More War?

[Lucas]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13824089-us-ambassador-3-others-killed-in-attacks-on-libya-mission?lite

:(

[Lucas]

Most likely no, but it was a catchy title huh? Still pretty horrible.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Reap what we sow...

[Drake]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13824089-us-ambassador-3-others-killed-in-attacks-on-libya-mission?lite

:(

War with whom, exactly? Libya's government apologized and condemned the attack.

[Lucas]

War with whom, exactly? Libya's government apologized and condemned the attack.

read post number 2...........................................

[Lucas]

Reap what we sow...

whats stupid is i see idiotic comments on the internet about how people think we are being soft or weak. just plain stupid. i think people fail to realize that were the roles reversed, and a lybian ambassador was killed here in the states, WE would handle it. same thing, let the lybian authorities find the group responsible and deliver justice.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The ME is far worse off today in terms of stability and safety than it was 10 years ago.
Supporting militant islamic rebels was NOT the way to go and we can see the aftermath of that right now.
There are times that the foreign policy of the USA is quite, well, mind boggling.
Unless of course if the whole purpose WAS to create instability, as some have suggested.

[Jimbo]

One more example of why the U.S. should keep its nose out of other countries' internal political problems. Of course, the policy-makers never, ever learn.

[sanjuro_ronin]

One more example of why the U.S. should keep its nose out of other countries' internal political problems. Of course, the policy-makers never, ever learn.

I don't know how practical that is at this point, but what they can do is actually listen to the experts and people that LIVE there and have no real motivation to lie to them so that the US will meet THEIR agendas.

[David Jamieson]

whats stupid is i see idiotic comments on the internet about how people think we are being soft or weak. just plain stupid. i think people fail to realize that were the roles reversed, and a lybian ambassador was killed here in the states, WE would handle it. same thing, let the lybian authorities find the group responsible and deliver justice.

people who make idiotic comments on the internet are soft and weak.
That's why their only place to have a voice is the internet.

real men stand on soap boxes in public, with megaphones and shout their demands right at the government offices.

soft and weak minds have user names, act in anonymity and get stuck in a cycle of their own vitriol.

meh. lol

[Syn7]

Is prez and PM of egypt still m.i.a.?

I'm curious as to why the army didn't stop it, they just stood there and watched it all. Crazy. We'll see. Because of the election, this is gonna be spun for days!

[Syn7]

people who make idiotic comments on the internet are soft and weak.
That's why their only place to have a voice is the internet.

real men stand on soap boxes in public, with megaphones and shout their demands right at the government offices.

soft and weak minds have user names, act in anonymity and get stuck in a cycle of their own vitriol.

meh. lol

That may be typical, but by no means the rule. I'm surprised you would say something so ignorant.

Is that why yyou changed your user name? In some effort to man up? Dale said some dumb sh1t that was similar.

The internet is new, let's not even pretend like we understand it's impact, those who do just look dumb.

Don't make me rock out the Eric Schmidt quote.

[Lucas]

whats that quote?

[Syn7]

“The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand, the largest experiment in anarchy that we have ever had.”

[Scott R. Brown]

"The keyboard is mightier than the sword!"

You're welcome. :cool:

You may quote me!:p

[David Jamieson]

That may be typical, but by no means the rule. I'm surprised you would say something so ignorant.

Is that why yyou changed your user name? In some effort to man up? Dale said some dumb sh1t that was similar.

The internet is new, let's not even pretend like we understand it's impact, those who do just look dumb.

Don't make me rock out the Eric Schmidt quote.

Feeling guilty? lol

Yes, personal integrity is the one and only thing of any value that anyone has to offer from my viewpoint

Dale hasn't said anything dumb at all. He faces his critics and demands they explain themselves. If that makes people uncomfortable because they enjoy their anonymity, then f*ck them.

I changed my username because I don't prescribe to the whole idea of hiding behind user names.

It enforces my own honesty and opens me to everyone I encounter.
You can quote all you like, but it doesn't change who I am.

Vitriol from anonymity is weak. I don't participate in that. I out and out will say what I think. And you will know it was me by my name blazing above whatever words may offend you.

As for the internet, it might be new to you, but not to me. Tim made the www in 91, by 95 it was what we have now minus some of the cooler implementations. It has in fact been relatively usable since the 80's. But for most people it has been around for 15 years.

Impact is known by extension of human behaviors in general. Impact is known, it is simply resisted and denied. Like by television companies and newspapers etc.

[sanjuro_ronin]

So the US sent two battle ships to the Libyan coast.
For what reason no one really knows, other than a show of force perhaps and to make clear that they will protect American interests in Libya.
One wonders how the US would react if a Chinese ambassador was killed in NY and China sent two battleships to the coast of NY...

[David Jamieson]

So the US sent two battle ships to the Libyan coast.
For what reason no one really knows, other than a show of force perhaps and to make clear that they will protect American interests in Libya.
One wonders how the US would react if a Chinese ambassador was killed in NY and China sent two battleships to the coast of NY...

Well, I think it unlikely that you would have a band of crazed fanatics barging into an embassy in New York. But if it did happen, then a nuke sub would probably pop up just outside of New Jersey.

It would then immediately submerse itself again as the crew would be in shock from the stench. Yeah, they weren't counting on snooki on the beach.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well, I think it unlikely that you would have a band of crazed fanatics barging into an embassy in New York. But if it did happen, then a nuke sub would probably pop up just outside of New Jersey.

It would then immediately submerse itself again as the crew would be in shock from the stench. Yeah, they weren't counting on snooki on the beach.

The imagery is quite painful, LOL !

[Empty_Cup]

The ME is far worse off today in terms of stability and safety than it was 10 years ago.
Supporting militant islamic rebels was NOT the way to go and we can see the aftermath of that right now.
There are times that the foreign policy of the USA is quite, well, mind boggling.
Unless of course if the whole purpose WAS to create instability, as some have suggested.

Foreign policy in the ME is a two-edged sword. The overriding principle is that as a nation the US should promote and support democracy and representation by the people vs. autocracy and dictatorships. Unfortunately, if we support that then we also have to live with the consequences. Dictatorships may have been more stable for the region but come with their own hardships.

We have to realize we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we stand for democracy, then a possible (and likely in the case of the ME) scenario is that an Islamic party may rise into power through election by the people. This is the fine line to walk when the best interests of the country may not coincide with the best interests of the US and its allies.

[xinyidizi]

Foreign policy in the ME is a two-edged sword. The overriding principle is that as a nation the US should promote and support democracy and representation by the people vs. autocracy and dictatorships. Unfortunately, if we support that then we also have to live with the consequences. Dictatorships may have been more stable for the region but come with their own hardships.

We have to realize we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we stand for democracy, then a possible (and likely in the case of the ME) scenario is that an Islamic party may rise into power through election by the people. This is the fine line to walk when the best interests of the country may not coincide with the best interests of the US and its allies.

I'm sure supporting real democracy has never been the intention of the US. Just imagine what would happen if the Islamic world was stable, united and full of civilized and educated people. With the resources that the Islamic countries have they would have too much power in the world but keeping them fighting each other and letting them repeat their mistakes over and over can keep them where they are. Sometimes some small incidents like this one are inevitable but in the end the winner is the US.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Foreign policy in the ME is a two-edged sword. The overriding principle is that as a nation the US should promote and support democracy and representation by the people vs. autocracy and dictatorships. Unfortunately, if we support that then we also have to live with the consequences. Dictatorships may have been more stable for the region but come with their own hardships.

We have to realize we can't have our cake and eat it too. If we stand for democracy, then a possible (and likely in the case of the ME) scenario is that an Islamic party may rise into power through election by the people. This is the fine line to walk when the best interests of the country may not coincide with the best interests of the US and its allies.

There is the issue of consistency and the US has supported its share of dictators.
The US should NOT involve itself in the affairs of other countries and most certainly should NOT involve itself in Islamic countries where they are ALREADY viewed as imperialistic and far too involved as it is.

[Drake]

I'm sure supporting real democracy has never been the intention of the US. Just imagine what would happen if the Islamic world was stable, united and full of civilized and educated people. With the resources that the Islamic countries have they would have too much power in the world but keeping them fighting each other and letting them repeat their mistakes over and over can keep them where they are. Sometimes some small incidents like this one are inevitable but in the end the winner is the US.

Have you ever been to either the ME or SWA? I can tell you firsthand, our policies and actions may be the only thing keeping them from falling to pieces in a few areas.

They don't want to be educated.

[xinyidizi]

I admit that I don't know much about the ME as it has been in a complicated political game between the superpowers for many years. As far as I know a few decades ago there were more intellectual movements there but the superpowers of the time directly or indirectly replaced them with dictators and religious fundamentalists. So I believe the US policy has been to keep them somewhere between stability and falling apart but of course what happens in the ME is mostly their own fault and they might need decades to learn tolerance and realize that they can't go anywhere with stone age ideologies.

[Scott R. Brown]

I admit that I don't know much about the ME as it has been in a complicated political game between the superpowers for many years. As far as I know a few decades ago there were more intellectual movements there but the superpowers of the time directly or indirectly replaced them with dictators and religious fundamentalists. So I believe the US policy has been to keep them somewhere between stability and falling apart but of course what happens in the ME is mostly their own fault and they might need decades to learn tolerance and realize that they can't go anywhere with stone age idealogies.

It might behoove you to read a little history of that region of the world then. Muslims have been at each other's throats since Mohammed died. The only people they hate more than everyone else is each other and it has always been that way. They have always been divided and they have never needed anyone else's help for that to occur.

[David Jamieson]

It might behoove you to read a little history of that region of the world then. Muslims have been at each other's throats since Mohammed died. The only people they hate more than everyone else is each other and it has always been that way. They have always been divided and they have never needed anyone else's help for that to occur.

Sadly...this is true.

There are so many things to blame and not enough time to fix any of them and as soon as reparations are made to one thing, some idiot or another or a group of idiots sends everything into chaos. There is and never has been stability in the area since the death of Muhammad as stated. just conflict, death, more conflict, more death and maybe once in a while a sheik does some good stuff until those idiots i mentioned earlier step in and create the chaos again.

Truly, a conundrum for the ages is what the ME is. People have to leave those countries and move to other countries to have a normal life.

[Lucas]

and then you get every other fat white ignorant american that thinks they know best...

[Empty_Cup]

I believe U.S. foreign policy needs to become much more subtle than it currently is. We need to invest more in smaller, specialized operations such as intelligence-gathering and special ops. Our humongous, resource-intensive conventional army is both eating up the budget and providng a very visible target for hatred. Let coalitions like NATO be the conventional means towards keeping world order. And even let the U.S. take a leadership role in that effort. The U.S. tends to get the short end of the stick when we "go it alone" without the international support of our allies.

We cannot just leave the rest of the world alone for their sake...there is a lot of foreign policy that needs to be proactive and the only way to do that is to cooperatively influence other nations.

[Scott R. Brown]

and then you get every other fat white ignorant american that thinks they know best...

Hey! I'm not FAT! :mad:

[sanjuro_ronin]

I believe U.S. foreign policy needs to become much more subtle than it currently is. We need to invest more in smaller, specialized operations such as intelligence-gathering and special ops. Our humongous, resource-intensive conventional army is both eating up the budget and providng a very visible target for hatred. Let coalitions like NATO be the conventional means towards keeping world order. And even let the U.S. take a leadership role in that effort. The U.S. tends to get the short end of the stick when we "go it alone" without the international support of our allies.

We cannot just leave the rest of the world alone for their sake...there is a lot of foreign policy that needs to be proactive and the only way to do that is to cooperatively influence other nations.

Sticking you nose in other peoples business is a fine way to get it bloodied.
Don't complain when it happens.

[Drake]

Sticking you nose in other peoples business is a fine way to get it bloodied.
Don't complain when it happens.

I can deal with a bloody nose if it ends with me standing over a field of bodies.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I can deal with a bloody nose if it ends with me standing over a field of bodies.

Because that has been working so well so far?
Careful what you wish for dude...

[xinyidizi]

Someone needs to act as the bully. If the US doesn't do that another superpower will find its way up the food chain and becomes the new bully.

[Drake]

Because that has been working so well so far?
Careful what you wish for dude...

Actually, it has. Want to take a guess how many AQ fighters there are in Afghanistan?

[sanjuro_ronin]

Actually, it has. Want to take a guess how many AQ fighters there are in Afghanistan?

Honestly, it is this short sightedness that keeps getting the US in trouble.
The ME and all those "hot spots" are worse because of the wars, not better.
They are more unstable and less friendly to the US and, as been shown over and over, they use ANY excuse to claim provocation to attack the US or US interests in their land.

[Lucas]

that anti muhammad video on youtube has sparked some serious anti US aggression...freakin KFC got smoked....dont tell bawang!

[sanjuro_ronin]

that anti muhammad video on youtube has sparked some serious anti US aggression...freakin KFC got smoked....dont tell bawang!

Its not the video/movie, that is just an excuse, the fuel on the fire.
People in that region are just looking for excuse to go against the US, looking for "proof" that the US is nothing more than an imperialistic tyrant country that deep down hates Islam and wants to eradicate it.

[Empty_Cup]

Its not the video/movie, that is just an excuse, the fuel on the fire.
People in that region are just looking for excuse to go against the US, looking for "proof" that the US is nothing more than an imperialistic tyrant country that deep down hates Islam and wants to eradicate it.

I agree that's the excuse for all these protests. In their defense, the Egyptian President (part of the Muslim Brotherhood) has restated his commitment to security for foreign visitors and these protests are the actions of only a few. They're getting a lot of media coverage at least here in the U.S.

[xinyidizi]

Actually, it has. Want to take a guess how many AQ fighters there are in Afghanistan?

Until now I'm not sure what the US policy is in the ME but if it is to eradicate the terrorists then I don't see much success. The problem is that you are fighting an illusionary enemy. That's why you can never win. AQ and similar groups can not be defeated using hard power and the more fighters you kill the more fighters you create. The real enemy is radical Islam and it can only be defeated by soft power.

Use more Tai Chi!

[Empty_Cup]

Until now I'm not sure what the US policy is in the ME but if it is to eradicate the terrorists then I don't see much success. The problem is that you are fighting an illusionary enemy. That's why you can never win. AQ and similar groups can not be defeated using hard power and the more fighters you kill the more fighters you create. The real enemy is radical Islam and it can only be defeated by soft power.

Use more Tai Chi!

I couldn't agree more. I believe the U.S. policy needs to become less of a highly visible, go-it-alone world police mentality and more of a behind-the-scenes role with a coalition force being the visible side. This would also, I believe, allow us to reduce the costly size of our conventional forces in favor of more intelligence and special ops forces.

What would be refreshing, though, is if there was more active involvement by the majority of non-radical Muslims against the radicals. Right now there seems to be a laissez-faire type attitude towards radical Islam from the nations where these movements exist. Why don't the majority, moderate Muslims take more of an active role in preventing terrorism?

[Drake]

Until now I'm not sure what the US policy is in the ME but if it is to eradicate the terrorists then I don't see much success. The problem is that you are fighting an illusionary enemy. That's why you can never win. AQ and similar groups can not be defeated using hard power and the more fighters you kill the more fighters you create. The real enemy is radical Islam and it can only be defeated by soft power.

Use more Tai Chi!

That wasn't an answer.

[mawali]

The ME is far worse off today in terms of stability and safety than it was 10 years ago.
Supporting militant islamic rebels was NOT the way to go and we can see the aftermath of that right now.
There are times that the foreign policy of the USA is quite, well, mind boggling.
Unless of course if the whole purpose WAS to create instability, as some have suggested.

Who do you think created this? The US supplied many of the regimes we know of today in the giuse of "building the countr"y but the US approved dictators used the money for military purposes, creating their riches, and the people get the shaft

Didn't John McCain want the US to support the rebels and blaming POTUS for not doing so? I do not think that the ME is worst off today but that it has been so for over 30 years or more. It is only worse because the US has no puppet
in charge that they can threaten and with social engineering and social media, introduced by the New Media, it is easier to mobilize millions with the touch of a finger.:D

Instability has been in force for over 50 years and more since the US overthrew Mossadegh in Iran and the Shah came to power. Then the newer threat of modern weapons into a Middle Age country, the US invasion of Iraq to save the region only created a pile of sh*t that added fuel to the fire.:confused:

[Drake]

What mobilization? They are burning and killing and looting over a movie.

[Scott R. Brown]

Who do you think created this? The US supplied many of the regimes we know of today in the giuse of "building the countr"y but the US approved dictators used the money for military purposes, creating their riches, and the people get the shaft

Didn't John McCain want the US to support the rebels and blaming POTUS for not doing so? I do not think that the ME is worst off today but that it has been so for over 30 years or more. It is only worse because the US has no puppet
in charge that they can threaten and with social engineering and social media, introduced by the New Media, it is easier to mobilize millions with the touch of a finger.:D

Instability has been in force for over 50 years and more since the US overthrew Mossadegh in Iran and the Shah came to power. Then the newer threat of modern weapons into a Middle Age country, the US invasion of Iraq to save the region only created a pile of sh*t that added fuel to the fire.:confused:

I will repeat.........the region has ALWAYS been unstable!! ALWAYS!!!!!

The U.S. did NOT destabilize an already stable region. The U.S. did NOT put in dictators where once there were none. The region NEVER had any other form of government other than Dictators. This goes back 5,000 years. They only know dictators. Islam itself is an authoritarian religion. Good Muslims do what they are told by the religious leaders. Thinking for yourself is frowned upon and can get you killed!

There is nothing wrong with supporting Dictators who favor the U.S.. This has always been the way of things. Freedom is rare in the world. Not everyone we interact with during our everyday life thinks or behaves the way each of us do in our personal lives. Compromise is something we benefit from in on a micro level and on a macro level.

Sometimes we have to do business with unsavory characters. That is life!

[Scott R. Brown]

What mobilization? They are burning and killing and looting over a movie.

No they aren't that is just the excuse they are using to blame the U.S. for their actions!

[Drake]

No they aren't that is just the excuse they are using to blame the U.S. for their actions!


Of course it has absolutely nothing to do with political power plays by the natives, single (or no) exports, a propensity of military aged males with no job prospects, and a weak education system.

Galula... what a maroon! :p

[mawali]

What mobilization? They are burning and killing and looting over a movie.

The mobilization I am talking about referencing New Media is the Social Media Culture i.e. IPad, INet, IPhone, Facebook, etc where you can get a "flash riot" (yes, over a dumb and stupid John Cleese copycat youtube 'movie') and because of the lack of a cultural base, this is what you get. People salivating to stuff that seems foolish in our western arena. I don't get it either but it is as it is!

[xinyidizi]

Radical Muslims who have the potential of violence are all over Europe and America. I wonder why the western countries let such people immigrate in the first place. One would think that modern education could solve everything but I have seen so many radical Muslims who were raised in the west and were against everything the modern civilization stands for. I think there are things that should have never been mixed up and cultures that are separated by centuries in terms of evolution are one of those things. Now it is obviously too late and there are only two possible ways to go:

1- The western countries should stop things like the freedom of speech which are only meant for very civilized cultures and start a heavy censorship regarding the subjects that are sensitive for Muslims and letting the Muslim countries rule themselves as they wish even if it results in a barbaric way of life for them.

2-The western countries continue to have an open channel in communicating with Muslims and nose into their business which would result in the clash of civilizations. Perhaps after many years of war and bloodshed if the western civilization wins then the Muslim culture would also make up for centuries of cultural evolution in a few decades and would learn tolerance. Of course another possible result is that the western world would also go back in time and give up civilized values as well as tolerance. People like the pastor who burned the Quran or the racist guy who murdered many people in Norway are examples of that kind of future for western civilization.

[Syn7]

Feeling guilty? lol

Yes, personal integrity is the one and only thing of any value that anyone has to offer from my viewpoint

Dale hasn't said anything dumb at all. He faces his critics and demands they explain themselves. If that makes people uncomfortable because they enjoy their anonymity, then f*ck them.

I changed my username because I don't prescribe to the whole idea of hiding behind user names.

It enforces my own honesty and opens me to everyone I encounter.
You can quote all you like, but it doesn't change who I am.

Vitriol from anonymity is weak. I don't participate in that. I out and out will say what I think. And you will know it was me by my name blazing above whatever words may offend you.

As for the internet, it might be new to you, but not to me. Tim made the www in 91, by 95 it was what we have now minus some of the cooler implementations. It has in fact been relatively usable since the 80's. But for most people it has been around for 15 years.

Impact is known by extension of human behaviors in general. Impact is known, it is simply resisted and denied. Like by television companies and newspapers etc.


Guilty about what?

Regardless of how long you have known about or used the net, you have no idea as to the how it's going to ultimately affect us. Sure we have some ideas, and it gets easier to call it as we move foreword, but the amount of people using it now compared to 20 years ago is huge. The social impact isn't something anyone can call right now. It annoys me when people pretend to know otherwise.

Personally, I think people are just more honest about how the feel when online even if some do lie about what they can or can't do.

Do you believe you have more cred than somebody using a handle? Does using a handle have any affect on personal integrity?

I do agree, if you are gonna slander and try to take somebody on like that in the real world, then you should show your face. But as far as online debates go.... b1tch please.......:rolleyes: (no I'm not calling you names) Dale takes it too far. Just because you use a handle does not mean you are hiding or doing anything sinister or cowardly. It can be cowardly, it can be hiding, but the assumption of such is pretty ignorant and beyond arrogant. Arrogance I don't mind. If it really bothered me I just wouldn't talk to either of you. That also goes for the handful of others riding that train. As far as I'm concerned, the more diverse the competition the better. And if we can grow from it, cool. If not? Don't care, I get what I want. I'm happy:) If somebody is offended by me or just can't handle my words for any reason they are free to simply not respond. There isn't anything anyone can do to me here that I can't shake off with ease. All this etiquette sh1t just gets in the way of real talk way too often, just as the dumb arguments take away from the real talk. Two sides of the same coin.

[Syn7]

So the US sent two battle ships to the Libyan coast.
For what reason no one really knows, other than a show of force perhaps and to make clear that they will protect American interests in Libya.
One wonders how the US would react if a Chinese ambassador was killed in NY and China sent two battleships to the coast of NY...

If the Americans military stood back and let the Chinese embassy or consulate get overrun, yeah, they would react for sure. Maybe not two battleships outside NY, but then the US knows Libya can't do anything about it whether they like it or not. As for the Chinese trying to force the US to swallow that, too much provocation. If Libya had the same juice that China had they would have reacted differently.

They should have had better protection anyways. Hopefully the lesson is learned.

The Chinese embassy in Vancouver is attacked all the time. The difference is that it's usually one or two guys jumping the wall and getting caught, not hundreds storming the place. But if the Canadian Military and/or civilian forces let it happen, China would have a valid beef.

Apples and Oranges.

But I do find the American foreign policy to be very arrogant and in a lot of ways not very moral. All governments are shady to an extent.

[David Jamieson]

Guilty about what? Really? You need to ask that when I am pointing out your own use of anonymity? You can't have your cake and eat it to bud.


Regardless of how long you have known about or used the net, you have no idea as to the how it's going to ultimately affect us. Sure we have some ideas, and it gets easier to call it as we move foreword, but the amount of people using it now compared to 20 years ago is huge. The social impact isn't something anyone can call right now. It annoys me when people pretend to know otherwise. YOU pretend to know otherwise by diminishing the trend knowledge that otehrs possess and you do not. As you do not possess the info or are not aware of it, you become incredulous instead and start telling other people they can't possibly know things because you don't. That's hypocritical there bud. I am in the soup, I can see the soup and was ether when the soup was made. And yes, experience counts for a lot. And working in the industry counts a little more.


Personally, I think people are just more honest about how the feel when online even if some do lie about what they can or can't do. You can think what you like. People use anonymity more often than not to lie and inflate their own ego and image. that is clear with all the posturing and such that goes on. At the very least, if someone has a bone to pick with me, they can and they can know it's me and not some whoever somewhere wherever. Anonymity makes the person irrelevant by their own hand. It is that much easier to shut out an anon than a real person. So I think differently on that.


Do you believe you have more cred than somebody using a handle? Does using a handle have any affect on personal integrity? Cred? Cred is for little girls. I am me. I participate in discussions as myself and remain unembarrassed if wrong and perfectly capable of correcting myself. Yes, anons create the safety for themselves out of ego. I did it, you are doing it. Anonymity is for ego purpose pretty much. It allows you to hide from your errors and not correct them. You can just feel grubby and then get a new account. The problem with that is that teh ego will never learn and will find itself doing that again and again with each misused phrase or foolish and incompetent utterance.


I do agree, if you are gonna slander and try to take somebody on like that in the real world, then you should show your face. But as far as online debates go.... b1tch please.......:rolleyes: (no I'm not calling you names) Dale takes it too far. Just because you use a handle does not mean you are hiding or doing anything sinister or cowardly. It can be cowardly, it can be hiding, but the assumption of such is pretty ignorant and beyond arrogant. Arrogance I don't mind. If it really bothered me I just wouldn't talk to either of you. That also goes for the handful of others riding that train. As far as I'm concerned, the more diverse the competition the better. And if we can grow from it, cool. If not? Don't care, I get what I want. I'm happy:) If somebody is offended by me or just can't handle my words for any reason they are free to simply not respond. There isn't anything anyone can do to me here that I can't shake off with ease. All this etiquette sh1t just gets in the way of real talk way too often, just as the dumb arguments take away from the real talk. Two sides of the same coin.

Again you are moaning and whining about Dale. GO TO DALES SCHOOL AND MEET HIM FOR REAL. That's all there is to it and I don't care if you think Dale takes it too far, I think YOU take stuff too far and others think I do.

Why does what Dale says to people bother you so much. Take a look at your own crap man. Dale makes an open door offer. that you can't stomach that kind of upfront honesty makes me question your own ability to represent same up front and honesty in character.

Not saying you don't have it, I am saying your argument doesn't hold water when you complain about it in others.

[SimonM]

Radical religious people who have the potential of violence are all over

Fixed that for you.

Islam isn't special. There are frothing lunatics in all the faiths. The demands of radical Christians are no less odious. Let's not try and make it look like Islam is somehow worse than every other religion. They are all awful.

[David Jamieson]

Fixed that for you.

Islam isn't special. There are frothing lunatics in all the faiths. The demands of radical Christians are no less odious. Let's not try and make it look like Islam is somehow worse than every other religion. They are all awful.

Radical Buddhism will annoy you with their chanting.
Radical Jews will annoy you with their diatribes.
Radical Christians will annoy you with their fairy tale belief systems.
Radical Muslims will plot to kill you and destroy your society.

hmmmnn... You really think they are the same Simon? The tale of the tape or, the historical record says different.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Fixed that for you.

Islam isn't special. There are frothing lunatics in all the faiths. The demands of radical Christians are no less odious. Let's not try and make it look like Islam is somehow worse than every other religion. They are all awful.

I think that every religion has/has had their radicals that have propagated violence.
Like any ideology, a religion can be perverted and twisted enough to go against it's very core tenets.
The common element is people wiling to be used by leaders that put THEIR views above those of the religion/ideology.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Radical Buddhism will annoy you with their chanting.
Radical Jews will annoy you with their diatribes.
Radical Christians will annoy you with their fairy tale belief systems.
Radical Muslims will plot to kill you and destroy your society.

hmmmnn... You really think they are the same Simon? The tale of the tape or, the historical record says different.

There are violent militants in almost every religion/ideology.
The thing is that Islam has always had a history of violent "conversion" and while that isn't really the case as much now, there is still a "violence" is justified mentality in Islam.

[SimonM]

Radical Buddhism will annoy you with their chanting. And in Burma they'll commit genocide on non-Buddhist ethnic minorities. They'll act nearly as bad in Sri Lanka too.


Radical Jews will annoy you with their diatribes. And they'll build illegal settlements in your occupied country and they'll peddle influence to try and force secular people into further fruitless wars in the middle east.


Radical Christians will annoy you with their fairy tale belief systems.
And if you're a Muslim they'll plot to kill you and destroy your society. And if you are secular and run an abortion clinic they'll shoot you dead. And if you are an innocent office worker in a government building who may be of any of the above religions they'll bomb you as a mis-placed retaliation for what happened in Waco.


They're all the same. Religious radicals of every stripe will try to lash out at anything that seems alien to their experience with lethal repurcussions. That doesn't excuse any of them. It just makes them all equally awful.

[xinyidizi]

Fixed that for you.

Islam isn't special. There are frothing lunatics in all the faiths. The demands of radical Christians are no less odious. Let's not try and make it look like Islam is somehow worse than every other religion. They are all awful.

I have no doubt that some ideologies or faiths like Christianity also have the same potential in getting pretty violent but regarding Christianity, centuries of reform in the west has considerably weakened its violent/authoritarian side. Islam hasn't been through that process and introducing the modern world to Muslims was very sudden which is why it has caused such a big revolt. What I am worried about is that Islamic terrorism results in reviving the violent side of Christianity and then we'll have full scale Crusades again(this time with nuclear bombs).


They're all the same. Religious radicals of every stripe will try to lash out at anything that seems alien to their experience with lethal repurcussions. That doesn't excuse any of them. It just makes them all equally awful.

Yes these are examples of violence in all those religions but in terms of violence in the name of religion, Muslims outshine everyone else and I bet some of those violent acts in other religions happen as a reaction to what Muslims have started first.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have no doubt that some ideologies or faiths like Christianity also have the same potential in getting pretty violent but regarding Christianity, centuries of reform in the west has considerably weakened its violent/authoritarian side. Islam hasn't been through that process and introducing the modern world to Muslims was very sudden which is why it has caused such a big revolt. What I am worried about is that Islamic terrorism results in reviving the violent side of Christianity and then we'll have full scale Crusades again(this time with nuclear bombs).



Yes these are examples of violence in all those religions but in terms of violence in the name of religion, Muslims outshine everyone else and I bet some of those violent acts in other religions happen as a reaction to what Muslims have started first.

All religions/ideologies have that potential because of the one common element:
People.
People that allow their leaders to dictate to them what they should or should not believe/do.
Christianity was SUPPOSE to NOT be that way, by humans have this "need" for leadership/hierarchy and that very "need" is what make a mess of things.

[David Jamieson]

And in Burma they'll commit genocide on non-Buddhist ethnic minorities. They'll act nearly as bad in Sri Lanka too.

And they'll build illegal settlements in your occupied country and they'll peddle influence to try and force secular people into further fruitless wars in the middle east.


And if you're a Muslim they'll plot to kill you and destroy your society. And if you are secular and run an abortion clinic they'll shoot you dead. And if you are an innocent office worker in a government building who may be of any of the above religions they'll bomb you as a mis-placed retaliation for what happened in Waco.


They're all the same. Religious radicals of every stripe will try to lash out at anything that seems alien to their experience with lethal repurcussions. That doesn't excuse any of them. It just makes them all equally awful.


Yes, I agree, there are Buddhists who carry out atrocities in the Asian part of the world. It's not just Myanmar and Sri Lanka either. India has it's share of religious violence and hey, in Africa they have "Muti" folks that eat others in their religious practice etc etc.


I disagree with your viewpoint on Israel. There are a vast number of arguments and you might not like to hear this, but despite her mistakes along the way, I support Israel and as far as occupied lands, well, I would say that Syria and Jordan are delinquent in negotiating their lands back on behalf of those people. Egypt got Sinai back through this process.

Arab Israelis are still Israelis. You and I both know there is no easy resolution there.

But, in the end, I could give you 10,000 examples of violent hate carried out by Muslims against each other and other states and peoples for every blip on the radar of Israeli Jewish violence, Buddhist violence etc.

That's where the perception is coming from and the reticence to just give it a pluralistic or relativistic dismissal of the actions of the Islamic world and it's proponents.

Violence coming out of Islamic nations is nothing new. It's been a persistent and enduring fact of life for your whole life and mine. How much should we accommodate that particular belief system before we decide it needs to be diminished in the world in the same way other religions are falling by the wayside because they incite the incorrect perceptions and behaviours in others?

[SimonM]

How much should we accommodate that particular belief system before we decide it needs to be diminished in the world in the same way other religions are falling by the wayside because they incite the incorrect perceptions and behaviours in others?

I'd rather not accommodate any of them. It just gets up my back to see people singling out one brutal bloody sociopath by saying well he's Michael Myers, the rest are just Hannibal Lecter so they're OK.

And a one-state solution will never work in Israel as long as it remains a jewish state. If they want to divide all religion from government then I'll consider supporting something other than the two-state solution. Meanwhile the illegal settlements are nothing but a naked cash grab and what the Israeli army does in Gaza is **** close to genocide.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'd rather not accommodate any of them. It just gets up my back to see people singling out one brutal bloody sociopath by saying well he's Michael Myers, the rest are just Hannibal Lecter so they're OK.

The point we need to address is that, does that particular ideology PROMOTE violence?
That people commit violence regardless is a proven fact and that they will use any excuse to do so is also a fact BUT does a particular ideology promote the use of violence or make it acceptable or perhaps does it NOT deter it?

[xinyidizi]

The point we need to address is that, does that particular ideology PROMOTE violence?
That people commit violence regardless is a proven fact and that they will use any excuse to do so is also a fact BUT does a particular ideology promote the use of violence or make it acceptable or perhaps does it NOT deter it?

Have you read the old testament and the Quran?

[xinyidizi]

The point we need to address is that, does that particular ideology PROMOTE violence?
That people commit violence regardless is a proven fact and that they will use any excuse to do so is also a fact BUT does a particular ideology promote the use of violence or make it acceptable or perhaps does it NOT deter it?

Have you read the old testament and the Quran?

[SimonM]

I have. (yawn)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Have you read the old testament and the Quran?

Yes and perhaps more importantly, studied them and what OTHERS think they mean.

Yes, there is a great potential for the misunderstanding of laws and statues NOT applicable anymore in the bible (less so in the Koran since it is a different type of book than the Bible).
The OT has many causal laws and regulations that were given to the Hebrew people at a time and for a specific reason, many of them no longer applicable ( of course the big 10 and most dietary ones still are).

[xinyidizi]

Two very similar texts that have inspired so much violence for many centuries. I know that there are all kinds of interpretations but sometimes it's very difficult to make up any peaceful interpretations out of the texts.

[Lucas]

I'll see your holy war and raise you a case of the crusades!

'The Crusades were a series of Holy Wars launched by the Christian states of Europe against the Saracens. The term 'Saracen' was the word used to describe a Moslem during the time of the Crusades. The Crusades started in 1095 when Pope Claremont preached the First Crusade at the Council of Claremont. The Pope's preaching led to thousands immediately affixing the cross to their garments - the name Crusade given to the Holy Wars came from old French word 'crois' meaning 'cross'. The Crusades were great military expeditions undertaken by the Christian nations of Europe for the purpose of rescuing the holy places of Palestine from the hands of the Mohammedans. They were eight in number, the first four being sometimes called the Principal Crusades, and the remaining four the Minor Crusades. In addition there was a Children's Crusade. There were several other expeditions which were insignificant in numbers or results.'

[David Jamieson]

I'd rather not accommodate any of them. It just gets up my back to see people singling out one brutal bloody sociopath by saying well he's Michael Myers, the rest are just Hannibal Lecter so they're OK.

And a one-state solution will never work in Israel as long as it remains a jewish state. If they want to divide all religion from government then I'll consider supporting something other than the two-state solution. Meanwhile the illegal settlements are nothing but a naked cash grab and what the Israeli army does in Gaza is **** close to genocide.

I agree a 2 state solution should be done. But you know where the resistance to that is coming from? Well, I'll say this, it was an Israeli idea to begin with that was rejected by Arafat! It's been called for again since, and...well, we wait.

Water is gold in that part of the world. Since the territories have not been negotiated for it is Israel that has built the infrastructure to them etc. Now that there is water and roads and so on, it is odd that these lands are now no longer just a waste, but they are desirable! But not desirable enough for the countries to which they belong will negotiate for them? I find that odd.

Why won't Syria and Jordan negotiate these lands back after losing them following four wars upon Israel?

You make it sound like Israel is some big military power that goes about recklessly doing these things when in fact, they have been attacked and actually won those lands from the countries I mentioned and on top of that Israel is put into a hard place by not being recognized by those very same countries! Ridiculous.

I don't side with Syria or Jordan on the issue and hold those two countries responsible for the plight of their citizens in Occupied Israel. If the surrounding Arab nations had their way, Israel wouldn't exist and then we would see ho that worked out last time. Israel, a Jewish state and protection for Judaism in the world is a necessity as it is one particular religion that has literally been hunted and attempts have been made to eradicate entirely based on petty hate.

14 million jews on this planet or so. I say yeah, they can have their little strip of a state. I would also ask that The islamic nations recognize her, her lands and her sovereignty. This is why I support Israel despite her mistakes.

[SimonM]

I don't support theocracy of any stripe.

[David Jamieson]

I don't support theocracy of any stripe.

Israel isn't a theocracy. It has a Knesset.
Oddly, it's probably the most truly defined democracy anywhere.

It isn't run by rabbis and therefore cannot be said to be a theocracy anymore than Canada is.

[Lucas]

I'm more of a Jason Voorhees myself...

[xinyidizi]

I don't support theocracy of any stripe.

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
http://thecollectiveca.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/haight-hippie.jpg

[SimonM]

Israel isn't a theocracy. It has a Knesset.
Oddly, it's probably the most truly defined democracy anywhere.

It isn't run by rabbis and therefore cannot be said to be a theocracy anymore than Canada is.

I don't support official state religions or the development of social stratification based on faith. Israel has both.

[Lucas]

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
http://thecollectiveca.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/haight-hippie.jpg

but that means no death metal....thats just no good.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Two very similar texts that have inspired so much violence for many centuries. I know that there are all kinds of interpretations but sometimes it's very difficult to make up any peaceful interpretations out of the texts.

No doubt.
The difference MAY be that for the Hebrews, the regulations were on THEM, to make them "worthy" as they were set aside as God's chosen people.
They have to be more "holier" than others so they restrictions and penalties were far greater.
But there was never a conversion by force, same thing with the far more peaceful teachings in the NT.
When the Hebrews went to war it was ONLY after it being "god sanctioned" and, typically, it was a defense or counter-offensive one.
There are many passages that seem to promote a "genocidal" view, BUT if taken in context and in consideration of the "language of the times", it is clear they are not.
The NT is quite clear in the teachings of Christ against violence and any type of conversion by violence and it quite clear on how the enemy should be treated and how violence is to be "responded to".
That said, we see that even the most "point blank" statements form Christ were ignored by some of his followers.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace
http://thecollectiveca.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/haight-hippie.jpg

Naive and not doing justice to the fact that what we in the west hold as moral and good is based on judeo-christian values.
Sure its nice and easy to say to get rid of the origins of anything that we "salad bar" our way through and choose what we want and disregard the rest.

[David Jamieson]

I don't support official state religions or the development of social stratification based on faith. Israel has both.

Canada has That too! In Ontario we have a Catholic school board!
While we may not say it outright, we take Sundays off, still have christmas holidays, easter etc etc.

We talk out of one side of our mouth in this country. To what end? To say we have separated church from state? We haven't. not by a long shot.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't support official state religions or the development of social stratification based on faith. Israel has both.

Like I said before, the core structural of our western notion of morally right and wrong is judeo-christian in origin.
In short, it was based on a faith.
A faith that ALL are created equal under God and are to be His image bearers and us such, stewards/guardians of creation ie: the earth and everything on it.

[David Jamieson]

A faith that ALL are created equal under God and are to be His image bearers and us such, stewards/guardians of creation ie: the earth and everything on it.

Nobody practices it to that letter and intolerance of different flavours is found everywhere. especially in Church pews and even more especially in the minds of people who fill them.

That's not to say that religion or it's practice is the problem. In a general way, it always rests back on the individual. We, as a society need to develop a way that dictates responsibility and accountability. We have to stop collectively allowing people to hide behind a greater body they've hidden themselves within and we need those greater bodies to start educating those within regarding the wrongness of their interpretations of the teachings they are being given by that institution.

If we went for individual integrity at this level, where if you said it, you own it, if you did it, you own it and stuck to that, there would be some real differences.

[SimonM]

Because the age of reason has nothing to do with humanist morality at all. Sorry SR but the morality I adhere to is one as devoid of faith and as driven by reason as I can make it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Because the age of reason has nothing to do with humanist morality at all. Sorry SR but the morality I adhere to is one as devoid of faith and as driven by reason as I can make it.

The age of reason that brought us the reign of terror and the communist regimes?

[Scott R. Brown]

Let's keep in mind that atheist nuts killed more people in the 20th Century than religious nuts have!

Soviet Union, China, Cambodia anyone!!?

Fighting and killing is a human thing!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Nobody practices it to that letter and intolerance of different flavours is found everywhere. especially in Church pews and even more especially in the minds of people who fill them.

That's not to say that religion or it's practice is the problem. In a general way, it always rests back on the individual. We, as a society need to develop a way that dictates responsibility and accountability. We have to stop collectively allowing people to hide behind a greater body they've hidden themselves within and we need those greater bodies to start educating those within regarding the wrongness of their interpretations of the teachings they are being given by that institution.

If we went for individual integrity at this level, where if you said it, you own it, if you did it, you own it and stuck to that, there would be some real differences.

And that I think is the core of the problem, when religion became and "organization" and individual responsibility lost out to "corporate" one.

[xinyidizi]

The good thing about the age of reason is that we can learn from the bad experiences and change like how the world got rid of that kind of communism but religions don't change and no matter how hard people try to make up new and pretty interpretations the original texts still have their effects.

[Drake]

Radical Islam is hands down the most dangerous religion on the planet. Even the fundamentalist of fundamentalist christians will blow up an abortion clinic, or perhaps picket funerals with lunatic ravings.

I've seen radical Islam... there is nothing more cruel, inhumane, or vicious than them.

[Scott R. Brown]

Radical Islam is hands down the most dangerous religion on the planet. Even the fundamentalist of fundamentalist christians will blow up an abortion clinic, or perhaps picket funerals with lunatic ravings.

I've seen radical Islam... there is nothing more cruel, inhumane, or vicious than them.

Even Patton recognized that Muslims were cruel. In his autobiography he comments how his troops couldn't wait to get out of North Africa, and while they weren't too fond of the Sicilians, they could see a stark contrast in how each group treated their livestock and women.

The North African Muslims routinely abused their livestock and didn't even bother to treat ulcers and other injuries. They also insisted on a larger amount of blood money for an accidentally injure or killed animal than for their women and daughters!

[sanjuro_ronin]

The good thing about the age of reason is that we can learn from the bad experiences and change like how the world got rid of that kind of communism but religions don't change and no matter how hard people try to make up new and pretty interpretations the original texts still have their effects.

I would disagree and the 20th century is a prime example as is the 21st so far.
As for religions changing, yes they do.
One can argue that it is NOT due to "new and pretty" interpretations but to going with the older and correct ones or at least putting them in their correct place.
And why has this happened?
More responsibility on the part of the followers and that is, perhaps, what Islam needs.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Radical Islam is hands down the most dangerous religion on the planet. Even the fundamentalist of fundamentalist christians will blow up an abortion clinic, or perhaps picket funerals with lunatic ravings.

I've seen radical Islam... there is nothing more cruel, inhumane, or vicious than them.

Yes, there is a very clear and present danger with radical Islam, something that even the moderates acknowledge.
The problem is that those that know and see the problems are not doing anything about it.

[Lucas]

Let's keep in mind that atheist nuts killed more people in the 20th Century than religious nuts have!

Soviet Union, China, Cambodia anyone!!?

Fighting and killing is a human thing!

Hear, Hear!!! Long live humans and violence!!!

[SimonM]

The age of reason that brought us the reign of terror and the communist regimes?

Still a better track record for morality than when religion is allowed to rule the roost.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Still a better track record for morality than when religion is allowed to rule the roost.

The numbers don't back that up.
The issue is that man will find ANY excuse to kill and slaughter and basically try to impose himself on others.
He may use religion or any other ideology.
And it brings us back to the core issue at hand and that is NOT the religion or ideology but Man.
Man has a natural tendency to want to dominate each other and use violence towards that goal, might makes right.
To blame religion or to thing that "reason" is enough to counter that is incorrect as it has been shown over and over.
Eliminate religion and man will kill for any other reason he can find, hence religion is not the problem.
Eliminate reason and man will kill, hence reason is not the problem.
Eliminate race, ethnicity, whatever and man will still kill.
The issue is that we keep focusing on the excuses as to WHY man kills each other with just gusto, which means we are just trying top blame everything BUT the cause, which is MAN.
And that is why we haven't stopped it and why we have the same crap going back 10's of 1000's of years.

[David Jamieson]

Radical Islam is hands down the most dangerous religion on the planet. Even the fundamentalist of fundamentalist christians will blow up an abortion clinic, or perhaps picket funerals with lunatic ravings.

I've seen radical Islam... there is nothing more cruel, inhumane, or vicious than them.

Radical Islam is violent nihilism in many respects. I agree, it is a very clear and very present danger and it doesn't make life any easier for moderate Islam. Just like weirdo Christian fundies protesting a soldiers funerals don't make it easy for Christian moderates. Or radical rabbis and how people view the Jewry because of their irresponsible utterances. And so on and so forth. However, the penchant for violence in radical Islam is something else entirely.

[Scott R. Brown]

Radical Islam is violent nihilism in many respects. I agree, it is a very clear and very present danger and it doesn't make life any easier for moderate Islam. Just like weirdo Christian fundies protesting a soldiers funerals don't make it easy for Christian moderates. Or radical rabbis and how people view the Jewry because of their irresponsible utterances. And so on and so forth. However, the penchant for violence in radical Islam is something else entirely.

No NOT just like!

Some of you guys need to quit trying to equivocate nutty Christians and Jews and Buddhists and whatever with nutty Muslims.

Nutty Muslims kill indiscriminately as a habit, these other nuts do not!

[Scott R. Brown]

Here is an example of the Muslim nuts doing it to other Muslims!

Islamists destroy tomb of Muslim saint in Mali (http://www.france24.com/en/20120917-islamists-destroy-tomb-muslim-saint-mali)

[xinyidizi]

The numbers don't back that up.
The issue is that man will find ANY excuse to kill and slaughter and basically try to impose himself on others.
He may use religion or any other ideology.
And it brings us back to the core issue at hand and that is NOT the religion or ideology but Man.
Man has a natural tendency to want to dominate each other and use violence towards that goal, might makes right.
To blame religion or to thing that "reason" is enough to counter that is incorrect as it has been shown over and over.
Eliminate religion and man will kill for any other reason he can find, hence religion is not the problem.
Eliminate reason and man will kill, hence reason is not the problem.
Eliminate race, ethnicity, whatever and man will still kill.
The issue is that we keep focusing on the excuses as to WHY man kills each other with just gusto, which means we are just trying top blame everything BUT the cause, which is MAN.
And that is why we haven't stopped it and why we have the same crap going back 10's of 1000's of years.

I agree. In the end it's just about people. I know many Muslims who practice Islam as a means for self growth and spirituality and Islam in their hands is a beautiful religion unlike anything that the radicals promote. I really don't know where those extremists went wrong.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I agree. In the end it's just about people. I know many Muslims who practice Islam as a means for self growth and spirituality and Islam in their hands is a beautiful religion unlike anything that the radicals promote. I really don't know where those extremists went wrong.

Extremists are people that blame OTHERS for the wrongs they feel they have been dealt and they are people that believe that violence will solve the issue.
While certain ideologies leave that as a possibility or at least don't outright condemn it, others, like Christianity, make it clear in their undisputed and core teachings that it is wrong, period.
And yet some radical "so-called Christians" will still tolerate and even advocate violence.
I say "so-called" not to fall into the "no true Christian" argument, but because the core teachings of Christ were 100% against violence as the undisputed and clear cut passages against violence state.
One can't call themselves a Christian and tolerate/advocate violence anymore than one can call themselves a Jew and be against circumcision.

Extremists ignore the passages of their chosen "holy books" and vent out their anger and frustration at their "lot in life" by blaming others and reaping violence against with "righteous indignation" that is nothing of the sort but just a facade for their inferiority complex.
They are cowardly little people filled with hate and ignorance.

[Jimbo]

Extremists are people that blame OTHERS for the wrongs they feel they have been dealt and they are people that believe that violence will solve the issue.
While certain ideologies leave that as a possibility or at least don't outright condemn it, others, like Christianity, make it clear in their undisputed and core teachings that it is wrong, period.
And yet some radical "so-called Christians" will still tolerate and even advocate violence.
I say "so-called" not to fall into the "no true Christian" argument, but because the core teachings of Christ were 100% against violence as the undisputed and clear cut passages against violence state.
One can't call themselves a Christian and tolerate/advocate violence anymore than one can call themselves a Jew and be against circumcision.

Extremists ignore the passages of their chosen "holy books" and vent out their anger and frustration at their "lot in life" by blaming others and reaping violence against with "righteous indignation" that is nothing of the sort but just a facade for their inferiority complex.
They are cowardly little people filled with hate and ignorance.

+1.

I put them in the same category as the looters/rioters during the L.A. riots following the Rodney King fiasco (this is but one example). It's very clear that the criminal elements couldn't have given a crap about Rodney King; they wanted to take advantage of a situation to openly commit violence, theft, destruction of property, etc. Sure, they didn't use religion to justify their evil actions, but they are the exact same. They are nothing but sociopaths.

[sanjuro_ronin]

+1.

I put them in the same category as the looters/rioters during the L.A. riots following the Rodney King fiasco (this is but one example). It's very clear that the criminal elements couldn't have given a crap about Rodney King; they wanted to take advantage of a situation to openly commit violence, theft, destruction of property, etc. Sure, they didn't use religion to justify their evil actions, but they are the exact same. They are nothing but sociopaths.

A very valid point.
Many times people ask what kind of people are these ( terrorists/ extremists) and the answer is sociopaths.
People that are NOT guide by a conscience a sense of right and wrong, people that believe that the ends justifies the means ( their ends of course).
The notion of right and wrong takes second place to hate and violence.
And, of course, the worse possible answer to this is more hate and violence, but yet...

[David Jamieson]

I don't know if they fall into the category of sociopaths.

Sociopaths are not necessarily violent, they just don't have empathy.

In fact, it would be difficult to rile up a sociopath as for the most part, they really don't care.

So, psychopaths? Are there really that many?

Does anyone here feel that maybe the people we call enemy have a justifiable reason for calling us their enemy? As opposed to "well, they must be crazy"?

Politically and militarily, I think Al q and radical Islam is the enemy and must be faced as an enemy and crushed and driven under our boots. Nothing sociopathic about it, just matter of fact problem resolution in a time of war.

They offer no terms or treaties and continue to blatantly attack and disregard any and all help that is given in favour of fueling their hatred for that which they are utterly ignorant of whilst propping up a practically prehistoric way of life with their obviously overarching patriarchal and misogynistic social constructs.

But, a fish doesn't know it's in water. What of all the conditioned minds here and there that can't break free from the conditioning all too easily? how conditioned am I is a question I ask myself...unfortunately more regularly these days with all the vast propaganda and lies being fed to us daily in regards to almost anything it seems.

It is interesting times we live in. That's the only "for sure" bottom line.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Does anyone here feel that maybe the people we call enemy have a justifiable reason for calling us their enemy? As opposed to "well, they must be crazy"?

I don't know if I would use the word crazy, but using for arguments sake I would say that, regardless of the justification for hating us, what makes them "crazy" isn't that, it is that they have no conscience in regards to HOW they express that hatred.

[Drake]

Does anyone here feel that maybe the people we call enemy have a justifiable reason for calling us their enemy? As opposed to "well, they must be crazy"?


They once told a little boy that if he went up to a bunch of policemen and pressed a button attached to a vest full of explosives, that he would be unharmed. I met the little boy after he panicked and asked the police to help him. It's also possible he had been raped. Repeatedly.

Yeah, I'm justified in calling them my enemy. I'm also justified in killing the **** out of the animals.

[xinyidizi]

Does anyone here feel that maybe the people we call enemy have a justifiable reason for calling us their enemy? As opposed to "well, they must be crazy"?


Oil, the suffering that the Palestinians have been through, the continuous presence of foreign militaries in their countries, poverty, being continuously oppressed by corrupt dictators,...

Because of these reasons or other complicated reasons some normal people are susceptible to getting brainwashed by the main psychopaths and since they have no hope to have a normal and easy life like someone from a developed country they put all their hopes into having an Islamic armageddon or going to heaven and enjoying the benefits of martyrdom after killing the infidels.

On the other hand those radical Muslims who were raised in prosperity or even in western countries and still choose terrorism can definitely be called sociopaths.

However these things are not in black and white and I'm sure there are lots of moderate cultural solutions that the west can try for curing their hatred and using more violence will just feed their fanatic ideologies.

[mawali]

Yes, there is a very clear and present danger with radical Islam, something that even the moderates acknowledge.
The problem is that those that know and see the problems are not doing anything about it.

Radical Islam is a problem in the battlespace but from what I have seen, there is nothing Islamic in killing innocent people. It so happens that the terrorist enemy is Muslim by default (nothing to do with submission to g*d) but there is rarely anything religious in that so we end up with illiterate, stupid, uneducated people bent on carnage and mayhem. It becomes cultural ignorance at its best because they even refuse to educate half the population and seek to destroy any institution built to make the population more knowledgeable to participate in the global community.

[Drake]

Radical Islam is a problem in the battlespace but from what I have seen, there is nothing Islamic in killing innocent people. It so happens that the terrorist enemy is Muslim by default (nothing to do with submission to g*d) but there is rarely anything religious in that so we end up with illiterate, stupid, uneducated people bent on carnage and mayhem. It becomes cultural ignorance at its best because they even refuse to educate half the population and seek to destroy any institution built to make the population more knowledgeable to participate in the global community.

Point is, they are under the banner of radical islam. All of them. Not radical hinduism. Not radical jainism. Not radical zoroastrianism... or radical sihks, or radical buddhists, or radical catholics, radical jews, or anything else.

It doesn't matter if they understand the religion or not... they are using it to further their goals, and they all believe they understand islam.

[sanjuro_ronin]

One of the issues is that Islam is a totalitarian regime and religion, Islam is not about an individual God or individual worship of God, but the group collective.
Because of that I think that many Muslims do NOT understand that what one person or one group do or say is NOT reflective of the WHOLE, as in the case of democratic counties or religions that are base don individual worship.
To them, if an American film maker insults Islam, than the USA is insulting Islam.
The notion that a government can't control is people in regards to freedom of speech and expression is very alien to Islam.

[Faruq]

Oil, the suffering that the Palestinians have been through, the continuous presence of foreign militaries in their countries, poverty, being continuously oppressed by corrupt dictators,....

I personally also think it what you say here. All the things Noam Chomsky and John Perkins have detailed in their books. But instead of forming strong lobbys in Washington to combat these things, these idiots always choose violence! Very sad.

[Syn7]

There are violent militants in almost every religion/ideology.
The thing is that Islam has always had a history of violent "conversion" and while that isn't really the case as much now, there is still a "violence" is justified mentality in Islam.

I think it has a lot more to do with where than what. You know what I mean?

[Syn7]

Yes, I agree, there are Buddhists who carry out atrocities in the Asian part of the world. It's not just Myanmar and Sri Lanka either. India has it's share of religious violence and hey, in Africa they have "Muti" folks that eat others in their religious practice etc etc.


I disagree with your viewpoint on Israel. There are a vast number of arguments and you might not like to hear this, but despite her mistakes along the way, I support Israel and as far as occupied lands, well, I would say that Syria and Jordan are delinquent in negotiating their lands back on behalf of those people. Egypt got Sinai back through this process.

Arab Israelis are still Israelis. You and I both know there is no easy resolution there.

But, in the end, I could give you 10,000 examples of violent hate carried out by Muslims against each other and other states and peoples for every blip on the radar of Israeli Jewish violence, Buddhist violence etc.

That's where the perception is coming from and the reticence to just give it a pluralistic or relativistic dismissal of the actions of the Islamic world and it's proponents.

Violence coming out of Islamic nations is nothing new. It's been a persistent and enduring fact of life for your whole life and mine. How much should we accommodate that particular belief system before we decide it needs to be diminished in the world in the same way other religions are falling by the wayside because they incite the incorrect perceptions and behaviours in others?

The problem with a two state solution is that even if you give the Palestinians their land back, it won't be long before they start wanting more. Israel is wrong when it comes to the occupation, but far more stable. Tough choice. What do you do? Back the more wronged? Back them both on the areas where wronged? Or just pick a side and run with it? We live global now, leaving it alone isn't gonna happen. They are both there and neither is leaving by choice. It's done, doesn't matter how or when anymore. Violence in the middle east is alot older than any of us, it's such a tangled mess of right wrong and indifference. We'll never sort out who is right and who is wrong. The only solution is a foreword solution.

Curious.... If Canada chased the Quebecois away, would they have a legit claim in a thousand years?

[Syn7]

I'll see your holy war and raise you a case of the crusades!

'The Crusades were a series of Holy Wars launched by the Christian states of Europe against the Saracens. The term 'Saracen' was the word used to describe a Moslem during the time of the Crusades. The Crusades started in 1095 when Pope Claremont preached the First Crusade at the Council of Claremont. The Pope's preaching led to thousands immediately affixing the cross to their garments - the name Crusade given to the Holy Wars came from old French word 'crois' meaning 'cross'. The Crusades were great military expeditions undertaken by the Christian nations of Europe for the purpose of rescuing the holy places of Palestine from the hands of the Mohammedans. They were eight in number, the first four being sometimes called the Principal Crusades, and the remaining four the Minor Crusades. In addition there was a Children's Crusade. There were several other expeditions which were insignificant in numbers or results.'


The first crusade was to give the warlike Frankish knights something to kill. Western Europe was infighting like crazy and it was thought that a good war was what was needed. It would bring in funds, raise Christian morale and gave the ruling classes somebody to fight other than eachother. Later on it became more about pride and money. The fact that they were Muslim was the last and smallest reason for going in. And ofcourse it eventually turned into a p1ssing contest between the Franks, the English and what was left of the Western Holy Roman Empire.

My point is that religion was NOT the prime reason for going in. It was just sold that way.

[Syn7]

I agree a 2 state solution should be done. But you know where the resistance to that is coming from? Well, I'll say this, it was an Israeli idea to begin with that was rejected by Arafat! It's been called for again since, and...well, we wait.


You make it sound like Israel is some big military power that goes about recklessly doing these things when in fact, they have been attacked and actually won those lands from the countries I mentioned and on top of that Israel is put into a hard place by not being recognized by those very same countries! Ridiculous.

14 million jews on this planet or so. I say yeah, they can have their little strip of a state. I would also ask that The islamic nations recognize her, her lands and her sovereignty. This is why I support Israel despite her mistakes.

You can't blame Israel for creating a buffer with disputed lands won in defensive engagements. On that we totally agree.

The 2 state solution seems like the most fair, but it won't work either. I wish it would, but it won't. It won't take long for other beefs to surface as the principle agitators.


14 Million Jews deserve a homeland. Cool. But there are not 14 million Jews in Israel. Do you feel it should be proportional to demographics? Or based on historical and or religious claims? If you take the amount of Jews living there and look at the amount of non Jews around them, they have a pretty big and rather prime piece of land. They used to be known as "the roaming kingdom" What exactly are their traditional lands? Says who? That's a mess we need to just put behind and look foreword. The truth is until they learn to live with eachother, it's gonna stay violent.

[Syn7]

No doubt.
The difference MAY be that for the Hebrews, the regulations were on THEM, to make them "worthy" as they were set aside as God's chosen people.
They have to be more "holier" than others so they restrictions and penalties were far greater.
But there was never a conversion by force, same thing with the far more peaceful teachings in the NT.
When the Hebrews went to war it was ONLY after it being "god sanctioned" and, typically, it was a defense or counter-offensive one.
There are many passages that seem to promote a "genocidal" view, BUT if taken in context and in consideration of the "language of the times", it is clear they are not.
The NT is quite clear in the teachings of Christ against violence and any type of conversion by violence and it quite clear on how the enemy should be treated and how violence is to be "responded to".
That said, we see that even the most "point blank" statements form Christ were ignored by some of his followers.


The reason why people are so offended by the Jewish faith is because it says that an outsider can never become an insider, and that Jews are the chosen. Everyone else are less. It is Racism by any definition. I can see why it p1ssed so many people off. Not to mention they were so quarrelsome amongst themselves and made for sh1tty client kingdoms. Ironically, Herod was their last great hope. No real Jew would ever have been satisfactory to visiting provincial governors looking for co-operation.

[xinyidizi]

The truth is until they learn to live with eachother, it's gonna stay violent.

They are never going to learn that and this problem won't be solved for many decades (or centuries) but hypothetically if Israel wanted to solve the problem the only solution would be giving them back their legal land and sharing Jerusalem as a special region. This way the Palestinians wouldn't have any excuse and if they continued to fire rockets then Israel could go to war with them as a country and after one or two real wars the Palestinians would probably learn to move on and would start building their country. This scenario would need Israel to act as the more mature country but I am sure deep in heart they are not and both sides will continue to fight for as long as they exist.

[Syn7]

Like I said before, the core structural of our western notion of morally right and wrong is judeo-christian in origin.
In short, it was based on a faith.
A faith that ALL are created equal under God and are to be His image bearers and us such, stewards/guardians of creation ie: the earth and everything on it.

But found in all other faiths and could have gone either way. The very basics, don't kill, help others, don't steal, cheat, lie etc. are inherent to almost all faiths. Mos def, the majors. Yeah there are some weird faiths out there, but they are local threats at best.

Jihad is just an excuse to be a racist a$shole.

Religion seems to be more of an excuse than a cause even though it remains circular and entangled. It's like if you wanna build a house, you need tools, but the tools didn't cause the house to be built, the desire to build was. The desire to hate is no different. And when the foundation sucks, the rest of the house sucks. So when life sucks, you tend to be more open to hate. Those with an agenda exploit that. Like how Hezbolah is telling people that the video was meant for distro to all Americans as a manual. The crowd believes that because A: the don't know better and B: they are so riled up, they want it to be true.

[Syn7]

They are never going to learn that and this problem won't be solved for many decades (or centuries) but hypothetically if Israel wanted to solve the problem the only solution would be giving them back their legal land and sharing Jerusalem as a special region. This way the Palestinians wouldn't have any excuse and if they continued to fire rockets then Israel could go to war with them as a country and after one or two real wars the Palestinians would probably learn to move on and would start building their country. This scenario would need Israel to act as the more mature country but I am sure deep in heart they are not and both sides will continue to fight for as long as they exist.

Yeah but then the next day they would be beefing over another piece of land and using their difference to deflect from their similarities in order to continue a conflict that is practically natural at this point. A two state solution may quiet things down for a minute, but not much longer.

[xinyidizi]

Yeah but then the next day they would be beefing over another piece of land and using their difference to deflect from their similarities in order to continue a conflict that is practically natural at this point. A two state solution may quiet things down for a minute, but not much longer.

Whatever happens would be better that this situation and a step forward. Many Muslim countries also want to normalize their relationship with Israel but it can't happen before the Palestinians get their legal land back. After establishing the UN borders between the two countries some good things might happen regarding the relationship between the Muslim world and the west which is better than nothing and most of the Palestinians would become busy building their country which would automatically reduce the support for fanatic groups like Hamas and their supporter(Iran).

I'm not saying that that this would solve everything but if the Palestinians get a chance to experience normal life, it would certainly reduce the tendency towards extremism and a step forward is always better than nothing. I'm pretty sure the US has the power to force the Israelis and the moderate Palestinians to recognize the legal UN borders.

[Syn7]

Whatever happens would be better that this situation and a step forward. Many Muslim countries also want to normalize their relationship with Israel but it can't happen before the Palestinians get their legal land back. After establishing the UN borders between the two countries some good things might happen regarding the relationship between the Muslim world and the west which is better than nothing and most of the Palestinians would become busy building their country which would automatically reduce the support for fanatic groups like Hamas and their supporter(Iran).

That is a HUGE leap. "most of the Palestinians would become busy building their country which would automatically reduce the support for fanatic groups like Hamas and their supporter(Iran)." HUGE. How so? They will just forget a lifetime of anger and build a house instead? They will build, no doubt. They will build defenses and an army.


I'm not saying that that this would solve everything but if the Palestinians get a chance to experience normal life, it would certainly reduce the tendency towards extremism and a step forward is always better than nothing. I'm pretty sure the US has the power to force the Israelis and the moderate Palestinians to recognize the legal UN borders.

Oh wow. I think you overestimate American control over any party in the ME. Just like the Saudi Prince said "We used to have a Catholic marriage with the US, Now it's a Muslim marriage". Israel is no longer dependent on any other Nation and are more than capable of manipulating public opinion all on their own.

I am not for either party, I just think they are who they are and it is what it is? Even if you settle the Jew VS Muslim problem you still have the Sunni VS Shiah problem and that's a big one. Bigger, I should say.

[Syn7]

A very valid point.
Many times people ask what kind of people are these ( terrorists/ extremists) and the answer is sociopaths.
People that are NOT guide by a conscience a sense of right and wrong, people that believe that the ends justifies the means ( their ends of course).
The notion of right and wrong takes second place to hate and violence.
And, of course, the worse possible answer to this is more hate and violence, but yet...

WHOA....!!! I was with you until I saw the word SOCIOPATH.

[Syn7]

I don't know if they fall into the category of sociopaths.

Sociopaths are not necessarily violent, they just don't have empathy.

In fact, it would be difficult to rile up a sociopath as for the most part, they really don't care.

So, psychopaths? Are there really that many?

Does anyone here feel that maybe the people we call enemy have a justifiable reason for calling us their enemy? As opposed to "well, they must be crazy"?

Politically and militarily, I think Al q and radical Islam is the enemy and must be faced as an enemy and crushed and driven under our boots. Nothing sociopathic about it, just matter of fact problem resolution in a time of war.

They offer no terms or treaties and continue to blatantly attack and disregard any and all help that is given in favour of fueling their hatred for that which they are utterly ignorant of whilst propping up a practically prehistoric way of life with their obviously overarching patriarchal and misogynistic social constructs.

But, a fish doesn't know it's in water. What of all the conditioned minds here and there that can't break free from the conditioning all too easily? how conditioned am I is a question I ask myself...unfortunately more regularly these days with all the vast propaganda and lies being fed to us daily in regards to almost anything it seems.

It is interesting times we live in. That's the only "for sure" bottom line.



I was gonna post on SJ's quote but what you said is close enough. I don't think these people lack empathy. If anything they feel too much. Overwhelmed by rhetoric and circumstance.

[xinyidizi]

That is a HUGE leap. "most of the Palestinians would become busy building their country which would automatically reduce the support for fanatic groups like Hamas and their supporter(Iran)." HUGE. How so? They will just forget a lifetime of anger and build a house instead? They will build, no doubt. They will build defenses and an army.




Giving them full control after solving the border problems can happen step by step to make sure that they won't take advantage of the situation and an international coalition mainly consisting of the moderate Muslim nations like Turkey can also help. BTW there is no way they can develop a powerful army comparable to what Israel has in a hundred years. :rolleyes:

Also according to the polls most of the Palestinians want this solution and are tired of war.


Oh wow. I think you overestimate American control over any party in the ME. Just like the Saudi Prince said "We used to have a Catholic marriage with the US, Now it's a Muslim marriage". Israel is no longer dependent on any other Nation and are more than capable of manipulating public opinion all on their own.

When I say America it also includes the Jewish lobby and if someone can reason with them then I'm sure they can have a lot of influence on Israel.


Even if you settle the Jew VS Muslim problem you still have the Sunni VS Shiah problem and that's a big one. Bigger, I should say.

That one is more like an internal affair in the Muslim world. The western world wouldn't be blamed for that and it can create a good diversion which can help the peace process in Palestine.

[wenshu]

BTW there is no way they can develop a powerful army comparable to what Israel has in a hundred years. :rolleyes:

If the U.S. bankrolled it they could.


Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date,the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance, although in the past Israel also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to any other countries; for example, Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, all U.S. assistance earmarked for Israel is delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year, while most other recipients normally receive aid in installments. In addition to receiving U.S. State Department-administered foreign assistance, Israel also receives funds from annual defense appropriations bills for joint U.S. Israeli missile defense programs.


In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $30 billion military aid package that gradually will raise Israel’s annual Foreign Military Financing grant from a baseline of nearly $2.55 billion in FY2009 to approximately $3.1 billion for FY2013 through FY2018. For FY2013, the Obama Administration is requesting $3.1 billion in FMF to Israel.
http://jrnetsolserver.shorensteincente.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Military-Aid-to-Israel.pdf




Israel is no longer dependent on any other Nation and are more than capable of manipulating public opinion all on their own.

I think you mean increasingly dependent.

$3.1 billion = $8.4 million per day in strictly military aid to Israel.

[Syn7]

as far as I'm concerned foreign aid is just another word for bribe.

[wenshu]

While I certainly agree with the underlying cynicism of your statement, 'bribe' doesn't exactly do what amounts to a fifth of Israel's entire annual defense budget justice.

[Syn7]

lol... Touche:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

WHOA....!!! I was with you until I saw the word SOCIOPATH.

You feel it is to harsh? or ill-applied?
so·ci·o·path
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

IMO, terrorists typically do NOT have a social conscience or sense or moral responsibility outside their own "clique".
Yes, being a sociopath doesn't mean one is violent, nor doesn't mean one is NOT violent.
Perhaps psychotic is better?

You do not blow up women and children in a school that have ZERO to to with whatever issue you may have and be "ok with it" and still claim to have a social conscience, can you?

[xinyidizi]

Labeling them as psychopath is easy but realizing what reasons in their society has led them to this path and what we have done wrong to them is very difficult. All of the problems have two sides and in most cases both sides are equally responsible.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Labeling them as psychopath is easy but realizing what reasons in their society has led them to this path and what we have done wrong to them is very difficult. All of the problems have two sides and in most cases both sides are equally responsible.

Actually, it isn't easy at all to label someone as not having a conscience and I have in the past been reluctant to do so because in a way it "excuses" their behavior.
BUT having spoken to some people that have been through the "indoctrinating process", I have come to the conclusion ( IMO of course) that there is something fundamentally wrong with these people from the start.
That they then are manipulated into these acts of terrorisim is just "natural".
Much like some soldiers just kill with very little regard ( if any) to the fact they are KILLING another human life.

[Drake]

Labeling them as psychopath is easy but realizing what reasons in their society has led them to this path and what we have done wrong to them is very difficult. All of the problems have two sides and in most cases both sides are equally responsible.

And in some cases one side is completely and utterly wrong.

I've seen these *******s, met them in person. No hand-wringing necessary for putting a round in the chest of the child-raping, murderous, narcotics dealing, backstabbing *******s.

Even the Afghans hate them. We've had to, on more than one occassion, keep our Afghan partners from ****ing them up. And in one case, a guy who killed a child with an IED was beaten down by villagers.

[Scott R. Brown]

And in some cases one side is completely and utterly wrong.

I've seen these *******s, met them in person. No hand-wringing necessary for putting a round in the chest of the child-raping, murderous, narcotics dealing, backstabbing *******s.

Even the Afghans hate them. We've had to, on more than one occassion, keep our Afghan partners from ****ing them up. And in one case, a guy who killed a child with an IED was beaten down by villagers.

Such barbaric behavior......have these villagers ever considered what a traumatic childhood these poor, misguided, but well-intentioned, citizens of the world must have had to endure in order to take out their frustration on people who shouldn't even be out and about in a dangerous environment anyway?:rolleyes:

[Jimbo]

Labeling them as psychopath is easy but realizing what reasons in their society has led them to this path and what we have done wrong to them is very difficult. All of the problems have two sides and in most cases both sides are equally responsible.

By the time someone becomes an adult, and by their teens in most cases, they should be aware of right and wrong. By adulthood, you make your own choices, or should, on what path you're going to follow. That's why there are many people who grow up under horific circumstances who go on to do a lot of good in this world. Or at least live their lives with no desire at all to commit evil. If it were all up to their background, they would have been perpetuating evil acts, too.

Of course, as already mentioned, not all sociopathic behavior leads to physical violence or killing. There are sociopathic businesspeople, politicians, housewives, etc., etc. There are some rich white kids who share more in common (sociopathically) with terrorists than people who grew up in the same circumstances as terrorists. There are people who simply want the justification to commit evil acts, and some need no justification at all.

[xinyidizi]

And in some cases one side is completely and utterly wrong.

I've seen these *******s, met them in person. No hand-wringing necessary for putting a round in the chest of the child-raping, murderous, narcotics dealing, backstabbing *******s.

Even the Afghans hate them. We've had to, on more than one occassion, keep our Afghan partners from ****ing them up. And in one case, a guy who killed a child with an IED was beaten down by villagers.

I despise that kind of Muslims and since using violence against them doesn't seem to work I am trying to understand what the other options are. That's why I want to know why they are like that. Since you have been there why do you think they hate us(and probably everything else) so much?

[sanjuro_ronin]

I despise that kind of Muslims and since using violence against them doesn't seem to work I am trying to understand what the other options are. That's why I want to know why they are like that. Since you have been there why do you think they hate us(and probably everything else) so much?

Hate begets hate and violence begets violence and while one may never be able to change the extremist and the militant, there is always hope for the moderate.
Understanding, compassion and working together is the way to go.
It may take longer and be more painful but is the only solution in the long term.

[Drake]

I despise that kind of Muslims and since using violence against them doesn't seem to work I am trying to understand what the other options are. That's why I want to know why they are like that. Since you have been there why do you think they hate us(and probably everything else) so much?

Dude, they hate everybody. It's a culture of death, and if you weren't raised in it, it'll never make sense to you.

[Lucas]

The first crusade was to give the warlike Frankish knights something to kill. Western Europe was infighting like crazy and it was thought that a good war was what was needed. It would bring in funds, raise Christian morale and gave the ruling classes somebody to fight other than eachother. Later on it became more about pride and money. The fact that they were Muslim was the last and smallest reason for going in. And ofcourse it eventually turned into a p1ssing contest between the Franks, the English and what was left of the Western Holy Roman Empire.

My point is that religion was NOT the prime reason for going in. It was just sold that way.

Religion is always the 'excuse' because very few faiths actually condone the behaviors that are so aberrant to the majority of mankinds morality. Religion can be a tool used by the extremists to manipulate a mass amount of people to work towards a goal that is often times not religous in nature.

With that said, I see what you are saying, and in fact i agree with you. However I still believe Christian zealotry was definately involved. If you read every version of the Pope's speech ( See speech versions here (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html) )at the council of clermont it is undeniable that while religion may have been the excuse, for many, religion was indeed the drive to war. Regardless of the powers of state, the church does have it's severe faithful that do things based soley on religious reasons. Thats what it means to the fanatically faithful. It's more than one part, its many. Political and financial drive coupled with religious fanatisism and zealotry. It depends on who you are. So while religion was used as the source to fuel the fire, it quickly, for many people, became the actual main reason. So then it becomes a philisophical question. If the majority are doing something due to religion, regardless of if they were fueled by that reason through manipulative means, then is religion not the reason many are truly acting?

If I want you to complete a task that will benefit me financially, and i see that you are a hungry man, and i tempt you with food. there are two motives at play in the action. mine of financial gain through manipulation, and yours being that of soley hunger and the quenching of that need.

Regardless of the source of the first crusade, my point stands that Christianity had its share of fanatisism and zealotry in the name their God. Just because some were manipulated due to greed and political gain, does not diminish the fact that for many others, the wars were indeed, quite religious in nature.

The origional inception of the poor fellow soldiers of christ is a good example. the founding knights were quite, quite poor. They served soley to protect Gods children on their pilgrimages to the captured jerusalem. The founding knights were not hatefully violent, but rather fantical in their own way. It just depends on where that fanatisism is directed, and to what means. While that impovershed state of the order didnt last for very long, it is still important to note the founding intent was not one of greed or financial gain, but religious defense through zealotry. Those founding knights and those they recruited fought as poor men for 10 long years in the holy land before they were even endorsed by the church. The members were actually sworn to individual poverty. The order became quite rich in time however, and with wealth comes power and corruption.

I'm getting carried away now...but my original intent with my first post is that while the extremities differ per faith, very few faiths can actually say they are squeeky clean. I could point out many other examples besides the crusades where christianity specifically has had it's share of fanatically devoted actions that led to violence. (several inquisitions come to mind) It's not the faith itself per se, but the people that use that cloak to shroud themselves in superiority through religious intolerance.

[Faruq]

14 Million Jews deserve a homeland. Cool. But there are not 14 million Jews in Israel. Do you feel it should be proportional to demographics? Or based on historical and or religious claims? If you take the amount of Jews living there and look at the amount of non Jews around them, they have a pretty big and rather prime piece of land. They used to be known as "the roaming kingdom" What exactly are their traditional lands? Says who? That's a mess we need to just put behind and look foreword. The truth is until they learn to live with eachother, it's gonna stay violent.

Shouldn't they have been given land in Germany and Poland as well though after what they had to endure in the Holocaust! Germany and Poland got off scott free!

[Faruq]

They are never going to learn that and this problem won't be solved for many decades (or centuries) but hypothetically if Israel wanted to solve the problem the only solution would be giving them back their legal land and sharing Jerusalem as a special region. This way the Palestinians wouldn't have any excuse and if they continued to fire rockets then Israel could go to war with them as a country and after one or two real wars the Palestinians would probably learn to move on and would start building their country. This scenario would need Israel to act as the more mature country but I am sure deep in heart they are not and both sides will continue to fight for as long as they exist.

Very interesting. Deep.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Christianity STILL has its issues with zealots, almost every ideology has.
Its worse with religion because the very fact it is a religion means they should "know better", since they tend to answer to a higher calling.
Fact is that, in Christianity at least, there is NO reason for violence or any aggression against a fellow believer OR non-believer and is actually prohibited by the direct words of Christ.
Zeal for God, yes, zeal to serve God through Christ, 100% BUT that zeal can NEVER be a stumbling block for others to come to God through Christ because when it is, when the believers actions cause "Christs name to be blasphemed", that is a MAJOR no-no.

[Faruq]

Jihad is just an excuse to be a racist a$shole.

Religion seems to be more of an excuse than a cause even though it remains circular and entangled.

Yeah, in "Beyond Good and Evil", Friedrich Nietzsche gives conclusive proof of what you say. He even says that wherever religion is found, you will find it calls to 3 dangerous dietary practices. Seclusion, fasting and celebacy.

[Syn7]

You feel it is to harsh? or ill-applied?
so·ci·o·path
a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

IMO, terrorists typically do NOT have a social conscience or sense or moral responsibility outside their own "clique".
Yes, being a sociopath doesn't mean one is violent, nor doesn't mean one is NOT violent.
Perhaps psychotic is better?

You do not blow up women and children in a school that have ZERO to to with whatever issue you may have and be "ok with it" and still claim to have a social conscience, can you?

Depends on your priorities and beliefs. Killing babies doesn't mean you don't feel anything. When a soldier launches a missile into an apartement complex to kill one man who may or may not be there, is he a sociopath? How bout the guy who gave the order?

[Drake]

Depends on your priorities and beliefs. Killing babies doesn't mean you don't feel anything. When a soldier launches a missile into an apartement complex to kill one man who may or may not be there, is he a sociopath? How bout the guy who gave the order?

Both go to jail. It's illegal to do that.

[Faruq]

If the U.S. bankrolled it they could.






I think you mean increasingly dependent.

$3.1 billion = $8.4 million per day in strictly military aid to Israel.

Wow, then if what you're posting is correct, then I'd have to stick with what Noam Chomsky and John Perkins says about the situation in the Mid-East. I mean I read that 60% of Noam Chomsky's income comes from the department of defense, but still he has said what you posted above many times. Looks like he was telling the truth all along.

[Syn7]

Both go to jail. It's illegal to do that.

Glad to hear it.

This isn't about right and wrong, it's about the ability to feel for others.

Do you think they are sociopaths?

Calling all militant extremists sociopaths is a misnomer. SJ, do you think alot of the sociopaths are attracted to extremism? I can go with that, but what about the son that is raised in it? Is he a sociopath too? or was it learned behavior? Can you learn to be a sociopath?

No question as to whether they are j3rkoffs and hateful as$holes, but sociopathic? Nah. Some, for sure, but not all.

[Syn7]

Wow, then if what you're posting is correct, then I'd have to stick with what Noam Chomsky and John Perkins says about the situation in the Mid-East. I mean I read that 60% of Noam Chomsky's income comes from the department of defense, but still he has said what you posted above many times. Looks like he was telling the truth all along.

We also need to look at how that money gets appropriated and who got it there. Most Americans would rather that money was spent on fixing the failing US infrastructure. Same thing here in Canada. All things public are not always taken care of. Those who benefit the most from this infrastructure should put the most in. And I mean percentages.

If a Jewish lobby wants to fund Israel, they are free to do so. If our politicians go for it, well then you know where they stand. Vote accordingly. If you don't see anyone that represents you, go do something about it. If you aren't capable, find someone who is.

Does anyone believe Israel would fold if they no longer had western funds(public)?

[Faruq]

Christianity STILL has its issues with zealots, almost every ideology has.
Its worse with religion because the very fact it is a religion means they should "know better", since they tend to answer to a higher calling.
Fact is that, in Christianity at least, there is NO reason for violence or any aggression against a fellow believer OR non-believer and is actually prohibited by the direct words of Christ.
Zeal for God, yes, zeal to serve God through Christ, 100% BUT that zeal can NEVER be a stumbling block for others to come to God through Christ because when it is, when the believers actions cause "Christs name to be blasphemed", that is a MAJOR no-no.

I think that is another beautiful aspect of Christianity that has made its appeal worldwide, and why the Dalai Lama is also so well liked worldwide. The 0 tolerance for violence.

[Syn7]

Word, the only one who can blaspheme Christianity is a Christian. Same for Moslems.

[Lucas]

No question as to whether they are j3rkoffs and hateful as$holes, but sociopathic? Nah. Some, for sure, but not all.

I agree with you. If that child grows up TRULY believing that those that their people target are evil and corrupt and truly believe that irradicating them is the will of Allah and a holy endeavor, well then he is just a holy warrior doing the will of his god. Or so he believes.

NOTE: I do not condone this. But this is a vicious reality of human development. If one is never shown the truth, and lives their entire lives being told and shown only one aspect from a specific perspective, then it just comes down to a matter of belief.

Recently found out a friend of mine spent a tour over seas on i believe it was a .60 calibre machine gun killing people, contrary to what he told his family he would be doing. He didnt feel bad, felt no remorse, and believed the people he was killing deserved to die. Unfortunately those misled, mis educated extremists feel the same way about killing their targets.

[Faruq]

Word, the only one who can blaspheme Christianity is a Christian. Same for Moslems.

I really don't get these guys going crazy over the film. I mean the West has been deprecating Islam since before the Middle Ages and now all of a sudden the Muslims have to go crazy every time an anti-Islamic comment or film is made, or a Qur'an is burned. I never heard about Muslims doing that in the Middle Ages. Ever if you read a book on Islam like let's say..."The Life of Muhammad" by Martin Lings, there's no precedent for this type of behavior. Of course when the Muslims were physically attacked, many times there would be a physical response. But not for just insulting their religion or their God. It tooks hundreds of beatings, stonings, murders, being spit on and having spoiled garbage thrown on them before they started to fight back. But these guys nowadays-they're virtual savages.

[Syn7]

Pretty sure they have been like that since before Mohamed and after. Before Mo it was something else that was insulting. But the reaction to insult hasn't changed much.

In the middle ages if you burned a bible you could face some real nasty sh1t.

Moslems are no different, they just live in the past (from our perspective, that is). We grew out of that garbage, they did not. Of course you realize we are only talking about those who are zealots. Peaceful Moslems are not a new concept. Some are cool, some are not. Moderates have been around forever, they just hid for awhile. And for good reason. If they had not hid their feelings, they would be dead.

We need to understand that OUR perspective is not THE perspective.

[Faruq]

Exactly, so why send our soldiers over to their countries to give them democracy when they don't even appreciate it? Why establish military bases in their countries and jump start their economies with all the business our soldiers do in their countries, let alone protecting them from attack by Sadam Hussein-like dictators when they don't even pay taxes? These people are virtually spitting in our faces for helping them!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Well...
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/this-scandal-could-dwarf-fast-and-furious/

And exerpt:

...After changing its story multiple times, the White House finally conceded the deadly assault on the U.S. consulate was a planned attack linked to al-Qaida, as per information released by national intelligence agencies.

The admission prompted Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., to call for the resignation of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice for pushing the narrative that the attacks were part of a spontaneous uprising.

King may instead want to focus his investigative energies on the larger story: How the Obama administration armed Libyan rebels who were known to include al-Qaida and other anti-Western jihadists, and how the White House is currently continuing that same policy in Syria.

During the revolution against Muammar Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.

At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi boasted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida gunmen, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hasidi insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”

Even Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted during the Libyan revolution that Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”

At the time, former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”

The arming of the Libyan rebels may have aided in the attacks on our consulate in Libya. One witness to those attacks said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya....

[David Jamieson]

dude...wnd is a really really really crappy source. Just sayin...

[sanjuro_ronin]

dude...wnd is a really really really crappy source. Just sayin...

Which can be said about 98% of news sources, LOL !

[sanjuro_ronin]

Here is the yahoo link:
http://news.yahoo.com/libya-attack-gop-goes-white-house-especially-susan-203641954.html

[sanjuro_ronin]

and the ABC news link:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/some-administration-officials-were-concerned-about-initial-white-house-push-blaming-benghazi-attack-on-mob-video/

[David Jamieson]

excellent.

wnd is the same site where they talk about 10000 year old moon angels brought back by secret soviet cosmonauts from the moon.

but the other liars and muck rakers are acceptable somewhat when it comes to story validity...lol

[sanjuro_ronin]

excellent.

wnd is the same site where they talk about 10000 year old moon angels brought back by secret soviet cosmonauts from the moon.

but the other liars and muck rakers are acceptable somewhat when it comes to story validity...lol

Not sure your point since the US governments admitted that the ones responsbile were terrorists and NOT "protesters".
:confused:

[Drake]

We lost our HUMINT capabilities on the ground during the whole revolution. We were partially blind during this timeframe, so of course we'll have problems knowing exactly what happened.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We lost our HUMINT capabilities on the ground during the whole revolution. We were partially blind during this timeframe, so of course we'll have problems knowing exactly what happened.

Well, there is that possibility, which would equal them NOT making a call until they had the correct info.
Or the possibility that they were trying to cover up the fact that they armed al-quaida terrorists to help depose the Syrian dictator.

[Drake]

Well, there is that possibility, which would equal them NOT making a call until they had the correct info.
Or the possibility that they were trying to cover up the fact that they armed al-quaida terrorists to help depose the Syrian dictator.

It's not an exact science. I can almost guarantee AQ got some of our weapons meant for other things.

Would you give rebels 10,000 guns if it meant the chance that AQ might get a ahndful of them? It's a weighted decision.

If everything were easy to figure out, people wouldn't be anguishing over their decisions in my line of work.

[Syn7]

We lost our HUMINT capabilities on the ground during the whole revolution. We were partially blind during this timeframe, so of course we'll have problems knowing exactly what happened.

You lost them all? Or just enough to really obscure the view? You say partially blind. Does that mean you still had assets inside? Or do you mean you were on the outside looking in? Can you even talk about that?



It's not an exact science. I can almost guarantee AQ got some of our weapons meant for other things.

Would you give rebels 10,000 guns if it meant the chance that AQ might get a ahndful of them? It's a weighted decision.

If everything were easy to figure out, people wouldn't be anguishing over their decisions in my line of work.

I always get annoyed when people deny that. Such an obvious truth. Anytime you hand over weapons to a rag tag group you can never guarantee where those weapons will end up. I still think it was the right decision. That clown had to go. He lived 25 years longer than he should have. I think it showed amazing restraint on the part of the US.

[Drake]

You lost them all? Or just enough to really obscure the view? You say partially blind. Does that mean you still had assets inside? Or do you mean you were on the outside looking in? Can you even talk about that?




I always get annoyed when people deny that. Such an obvious truth. Anytime you hand over weapons to a rag tag group you can never guarantee where those weapons will end up. I still think it was the right decision. That clown had to go. He lived 25 years longer than he should have. I think it showed amazing restraint on the part of the US.

You've lost a complete area of intel. There are several INTs you can draw from, but in COIN, HUMINT is king.

[sanjuro_ronin]

It's not an exact science. I can almost guarantee AQ got some of our weapons meant for other things.

Would you give rebels 10,000 guns if it meant the chance that AQ might get a ahndful of them? It's a weighted decision.

If everything were easy to figure out, people wouldn't be anguishing over their decisions in my line of work.

Sorry dude, you KNOW your government as well, I assume even better, than I do BUT my time in exchange with them makes me think they care very little about "long term" issues and tend to be far too short sighted for their own good.
They tend to be the "ends justifies the means" oriented and how many times has that come back to shoot them in the foot?
"Fact" is that the chances of weapons going to militant Islamics handing up in terrorist hands was and is very high.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You've lost a complete area of intel. There are several INTs you can draw from, but in COIN, HUMINT is king.

The issue is that they tend to NOT trust human intel, and at times for good reasons, and they put more "faith" in other intel methods.
That in of itself is not a bad thing, BUT the guys making the call are too short sighted to see what they are doing has bad ramifications for the US in the long run, as it keeps being demonstrated over and over.

[Drake]

The issue is that they tend to NOT trust human intel, and at times for good reasons, and they put more "faith" in other intel methods.
That in of itself is not a bad thing, BUT the guys making the call are too short sighted to see what they are doing has bad ramifications for the US in the long run, as it keeps being demonstrated over and over.

That may have been true ten years ago. Things have changed quite a bit.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That may have been true ten years ago. Things have changed quite a bit.

Maybe not enough.
Arming militant islamics so they rebel against dictators smells of short sighted policy again.
As it proving to be the case.

[Drake]

Maybe not enough.
Arming militant islamics so they rebel against dictators smells of short sighted policy again.
As it proving to be the case.

I'm talking about HUMINT.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'm talking about HUMINT.

Sorry, misunderstood.
Yes, it seems that they are relying more on human intel, my concern is still on WHO's intel they prefer to rely on.