Understanding the Enemy

[bewitched]

"TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a "declaration of surrender" by Washington in its row with Tehran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also dismissed in an interview with state television the prospect of new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt sensitive atomic work.

"It is too far-fetched," he said when asked whether he expected the U.N. Security Council to impose fresh sanctions on Iran following two such resolutions since last December.

Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West, told a rally earlier this month that the December 3 publication of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate was a "victory" for Iran."

it's important to note the stance Iran is taking. it's aggressive and wartone.

[Popeye]

it's important to note the stance Iran is taking. it's aggressive and wartone.

As opposed to the US tone towards Iran of peace and diplomacy?

[bewitched]

As opposed to the US tone towards Iran of peace and diplomacy?

who instigated the recent ME peace talks?
invited Amadmaninjohad to speak at a university?
who has approached the UN to seek info on Irans nuke program?
the US does seek diplomacy, often.
unfortunately there are those that don't appreciate the US.

[Popeye]

who instigated the recent ME peace talks?
invited Amadmaninjohad to speak at a university?
who has approached the UN to seek info on Irans nuke program?
the US does seek diplomacy, often.
unfortunately there are those that don't appreciate the US.

Columbia invited Ahmadinejad to speak over complaints by the right wing.

You cannot deny, that until the recent NIE report, the Bush administration was beating the war drums. Fortunately, the report's conclusions caused the head war monger and his fellow PNAC henchmen, to lose significant credibility.

Like to name who does not "appreciate the US"?

[bewitched]

Columbia invited Ahmadinejad to speak over complaints by the right wing.

You cannot deny, that until the recent NIE report, the Bush administration was beating the war drums. Fortunately, the report's conclusions caused the head war monger and his fellow PNAC henchmen, to lose significant credibility.

Like to name who does not "appreciate the US"?
oh, I forgot, you are a Bush hater.
carrion.

[numinus]

"TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a "declaration of surrender" by Washington in its row with Tehran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also dismissed in an interview with state television the prospect of new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt sensitive atomic work.

"It is too far-fetched," he said when asked whether he expected the U.N. Security Council to impose fresh sanctions on Iran following two such resolutions since last December.

Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West, told a rally earlier this month that the December 3 publication of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate was a "victory" for Iran."

it's important to note the stance Iran is taking. it's aggressive and wartone.

It is saber-rattling designed to force concession for their country - same with north korea. For somebody who suggests 'understanding the mindset of your enemy', you certainly forgot to take your own advice.

[bewitched]

It is saber-rattling designed to force concession for their country - same with north korea. For somebody who suggests 'understanding the mindset of your enemy', you certainly forgot to take your own advice.

then explain the 10000 incidents of terrorism since 911.

[numinus]

then explain the 10000 incidents of terrorism since 911.

What is there to explain? Is it not enough that they are incapable of direct confrontation? Do you not see the ocean of difference between rhetoric and action?

[bewitched]

What is there to explain? Is it not enough that they are incapable of direct confrontation? Do you not see the ocean of difference between rhetoric and action?

yes, I see lots of terrorist action and it is increasing.
that is direct confrontation that happens daily.
do you not see Islamic terrorist activity daily?

[numinus]

yes, I see lots of terrorist action and it is increasing.
that is direct confrontation that happens daily.
do you not see Islamic terrorist activity daily?

That is NOT direct confrontation. If you will notice, there is a nebulous connection between the activities of terrorists with the government that supports them.

More than 2,000 years ago, a chinese military strategist formalized the art of war. 'Siezing the enemy without fighting' and 'all warfare is based on deception' are concepts applied in terrorist activities. In this sense, they are 'by the book'.

[bewitched]

That is NOT direct confrontation. If you will notice, there is a nebulous connection between the activities of terrorists with the government that supports them.

More than 2,000 years ago, a chinese military strategist formalized the art of war. 'Siezing the enemy without fighting' and 'all warfare is based on deception' are concepts applied in terrorist activities. In this sense, they are 'by the book'.

are you saying that terrorist acts are not direct confrontation?

[PLC1]

"TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a "declaration of surrender" by Washington in its row with Tehran.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also dismissed in an interview with state television the prospect of new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt sensitive atomic work.

"It is too far-fetched," he said when asked whether he expected the U.N. Security Council to impose fresh sanctions on Iran following two such resolutions since last December.

Ahmadinejad, who often rails against the West, told a rally earlier this month that the December 3 publication of the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate was a "victory" for Iran."

it's important to note the stance Iran is taking. it's aggressive and wartone.

Iran stopped its nuclear program, which is what the US wanted I believe, and that was a victory for Iran?

Ahmadinajad has some strange way of thinking, but I guess we knew that from the beginning.

[bewitched]

Iran stopped its nuclear program, which is what the US wanted I believe, and that was a victory for Iran?

Ahmadinajad has some strange way of thinking, but I guess we knew that from the beginning.

Iran didn't stop it's nuclear program, they just announced they are building another nuclear plant.
it's not strange thinking. it's Islamic domination theology. right out of the Quran. there is no pluralism and non-muslims should convert or be eliminated. Iran is taking those steps.
if you want to lay down and believe taqqiya and kitman... go ahead.

[numinus]

are you saying that terrorist acts are not direct confrontation?

Correct.

If it were a direct confrontation, then you would know precisely who your enemies are and where they are at, wouldn't you? Part of the reason their acts are terrifying is because you don't know jack sh*t about your enemy.

You're particularly slow today, it seems.

[bewitched]

Correct.

If it were a direct confrontation, then you would know precisely who your enemies are and where they are at, wouldn't you? Part of the reason their acts are terrifying is because you don't know jack sh*t about your enemy.

You're particularly slow today, it seems.
ok since you are such an expert on terrorism and the enemy then you can deal with terrorism when it happens.
personally I don't find much terrifying.
good luck!!!

[numinus]

ok since you are such an expert on terrorism and the enemy then you can deal with terrorism when it happens.
personally I don't find much terrifying.
good luck!!!

I deal with this sort of people all the time. I go to places one could only aptly describe as 'toilets of the world'. That is part and parcel of the job description. And as one can expect, these scum thrive in such environments.

[bewitched]

I deal with this sort of people all the time. I go to places one could only aptly describe as 'toilets of the world'. That is part and parcel of the job description. And as one can expect, these scum thrive in such environments.

scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.

[PLC1]

scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.

Where did that piece of misinformation come from?

Guys who go around blowing themselves up to kill the infidel generally have not much education.

[bewitched]

Where did that piece of misinformation come from?

Guys who go around blowing themselves up to kill the infidel generally have not much education.

untrue.
they have lots of education, starting in madrassas where they learn to hate the West.
Ossama, Atta and many others have degrees in engineering.
these aren't a bunch of street thugs from the ghetto. these are well educated men on a mission.
know the enemy!

[bewitched]

here's a link for you:
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20041101.middleeast.sageman.understandingterrornet works.html

Most people think that terrorism comes from poverty, broken families, ignorance, immaturity, lack of family or occupational responsibilities, weak minds susceptible to brainwashing - the sociopath, the criminals, the religious fanatic, or, in this country, some believe they’re just plain evil.

Taking these perceived root causes in turn, three quarters of my sample came from the upper or middle class. The vast majority—90 percent—came from caring, intact families. Sixty-three percent had gone to college, as compared with the 5-6 percent that’s usual for the third world. These are the best and brightest of their societies in many ways.

Al Qaeda’s members are not the Palestinian fourteen-year- olds we see on the news, but join the jihad at the average age of 26. Three-quarters were professionals or semi- professionals. They are engineers, architects, and civil engineers, mostly scientists. Very few humanities are represented, and quite surprisingly very few had any background in religion. The natural sciences predominate. Bin Laden himself is a civil engineer, Zawahiri is a physician, Mohammed Atta was, of course, an architect; and a few members are military, such as Mohammed Ibrahim Makawi, who is supposedly the head of the military committee.

[numinus]

scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.

Is there any other way to describe a person who realizes the right to exist in himself BUT NEVER in others, hmmm? And the educational attainment of such a person somehow diminishes the absurdity in such a belief, you say?

My job doesn't suck. How can helping build roads, bridges, dams, etc., suck, eh? The only thing that sucks is making a complete moron understand the benefits of infrastructure to himself and his community.

[bewitched]

Is there any other way to describe a person who realizes the right to exist in himself BUT NEVER in others, hmmm? And the educational attainment of such a person somehow diminishes the absurdity in such a belief, you say?
.
I don't understand your question.
but yes, muslims believe in their right to exist and that non-muslims should not exist. very simple. that doesn't make him scum, that makes him a hero and has a ticket to heaven with 72 virgins waiting for him.
he might be scum in your eyes... but you are scum in his.

you think your way of thinking is right. he thinks his way of thinking is right and you are a moron.

we could go back and forth all day until you understand the enemy's mindset.

[PLC1]

untrue.
they have lots of education, starting in madrassas where they learn to hate the West.
Ossama, Atta and many others have degrees in engineering.
these aren't a bunch of street thugs from the ghetto. these are well educated men on a mission.
know the enemy!

Wow! I had no idea. Al Qaeda operatives, at least the leaders, seem quite normal, when you read about them. What we need to ask ourselves is, why do they hate the US enough to want to dedicate their lives to destroying America?

[bewitched]

Wow! I had no idea. Al Qaeda operatives, at least the leaders, seem quite normal, when you read about them. What we need to ask ourselves is, why do they hate the US enough to want to dedicate their lives to destroying America?

and the answer to that is theology.
dar ul Islam is 57 OIC countries with the ambition to dominate the globe.
dar ul Harb is the land of war, where non-muslim pigs and dogs must convert or be killed.
those are the only 2 places in Islam.
911 was not the "big" attack, it was the "awakening." in a 7 phase plan that will have confrontation on American soil 2010+. probably dirty bombs in a dozen cities, then a follow up with suicide bombers in hospitals and shelters.

right now the enemy is infiltrating our infrastructure. water supplies, government jobs, military, public works, schools, universities, other strategic places that will make the transition and take over smooth. even the media of al Jazeera English is ready and recruiting sympathetic Americans to be broadcasters.

about the polarity of mindset:
funny about the stories in Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English about the VT deaths. Arabic said many Americans were killed, praise Allah while English reported the number of deaths. that's not the only example. the Arab media blasts the US even with childrens shows about becoming suicide bombers and killing Jews and the infidel.

[PLC1]

and the answer to that is theology.
dar ul Islam is 57 OIC countries with the ambition to dominate the globe.
dar ul Harb is the land of war, where non-muslim pigs and dogs must convert or be killed.
those are the only 2 places in Islam.
911 was not the "big" attack, it was the "awakening." in a 7 phase plan that will have confrontation on American soil 2010+. probably dirty bombs in a dozen cities, then a follow up with suicide bombers in hospitals and shelters.

right now the enemy is infiltrating our infrastructure. water supplies, government jobs, military, public works, schools, universities, other strategic places that will make the transition and take over smooth. even the media of al Jazeera English is ready and recruiting sympathetic Americans to be broadcasters.

about the polarity of mindset:
funny about the stories in Al Jazeera Arabic and Al Jazeera English about the VT deaths. Arabic said many Americans were killed, praise Allah while English reported the number of deaths. that's not the only example. the Arab media blasts the US even with childrens shows about becoming suicide bombers and killing Jews and the infidel.

Sounds scary. How do you know that what you say is true?

[bewitched]

Sounds scary. How do you know that what you say is true?

who is they?
Ossama is not hiding his agenda, the tapes he releases are very clear and he says exactly why he will attack.
my friend Laura Mansfield translates on her site, she is consulted by CNN.
I work with professionals in the field who verify the things I post.

[Jeffrey Neuzil]

Gentlemen: Have you ever considered that the "war" might not be real; it might be a way of infusing the population with fear, and a damn good excuse to graft as much taxpayer money as can be exacted, sort of like the forced quatering of soldiers in homes during the revolutionary war: consider the fact that all we know of this war is conveyed to us by television or what Plato calls in his "Republic" the "shadows on the wall": viewed in this way, the real goal of the war is to keep citizens in fear of being accused of being "terrorists" when in fact they only want to engage in a critical study of politics and an attempt to uncover the real foundations of the regime—crime and sedition! (consider some of my other posts). What really needs to occur is that we—all concerned citizens— should all ignore the collectivized–all owned by same companies, parroting the same messages, over and over—media and begin our own collective effort to understand with critical intelligence what is going on and how we can change it: Only this will give us a "fighting chance" against scandalous misuse of taxpayer money and the propagation of falsehoods, lies, propaganda, disinformation, misinformation—in a word: Tyranny!

[bewitched]

Gentlemen: Have you ever considered that the "war" might not be real; !
and ladies,
explain this list of 10000 acts of terrorism
www.thereligionofpeace.com
then I might read the rest of your post.

[bewitched]

meanwhile, let's consider this:
"MILAN, Dec 20 (Reuters) - A Muslim cleric who preaches at a Milan mosque and 10 other people were convicted on Thursday of being part of a group that promotes jihad.
The Milan court sentenced Abu Imad to three years and eight months in prison under anti-terrorism statutes drafted before Sept. 11 that are weaker than those currently in place.
The group was accused of promoting jihad and recruiting potential suicide bombers."

this terrorism thing isn't limited to the US.
the hate is being preached all over the globe.
the violence is taking place all over the globe.

[numinus]

I don't understand your question.
but yes, muslims believe in their right to exist and that non-muslims should not exist. very simple. that doesn't make him scum, that makes him a hero and has a ticket to heaven with 72 virgins waiting for him.
he might be scum in your eyes... but you are scum in his.

you think your way of thinking is right. he thinks his way of thinking is right and you are a moron.

we could go back and forth all day until you understand the enemy's mindset.

No. Not all muslims believe such a thing.

A person who believes his right to exist precedes that of another person, REGARDLESS of religion he professes, is scum indeed.

[bewitched]

No. Not all muslims believe such a thing.

A person who believes his right to exist precedes that of another person, REGARDLESS of religion he professes, is scum indeed.

this is the theology. not individual behavior.
many people can't get past this concept.

and the theology of Islam is that any non-muslims are inferior.
if they are taught that from birth then do you think they will think any other way? there are cartoons on Lebanese tv that teach kids this.
so while everyone has different thought patterns there is still a collective element that superiority.
there is no pluralism in Islam, there is only one path, and it is to Allah. that includes Quranic Sharia law.

[9sublime]

OK then bewitched, I'll go along with this just for the sake of it.

So thats what the theology says. But if lots of Muslims aren't following it, why does it matter so much????

[Popeye]

this is the theology. not individual behavior.
many people can't get past this concept.

and the theology of Islam is that any non-muslims are inferior.
if they are taught that from birth then do you think they will think any other way? there are cartoons on Lebanese tv that teach kids this.
so while everyone has different thought patterns there is still a collective element that superiority.
there is no pluralism in Islam, there is only one path, and it is to Allah. that includes Quranic Sharia law.

I keep asking you bewitched, don't fundamentalists Christians think the same way?
They are indoctrinated from birth that their brand of Christianity is the only true belief and everybody else is going to hell. Their leaders exude a totally unwarranted aura of superiority. Most consider them nuts, but in the past they have been dangerous, the Crusades, Salem witch trials, etc.

[heyjude]

I keep asking you bewitched, don't fundamentalists Christians think the same way?
They are indoctrinated from birth that their brand of Christianity is the only true belief and everybody else is going to hell. Their leaders exude a totally unwarranted aura of superiority. Most consider them nuts, but in the past they have been dangerous, the Crusades, Salem witch trials, etc.

I agree with you. Fundies are the enemy of all the people in all the world. No matter what religion they profess. The Christian fundies are just as anti-American as any Muslim in this country. They may fight amongst themselves about who gets to own us, but they all want to own us.

[numinus]

this is the theology. not individual behavior.
many people can't get past this concept.

and the theology of Islam is that any non-muslims are inferior.
if they are taught that from birth then do you think they will think any other way? there are cartoons on Lebanese tv that teach kids this.
so while everyone has different thought patterns there is still a collective element that superiority.
there is no pluralism in Islam, there is only one path, and it is to Allah. that includes Quranic Sharia law.

I'm sorry but it just doesn't work that way.

The establishment of any nation (and that includes the western democracies) was precipitated precisely by a sense of nationalism felt by a particular people, no? And in asserting a people's distinct national identity, is it not reasonable to think in terms of superior traits common to all? And by extension, religions, as political associations, go through the same process as well.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with people living according to their distinct national (or religious) identity, as is their right. In fact, it is necessary when a nation take the next step and occupy their place within the community of nations. However, under no circumstance does this give leave to deny others these same rights.

As I said, there are many muslims and many muslim nations - the majority of which wish to CO-EXIST with others. I do not give stock to the pronouncements of an irritatingly vocal minority hiding in some hole in some desert who wish to misrepresent their absurd agenda as the religion of islam in its entirety.

Your argument is simply wrong.

[Castle]

I keep asking you bewitched, don't fundamentalists Christians think the same way?
They are indoctrinated from birth that their brand of Christianity is the only true belief and everybody else is going to hell. Their leaders exude a totally unwarranted aura of superiority. Most consider them nuts, but in the past they have been dangerous, the Crusades, Salem witch trials, etc.Interesting concept. So it would appear you are promoting the idea that Islamic extremists are due some sort of pass in the present because the sins of Christianity in the past preclude any judgment on their actions now. This is a good angle, however when looking at current extremist elements side-by-side you've got a lot of work to do if you have any hope of convincing me that I have more to fear from Christianity than Islam.

[Jeffrey Neuzil]

What we have to fear most of all, as I have argued, is that our media is so narrow in its focus, so biased in its perspective, so limited in the critical powers that it promotes in us U.S. citizens, by its monopolistic shaping of our perspective, that the stories emanating from it are not, of necessity, reliable or credible, if they are not outright falsehoods, disinformation, or misinformation:meanwhile, we believe in them and, to exaggerate only slightly, yield to vote after "affirmative vote"—democrans and republicrats equally guilty of this—of greater funding for a war that may well be a sham; more the image projected on the wall—our televisions—than a reality: where does all the money go?—in the bloated coffers of our elitist politicians to fund more and more of their elitist ventures, which come down to oil parties with the rest of the world's wealthy elite, who have little more than contempt for our gullibility and lack of ability to see that both parties have cheated us out of a politics which truly is dedicated to the relative common good: Look around you and ask yourself has allof the tax monies we have given over the last fifty years provided us with a decent return a better society, better education, better standards of living, more opportunities, or are things declining rapidly, possibly signaling a revolution to come? Wake up America and demand accountability for that which really matters—liberty and abetter life for our descendents!

[Jeffrey Neuzil]

What we have to fear most of all, as I have argued, is that our media is so narrow in its focus, so biased in its perspective, so limited in the critical powers that it promotes in us U.S. citizens, by its monopolistic shaping of our perspective, that the stories emanating from it are not, of necessity, reliable or credible, if they are not outright falsehoods, disinformation, or misinformation:meanwhile, we believe in them and, to exaggerate only slightly, yield to vote after "affirmative vote"—democrans and republicrats equally guilty of this—of greater funding for a war that may well be a sham; more the image projected on the wall—our televisions—than a reality: where does all the money go?—in the bloated coffers of our elitist politicians to fund more and more of their elitist ventures, which come down to oil parties with the rest of the world's wealthy elite, who have little more than contempt for our gullibility and lack of ability to see that both parties have cheated us out of a politics which truly is dedicated to the relative common good: Look around you and ask yourself has allof the tax monies we have given over the last fifty years provided us with a decent return a better society, better education, better standards of living, more opportunities, or are things declining rapidly, possibly signaling a revolution to come? Wake up America and demand accountability for that which really matters—liberty and abetter life for our descendents!

[bewitched]

In fact, it is necessary when a nation take the next step and occupy their place within the community of nations. However, under no circumstance does this give leave to deny others these same rights.

As I said, there are many muslims and many muslim nations - the majority of which wish to CO-EXIST with others.
.
others are denied rights by law. just by the fact that it is illegal to convert to Christianity in many of the 57 OIC countries. illegal, penalty of death.
another fact of law id jizya, which is a tax paid by non-muslims. so these rights that you seem to think exist... do not.

again, try to seperate your statements from individual muslims and their "wishes" and reality.

[bewitched]

Interesting concept. So it would appear you are promoting the idea that Islamic extremists are due some sort of pass in the present because the sins of Christianity in the past preclude any judgment on their actions now. This is a good angle, however when looking at current extremist elements side-by-side you've got a lot of work to do if you have any hope of convincing me that I have more to fear from Christianity than Islam.

take a look at the list of Islamic terrorist acts post-911 and stand it side-by-side to Christian acts of terrorism.
www.thereligionofpeace.com

this is a common mistake many Americans make, believing that comparing Christianity and Islam makes any difference in explaining todays daily acts of terrorism and hate towards America and the West.

[bewitched]

I agree with you. Fundies are the enemy of all the people in all the world. No matter what religion they profess. The Christian fundies are just as anti-American as any Muslim in this country. They may fight amongst themselves about who gets to own us, but they all want to own us.

Christian "fundies" haven't created an organized group of more than a million soldiers with the specific purpose to kill non-muslims.
Christian "fundies" don't have childrens television shows encouraging children to become suicide bombers.
Christian "fundies" are not killing daily in the name of their religion.

Iran has signed up over 500,000 people who have volunteered to become suicide bombers. there are thousands in the AQ organization. there are millions who demonstrate and cause destruction to small events such as cartoons of Mohammed and a teddy bear named Mohammed.
Lebanese tv has children shows depicting symbols of the west and a mother teaching her daughter to follow in her footsteps and strap on a vest.
everyday there are innocents beheaded and killed because they are not muslims or they have accepted non-muslims.
1/3 of the fighters in Iraq come from Saudi. this effort against the West has no borders in dar ul Islam. and it will not be ending soon.

[bewitched]

topic, understanding the enemy.
it's important to note that (1.) civilians by day, fighters by night is common Islam, they don't wear military uniforms (2.) this isn't a small group of crazies against us (3.) the enemy shares the basic brotherhood of Islamic theology, kill non-muslims.

"Woman caught with bomb under burqa: official," from AFP

ASADABAD, Afghanistan - Afghan intelligence agents said Monday they had detained a woman hiding a bomb-filled waistcoat of the type used in Taleban suicide attacks under her all-covering burqa.
The 55-year-old woman was followed from the eastern province of Kunar after a tip-off and arrested in the town of Jalalabad, an official in Kunar’s intelligence department told AFP.

“She was carrying the suicide waistcoat for the Taleban. We had intelligence reports that she was working for the Taleban,” said the official, who asked not to be identified by name.

The woman was being questioned “to find out more about her network,” he said.

Most Afghan women still wear the burqa, which was mandatory under the 1996-2001 Taleban government, and cannot be searched by men at security checkposts.

[Popeye]

topic, understanding the enemy.
it's important to note that (1.) civilians by day, fighters by night is common Islam, they don't wear military uniforms (2.) this isn't a small group of crazies against us (3.) the enemy shares the basic brotherhood of Islamic theology, kill non-muslims.

"Woman caught with bomb under burqa: official," from AFP

ASADABAD, Afghanistan - Afghan intelligence agents said Monday they had detained a woman hiding a bomb-filled waistcoat of the type used in Taleban suicide attacks under her all-covering burqa.
The 55-year-old woman was followed from the eastern province of Kunar after a tip-off and arrested in the town of Jalalabad, an official in Kunar’s intelligence department told AFP.

“She was carrying the suicide waistcoat for the Taleban. We had intelligence reports that she was working for the Taleban,” said the official, who asked not to be identified by name.

The woman was being questioned “to find out more about her network,” he said.

Most Afghan women still wear the burqa, which was mandatory under the 1996-2001 Taleban government, and cannot be searched by men at security checkposts.

According to you, the entire Islamic religion is composed of religious soldiers out to get us. There are approximately 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. Therefore, it only follows that if all of them were troublemakers (suicide bombers etc.), they would be causing a heck of a lot more havoc than they already have.

There is Islam and there is radical Islam, don't tar them all with the same brush.

[bewitched]

According to you, the entire Islamic religion is composed of religious soldiers out to get us. There are approximately 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. Therefore, it only follows that if all of them were troublemakers (suicide bombers etc.), they would be causing a heck of a lot more havoc than they already have.

There is Islam and there is radical Islam, don't tar them all with the same brush.

no. I never said the entire Islamic religion is out to get us. those are your words.

there is no way to distinguish between radical, moderate or regular muslims.
therefore unless the moderate, un-radical, regular muslims start standing up and identifying themselves... (which they aren't) there is no way for the West to protect ourselves.

in order to understand the enemy it's important to remove your emotions from the subject.
can you explain over 10000 Islamic terrorist incidents since 911? it's not a small minority of thugs. these are organized educated people with a plan, and it includes attacks against the West and non-muslims. as long as we deny, apologize, make excuses we won't know the enemy.

[vyo476]

Christian "fundies" haven't created an organized group of more than a million soldiers with the specific purpose to kill non-muslims.
Christian "fundies" don't have childrens television shows encouraging children to become suicide bombers.
Christian "fundies" are not killing daily in the name of their religion.

Once upon a time Christians did all these things, in modified forms (ie, popular entertainment forms have changed a lot over the course of a few thousand years, obviously Christianity didn't have television or bombs eight hundred years ago). And, what, we're supposed to believe that they were all mistaken, and present-day Christians have miraculously discovered the one "true" Christianity? No, they've just evolved. That doesn't mean that what the religion is today is any more "true" to the nature of Christianity than what it was eight hundred years ago.

And we're supposed to believe that the same standards cannot be applied to Islam as well? Yes, they're part of a very different aesthetic, but things, people, culture, technology, all change. The violence that once dominated much of Christianity is gone because Christianity has changed. Islam is undergoing and will continue to undergo such changes as well.

Go pick up Reza Aslan's No god but God. It'll help you see what I mean.

Iran has signed up over 500,000 people who have volunteered to become suicide bombers.

Provide evidence.

there are thousands in the AQ organization.

Provide evidence.

there are millions who demonstrate and cause destruction to small events such as cartoons of Mohammed and a teddy bear named Mohammed.

Provide evidence.

Lebanese tv has children shows depicting symbols of the west and a mother teaching her daughter to follow in her footsteps and strap on a vest.

Provide evidence.

everyday there are innocents beheaded and killed because they are not muslims or they have accepted non-muslims.

Provide evidence.

1/3 of the fighters in Iraq come from Saudi.

Provide evidence.

this effort against the West has no borders in dar ul Islam. and it will not be ending soon.

If you want to make factual statements like this you have to be prepared to back them up with evidence, ie links to sites that corroborate your facts. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong in these statements; just that I'd like to see your sources.

[vyo476]

(1.) civilians by day, fighters by night is common Islam, they don't wear military uniforms

This is a common guerilla tactic. Please point out where in the Qu'ran it states that Muslims should be guerilla fighters.

(2.) this isn't a small group of crazies against us

No, there are plenty of them. But when compared with the total number of Muslims in the world, the number of them that are terrorists is small - by comparison. This is a concept which you seem incapable of grasping.

(3.) the enemy shares the basic brotherhood of Islamic theology, kill non-muslims.

The enemy shares an interpretation of Islamic theology.

[heyjude]

The Christians of today are way too sophisticated to go on tv and encourage Christians to kill Muslims for Jesus. The all too Christian military is doing so anyway. And the Muslims in the ME know exactly who is killing them. They do not see soldiers from the US. They see Christians from the US. So do I. I don't believe we would be in Iraq and Afghanistan if Bush were not a born again Christian. They can justify anything in Jesus' name.

[Castle]

take a look at the list of Islamic terrorist acts post-911 and stand it side-by-side to Christian acts of terrorism.
www.thereligionofpeace.com

this is a common mistake many Americans make, believing that comparing Christianity and Islam makes any difference in explaining todays daily acts of terrorism and hate towards America and the West. Indeed my point exactly. It is astonishing that this is so often purposefully overlooked in favor of a lopsided viciousness toward all things Christian. Of course, I'm sure that most of us do understand the political force that drives this.

[Castle]

As I have now read down through heyjude's and vyo476's last comments... my previous points are made crystal clear. It's just so easy to justify the Islamic blood lust against the west by the mere accusation that Christianity drives the war against Islamic terrorism or that Islam just needs to be allowed to "evolve". I personally enjoyed the latter attempt at justification. LMAO!

[vyo476]

As I have now read down through heyjude's and vyo476's last comments... my previous points are made crystal clear.

Maybe you read what I wrote, but I doubt you understood it.

It's just so easy to justify the Islamic blood lust against the west by the mere accusation that Christianity drives the war against Islamic terrorism or that Islam just needs to be allowed to "evolve". I personally enjoyed the latter attempt at justification. LMAO!

Christianity was allowed to evolve. You seem to think Christianity isn't so bad these days. I agree. Do you deny that it once was? Because if you do you might want to read up on the Spanish Inquisition, the Age of Religious Warfare, and the Crusades.

The fact of the matter is that at one point in history Christianity was just as jingoistic as any Islamic terrorist is today. Christianity, along with the rest of Western culture, changed. Islam does not deserve this same opportunity? Must we label it as "evil" because here and now people do evil things in its name?

They deserve the same choices we've had. They'll always deserve the same choices we've had, until they cross a certain line. 9/11 was such a line. Bin Laden crossed it, and we went after him. In my mind that was perfectly justifiable. Our continued interference in Middle Eastern nations, especially Iraq, where polls have shown for the last four years that Iraqis don't particularly like having us there. (Here's a link to what I'm talking about. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm))

[bewitched]

vyo... you could have easily found these proofs.
Keyword: Farfur, the Mickey Mouse of Lebanese TV
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/187685.aspx
there are clips on youtube that you can watch yourself.
Like this one where the daughter wants to be a suicide bomber like mom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqHUdwePfbM

Iran signs up suicide bombers
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4272

1/3 Saudis in Iraq
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/22/africa/22fighters.php

400 call for beheading of British teacher over Mohammed teddy bear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case
plus
mohammed cartoon madness
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/muhammad_cartoons_timeline.htm

but like many who choose to bury their head in the sand and make excuses and apologize for the muslims, this is quite typical.
there is a real risk with Islam right now that is a danger to every single person in the West. if you don't want to realize that and see the warning signs then that's your choice.

[bewitched]

They deserve the same choices we've had. They'll always deserve the same choices we've had, until they cross a certain line. 9/11 was such a line. Bin Laden crossed it, and we went after him. In my mind that was perfectly justifiable. Our continued interference in Middle Eastern nations, especially Iraq, where polls have shown for the last four years that Iraqis don't particularly like having us there. (Here's a link to what I'm talking about. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm))
who is "they"?
muslims deserve the same evolution as Christians? so some how they stopped in time and haven't evolved since the 1st century like everyone else? so we should all go back to the dark ages so Islam can catch up with the rest of the world? yeah, that's logical.

you aren't understanding that the borders in Islam are not recognized as the same borders we see as Westerners. there is no seperate countries in Islam, it is a whole. it's typical for most westerners to see independent countries when Islam itself does not see themselves as that.
the OIC is 57 Islamic countries in the Middle East, Africa, and southeast Asia. one brotherhood, one Islam. dar ul Islam.
everything else is dar ul Harb. if the west can understand this then we are safer from terrorism.

[Castle]

Maybe you read what I wrote, but I doubt you understood it.

Christianity was allowed to evolve. You seem to think Christianity isn't so bad these days. I agree. Do you deny that it once was? Because if you do you might want to read up on the Spanish Inquisition, the Age of Religious Warfare, and the Crusades.

The fact of the matter is that at one point in history Christianity was just as jingoistic as any Islamic terrorist is today. Christianity, along with the rest of Western culture, changed. Islam does not deserve this same opportunity? Must we label it as "evil" because here and now people do evil things in its name?

They deserve the same choices we've had. They'll always deserve the same choices we've had, until they cross a certain line. 9/11 was such a line. Bin Laden crossed it, and we went after him. In my mind that was perfectly justifiable. Our continued interference in Middle Eastern nations, especially Iraq, where polls have shown for the last four years that Iraqis don't particularly like having us there. (Here's a link to what I'm talking about. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm))

My apologies then. I mistakenly assumed that you stated in part that Christianity was allowed to evolve and Islam will evolve as well. Please correct my assumption.

While we are on the subject....exactly who allowed Christianity to evolve other than Christians and what choices did we (Christians) have that present day Islamic extremists deserve and do not presently have?

I agree that we are too involved in the Middle East at this point. It has cost us far too much money and far too many lives. I wish we could leave the Middle East to it's own path and allow it to make it's own choices. However, this is where, I am quite sure, we part company. They would also be held responsible for their actions and I don't mean years of UN finger pointing and pointless condemnation followed by halfhearted sanctions and eventually nation building.

[Coyote]

While we are on the subject....exactly who allowed Christianity to evolve other than Christians and what choices did we (Christians) have that present day Islamic extremists deserve and do not presently have?


What allowed Christianity to evolve was, in a large part - a growing recognition of the incredible damage continuous religious warfare had done to Europe through the ages, the advent of science and secularism over religion in the west and the deliberate distancing of religion from government and of the place religion held in the political sphere during the Enlightenment. It had less to do with the Christians themselves and more to do with a long, gradual trend towards secularism, the advent of representational government, prosperity, science and industrialization.

Islam has not yet had this large scale reform. Many of the countries in which Islam dominates are still caught in a pre-industrial mindset and medievil culture. Islam is currenty caught in a cultural battle with the West and with secularism. Many of those countries have made a jump from a tribal infrastructure to prosperous, oil rich nations (Saudi Arabia for example) in literally 3 generations. That is not long enough to change ingrained ways of thought and life.

[bewitched]

Islam has not yet had this large scale reform. Many of the countries in which Islam dominates are still caught in a pre-industrial mindset and medievil culture. Islam is currenty caught in a cultural battle with the West and with secularism. Many of those countries have made a jump from a tribal infrastructure to prosperous, oil rich nations (Saudi Arabia for example) in literally 3 generations. That is not long enough to change ingrained ways of thought and life.
that's still not an excuse to fly planes into the WTC.
and hate the West.
and behead Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg.

but hey, we'll just wait until they evolve and watch death and destruction because it's... only fair... because the Christians were so evil.

[vyo476]

My apologies then. I mistakenly assumed that you stated in part that Christianity was allowed to evolve and Islam will evolve as well. Please correct my assumption.

Actually, Islam is in the process of changing, but, like the Christian reformations that took Christianity from where it was in the Dark Ages to where it is today, this changing takes time.

While we are on the subject....exactly who allowed Christianity to evolve other than Christians and what choices did we (Christians) have that present day Islamic extremists deserve and do not presently have?

No one allowed Christianity to evolve per se because no one was in a position to truly stifle that evolution the way we are in regard to the Middle East. In other words, Christianity "evolved" from the inside - the way Islam has been doing and will continue to do if we don't quit sticking our noses in their business.

As for what choices they ALL should have (not just the extremists), self-determination is the first and most important that comes to mind.

I agree that we are too involved in the Middle East at this point. It has cost us far too much money and far too many lives. I wish we could leave the Middle East to it's own path and allow it to make it's own choices.

We agree on this.

However, this is where, I am quite sure, we part company. They would also be held responsible for their actions and I don't mean years of UN finger pointing and pointless condemnation followed by halfhearted sanctions and eventually nation building.

I guess I don't see why we part company there. I'm all for holding terrorists accountable for their actions. If the only way to get at the ones responsible is to invade, then yes, I'll get behind it (in my mind our invasion of Afghanistan was justified).

[vyo476]

that's still not an excuse to fly planes into the WTC.
and hate the West.
and behead Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg.

Someone put on his silly hat today.

That's not what Coyote is saying and that's not what I'm saying. We're not justifying terrorism. Neither of us believes they're justified in what they do; we just believe they have different reasons for doing it.

None of what we post is to excuse terrorism. Only to help explain it and the situation that has created it.

but hey, we'll just wait until they evolve and watch death and destruction because it's... only fair... because the Christians were so evil.

Once again with the silly hat. It is perfectly acceptable for us to retaliate against actual attacks and prepare to defend ourselves/ actually defend ourselves against future ones. We're not saying it isn't acceptable (heyjude might be, but we don't agree in that instance). We're only trying to get people see the situation for what it is.

PS, Sorry for speaking for you Coyote, if I made an incorrect assumption about your stance go ahead and let me know.

[bewitched]

Christianity "evolved" from the inside - the way Islam has been doing and will continue to do if we don't quit sticking our noses in their business.
.
Islam chose to evolve just the way it has evolved. seem to me that you think they will evolve to be just like the West. that would be against Islamic theology and not how they want to evolve. nor do they consider themselves un-evolved. they do however consider us un-evolved and pigs and dogs since we haven't taken the right path.

you seem to be assuming that Islam was some sort of lost civilization that was corrupted by the US and EU... that is just not the case.

[bewitched]

Someone put on his silly hat today.

That's not what Coyote is saying and that's not what I'm saying. We're not justifying terrorism. Neither of us believes they're justified in what they do; we just believe they have different reasons for doing it.

None of what we post is to excuse terrorism. Only to help explain it and the situation that has created it.


.
I'm a she. and not wearing a silly hat.
the reason for terrorism is because of Islamic theology, anything else is an excuse an apology.
no one can make someone kill someone else. unless you live in... silly world.

[vyo476]

Islam chose to evolve just the way it has evolved. seem to me that you think they will evolve to be just like the West. that would be against Islamic theology and not how they want to evolve. nor do they consider themselves un-evolved. they do however consider us un-evolved and pigs and dogs since we haven't taken the right path.

So now, you're not just an "expert" on Islam, you're an expert on the mentality of all Muslims! Wonders never cease!

I don't expect Islam to be "just like the West." You think in such limited terms that it's astounding that you have any concept of the future. Many societies change in many ways - look at how Japan has changed since World War II. They were once one of the most imperialistic, militaristic cultures on the planet; not so today. Yet they're hardly "just like the West" either.

You always come back to this limited view of Islamic theology that you think dominates every little thing about their society. Here's a clue - societies are a lot more complicated than you seem to think.

you seem to be assuming that Islam was some sort of lost civilization that was corrupted by the US and EU... that is just not the case.

And you seem to be assuming that they're nothing more than a dangerous cult that is totally incompatible with the modern world. Do you ever stop to ask yourself where that line of reasoning takes you?

[vyo476]

I'm a she.

Noted. Sorry for the mix-up.

and not wearing a silly hat.

The hat of silliness is strong with this one.

the reason for terrorism is because of Islamic theology, anything else is an excuse an apology.

Let's try some pictionary.

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/04/tunnel.jpg

+

http://www.daveltd.com/photo/macro/two-eyes.jpg

Get it?

[bewitched]

Bhutto killed.
understand that?
she was pro-democracy, would have been elected PM, part of Pak which is suppose to be our ally.

[Popeye]

Bhutto killed.
understand that?
she was pro-democracy, would have been elected PM, part of Pak which is suppose to be our ally.

Bhutto has always been a threat to Musharraf's hold on power. Certainly it makes you wonder about our dictator friend's role. You can be sure he's not unhappy about Bhutto's death.

[bewitched]

please visit this map
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

it will show you the expanding of Islam and the threat to the West after 2000.
the south of Africa is turning rapidly into Islamic territory as is EU, Australia and the small remainder of Southeast Asia.

[bewitched]

Bhutto has always been a threat to Musharraf's hold on power. Certainly it makes you wonder about our dictator friend's role. You can be sure he's not unhappy about Bhutto's death.

Mush controls the ISI, who protects AQ.
Kalid Shiek Mohammed was captured in an ISI safehouse.
AQ Khan, the Pak scientist who gave them nuclear weapons was loaned out to other Islamic brother neighbors so they could have the technology. further, I keep repeating that during the state of emergency that Mush handed AQ nukes. probably under an agreement of protection, either from assassination or to carry out today's act.

the US has been holding on to a very thin alliance with this country. and the future doesn't look good.

[Popeye]

Mush controls the ISI, who protects AQ.
Kalid Shiek Mohammed was captured in an ISI safehouse.
AQ Khan, the Pak scientist who gave them nuclear weapons was loaned out to other Islamic brother neighbors so they could have the technology. further, I keep repeating that during the state of emergency that Mush handed AQ nukes. probably under an agreement of protection, either from assassination or to carry out today's act.

the US has been holding on to a very thin alliance with this country. and the future doesn't look good.

Supporting a dictator generally doesn't work out. Unfortunately the US has a long track record of doing just that.

Then rather hypocritically we chastise other countries for their lack of human rights. Another reason we have lost both credibility and the moral high ground.

[vyo476]

please visit this map
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/history-of-religion.html

it will show you the expanding of Islam and the threat to the West after 2000.
the south of Africa is turning rapidly into Islamic territory as is EU, Australia and the small remainder of Southeast Asia.

It's true, Islam is growing and expanding and spreading. How is this happening?

The evils of breeding and immigration!

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3835

If you want to stop the expansion of Islam you're going to have to convince a whole mess of countries to stop letting them in (which is happening, to a certain extent, across Europe). This spread of Islam is not sinister. It is immigration. Or would you have been one of the lovely people who wanted to shoot the Irish fleeing the potato famine in the 19th Century because they were Catholics and therefore loyal first to the Pope and second to the American government? :rolleyes:

[Coyote]

that's still not an excuse to fly planes into the WTC.
and hate the West.
and behead Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg.



Apples and oranges:

the...how many?...men who flew plains into the WTC were...terrorists. Like Tim McVeigh. Not sane normal people.

Hate the west - what a broad broad territory. There are many reasons why the West is hated by many different people. Not the least of which are uneven policies, interference in other countries, a history of imperialism and colonalism in much of the third world, economic disparities and a culture clash of medievil vs. modern. Take your pick.

Behead Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg. See my first statement. Do normal sane people do that? Do most muslims engage in that or even condone it? No. Just like most Americans don't condone the CIA/Military torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan that left behind dead and messy bodies and no explanation. What kind of normal people would condone these activities?



but hey, we'll just wait until they evolve and watch death and destruction because it's... only fair... because the Christians were so evil.

We made it through Christian evolution without slaughtering all the misbegotten Christians - we'll make it through Islam. Our responsibility is to our country and people - not to Christianizing the rest of the world and attacking Islam as a whole. That is so medievil.

[Coyote]

PS, Sorry for speaking for you Coyote, if I made an incorrect assumption about your stance go ahead and let me know.

You said it perfectly:)

[Coyote]

I'm a she. and not wearing a silly hat.
the reason for terrorism is because of Islamic theology, anything else is an excuse an apology.
no one can make someone kill someone else. unless you live in... silly world.


Terrorism is a tactic. An unfortunately very successful tactic used by the weaker against the stronger or more conventional forces. It has been arund far longer then Islamic extremism and it will be around long after Islam is civiilized because it works.

Your statement falls flat as it fails to take into account the many different non-Islamic terrorist groups recognized internationally. Islamic jihadists make up maybe a third of these groups.

But of course...we're all just apologists right?

[vyo476]

Bhutto killed.
understand that?
she was pro-democracy, would have been elected PM, part of Pak which is suppose to be our ally.

I understand that. I wonder if you understand what you've just done here. Bare with me for a moment.

She was pro-democracy. Check. You believe she was going to be elected PM. Check. Pakistan is overwhelmingly Islamic; 97% of the population are Muslims, according to the CIA World Factbook. Check.

So she was on her way to winning a majority election in a majorly Islamic country. In other words, she had the support of the majority of Muslims - and she was pro-democracy.

She was most likely killed by radicals (as evidenced by the enormous number of threats she's recieved from them - see article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bhutto_whodunit)) but she had the support of a majority of the mainstream Muslims. How does this equal "Islam is evil"?

[bewitched]

according to CIA insiders (Bob Baer... and others) this will change the (illegal) borders of Pakistan. read between the lines here.

look at
www.centerforstrategicanalysis.org
first entry about Pak and nukes.
the map of how Pak borders will change. posted early Nov. connect the dots.
Bob Baer confirmed today on FOX.

the SF tiger, the SUV explosives... there is a clear picture...

[9sublime]

That is possibly the worst dodge of all time.

[bewitched]

I understand that. I wonder if you understand what you've just done here. Bare with me for a moment.

She was pro-democracy. Check. You believe she was going to be elected PM. Check. Pakistan is overwhelmingly Islamic; 97% of the population are Muslims, according to the CIA World Factbook. Check.

So she was on her way to winning a majority election in a majorly Islamic country. In other words, she had the support of the majority of Muslims - and she was pro-democracy.

She was most likely killed by radicals (as evidenced by the enormous number of threats she's recieved from them - see article here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bhutto_whodunit)) but she had the support of a majority of the mainstream Muslims. How does this equal "Islam is evil"?
she's dead, so I guess she isn't pro-anything... anymore.

you keep believing that a small group of "radicals" are the ones who are responsible for enforcing anti-democracy, using terrorism, murder, and evil.

again, you are comparing individual muslims to Islamic theology. they are seperate. Islam cannot be democratic because there is no universal equality in Islam.

[bewitched]

That is possibly the worst dodge of all time.

repeating gets tiresome.


""We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen," AKI quoted Al-Yazid as saying."
this is a war. dar ul Harb. and it will gey bigger and bigger.

[Coyote]

she's dead, so I guess she isn't pro-anything... anymore.

you keep believing that a small group of "radicals" are the ones who are responsible for enforcing anti-democracy, using terrorism, murder, and evil.

again, you are comparing individual muslims to Islamic theology. they are seperate. Islam cannot be democratic because there is no universal equality in Islam.

There isn't in Christianity either. Yet they managed.

[bewitched]

There isn't in Christianity either. Yet they managed.

yes there is equality in Christianity. non-Christians aren't asked to pay a tax to live in Christian areas. non-Christians are not considered pigs and dogs and dhimmis by Christians. Christians embrace others and allow them to convert to other religions without killing them. lots of big differences.
the West doesn't restrict the building or repair of mosques, discriminate, refuse services because of religion.

why is there riots, violence, destruction over Bhuttos death? why not peaceful protests?

[Popeye]

yes there is equality in Christianity. non-Christians aren't asked to pay a tax to live in Christian areas. non-Christians are not considered pigs and dogs and dhimmis by Christians. Christians embrace others and allow them to convert to other religions without killing them. lots of big differences.
the West doesn't restrict the building or repair of mosques, discriminate, refuse services because of religion.

why is there riots, violence, destruction over Bhuttos death? why not peaceful protests?

I have heard Bhutto described as Pakistan's Martin Luther King. When King was assassinated there were riots throughout the US.

[vyo476]

you keep believing that a small group of "radicals" are the ones who are responsible for enforcing anti-democracy, using terrorism, murder, and evil.

Remember, you said she was going to win the election. So the pro-democracy person had the support of the majority in an overwhelmingly Islamic country. So...did the majority that was about to elect her into office also kill her? Or were the majority in favor of pro-democracy, meaning that she was killed by a minority faction? Which makes sense, bewitched?

[vyo476]

yes there is equality in Christianity. non-Christians aren't asked to pay a tax to live in Christian areas. non-Christians are not considered pigs and dogs and dhimmis by Christians. Christians embrace others and allow them to convert to other religions without killing them. lots of big differences.
the West doesn't restrict the building or repair of mosques, discriminate, refuse services because of religion.

There is equality in Christianity today. There hasn't always been. Taxes on other religions, discrimination, killing people over religious differences...all those things have happened throughout the history of Christianity. Or have you never heard of the Inquisition?

If you're making blanket statements about what Islam is, which must necessarily take into account more than just it's present status, the same standard must be held to Christianity, or you're being dishonest.

[bewitched]

Remember, you said she was going to win the election. So the pro-democracy person had the support of the majority in an overwhelmingly Islamic country. So...did the majority that was about to elect her into office also kill her? Or were the majority in favor of pro-democracy, meaning that she was killed by a minority faction? Which makes sense, bewitched?

gawd.
she would have won the election.
and it's not a minority faction that causes terrorism, death and destruction.
are you trying to identify the enemy? or cherrypicking words?

[bewitched]

I have heard Bhutto described as Pakistan's Martin Luther King. When King was assassinated there were riots throughout the US.

how many were killed in the MLK riots? how long did they last?
Rodney King also inspired riots and destruction.

Bhutto cames from a wealthy family who took Pakistan illegally from India when Zia was mysteriously taken out of power. she wasn't really a civil rights leader. her husbands cotton business rivalled the poppy farmers. and her family made tons of money from it.

I don't think any of you will ever understand that sharia law is quite different than laws in the West. and the distance between wealth and poverty is vast. further, population crowding and living conditions aren't all that great in Pakistan. it's very weird how many people can't see things as they really are without comparing everything to the US. jmho.

[vyo476]

gawd.

Classy.

she would have won the election.
and it's not a minority faction that causes terrorism, death and destruction.

So you're saying that the majority was about to elect her into office and the majority also wanted her dead. How does that make sense?

are you trying to identify the enemy? or cherrypicking words?

I am trying to identify the enemy. You're trying to pin it on Islam when if it were Islam, and Islam alone, it wouldn't make any sense for a nation of Muslims to be electing a pro-democracy leader. The religion which, by your rhetoric, is strong enough motivation to get people to go out and blow themselves up would have to be strong enough to get them to vote against democracy, right? And yet she was going to win the election. Hmmmmmm.

[PLC1]

We made it through Christian evolution without slaughtering all the misbegotten Christians - we'll make it through Islam. Our responsibility is to our country and people - not to Christianizing the rest of the world and attacking Islam as a whole. That is so medievil.

Given the technology of weaponry that exists today, I'm not so sure we have another thousand years to wait for Islam to evolve into a civilized religion the way Christianity has done. Something has to be done to speed up the process, don't you think?

[9sublime]

and it's not a minority faction that causes terrorism, death and destruction.


Like vyo, I needed to pick up on this. So, the majority were about to vote her in, you said this yourself. But wait, the majority also supported the terrorism and destruction that lead to the death of her, which they also supported.

Firstly, you have contradicted yourself. Secondly, if you went back on your original position and said she wasn't going to be elected and that the majority did in fact want her dead, you would still be wrong.

[bewitched]

the majority who would have voted her in weren't non-muslims. they were anti-Musharraf. if she would have taken office nothing would have changed. muslims would not have suddenly embraced democracy and the West.
so I have no idea what you guys are talking about, except to nit pick words for the sake of nit picking. that will never help you understand the enemy.

[heyjude]

According to what I have heard, what the people of Pakistan want is food, shelter, and a job. They don't care about terrorism. They are being besieged by both sides, and neither care about what happens to them. I don't think it matters who killed Bhutto. Us or Them. Its all the same to the people who live there. We fight our wars on principle, and they starve. The people of Pakistan had no reason to kill her.

[jb_1430]

but she had the support of a majority of the mainstream Muslims. How does this equal "Islam is evil"?

"Islam" is a religious doctrine, "Muslims" are a group of people. And Bhutto's party probably would have got 25-30% of the VOTE, not the majority .

[bewitched]

10%, 20%, 40%. profits.
here's a link that explains it all:
http://www.centerforstrategicanalysis.org/pakistan.htm

and predicts a bombshell in the next few days.

[jb_1430]

Your statement falls flat as it fails to take into account the many different non-Islamic terrorist groups recognized internationally. Islamic jihadists make up maybe a third of these groups.



Yeah, but the IRA killed like 600 civilians over 30 year period. Islamic Jihadist, regardless of their #s, probably account for 90% of civilian deaths from terrorist attacks in the last 10 years.

[bewitched]

Yeah, but the IRA killed like 600 civilians over 30 year period. Islamic Jihadist, regardless of their #s, probably account for 90% of civilian deaths from terrorist attacks in the last 10 years.
well said.
if it's not in their backyard they don't believe it. safe in the US. not for long.

[Coyote]

Yeah, but the IRA killed like 600 civilians over 30 year period. Islamic Jihadist, regardless of their #s, probably account for 90% of civilian deaths from terrorist attacks in the last 10 years.


In the last ten years? How about the last 5? Since the invasion of Iraq...which might...just maybe...have instigated a 90% of those attacks and the formation of many new jihadist groups...

when there is a war on, all bets are off and there is little difference between terrorists and militias.

[Coyote]

well said.
if it's not in their backyard they don't believe it. safe in the US. not for long.

Safe in the US?

We've long been insulated from world violence: communism, two world wars, conflicts in Africa, Asia, Balkans and now the Middle East. 9/11 was a wake up. But the wake up wasn't "Islamization" - it was globalization.

We are now part of the world whether we want to be or not. We can't just muck about in other countries and stay insulated from our actions anymore. Now we too have to pay the price for our policies.

[jb_1430]

While we are on the subject....exactly who allowed Christianity to evolve other than Christians and what choices did we (Christians) have that present day Islamic extremists deserve and do not presently have?




The printing press allowed Christianity to evolve. Before then, an individuals relationship with God was a relationship with the Church. Religious doctrine was what the church said was doctrine. Gods given authority to rule over the people belonged to who the church ordained with that authority. As more people learned to read and copies of the bible became more common, the individuals relationship with God became a direct relationship with God. Religious doctrine was what people read in the bible. And they figured out that God didnt give the authority to rule over the people to whoever the church ordained with that authority, he gave it to the individual. We were endowed by our creator with certain fundamental rights including the right to govern ourselves.
Unfortunately in the case of Islam, individual access to the actual written doctrine isnt really helpful on account of what the doctrine says.

[jb_1430]

In the last ten years? How about the last 5? .

A probably even higher percentage in just the last 5 years. Whats yer point? And the difference between terrorist and militias is irrelevant if they are using terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians.

[vyo476]

"Islam" is a religious doctrine, "Muslims" are a group of people.

And all religious doctrine is inherently interpretative. This is the argument that we had months ago (I'm sure you remember - probably half your total post count was devoted to it). As you so expertly pointed out, there isn't a problem with personalization, as we are in the middle of the information age.

So the people read the books. This does not mean that they take them to mean what you take them to mean. The fact that the greater majority of Muslims do not commit acts of terrorism and violence suggest that they don't take the texts to mean what you take them to mean - or they're just working to establish new traditions, even if the "working" part is subconscious.

I don't have time to teach you guys Theology, so here's the basics: all religions are unified by beliefs and practices, both traditional and contemporary. Radical Islam = Archaic beliefs and violent practices. Mainstream Islam = Peaceful beliefs and peaceful practices. They share their roots; they differ in their interpretations. Neither has a more valid view than the other; however, for the sake of an empirical look at the religion, the majority viewpoint - the overwhelming majority viewpoint I might add - tends to look a bit more like the direction of the religion.

[Coyote]

A probably even higher percentage in just the last 5 years. Whats yer point? And the difference between terrorist and militias is irrelevant if they are using terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians.

War targets innocent civilians all the time. The idea that war can be sanitized and free of terrorism is a fantasy. It's never been. There is NO DIFFERENCE between terrorism and war.

[Coyote]

I don't have time to teach you guys Theology, so here's the basics: all religions are unified by beliefs and practices, both traditional and contemporary. Radical Islam = Archaic beliefs and violent practices. Mainstream Islam = Peaceful beliefs and peaceful practices. They share their roots; they differ in their interpretations. Neither has a more valid view than the other; however, for the sake of an empirical look at the religion, the majority viewpoint - the overwhelming majority viewpoint I might add - tends to look a bit more like the direction of the religion.

And that is what is so often ignored. The nature of the majority viewpoint.

[Coyote]

The printing press allowed Christianity to evolve. Before then, an individuals relationship with God was a relationship with the Church. Religious doctrine was what the church said was doctrine. Gods given authority to rule over the people belonged to who the church ordained with that authority. As more people learned to read and copies of the bible became more common, the individuals relationship with God became a direct relationship with God. Religious doctrine was what people read in the bible. And they figured out that God didnt give the authority to rule over the people to whoever the church ordained with that authority, he gave it to the individual. We were endowed by our creator with certain fundamental rights including the right to govern ourselves.
Unfortunately in the case of Islam, individual access to the actual written doctrine isnt really helpful on account of what the doctrine says.

I would disagree. The printing press allowed each individual to interpret the Bible directly. It did not change the nature of the text. As a result of this - you have Christian sects that are far more fundamentalist and extreme in nature then the original Church may have been.

[numinus]

others are denied rights by law.

Please try to understand the difference between a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT and CIVIL RIGHTS.

just by the fact that it is illegal to convert to Christianity in many of the 57 OIC countries. illegal, penalty of death.

There is NO WAY a government can trespass an individual's right of thought - only the manifestations of that thought.

The same way the us government can not trespass on an individuals right to believe in vodoo while reserving the authority to forbid certain rituals and practices of such a religion.

Capice?

another fact of law id jizya, which is a tax paid by non-muslims. so these rights that you seem to think exist... do not.

Again, any government reserves the right and responsibility of collecting taxes within its sovereign domain. You did not actually believe european products are so much more superior than those manufactured locally, now, did you?

again, try to seperate your statements from individual muslims and their "wishes" and reality.

The reality, quite simply, is that people not only want, but NEED to coexist with one another - regardless of religion. The only thing incongruent around here is your insistence on recieving religious instructions from the demagougery of a band of ignorant misfits.

[numinus]

take a look at the list of Islamic terrorist acts post-911 and stand it side-by-side to Christian acts of terrorism.
www.thereligionofpeace.com

this is a common mistake many Americans make, believing that comparing Christianity and Islam makes any difference in explaining todays daily acts of terrorism and hate towards America and the West.

No.

The common mistake is the view that modern terrorism is a religious act. It is first and foremost, a POLITICAL ACT, however else anyone wish to paint it with religious colors.

[numinus]

topic, understanding the enemy.
it's important to note that (1.) civilians by day, fighters by night is common Islam, they don't wear military uniforms (2.) this isn't a small group of crazies against us (3.) the enemy shares the basic brotherhood of Islamic theology, kill non-muslims.

Welcome to guerilla warfare 101. This style of warfare has been invented since god knows when. Surely, it was advocated by the military strategist sun tzu.

And if you have even glimpsed his military treatise, you would realize that there is NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT.

[jb_1430]

Welcome to guerilla warfare 101. This style of warfare has been invented since god knows when. Surely, it was advocated by the military strategist sun tzu.

And if you have even glimpsed his military treatise, you would realize that there is NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT.

Odd arguement. You can credit TZU in whatever BC with documenting the tactic. That doesn't negate "the enemy" we face today having adopted that tactic. And they rely on a different treatise-


Praise be to Allah, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but Allah is worshipped, Allah who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders... blah blah blah ...The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies ....
23 February 1998
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin


refering to


009.005
YUSUFALI: But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html



Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:
Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity,

Number 25:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause."
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.025


But I understand the need to insert ones head into the ground and just yell "NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT."

[9sublime]

I don't think numinus was saying they arn't fighting for religion, I think he was merely pointing out the tactic they use is anything but exclusive to Islam.

[jb_1430]

No.
The common mistake is the view that modern terrorism is a religious act. It is first and foremost, a POLITICAL ACT, however else anyone wish to paint it with religious colors.

Odd arguement. Their "POLITICAL ACT"s dont negate their "religious colors". It is Islam's "POLITICAL" aspects that cause such conflict with western concepts of government.



The evidence that the appointment of a Khalifah is obligatory upon all Muslims is in the Quran, Sunnah and the Ijma' (consensus) of the Sahabah. ...

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you". [TMQ 5:48]
"..Verily the 'Hukm' (command, Judgment) is for none but Allah.." [TMQ 12:40]
"Whoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, they are disbelievers" [TMQ 5:44]
"Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are oppressors" [5:45]
"Whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are transgressors" [5:47]
...
Moreover, the Prophet ordered the Muslims to obey the Khaleefah and to fight those who dispute his authority as Khaleefah, which indicates an order to appoint a Khaleefah and to protect his Khilafah by fighting against whosoever disputes with him.

...
Khilafah.
1. Ibn Khaldoon defined it as: A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it.
...
In summary, Khilafah is the ***POLITICAL**** (emphasis mine) system in Islam. It is responsible for implementing the Islamic system (be it social, economic, educational, foreign policy,...) and maintaining its implementation. It is also responsible for spreading the message of Islam to the world.
http://www.islamic-world.net/islamic-state/theobasis.htm

[bewitched]

I don't think numinus was saying they arn't fighting for religion, I think he was merely pointing out the tactic they use is anything but exclusive to Islam.

well, yes, indeed there are specific Islamic tactics like taqqiya and kitman. and those suicide bombers seem quite exclusive to the theology.
and those tv shows teaching children to be martyr suicide bombers... are exclusive to... Islam.
maybe numinus can clarify.

[jb_1430]

I don't think numinus was saying they arn't fighting for religion, I think he was merely pointing out the tactic they use is anything but exclusive to Islam.

Yeah, TZU used it as well BC. The Irish killed several 100 over 3 decades in the previous century. "The enemy" is not historical figures. In the past 5-10 years 90-95% of the terrorism around the world has eminated from Islamic fundamentalist waging jihad against any form of government other than the Khilafah or religion other than Islam. If understanding the enemy is the goal, I dont see the relevance of TZU. If running a little cover for the enemy and their deeds were the point, I would see the relevance.

[jb_1430]

I don't think numinus was saying they arn't fighting for religion, I think he was merely pointing out the tactic they use is anything but exclusive to Islam.

I think he was saying there is "NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT." What we think is irrelevant. They believe it is very religious.

[bewitched]

I think he was saying there is "NOTHING RELIGIOUS ABOUT IT." What we think is irrelevant. They believe it is very religious.

indeed. they praise Allah for every action. glad someone understands the enemy!!!

[Coyote]

No.

The common mistake is the view that modern terrorism is a religious act. It is first and foremost, a POLITICAL ACT, however else anyone wish to paint it with religious colors.

I totally agree. Relgion is nothing more then a tool, a language that unites the group. If it weren't religion - it would be something else serving the same purpose such as nationalism or a political ideology, or an ethnic identity.

[Coyote]

well, yes, indeed there are specific Islamic tactics like taqqiya and kitman. and those suicide bombers seem quite exclusive to the theology.


Hardly. Remember the Kamakazi fighters of the Japanese? Dying for a cause is not new nor is it unique to Islam extremists. You've got a ton of beatified Christian martyrs who died for a cause and in many cases took lives with them. And, I might add - the vast majority of Muslims have no desire to die for a cause because they are not extremists.

[Coyote]

indeed. they praise Allah for every action. glad someone understands the enemy!!!

They praise Allah and how many damned "Amens" do you hear damning homosexuals or "ragheads"?

The enemy is extremism and fundamentalism. To bad no one understands it.

[9sublime]

Yeah, TZU used it as well BC. The Irish killed several 100 over 3 decades in the previous century. "The enemy" is not historical figures. In the past 5-10 years 90-95% of the terrorism around the world has eminated from Islamic fundamentalist waging jihad against any form of government other than the Khilafah or religion other than Islam. If understanding the enemy is the goal, I dont see the relevance of TZU. If running a little cover for the enemy and their deeds were the point, I would see the relevance.

Your previous point had no relevance at all. The argument is that Islamic terrorists are not the only people who use these tactics.

[jb_1430]

Your previous point had no relevance at all. The argument is that Islamic terrorists are not the only people who use these tactics.


???? No, TZUs advocacy of terrorism was what was irrelevant, and Ive already aknowledged that 5-10% of the terrorism in the last 5-10 years has been commited by non muslims. Had anybody argued that ONLY muslims commit terrorism you might have a point. Nobody has, and you only have another strawman to avoid the issue instead of addressing it. The usual response used to defend these scum sucking fundamentalist and their ideology.

[jb_1430]

They praise Allah and how many damned "Amens" do you hear damning homosexuals or "ragheads"?

The enemy is extremism and fundamentalism. To bad no one understands it.

Yes, you hear Christian fundamentalist "damning" the homosexuals. The Islamic fundamentalist are killing the unbelievers.

[jb_1430]

I totally agree. Relgion is nothing more then a tool, a language that unites the group. If it weren't religion - it would be something else serving the same purpose such as nationalism or a political ideology, or an ethnic identity.

Yeah, and the slaughter of millions of Jews in WWII had nothing to do with Nazism. Nazism is nothing more than a tool, a language that unites the group. If it werent Nazism- it would be something else serving the purpose such as nationalism or a political ideology, or an ethnic identity. So we shouldnt be critical of Nazism. (sarcasm)

[bewitched]

Yes, you hear Christian fundamentalist "damning" the homosexuals. The Islamic fundamentalist are killing the unbelievers.

there are no homosexuals in Iran... because they have all been hanged.

and yeah, there's no difference in those evil Christians who are voicing their opinion and those Muslims who are actually carrying out beheadings and murder daily. silly Christians... they are so dangerous.

what many don't understand is that religious government, culture, life in Islam is 24/7 and obligated to be acted upon. when hate and murder is preached in mosques they really mean it.
I don't think you can find many Christian churches preaching to the attendees to go kill infidels.

this is funny too... because those muslims who kill do consider themselves soldiers and in war. but the Brits want to click their ruby slippers and find their happy place... heheheh.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,159067,00.html
The words "war on terror" will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public, the country's chief prosecutor said Dec. 27.

Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless "death cult."

The Director of Public Prosecutions said: 'We resist the language of warfare, and I think the government has moved on this. It no longer uses this sort of language."

London is not a battlefield, he said.

"The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way."

[bewitched]

Yeah, and the slaughter of millions of Jews in WWII had nothing to do with Nazism. Nazism is nothing more than a tool, a language that unites the group. If it werent Nazism- it would be something else serving the purpose such as nationalism or a political ideology, or an ethnic identity. So we shouldnt be critical of Nazism. (sarcasm)

a national and political ideology = Islamic theology. hello?
what's sad is that Islam is committing genocide in the name of Allah and blaming the West. that's brilliant that they get so many to believe that s****... even those in the West who are sympathizers and apologists who can't think the way the enemy does.

[bewitched]

Hardly. Remember the Kamakazi fighters of the Japanese? Dying for a cause is not new nor is it unique to Islam extremists. You've got a ton of beatified Christian martyrs who died for a cause and in many cases took lives with them. And, I might add - the vast majority of Muslims have no desire to die for a cause because they are not extremists.

again, what happened in 1945 isn't really an immediate danger to me and my family this week.
AQ is far more advanced in tactics than Kamakazi fighters. Kamazasis fought on a battlefield, they wore uniforms, they represented a single country government, they attacked military targets.

the vast majority of Lebanese children are exposed to tv shows that encourage them to become martyrs. little children being taught hate and killing is a good thing. so in 5-7 years there will be quite a bigger number. not to mention how many are being conditioned in mosques and training camps.

911 was in 2001 and the "awakening" it was not a confrontation that is planned for 2010-2013. wonder what the number of extremists will be then?

[jb_1430]

Hardly. Remember the Kamakazi fighters of the Japanese? Dying for a cause is not new nor is it unique to Islam extremists.

???? Whether we like it or not, fate has left you and I to deal with life in this century, not the prrevious one. But since strawman arguements are all that we get on this group, Ill play. Lets pretend it's 1945 and I am speaking out in criticism of the Shinto religion practiced in imperial Japan. A religion that teaches the Japanese from birth that the Emperor is GOD. A god who


was the Japanese national mind with all its paradoxes—reeking savagery and sensitivity to beauty, frantic fanaticism and patient obedience to authority, brittle rituals and gross vices, habitual discipline and berserk outbursts, obsession with its divine mission and sudden obsession with worldly power.


would you likewise, constantly speak out in defense of Shintoism? Would you argue that the Kamakaze's decision had nothing to do with religion? Do you realize that kamakaze literally translates to "God wind". When Kubla Khan attacked Japan with his navy, a typhoon came and destroyed his fleet. The Japanese believed God had sent the typhoon to repel the mongols. The kamakazes are the "god wind".



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,852228-1,00.html
TIME
Monday, May. 21, 1945

The God-Emperor

a national religion which teaches that war is man's greatest glory, that unquestioning obedience is his chief purpose in life, that the utter denial of the individual is his greatest peace—a spiritual totalitarianism more primeval and more potent than anything Naziism ever dreamed of. ...Shinto (The Way of the Gods)... But in 1868 it became Japan's state religion, a cult of the dead based on ancestor worship, and resumed its interrupted task of molding the Japanese people for their divine mission of conquest.

[Coyote]

???? Whether we like it or not, fate has left you and I to deal with life in this century, not the prrevious one. But since strawman arguements are all that we get on this group, Ill play.

Strawman? Hardly.

Statement: and those suicide bombers seem quite exclusive to the theology.

My response: Hardly. Remember the Kamakazi fighters of the Japanese? Dying for a cause is not new nor is it unique to Islam extremists.

A simple and direct refutation of a Bewitched's statement.


Lets pretend it's 1945 and I am speaking out in criticism of the Shinto religion practiced in imperial Japan. A religion that teaches the Japanese from birth that the Emperor is GOD. A god who

would you likewise, constantly speak out in defense of Shintoism? Would you argue that the Kamakaze's decision had nothing to do with religion? Do you realize that kamakaze literally translates to "God wind". When Kubla Khan attacked Japan with his navy, a typhoon came and destroyed his fleet. The Japanese believed God had sent the typhoon to repel the mongols. The kamakazes are the "god wind".


I would argue that religion simply provides the rationale for an action that those same people would likely undertake anyway because of their emotional and cultural make up. The same sort of make up, for example, that allows people to sacrifice themselves or others for a cult, for nationalism, or for a political ideology. Their actions had far less to do with religion then it did with their particular cultural attribute of obedience - to their nation, to authority, to the Emperor and the willingness of some of them to kill themselves for it. What you seemingly ignore in both these examples is:


the vast majority of the Japanese were not Kamakazi - not willing to sacrifice themselves in this particular way yet they considered themselves staunch supporters of the Emperor.

the vast majority of Muslims are not suicide bombers nor do they support such actions yet they consider themselves Muslim.

[Coyote]

Yeah, and the slaughter of millions of Jews in WWII had nothing to do with Nazism. Nazism is nothing more than a tool, a language that unites the group.

You are creating a false dichotomy. Of course it had something to do with Nazism. But it also had a lot to do with the cultural, economic, and political climate of post-WW1 Germany.

Political ideologies are used to motivate or unite people towards a cause or action - not always rational. In that respect they are a tool in the same way as religion is: instill a cause and foment blind obedience.

If it werent Nazism- it would be something else serving the purpose such as nationalism or a political ideology, or an ethnic identity. So we shouldnt be critical of Nazism. (sarcasm)

Now it is YOU creating a strawman.

Nazism by itself is nothing. It is a tool - an ideology created and grown to achieve a certain aim. It is the events of post-ww1 Germany that gave it power amongst the people and led it to assume the proportions that it did and could easily again. You can critisize it - it is certainly evil, like guns can be thought to be evil- but it would have had no power had not certain conditions existed to allow it to grow and become a power. Those conditions are very similar to the conditions that in general tend to lead towards an increase in fundamentalism, extremism, nationalism or ethno-centrism. Christian fundamentalism and Muslim fundamentalism are almost identical in belief. The differences lie in the cultures they are currently living in: secular democratic West - where the rule of law is respected vs. religious, non-democratic East - where the rule of law is situational and corrupt.

Look at Communism - and in particular Stalin. There is nothing explicit in the writings of Karl Marx for example, that legitimized the purges that Stalin conducted. Yet, he managed to use it as a justification for his atrocities. Not to different from the way Christians have misused the Bible, or Muslims have misused their religion.

What is ironic, and the reason I can not take your arguments seriously - is that you use these arguments to maintain a condemnation of Islam - as a whole - yet are utterly blind to the same failings within Christianity - faults that throughout history can be blamed for much war, bloodshed, and murder if one uses your logic.

You then create a strawman by trying to make the entire religion of Islam comparable to the Nazi ideology. It doesn't wash.

[Coyote]

again, what happened in 1945 isn't really an immediate danger to me and my family this week.
AQ is far more advanced in tactics than Kamakazi fighters. Kamazasis fought on a battlefield, they wore uniforms, they represented a single country government, they attacked military targets.

the vast majority of Lebanese children are exposed to tv shows that encourage them to become martyrs. little children being taught hate and killing is a good thing. so in 5-7 years there will be quite a bigger number. not to mention how many are being conditioned in mosques and training camps.

911 was in 2001 and the "awakening" it was not a confrontation that is planned for 2010-2013. wonder what the number of extremists will be then?

If you think only military targets were attacked in WW2 or by the Japanese, you are foolish. Merchant ships were also targeted and destroyed and the Kamikaze pilots were only one of a number of Japanese suicide fighting schemes. The mentality was quite similar: it is better to die then live as a coward.

All war targets civilians - even if only peripherally. It's the nature of war and the vast majority of suicide bombings are occuring in regions of unresolved warfare: Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon etc.

The "vast majority"? Seems like if that were the case there would be many many more suicide bombers. Yet, in relation to population - they are very few in number. They seem like more because they catch the media's attention far more then the dull ordinary activities of most of the people.

[Coyote]

and yeah, there's no difference in those evil Christians who are voicing their opinion and those Muslims who are actually carrying out beheadings and murder daily. silly Christians... they are so dangerous.



You mean like those evil Christians who persecuted the Jews under Hitler? After all, part of Hitlers's Aryan racial superiority was it's underlying Christianity - not even the Pope spoke against it. Who feel justified in burning abortion clinics or killing homosexuals? (it's the Abrahamic thing to do after all).

And tell me about all those Muslims in America and Canada, and other western countries carrying out daily beheadings and murder? You don't suppose that...uh...ungoing wars, unresolved conflicts, a century of foreign invasion and occupation might have a little to do with it? No...that would make way too much sense.:rolleyes:

[jb_1430]

You are creating a false dichotomy. Of course it had something to do with Nazism. But it also had a lot to do with the cultural, economic, and political climate of post-WW1 Germany.



But somehow, this wotrldwide wave of Islamist attacks on civilians, has nothing to do with religion??? I dont follow the analogy.

[Coyote]

But somehow, this wotrldwide wave of Islamist attacks on civilians, has nothing to do with religion??? I dont follow the analogy.


Of course you don't follow it.

I never said it had "nothing to do with religion".

I said: "I totally agree. Relgion is nothing more then a tool, a language that unites the group. If it weren't religion - it would be something else serving the same purpose such as nationalism or a political ideology, or an ethnic identity."


You might also consider the following.

There is no "world wide wave of Islamist attacks on civilians".

The following is occurring:

Attacks are made on countries seen to support the US occupation in Iraq. This is a political act. The aim is to force those countries to withdraw their support. There is nothing particularly religious about it.

The vast majority of Islamist attacks are occuring in countries under war and - particularly under war by foreign entities.

Other Islamist attacks are occuring in primarily in hird world politically and economically unstable countries with predominantly Muslim populations where Islamic fundamentalists want to impose Sharia and their version of morality. What's driving this? Religion? Or, is the increase in fundamentalism (across the spectrum of religions such as Hindu and Christian) world wide a sign of something else - culture shock? The rate of change in the world is increasing geometrically and faster than a culture can adapt to and the automatic reaction is to withdraw - into parochialism, fundamentalism and isolationism. The thing is - in Western countries, there are political mechanisms for change. Muslims and Christians and others are using political mechanisms to attempt to force their brand of morality on the country. In countries like Sudan, Pakistan, Iraq, former Soviet block countries- in fact a lot of African and Middle East countries - there is no viable political process so violence is the answer.

So sure, religion - in general - has something to do with it. But does the scripture of Islam alone drive this? No. No more then scripture of Christianity or the beliefs of Hinduism both of which have been the cause of much bloodshed and will undoubtably be again and it's people like you - who insist that the religion as a whole is to blame that will be the cause of WW3, because your stridency drowns out the voices of moderation within Islam, and those voices need to be listened to, by all sides.

Some one once did a comparison of violence and calls for violence in the Bible and in the Koran. The Koran was more violent. But only marginally.

[WileE]

scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.

So, some of them are well-educated scum.

[Coyote]

Bewitched said:
scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.



I would like to see some serious data supporting this statement - either put up, or shut up.

[bewitched]

Bewitched said:
scum? most terrorists are engineers, doctors, and maybe some pregnant women.
sorry your job sucks.



I would like to see some serious data supporting this statement - either put up, or shut up.
no honey, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
Atta, Osama, KSM all have engineering degrees. that's a fact everyone knows. the doctors that drove their cars into Heathrow were... doctors.

if you want to be rude and tell me to shut up because you are backed into a corner... that's your problem.