OT: The pope's comments

[Flying-Monkey]

What do you cats think of the pope's comments about Islam? I don't think they are far from the true.

[Royal Dragon]

He is right on. I am actually starting to like this guy now, he's not afraid to say it like it is.

[Su Lin]

Here's the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5351988.stm (everyone apart from Royal Dragon can read it cause he is ignoring everyone!)

He was quoting a source from the 14th century in an academic lecture, so it may be that his words were taken out of context! This pope certainly doesnt mince his words!

[Royal Dragon]

Big Grin------> :D

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

[Ben Gash]

I love the fact that they're protesting against accusations of violence by rioting :rolleyes:

[The Willow Sword]

The Pope and the catholic church are ones to talk or to even cast stones at anyone. The CC has been the author of so much death and destruction of other cultures that it amazes me that the CC would want to say anything. They ignored the atrocities on the jews in ww2 and have always maintained this pretentious mightier than thou attitude towards everything. take a look at the crusades in history.

the CC should not be casting any stones. they should just STFU and go about their rituals and pomp and circumstance. TWS

[Royal Dragon]

They have moved past the "Dark ages", islam seeks to preserve it.

it's like an older man who seeks the path of peace, because he made mistakes with violence in his past, and now seeks to help the youger generation avoid his short commings.

[rogue]

I love the fact that they're protesting against accusations of violence by rioting :rolleyes:

:D

I like this Pope, but I also liked JPII even when I didn't agree with him.


They have moved past the "Dark ages", islam seeks to preserve it.
I disagree as I don't think Islam itself is trying to preserve any era in history. You do have a some large branches of Islam that do but I think it's more about power than about being pious.

[Green Cloud]

The Pope was quoting something from a book, not his own words. We can throw stone at the Muslims but lets not forget the Holy War against the Muslims, The Catholics killed thousands of men women and children.

Vlad the impaler got his rep by impaleing men women and children as decorations in front of his castle.

In fact there was an incident during the holy wars when they invaded a city and not only killed everyone but they also ate their victums.

The Catholics should shut their trap when it comes to the Muslims, since they killed more Muslims over the years in the name of Christianity than the Muslims ever will.

Just food for thought.

[Merryprankster]

The entire speech was rather dense, and was intended for a rather academic audience. The pope was the Vatican's chief theologian for a decade-plus, so this man thinks and has thought some rather heavy things about religion.

In outline form:

1. Religion and reason are inextricably linked in the west, in contrast to more "transcendent/mystical" approaches, thanks to the Greeks and Romans. We assume that God is rational, and that he acts within rational boundaries - he can make the IMPOSSIBLE happen, but he's got an articulable reason for that.

2. By corollary, we use reason to try and understand God, and thus truth. Also by corollary, faith and reason are not mutually exclusive

3. Continuing on, religion can therefore persuade through reason, since you can use reason to get to truth and truth is convincing. Religion should not coerce. Violence in the name of religion is therefore an abomination in the eyes of God.

The purpose of picking the Byzantine emporer's comments was to contrast that Greek accultured logician's statements with Ibn Husn (ibn Hussein), whom he also quoted in the speech, who cited a transcendental God as opposed to a God of reason. It was an exceptionally minor part of the speech, designed to highlight the western tradition of reason and faith reinforcing each other and co-existing side by side.

The phraseology and choice of quotations was, however, appalling in light of current affairs. Pope John Paul II was an erudite politician. This speech reminded me of an academic who has trouble/insensitivity trying to get his point across...He's not the Chief Theologian anymore...He's the frickin POPE. His words matter now.


For the record bringing up the Catholic church's sordid past seems particularly pointless. Are we going to excoriate the Pontiff of 2006 for something that happened generations ago? If that is to be the case, then we will all be paralyzed in speech and action. Moral perfection - and certainly not when you aren't personally responsible! - is not a pre-requisite for criticism and action. The larger ramifications of such an approach are these: if that is the standard we are going to judge against, we might as just well all nip off and shoot ourselves, since we are dooming mankind to inaction and stagnation.

Not my cup of tea, thanks.

[Green Cloud]

very well written MP, I agree the Pope was just reading something that someone else wrote about Mohamed and then tied it in with how bad it is to have wars over religion.

That was a mistake since that text was written thousands of years ago that's why I bought up the Holy wars.

Bad move on the Popes part, we have to take in consideration that he is a theologin not a politician. That said it was politicaly incorrect since what happened over 2 thousand years ago has nothing to do with modern day.

The statement was OT since the Catholics in the past have comitted great atrosidies in the past.

[lunghushan]

If you've noticed Bush's rhetoric has changed too. Like before he used extremists or terrorists and then recently he said 'islamic fascist'.

That might have been in a more academic speech, but given the timing it would be hard to look at that in a positive context for Islam.

It really seems like they're priming for a showdown here. Islam vs. everybody else.

But yeah, the Catholic church wasn't ever innocent of violence. I mean, look at the Inquisition, the mistreatment of other cultures ('pagans'), all of that.

[lunghushan]

That was a mistake since that text was written thousands of years ago that's why I bought up the Holy wars.

Bad move on the Popes part, we have to take in consideration that he is a theologin not a politician. That said it was politicaly incorrect since what happened over 2 thousand years ago has nothing to do with modern day.


??? Islam isn't even 2000 years old.

[rogue]

How do we have free discussion when there is a group of people who take offense easily?

[lunghushan]

How do we have free discussion when there is a group of people who take offense easily?

Well, we don't, that's the thing. Islam seeks to impose their law upon the state, which is totally counter to freedom of religion or speech.

Of course, Catholics used to do the same thing. The very name 'catholic' means 'universal', or in other words, everybody following the same religion.

[Green Cloud]

??? Islam isn't even 2000 years old.

to be honest I'm not sure. It depends on wether or not it was around before Jesus???

[lunghushan]

to be honest I'm not sure. It depends on wether or not it was around before Jesus???

Islam was started around 600 A.D. Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet.

But the entire conflict, yes, is older because it is from the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. A simplified way to think of it is Isaac->Jews and Ishmael->Arabs.

BTW, if you want to score bonus points with Muslim guys, compliment them on their nice 'Abraham beard'. If you are ever captured by them, profess to Christianity, and then listen to them about Islam.

Because part of their tradition is of people 'of the book'. So Christians and Jews are kindof cousins in a way (well, it used to be that way, not as much anymore). So originally infidel meant somebody not of 'the book' (the Bible or Quran). This changed more to be anybody not Islam.

But they're supposed to try to convert you, change the error in your thinking, before they kill you. So they are obliged to show you a lot of hospitality, feed you, give you lodging, and all that, while they give you the entire speal about the 5 pillars and all that stuff.

So if you're ever in a bind (or just want to make idle conversation), ask them about Islam. Because as long as they're trying to convert you, they're supposed to be nice to you, before they kill you.

Also, if you're traveling in an Islamic country, always say you're Canadian. :) Actually that's supposed to be what you should do in every country if you can get away with it, because nobody hates Canadians.

[mantis108]

How do we have free discussion when there is a group of people who take offense easily?

Learn their culture.

Understand their people's history.

Respect them as equals (don't treat them like heathens)

Listen more to them; comment less on what they believe.

Be compassionate and caring about their needs.

Most important of all whatever you do don't turn your back towards them and be watchful. ;)

Mantis108

[Royal Dragon]

Nice advice, but it takes two to tango. How can you relate to a group who is bent on either converting, or killing and EXTERMINATEING infadels?

Keep in mind an infedel is anyone that is not them.

There is only black and white with them. There are no shades of grey, let alone color.

This is the battle between good and evil. It has nothing to do with Oil, or Bush's petty revenge. They want to exterminate ANYONE who is not a devout follower of thier religion. It is a holy war, and not in any way rational.

It may come to the point where we have to wipe them out, or die....

[Merryprankster]

Well, we don't, that's the thing. Islam seeks to impose their law upon the state, which is totally counter to freedom of religion or speech.


No actually, Political Islamists do, and that can actually be traced straight back to Sayyid Qutb and his landmark book, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq, (Milestones) which significantly recast the role of Islam in society and the state. Politically active Islam is a 20th century phenomenon, not one that is hundreds of years old.

I would also argue that it is a response to European Imperialism and corrupt post-Imperial regimes and owes significantly to the Marxist concept of the proletariat as an agent for change. But that's a slightly different issue.

Rogue, in some ways, mantis108 hit the nail on the head. Much of the Middle East suffers from what you might call an inferiority complex, and everything is therefore a slight. Have you read a lot of the rhetoric w/respect to Israel-Palestine and Western relationships with the west? It's loaded not with "killing our children and taking our land and destroying our infrastructure..."

It's loaded more often with "these repeated humiliations will not stand."

Something to think about.

[Merryprankster]

How can you relate to a group who is bent on either converting, or killing and EXTERMINATEING infadels?


You don't relate to them. You kill them.

Fortunately the ones who hold the sort of opinion you talk about represent a small part of the Islamic world.

[unkokusai]

to be honest I'm not sure. It depends on wether or not it was around before Jesus???

You were joking, right?

[lunghushan]

Nice advice, but it takes two to tango. How can you relate to a group who is bent on either converting, or killing and EXTERMINATEING infadels?

Keep in mind an infedel is anyone that is not them.

There is only black and white with them. There are no shades of grey, let alone color.

This is the battle between good and evil. It has nothing to do with Oil, or Bush's petty revenge. They want to exterminate ANYONE who is not a devout follower of thier religion. It is a holy war, and not in any way rational.

It may come to the point where we have to wipe them out, or die....

Well there's only 3 ways, really. Either return to the moderate Islam of the past, which some would argue is the true Islam, or extermate all Muslims, or exterminate everybody not a Muslim.

There are a lot of laws in other religions which aren't really enforced anymore. For example, Jews are supposed to stone adulterers or ****sexuals (Leviticus), and follow a lot of other old laws. They don't practice this anymore.

But originally Islam was not such a kill the infidel type religion. It was a religion of high culture, and a lot of places (Jerusalem, for example), Muslims lived in peace side by side Jews and Christians.

But then certain things happened, like the Crusades, and the expanding of empires by certain Islamic rulers, and that kindof ended.

But it seems like they could return to a moderate Islam of the past. Unfortunately due to some clerics and economics and things, many Muslims don't want to do that. The fact that modern society is so, shall we say, amoral, does not really help things any because it really sets their beliefs apart from the modern world which is extremely amoral even compared to traditional Christian and Jewish standards.

[lunghushan]

No actually, Political Islamists do, and that can actually be traced straight back to Sayyid Qutb and his landmark book, Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq, (Milestones) which significantly recast the role of Islam in society and the state. Politically active Islam is a 20th century phenomenon, not one that is hundreds of years old.

Well the fact that they want this now does not mean that it is not part of Islam now.

But yes, for example the Ottoman empire practiced religious tolerance (mostly).

[unkokusai]

You don't relate to them. You kill them.

Fortunately the ones who hold the sort of opinion you talk about represent a small part of the Islamic world.



But the only part, apparently, going out of its way to represent the faith to the world. That huge majority is awfully quiet when terrorists kill, destroy, and force conversions in the name of their faith.

But then the numbers of politically active believers seem to swell remarkably every time something terrible like a cartoon or a misinterpreted line from a long speech comes along.

[unkokusai]

If you are ever captured by them, profess to Christianity, and then listen to them about Islam..

Been captured by radical Islamists often, have you?

[unkokusai]

Also, if you're traveling in an Islamic country, always say you're Canadian. :) Actually that's supposed to be what you should do in every country if you can get away with it.


If that's how you feel you should be a Canadian, or something else, but you don't deserve to be a citizen of the United States.

[Merryprankster]

But it seems like they could return to a moderate Islam of the past. Unfortunately due to some clerics and economics and things, many Muslims don't want to do that. The fact that modern society is so, shall we say, amoral, does not really help things any because it really sets their beliefs apart from the modern world which is extremely amoral even compared to traditional Christian and Jewish standards.


Kind of. The "moderate Islam of the past," is a bit of an idealized myth. Islam has been a patchwork of customs and cultures within a belief system since its expansions.

Many (ie, most) Muslims would, I think be fine with a "moderate" form of Islam. The problem is that there is no heir apparent to take the mantle of leadership, so to speak, thanks to the governments in much of the Islamic world.

There is a complex interplay of forces that are at work.

[lunghushan]

But the only part, apparently, going out of its way to represent the faith to the world. That huge majority is awfully quiet when terrorists kill, destroy, and force conversions in the name of their faith.

But then the numbers of politically active believers seem to swell remarkably every time something terrible like a cartoon or a misinterpreted line from a long speech comes along.

Well, part of the silence is because when these people start doing terror, Muslims at least in the U.S. get pretty freaked out over the thought of reprisals, so they duck and cover.

I don't know what more they could do. They also have clerics from time to time make public declarations.

I mean, when white supremacists march, Neo-Nazi sympathizers or whatever, what are we supposed to do? Go out and shoot them? Unfortunately freedom of religion and speech means that bad people can say what they want.

Anyway, they have passed a lot of anti-hate speech and crime legislation, so that helps somewhat.

[lunghushan]

Kind of. The "moderate Islam of the past," is a bit of an idealized myth. Islam has been a patchwork of customs and cultures within a belief system since its expansions.

Many (ie, most) Muslims would, I think be fine with a "moderate" form of Islam. The problem is that there is no heir apparent to take the mantle of leadership, so to speak, thanks to the governments in much of the Islamic world.

There is a complex interplay of forces that are at work.

Well, people tend to do and say what they think will bring them advantage, right? So a lot of people get advantage and make a living off of preaching hate, or keeping people down, etc.

Anyway, all of this is for people like Bush and the CIA to worry about. The average person can't do anything about it except hope they don't get bombed.

[Royal Dragon]

You don't relate to them. You kill them.

Reply]
No, I would only kill them when they express a distinct desire to Kill me...which they have been doing so quite loudly for some time now.

Fortunately the ones who hold the sort of opinion you talk about represent a small part of the Islamic world.


Reply]
Really? Thier frik'n Holy book commands them to Kill anyone not belonging to thier sick little religious club. A LOT of them are taking it to heart, and putting the plan into action.

This will get worse, before it gets better.

[Christopher M]

The Pope and the catholic church are ones to talk or to even cast stones at anyone.

Good point. Similarly, none of us should disagree with murder, since we all have ancestors who killed. And the same for theft. Oh and rape. Actually, let's just abandon all attempts at ethics, since the past hasn't been perfect. This is a brilliant idea, and definitely not incoherent gibbish fueled by your own religious intolerance.

[Merryprankster]

Well the fact that they want this now does not mean that it is not part of Islam now.


My point is that political Islamists want what you are talking about. But, there is a nice solid chunk of people out there who do not want what the political Islamists want.

Saying it is "part of Islam" now is like saying that the Unitarian rejection of the Divine Trinity is "part of Christianity" now. One group of people does not equate to a generalized comment about what is or is not "in" a religion, because MOST Muslims are not political Islamists, just like MOST Christians are not Unitarians, and accept the Divine Trinity.



But the only part, apparently, going out of its way to represent the faith to the world. That huge majority is awfully quiet when terrorists kill, destroy, and force conversions in the name of their faith.

It's usually the extremists that bark loudest. It's hard to be excited about being moderate. Prudence doesn't translate into sound bites well. That huge majority is also rather sympathetic to many of the points of view that violent Islamists hold. They just disagree with the methodology. Jumping up and saying "the violence - that's wrong" can also get you killed in some places. Hence my point about an heir apparent.

And, admittedly, a lot of them think that the bad guys are exacting just retribution for past wrongs. I think that sort of revenge motive is a universal human trait though.


But then the numbers of politically active believers seem to swell remarkably every time something terrible like a cartoon or a misinterpreted line from a long speech comes along.

I think my comments about humiliation are relevent here. A lot of these disenfranchised folk are looking for anything to explain their lack of opportunity - a Western conspiracy is a plausible choice, given the history of European empire, and the willingness of the West to support corrupt regimes in the ME. They have some very real greivances w/regard to Western meddling in their affairs. I'm not justifying the perspective, I'm suggesting that if I were viewing the world through that lens a "Western intent to keep us down," would be much preferable to the alternative (and actual) state of things "The average Western country doesn't actually think you matter much, and couldn't give a rat's ass about you."

[unkokusai]

Well, part of the silence is because when these people start doing terror, Muslims at least in the U.S. get pretty freaked out over the thought of reprisals, so they duck and cover.

No, that's a load. First of all, Muslims are freer, in a way, to practice their faith in the US than almost anywhere else in the world.

Second, Muslim groups in the US are vocal, active, and unafraid when it comes to denouncing a...cartoon:rolleyes: or other such horrors... but suddenly scared to speak up for something that their fellow Americans would love to hear from them? That argument doesn't work at all.

And its not just about Muslims in America, of course. Where are the tens of thousands strong rallies in Muslim countries against the people corrupting the image of their religion by committing terror in its name? Where is the great outrage over forced conversions or videotape of slow, painful decapitations?

[unkokusai]

Good point. Similarly, none of us should disagree with murder, since we all have ancestors who killed. And the same for theft. Oh and rape. Actually, let's just abandon all attempts at ethics, since the past hasn't been perfect. This is a brilliant idea, and definitely not incoherent gibbish fueled by your own religious intolerance.

Good post.

[Merryprankster]

Good point. Similarly, none of us should disagree with murder, since we all have ancestors who killed. And the same for theft. Oh and rape. Actually, let's just abandon all attempts at ethics, since the past hasn't been perfect. This is a brilliant idea, and definitely not incoherent gibbish fueled by your own religious intolerance.

You know, I was going to post something JUST this biting, but actually deleted it at the last minute.

Huzzah for you Chris M.

BTW, where in America Lite did you say you lived?

[lunghushan]

Good point. Similarly, none of us should disagree with murder, since we all have ancestors who killed. And the same for theft. Oh and rape. Actually, let's just abandon all attempts at ethics, since the past hasn't been perfect. This is a brilliant idea, and definitely not incoherent gibbish fueled by your own religious intolerance.

Actually, as a Jewish priest pointed out to me, the Torah does not say say do not kill. It says do not murder. The Jewish religion had quite a tradition of killing. For example, when the Jews attacked the 'Promised Land', they killed every living thing. Every man, woman, child and beast.

But like you said, just because they used to do this, doesn't mean they have to continue to do this. They do not continue to do this now. (Well, at least they do not continue to randomly kill people outside Palestine. They still kill people IN Palestine. LOL).

[Merryprankster]

Well, people tend to do and say what they think will bring them advantage, right? So a lot of people get advantage and make a living off of preaching hate, or keeping people down, etc.

Anyway, all of this is for people like Bush and the CIA to worry about. The average person can't do anything about it except hope they don't get bombed.

I'm sorry. I don't know what your point is.

[unkokusai]

It's usually the extremists that bark loudest. It's hard to be excited about being moderate. Prudence doesn't translate into sound bites well. That huge majority is also rather sympathetic to many of the points of view that violent Islamists hold. They just disagree with the methodology. Jumping up and saying "the violence - that's wrong" can also get you killed in some places.



Well, if they agree with the views of the terrorists and are silent about the methods, I'm sorry but that adds up to complicity.

Can't have it both ways.

[Green Cloud]

You were joking, right?

Sorry I'm a bit rusty when it comes to theoligy, besides I'm Buddhist. That and I flunked out of Sunday school. Longshuan already clarified that question.

Now can we just continue before you start correcting my spelling:rolleyes:

[lunghushan]

I'm sorry. I don't know what your point is.

Which half of the statement?

Second half is, I'm not a policymaker or a soldier or a CIA operative, so this entire topic doesn't really matter to me.

First half is, that there are people in the Islamic community who make their living off of preaching hate (Clerics, leaders, etc.), and use it to their advantage.

[lunghushan]

Sorry I'm a bit rusty when it comes to theoligy, besides I'm Buddhist. That and I flunked out of Sunday school. Longshuan already clarified that question.

Now can we just continue before you start correcting my spelling:rolleyes:

Yeah, I was pretty clueless as to Islam other than the Crusades until 9/11. I'm still pretty clueless, I guess. I can never keep the entire Sunni vs. Shiite thing straight.

[unkokusai]

Sorry I'm a bit rusty when it comes to theoligy, besides I'm Buddhist. That and I flunked out of Sunday school. Longshuan already clarified that question.

Now can we just continue before you start correcting my spelling:rolleyes:




I wasn't going to say anything about "theology." :cool:

[lunghushan]

Well, if they agree with the views of the terrorists and are silent about the methods, I'm sorry but that adds up to complicity.

Can't have it both ways.

Well they aren't silent. After every attack some cleric denounces it.

Secondly, what are they supposed to do? Is it okay for us to lynch Neo-Nazis? What are they supposed to do about it?

[Christopher M]

Huzzah for you Chris M.

No no, being snarky isn't laudible.

Do you really think separation of church and state has the theological consistency with Islam it does with Christianity?

[unkokusai]

Second half is, I'm not a policymaker or a soldier or a CIA operative, so this entire topic doesn't really matter to me.




........................................... :rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

Really? Thier frik'n Holy book commands them to Kill anyone not belonging to thier sick little religious club. A LOT of them are taking it to heart, and putting the plan into action.

It also says in the Sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, "There is no compulsion in religion," which is applicable to the entirety of Islam.

The "Kill anyone not belonging to their sick little religious club" ACTUALLY has a war-time historical context and was a reference to killing their enemies at that specific point in time.

Some have expanded it way beyond its original scope.


Well, if they agree with the views of the terrorists and are silent about the methods, I'm sorry but that adds up to complicity.

That's a vast oversimplification of a complex problem, once again, that has its root in several different causal factors. Adding it up to "complicity," is, IMO, precisely the sort of thing that does absolutely nothing to help the situation.

[lunghushan]

........................................... :rolleyes:

Well, seriously, what am I supposed to do? Go to the 7-11 and try to get the Muslims not to do terror?

I already had long talks with the Muslims at work after 9/11 and tried to get them to change their ways and thinking. LOL

They calmly explained to me they're here in the U.S. to make money, not to start any trouble. That they don't want to kill the 'golden goose' so to speak.

They said that the people wanting to start trouble are a small minority who are usually uneducated or make their money (as clerics or leaders) off of the uneducated.

A lot of the leaders live very well at the expense of the average citizen, and they blame the U.S. and Europe for the problems so they themselves don't get lynched.

[unkokusai]

Adding it up to "complicity," is, IMO, precisely the sort of thing that does absolutely nothing to help the situation.


It certainly helps no less than tortured apologetics.

[Green Cloud]

I'm curious what percentage of Muslims share this intolerence. I always take into consideration both sides of any argument.

My experience with Moslems is with 5 percenters, the louis farakan people. Not that I run with these people just grew up around them in the projects and it was all about hating the jew and killing the white man and oh yea pork is evil because they are the kin of Jews.

Personaly I like pork, sorry I didn't mean to ramble like that. the point I'm trying to make is that in my experiences Moslems seem to have very little tolerence for other people.

BTW To be a five percenter you were encouraged to kill a white man. At leat that's what I was told by those guys back then.

[Merryprankster]

Do you really think separation of church and state has the theological consistency with Islam it does with Christianity?

I'm not sure. I'm more concerned that a workable system is put in place that protects human rights and equal rights. If Islam is part of that system, well, ok. I don't think that is impossible. Several countries around the world don't technically separate church and state, but more or less do so anyway, because they have managed to evolve in that direction over time. I think an "Islamic Democracy" is possible over much the same evolutionary process.

My concerns focus about the stunting of Islamic jurisprudence for a century or two, and having almost no way to reconcile that with the modern world.

I personally think the concept of separation of Church and State has its root in religious persecution as a tactic of survival out of weakness. "Render under Caesar's that which is Caesar's and unto me that which is mine," is almost a blueprint for how not to draw attention to yourself - follow the POLITICAL laws, and follow your own spiritual laws so you don't get killed. Yes, I know it didn't quite work out that way, but you get the point. Similarly, the Jewish Diaspora HAD to do business that way.

Point being that both religions existed/evolved in periods of tremendous weakness, which required them to figure out an approach that meant you could still be a good Christian or Jew in a land full of non-believers.

Contrast that with the beginning of Islam, which, apart from a brief period of weakness in the beginning, is actually a story of growing up in power and dominance. They never were put in the place of trying to figure out what to do, on their own, in a context of weakness, until now.

All of which is to say, "I am hopeful that either separation of church and state will be incorporated into Islamic doctrine (it is possible, there are some references in the Sunnah and Hadiths that could be used in that way), or that Islam will develop some sort of workable Islamic Democratic tradition."

[Merryprankster]

It certainly helps no less than tortured apologetics.

I quite agree with you. Fortunately for both of us, that's not what I'm doing.

I personally propose we kill people like Bin Ladin, and have no problems using military and LE force to capture and kill members of terrorist groups at home and abroad, in covert and overt operations.

However, that approach is not feasible against an entire group of people who live in abject surroundings, under repressive governments, whose only "complicity" is failure to speak out or act. I expect better from Muslims in free societies, and on the whole, quite frankly, most of their clerics have issued statements AGAINST terrorism. Problem is, that doesn't make the news, because it's not as interesting as having a riot or burning churches.

I could just as easily point to the U.S. continued silence on, and in some cases diplomatic support of repressive governments that help create the conditions that breed the "complicit" individuals you refer to, and say that we were "complicit" in the crimes or "had it coming."

I don't do that because, put simply, it's:

1. Dumb (Michael Moore Left - this means you)
2. Doesn't actually do anything but point fingers.

I want us to try and fix the problem, and assigning moral blame to anybody but the direct actors, their ACTUAL accomplices doesn't do that, IMO. The Israel-Palestine conflict is a case in point. Neither side (with the exception of the Israelis in recent years) has been interested in fixing the thing. They just draw up a list of grievances, assign blame to the other side and act like that's a starting point for discussions.

[Merryprankster]

Green Cloud,

The "Black Muslims," "Nation of Islam," etc, are NOT/NOT Muslims at ALL, in any way other than self-reference. They reject the final revelation of the Koran and count Elijah Muhammed a prophet, all of which are heretical to Islam.

It's like calling David Koresh and his gang "Christian."

Chris M,

Being snarky is absolutely laudible. "How misinformed or ignorant does somebody have to be before we get to call them stupid?"

[unkokusai]

I quite agree with you. Fortunately for both of us, that's not what I'm doing.

I personally propose we kill people like Bin Ladin, and have no problems using military and LE force to capture and kill members of terrorist groups at home and abroad, in covert and overt operations.

However, that approach is not feasible against an entire group of people who live in abject surroundings, under repressive governments, whose only "complicity" is failure to speak out or act.



That failure is often the greatest enabler of horrible crimes. You know, history and that whole "and one day they come for you and, etc." thing?

I sure don't want to kill every person remotely related to anything Muslim. That would be stupid, immoral, and probably impossible. But Islamic terrorism isn't going to end when we one day put a bullet in the last guy with a big 'T' on his chest, its only going to end when the Muslim world collectively, actively, and deliberately rejects it. And that ain't gonna happen until people face their own complicity and decide they don't want to be a part of it anymore.

And I don't give a **** if they feel 'humiliated' because Europe came out of the Dark Ages and they reacted by running in the other direction. The fundamental choice has to be made in, of, and by them or it will never end. If they make no choice, then they have effectively chosen passive complicity and...well...they'll gain no more peace for themselves or the world with that choice...

[Green Cloud]

Hmm I see your point MP, The black Muslims are different in that respect.

[Merryprankster]

they'll gain no more peace for themselves or the world with that choice

I agree 100%. But the situations that encourage the type of thing that you are talking about are not exactly present in the Islamic world right now.

And we can either wait for those conditions to occur - which took us, what? Say, 1500 years or so till the Renaissance, or, we can try and help that happen.

It's all well and good to chalk it up to personal or collective action, but even in our Western history, we've got turning points, such as the Black Death, which engendered social change, that had nothing to do with human decisions - or we have the unintended consequences of certain things, like the Magna Carta, which actually had nothing to do with the rabble, but protection against the King for the Nobility.

My only point being that environment shapes what choices are available - or desireable - to you. And until that environment exists, yada yada. Before people start talking about "but they aren't even trying to change things," they absolutely are. Palestine elected Hamas, not because Hamas is a terrorist organization that hates Israel, but because Fatah was corrupt and ineffectual. In Egypt, the Islamic parties were poised to win huge victories, until the Egyptian government squashed that all up.

Some folks might say "see, the Muslims want political Islam!!!" I say, "they wanted the corrupt *******s they had IN, OUT, and Islamic parties have been running an effective campaign for decades, that has included social services, education and medical care. OF COURSE the people voted for them. They would have voted for ANY alternative with the perception of viability."

Who gets the ballot on election day?

Of course there's the question of why not vote for the other secular parties? And the answer to that, is that there is really no secular opposition to the secular ruling party in most of the Muslim world. While mosques and religious schools provide cover for political Islamists to meet and do their thing, and zakat ensures a source of funding, there is no counterpart for secular parties. The result? No coherent secular movement, since the government would root out and stomp on them periodically, thus, no major, coherent secular alternatives. Certainly the Islamists got their share of stomping occasionally, but with the religious schools and mosques providing a sort of safehaven, they were always able to stay alive.

[unkokusai]

Some folks might say "see, the Muslims want political Islam!!!" I say, "they wanted the corrupt *******s they had IN, OUT, and Islamic parties have been running an effective campaign for decades, that has included social services, education and medical care. OF COURSE the people voted for them. They would have voted for ANY alternative with the perception of viability."

Who gets the ballot on election day?

Of course there's the question of why not vote for the other secular parties? And the answer to that, is that there is really no secular opposition .



I don't think its a matter of promoting secularism over Islam in Islamic societies. If folks want religion to play a big role in their governing system that's their issue. I just want the Western world to stop being such P*ssies about 'offending' the Muslim world that no one dares stand up and say "Hey, you ****ing people, get your **** together and stop producing terrorists like Florida produces oranges or you will be **** upon until you do!" And I would very much like this great hulking majority of the Muslim world, so very many who profess deep commitment to their faith, to start living up to their own standards of peace, tolerance, and reason and actively reject those who would hijack their belief system.

[lunghushan]

I don't think its a matter of promoting secularism over Islam in Islamic societies. If folks want religion to play a big role in their governing system that's their issue. I just want the Western world to stop being such P*ssies about 'offending' the Muslim world that no one dares stand up and say "Hey, you ****ing people, get your **** together and stop producing terrorists like Florida produces oranges or you will be **** upon until you do!" And I would very much like this great hulking majority of the Muslim world, so very many who profess deep commitment to their faith, to start living up to their own standards of peace, tolerance, and reason and actively reject those who would hijack their belief system.

Well most in the West would agree with you.

There seems to be some agreement, though, in the Muslim community with what the fanatics are saying, though, about Western society being too liberal, too obscene, too materialistic, and all of that. I've never found a Muslim who would disagree with the fanatics in that regard.

On the one hand, more moderate Muslims say violence is wrong. On the other hand, they disagree with pop culture, porn, gay marriage, sex in the media, open adultery, and a lot of Western society.

I mean, all the Muslims I ever talked to said three things:

a) Terror is bad. They don't agree with terrorists.
b) Western culture is bad. It is vulgar, amoral, corrupt and all that.
c) You should follow Islam.

This is probably why there isn't more dissent.

A lot of these people come from societies that are way behind the West in terms of liberalization, if you will. They are very conservative. Even a lot of Hindus and Christians I've met from India, for example, don't watch Western media or movies and think that the West is way too liberal and amoral of a society.

[Christopher M]

I personally think the concept of separation of Church and State has its root in religious persecution as a tactic of survival out of weakness...

Well, there's probably some of this going on. But at least in the case of Christianity, I think this notion follows from a sentiment intrinsic to the theology as a whole. Rendering unto Caesar and, for example, Paul's chastisement of the Thessalonians (in II Thessalonians) for abandoning their social responsabilities, provide for good catch phrases. But a more important point would be the Christian, contra mainstream Jewish, understanding of Messiah as a strictly religious, contra political, figure -- although to call this a distinction is misleading, as its one which, I think, would not have even made sense in at least most of the pre-Christian context. I don't think we have any evidence of Jesus chastising the zealots for their political goals, so much as simply distincing himself as Judeo-Christian messiah from such goals. Also, there is the theology of grace, which Christianity situates as an ethical code in replacement of the Jewish concept of law. While not overtly associated with the relation of church and state (and being at times bewilderingly difficult to understand), this notion suggests at a fundamental level that religiousity exists along some other action than the social/political, even as the religious man remains a social man.


I'm not sure. I'm more concerned that a workable system is put in place that protects human rights and equal rights. If Islam is part of that system, well, ok...

Ok. I can see what you're saying here. The relationship between democracy and religion and the separation of church and state, and human rights and work conditions, etc... is a complicated one. Along these lines we have to observe the irony awaiting advocates of liberal democracy advocating democratic actions for populations whose majority don't share that liberalism. And we can ask if Baathism is, for what we take as its failings, a progressive step beyond theocracy, and producing the context for further progress, along the lines of Turkey for example. Conversely we could ask, as I guess you are here, if what we were previously quick to characterize theocracy is perhaps preferable after all, in its ability to produce what the citizens demand, or, from the liberal context, what their rights demand. I really don't know what to say here... the more I think and learn about these questions, the less sure I am of the answers.

But I think my question arose mostly from different orientations; your comment being more about what social conditions determine, and mine reading being more on what psychological conditions (ie. those produced by the effects of theology, philosophy, ideology) determine.

[David Jamieson]

The Pope Trolled Islam.

[Merryprankster]

Well, there's probably some of this going on. But at least in the case of Christianity, I think this notion follows from a sentiment intrinsic to the theology as a whole. Rendering unto Caesar and, for example, Paul's chastisement of the Thessalonians (in II Thessalonians) for abandoning their social responsabilities, provide for good catch phrases. But a more important point would be the Christian, contra mainstream Jewish, understanding of Messiah as a strictly religious, contra political, figure -- although to call this a distinction is misleading, as its one which, I think, would not have even made sense in at least most of the pre-Christian context. I don't think we have any evidence of Jesus chastising the zealots for their political goals, so much as simply distincing himself as Judeo-Christian messiah from such goals. Also, there is the theology of grace, which Christianity situates as an ethical code in replacement of the Jewish concept of law. While not overtly associated with the relation of church and state (and being at times bewilderingly difficult to understand), this notion suggests at a fundamental level that religiousity exists along some other action than the social/political, even as the religious man remains a social man.

I think my question is a bit more simple: If Jesus were speaking from a position of strength, vice weakness, would he ever have said "Render unto Caeser?" Would we HAVE such a distinction?

Conversely, if Muhammed were arguing from a position of such weakness that war with the neighboring tribe was impossible, would killing the non-Muslims even have raised its head - would HE have been rendering unto Caeser?

Even more basically, I'm asking "would we even be having this discussion?"

unkokusai, don't get me wrong - I understand what you are saying, but the underlying fact is that, as lung pointed out - many Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists point of view about the West. They disagree with the violence, but understand the rejection of Western culture and share a belief that "the man" is keeping them down.

That tends to quash the desire to speak out and I suspect fuels a bit of schadenfreud as well.

I want nothing more that the Muslim world, as a whole, to reject terrorists in the name of Islam. But that doesn't "just happen," and given the circumstances, I'm not going to lapse into "if you're not with us, you're against us." They may just not be with us. Antagonism isn't going to cut it. We need to set clear thresholds for what we will respond to with military force and through LE channels, while starting to pressure repressive regimes to change. We do NOT need to say to the Muslim people world-wide "Hey, YOU are the problem."

And like I said, I'm fairly loose and non-restrictive about using our power in that way. I'm not going to say "hey, unleash the marines, but if you kill any civilians, forget it!" That's not the way military power works. Even with all our efforts, military force is still a blunt instrument, and when we use it, I expect them to break things and kill people.

[Mr Punch]

MP is erudite. RD is having trouble tying his shoelaces.


But the only part, apparently, going out of its way to represent the faith to the world. That huge majority is awfully quiet when terrorists kill, destroy, and force conversions in the name of their faith. I don' t remember the Pope condemning many IRA attacks. Maybe he did. I liked him. But I don't remember him condemning many IRA attacks. Or most local Christian organizations. I do remember numerous American 'Christian' organizations funding the IRA until 911. Maybe these (ie 90%) Muslims don't condemn it vociferously cos let's face it, it's got **** all to do with them or the way they think.

[charyuop]

In my opinion the problem is that Musl. is living far behind in history. They are going through what Cristian Church went through many centuries ago: a change.
In the past you should have tried to post a picture a Jesus in a parody situation, you would have been blaspheme and punished...now you can do it and maybe raise some laughters (of course if it doesn't cross a decency line). In Islam countries they have profaned Christian churces and images for years, but a picture on newspapers of their religion raised hell. And that is OK!!!
Like Christian church went through a period of wild vicious religion in its change so it has to happen to their religion.

In my opinion the error is mentioning Islam every single time something happens. Let the change go through and punish who breaks the law (or international laws), don't punish the Islamic estremist group.
Sincerelly as an atheist I think it is mostly tragic and very hilarious that now as well as it happened centuries ago people kill one another for some things written in a couple of books stating the existence of a God...books written by someone who, by what we know, could have been under who knows what drugs.

I don't mean disrespect to anyone. I myself have the convinction of the existence of a God or something beyond understanding. I just can't see why people arrive to kill for an ideal.

[Royal Dragon]

I would think killing in the name of a God, would go against the very existance of said God.......

[The Willow Sword]

YES RD, and christians take the cake when it comes to that particular concept.

[unkokusai]

unkokusai, don't get me wrong - I understand what you are saying, but the underlying fact is that, as lung pointed out - many Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists point of view about the West. They disagree with the violence, but understand the rejection of Western culture and share a belief that "the man" is keeping them down.

That tends to quash the desire to speak out and I suspect fuels a bit of schadenfreud as well.


And that is where the complicity I mentioned earlier comes in. I understand that we just see this (slightly) differently, but I do not see that letting the same 'silent' majority that oh-so-readily becomes a 'noisy' majority when it suits them off the moral hook for allowing their faith to be usurped without a peep does anyone any good.

[unkokusai]

I don' t remember the Pope condemning many IRA attacks.



Then you weren't paying attention. :rolleyes:



In any case your example doesn't fit, because the IRA, bad as they were, were not killing in the name of a faith but a very narrowly-defined political goal. Doesn't make the people they killed (or those their loyalist counterparts killed) any less dead, but the example just doesn't fit this discussion.

[Merryprankster]

but I do not see that letting the same 'silent' majority that oh-so-readily becomes a 'noisy' majority when it suits them off the moral hook for allowing their faith to be usurped without a peep does anyone any good.


Right. I understand this and it seems to be this distinction (that you are making)that many people on this thread are missing:

The majority is silent when there are attacks on the west, but a perceived slight generates riots.

It's quite torquing, really.

[Merryprankster]

YES RD, and christians take the cake when it comes to that particular concept.

Yes. And because of the killing done in the name of Christ, most of it hundreds of years ago, we should all refrain from taking action against violence and murder, lest us modern-day Judeo-Christian types get labeled as hypocrites.

By using moral perfection as our prerequisite for legitimacy, we can ensure the moral, ethical and intellectual stagnation of the entire human species.

PERFECT! :rolleyes:


I would think killing in the name of a God, would go against the very existance of said God.......

A god or the God? Quite a difference.

[unkokusai]

Right. I understand this and it seems to be this distinction (that you are making)that many people on this thread are missing:

The majority is silent when there are attacks on the west, but a perceived slight generates riots.

It's quite torquing, really.


Indeed it is.

[cjurakpt]

personally, I am an atheist - and while I don't mean to cause offense to anyone, I personally think the whole concept of "God" is a, relatively speaking, anxiety based reaction on the part of individuals / societies to: a) things theat can't (yet) be explained; b) fear of unknown (e.g. - death) c) attachment to self/ego; I think "God" is used as an attempt at displacement of personal / societal responsibility and justification for doing sh1t that you know is nasty but is perceived as necessary for survival (see above for the reason); it is a useful tool to reinforce relationships within social structures (family, clan, nation); it is a romantic ideal that elevates mankinds status in the universe and makes us think we are something more than a random colection of energetic bonds that have developed some limited capacity for self-observation...

call me cynical, but I think that to do anything in the name of some supposed omnipresent, all-powerful, vaguely anthropomorphic entity is just, well, silly - now I know that word offended a bunch of people here at one point, but what can I say - I think it's silly; if you don't agree, that's fine: I am not trying to impinge on anyone's right to believe what they want (personally, I would defend anyone's right to believe whatever they want, so long as it doesn't manifest as violence, repression, etc. - if you hate Jews, Muslims, Christians etc., inwardly, but your actions in the world never cause them hindrance, what does it matter?) but if you believe the moon is made of green cheese, and I say it's silly, you don't get offended, you just go about your business thinking I;m the deluded one; but now because it's about "God", and your "belief", well, that's something different, hands off, don't go there...I mean, what's with all the insecurity? if you firmly believe that the creator of the multiverse was square in your corner, what possible effect could my feeble words have on your certainty? wouldn't it make more sense for you to shake your head, smile, and feel sorry for me because you know exactly what my cumupence would be (hell, ****ation, etc.)? why should anymember of a given religion care if they are slandered, etc? what harm does it do them and their faith? I think what worries them is that historically, not long after the slander comes the repression and the extermination...so they are just trying to nip the problem in the bud - but this is a survival concern, not a theological one...

I am sure many will disagree with me - that is their right - I take comfort in the warm fuzzy atheist glow surrounding me, knowing in my heart that only I am ultimately responsible for the choices I make, I set my own moral compass and don't pass responsiblity off to "God" to teel me what is right and wrong, there is no one waiting for me with open arms after "I" die...

in my estimation, the problem is that "God" has become so entrenched, largely because of economic disenfranchisement - when life on earth sucks, it's nice to have a reason for it ("It's God's will; and you'll neve really understand it, just trust HiM"), and also it gives you a rationalization for not dwelling on it ("it's crap down here, but your reward in Heaven is just awesome!")

the problem is that we need to see other people as individuals, not as members of groups: when you sit down face to face with someone else and come to realize that we all are worried about the same basic things - a place to live, food to eat, welfare of ourselves and those close to us, that is a start; of course, there are differences - Koffi Annan once told my sifu that tolerance is not only accepting differences, but actively embracing them (I know that runs contrary to my thinking about belief in God as being silly - so, I admit that I am in a way contradicting myself)

honestly, I see little hope for mankind surviving as a species in the long run - mainly because it seems that the planet is getting fed up with our lack of appropriate stewardship, but I think it all ties in together...

[unkokusai]

personally, I am an atheist - and while I don't mean to cause offense to anyone, I personally think the whole concept of "God" is a, blah-blah-blah.....



Well, that's great. And I think atheism is nothing more than the manifestation of a delusional nihilistic ego run amok.

All of which really has no bearing on this discussion.

[Ben Gash]

There are several issues here. For starters, where does it say in the Pope's job description that he has to appease muslims? The job of the church is to evangelise to the unbeliever, not get pally with said unbeliever and work out how to respect each other's beliefs. Christianity and Islam are incompatible. Indeed, the "official" Muslim line on Christianity is farcical. If Jesus was as they say a prophet, and therefore the voice of God, why do they go against 90% of what they said?
Secondly, yes, why must we make a big fuss because Muslims get offended easily? Many times on television I see Muslim clerics say "Jesus was not the son of God, God has no son".This is flat out blasphemy from a Christion POV. Do I complain to the network? of course I don't. I certainly don't firebomb the Syrian embassy.
Thirdly we have historical context. From the sixties to the nineties, probably a part of westerners embracing of the east, there was a tendency to paint crusaders as bad and muslim arabs as good. This is a gross distortion. There was good intent, political and religious manipulation, and evil in equal measures from both sides. Let's not forget that the first crusade was triggered by the Arab invasion of Palestine. They then closed the Pilgrimage route to Jerusalem, and perhaps more crucially seized control of the spice routes. This is what prompted the military action from Europe. The Church wanted the pilgramage routes re-opened and the states wanted the spice routes freed.
The second crusade was the result of the arabs assault against the colonies left behind from the first crusade to ensure the security of the pilgramage routes. This assault was a political powerplay by saladin to unite all the arab kingships under him in the name of Islam.
Subsequent crusades were really just the legacy of the first two. (let's not forget that during the later crusades period England fought France for a hundred years simply because fighting the French was what we did).
For some reason propaganda by the crusaders is universally disbelieved, but every bad thing said about crusaders is always believed.
Some attrocities by Crusaders are well documented, but so are some by arabs. The most infamous crusader crime, the sacking of Byzantium though had far more to do with tensions between the former western roman empire and the surviving eastern roman empire than it did with religion.
As for Vlad the impaler, WTF did that come from? Yes his methods were brutal, but he lived in brutal times. He was defending his relatively small country from invasion by the Turkish empire. The turks, when they invaded the rest of the Balkan/adriatic region massacred villages then took their children, converted them to Islam and then trained them to be their military elite. It was a savage war for survival which Vlad won.

[Christopher M]

Let's not forget that the first crusade was triggered by the Arab invasion of Palestine.

Not that it changes the sentiment, but I think the First Crusade was triggered more by the siege of Byzantium.

[Christopher M]

I think my question is a bit more simple: If Jesus were speaking from a position of strength, vice weakness, would he ever have said "Render unto Caeser?" Would we HAVE such a distinction?

Well I would say 'Yes', on the basis that it's consistent with the theology as a whole. I suppose you might ask -- well, if Jesus was in a position of power, maybe he would have been the traditional Jewish messiah, and so forth... It's certainly logically possible, but at that point we're not really debating Christian principles so much as considering the possibility that Christianity -- at least in any form we would recognize -- may never have developed at all.

[rogue]

Just caught up with this thread, very impressive thoughts guys.

I agree with Ben that the job of the Pope or even the head of the Baptist isn't to worry about hurting the Muslims feelings. And I do think the belief that Jesus was the Son of God vs a prophet is a very large sticking point.


The majority is silent when there are attacks on the west, but a perceived slight generates riots.

It's quite torquing, really.

It really is and a problem that may turn around and backfire on Muslims in the West. After 9/11 the backlash against Muslims was slight, instead we learned more about the religion. But I fear that if things keep going where Westerners are asked to put their beliefs on the backburner when dealing with Muslims then Westerners may finally say enough is enough and push back.

Anybody want to guess when the first assasination attempt on the Pope happens?

[Merryprankster]

Chris,

It IS consistent with the theology as a whole, but in large measure because that is how we have interpreted it.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be the same interpretation had beginning circumstances been different, just that perhaps it might not have been.

Hadn't considered the idea that Christ might have been the Jewish Messiah - interesting concept.


But I fear that if things keep going where Westerners are asked to put their beliefs on the backburner when dealing with Muslims then Westerners may finally say enough is enough and push back.


I hear you. I already have a problem with this. I don't think we should go out of the way to antagonize people when a little forethought could prevent it. But, that said, *I* don't have to follow *their* rules. The Mohammed cartoons are a great example. It is forbidden in ISLAM to depict the prophet (and some would argue human form at all). I am not bound by that. A series of riots is a totally inappropriate response. Heck, even placard carrying pickett lines are actually out of order under those circumstances, IMO. I'll depict the prophet as I **** well please, thanks.

But, would I do that in the UAE? Probably not. Similarly, the pope needs to be concious of his status and realize his words are going to be read and attention paid, and a little forethought could definitely have prevented this. Not that he was required to - just that he really should have thought about it a touch harder. Not everybody is going to make the fine shades of distinction we expect from good thinkers.

[Royal Dragon]

The Pope did, and said nothing wrong....these people are psycotic animals, and need to be exterminated.

[unkokusai]

The Pope did, and said nothing wrong....these people are psycotic animals, and need to be exterminated.

Who are "these people"?

[rogue]

But, would I do that in the UAE? Probably not. Similarly, the pope needs to be concious of his status and realize his words are going to be read and attention paid, and a little forethought could definitely have prevented this. Not that he was required to - just that he really should have thought about it a touch harder. Not everybody is going to make the fine shades of distinction we expect from good thinkers.

"When in Rome" is almost always a smart move, but now we have groups that don't follow that old advice. I also don't blame the Pope for not being sensitive. After all if the Pope can't get most Catholics to pay attention and listen to what he says why should he worry about the Muslims doing so? ;)

[SiuHung]

Who are "these people"?

"these people" are the ones who make statements like this:


VATICAN CITY (Reuters) "We shall break the cross and spill the wine ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement, posted on Sunday on an Internet site often used by al Qaeda and other militant groups.


And whose actions support such insane rhetoric.

Did the pope openly threaten all of Islam? No.
Where is the outrage over statements like the above?

[The Willow Sword]

I respect the Muslim culture, very much so. I may not know all of what islam is about, but i am not about to put down the whole religion and culture because the extremeists in that religion do what they do. I say the same thing about christianity and judaism. My blunt opinion is that all three of these religions have mentally ill concepts that go against the very fabric of human nature and the human heart and spirit. Religion should be something that "FREES" your heart and mind not put it in a prison or chain it to its principles. It seems to be what all three of these religions on the planet do to its followers.

but there is also a different side of these religions. there seems to be a great majority,although they seem to be silent, of those who regard their religions as a way of enlightening the spirit of the self, rather than concerning themselves about what it does as a whole to many(spirituality is a private thing to alot of people). these people regard the extremists in their religion as lost souls and peoples whose hearts and minds are clouded with anger(and in some cases rightly so)

we want to focus on the bad side of everything because that is what is at the forefront of our world today, expecially in the middle east, where the ideals of foreign politicians and corporations strain the very nature of the common and poor of those regions and quite frankly spawn these "terrorists" and "extremeists".
but i know that isnt the whole reason why these extremists exist(be they muslim christian or jew).
The support that is talked about with regards to islam as a whole to the "extremists and terrorists" is not a support of what violence they do and the graphic nature at which they do it. The silent support is more political because the world of islam feels like it is being encroached upon by the west and its hunger for the resources in the region(which are dwindling).


originally quoted by Merry Prankster


Yes. And because of the killing done in the name of Christ, most of it hundreds of years ago, we should all refrain from taking action against violence and murder, lest us modern-day Judeo-Christian types get labeled as hypocrites.

By using moral perfection as our prerequisite for legitimacy, we can ensure the moral, ethical and intellectual stagnation of the entire human species.

i am not saying that we should refrain from doing anything against violence and murder, what we should refrain from doing is trying to police the world and impose upon these cultures, who do not agree with or want, our brand of democracy in their region. if the middle east did not have the resources that everyone wants so much we wouldnt give a sh!T what they did to each other. we would be in some other region doing the same thing where we could take advantage of resources. i think this is where the hypocracy comes in.

it is my opinion that WE created these "terrorists" and WE can dispell them if we back off and stop trying to be alexandrian conquerors and friendly fascists and greedy resource mongers.

TWS

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Extremism is the issue, whatever faith subscribes to it.. Rosie got in a bind for comparing Christian extremists to Muslim extremists.. not much difference, really.. If you consider GWB's faith and his likely extremist sentiments, it's not too far-fetched to link US policy to faith-based extremism.. The US has it's own sordid past so history isn't our redeemer.. fire bombings, carpet bombings, nuclear bombings.. these are mass killings as well, in fact, the US set the standard for mass killings, whatever the reason.. now, i'm only trying to put things into perspective 'cause i disagree with the notion that any one or any group has the moral authority to impose their beliefs on anyone else.. someone may have the right to "believe" others are infidels and should die, but.. they have no right to act on their beliefs..

Killing in the name of religion is an aberation of any religious consideration.. but, as those that avow the destruction of others that don't believe as they do, i consider the individual making those statements as targets for pre-emptive self-defense.. in today's maddness with weapons of mass destruction there is wisdom in considering public statements of intended extermination by people that have evidenced their willingness to do so, with a keen eye toward survival.. if a man is walking toward me with a gun and he has publically stated his most fervent intent is to kill me, i am wary of of negotiable outcome.. and i will act, pre-emptively, to secure my own survival.. So, i have no issue with those that would take pre-emptive action on the avowed jihadists, only those that would take such action indiscriminately.. certainly, there are decent Muslims, but.. as evidence of their decency, i would think they would hold their radical brothers and sisters accountable for the impending catastrophies.. change comes from within, they may fear reprisals from their brethern, but.. ultimately, there will be a reckoning that will shake the foundations of humanity.. this can be mitigated by the true Muslims of faith controlling their radical factions..

We are witness to a radical shift in world power, the muslim radical factions have succeded in inspiring fear among the strongest of nations, among the most well-intended of peoples.. they have figured out how to wage war against the most powerful.. they sow the seeds of fear.. they have forever changed how our societies operate.. It is not beyond comprehension to imagine a long and terrible conflict of ideologies.. it is a sad commentary that questions the principles of evolution.. civilization can put men on the moon, heal diseases that only a hundred years ago assured early departure.. civilization can also ruin its ONLY environment, and.. now, civilization, can set itself in motion toward mass deaths of innocent people.. WHERE IS THE VOICE OF REASON? Where is the next Mahatma Ghandi? when wil we change our foolish ways? i am awed by the insipid ignorance of war, hate, and ideology.. common-sense trumps it all.. but, it's not too common..

Be well...

[SiuHung]

Greetings..

Extremism is the issue, whatever faith subscribes to it.. Rosie got in a bind for comparing Christian extremists to Muslim extremists.. not much difference, really.. If you consider GWB's faith and his likely extremist sentiments, it's not too far-fetched to link US policy to faith-based extremism.. The US has it's own sordid past so history isn't our redeemer.. fire bombings, carpet bombings, nuclear bombings.. these are mass killings as well, in fact, the US set the standard for mass killings, whatever the reason.. now, i'm only trying to put things into perspective 'cause i disagree with the notion that any one or any group has the moral authority to impose their beliefs on anyone else.. someone may have the right to "believe" others are infidels and should die, but.. they have no right to act on their beliefs..

Be well...

What a load of crap!

How many radical Christian groups carry out guerilla warfare in Islamic countries and train suicide kamakaze-like brainwashed followers to blow up unwary citizens?

And yes, the US has carried out Military operations that leave many casualties. Sometimes it's very difficult to fight an enemy that hides behind women and children, has no courage to wear a uniform or follow treaties, and preaches a doctrine of hatred to those who would better be served with compassion.

But lucky for you, you live in a society where you can express your distaste for the very establishment that defends and preserves your right to do so.

Be well...

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

SiuHung: Struck a nerve, huh.. blinded by your own ideologies? unprejudiced self-examination is tough, try it..

And, for the record, sir.. (yes, i saw the unedited post).. i served this country in one of those lovely affairs where "the very establishment that defends and preserves your right to do so" did a very poor job.. SE Asia: '69-70, so your condescending attitude falls on experienced and wiser ears..

Read the whole post and open your eyes.. i give no quarter to avowed enemies, and i recognize enemies in all quarters... if you're "sick" over this, you would do better to cure yourself, rather than lashing out at others.. understand the game and understand the players.. I am not your enemy..

Be well..

[David Jamieson]

Greetings..

Extremism is the issue, whatever faith subscribes to it.. Rosie got in a bind for comparing Christian extremists to Muslim extremists.. not much difference, really.. If you consider GWB's faith and his likely extremist sentiments, it's not too far-fetched to link US policy to faith-based extremism.. The US has it's own sordid past so history isn't our redeemer.. fire bombings, carpet bombings, nuclear bombings.. these are mass killings as well, in fact, the US set the standard for mass killings, whatever the reason.. now, i'm only trying to put things into perspective 'cause i disagree with the notion that any one or any group has the moral authority to impose their beliefs on anyone else.. someone may have the right to "believe" others are infidels and should die, but.. they have no right to act on their beliefs..

I have to answer to your post Bob because usually you make more sense than this.

First, no one can honestly say that George Bush is a religious man by any stretch. I'll bet america doesn't even know which Church this guy belongs to. He says God bless and Jesus a lot, but so what, so do a lot of people that don't actually practice Christianity.

Second, when it comes to setting the Bar for Mass killings, I give higher marks to Germany, China and Russia for those, with America in the top ten, but only due to techhnology an dthe whole a-bomb thing.

Thirdly, people will make war on some opf the flimsiest of pretense, as we've all seen, religion is as good a reason as any other really isn't it?



Killing in the name of religion is an aberation of any religious consideration.. but, as those that avow the destruction of others that don't believe as they do, i consider the individual making those statements as targets for pre-emptive self-defense.. in today's maddness with weapons of mass destruction there is wisdom in considering public statements of intended extermination by people that have evidenced their willingness to do so, with a keen eye toward survival.. if a man is walking toward me with a gun and he has publically stated his most fervent intent is to kill me, i am wary of of negotiable outcome.. and i will act, pre-emptively, to secure my own survival.. So, i have no issue with those that would take pre-emptive action on the avowed jihadists, only those that would take such action indiscriminately.. certainly, there are decent Muslims, but.. as evidence of their decency, i would think they would hold their radical brothers and sisters accountable for the impending catastrophies.. change comes from within, they may fear reprisals from their brethern, but.. ultimately, there will be a reckoning that will shake the foundations of humanity.. this can be mitigated by the true Muslims of faith controlling their radical factions..

Killing has always been done in the name of God, it's in the bible, it's in the q'uran, it's in the Torah and so on. I think the Buddhists get ok marks on this angle, but that's about it.



We are witness to a radical shift in world power, the muslim radical factions have succeded in inspiring fear among the strongest of nations, among the most well-intended of peoples.. they have figured out how to wage war against the most powerful.. they sow the seeds of fear.. they have forever changed how our societies operate.. It is not beyond comprehension to imagine a long and terrible conflict of ideologies.. it is a sad commentary that questions the principles of evolution.. civilization can put men on the moon, heal diseases that only a hundred years ago assured early departure.. civilization can also ruin its ONLY environment, and.. now, civilization, can set itself in motion toward mass deaths of innocent people.. WHERE IS THE VOICE OF REASON? Where is the next Mahatma Ghandi? when wil we change our foolish ways? i am awed by the insipid ignorance of war, hate, and ideology.. common-sense trumps it all.. but, it's not too common..

Be well...

We are witnessing the same **** we've always been witnessing just in a different pile. Know your enemy is the flavour d'jour. Pick an enemy, try to pick one taht everyone can stay mad at. lol. It's not hard to get mad at a faction that in response to commentaries goes on riots instead of making civilized rebuttals. It's not hard to get mad at people who won't negotiate and who will commit suicide rather than negotiate.

It's hard to give leeway to the imams and clerics of Islam who pay lip service to how much these acts are reprehensible but in their own arabic countries and ciommunities, they don't really do anything and in fact perpetuate what is coming out of the radical arm of islam.


It's an interesting mix of truth and lies from everyone involved really and blaming america is only part of it. I think there is an enemy in the Muslim faith and it has shown itself again and again.

the father whoes son is a criminal ,may be able to disown the son, but the son still wears the name of teh father and teh house is accountable for the deeds of the son. So the father hasn't exactly disowned the son in any meaninigful way. The saudi army doesn't rise up against it's radicals, teh syrians not against their's Palestine grows their terror groups, Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and so on. these countries are all paying lip service and doing squat. If they were really on board with putting an end to this, then they would have taken stronger action some time ago. So far, these countries, from which the root springs it's branbches of radical Islam, have done virtually nothing about the problem and allow their media and governments to eprpetuate the idea that it is ok to be this way. Osama Bin Laden is a freaking hero in the region. A hero! and for what?

How exactly does a country allow a group like the Taliban to come to power?

America certainly has it's foibles and it's share of lashes to take, but to blame america because islam is basically prety screwed up is a touch skewed.

[SiuHung]

Greetings..

SiuHung: Struck a nerve, huh.. blinded by your own ideologies? unprejudiced self-examination is tough, try it..


No more so blind than anyone else. Yourself included.

And, for the record, sir.. (yes, i saw the unedited post).. i served this country in one of those lovely affairs where "the very establishment that defends and preserves your right to do so" did a very poor job.. SE Asia: '69-70, so your condescending attitude falls on experienced and wiser ears..

I edited it beceause it was too personal and that was not an appropriate tone.

FYI: You're not the only one with military experience. As for wiser? That is not for me, or you to judge.


Read the whole post and open your eyes.. i give no quarter to avowed enemies, and i recognize enemies in all quarters... if you're "sick" over this, you would do better to cure yourself, rather than lashing out at others.. understand the game and understand the players.. I am not your enemy..

Be well..

I am well educated on the players, thier respective cultures, governments, and practices. And please, do not fret over my health. As for your post, I read it. My opinion is that you are misinformed on many issues, however I respect your right to be that way. Enjoy your freedom.

[BoulderDawg]

Sometimes it's very difficult to fight an enemy that hides behind women and children, has no courage to wear a uniform or follow treaties, and preaches a doctrine of hatred to those who would better be served with compassion.

What do you expect? Do you think Muslims are going to put on uniforms parade in front of the Americans with 30-40 year old guns?

I don't understand this at a all. America spends billion on advance weapons and they are upset when people refuse to just stand there and get shot?:D

The American have vastly superior fire power. This forces the other side to fight the only way they know how......I see nothing wrong with this.

Finally, speaking of "No courage": It appears the Americans have no courage (or morality for that matter) since they are now trying to distance themselves from the Geneva Convention ....Talk about breaking treaties....:rolleyes:

[Ben Gash]

America never actually signed the Geneva convention :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

America never actually signed the Geneva convention :rolleyes:

Actually, Chester Arthur signed it in 1882.

You're correct that they did not sign the original and neither did Great Britain, Swedn and a nother country that no longer exists since the turn of the last century.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

I do NOT approve of extremist actions of any ilk.. i also do not approve of the US approaching the Islamic Jihadist aggression from a purported moral high-ground.. the US and Israeli alliance is as much of an issue to the Muslim extremists as anything else.. The issues are far more complex than "they don't like us", there decades of mistakes on both sides that could have been fixed... but, here we are, neck deep in it with no easy way out.. My personal issue is with methods, agendas, and the lies spoon-fed to a willing US consumer public.. they are right, of course.. in 20 years when global warming takes its toll and the Muslims control our energy supplies, the US public won't care how the gov't does it, just
"get us our energy and food".. already, we see a public willing to turn a blind eye to the glaring inconsistencies of US policy..

Sorry for offending the delicate sensibilities of so many, but.. i grew up with the US as an Ideal, a concept greater than even the office of its President.. i don't even mind if we break a few rules (few i say).. i just hoped the US had the character to tell it like it is..

If you will re-read my post, i have no issue with setting things straight.. but, i am repulsed by policies that starve entire populations due to the desire to manipulate their leadership. Policies that pick and choose the offenders according to clandestine agendas.. America has to stand for something, it used to.. the current administration has so *******ized the American Ideal that it is nearly unrecognizable.. We have squandered our military to the point that we can't risk multiple fronts or even apply goal acheiving on one front.. the US relies on smoke and mirrors when honest straight forward action is the only alternative..

The US has been set-up to fail.. if we take appropriate measures to mitigate the rising threat, we lose in the eyes of the world opinion and risk isolation.. if we back-out we lose in the eyes of Islam and empower further aggression.. My point has been that the US needs to be straight talking, acting with correct force applied where its needed.. and get the job done!! We have the resources, the technology, and the willingness of the public.. providing that the public is treated with dignity and respect, not lied to, deceived and manipulated.. the US people are tired of the BS.. two parties bartering the nations ideals away for a rise in the polls.. political correctness to the point that it takes a committee to vote on every word uttered..

I've seen the ugly face of war and my son is a US Marine.. and i am proud of him and his ideals.. yet, in the quiet moments i despair as i know he become disillusioned.. he holds the same high ideals as i did.. I want the US to "paint or get off the ladder".. I want the current lying administration tried for their crimes (and they are many).. they wage war in foreign lands while their own borders invite invasion, while their own people beg for help in our worst disasters.. their web of deceit and intrigue has tangled their vision of America..

NOW, you can pick me apart..

Be well.....

[Green Cloud]

Sad but true Tai Chi Bob and God bless your son a true hero in my book. Even though US policy sucks we still have to support our troops.

Those are brave men and women out there that are risking their lives to keep us safe.

[David Jamieson]

safe from the hordes of invading iraqis?

anyway, there's plenty of blame to be shared by a remarkably small group of people when you really check the wrinkles of the elephant on the table.

[CoRWiN]

The Geneva convention was the creation of another time. Empires fought each other, not lone renegades or groups of extremists. As globilization has occured the world has goten smaller. The rules to the games are changing. Competition is more fierce, the enemy is better equiped, and as they say "it's gonna get worse before it get's better."

[CoRWiN]

safe from the hordes of invading iraqis?

anyway, there's plenty of blame to be shared by a remarkably small group of people when you really check the wrinkles of the elephant on the table.

How about safe from the invading flood of illegal immigrants?

From what i've read the blame is on both sides of the political spectrum. Money and greed are Bipartisan.

[BoulderDawg]

The Geneva convention was the creation of another time. Empires fought each other, not lone renegades or groups of extremists. As globilization has occured the world has goten smaller. The rules to the games are changing. Competition is more fierce, the enemy is better equiped, and as they say "it's gonna get worse before it get's better."


And what kind of logic is that? How does it argue to the point of the Geneva Convention? What you are saying is that torture is okay because we are not dealing with nations.


What competition?

*******

In any case all I hear coming from the conservative are that we are in a war.....Yet when pressed they cannot put a name, face...or anything else on their enemy....nor can they tell anybody how you know if you win/lose this war.

[David Jamieson]

The geneva conventions primary purpose was the mipetus for the founding of teh red cross because it deals mostly with the protection of the wounded in battle.

so a loty of it has to do with not bombing field hospitals, not hunting down withdrawing forces etc etc. I believe the rules on torture are built into american laws and the sending them out of the country to be tortured thing is the loophole being used to avoid culpability under US law.

I could be wrong, but I think that's what the issue is in re torture.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

"Inalienable human rights".. not "Inalienable US citizen rights".. these rights are basic and the rights of all peoples.. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..

The US claims high moral grounds.. then, as if it somehow mitigates the issue, the US sends "detainees" to foreign countries where torture is ignored.. claiming that the US doesn't torture.. The US sends "detainees" to Guantanamo claiming that US law doesn't apply there.. Sorry, guys, if the US has constructive control of an enemy combatant, then it is US law that dictates the circumstances.. it is hypocritical to say, see, they aren't in "our" country so it's okay.. they are in the care of "our" military, or "our" intelligence officials, so.. "our" country extends it's will, but not its justice?

To be clear, my comments regarding Rosie's situation relative to extremism.. to the degree that GWB invokes his beliefs, he is equally capable of concealing the faith-based agendas of those beliefs.. foreigners frequently ask the question, how does the US president differ from other religious zealots.. extremism isn't confined to radical masked executioners beheading people.. you can have "white collar" extremists as well, they are just better at marketing their brand of extremism..

From what i've read the blame is on both sides of the political spectrum. Money and greed are Bipartisan.Therein lies the problem.. we have let party politics over-ride actual governance of the nation.. where party interests are superior to the interest of the people governed.. no consideration should be afforded to party affiliation when legislating the "common good" of a nation.. a man and his ideals speak for themselves.. and, the ideals will resonate with the people or not.. I advocate separation of party affiliations and political office/government.. a person's political message speaks to the ideals that made this nation great, or not.. political party differences only confuse the issues and divide the interest of the people.. it creates dis-unity..

I love the United States of America, for all of its sham and drudgery it still offers the highest hope for mankind.. but, i challenge its leadership to lead, to talk the talk and walk the walk.. hold the American principles high and let the authority of just and fair treatment of all humans be our call to action..

I served my country 35 years ago in a similar situation as the one we face today.. i watched helplessly as my brothers and sisters made the ultimate sacrifice, 55,000 of them.. and there was no more heartbreaking news than to find out they died in vain, that after the sacrifices America admitted defeat.. today, i watch helplessly as my own son embarks on a similar journey.. a military mission without clear objectives or a plan to succeed.. no committment to do the right thing, just apply band-aids until a solution appears..

You're either pregnant or you're not! America has been screwed and it acts like it's "kind of pregnant".. uncertain of who the father is, it accuses everyone that has screwed it.. once a decision is made to take action, then it needs to be swift, certain and sure.. Radical Muslim Extremism is the root of the conflict in the middle east, their Jihadist beliefs fathered the American military reaction.. but, the US isn't "half pregnant".. there's no quarter for for politically correct responses, when someone/some group claims "death to America".. assume they intend to act on it and take appropriate steps to defend the nation..

Defend the nation! that's the issue. not some counter holy war, fueled by a President waiting on a message from the Divine.. responsible leadership that is willing to either step up to the plate and deliver, or willing to commit an unprecedented effort to demonstrate that unity and peace benefits everyone.. in either case, it requires total committment.. not a cowboy playing President, with his hapless gang of deceptive rogues.. we are witness to the most blatant game of political "smoke and mirrors" ever perpetrated on this nation.. Cheney, Rove, Libby, each washing their hands like Pilate condemning Jesus.. Does no one have the guts to take responsibility? this is the cast that represents American Ideals, conspirators, liars, manipulators.. I grieve for the ailing American Ideal..

But, Who's to blame? I am, you are, all of us that don't demand accountability of our leaders.. all of us that don't stand up and restore the American Ideal to its former place as "the last best hope for mankind".. we cannot lower US standards to the level of those we criticize, it leaves others with no clear choice of who will lead us out of the impending catastophes..

I am proud to live in a nation that offers freedom to those willing to pay for it.. yes, freedom has a price, the sons and daughters of liberty have paid for it.. but, it cannot be exported at the point of a gun.. it cannot be given away like a cheap gift.. it must be a deep and resonating desire of those seeking it, it comes with an obligation to contribute to its acquisition.. a nation that harbors freedom's enemies at the expense of those offering to help has not paid the price..

The US has set itself up as policeman of the world.. and, just as we, in the US, abhor crooked cops, so too, the world abhors the double standards the the US has recently demonstrated.. If you take the job, do it right!

Who is the enemy? Extremism is the enemy! extremism in any form. Backed by the will of the people anything can be accomplished, but.. gain that will with honest dialogue, principled standards, and an intention that the people prosper.. Lao Tzu, in the Tao Te Ching, offers wise and timeless advice to governments.. a government divorced of the will of the people is a temporary dictatorship..

We stand on the threshold of radical changes to civilization as we know it.. radical Muslim extremists threaten world economic and social stability.. Global warming and environmental ignorance threaten life as we know it.. major ideologies perpetrate hate and distrust among large populations.. governmental ideologies rely on "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) to keep the uneasy peace, and still they search for ways to gain a dominant advantage.. it is bleak!

Where is the next great visionary? Who has the charismatic leadership to make the obvious choices heard, to demonstrate the inherent value of common-sense.. because, through all of this, simple common-sense is superior to all other ideologies..

Be well....

[CoRWiN]

The real enemy is us. We deserve this role because everytime elections come around a majority of our population who actually votes, votes based on who they think can win, not on who is best. No vote is a waste, regadless of how the polls show it. The leaders we select shape not just our nation, but the entire world. If we all voted for who we actually believed in we would be making huge strides in the right direction.

[The Willow Sword]

TAICHIBOB for president. :cool:

i agree with everything you have stated in that last and previous posts here. You got my vote.
Peace(not just a liberal idea), TWS

[CoRWiN]

And what kind of logic is that? How does it argue to the point of the Geneva Convention? What you are saying is that torture is okay because we are not dealing with nations.


What competition?

The logic is something written and agreed upon by nations 100 years ago, just might not have the same relevance to today's problems. The geneva convention has a much larger scope then just torture. One of the things it sets how to do, is to merely define combatants. Read the sections on civilians and you'll be amazed at what it calls for. It has no contingences for handling guerillas, combatants that hide within the civilian population. Protocol 1, Art 51, Sec 7, Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attack... The enemies we've fought for the past 50 years have really agreed to that one.

The geneva convention IS relevant when nations battle nations, such as when the US army engaged the Iraq ARMY. But it is completely lacking in regards to the actions of extremists.

The competition is survival my friend. War is not just on the battlefield.

[Ben Gash]

Yeah, the Geneva convention was drawn up to govern the wars between the European powers of the day, who were already practicing fairly limited warfare anyway, and had been for around 200 years (at least when fighting each other). People are forgetting that under the terms of the Geneva convention it is acceptable to summarily execute non uniformed combatants :rolleyes:

[BoulderDawg]

The logic is something written and agreed upon by nations 100 years ago, just might not have the same relevance to today's problems. The geneva convention has a much larger scope then just torture. One of the things it sets how to do, is to merely define combatants. Read the sections on civilians and you'll be amazed at what it calls for. It has no contingences for handling guerillas, combatants that hide within the civilian population. Protocol 1, Art 51, Sec 7, Civilians must not be used to protect military installations or operations against attack... The enemies we've fought for the past 50 years have really agreed to that one.

The geneva convention IS relevant when nations battle nations, such as when the US army engaged the Iraq ARMY. But it is completely lacking in regards to the actions of extremists.

The competition is survival my friend. War is not just on the battlefield.

Logic is....well, logic. It can't be written or agreed upon. 1 + 1 = 2 If all the people in the world decided that 1 + 1 = 1.5 that still would not make it so.

In any case you're now arguing "Others have broken the rules in the past so it's okay for us to do so." That's fine by me. However Bush should not give us that "Good vs Evil" crap. If the US starts to torture detainees then they are no better than anyone else. Also, don't complain if something happens over here such as the gassing of a shopping mall or the poisoning of our water supply. Our enemy will just be acting in response to the rule that Bush set up.

"competition is survival"

Maybe for you. I don't feel I have to compete with anyone to survive in this world. If anything the key to survival is working together and sharing. The ideology of "competition is survival" is basically a western one and one of the main reasons the rest of the world hates us.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

More than the specifics of the Geneva Convention, i am interested in the intentions.. it was an attempt to codify armed conflict toward the least harmful result.. sensible, it seems.

Why, then, does anyone seek to diminish a set of rules that works toward a least harmful result? Let's see, GWB wants to be sure that the US intelligence officials are protected by law for acts that could be interpreted under the current Geneva Convention as violations.. then, with the "Keebler Elf" attitude and mentallity, he says, "see, we're just trying to make it clearer".. For goodness sake, just say we're going to do what it takes to get the data we need to protect ourselves.. don't mamby-pamby it..

It's like not calling captured "enemy combatants" prisoners of war.. that would mean we would have to treat them with some level of dignity.. as enemy combatants it's somehow okay to be a little more forceful, a little less accountable.. how is it justified to use semantics to achieve a dubious purpose.. just call it a dubious purpose and move on..

So many people respond with, "well, look what they do, why shouldn't we amp it up a bit".. because that's why we're at war, their way is reprehensible.. now, if you feel that matching reprehensibilities adds to the cause, go for it.. karma is alive and well.. you reap what you sow... not to mention the trickle down effect, the local Law Enforcement Guys (LEGs) get empowered to emulate their military brothers and sisters, heck many LEGs are ex-military.. so, now, your harmless bamboo flute (Shakuhachi), is suspect of being either a weapon or ganja paraphernalia.. and the LEGs feel justified in interrogating you with a certain disregard for "rights".. but, it's okay, the Gov't does it.. already we see how big business emulates Gov't policy.. cooked books, corruption, mis-appropriations, and cover-ups.. is it Enron or, the White House? When's the last time you truely trusted an elected official?

Be well..

[CoRWiN]

I've got a buddy who served in the marines doin interegations. He was the guy that would be in charge of the removal of information from a captive. And let's be real, that's exactly what interegation is about. It's not about getting you cups of coffee and talking about feelings, it's about finding out the information in their heads. I asked him if they use to torture their captives at all, and with a blank look on his face he replied "I did what i needed to do."

I remember not bein sure of how i felt about that, and quite honestly i still don't know. I see both sides of the spectrum and their are valid arguments on both sides. I also tend to be an absolutist, as in when somethings right in one situation it must be right in all situations. Ex. If torturing one person would guarentee you information to save millions would you do it? How about if it only saved 1? If it was understood that torture was competely acceptable and very likely to occur in the case of capture, I wonder how many of our soliders would have joined up.

In roman times it was well understood that if you messed with a roman citizen, no matter how far the territory was from rome itself, the wrath of the empire would be upon you. I understand that we don't necessarily want the world to fear us, but isn't fear just a small hair away from respect. If the people of the world honestly believed that we would come at them with everything we got and show no mercy, no quarter, no sympathy, how many of them do you think would be flying planes into our buildings?

We all compete to survive like it or not. We compete for scarcity of resources, for mates, for jobs, for wealth, for happiness, for freedom. That's the way life is. And that's the way life should be. In fact I would argue one of the major problems of the world is that we don't compete enough. Lack of competition is creating our overpopulation problem. Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn for some really brillant ideas on the subject.

Be True to Yourself....

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..


We all compete to survive like it or not. We compete for scarcity of resources, for mates, for jobs, for wealth, for happiness, for freedom. That's the way life is. And that's the way life should be. In fact I would argue one of the major problems of the world is that we don't compete enough. Lack of competition is creating our overpopulation problem. Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn for some really brillant ideas on the subject.Or, we compete too much.. creating the perception of scarcity, when, in fact, there is plenty to go around.. but, out of competition, some people hoard and do not share.. others see the imbalance and out of frustration and survival seek to acquire by force.. Competition for mates is a social disease, one where everyone desires that which may be unreasonable according to their situation.. Overpopulation is not a result of lack of competition or lack of destructive wars as the message implies.. it is a misconception, based on concentrated population centers.. again, a preference of the people to concentrate in specific areas.. there are vast open areas easily adaptable for dispersing population masses..

Competition is not the solution.. cooperative efforts administered by forward thinking sages will find and effect solutions to the world,s problems.. "Competition" as described in the quote is a path back to the dark ages.. Friendly competition toward a common goal is a great incentive, competition as a component of the philosophy of "survival of the fittest" is just a sad signature of a passing phase of evolution.. Great civilizations and huge amounts of valuable knowledge have vanished is the wake of destructive competition.. Today, we stand on the brink of world-wide conflict due to this level of thinking..

I look to a future where people work together to solve their problems, not kill each other over those problems.. if we rely on conflict to neutralize the problems they will only reappear, we must cooperatively solve them..

Be well..

[Faruq]

Though the part about the Qur'an instructing muslims to spread Islam by the sword is not correct, I have to say that I wouldn't be surprised if muslems did it anyway. But who's going to learn Arabic just to be able to speak intelligently on what Islamic texts really say? The biggest problem is how muslims today can't really differentiate between Islam, and the backward cultural practices of their individual countries.

Today you'll see practices like suppressing women (for example) promoted in muslim communities as Islam, when if you examine religious texts like Hadiths, you'll see that it's not endorsed by their holy books. In the days of the prophet Muhammad, women even came up to him cursing him out when their sons converted to Islam and he didn't have them beaten or killed though his disciples were chomping at the bit to do so, but calmly answered their curses politely. Do todays muslims follow his example though, no? And what do the religious texts really matter, if the muslims themselves don't follow them.

The problem is that no one really cares what Islam or the Qur'an really says, let alone being capable of learning second, third and fourth languages like the Europeans, or wanting to learn about Muslim culture. The few people that do bother to read usually read summaries rather than Islamic texts, often written by biased non-muslims. I would recommend a book written by a Muslim like "Conference of the Books: The Search for Beauty in Islam" by Khaled M Abou El Fadl instead. I mean would you trust Muslims to tell you the truth about Christianity? So why would you ask Christians what Islam was really about, right?

Other than that, if people were interested they'd have to look at both sides of the news stories, not just what's on network news. Books by MIT's Noam Chomsky have always been good for that, and Hamza Yusuf's Zaytuna Institute (www.zaytuna.org or www.alhambraproductions.com) has been pretty progressive in regards to it's Islamic teachings. But most people are content just repeating the misinformation they hear on the news, even if they've heard the truth about the issues from Muslims themselves. So why bother, right?


What do you cats think of the pope's comments about Islam? I don't think they are far from the true.

[Faruq]

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?


Learn their culture.

Understand their people's history.

Respect them as equals (don't treat them like heathens)

Listen more to them; comment less on what they believe.

Be compassionate and caring about their needs.

Most important of all whatever you do don't turn your back towards them and be watchful. ;)

Mantis108

[Merryprankster]

This thread changed a bit.

Faruq - Noam Chomsky would be a good resource if he didn't base his arguments on out of context information and/or flat out poor research. Further, he enters his arguments already assuming the sorts of things he his trying to prove, which basically means that he's always looking to read his agenda into the information he presents, instead of trying to figure out what the information actually means.

Basically, he's Ann Coulter with a better education and more mastery of detail, and far less entertainment factor. When he preaches, only the choir listens.

Point being: We should use information to form our opinions, not interpret every piece of information with the assumption that our opinions are correct. I've changed my mind on several occasions, as new information comes to light, even on issues some might find as "fundamental" to a particular ideological bent.

I've yet to see Noam Chomsky do anything like that, which suggests to me that he is hidebound. So much for academic responsibility...

Edward Said is a MUCH better person for this sort of thing, especially on this topic. He gets his story straight, and still makes intelligence commentary.

Corwin - the three pillars of power in traditional international theory are: Military, Economic, Population. Cultural and Moral are two others that have been accepted, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The danger in sending the "wrath of Rome" down on the offending party is this:

The military is a blunt instrument, and its use ****es off many many people, which reduces your moral authority. If you do not demonstrate complete mastery in the military realm, then what you wind up doing is actually demonstrating the limits of your power. When you show them the limits of your power, they think they might be able to beat you - or at least resist - and if you've sacrificed a good chunk of your moral suasion, there is a strong chance they will. Please see Iraq for a textbook case of this in action.

Iran's defiance is a case in point. Anybody who thinks they are looking for a peaceful nuclear program is an absolute fool, and yet they continue to thumb their nose at the international community because they know the United States has lost its moral leadership (for now) and can't build strong international consensus with a will to act, AND because they know that the United States has cashed in its reserve of international goodwill in Iraq, which makes us highly less likely to unilaterally use force in Iran - since indications are that a quick missile strike will NOT make the capability go away.

TWS - please tell me how WE created the terrorists. Firstly, define we. Secondly, by using the word created, you are suggesting that certain conditions are being met or exist - what are those conditions and how did they come about? Finally, what about terrorism makes it "the" choice, so to speak. For instance, if I go to an ice cream store and really want ice cream and they have only vanilla, then I better take vanilla. But if I go and they've got 30 other flavors, then I don't have to choose vanilla.

I'm not jumping on your **** (yet), I'm trying to determine what you are basing your opinion on - not that your opinion is baseless, just asking what information you have used to build your opinion.

[Royal Dragon]

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Reply]
How about turning them all to glass?

[mantis108]

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Checked! Interfaith dinner is a good suggestion. So whose bringing the homus? :D

Mantis108

[Faruq]

If you could do it, it'd be acceptable. But since you can't, what're you going to do? What we've been doing hasn't ended the problem, so what now?

And I should add, you're honesty as far as your feelings is admirable. Most people feign a liberal position, which doesn't allow them to voice and resolve their real feelings toward muslems. I would think your sentiment would reflect that of most Americans. I mean look at what our own politicians are doing:

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2006/10/07/now-that-you-could-be-labeled-an-enemy-combatant/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populistamerica.com%2Fnow_th at_you_could_be_labeled_an_enemy_combatant&frame=true

I mean even I have been hurt by what the terrorists did, though not as tragically as my fellow citizens who were in New York on 9/11. In no other country in the world can one change their social and economic status as you can in America, and the great competitive entrepreneurial spirit is one of the things that has made America so great. But because of the terrorists, I experience much more hinderance as far as prejudice and distrust on the part of the people I have to do business with. And as a Black man, I can tell you I don't take kindly to anyone messing with my money, as the terrorists have.

The terrorists seem to want to destroy America, we want to destroy them, and since we haven't really be able to do it in one fell swoop, I really can't see any simple resolution to our problem. It's a sad and tragic situation.


And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Reply]
How about turning them all to glass?

[Faruq]

I see you don't like Noam. Touche. I like him, and haven't seen him base any arguments on out of context information and/or flat out poor research. And of you and him, I like his credentials better, and believe him over you. But we're all entitled to our preferences and opinions.


This thread changed a bit.

Faruq - Noam Chomsky would be a good resource if he didn't base his arguments on out of context information and/or flat out poor research. Further, he enters his arguments already assuming the sorts of things he his trying to prove, which basically means that he's always looking to read his agenda into the information he presents, instead of trying to figure out what the information actually means.

Basically, he's Ann Coulter with a better education and more mastery of detail, and far less entertainment factor. When he preaches, only the choir listens.

Point being: We should use information to form our opinions, not interpret every piece of information with the assumption that our opinions are correct. I've changed my mind on several occasions, as new information comes to light, even on issues some might find as "fundamental" to a particular ideological bent.

I've yet to see Noam Chomsky do anything like that, which suggests to me that he is hidebound. So much for academic responsibility...

Edward Said is a MUCH better person for this sort of thing, especially on this topic. He gets his story straight, and still makes intelligence commentary.

Corwin - the three pillars of power in traditional international theory are: Military, Economic, Population. Cultural and Moral are two others that have been accepted, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The danger in sending the "wrath of Rome" down on the offending party is this:

The military is a blunt instrument, and its use ****es off many many people, which reduces your moral authority. If you do not demonstrate complete mastery in the military realm, then what you wind up doing is actually demonstrating the limits of your power. When you show them the limits of your power, they think they might be able to beat you - or at least resist - and if you've sacrificed a good chunk of your moral suasion, there is a strong chance they will. Please see Iraq for a textbook case of this in action.

Iran's defiance is a case in point. Anybody who thinks they are looking for a peaceful nuclear program is an absolute fool, and yet they continue to thumb their nose at the international community because they know the United States has lost its moral leadership (for now) and can't build strong international consensus with a will to act, AND because they know that the United States has cashed in its reserve of international goodwill in Iraq, which makes us highly less likely to unilaterally use force in Iran - since indications are that a quick missile strike will NOT make the capability go away.

TWS - please tell me how WE created the terrorists. Firstly, define we. Secondly, by using the word created, you are suggesting that certain conditions are being met or exist - what are those conditions and how did they come about? Finally, what about terrorism makes it "the" choice, so to speak. For instance, if I go to an ice cream store and really want ice cream and they have only vanilla, then I better take vanilla. But if I go and they've got 30 other flavors, then I don't have to choose vanilla.

I'm not jumping on your **** (yet), I'm trying to determine what you are basing your opinion on - not that your opinion is baseless, just asking what information you have used to build your opinion.

[Merryprankster]

I see you don't like Noam

I don't know anything about him, personally. I might quite like to have a beer with him, for all I know.


My distrust of his work comes from the fact that numerous people have not taken issue with his argument, but his facts. I don't jump on the "he said the Khmer Rouge wasn't so bad!!!" bandwagon, like a lot of people, nor do I have a problem, necessarily, with an anti-American bent.

I have strong concerns about his fact-checking and research. Many, many people have the same concerns. There is reportedly a disconcerting tendency to eliminate vital bits of contextual information.

He's entitled to his opinions, just not his personal set of facts.

This is why I prefer commentators, like I said, such as Edward Said, or Khalid Rashidi. They have the same ideological bent - especially as regards perceptions of Western oppression of the ME - but at least their facts are generally not in dispute.

Incidentally, I do have a couple of Noam Chomsky books laying around - so I'm not speaking totally blind here.

But, as you say - to each their own.

[unkokusai]

I don't know anything about him, personally. I might quite like to have a beer with him, for all I know.


My distrust of his work comes from the fact that numerous people have not taken issue with his argument, but his facts. I don't jump on the "he said the Khmer Rouge wasn't so bad!!!" bandwagon, like a lot of people, nor do I have a problem, necessarily, with an anti-American bent.

I have strong concerns about his fact-checking and research. Many, many people have the same concerns. There is reportedly a disconcerting tendency to eliminate vital bits of contextual information.

He's entitled to his opinions, just not his personal set of facts.

This is why I prefer commentators, like I said, such as Edward Said, or Khalid Rashidi. They have the same ideological bent - especially as regards perceptions of Western oppression of the ME - but at least their facts are generally not in dispute.

Incidentally, I do have a couple of Noam Chomsky books laying around - so I'm not speaking totally blind here.

But, as you say - to each their own.


He's a brilliant linguist and just another silly old hysterical extremist when it comes to politics.

[Mr Punch]

And I might add talking to actual moslims. Though it's obviously necessary to denounce their acts, denouncing and dissmissing them hasn't resolved our problem with them. So maybe we should look to other means or resolving the world problem with terrorism. How about interfaith dinners?

Reply]
How about turning them all to glass?How about a racist ***** calling for the genocide of a number of peoples? My, that's funny. And don't accuse me of having sand in my vagina... to paraphrase Chris Rock:

First I was seeing all these bumper stickers, these flags with 'Support America - Against Terrorism'... I thought that's cool... support America against terrorism... (redneck voice) support America against terrorism... then it changed see... it became (redneck voice) support America against Arabs... support America against Islam... then I's a-got a bit jumpy... I'm looking round for (redneck voice) n!ggers and Jews next!

Ban this turd! :mad: