed justified the spreading of their faith by the sword. No other religion has ever allowed this. Even the Old Testament didn’t!!



My point has been that Islam currently promotes violent conversion and it is sanctioned by its Holy Book, the Quran. Your only reply is, “Well the Christians used to do it too, and some of their famous writers, who died 1,000 years ago, recommended it!!” That is a lame argument!!

That's your second straw dog argument, do you have a whole pack of those?

I never argued that. I pointed out that both fundamental religions tend toward tyranny and oppression, suggesting that it is fundamentalism, not islam, that is the problem, and that the solution has to do with law.


The New Testament does NOT, regardless of its misapplication and manipulation by flawed, greedy and power hungry men, promote, recommend, advise, suggest, sanction, or justify conversion by violence!

It does suggest clear punishments for those who choose not to believe, which is functionally the same, and was used as such by the church. Just because it isn't the parts of the New Testament you place emphasis on does not mean it is not there, and it is implicit in the very idea that those who do not believe in the New Testament(throught Christ) are going to burn in hell, therefore they are against God.


You are I’ll informed on the current trends of Christianity. You have no understanding of the underlying theology of Christianity as well. Christianity was never intended to be abused in the manner it has been and it is the actions of men, not the teachings in the text that are in error.

Source?


This is not so for Islam.

So you are arguing why Christianity is better.


These teachings ARE included in the Quran. I am not intending to make this a theology lesson, but to put it briefly the LAWS of the Old Testament are not to be applicable in determining Christian behavior. Christians live under a new testament that is agreement with God!! The Laws of the Old Testament no longer apply; this is plainly laid out in the book of Romans!!

Yes, but the new covenant goes much further in regards to human law and dealings with those who choose to believe, and you are apparently not familiar with those portions of Paul's letters.


You are incorrect in your assertion that it is merely secular law that has contained Christian abuses. Since it has been primarily Christians that made the laws that you attribute to controlling the abuses it is clear that Christians regulated themselves.

Yes, the British Kings were very pious in their needs for divorces, and the American deists in their need for separation as well.


Secular humanism is still a fairly new belief system and clearly a minority view. Secular humanists have never had enough political power to force their views on anyone if Christians didn’t also support those views as well. Fundamentalist Islamic leaders take the word or the Quran literally to justify their abuses; Fundamentalist Christians must resort to rationalizations to squeeze inappropriate and incorrect justification for their abuses!

Unless those involve the treatment of those who choose not to believe, in which they are perfectly sanctioned to do so. I'm sure Fatherdog could provide you with many more direct quotes from the New Testament for you to ignore that disprove your claim.


The abuses of Fundamentalist Islamic are current history; the abuses of Fundamentalist Christians are old history!! We should be primarily concerning ourselves with present abuse.

I was only concerning myself with your faulty argumentation regarding fundamentalism versus orthodoxy across religious lines.


Your argument concerning Aquinas and Augustine is not valid!!! The violent abusive ideas of Church leaders are not accepted by any Catholic cleric of any standing that I have heard of and if any exist they would be publicly repudiated by the vast majority of, not only Catholics, but nearly all but the most extreme Christians as well!! It doesn’t matter what they wrote they no longer affect Church Policy in the manner you assert. Aquinas died 800 years ago, and Augustine 1,500 years ago! He was not made a saint by Modern Catholics but by the ancient ones!!

He is a current saint, and Aquinas is very highly regarded in Catholicism, but since my point was that such fundamentalism as they espoused has been culled in the West by the marginalization of those specific viewpoints, and since the west still contains the elements that culled them in order to keep them culled, it is perfectly pertinent. Not to mention that, judging by MP's post, Islam actually has a secular function that would precipitate democracy, it seems that Islam, in our argument, has an aspect for dealing with fundamentalism that Catholicism and christianity does not.


Your assertion that the Romans tolerated every religion is incorrect as well. They tolerated any religion that also accepted the divinity of the current Caesar!!

I said that it was the state religion, and that other religions could not impinge on it. Christianity was and is, because of the necessity of Christ for avoiding hell, essentially against all other religions. The roman religion was not.


Your arguments are flawed and you misunderstand my intent.

Your intent doesn't matter. You state 1) Islam is inherently flawed and christianity is not, then when I call you on it, you state 2) No, I didn't say it, you said it, you are wrong, and then you say 3) Islam is inherently flawed and christianity is not.


My original purpose was to address those who make the flawed argument that because Christians and/or America have a history of abuse the abuses that are perpetrated now by Islamic Extremists are justified

You argued against my points as though that was my position, then accused me of mentioning chirstianity because I "have a beef with it", when the whole argument you are stuck in is related to both christianity and Islam, which is arguing in bad faith. You are saying "I can mention christianity, but you cannot". Your next defense is "you don't know christianity", and then assert that modern Catholics don't revere Aquinas and Augustine, two of their most revered saints!


. Taking one line at a time from my comments and writing short out of context responses demonstrates only that you unable to see through your own bias to the point of my postings.

Show me these occasions where I take your posts out of context? Is it where you accuse me of bringing up the topic you brought up before I'd even come on the thread?


You are assuming I am arguing something I am not! I was not intending to respond to your last two postings because anyone with a modicum of education, knowledge of history and ability to reason should be able to see through the flaws in your arguments

You can't even remember the point you are arguing about, you make a statement then refuse to address it as yours, and I'm supposed to bow down to your argumentation? That's not how it works.


however the supportive comments you have receive indicated to me that some others cannot see through your distortions and misunderstandings of facts. I am not intending to address the rest of your errors as it appears to be an unproductive use of my time. The replies I have listed above should suffice to demonstrate to a reasoned person you are ill informed and biased in your conclusions!

A good man apologizes when his accusations are based on his own faulty memory. Judge yourself. I have no more time for doing so.

KC Elbows
07-26-2005, 12:03 PM
Your points concerning the relations between Christianity and the law are undermined by your mixing of fundamentalist and Catholic Christianity into a hodge-podge which doesn't exist in the real world. In the Christian sense, fundamentalism refers to a specific development of Protestantism strongly emphasizing literal scriptural interpretation and a number of beliefs derived from that perspective. The points you make about the law are fairly accurate with respect to fundamentalists (who have largely rejected the traditional Christian position of separation of church and state which MP has mentioned), but not with respect to Catholicism. For example, if you revisit the history, you'll find that the Catholic church was consistently one of the major forces opposing slavery. (I agree with your general thesis that the theology of fundamentalist Islam is no worse than that of fundamentalist Christianity, I just think you're a little confused as to what constitutes the latter.)

Also, your distinction, on the grounds of tolerance, between Christian and non-Christian religions in classical Rome is completely false. For example, look up the Edict of Milan -- what is popularly mistaken as Constantine I's adoption of Christianity as the state religion was actually only a declaration that Christianity would no longer be persecuted. In fact, this did not last long -- look up Julian ('the Apostate') who declared Neoplatonism the state religion in the decades following Constantine, and resumed the persecution of Christians.

My point, if I'm recalling correctly, was not that christians weren't persecuted, but that the christian approach of being the only religion allowable was the reason for their persecution, not because the roman religion allowed no other religions.

As for the hodgepodge, I was trying to suggest that the laws that formed came into being from Kings undermining the power of the Papacy in order to run various aspects of their own kingdoms, these ancroachments persisting into the time when the papacy, due to worldly corruption and later modernization, lost much of its preimminence in the world, and into modern times, where moderate religious views predominate over fundamentalism West. So, while I agree, the Catholic Church is not universally fundamentalist, it is because it once was and the response to this older fundamentalism was to limit its power. So these same forms of self government that limited the power of Catholicism now limit protestant fundamentalism, because the laws are not specific to the religion, but to the state of liberty.

So yes, it was a hodgepodge, but I was trying to say that it is the laws that provide a state of liberty that limit the power of religious fundamentalism, and those laws came up due to political encroachment by the church.

In reality, as Mortal1 points out, my love of law that protects citizens from fundamentalist tyranny is liberal loony leftist anti-American hate. These posts are just me doing my part for the Party.

Christopher M
07-26-2005, 12:15 PM
it is implicit in the very idea that those who do not believe in the New Testament(throught Christ) are going to burn in hell, therefore they are against God... Christianity was and is, because of the necessity of Christ for avoiding hell, essentially against all other religions.

Not according to Catholic and Orthodox catechism. For example, "The claim of exclusivism has been rejected by many Orthodox scholars as untenable. This is not done in the interests of facilitating missionary endeavors or to foster world peace. Exclusiveness is rejected as a matter of Truth." (1 (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp))


The roman religion was not <exclusivist>.

If you mean Neoplatonism, in fact it was. None of the Neoplatonists until Iamblichus would have even conceived of the idea that anyone but upper class males (and among those, only the most gifted who studied Plato through Plotinus) could obtain salvation, since salvation was understood as the aspirant's mind reflecting perfectly upon that of God. An excellent introduction to these issues is the Charles Kingsley lecture 'Alexandria and Her Schools' (2 (http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Charles_Kingsley/Alexandria_And_Her_Schools/)). He writes:

"While, then, these two schools <Neoplatonism and Christianity> had so many grounds in common, where was their point of divergence? We shall find it, I believe, fairly expressed in the dying words of Plotinus, the great father of Neoplatonism. 'I am striving to bring the God which is in us into harmony with the God which is in the universe.' ...

But to that Pantaenus, Origen, Clement, and Augustine would have answered: 'And we, on the other hand, assert that the God which is in the universe, is the same as the God which is in you, and is striving to bring you into harmony with Himself.' There is the experimentum crucis. There is the vast gulf between the Christian and the Heathen schools, which when any man had overleaped, the whole problem of the universe was from that moment inverted. With Plotinus and his school man is seeking for God: with Clement and his, God is seeking for man...

Whether of these two theorems gives the higher conception either of the Divine Being, or of man, I leave it for you to judge. To those old Alexandrian Christians, a being who was not seeking after every single creature, and trying to raise him, could not be a Being of absolute Righteousness, Power, Love; could not be a Being worthy of respect or admiration, even of philosophic speculation...

If Clement had asked the Neoplatonists: 'You believe, Plotinus, in an absolutely Good Being. Do you believe that it desires to shed forth its goodness on all?' 'Of course,' they would have answered, 'on those who seek for it, on the philosopher.'

'But not, it seems, Plotinus, on the herd, the brutal, ignorant mass, wallowing in those foul crimes above which you have risen?' And at that question there would have been not a little hesitation. These brutes in human form, these souls wallowing in earthly mire, could hardly, in the Neoplatonists' eyes, be objects of the Divine desire.

'Then this Absolute Good, you say, Plotinus, has no relation with them, no care to raise them. In fact, it cannot raise them, because they have nothing in common with it. Is that your notion?' And the Neoplatonists would have, on the whole, allowed that argument. And if Clement had answered, that such was not his notion of Goodness, or of a Good Being, and that therefore the goodness of their Absolute Good, careless of the degradation and misery around it, must be something very different from his notions of human goodness; the Neoplatonists would have answered-- indeed they did answer--'After all, why not? Why should the Absolute Goodness be like our human goodness?' This is Plotinus's own belief..." (3 (http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Charles_Kingsley/Alexandria_And_Her_Schools/Lecture_III_Neoplatonism_p7.html))

The Syrian school of Iamblichus broadens Neoplatonic salvation only by positing lower grades of it which are attainable by following the rites of Greek civic religion, and as such remains exclusivist, albeit less dramatically so.

KC Elbows
07-26-2005, 12:29 PM
Okay, I retract that statement, since Chris has clearly proven me wrong. Fundamentalist Christianity is hostile to other religions. I think. Unless Chris proves me wrong. :D

Christopher M
07-26-2005, 12:41 PM
the christian approach of being the only religion allowable was the reason for their persecution, not because the roman religion allowed no other religions.

I think your history is off. Until the Edict of Milan by Constantine I (313 AD), the state religion was exclusive. Properties associated with Christian worship were seized by the state, and active Christians were subject to fine, imprisonment, and execution. There was then no state religion (both Christian and non-Christian religions were openly and freely practiced in the empire) until 361 AD, when Neoplatonism was made the state religion under Julian, and Christianity was again forbidden. This lasted only a few years until neutrality was again restored, and remained until 391 AD when Christianity was made the state religion by Theodosius I. Non-Christian religion was indeed outlawed at this point by the state -- though it's worth noting that Theodosius wasn't even Christian (he was actually explicitly excommunicated), and this only lasted 4 years, at which point the Empire fragmented. You can wikipedia all those names to verify. While there is certainly some lattitude in interpreting this history, the thesis that Christianity forbade other religions, while other religions didn't forbid Christianity would be an awfully hard sell.


while I agree, the Catholic Church is not universally fundamentalist, it is because it once was and the response to this older fundamentalism was to limit its power.

Fundamentalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity) means something very specific, which Catholicism was never a party to. Catholicism was certainly corrupt and conservative, but not fundamentalist. There was definitely a dynamic of secular power gradually taking over and thereby limiting the political power of the Catholic church, but that's not a direct analog to what is happening today with respect to fundamentalist Christianity, because the former occurred in a feudalist context, and the latter in a liberalized society.

ZIM
07-26-2005, 01:29 PM
It <the New Testament?> does suggest clear punishments for those who choose not to believe, which is functionally the same, and was used as such by the church. Such as what? I'm genuinely curious if they approach punishments as proscribed by the Qur'an [eg., cutting off limbs, etc.]

If you are speaking of the OT, you're on less sure grounds, I'd say. And in the context of the back-and-forth, you'd be conflating.

KC Elbows
07-26-2005, 02:14 PM
Such as what? I'm genuinely curious if they approach punishments as proscribed by the Qur'an [eg., cutting off limbs, etc.]

All right, I've looked it up, and my view was colored by Aquinas'. Regardless, Paul's letters stipulate that all who do not accept God do so in full knowledge of God, and are ****ed.


If you are speaking of the OT, you're on less sure grounds, I'd say. And in the context of the back-and-forth, you'd be conflating.

I wasn't, but I was incorrect regardless. However, I still hold that The Bible, if taken from a fundamentalist perspective, endorses the view that all other religions are against God, which is an open ended invitation to tyranny, and that when there is no power of law to prevent that tyranny, it exists, and when there is such power, it is held in check. There is ample ground to say "Buddhists don't accept Christ, it clearly says Christ is the path to heaven, therefore, buddhists go to hell". Reasonable men have a more reasonable reading of it, but reason cannot fully reconcile a religious text.

Therefore, I concede each of those points, which does not change the force which contains christian fundamentalism, which is not an inherrent quality in christianity, but secular law.

Additionally, while I was mistaken about overt orders for tyranny in Paul's letters, there is the admission that all who do not accept God are base, and turn away from him knowing he exists; this does not equate to a case where laws of persecution would aid immorality any more than simply the excuse to do it. Radical Islam has laws, fundamentalist christian's have an excuse: whose corruption will be most varied?

Chris,
I'll see if I can find my source for the Roman religion, but I am willing to concede that aside from my central point, that christian fundamentalism is less dangerous than islam not because of a quality of the religion, but because of laws that contain it, my later info was flawed.

In my defense, I admit it. I certainly don't claim someone else said it or suggest that those who are proving me wrong are "excusing terrorism".

Christopher M
07-26-2005, 02:32 PM
The Bible, if taken from a fundamentalist perspective, endorses the view that all other religions are against God

Definitely.


the force which contains christian fundamentalism <..> is not an inherrent quality in christianity

The problem is that there are many differences across the varieties of Christianity -- not only in ultimate conclusions, but also in the fundamental framework and methods by which those conclusions are made. When we speak about 'inherent qualities in Christianity,' we're presumably speaking about those kinds of axioms. But because they vary so much, we can't generalize. For instance, Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura (the position that all one's religious beliefs can and should be constructed from scripture alone), whereas other Christians do not. It's difficult to imagine a more fundamental disagreement than that -- it has implications for every other belief.


christian fundamentalism is less dangerous than islam not because of a quality of the religion, but because of laws that contain it

As I said, I basically agree with this point. Examined in a vacuum, the beliefs of fundamentalist Christianity are just as spooky as those of extremists in any other major religion.

Scott R. Brown
07-26-2005, 03:23 PM
Hi KC,

I will no longer entertain your poorly constructed arguments. If you were capable of seeing through your prejudices to the inaccuracy of your conclusions there could be a productive purpose. At present I can see none!! You have repeatedly misrepresented the main points of my posts in an effort to respond with your preconceived prejudices. You have a poor understanding of history, and Christianity!

For general information; the STRAW MAN logical fallacy is as follows:

Misrepresenting another’s position with the intent of making their position more easily attacked. As applied to this discussion it is taking statements out of context and attacking the statement instead of the point the statement was intended illustrate. The misstated and redefined position is then concluded to be false without ever having to address the ACUTAL position argued!! If you observe your style of retort it becomes clear you are the one guilty of what you accuse me of engaging in!

When I first started participating in conversations on these BB I too would take single lines or thoughts out of the posts of others and write responses. It seemed the most expedient form of address. Over time I realized my error! This form of address misunderstands and misapplies the statements of others. All comments have a context in which they are intended to be considered. When taken out of context a statement loses its overall meaning and purpose. Any single statement or thought is more easily attacked when separated from the overall intent of an argument! It is sort of like the literary act of “divide and conquer”! It is a useless, simpleminded and immature behavior! I finally learned to attempt to address the overall content of a post rather than individual lines or statements. As such, I rarely quote single lines or single thoughts and I try not to reply to them out of the context in which it seems they were intended. When I do it is usually to commend or agree rather than criticize.

The general outline of a reasoned paragraph is a thesis statement followed by evidence and illustrations demonstrating the thesis. In a complete paper the combined paragraphs serve the purpose of accomplishing the same goal. When sentences are extracted and attacked on an individual basis and or redefined out of context, it redefines the argument. This is not reasoned discussion it is merely contradiction!

If I responded in the same format as you have engaged in we would be going around and around acting like children.

“Well you said this!!!”

“No I didn’t!!”

“Yes you did!’’

“Na uh!”

“Uh huh!”

Your responses are premised upon fallacious interpretations of almost everything. The act of demonstrating them all to you would clearly be unproductive as you are unable to formulate a true argument or pierce the veil of your own prejudices. You only take out of context the comments of others and seek to disprove them piecemeal. (Straw Man Fallacy)This is not the form of an educated discussion but the actions of grammar schoolers and I will not engage with you in this form of discourse.

This will be my last post on this thread!! Have Fun!!

KC Elbows
07-26-2005, 04:00 PM
And which statements, again, did I take out of context? None. You repeatedly make qualitative comparisons between christianity and Islam, and should anyone attack those comparisons, your defense is "that doesn't matter, as I was only saying that to make another point", and then continue to make the same comparisons. Your posts are based on those comparison, those comparisons are unproven, and thus, your argumentation is lousy to the point that mine, which is poor, is still superior.

However, humorous troll.

Ultimatewingchun
07-26-2005, 05:36 PM
KC makes the point Christian religious groups (ie. the Catholic Church in Rome) has had it's archaic concepts negated because they have been superceded by LAW, and not due to an internal evolution over the centuries...

but he fails to realize that: IT DOESN'T MATTER ! :o

Why? Because there obviously HAS been an evolution of thinking within predominantly Christian countries; otherwise, LAW would never have superceded the dictates of medieval popes and what not.

What matters now is that predominantly Christian countries no longer allow religious extremists to control and subjugate other religions within those respective countries...

and this constitutes a HUGE difference between a place like modern day America, for example, and a place like modern day Iran.

In fact - it is, PARADOXICALLY, the secular aspect of American policies (ie.- the pursuit of the almighty dollar and oil) that is now the problem...

And is now in fact the NEW RELIGION, in a way, coming out of the west. And it is precisely this that is the biggest source of a "problem" for the Muslim world as they try to deal with us.

This is the most significant point I've been trying to make.

ZIM
07-26-2005, 06:52 PM
In fact - it is, PARADOXICALLY, the secular aspect of American policies (ie.- the pursuit of the almighty dollar and oil) that is now the problem...

And is now in fact the NEW RELIGION, in a way, coming out of the west. And it is precisely this that is the biggest source of a "problem" for the Muslim world as they try to deal with us.As a Moslem George Orwell might put it: "If you want a vision of the future: Imagine a human crotch shoved in your face, forever..."

The Imam *shudders*
The Christian Fundie *faints*
The Western Secular *cheers*

MonkeySlap Too
07-26-2005, 09:01 PM
"In fact - it is, PARADOXICALLY, the secular aspect of American policies (ie.- the pursuit of the almighty dollar and oil) that is now the problem...

And is now in fact the NEW RELIGION, in a way, coming out of the west."

This is complete and utter bullsh!t. Societies and rulers have always sought power and riches. To claim there is something unique about this to have absoloutly no grasp of human history.

It is a phrase frequenty parroted by the religous nuts, and by those indoctrinated by communist inspired self-hate.

Merryprankster
07-27-2005, 04:57 AM
This will be my last post on this thread!! Have Fun!!

Which the more rational among us are forever grateful for.

Royal Dragon
07-27-2005, 05:26 AM
Well, I have been reading this whole thing, and there are some very interesting views. Basically what I have got out of it is that the problems have more to do with a certain religious teachings reaching critical mass than anything.

Merryprankster
07-27-2005, 06:01 AM
I have got out of it is that the problems have more to do with a certain religious teachings reaching critical mass than anything.

Yes and no. From a mass psychology perspective Radical Islam is being used as a justification for rebellion.

There is a whole segment of sociologists who do pretty much nothing but study "Why Men Rebel," (which happens to be the title of a book). Rebellion occurs when people feel a sense of relative deprivation (expectations do not meet reality) in cultural acheivement, material wealth, and/or social status, combined with foreseeable hope that the current "order," which is perceived as being responsible for the problem (whether or not it is) can be overthrown.

That hope is what truly drives terrorists in general. They all know (AQ or not), that attacking the "belly of the beast," demonstrates power. It says "I can reach out and touch you, and you can't stop me." That inspires hope among potential supporters. Nobody fights for a loser.

Without the hope, you don't get rebellion.

The Middle East/Islamic world represents an interesting challenge (and a living critique of Marxist theory), because the fundamental driving factor IMO is not material deprivation, but social stasis and a deep sense of cultural humiliation, which is still a terminal disease in many places in the world.

Example - you know, young Saudi males have it pretty good, but a lot of them support Jihad against the west. Material deprivation certainly doesn't account for that. But see where you get when you start talking about the West. Don't be surprised if they tell you how the Muslim world has been wronged and shamed and trod on by the West in a vendetta.

Shame matters. Thomas Friedman has repeatedly called humiliation the single most underrated motive in human history. I am inclined to agree. Many Iraqis have been outraged over U.S. arrest tactics because they consider them shameful and humiliating - and that shame is often only erased by revenge....

The list goes on....

KC Elbows
07-27-2005, 06:37 AM
Why? Because there obviously HAS been an evolution of thinking within predominantly Christian countries; otherwise, LAW would never have superceded the dictates of medieval popes and what not.

So, if an english king needed a divorce and the church wouldn't give it, so he forms his own church, kills any wives he needs to in order to have a child, this is evolution of christian thinking?

Wacky christians. :D

ZIM
07-27-2005, 07:07 AM
I get the same impression MP does, but I put it in rougher terms. They think they're hot sh1t and they won't face reality when someone comes along and shows them they're not.

You see it all the time in MAs: Some idiot pulls a sucker punch, the sifu puts him in his place, the idiot freaks out, etc.

rogue
07-27-2005, 09:05 AM
That hope is what truly drives terrorists in general. They all know (AQ or not), that attacking the "belly of the beast," demonstrates power. It says "I can reach out and touch you, and you can't stop me." That inspires hope among potential supporters. Nobody fights for a loser. Well put. Now how do we make them always look to be the loser or at least make their supporters into losers?

I think it's been done before and may be happening now.

Mr Punch
07-27-2005, 09:56 AM
Very tired and busy and it's late over here... so not enough time to contribute and just enough time for some constructive trolling...!:D
A word of advice. You are wasting your time trying to have a valid argument. Most of the poeple on this site are young impressionable college kids. ...Wake up every one the terrorists are the bad guys not the US!

I will not be responding. I might not even check back. These cosistently anti american political threads make me sick to my stomach.

Go Bush!You are an idiot. And barely. What is anti-American about this thread? Go back to college, di(khead, maybe you'll understand something.


I will no longer entertain your poorly constructed arguments.
...
“Well you said this!!!”

“No I didn’t!!”

“Yes you did!’’

“Na uh!”

“Uh huh!”

Flawless, except that KC points out where "you said this" on this thread, and everybody else says "Uh huh" and you say, "No I didn't". :D

Then you go into a load of nonsense about straw men, despite having brought American superiority and throwing a load of ill-informed bollocks about Japanese AND German post-war history into the mix with nary a sniff at the subject in hand... sure enough, not a straw man as such, more like a straw city, filled with straw fu(kwits.


This will be my last post on this thread!! Have Fun!!Yeah, bye.


If it isn't the mainstream, why do all the sermons I read sound like something from a Nazi party rally?

When you look at published materials in Arabic, it's all hate, hate, kill, murder, fight, and die for allah... with an occasional exhortation to be 'good' - Is anybody else listening to what they are saying?

You didn't read that link I put in did you? And you haven't read any of the Islamic Council's condemnations of the London bombings have you? You're saying that to be a 'good' Muslim you have to espouse to these ways. Why should I believe you, an pbvious bigot, over representatives of several thousand Moslems who say that terrorism has no part in Islam? :confused:

Chris M, you have a good argument as usual. You are arguing the points of Christianity from an official POV: from the official Catholic doctrine etc, which for some reason you don't seem to be able to distinguish from the popular (and extremist) beliefs. The fact that some bright spark from the Bush admin named a bomb MOAB is not irrelevant and not a joke and not a coincidence in this case. Can't remember the guy's name but who is that general on the chiefs of staff who preached (in his uniform until he was told it wasn't right) in his local church... and specifically preached Revelations as the way that Christians could achieve heaven on earth after the non-believers had been wiped out in Armageddon?

It may be that the Catholic or any other branch of the Christian churches do not espouse this and do not espouse that, but neither do the leaders of the Islamic Churches in the UK espouse terrorism... without wishing to tar everyone with the same brush, it's the extremists that count in these arguments for practical purposes, not the high-falutin' ivory tower dwellers!

Mortal1
07-27-2005, 10:16 AM
Mat

Go fukk ur self!

I mean that from the bottom of my George Bush loving heart.

You ARE exactly who I'm talking about! Keep up the twisted liberal logic.

The best part is there are people on here that don't even know how far left they are. They think the elite LIBERAL media is right leaning. lolol THe bbc won't call the animals from 7/7 terrorists! They call them bombers! lolo Its a fukking joke.

By the way good post Victor. Seriously.

fa_jing
07-27-2005, 10:47 AM
Tony Blair y'all, yu, yu, uh Tony Blair y'all, hup, hup

T to the Bleezy

Merryprankster
07-27-2005, 11:21 AM
Now how do we make them always look to be the loser or at least make their supporters into losers?

It has been done before. We waged war and WON on the social/ideological plane vs. the Soviets. We can do the same here.

A grand campaign of perception AND reality.

1. Reconstitute the U.S. Office of Information and let them do their job - marketing.

2. Open "American Schools" throughout the Islamic World, free tuition for anybody who wants to come, K-12. (part of the problem is and educational system that does not encourage question asking... A legacy of both divine command morality, and the French educational system in many places)

3. Reorg/develop a regional specialty within the diplomatic corps in the Department of State. Rotating in and out as needed, but to get in, you have to Speak Arabic, Pashtun, Urdu, Farsi, a major Indonesian or Malaysian language, and have a degree in Middle Eastern/Islamic studies, history, or literature or something similar.

4. Reorganize the DoD. Smaller, faster, cheaper, lighter. A significant core element would retain the ability to smash things and break stuff. Big, heavy, dangerous, and with an emphasis on positively, absolutely, destroying anything that gets in its way unequivacally and without mercy. The remainder grouped in small units, more similar to SOF. Think heavily armed SWAT teams well versed in security tactics, urban warfare and small unit engagement.

5. FEMA takes over the Civil Affairs units within DoD and augments their current teams to handle extensive and lengthy rebuilding. They develop increased capability to deploy as fast response units. What is post-war but Emergency management and security?

6. Fund covertly, overtly, whatever is best, TV, radio and written equivalents of Radio Free Europe. Don't have a TV set? A radio? Congratulations, you are the proud new owner of a hand-crank generator radio, courtesy/gift of the United States government, available at the nearest embassy/consulate outpost/mail.

7. Fund covertly, overtly, whatever is best, an Arabic News Network as a counterweight to Al Jazeera. Include translations of major worldwide news, CNN, BBC, etc.

8. Begin funding the translation of important works in the Humanities, History, Philosophy and Soft Sciences into Arabic. Flood the Muslim world with free copies. I want every 20 year old to be able to get a hand on an Arabic translation of Marx, Locke, Robert Frost, etc. at the nearest coffee shop.

9. Fund conferences of major Islamic figures - symposiums, panels that sort of thing, worldwide, frequently, ad nauseum. Tape it. Broadcast it. Distribute it freely.

10. At the Grand Strategic level - the sort of thing that is so abstract that people often don't do it, I want the President of the United States to get with other world leaders and establish new guidelines for how the integrated world is going to behave. We have, still, a set of "rules" for proper behavior built during the Treaty of Westphalia, and codified/shaped by the legacy of Three World Wars (WWI, WWII, Cold War). We need to make an adjustment, because during the era of state on state relations, everybody was playing football. Now, the states are playing football, while non-state actors are playing cricket, or not playing at all. So how do we deal with that? If a set of rules are not agreed upon and established, we risk a drop in our moral power (and that matters a lot - we won the Cold War with it folks) every time we use force.

4 and 10 are shameless lifts from Thomas Barnett, the insufferable, smarmy little ******* genius.

Is this exactly the sort of thing that will cause extremists and terrorists supporters to increase their calls for attack? Is it precisely the type of thing that they will perceive as culture war?

You bet.

But I'm not interested in extremists or terrorists. 99.5% of them are already lost to us. When you go looking for something - a slight, an insult, an excuse - you will find it no matter what the true intent of your object of scrutiny. Consequently, I give up on them. That is the province of the military. You kill those types, arrest them, contain them, without remorse.

They are already dead. They are doomed to again paraphrase Neyachev. So let's help them along as efficiently as possible.

I'm looking at the moderates, the up and coming generation, and the work a day people who can be influenced, while preserving and creating a military force that can handle the threats and security needs of the Post Cold War.

rogue
07-27-2005, 11:51 AM
The remainder grouped in small units, more similar to SOF. Think heavily armed SWAT teams well versed in security tactics, urban warfare and small unit engagement. The people that I know have been complaining that they aren't being used that way enough.


They are already dead. Exactly

Sounds like we're thinking along the same lines which looks good for me and bad for you. :D

Ultimatewingchun
07-27-2005, 02:53 PM
"Example - you know, young Saudi males have it pretty good, but a lot of them support Jihad against the west. Material deprivation certainly doesn't account for that. But see where you get when you start talking about the West. Don't be surprised if they tell you how the Muslim world has been wronged and shamed and trod on by the West in a vendetta.

Shame matters. Thomas Friedman has repeatedly called humiliation the single most underrated motive in human history. I am inclined to agree. Many Iraqis have been outraged over U.S. arrest tactics because they consider them shameful and humiliating - and that shame is often only erased by revenge...." (Merryprankster)


***VERY GOOD POINTS, Merry...

I'm not spouting the same old Marxist/old time Liberal doctrine that economic distribution of wealth determines "everything" line. Not at all.

I agree with your points about HUMILIATION. But what I'm saying is that - aside from the middle and upper class Islamic extremists (ie.- Bin Laden)....for whom it's not about economics - instead it's about pride, power, and lust for blood...

aside from them - the appeal these guys make to the masses is MULTIPLIED by the POVERTY that so many of them (the Middle East masses) live in...

So now there's a triple whammy going on:

1) Religious teachings that call for the death of the "infidels" (and the totalitarianism of the Imam's)

2) the PRIDE of feeling powerful enough to "reach out and take control"...

3) the move out of poverty that such people believe (rightly or wrongly) will happen if they follow the extremists up the hill...


and if they become terrorists, suicide bombers, and/or insurgents fighting their "jihad" against the west.

Remember:

In the 1920's Hitler's appeal was more than one-tracked (ie.- hatred of the Jews)...

He was promising a way out of the HUMILIATION handed Germany by the Treaty of Versailles - that crippled the German ECONOMY and German PRIDE...and a return to PURITY and BLOOD LINE GREATNESS (ie.- his illusions about German's being the Master Race)...and world CONQUEST.

He was packaging a whole series of human motivations under one flag: Nazism.

Now substitute German Purity and Superiority through "Providence" and "Destiny" (these were the words that Hitler used) for the words being used today...such as "the will of Allah"...the Jihad....(Holy War)...the "Great Satan" (the United States)...for Hitler the great "cancer" was the Jews, etc.

and it's simply History Repeating under a new face: ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST THEOCRACY.

MonkeySlap Too
07-27-2005, 07:46 PM
Mat,
If you knew me, you know that any claim of bigotry is certainly not founded. However, I do disregard any statement quietly muttered by a Muslim council outside of Muslim countries. Why? Because of the rule that allows Muslims to lie. There are three conditions where it is permissable in Islam. In this case, it is the right to lie to non-beleivers about your intentions or your beleifs, so that you can fulfill your duties - like working to enslave, subdue, and convert. This is what is taught in Muslim countries. I have these discussions with Muslim friends of mine, most of whom I assume are not following the prohibition against befriending non-moslems, and they fall into two camps;

a.) Usually American born or converts, who look at Muslim countries and say 'well we were like that once too, it will pass.'

b.) Muslims from the old country; 'Be afraid, be very afraid.'

I keep taking this position because of the overwhelming evidence in it's favor, and the long history of intolerance and war bred by Islam. (to be fair, this is a common result of ALL dominant MiddleEastern religions) - I for one don't want to have to 'walk' my wife in a bee-keeper suit, or live in a country where if a college proffessor suggests something unorthodox he is immediately murdered by the students. Or have to live amongst people, who if I question or criticize them I can expect to be murdered as a religous duty.

You can claim Islam is not these things, but if you engage in actual theological research, you will discover the murderers, and terrorists have much more scriptual support than the 'moderates.'

I'd love to see evidence to the contrary, that Islam brings 'peace' to people, but it doesn't seem to exist anywhere in history. Not in the countries around Islam, who get invaded and forcibly converted, or within Islam where tyranny, injustice, and poverty rule.

I mean, what's the upside? And why is it a bad thing if I ask these questions? How does that make me a bigot? Which I find very funny, since it seems almost everyone on this board bashes the CHristians, which is 'cool' right now, but by golly, question Islam, and it's like I'm questioning the validity of the Bolsheviks.

MonkeySlap Too
07-27-2005, 07:50 PM
Anybody else here want to vote for Merryprankster in '08? Personally I think Valentine is a kick-@ss name for a war president...

ZIM
07-27-2005, 09:15 PM
MP-

I'm concerned with one part of your plan:
4. Reorganize the DoD. Smaller, faster, cheaper, lighter. A significant core element would retain the ability to smash things and break stuff. Big, heavy, dangerous, and with an emphasis on positively, absolutely, destroying anything that gets in its way unequivacally and without mercy. The remainder grouped in small units, more similar to SOF. Think heavily armed SWAT teams well versed in security tactics, urban warfare and small unit engagement. Specifically because of China. I think that any possible war with them would be more ballistic [ahem] than afoot, and alliances would play a major role, but...this is an army streamlined for a certain kind of fight, isn't it?

Christopher M
07-27-2005, 11:43 PM
You are arguing the points of Christianity from an official POV

Right.


which for some reason you don't seem to be able to distinguish from the popular (and extremist) beliefs.

No: when I refrain from blaming the moderates for the acts of the extremists; when I condemn the extremists without condemning the moderates -- distinguishing between the two is exactly what I'm doing.


The fact that some bright spark from the Bush admin named a bomb MOAB is not irrelevant

It's completely relevant. It's just not, for example, relevant to Catholicism, since the bright spark isn't Catholic and probably hates Catholics. Blaming all Christians for something like this would be an example, I think, of 'not being able to distinguish popular from formal and moderate from extemist beliefs.'


...but neither do the leaders of the Islamic Churches in the UK espouse terrorism...

Right, which is why I have never argued that Islam should be condemned because of the actions of the terrorists.

Merryprankster
07-28-2005, 04:56 AM
aside from them - the appeal these guys make to the masses is MULTIPLIED by the POVERTY that so many of them (the Middle East masses) live in...

Yes, but it's not the poverty per se, but the stasis. Their inability to improve things is the driving factor. It's the powerlessness, not the poverty itself. There is no direct link between poverty and terror. There is a direct link between poverty, lack of opportunity/power to change, and violence.


Specifically because of China. I think that any possible war with them would be more ballistic [ahem] than afoot, and alliances would play a major role, but...this is an army streamlined for a certain kind of fight, isn't it?

China ain't no threat, not now, or for the next 20 years. They were all proud of sending a few hundred people and throwing a little bit of money at the tsunami crisis - and this is in their own back yard! It wasn't because they are stingy, it's because that's all they could manage. And by the time they have the military capability, "Communist" China will cease to be. Whatever it is replaced by might retain that classic streak of authoritarianism, but figure Singapore, not Mao.

Secondly, China's rise in the world marketplace is fueled primarily by its potential. They have yet to translate that potential into reality. There are significant pressures to change their interest rates (easy money causes over-investment in certain market sectors and underinvestment in others), and money market pressures to float the yuan. If these corrections are NOT made, FDI will flee. If they ARE made, FDI will flee (temporarily), but the shock to the system - oh my! China has limited stock trade and next to no bond or securities market - which both make currency less volatile. Their banking infrastructure is woefully inadequate because they've never really interfaced with modern, real banking. We will see what happens, but I predict China cools WAY off in 5-10 years.

Finally, China's boom has not affected everybody. Rural Chinese live in a SIGNIFICANTLY different world than those in Shanghai. They are going to have to address this disparity or the potential will never be realized.

Vajramusti
07-28-2005, 05:59 AM
Insightful post MP. Handled important distinctions cleanly, briefly and nicely.
joy chaudhuri

Merryprankster
07-28-2005, 08:16 AM
You can claim Islam is not these things, but if you engage in actual theological research, you will discover the murderers, and terrorists have much more scriptual support than the 'moderates.'

And you can reach much the same conclusions if you take everything in the Bible to heart.

I think my perspective on the issue is different than yours. I don't see this as a problem inherent in Islam, and having read the Koran, I don't see anything more or less violent or exclusive than the Bible. I also don't see any inherent barriers to promoting fundamental, basic human respect that are greater than those in the Bible.

I think what we really have to ask is "How do we help promote interpretations of Islam that lead to respect for law and human life, and tolerates variance in opinion?"

500 years ago, you might have asked the same thing about Christianity.

Islam is not on its face inferior to the Judeo-Christian tradition. MS2, I don't think that is what you are saying, but you do seem to say "Come see the violence inherent in the system!" I don't buy it. The violence is just as inherent to Christianity and Judaism.

What has happened is, as other people have mentioned, is that interpretation of Judaism and Christianity has taken place which over time has softened the literalist interpretation of things such as an eye for an eye, death by stoning, etc. Yes, I know Jesus "supercedes" the old testament in the Christian tradition, but the old testament is not ignored either. This is a general statement. I'm sure the "God hates ***s" guy has a different viewpoint.

What happened in Islam was not the same. Bernard Lewis point-blank asks the question "What Went Wrong?" I think it's a combination of things - I might point out that the Ottoman Empire was desperately and rapidly modernizing and reforming before Old Europe dismantled it in WWI.

I am not a "blame it on the West," guy at all...rather, I think there is a historical confluence of events, both internal and external, which has stunted the growth of Islamic Jurisprudence. WWI smashed the reform measures of the Ottoman Empire, by far the most advanced of the independant Muslim countries, which were taking place within an Islamic context. Colonialism substituted secular law for that Islamic context, and was rejected to a large degree by the people under governance - enter the Muslim Brotherhood and similar organizations in the early 1900's. WWII freed much of the area, or at the least loosened the colonial reins, but oil wealth has internally allowed corrupt regimes to buy off the populace and religious hardliners in order to maintain their status quo of power.

The rise of truly extremist and violent Islam is really a late 19th, early 20th century phenomenon.

Now, you can start talking about aggressive Muslim empires of the past, but frankly, considering the aggressive Christian nations and empires of the past, I don't see that that provides useful context or has value as a measuring stick.

northernArts
07-28-2005, 09:01 AM
All good posts - I'm just reading through the whole thread this morning. I am suprised and relieved that no one really went to a jihadist website to invite them here. Of course such websites certainly exist and are frequently quoted in the media. But I'm not going to google them.

I always recommend Global Guerrillas (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/) - a blog by John Robb subtitled "Networked tribes, infrastructure disruption, and the emerging bazaar of violence. An open notebook on the first epochal war of the 21st Century"

Christopher M
07-28-2005, 09:01 AM
What has happened is, as other people have mentioned, is that interpretation of Judaism and Christianity has taken place which over time has softened the literalist interpretation of things...

I think it would be more accurate to treat each religion with respect to their own unique histories rather than trying to draw direct analogies. For example, literalist interpretation has radically increased over the history of Christianity, not decreased. Concerning this idea of modernism gradually moderating religious power, I think the root of many of the conflicts in western Christianity can be traced to the Roman church's filling of the power vacuum left upon the collapse of the Roman empire.

(Generally though I don't think the <Enlightenment> notion of a linear social progress is compelling. You make the point that, to the contrary of what such a progression would suggest, modernism has actually produced much of Islamic extremism. The same is true in Christianity. Though, rather than defending anti-modernism, I would say rather that the broader cultural contexts underlying history produce different dynamics with the traditions <religious and otherwise> which straddle them. If there's progress, it's dialectical rather than linear.)

Merryprankster
07-28-2005, 09:54 AM
For example, literalist interpretation has radically increased over the history of Christianity, not decreased.

I don't think you can definitively make this case. All kinds of punishments and behaviors that we currently find abhorrent were justified as being in the bible, or having a biblical basis, in the Christian world in the past.

I think the latest incarnations of literalism (American protestant fundamentalism)may have been on the rise for the past couple hundred years or so, but I don't think it's safe to say that literalism has consistently increased throughout Christian history.

I imagine that it has moved rather in fits and starts.

Perhaps what we are really discussing is an extremist mindset. Labels can be somewhat annoying, but since words mean things I suppose they are rather important.

It is possible, certainly, to be an extremist and not a literalist - and that is more the point that I was trying to convey. After all, David Koresh wasn't a literalist, but he was certainly extreme. Similarly, UBL is not a literalist. He picks and chooses as he sees fit.

Christopher M
07-28-2005, 10:33 AM
I don't think you can definitively make this case.

Well... I suppose someone could argue that literalism was stable as a marginal viewpoint until 1517, at which point it began to increase dramatically in the west. Before the Reformation, literalism wasn't just marginal, it's missing the point: to Catholics and Orthodox, you can't construct Christianity from the Bible no matter what interpretive scheme you used. None of the Church Fathers took Genesis literally, for example; none of them considered religion to be opposed to science or secular philosophy. These are all modern concepts.


It is possible, certainly, to be an extremist and not a literalist - and that is more the point that I was trying to convey.

That's definitely true. This is why I raised the point about the Catholic church and Roman politics -- to say, 'just because I'm saying they weren't literalist doesn't mean I'm saying there were no factors making them extremist.'

Ultimatewingchun
07-28-2005, 02:31 PM
"...aside from them - the appeal these guys make to the masses is MULTIPLIED by the POVERTY that so many of them (the Middle East masses) live in...(UWC – Victor Parlati)


”Yes, but it's not the poverty per se, but the stasis. Their inability to improve things is the driving factor. It's the powerlessness, not the poverty itself. There is no direct link between poverty and terror. There is a direct link between poverty, lack of opportunity/power to change, and violence.” (Merryprankster)


***THERE is a point here that you seem to be missing, MP. Yes, it’s true that the feeling of powerlessness is the biggest psychological factor that motivates these people to hate, but one of the biggest “effects” of this powerlessness (on the material level, for there is both psychological and material powerlessness)...one of the biggest effects for the Islamic masses is POVERTY. They simply don't have the power to lift themselves up from poverty, and a man’s humilation and anger is MULTIPLIED many times over when he sees his family starving and suffering illness right before his eyes – because he has no real means to support them.

...........................

"I am not a 'blame it on the West,' guy at all...rather, I think there is a historical confluence of events, both internal and external, which has stunted the growth of Islamic Jurisprudence." (MP)


***WHICH IS WHERE I believe you are seriously underestimating western responsibility, because the West has been a major contributor to that historical confluence of events, as you yourself acknowledge when you wrote this:

"WWI smashed the reform measures of the Ottoman Empire, by far the most advanced of the independant Muslim countries, which were taking place within an Islamic context. Colonialism substituted secular law for that Islamic context, and was rejected to a large degree by the people under governance..." (MP)


***SO CLEARLY THEN...Western colonialism has played a major role in shaping events in the Islamic Middle East which caused ill will to grow within the Muslim masses.

And the single biggest causal agent of that discontent?

IT'S ABOUT THE OIL...as you also acknowledged when you wrote this:

"WWII freed much of the area, or at the least loosened the colonial reins, but oil wealth has internally allowed corrupt regimes to buy off the populace and religious hardliners in order to maintain their status quo of power." (MP)

***OUR SECULAR, commercial, (economic...as in OIL), geo-political and military interests have been the driving factor behind our policies, (and the same for Britain and France too, for that matter)...and those Western interests have run counter to the religious, cultural, and national interests of virtually everyone other than the ruling elite in those respective countries.

NOW DON'T GET ME WRONG...I see this as a natural evolutionary course of human events...remember, colonialism always paradoxically serves an historical purpose - BUT THERE IS ALWAYS A PRICE... and a time when it must END.

And there are always excesses within any colonial experience that inevitably bring a backlash of tyranny to some degree or another.

It's our karma, you might say, to have to deal with a Saddam Hussein, or a Bin Laden...precisely because we have helped TO CREATE THEM.

We must now pay the price it will take to destroy them - and destroy the likes of Bin Laden (and al Qaeda) we must!

As a further proof that it's the secular and economic policies that are driving the mess of today - take note of the fact that Bin Laden and the rest almost never rave and rant about Christian teachings, or the Vatican, or the Pope, or the Lutherans, etc...they don't scream about the Sermon on the Mount as being the source of Christian evil...they don't talk about the Jewish Kabala as a source of corruption and oppression...

it's the political/economic/military/land grab policies as they exist as FACTS ON THE GROUND that the Terrorist Islamic Fundamentalists aim their arrows at...

and in fact when they point to the immorality of western sexual mores, the tolerance for prostitution, pornography, etc. as proof of western "corruption"...they are really pointing toward a breakdown of CONTROL that Judeo-Christian influence once had over the ethical and moral life of the average western citizen.

And in this sense they are correct...IF IT WEREN'T FOR THE FACT that at the root of their motivations (the Bin Laden's of the world)...it's really about Blood Lust and the Thirst for World Conquest.

........

"The rise of truly extremist and violent Islam is really a late 19th, early 20th century phenomenon.Now, you can start talking about aggressive Muslim empires of the past, but frankly, considering the aggressive Christian nations and empires of the past, I don't see that that provides useful context or has value as a measuring stick." (MP)


***I AGREE.

And btw, your post about Dod, Fema, Swat teams, a Radio-free-Middle east, and free schools that promote western culture, etc. was a good one; for as you said, the present generation of extremists are lost to us (in fact - we're going to have to kill or imprison them all)...but future generations of Muslims could look upon the West differently.

red5angel
07-28-2005, 02:51 PM
Specifically because of China. I think that any possible war with them would be more ballistic [ahem] than afoot, and alliances would play a major role, but...this is an army streamlined for a certain kind of fight, isn't it?

Zim, the boom china has, if it keeps its teeth at all, is in a different arena then what is being said about the DoD reorg. On a conventional level, we're finding that small, better trained units who are capable of taking the enemy by surprise and playing by his own rules are performing better in recent conflicts then they have in the past. You don't find much of the regular army in Afghanistan, SOF, Delta, SEAL, Ranger, Marine are what you're going to find primarily, that and some of the more specialized Army units like the 10th mountain. Recently all the large powers have "come to their senses", for now anyway, so most conflicts will be fought in the bush (urban or rural), against small groups of guerillas.



Islam is not on its face inferior to the Judeo-Christian tradition. MS2, I don't think that is what you are saying, but you do seem to say "Come see the violence inherent in the system!" I don't buy it. The violence is just as inherent to Christianity and Judaism.

I'd have to say that Islam, is currently where Christianity was a few hundred years ago. Anyone remember the Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials? How about the Crusades? Islam will come around eventually.

Christopher M
07-28-2005, 03:14 PM
Don't make me get all historical on your ass. I'll do it.

red5angel
07-28-2005, 03:37 PM
p0wnz3r!!!!!!!

Nick Forrer
07-28-2005, 03:41 PM
Well... I suppose someone could argue that literalism was stable as a marginal viewpoint until 1517, at which point it began to increase dramatically in the west. Before the Reformation, literalism wasn't just marginal, it's missing the point: to Catholics and Orthodox, you can't construct Christianity from the Bible no matter what interpretive scheme you used. None of the Church Fathers took Genesis literally, for example; none of them considered religion to be opposed to science or secular philosophy. These are all modern concepts.


When you say modern Chris how modern do you mean? Post 1517? After all It was only about 80 years later (1600) that Bruno was burnt at the stake and Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church on the basis that their views were contrary to scripture.
Are you saying that before the reformation (associated with a literal reading of the bible) scientists/thinkers could say what they wanted without fear of persecution/censure by the catholic church but not thereafter?



to Catholics and Orthodox, you can't construct Christianity from the Bible no matter what interpretive scheme you used.

How then in your view did catholics construct christianity (primarily or at least partly) if not from the Bible? Although not a Catholic I understood that the Bible (old and new testament) was the doctrinal foundation for all forms of christianity in that it chronicled the life of Christ whose teachings christianity is based on. I kow that Plato and Aristotle were both large influences on early church thinking but arent they secondary to the Bible in Catholic thought?

Christopher M
07-28-2005, 07:51 PM
When you say modern Chris how modern do you mean? Post 1517?

Yes.


After all It was only about 80 years later (1600) that Bruno was burnt at the stake and Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church on the basis that their views were contrary to scripture.

Per remarks by MP and myself, there are motivations for extremism other than literalism, and you can be an extremist without being a literalist. However, I would recommend you look up some objective histories on the events you cite, since there is, for whatever reason, a very large about of confusion on these points.


How then in your view did catholics construct christianity if not from the Bible?

They didn't construct it, it was handed to them as a living tradition. Keep in mind that the Bible did not exist until almost 400AD -- after the major theological controversies had already occurred.

ZIM
07-29-2005, 07:33 AM
MP- you might find this very interesting (http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA23205)

Nick Forrer
07-29-2005, 08:44 AM
Per remarks by MP and myself, there are motivations for extremism other than literalism, and you can be an extremist without being a literalist.



Sure. I think that clear.

However Chris, what you seem to be saying is that Literalism (that is, regarding the pronouncements of the bible as literally true e.g. genesis) wasnt a factor/influence in catholic thinking until the Reformation (early 1500s) when Luther and Calvins critique of catholic doctrine/practice began to spread. But doesnt this suggest that the reformation changed Catholicism into adopting a literalist interpretation of the Bible where previously it hadn't taken that view rather than simply set up a rival school of thought viz. protestanism, one that the Catholic church was violently opposed to (c.f. the history of Britain, Holland etc.)? After all what what the counter reformation/council of trent but a vocal repudiation of protestant teachings by the Catholic church? And that being so i.e. if literalism (being a Protestant idea) wasnt incorporated into Catholicism, how do you account for the persectution/execution of Galileo and Bruno on Literalist grounds by the Catholic church?

Merryprankster
07-29-2005, 09:01 AM
They simply don't have the power to lift themselves up from poverty, and a man’s humilation and anger is MULTIPLIED many times over when he sees his family starving and suffering illness right before his eyes – because he has no real means to support them.

I'm not missing it. Poverty itself is not linked to violence. What MUST be present is the perception of relative deprivation. They must understand and know that they are poor. They must expect something better. If you are poor, but don't know you are poor, there is no violence. If you are poor, and know you are poor, but do not aspire to anything greater, either through indifference or lack of knowing there is anything better, there is no violence. There is no rebellion. There is no revolution.

Further, even if you are reasonably well off, but expect something better, you have a high chance of rebellion - the Saudis are a case in point. Their people are FINE materially, but they are sitting on a powder keg. You cannot point to poverty, and tell me it's "the" factor when rich people are rebelling just as angrily.

The biggest factor in revolution is the perception of relative deprivation. Poverty may be one of the things about which a person or group of people is feeling deprived; but it is not the only thing, nor necessarily the most motivating. The focus on poverty as the primary source of revolution is, IMO an unfortunate outgrowth of the influence Marx had over sociologists for several decades, leading to such theories as economic determinism.


I believe you are seriously underestimating western responsibility

You are entitled to your wrong opinions. You cite the WWI example and colonialism that I provided.

Question: Why would the Ottoman empire be desperately trying to reform?
Answer: 400 years of stasis within the Muslim world.

Question: From where did that stasis originate? (Hint: It wasn't the West).
Answer: Internal to the Muslim world.

WWI was a shock to the ME on all kinds of levels - militarily, economically, socially, politically, culturally - and for all kinds of reasons. WWI wiped out the Islamic reforms of the Ottoman Empire, and colonialism stunted the growth of Islamic jurisprudence. And as you pointed out, it spawned serious popular ill will towards the west. But the stasis of the society was internal, not externally imposed, for hundreds of years. The idea that everything was hunky-dory until the West came along is wrong. It is short sighted and out of the context of the HUNDREDS of years of Islamic history that had preceded it.

As I like to say to other people I have this argument with - Can you really tell me that decades of colonialism trump hundreds of years of internal stasis?

The strongest thing you can say is that colonialism gave them a focus for the rage generated by their sense of relative deprivation, which didn't exist until they realized they didn't have it as good as the West.

In my mind, the relationship/responsibility of the West to the Islamic world is more like that between an enabler and an alcoholic. It's not the enabler's fault that the alcoholic drinks, and the enabler can't stop the drinking. At best, the enabler can stop enabling and try and create conditions under which the alcoholic reforms.

But to blame the enabler for the problem itself is completely misplaced - because a dedicated alcoholic will find a way to drink regardless of what the enabler does or does not do.


IT'S ABOUT THE OIL...as you also acknowledged when you wrote this

I specifically stated the Iraq war was not about the oil, because it's not. The money generated by oil sales around the world do generate income that keeps corrupt ME regimes in power. But what THEY choose to do with the money internally is not something the West has control over (nor should it, unless we really want to start talking violations of soveriegnty and international law...)


OUR SECULAR, commercial, (economic...as in OIL), geo-political and military interests have been the driving factor behind our policies,

No offense, but you just summed up the point of foreign policy. My goal in foreign policy IS to attain my interests. There is nothing inherently evil or wrong about this - that is, after all, how economics works.


(and the same for Britain and France too, for that matter)...and those Western interests have run counter to the religious, cultural, and national interests of virtually everyone other than the ruling elite in those respective countries.

This is simply false. Our Western interests (if you can make such a generalization), have focused primarily on the economics of the region. We want the oil, they have it. We negotiate with the governments who run the oil industry to get it. Again, what they choose to do with the revenues (namely keep themselves in power at the expense of the populace) is not something we have control over. We can encourage. We can plead. But if the alcoholic wants to drink...

So to sum up my "oil" thing more succinctly, I would be a blind fool to say that our interests in the region are not about oil. But they are not ONLY about oil, and it doesn't follow that because our generalized interest is about oil, that every decision is made with that as the primary goal.

If Iraq, for instance, were really about oil, we never would have imposed sanctions, and never would have invaded. We would have supported Saddam under the guise of "rehabilitation," or something to ensure area stability to keep that oil flowing (incidentally, we also would have recapitalized billions of dollars of refinery equipment in the U.S. to handle Iraqi crude, but I digress).

How a major regional conflict, which has done nothing but distress the area, cause instability, and will likely result in regional upheaval and disagreement for years to come meshes with "keeping the oil flowing," is beyond me.

Now, ask me if I think the Iraq War was about revenge.

Merryprankster
07-29-2005, 09:06 AM
ZIM,

Excellent. Love it. Printing it.

I like the Western leader Naivete bit. Too true. And I also like how that is coupled with a recognition that most Muslims are moderate.

It reminded me of something Friedman once said: "I don't care what Arafat says to us; I only care what he says to his people in Arabic."

Thanks!

rogue
07-29-2005, 09:25 AM
"Further, it is time to strip the title of 'mosque' from a place where firebombs are made...moderate Muslims can boycott such mosques, because they do not have the courage necessary to wrest them from the extremists. When a mosque becomes a place where firebombs are made, it ceases to be a mosque, and should be treated as the scene of a crime..."
That's a major change in thought. Monte Casino anyone?


"Only two things can stop terrorism:...issuing fatwa s removing bin Laden and his supporters from the fold of Islam, and the West ceasing to be naïve about 'moderate Islamists.' There is no such thing as 'moderate Islamists.' There are ordinary Muslims who lead ordinary lives, and there are terrorists and people who are likely to become terrorists in the future." A moderate Islamist is like the idea of a friendly rabid dog. This guy is good and sticking his neck out there.


"The religious discourse has reshaped the logic of the [Islamist] movements, based on mockery of life and love of death, hatred for the other and self-glorification, neglect of this world and [preparation] for the hereafter, satisfying Allah by means of sacrifice for any goal. That's interesting. These punks aren't sacrificing themselves for a greater good, but are killing themselves for glory or a spiritual windfall.
Thanks for posting that link ZIM.

Nick Forrer
07-29-2005, 09:58 AM
So to sum up my "oil" thing more succinctly, I would be a blind fool to say that our interests in the region are not about oil. But they are not ONLY about oil, and it doesn't follow that because our generalized interest is about oil, that every decision is made with that as the primary goal.

If Iraq, for instance, were really about oil, we never would have imposed sanctions, and never would have invaded. We would have supported Saddam under the guise of "rehabilitation," or something to ensure area stability to keep that oil flowing (incidentally, we also would have recapitalized billions of dollars of refinery equipment in the U.S. to handle Iraqi crude, but I digress).



Merry, why in your view did the west (US, Britain and France) support Hussein in the first place? Why did they attack Iraq in 1991? Why didnt they get rid of Saddam when they had the opportunity? Why did they encourage and then betray the Shia uprising? Im asking (if it isnt clear) for what underlying reasons you think are at work here.

Merryprankster
07-29-2005, 10:25 AM
Merry, why in your view did the west (US, Britain and France) support Hussein in the first place?

They supported Iraq as a counterweight to Iran. Iran during the shah was the western ally in the ME, and a heavyweight, regionally. The ayatollah raised the specter of a not friendly Iran. The West needed a friend against that and got one in Iraq, which had similar geostrategic value as Iran had against the USSR as well. Nothing fancy about that - plus since Hussein was nominally Sunni, it was a way to counter the threat of "Shia Islam." Ironic, really.





Call me naive, but I think Bush I and the rest of the free world were genuinely committed to international peace and security in the wake of the Cold War. They saw the invasion of Kuwait as a violation of that peace and security. Remember that these guys saw the end of the USSR - something they spend years - their whole life fighting and thought would never come. I think under similar circumstances I might experience both a sense of relief and the feeling that all was right and we should do stuff to preserve it.

[quote]Why didnt they get rid of Saddam when they had the opportunity?

I think this was a hideous mistake in retrospect, but I think the reasons they didn't are similar to the reasons they attacked. An offensive strategy for what was essentially a war of defense of another (Protecting Kuwait). However, does that justified war justify removing a nation's leader by force? I think at the end of the Cold War that was a very good question and one that did not have an answer. They moved cautiously because rule sets to that effect did not (and still do not) exist. In the Cold War, we wouldn't have done that - we had a history of "pushing out the invaders," establishing a border, and that was that.


Why did they encourage and then betray the Shia uprising?

I think they may have felt that Saddam's power was broken. That leads to two paradoxical things. First, encourage a revolution - see if they can get the guy out on their own. However, the fact that his power is broken reduces his importance as well - that means you are less inclined to actively fund an effort to undermine the regime. Containment seemed to work ok, he couldn't DO anything in the international arena other than make some noise, so actively supporting the revolution, a la Afghanistan, may simply not have seemed worth it.

A strategic error, IMO.

Christopher M
07-29-2005, 03:12 PM
you seem to be saying is that Literalism wasnt a factor/influence in catholic thinking until the Reformation

Right; not a significant one.


But doesnt this suggest that the reformation changed Catholicism into adopting a literalist interpretation of the Bible where previously it hadn't taken that view rather than simply set up a rival school of thought viz. protestanism, one that the Catholic church was violently opposed to

No. Luther and Calvin's reforms produced Protestantism, not a new form of Catholic theology.


After all what what the counter reformation/council of trent but a vocal repudiation of protestant teachings by the Catholic church?

That's exactly what it was: a Catholic reactionary movement against anything perceived as Protestant. As such, it further diminished literalism in the Catholic church, rather than creating it, since literalism was one of those things identified as Protestant.


how do you account for the persectution/execution of Galileo and Bruno on Literalist grounds by the Catholic church?

They weren't executed on literalist grounds. They both contradicted Aristotle. It was the non-literalism and non-exclusionism of the Catholic church that had permitted it to hold Aristotle in such high regard that they could be swayed to act against those who opposed him. In fact, the charges against Galileo were instigated not by the church at all, but by secular philosophers (for reference, the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo#Church_controversy) article covers these points).

Ultimatewingchun
07-29-2005, 04:17 PM
[QUOTE=Merryprankster]I'm not missing it. Poverty itself is not linked to violence....


***OF COURSE THEY'RE LINKED! (Check out the amount of violence in any inner city ghetto in the United States - and try to make the case that if these people were living instead in middle class neighborhoods where just about everyone owns their own home with a backyard and a garage - and can afford to pay for these things...try to tell me that the violence would be the same. Please! :rolleyes:

"What MUST be present is the perception of relative deprivation. They must understand and know that they are poor."

***THESE people in the Middle East aren't living in a vacuum. They know they're poor.


"They must expect something better. If you are poor, but don't know you are poor, there is no violence."


***AGAIN - they know they're poor. And they have Bin Laden who throws around his $ billions to remind them on a daily basis.


"Further, even if you are reasonably well off, but expect something better, you have a high chance of rebellion - the Saudis are a case in point. Their people are FINE materially, but they are sitting on a powder keg. You cannot point to poverty, and tell me it's "the" factor when rich people are rebelling just as angrily."

***THERE ARE MANY FACTORS that cause armed and violent rebellions. The American colonists were not poor, per say...but they took up arms against the British anyway.

"The biggest factor in revolution is the perception of relative deprivation. Poverty may be one of the things about which a person or group of people is feeling deprived; but it is not the only thing, nor necessarily the most motivating. The focus on poverty as the primary source of revolution is, IMO an unfortunate outgrowth of the influence Marx had over sociologists for several decades, leading to such theories as economic determinism."

***POVERTY AND HUMILIATION are the two biggest factors for group violence.

Sometimes they operate separately as motivations, and VERY often they work in tandem. Don't try to paint everyone who recognizes this as Marxists...that's a straw man argument.


WWI was a shock to the ME on all kinds of levels - militarily, economically, socially, politically, culturally - and for all kinds of reasons. WWI wiped out the Islamic reforms of the Ottoman Empire, and colonialism stunted the growth of Islamic jurisprudence. And as you pointed out, it spawned serious popular ill will towards the west. But the stasis of the society was internal, not externally imposed, for hundreds of years. The idea that everything was hunky-dory until the West came along is wrong. It is short sighted and out of the context of the HUNDREDS of years of Islamic history that had preceded it."


***NEVER SAID it was hunky-dory before WWI; but I am saying that colonialism and the OIL LOBBY has taken a MAJOR ROLE in shaping Middle East events and attitudes within the last 90 years or so.

"As I like to say to other people I have this argument with - Can you really tell me that decades of colonialism trump hundreds of years of internal stasis?"

***HERE'S a better question: Can you tell me that our involvement with the Shah of Iran, the Saudi Royal Family, the arming and support of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, and the war to liberate Kuwait (huge oil reserves), as well as our war that's going on now in Iraq, and our record of RARELY acting like an honest broker regarding the Israeli-Palestinian land dispute...IN TERMS OF HOW THE MUSLIM WORLD SEES US NOW...is trumped by historical internal stasis within the Islamic world?

NO.


"The strongest thing you can say is that colonialism gave them a focus for the rage generated by their sense of relative deprivation, which didn't exist until they realized they didn't have it as good as the West."


***I CAN SAY a lot more than that. Their rage in this regard was focused amoungst themslves (ie.- tribal and religious differences, ie. Sunni's vs. Shiites) regarding who would be in control and who would own the biggest pieces of the pie)...until they realized that the WEST was also contributing to the power centers within their midsts (ie.- the Shah, the Saudi Royal family)...being able to stay IN CONTROL.

"In my mind, the relationship/responsibility of the West to the Islamic world is more like that between an enabler and an alcoholic. It's not the enabler's fault that the alcoholic drinks, and the enabler can't stop the drinking."

***AND if the enabler stops enabling - then half the problem is gone.


"At best, the enabler can stop enabling and try and create conditions under which the alcoholic reforms."

***NOW you're starting to make sense.

"But to blame the enabler for the problem itself is completely misplaced - because a dedicated alcoholic will find a way to drink regardless of what the enabler does or does not do."

***BUT I NEVER blamed the enabler for the problem being there in the first place...what I'm saying is that the West has contributed to the problem BIG TIME.

(I believe that the Islamic world, particularly in the Middle East, has been plagued for centuries by it's own tribalistic and primitive ways of living and of interpreting the original teachings of Muhammad, which were indeed much more moderate than the JIHADISTS and FUNDAMENTALISTS of today).



"I specifically stated the Iraq war was not about the oil, because it's not."


***TOTAL BULL! If there was no oil there - our troops wouldn't be there. Period. And if there was no oil - a madman like Saddam Hussein would never have aquired a one million man army and WMD's (during the Iran war and the first Gulf war) in the first place.


"The money generated by oil sales around the world do generate income that keeps corrupt ME regimes in power. But what THEY choose to do with the money internally is not something the West has control over..."


***OF COURSE we do. we have helped BIG TIME to prop up the governments I've mentioned. And we've done so because we've believed that those regimes would not threaten our regional oil interests.


"No offense, but you just summed up the point of foreign policy. My goal in foreign policy IS to attain my interests. There is nothing inherently evil or wrong about this - that is, after all, how economics works."


***AND MY INTERESTS are to call for the elimination of foreign policies that are inherently STUPID, because our quest for the oil brings more political, social, religious trouble than it's worth...and because it's time to take global warming seriously and start supporting energy production that is not based on fossil fuels.


"We want the oil, they have it. We negotiate with the governments who run the oil industry to get it. Again, what they choose to do with the revenues (namely keep themselves in power at the expense of the populace) is not something we have control over. We can encourage. We can plead. But if the alcoholic wants to drink...

So to sum up my 'oil' thing more succinctly, I would be a blind fool to say that our interests in the region are not about oil. But they are not ONLY about oil, and it doesn't follow that because our generalized interest is about oil, that every decision is made with that as the primary goal."


***YOU'RE ALMOST THERE...but not really. Our PRIMARY interest has ALWAYS been the oil, which has been the SUN around which all other considerations revolved. (Other interests have been trying to hold off the Soviets during the cold war, a real religious/spiritual/humanitarian interest in trying to help the Jews after the holocaust, ie.- the establishment of the state of Israel), and now, in order to try and stop the spread of Fundamantalist Islamic Extremist Jihadists states, groups, and ideologies...

it's become cultural and religious - along with the usual suspects of simple power politics and economics.

Like I've said - a giant mess....that we will have to clean up with GUNS, BUTTER, GUNS, DIPLOMACY, GUNS, OTHER SOURCES OF ENERGY PRODUCTION....and GUNS.

rogue
07-29-2005, 04:37 PM
***POVERTY AND HUMILIATION are the two biggest factors for group violence. Victor can you prove this theory of yours? My family were imigrants who lived in a ghetto and outside of drunken brawls their wasn't any group violence.

David Jamieson
07-29-2005, 04:41 PM
um is there anyone on this thread who isn't a statesider or westerner non-muslim?

lol

Be nice to hear from someone who has some real live experience in the middle east that isn't in a us army unit and instead is or was a citizen there.

we can ruminate all we want, then go eat our dinner and watch tv news til we get tired and climb into bed.

Doesn't amount to anything really now does it?

Merryprankster
07-29-2005, 05:08 PM
Sorry Victor, I view the problem as being far more complex and within a much longer historical context than you seem to.

two points however:

1. I didn't paint anybody as a Marxist. I said that there was an unfortunate tendency to view poverty as the "root cause" of revolution because of the influence he has had in sociology. However, if you would like to make these sorts of unwarranted, unjustified, cognitive leaps, be my guest. Economic determinism was crap when it was developed by Marx influenced sociologists, and it is crap now. It will always be crap. Marx made very important contributions to sociology and civil society, but boiling history down to class warfare based on economic distinctions was not one of them.

2. You've completely missed the point of my post w/respect to revolution. It is not poverty. It is a sense of perceived relative deprivation + the hope that they can overthrow the system perceived as responsible that that causes revolution. In the absence of these two things, revolution will not occur. That sense of deprivation MAY be poverty, but it can also have its roots in other things. Poverty is not the only source, nor is it necessarily the most powerful. I never stated that the ME existed in a vacuum - I was making an academic distinction between causality and correlation - which I either did not make clear, or which you missed.


NOW you're starting to make sense.

Thanks for your validation. Coming from somebody who clearly hasn't done their homework on this issue, it means SO much. :rolleyes:

ZIM
07-29-2005, 05:13 PM
Victor can you prove this theory of yours? My family were imigrants who lived in a ghetto and outside of drunken brawls their wasn't any group violence.
Actually, this is one of the big sociological footballs: Are poverty and violence linked or independent?

Turn it around, test the limits of the theory: For the assumption to be so, the wealthy would presumably be most peaceable and virtuous. Think so?

I don't. I believe morality/values are independent from prosperity, although certain held values can be conducive or detrimental to individual/group prosperity. Those values - publicly adhered-to morality - influence violence.

Mp- didn't know you were online. Are you familiar with this survey? (http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/find.shtml) Glad you liked the last...

Ultimatewingchun
07-29-2005, 07:42 PM
Don't believe there's a connection between poverty and violence, fellas?

Or between poverty and crime?

Really?

So then answer this: Where would you feel the safest?

Walking through a slum of Los Angelas?

Or walking through Hollywood?

Walking through a Brooklyn slum like Bedford-Styvesant...or walking through Great Neck, Long Island?

Now if you want to talk about poverty not being the ONLY reason for such crime or violence...if you want to also mention ignorance (lack of education)...and if you want to talk about a person (or persons) predisposition to ALWAYS harbor resentments against people who are wealthier, or of a different color, or of a different religion or nationality...simply do to psychological factors that are spiritual in essence rather than material (ie.- a Bin Laden hates not because he was poor - but becuse he thirsts for power and vengeance)...if you want to talk about a primitive attitude that many people who live in poverty (or may not live in poverty) have...because they are bestial and vicious by nature (ie.- they're born with such dispositions)...FINE.

But none of the above changes the fact that poverty VERY OFTEN makes all of the above worse...and is sometimes the biggest root cause of violence...historically - regardless of what part of the globe or period in history we discuss.

Yes it is a very complex subject, indeed.

And simplistic answers won't suffice (ie.- The Mid East problem has nothing to do with the oil. Nothing at all). Yeah, right. :cool:

ZIM
07-29-2005, 08:35 PM
No, I just think the strongest correlation is not binary but trinary: eg, Poverty-weak morals-violence, and I'd say that wealth-weak morals-violence exists as well. You're ignoring an important factor, thats all.

Yeah, yeah - I wouldn't walk around in LA slums. Woopdedoo. You're the one bringing up oil greed as a motive for war. How are you not getting what I'm saying?

Merryprankster
07-30-2005, 08:25 AM
The Mid East problem has nothing to do with the oil. Nothing at all). Yeah, right.

I didn't say this. Perhaps you got it from somebody else on this thread?

(these are the sort of cognitive leaps to which I am referring...)

Ultimatewingchun
07-30-2005, 08:57 PM
Then let me restate my position about the oil and you can comment if you wish:

1) If there was no American (and Western) interest in Mid East Oil - we wouldn't have any soldiers there.

2) Put another way: It's 80% desert over there - so would we give a rat's a55 about what goes on there if it weren't for the oil under those sands?

3) The fact that there are Western soldiers in those countries is precisely the "rationale" that Bin Laden uses for calling for a jihad against the West.

4) And the fact that we help prop up regimes that will sell us the oil, and who are so socially and economically stratified that the end result is not good for the great majority of their citizens - only antagonizes the jihadists even further.

NOW ADD THE FOLLOWING TO THE MIX:

5) Our seemingly unconditional support for Israel's land grab and subsequent suppression of the Palestinian's (we were an honest broker once or twice - under Carter and to a lessor extent under Clinton) - but those moments were very brief; and aside from that, both of those U.S. presidents had a very weak foreign policy record which failed in the Iran hostage crisis and when Clinton had the chance to get Bin Laden - for he wouldn't pull the necessary trigger.

6) The madness of the Fundamentalists and Jihadists who try to brainwash their ignorant followers into thinking that eternal paradise awaits them if they commit mass murder of both men, women, and children while committing suicide...

7) The tribalism and primitive thinking of so much of the Arab Islamic world in general in recent centuries...as they want to return to a view of the world that has no tolerance for any religious beliefs and customs other than their own rigid and oppressive tyranny.

8) The poverty that makes the masses ripe for dictators and tyrants.

9) The sense of psychological humiliation that they feel when comparing their material way of life with that of the West.

10) The sense of psychological humiliation they feel at being powerless in the face of oppressive and corrupt regimes, and foreign domination and control.

BUT IF IT WEREN'T FOR OUR INTEREST IN THEIR OIL...we could be an active catalyst in their evolutionary advance without making ourselves a target for the power hungry and vicious Imam's and self proclaimed Moslem saviors (ie.- Bin Laden).

...........................


And I won't even go into (for now) all the multitude of other reasons why we should give up our dependence on fossil fuels in the first place.

Royal Dragon
07-30-2005, 09:00 PM
If it' all about Oil, why haven't Gass prices gone down?

ZIM
07-31-2005, 09:47 AM
7) The tribalism and primitive thinking of so much of the Arab Islamic world in general in recent centuries...as they want to return to a view of the world that has no tolerance for any religious beliefs and customs other than their own rigid and oppressive tyranny.

8) The poverty that makes the masses ripe for dictators and tyrants.

9) The sense of psychological humiliation that they feel when comparing their material way of life with that of the West.

10) The sense of psychological humiliation they feel at being powerless in the face of oppressive and corrupt regimes, and foreign domination and control. Their poverty is their own fault. Had Jewish-Arab cooperation rather than stultifying, Jew-hating war been possible from the start, and had money from oil been creatively invested in education, technology, industry, and social services, the Middle East would now be by far the richest portion of the earth’s surface. This has been one of history’s greatest lost opportunities.

David Jamieson
07-31-2005, 09:57 AM
I think Gwyn Dyer had a great article about this in todays T.O Star in regards to cause and effect. Don't kid yourself into thinking that the coalition of the so called willing is blameless in what is happening in the world right now.

Merryprankster
07-31-2005, 07:58 PM
UWC,

Some people might argue, as Thomas Barnett does, that if it weren't for the oil we wouldn't be a catalyst for change at all. Examine Rwanda, for an example of how the world responds when they do not perceive that any of their interests are at stake.

I don't know that a point by point discussion of your position does any good. Not because I think you're an idiot, or that they are all wrong or something, but because each point must be considered within the context of the rest of them.

But I'll try anyway :D


1) If there was no American (and Western) interest in Mid East Oil - we wouldn't have any soldiers there.

I believe that this is a popular myth. The United States, during the Cold War, consistently sent troops and conducted foreign policy to contain perceived Communist/Soviet expansion, even in places where there did not seem to be any real U.S. interest. Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea all come immediately to mind. For nearly half a century, Containment was an excellent reason to exercise United States power. It's not only possible, but probable that U.S. involvement in the ME was not "all about the oil," but at least equally - and IMO more so, about containment. The ME is geostratgically important for a variety of reasons, especially sea lane control - not just the Suez but within the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean. Note that Egypt played the U.S. and the USSR off each other, North and South Yemen, and goings on in the horn of Africa, which sported more than one country aligned with one side or the other.

As far as the oil, the top 15 countries the United States imports oil from are, in order, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Ecuador, Kuwait, the U.K., Russia, Algeria, Norway, Colombia, and Brazil. KSA is the third largest exporter to the United States, responsible for 15% of our imports. Iraq is responsible for 6%. Kuwait is responsible for 2%. Collectively, this represents 23% of our foreign imports. That's it. We could EASILY make that up by redistributing that total among the other 12 of the top 15, while supplementing with increased domestic production. Mexico, Nigeria, and Gulf of Guinea countries would be quite happy to have our business, and Nigerian and GoG crude is among the lightest, sweetest, and thus easiest to refine, oils in the world. Most of the ME oil actually goes to Europe and Asia. China and Japan, as I recall, receive over 90% of their respective energy requirements from the ME.

I would argue that rather than a genuine interest in the oil, we have a genuine interest in purchasing oil from our allies in the ME - who have been or become allies for a variety of reasons.


2) Put another way: It's 80% desert over there - so would we give a rat's a55 about what goes on there if it weren't for the oil under those sands?

See above.


3) The fact that there are Western soldiers in those countries is precisely the "rationale" that Bin Laden uses for calling for a jihad against the West.

Sort of, but not really. Bin Laden leverages the existence of Western Soldiers to demonstrate continued western crusades against Islam. However, the root ideology was present in the 12th century. The founding treatise of the Muslim Brotherhood (early 20th century) cites events no later than the last crusade to justify both the existence of a "western crusade," and a jihad against the West.

The casual observer often notes that Bin Laden has called for pushing the infidels out of the land of the two holy mosques, and reaches the conclusion that this must be part of why he's angry. In reality, and well-documented at that, is that the Saudi's rebuffed UBL's offer of aid in protecting the KSA from a potential Iraq invasion in 1991. He claimed he could summon thousands of mujahedin to form an army (under his command) for the KSA. Prince Faisal, and others, well aware of UBL's ideology and reputation, strangely did not seem to think a roving private army of irregulars not under their control was a good idea.

UBL was shamed and humiliated by the KSA rejection, and declared the Saudi Royal family apostate shortly thereafter. The royal family wasn't especially happy about that, which basically left UBL as a stateless man.

It would be more accurate to state that he is kicking our ass at the propaganda game, using our presence to gain recruits and support, while we have failed in invalidating his message.


4) And the fact that we help prop up regimes that will sell us the oil, and who are so socially and economically stratified that the end result is not good for the great majority of their citizens - only antagonizes the jihadists even further.

Sort of. I've already laid out the oil line of argumentation: It is far more accurate to say that we buy oil from countries that are our allies, rather than claim that we are propping them up because of the oil. Truth is, they need our capital far more than we need their oil. We buy thier oil because they are our allies - we don't support them because they are "willing to sell it to us."

Secondly, be careful to make the distinction between jihadists and "sympathizers that might become rebels." The jihadist is beyond social and economic stratification. Assume, for the moment, that the ME suddenly became as well off sociopolitically as the first world, coupled with a similar improvement in material wealth. The number of potential jihadists/terrorists would drop dramtically. The number of jihadists would remain almost precisely the same. They believe in the dar al harb and the dar al Islam, and they believe in the "Caliphate," as the "solution." (I use the terms in quotations because they always seem to be a bit fuzzy on how this is going to work).

Oil wealth does prop up many corrupt and non-representative regimes. This is a frequent effect of natural resource economies because it is easy to monopolize the only source of wealth/income generation. However, if we/you/anybody is going to fault "us" for that, then they must include the entire world in "us." I mean that quite literally. The money comes in from everywhere. Because of this, I hold the leadership of those countries far more accountable than anybody else.

I will address point 5 in a separate post. It is oversimplified, and IMO, mostly wrong.


6) The madness of the Fundamentalists and Jihadists who try to brainwash their ignorant followers into thinking that eternal paradise awaits them if they commit mass murder of both men, women, and children while committing suicide...

Can't argue here.


7) The tribalism and primitive thinking of so much of the Arab Islamic world in general in recent centuries...as they want to return to a view of the world that has no tolerance for any religious beliefs and customs other than their own rigid and oppressive tyranny.

Not a fan of the way you have phrased this. The extremists hold this view, certainly. Most muslims would really just like a job, a voice, and some opportunity.


8) The poverty that makes the masses ripe for dictators and tyrants.

Chicken and egg question - and again IMO, reflects the unfortunate influence of economic determinism sociology dealt with until the mid to late 80's. In truth, it is lack of education and lack of information that makes the masses ripe for dictators and tyrants. The poverty in these cases tends to be the result of corruption and inefficient command economies in these governments. Kleptocratic governments and kleptocratic tendencies prevent sustainable economic growth. They scare away investment and erect impenetrable barriers to life improvement. Is there a correlation? You betcha. Is there causation? Nope.


9) The sense of psychological humiliation that they feel when comparing their material way of life with that of the West.

Not worth its own point. It's part of 10.

KC Elbows
08-01-2005, 09:48 AM
UWC,

Some people might argue, as Thomas Barnett does, that if it weren't for the oil we wouldn't be a catalyst for change at all. Examine Rwanda, for an example of how the world responds when they do not perceive that any of their interests are at stake.


Good post, by the way. This is the only point I don't agree with, simply because I don't think the interest of foreign powers in African resources has, up until now, improved much in Africa. I think the cold war certainly had an influence on the current position of Africa, from soviet interference to western interference to the IMF funding dictators who they had no reason to believe weren't pocketing the cash, then billing the country into bankruptcy when those dictators left, simply because those dictators were anti-communist, and then the western community blaming the country in question for supporting corruption that the IMF certainly paid well into. African governments surely hold a strong share of the blame, but it seems to me that interest in what Africa could do for the soviets and the west hasn't exactly paid off for Africa, and that that problem is beyond national boundaries in the region.

I just think Africa is a bad case study in the benefits of foreign interests.

Ultimatewingchun
08-01-2005, 01:23 PM
"If it weren't for the oil, we wouldn't be a catalyst at all."


***I AGREE...but I would rephrase it this way: If it weren't for the oil, the west wouldn't HAVE BEEN a catalyst at all. (And of course I assume we mean a catalyst for positive growth and change, albeit a bunch of eggs were broken on the way to the omelette that some have enjoyed).

I say "have been" because I think that any fruitful relationships with Middle Eastern countries that are based upon them getting rich by selling us their oil that we use to enrich ourselves - are a thing of the past.

It's now a very problematical relationship for all concerned, and for a multitude of reasons.

Point of interest about this:

Saudi Arabia, the largest ME country, was just a very poor, tribal, and nomadic Arab country until oil was discovered there in 1933 - and the king who just died yesterday once lost $6,000,000. in one night while gambling on the French Riviera.

They've come a long way due to the oil - some of them anyway. (Heard that on a radio program just this morning, although the speaker spent a half hour talking about a wide range of issues, and used that bit of information just as an example of how certain fundamentalist types within Saudi Arabia were opposed and appalled by his vices and his alliances. What's the point?

Let me put it this way. Hypothetical question: Suppose we woke up tomorrow to enough alternative sources of energy such that the U.S. was no longer dependent on ANY Middle East Oil?

What would our interests over there be? (Aside from certain strategic alliances, such as with Israel and our commitment to it's security, the protection of the Suez Canal, etc.).

Clearly the issue of Jihadist terrorism would still remain the biggest sticking point - so we would still have to be very vigilant in persuing them.

But there would be no strangle hold upon our necks - because as it stands now, we HAVE to protect the oil fields of those ME countries we do business with AT ALL COSTS...don't we?!

We would have many more options at our disposal if that weren't the case.

For one thing, we could devote nearly ALL of our military resources to hunting down, killing, and capturing all those Islamic terrorist types who will hate us no matter what we do.

We could have put 145,000 troops on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border instead of in Iraq, for example.

And now that we all know that Saddam Hussein had no WMD's...Who would say that those 145,000 troops hunting down and hopefully killing/capturing Bin Laden and his closest (and therefore most dangerous) henchmen jihadists would not have been a better idea?????!!!!

BUT WE HAD TO PROTECT THE OIL. (So we thought). Now the idea that imposing a democracy in Iraq would have a beneficial trickle down effect on the surrounding countries sounded good in theory...but how's that workin' out?!

Do you see where I'm going with this.

Time for a big change in energy priorities.

Merryprankster
08-01-2005, 01:57 PM
because as it stands now, we HAVE to protect the oil fields of those ME countries we do business with AT ALL COSTS...don't we?!

You didn't read what I wrote, did you?


BUT WE HAD TO PROTECT THE OIL. (So we thought).

No, you didn't read it.

Which part of "We don't need it, we could make it up in other ways" was not clear?

Let me say this again because I don't seem to be getting through.

We bought oil to support our allies. We didn't start supporting regimes to get oil. TOTALLY different relationship than the one you are proposing happened.


Do you see where I'm going with this.

Yes, but its not especially original nor thought-provoking. The idea that if we got off the oil standard, we'd be free of ME politics and the tyranny of OPEC and it's ME masters is pretty silly, for the reasons I outlined, and some other corrollary ones.


Time for a big change in energy priorities.

Although I agree, see above.

I admire your enthusiasm for the subject, if not your research. There's a lot of stuff you seem to want us to take on faith. You'll understand if I don't.

Ultimatewingchun
08-02-2005, 03:42 PM
"There's a lot of stuff you seem to want us to take on faith. You'll understand if I don't.[/QUOTE]


***QUITE THE CONTRARY, merryprankster. I think it's you who would like us to take it "on faith" that we are not dependent on ME oil, or that we buy the oil simply because it helps our friends out. Where's you're evidence for that?

Some press release by **** Cheney or Carl Rove? :cool:

Now if you want to argue that we DON'T HAVE TO BE DEPENDENT on their oil; or that we have the technology and the driving economy to change our energy situation if we really wanted to...then you're right! :D

Merryprankster
08-02-2005, 04:01 PM
I think it's you who would like us to take it "on faith" that we are not dependent on ME oil, or that we buy the oil simply because it helps our friends out. Where's you're evidence for that?

Sigh.

Here. Let me cut and paste this from my previous post.

As far as the oil, the top 15 countries the United States imports oil from are, in order, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Ecuador, Kuwait, the U.K., Russia, Algeria, Norway, Colombia, and Brazil. KSA is the third largest exporter to the United States, responsible for 15% of our imports. Iraq is responsible for 6%. Kuwait is responsible for 2%. Collectively, this represents 23% of our foreign imports. That's it. We could EASILY make that up by redistributing that total among the other 12 of the top 15, while supplementing with increased domestic production.

I have provided percentages and figures. They are all easily verifiable.

To expand on the above, ME oil accounts for about 2194.89 million barrels of oil of the about 9453 millions barrels we have imported daily in 2005.

Mexico provided 1559 million
Canada 1586
Venezuela 1336
Nigeria 1036
Angola 436
Ecuador 289
UK 219
Russia 280
Algeria 175
Norway 128
Colombia 126
Brazil 54.

These are the other 12 of the top 15 producers. They collectively provided about 7258 million barrles of oil per day, YTD 2005.

To make up the 23% shortfall, assume we redistribute the shortfall among the remaining 12 countries in proportion to their current contribution. This would result in the following numbers:

Mexico would have to provide only 471 million bpd more.
Canada 478
Venezuela 406
Nigeria 314
Angola 133
Ecuador 87
UK 66
Russia 87
Algeria 60
Norway 52
Colombia 52
Brazil 37.

That's it. That's all it would take to make up the ME shortfall. If you want, you can get super fussy and eliminate all 175 million bpd that Algeria sends us, and redistribute that...but Canada could burp that up all on her own.

This doesn't even take into account our own domestic production, which we could ramp up, or the fact that Russia and Nigeria would desperately love for us to take more of their oil, (Ecuador too), reducing the burden on the other countries.

Would gas prices go up - probably - but hardly in a way that would cause real damage. Our economy seems to be doing ok at $2.30ish a gallon.

So I fail to see how mine is conjecture, when I have numbers to back it up...your argument appears to be based on "Because I said so," which is not especially convincing.

If you would like, I can start quoting total national incomes for KSA, Kuwait and Iraq, and use market sector data to determine where that money came from (hint, it came from oil), and what percentage of that the U.S. is responsible for (hint: They need our money more than we need their oil).

Ultimatewingchun
08-02-2005, 04:10 PM
"As far as the oil, the top 15 countries the United States imports oil from are, in order, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, Angola, Ecuador, Kuwait, the U.K., Russia, Algeria, Norway, Colombia, and Brazil. KSA is the third largest exporter to the United States, responsible for 15% of our imports. Iraq is responsible for 6%. Kuwait is responsible for 2%. Collectively, this represents 23% of our foreign imports. That's it." (MP)


***REALLY NOW! :)

23%?

And where is the other 67% coming from?

And what are your sources for these numbers?

Merryprankster
08-02-2005, 04:29 PM
***REALLY NOW!

Yes. Really.

I edited my post to contain more information though.

Please see above.

Here is the link.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

As far as where the other 77%, not 67% of our oil imports is coming from, it's coming from the OTHER COUNTRIES LISTED RIGHT IN THE PIECE YOU QUOTED FROM ME.

This appears to be the third time you have missed details from that post.

So please, tell me again how we are reliant on ME oil?

KC Elbows
08-02-2005, 05:39 PM
Facts and figures may get you by in the real world, but you're in the internet now, imperialist aggressor!

Ultimatewingchun
08-02-2005, 05:57 PM
Listen, MP...

I'll give you an all-encompassing FACT that supercedes your breakdowns of who supplies how much Oil...


Every single time there has been some sort of Oil crisis over the last 40 years or so...the U.S. economy has entered a recession.

Every time. Check it out if you don't believe me.

Why? Because we are VERY dependent upon Oil as our primary energy source.

And so it has been in our interest (and still is) to protect and defend our Oil producing trading partners, whether it be politically, economically, militarily, diplomatically, or what have you...and since a significant amount of the Oil is coming from the Middle East - our foreign policy has been skewered to defend and protect in that part of the world very heavily (ie.- the liberation of Kuwait - and the protection of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War)....the same as it would be if all of a sudden there was some major internal or external threat to the security and stability of countries like Norway, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc.

So please stop evading this issue and face the big picture that is staring you in the face: If we were oil INDEPENDENT...our military, economic, and political capital would be totally free (not partially free) to persue our most threatening and dangerous enemies...like I said: 145,000 troops on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border hunting down Bin Laden and his top lieutenants would yield much greater results (and more quickly) in our quest to fight Islamist Jihadist Terror than defending the Oil fields of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc...

As we are doing now.

This is clear as day...as well as the UNDENIABLE fact that Global Warming, the Destruction of the Ozone Layer, and the Effect of Greenhouse Gases on the Environment CRIES OUT for a major shift in policy.

KC Elbows
08-02-2005, 06:05 PM
A ha! By that logic, al queda wouldn't have had any funds or fanatics without the imperialist western dogs having their way with the middle east and without a market for oil. Therefore, instead of, as you say, the US military dealing with enemies that exist in Afghanistan, they would be massed on the border of afghanistan, perpetrating yet another assault on an innocent people!

I see the black heart of your oil free imperialism.

Ultimatewingchun
08-02-2005, 06:09 PM
Talk about ridiculous logic:

Where do you think Bin Laden got his $Billions ???

He's the son of the chief architect (during most of the former king's reign) in Saudi Arabia.

His father (and family) was literally paid royally by the House of Saud.

And where did that money come from?

The sale of OIL.

KC Elbows
08-02-2005, 06:22 PM
Talk about ridiculous logic:

Where do you think Bin Laden got his $Billions ???

He's the son of the chief architect (during most of the former king's reign) in Saudi Arabia.

His father (and family) was literally paid royally by the House of Saud.

And where did that money come from?

The sale of OIL.

Exactly. So, if we hadn't been dependent on oil, as you said, we wouldn't be in Iraq. We would be invading Afghanistan. However, you were tricking us into your imperialistic dogma, because if we hadn't been into oil, the Bin lauden's would probably ber paupers, or, in any case, not so rich, which means that Osama could not have afforded to design an extremist organization that would then be focused on getting the western powers who aren't into oil out of the middle east, because they would not be there to get out. Therefore, your idea to invade the innocent state of Afghanistan was clearly imperialistic in the sense that you are focussed on gaining the only remaining worthwhile product in the region: opium.

I mean, I understand where you're coming from, and I wish the world worked that way, but you've got to understand that even if there were a way to bring about this loony left hippy world of the future, won't it be granola we're killing over? Especially those muslims. Once you give them an excuse, it's just kill kill kill.

Ultimatewingchun
08-02-2005, 08:47 PM
"So, if we hadn't been dependent on oil, as you said, we wouldn't be in Iraq. We would be invading Afghanistan. However, you were tricking us into your imperialistic dogma...Therefore, your idea to invade the innocent state of Afghanistan was clearly imperialistic in the sense that you are focussed on gaining the only remaining worthwhile product in the region: opium.

I mean, I understand where you're coming from, and I wish the world worked that way, but you've got to understand that even if there were a way to bring about this loony left hippy world of the future, won't it be granola we're killing over?" (KC elbows)


***JEEZ, what have you been smokin' :confused: :p

The one and only reason I'm proposing going to the Afghan/Pak border is to KILL/CAPTURE Bin Laden and his top thugs. (And to kill off whatever is left of the Taliban wherever we may find them).

Period. That's it.

Then bring the troops home.

Or send them to the next place that may be crawling with Jihadist animals.

Merryprankster
08-03-2005, 05:03 AM
Listen, MP...

I'll give you an all-encompassing FACT that supercedes your breakdowns of who supplies how much Oil...


Every single time there has been some sort of Oil crisis over the last 40 years or so...the U.S. economy has entered a recession.

Every time. Check it out if you don't believe me.

Why? Because we are VERY dependent upon Oil as our primary energy source.

And so it has been in our interest (and still is) to protect and defend our Oil producing trading partners, whether it be politically, economically, militarily, diplomatically, or what have you...and since a significant amount of the Oil is coming from the Middle East - our foreign policy has been skewered to defend and protect in that part of the world very heavily (ie.- the liberation of Kuwait - and the protection of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War)....the same as it would be if all of a sudden there was some major internal or external threat to the security and stability of countries like Norway, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, etc.

So please stop evading this issue and face the big picture that is staring you in the face: If we were oil INDEPENDENT...our military, economic, and political capital would be totally free (not partially free) to persue our most threatening and dangerous enemies...like I said: 145,000 troops on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border hunting down Bin Laden and his top lieutenants would yield much greater results (and more quickly) in our quest to fight Islamist Jihadist Terror than defending the Oil fields of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc...

As we are doing now.


Translation:

"Oh, CRAP! The figures DON'T lie! I'll just sweep these under the rug here... Ahhhh....much better."


Every single time there has been some sort of Oil crisis over the last 40 years or so...the U.S. economy has entered a recession.

Correct. And then it has recovered once it adjusted to the new reality - not once oil went back down, but once the market self-corrected. That happens when any major commodity adjusts, a sector takes a hit, or even when there is, say, a terrorist attack.

And since we can make up the 23-25% from other sources, where is the crisis in supply? The price might go up, but as of right now, we are currently spending 3% of our GDP on energy, compared with 6% in 1980. We're a long way from hurting.

Unless you can demonstrate that the recession lasts as long as the "oil crisis," you're doing nothing for your argument.


Check it out if you don't believe me.

I've got a better idea. Why don't you do what I have done and provide the information that backs up your point? I was able to provide a breakdown, plus a link to a real (not a random blogger) source of information - the DOE.

So far, what we've got on your end is "You're wrong because I said so."

BTW, Trying to change the subject to "gosh, there are all sorts of reasons we shouldn't be on fossil fuel," doesn't actually help your case either. I would like nothing better than for us to start importing ethanol from Brazil, for instance, while eliminating subsidies for the sugar industry, but that global warming has **** to do with the subject at hand.

Anything else?

Nick Forrer
08-03-2005, 08:06 AM
Anyone else seen this article?

Link (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20050801&articleId=782)

Merryprankster
08-03-2005, 08:19 AM
Interesting. What's your take?

Nick Forrer
08-03-2005, 09:33 AM
It wouldnt shock me to learn that a high level member of ALQ/islamic militant was a British agent or at least had given MI6 the impression that he was. I have wondered why prominent militants have been allowed to stay in Britain unchecked for so long. That they are informers is definitley one possibility although it doesnt seem to have done much good in the recent spate of attacks and may even have been counter productive if the article is correct and he (Aswat) was in fact a bona fide ALQ operative all along. The Kosovo slant was interesting too...all this of course is griss to the mill of conspiracy theorists...be interested to see if this story gets buried.....

rogue
08-03-2005, 09:38 AM
Interesting story but I'd have to see more facts before I buy into it. Why would MI-6 hide this guy instead of making him go away?

Nick Forrer
08-03-2005, 09:54 AM
If by making him go away you mean kill him it may (may) be to do with the fact that a policy of killing your own agents after they are no longer useful doesnt inspire future people to become informers. This is just a conjecture tho.

rogue
08-03-2005, 10:24 AM
But when an agent XXs his handlers it's a bad precedent to let it go unpunished, especially one who can cause embarresment.

Merryprankster
08-03-2005, 01:45 PM
Translation of UWC's post:

RAHHHHH! I don't have any evidence to back what I say up, and can provide no counterargument, but I am emotionally invested in this point now, so I am unwilling/unable to acknowledge I might be wrong.

HULK SMASH MERRYPRANKSTER!!!!

It's no crime to be wrong. I've had to relinquish my position on the death penalty (I used to be for it), and my position on whether or not the U.S. military has a problem with abusing prisoners and detainees (they do - I used to say it was isolated. It's not).

It's all about the oil is an oversimplification....like economic determinism. It's easy to grasp, and doesn't necessarily apply.

I love how you phrase everything in near absolutes too. Like our foreign policy is ALWAYS dictated by our energy needs.

If that were true, it would be better for us to invade Nigeria, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, and behave as an autarchic (you might need to look that up) empire. That would render us immune to the vagaries of the oil market.

BTW, which high horse are you referring to? I'm curious. I don't see a moral high horse here, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place.

Maybe its the high horse where I insist on evidence to back up a point. I get on that one a lot, it's true. But that's because I find it covers a lot of ground, goes interesting places, and takes poops on the shetland pony you seem to be riding.

Ultimatewingchun
08-03-2005, 02:04 PM
Ya know, Merry...you can play the high-and-mighty game all you like. But it doesn't change the fact that everybody knows that we're addicted to OIL and fossil fuels...Oil is what put England over the top in WW1 (she entered the war just two weeks after Churchill made a deal in the ME for Oil)...OIL is what Hitler ran out of during WW2...and he lost...Oil is why we wanted Hussein out of Kuwait during the Gulf War...and Oil has MUCH to do with why we are in Iraq now.

Your numbers about what % comes from what country doesn't mean diddly-squat in the final analysis - because our foreign policy is ALWAYS dictated around the need to protect our sources of energy - regardless of what particular countries are involved.

OIL = ENERGY and is what wins WARS and makes EMPIRES.

And domestic fortunes. The automobile industry and all other related industries (and add Gas to the equation as well)...are the BACKBONE of the American economy. The sun around which all other factors contributing to American economic prosperity derives).

EVIDENCE TO BACK UP A POINT: BP (Beyond Petroleum), one of the 3 largest oil companies in the world, along with Exxon and Shell...has revenues higher than the gross domestic product of GREECE! (The figures for both entities have been published and are in the public records).

So get off your high horse and smell reality, okay?

And as for the environmental issues - they are real and they will only get worse until we end our addiction to fossil fuels.

We are headed for some major ecological disasters if we don't find another way. Remember the Exxon Valdez?

Or are you one of those guys who just doesn't give-a-5hit?

Exxon Valdez? (Screw it...I'm not moving to Alaska anytime soon.)

Global Warming? (Who cares?....I'll move to Maine and enjoy the winter!)

David Jamieson
08-03-2005, 02:14 PM
Translation of UWC's post:

RAHHHHH! I don't have any evidence to back what I say up, and can provide no counterargument, but I am emotionally invested in this point now, so I am unwilling/unable to acknowledge I might be wrong.

HULK SMASH MERRYPRANKSTER!!!!

It's no crime to be wrong. I've had to relinquish my position on the death penalty (I used to be for it), and my position on whether or not the U.S. military has a problem with abusing prisoners and detainees (they do - I used to say it was isolated. It's not).

It's all about the oil is an oversimplification....like economic determinism. It's easy to grasp, and doesn't necessarily apply.

I love how you phrase everything in near absolutes too. Like our foreign policy is ALWAYS dictated by our energy needs.

If that were true, it would be better for us to invade Nigeria, Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, and behave as an autarchic (you might need to look that up) empire. That would render us immune to the vagaries of the oil market.

BTW, which high horse are you referring to? I'm curious. I don't see a moral high horse here, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place.

Maybe its the high horse where I insist on evidence to back up a point. I get on that one a lot, it's true. But that's because I find it covers a lot of ground, goes interesting places, and takes poops on the shetland pony you seem to be riding.

Dude, you got nothing on my stance reversal regarding the validity of mma in context to tma's propogation and the necessity to reinfuse tma with life through the modern practices used by mma....

anyway Death to America! wait...no, wrong forum, sorry! :p

Merryprankster
08-03-2005, 02:54 PM
EVIDENCE TO BACK UP A POINT: BP (Beyond Petroleum), one of the 3 largest oil companies in the world, along with Exxon and Shell...has revenues higher than the gross domestic product of GREECE! (The figures for both entities have been published and are in the public records).

So what? Oil makes money?

Shocker. So does Microsoft.

By this logic, I can say that Software rules the world.

Finally, if all you're going to do is just keep insisting, I can only tell you that saying something a lot, even if you screw your eyes up real tight, and click your heels together three times, don't make it so.

As cute as you would probably look in a 1940s, checkered blue dress with pig tails, silver shoes, and a small dog, I think I'll just leave 7*'s fantasies out of this :D.

What I also like is how you keep saying I'm saying that oil doesn't have anything to do with it - which isn't what I have said at all. I said that oil doesn't have anything to do with the Iraq war, and that our reasons for being in the ME are complex and varied. While oil is certainly part of the equation, it is no means the only part of the equation, as evidenced by both our LACK of reliance on ME oil, THEIR reliance on our revenues, and our necessities during the Cold War.

I'm sorry if that is too nuanced for you.

On a note related only to this post only as your "evidence" is, the two braccioles I made are finished cooking. Dinner is served.


Dude, you got nothing on my stance reversal regarding the validity of mma in context to tma's propogation and the necessity to reinfuse tma with life through the modern practices used by mma....

You did seem to be far more sane lately....I was wondering what had got into you!!! :D

Ultimatewingchun
08-03-2005, 03:20 PM
So What??? Oil makes money??? Shocker??? :confused:

If that's your response - there's nothing more for me to say here.

You're stonewalling the huge influence of BIG OIL.

Period. Nothing more to say.

But for those who see through the fog that some people have tried to create...I rest my case about:

1- U.S. DEPENDENCE UPON OIL.

2- THE MESS IN IRAQ.

3- THE 145,000 TROOPS WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER UTILIZED ON THE AFGHAN-PAK BORDER - (get Bin Laden and al Qaeda).

4- JIHADIST PROPAGANDA THAT WE PROVIDE FOR THEM BECAUSE OF OUR MILITARY PRESENCE & INTEREST IN MID EAST OIL AND THE PROPPING UP OF ME REGIMES.

5- THE DANGER TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

6- THE CORRUPTION WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY/ OIL LOBBY/ OIL OWNERSHIP (ie.- Halliburton/vice president Cheney...AND THE OIL HOUSE OF BUSH, for that matter)...

7- ADDED TO THE MADNESS AND BACKWARDNESS OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM...



and as I said - it's a friggin' mess! :mad:

fa_jing
08-03-2005, 04:07 PM
hold up - what about that statement I'd make that it isn't about USA's desire for the oil, but it is about the oil - that the oil not be sold to Europe and Asia and the funds used to support terrorism.

So even if the US was all windmill and hydroelectric, the oil sold to EU and Asia is still a source of income and was obviously, as well as surreptitiously, used to support terrorism, hostile policies, and Saddam's armed forces.

rogue
08-03-2005, 04:31 PM
KL/Dave, Remember how you lost your tin foil hat? I think I found it. :D

Victor, you forgot to mention John O'Hurley losing to that soap opera chick on Dancing with the Stars.


So What??? Oil makes money??? Shocker??? :confused:

If that's your response - there's nothing more for me to say here.

You're stonewalling the huge influence of BIG OIL.

Period. Nothing more to say.

But for those who see through the fog that some people have tried to create...I rest my case about:

1- U.S. DEPENDENCE UPON OIL.

2- THE MESS IN IRAQ.

3- THE 145,000 TROOPS WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER UTILIZED ON THE AFGHAN-PAK BORDER - (get Bin Laden and al Qaeda).

4- JIHADIST PROPAGANDA THAT WE PROVIDE FOR THEM BECAUSE OF OUR MILITARY PRESENCE & INTEREST IN MID EAST OIL AND THE PROPPING UP OF ME REGIMES.

5- THE DANGER TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

6- THE CORRUPTION WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY/ OIL LOBBY/ OIL OWNERSHIP (ie.- Halliburton/vice president Cheney...AND THE OIL HOUSE OF BUSH, for that matter)...

7- ADDED TO THE MADNESS AND BACKWARDNESS OF ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM...



and as I said - it's a friggin' mess! :mad:

Christopher M
08-03-2005, 05:46 PM
So What??? Oil makes money??? Shocker??? :confused:

His point is that 'oil is a powerful industry' doesn't imply 'the Iraq war was an oil-grab.' There's just no logic that connects those statements.

It's utterly baffling why people continue to insist on this point. If the motivation is simply to oppose the war, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so which are much more compelling than the idea that it was an oil grab, even if this were true.

Royal Dragon
08-03-2005, 05:57 PM
If it's about Oil, why are gas prices so high right now?

David Jamieson
08-03-2005, 06:35 PM
His point is that 'oil is a powerful industry' doesn't imply 'the Iraq war was an oil-grab.' There's just no logic that connects those statements.

It's utterly baffling why people continue to insist on this point. If the motivation is simply to oppose the war, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to do so which are much more compelling than the idea that it was an oil grab, even if this were true.

Nope it's not just oil. Although, there is a likely hood that oil plays a part in the overall.

The argument about oil is a sellable meme just the same as the connection between 911 and Iraq was somehow a sellable mem as well. But to only mention those two aspects sells short the complexity that the war has become and in context to the entire world.

Is Bush running the show as well as it could be run? Well, it's his war, he started it so it's his rules. lol I guess that's as good as it gets and the rest is 'whatever'.

I have no idea how the war in Iraq is battling terrorism. I am not certain how it was that in the first strikes and I'm not sure how it is that now. There is definitely a lot of people who have a LBJ credibility gap in regards to the situation because on some levels it is also showing itself to be ideological. As in, Democracy Vs Islam.

There's a lotta layers to this onion. Nevermind the foreign policy questions, the tax money, the casualties of war, the complete about face that is expected from the average Iraqi paradigm is a huge ask. Not convinced it is a wise thing to do. Imposing yourself and your wishes on anyone always breeds resentment and ultimately will lead to continuance on our lack of nobility as beings IE make war to solve problems.

Did someone mention in this thread already that 'violence is the last refuge of incompetence' it applies on some levels here.

anyhow, who didn't know I was against this sh1t? raise your hand. :p

Nick Forrer
08-03-2005, 06:46 PM
Personally I did find the reports of American soldiers guarding oil fields against sabotage whilst hospitals full of dying iraqis were looted of everything bar the kitchen sink very telling............

Something to consider...The Iraq war was paid for by the US tax payer. That money went on armaments manufactured by US companies. Those armaments destroyed Iraqs infrastructure. Iraqs infrastructure is now being rebuilt by US companies. The money to rebuild that infrastructure is accumulating as a debt which will eventually have to be paid for by Iraqs oil wealth. So any way you slice it, US compaines (arms and construction) are making/have made a hefty dollar out of this...........

Christopher M
08-03-2005, 07:17 PM
Good point. We probably went to war in order to increase the profits of American industry.

ZIM
08-03-2005, 08:08 PM
Personally I did find the reports of American soldiers guarding oil fields against sabotage whilst hospitals full of dying iraqis were looted of everything bar the kitchen sink very telling............

Without their oil safeguarded for their own economy, what do they have? If you wanted to destabilize the new government, what would you take out?

Nick Forrer
08-04-2005, 05:00 AM
Without their oil safeguarded for their own economy, what do they have? If you wanted to destabilize the new government, what would you take out?

Without the oil safeguarded what would they have to reimburse the US government for rebuilding their country after the US government destroyed it?

Merryprankster
08-04-2005, 06:03 AM
Period. Nothing more to say.

And we are grateful, beyond words, for this decision. It saves server space.


His point is that 'oil is a powerful industry' doesn't imply 'the Iraq war was an oil-grab.' There's just no logic that connects those statements.

Chris, as usual, is correct.


The argument about oil is a sellable meme just the same as the connection between 911 and Iraq was somehow a sellable mem as well. But to only mention those two aspects sells short the complexity that the war has become and in context to the entire world.

I'm telling you, changing your name to your real one has done something to you!!! Or maybe me. I agree whole heartedly. Sellable meme. GREAT phrasing. I'm going to steal it.

Nick, no offense, but I think you're being overly cynical. What the troops guarded was a natural outgrowth of the strategically unsound decision to send too few troops. If I have to guard stuff, and I don't have enough people, I have to make some serious priority choices. Being very practical-minded people, mostly with "not history,literature,art" degrees, military planners tend to calculate in the cold logic of infrastructure. Electricity, oil, etc were guarded. This is essentially ZIM'S argument, and I think the most logical one.

It makes imminent sense. You can rebuild the country with oil. You can replace the lost things. In the long run, you have to guard it. Being me, I would have forgone, perhaps, the oil MINISTRY, (I really don't give a **** about the paperwork,) and thrown the Baghdad Museum a platoon or two. The outrage after that period was over shouldn't have surprised the people who did the planning - but it sure seemed to. You can argue they were faking it, but just like they weren't prepared for the outrage over their troops spitting in people's courtyards, this is a case of cultural disconnect. They really don't get it.

Which is, as I have repeatedly mentioned, unfortunate, correctable, and shameful (on our part). "Cultural Intelligence," has JUST now become a serious part of the U.S. DoD lexicon. It's not something they ever thought of before. State on state war doesn't require it, and we knew all about our opponent in the "big one," AND state on state wars were still historically western phenomena in U.S. history, which meant that even if the language and culture was a little different, we all had the same general roots.

David Jamieson
08-04-2005, 06:08 AM
Uh, I get the sense that some people are having trouble seeing the forest because of the one tree in front of them...or maybe it's that tree over there!!!

It is not a single thing that is the driving force behind the British/ American Aggression towards Iraq. There are many factors at play and in the schemes of teh bush/Cheney Whitehouse, Pre-emptively striking Iraq for whatever reason they finally chose as the reason served their agenda...which is...
well, your guess is as good as mine what's going through those guy's heads in regards to hwy they are sending soldiers to die, why they are spending tax dollars like crazy, the questionable contract jobs to cronies, the newly created deficit somehow spun out of a surplus, not to mention all the other stuff on the homefront that was worked in while the Iraq pudding was being stirred like the patriot act and the increasing restrictions on American civil liberties.

Iraq is far from over. Saw an interview with one of the guys who was in country in Iraq quite recently. Anyway, aparently he's written a book called "The last true story" gonna get a copy of it later today and dig into his view of that twisted mass fo stuff. Just to wash the propoganda from David Frums book o ridiculous one sided nonsense that was "an end to evil".

btw, for those who think America is a wide eyed innocent child who has been smacked by a bad arab man and now daddy must defend the child. Well, you are not exactly what I would call the intelligent ones. In fact, I would say it is you and your ilk who start wars like this and maintain them through ignorance.

You may have the right to dissent, but your dissention means nothing. Wait until it really means nothing.

ZIM
08-04-2005, 10:39 AM
Iraq is far from over. Saw an interview with one of the guys who was in country in Iraq quite recently. Anyway, aparently he's written a book called "The last true story" gonna get a copy of it later today and dig into his view of that twisted mass fo stuff. Just to wash the propoganda from David Frums book o ridiculous one sided nonsense that was "an end to evil"..
I'm fully expecting the war as a whole to take up approx. 30 years, basing that on wars of similar scale, motivation.

David Jamieson
08-04-2005, 10:57 AM
I'm fully expecting the war as a whole to take up approx. 30 years, basing that on wars of similar scale, motivation.

Brass at the goathead say 9-10 years with current troops, equipment,funding etc.

Ultimatewingchun
08-04-2005, 12:03 PM
Still more stonewalling and cute-a55 grandstanding, Merry?


IT'S ABOUT THE FRIGGIN' OIL, clown....

Profits are one thing - corporations the size of Greece are something else. :eek:

It's called PLUTOCRACY...and it's going to be the single biggest cause of WW3...the second biggest being Islamic Jihad Madness. One is motivated by profound Greed and Arrogance...and the other by dreams of Bloodlust and Conquest. Nice formula for the War of WMD's - as WW3 will be called.

Or perhaps a more suitable name will be the Religious/Oil War.

Check with the historians later.

But as for right now: I think your failure to answer virtually every point I made is pretty obvious....quoting % of who supplies what!

Like that means anything.

U.S. policy as it is being run now - will never allow anything to happen to ME oil producing countries that do business with us. Regardless of what % of Oil they give us at any given moment. Period....fool! :rolleyes:

And this policy will continue to contribute to the daily recruits that organizations and individual cells allied with al Qaeda - and Bin Laden's al Qaeda itself - will manage to get.

AH....YES...just had to get that one in before I leave. :cool:

"There's nothing like the smell of napalm in the morning!"

Apocalypse Now?

Apocalyse Later?

Either way.... :mad:

Now the sandbox is all yours, MP. :p

Merryprankster
08-04-2005, 12:30 PM
Period....fool!

You an Mr. T run along and have a happy fun play time.


Still more stonewalling and cute-a55 grandstanding, Merry?

Hey, I outlined my reasons, supporting it with evidence. I don't think our ME policy is about the oil, because we could make up what we get there from other places. It stands to reason that our interest in the region/with respect to oil, is not vital - important, perhaps, but not vital. That implies that there are other reasons for us to be there, both in the past and now - many of which I already outlined.

You have yet to do anything other than say "It is that way because I said so." In case you haven't noticed yet, that's not enough.


But I think your failure to answer virtually every point I made

When you have a point, I'll be certain to respond. So far you've responded with "It's about the oil, period." I'm sorry, but that's not evidence. It's your opinion. And you are entitled to all of them that you want. But you haven't provided any evidence to back it up. You just keep repeating that it's all about the oil. Come up with a cogent argument about WHY the oil companies would want a war, or why the U.S. would choose to go in for the oil, and you've got a case. Until then, you're just blathering (some more).

I might point out that it would be in the oil company interests NOT to have a war in the ME. Rather, it would be more logical for them to have pushed for Iraq sanctons to be lifted so they could do business. Wars are bad for business, when the product/means of production are in the war zone. This is why business oriented gangs prefer not to have wars.

Contrary to popular opinion, the increase in oil price is not war related - there are a host of other contributing factors, peak oil phenomenon, Yukos, Venezuela, etc. Getting at the oil is best done via working through nice stable regimes, rather than war torn hell-holes.

In case you try to cite that wars lead to economic boom - that's only if you aren't getting bombed out. In WWI and WWII, we were not getting attacked. The need for supply helped the economy. Contrast this with the war zones, which saw their economies drop.

You can read about the oil prices here - it's a good summary. Careful though, it has some big words!

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0802/p01s03-woeu.html




It's called PLUTOCRACY

Again, by this logic, Microsoft and Bill Gates run the world. I'm sure somewhere they're working on an AI model of you. I'd expect a 286 chip will be all the processing power it needs. You only need to program it to say "Fool!" "Period," "Because I said so," and "where's the tea?"

Doesn't sound like a hot seller, and perhaps a step or 12 backwards from Deep Blue.


Like that means anything.

You mean like BP's profits? Unless you can tie those profits to something substantive, they only demonstrate that BP is a very successful energy company.


And this policy will continue to contribute to the daily recruits that organizations and individual cells allied with al Qaeda - and Bin Laden's al Qaeda itself - will manage to get.

I agree that our policies and failure to market the "U.S. Brand" well, will likely swell the recruiting ranks of the AQAM. I just disagree as to the motive for them.


AH....YES...just had to get that one in before I leave.

Oh, it stings. Oh, ow, the agony. Please, no more. I don't think I can take it. :rolleyes:


(Ther's nothing like the smell of napalm in the morning!)

The stuff that dribbles out your arsehole isn't napalm, friend, no matter what the older boys tell you, and that smell isn't flaming petroleum product. You might want to go have the nuns clean you up again. They might even give you a cookie!

Christopher M
08-04-2005, 01:26 PM
IT'S ABOUT THE FRIGGIN' OIL, clown...

Have you thought about offering some argument supporting this claim, or do you feel that repetition and capslock interspersed with incoherent babbling is sufficiently compelling?

Mortal1
08-04-2005, 01:51 PM
The underlying theme in all the liberal posts is that the US is the biggest threat to world peace. And that the terrorists have a good reason for blowing up innocent civilians because they are freedom fighters against the imperical US and our cowboy President dubya. They are jealous of the US and all her successes in such a short time. The bottom line is capitalism works. There is nothing wrong with turning a profit. The sooner the terrorist skum realise this the better. Or we will hunt them down like the dogs that they are. In whatever freedom fighter loving country they are hiding in. And if it ****es off the rest of the world. Fukkem!

Ultimatewingchun
08-04-2005, 01:56 PM
PLUTOCRACY.

"Again, by this logic, Microsoft and Bill Gates run the world. I'm sure somewhere they're working on an AI model of you. I'd expect a 286 chip will be all the processing power it needs. You only need to program it to say "Fool!" "Period," "Because I said so," and "where's the tea?" (MP)


***AND AGAIN THE STONEWALLING.

It's not computers that wins wars (not yet, anyway).

It's the ENERGY that comes from......OIL. (God, you're dense. And soooo self righteous to boot). But I've come to see that your smug attitude is not the issue here...it's the importance of the message that matters.

So from here on, I'll continue posting on this thread - but I'll be talking OVER you - not to you.

It's the Energy (Oil) companies/lobbyists/military buyers, planners/bought-and-paid-for politicians who are running the show regarding foreign policy...and if Gates came up with a micro-chip that could win wars his name would be on the list also.

That's the nature of modern, post cold war Plutocracy (under the guise of capitalist democracy).

The greatest American presidents of the 20th century (and clearly into the 21ft) were Theodore Roosevelt and his cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Their genius was the fact that they represented the actual point where Democratic and Republican politics MEET.

And both were ready to wield the big stick when corporations and individuals were amassing too much power, wealth, and influence. Both were environmentalists...both were hawks when confronted with external threats to American democracy...both understood the needs and legitimate rights of the average working man - while at the same time promoting ECONOMIC democracy, not just political democracy....which has always been a part of democratic capitalist tradition...big profits can still be made and enjoyed without strangling small and medium size business people and those who are simply part of labor.

Today...on the other hand, thanks primarily to Ronald Reagan, Bush 1, and certainly now Bush 2....we have a whole new brand of free enterprise...THE BIG AND THE POWERFUL ARE FREE TO UNDERTAKE WHATEVER ENTERPRISE THEY WANT (see the latest "Eminent Domain" ruling for the latest travesty of economic justice)...and the rest of the world can go to hell if they don't like it. And it's been packaged brilliantly to confuse, bewilder, and sometimes even corrupt the middle classes - since it's the candidate who gets even a SLIGHT majority of the middle class vote - he/she wins the election. (How brilliant? It's tinged with religious and "family" values, patriotism, fear/hostility towards minorities who are more than just "tokens", and of course, the promise of lower taxes, a gas guzzling SUV or two in the garage, and the chance to become Joe Millionaire).

BUT THEN CAME 9/11...

and the game is now out of control. Now we have Islamic religious madmen who understand the dynamics of the new American Plutocracy all too well - and have sold many tens-of-thousands of people (and in time it will be millions)...on the idea that the American businessmen and their armies of occupation and proxy governments (ie.- the Saudi Royal family, for example)....are on a new CRUSADE to destroy Islam and oppress and corrupt the morals of Allah's people, yadda, yadda...

and it's Okay to commit suicide while murdering as many Americans (and other Westerners - and even those Moslems who work with the "infidels")...as you can.

In fact, it's more than Okay. It's the Will of Allah!!! (And he will reward you with eternal paradise and a sexual feast with multiple virgins!).

And we will keep the women in their place. (Under Islamic law a man can have up to 4 wives...and the women have to cover their heads and walk behind at all times).

Yes..IT IS A CULTURAL PROBLEM THAT will contribute greatly to the up-and-coming next World War...and that part of it is the back-to-the-past centuries values and customs that the Jihadists will advocate and try to force down people's throats - and we can argue for pages and pages on this thread (as has been done) about the historical problem that Islam has always had, and that the madness of jihad was always built right into the very fabric and foundation of Muhammad's life and teachings...and the Imam's that have come through the centuries, and the armies of conquest...and the Christian Crusades to retake Jerusalem...

but for our part, RIGHT NOW...it's about the giant corporations/lobbyists/military planners and buyers, and bought-and-paid-for politicians (mostly, but not exclusively, Republican)...lead by George W. Ambush who are speeding up the process of TURMOIL by the persuit of OIL and American Empire.

I don't advocate a retreat into an isolationist past - American Power is here to stay, at least for the forseeable future, and I believe this is the greatest country in the world...and I believe in the spread of democracy....and in crossing new bridges into the future...

but I also know deep in my gut that we need another Theodore or Franklin Roosevelt type to get us there safely and honorably.

What we have now is CORRUPTION...masquerading as noble truth and good ol' fashion American apple pie justice.

Vote for John McCain in 2008.

Royal Dragon
08-04-2005, 04:24 PM
Yup, clearly this is the start of arrmageddon.

I see this whole thing building and building until something absolutely cataclysmic happenes.

My undersatnding of things has improved...it now more on the levels of my understanding of Women.

Actually, from where I'm sitting, figuring out Alquedia is alot like trying to figure out a Woman in a relationship. No matter what, your still wrong, and they are right. No matter what you do, or say, you can't fix the situation, unless she wants to go shopping....

ZIM
08-04-2005, 06:25 PM
Yup, clearly this is the start of arrmageddon.

I see this whole thing building and building until something absolutely cataclysmic happenes.

Well, sure!
We'll strip-mine a coupla oil wells, light 'em up, et voila! Lake of Fire.

You can bring the marshmallows, RD. We'll go campin' and sing songs an' stuff. World peace, don't ya know.

Royal Dragon
08-04-2005, 07:19 PM
Sounds like fun. So long as there are gullible women there! :p

David Jamieson
08-04-2005, 07:24 PM
sweet jesus there's some rants in here!

ZIM
08-04-2005, 08:19 PM
Sounds like fun. So long as there are gullible women there! :p
Welllll...some of 'em look purty good, when you get them burqas off. And I hear they never even had any booze, either. All we gotta do is dispose of the you-know-who's and pack up some disposable shavers. :D

Merryprankster
08-04-2005, 08:30 PM
Have you thought about offering some argument supporting this claim, or do you feel that repetition and capslock interspersed with incoherent babbling is sufficiently compelling?

LOL! It reminds me of the Dilbert strip where Dogbert starts realizing he can get what he wants, just by being loud.

I'm loud dog! Give me a job! You must obey me because I'm loud.

Oh, and the answer is that yes, he does think that repetition, capslock and incoherent babbling is sufficiently compelling.




So from here on, I'll continue posting on this thread - but I'll be talking OVER you - not to you.

The only way you could possibly talk over me is if you were standing on a ladder, and I was sitting in a ditch.

This all reminds me of your reaction to when I reviewed the Ceccine tape, on your request, and told you there was nothing in there that made his approach special and unique.

You were a touch cross about that. The real fact is that you can't handle anybody disagreeing with you, and "you're right because you said so **** it!"

Ultimatewingchun
08-05-2005, 01:58 PM
Now that we're in Iraq, and now that we've found no WMD's, and now that the war on terror has come to mean that we've created more terrorists (and insurgents coming over the Syrian border) in Iraq, and therefore have given the jihadists opportunities they didn't have in that country during the Saddam Hussein regime, and now that we're commited to trying to help the Iraqi's build some semblance of a democracy...

WE CAN'T CUT AND RUN.

That would spell disaster politically, psychologically, and would only encourage the Islamic Fundamentalist jihadists to try even greater acts of terror and insurgency...So we need a President with the balls to tell the American people the truth about what it will take to win this thing:

100,000 more troops.

To guard the borders.

So that no more insurgents can come in. So that we can then sweep out the cities and various areas of those who hate us - and who hate any idea of democracy instead of theocracy...and do it one block, one road, one city, one province at a time.

While helping to build up the Iraqi police and military forces without them being sabotaged in the meantime. While trying our best to persuade the Sunni's to join the new government.

This will help cut down al Qaeda's "facts on the ground"...they can't claim victory or have their threats taken seriously about our presence in Iraq - IF IN FACT WE ARE SUCCESSFUL IN IRAQ - and then pull out when we decide...not because they "made" us.

Not that this will end things with them, as in...expect more terrorist cells to come out of the European/American/wherever woodworks and blow themselves up if we increased our troop strength...but nonetheless, a democratic victory (of sorts) In Iraq would go a long way.

Although there's much more to be done than settling the Iraq question...in the war on terror and Bin Laden's al Qaeda.

Hint: Don't expect George W. Bush to be the man with that kind of balls. The fact that he was persuaded to go into Iraq on the cheap - and his propensity, (ie.- fear) of ever admitting that he was wrong about anything...none of this bodes well for the man having the balls now to do what's needed. He talks a good game though, I'll give him that.)

Merryprankster
08-05-2005, 02:04 PM
Good Post, UWC.

I give credit when it's due.