Acceptable civilian casualties

[Hurkyl]

Many of the threads here boil down to an argument over what constitutes an acceptable civilian casualty rather than discuss the issue from which the thread arose, so I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the topic that people are really discussing. :tongue:


The question for each of the following scenarios, of course, is if civilian casualties are acceptable. Some will be realistic, some not. Some of these will lead into additional scenarios (such as 5 and 6).


Let's start with the most unrealistic:


(1) Each enemy combatant is surrounded with three enemy civilians who have willingly decided to serve as a shield.

(2) Each enemy combatant is surrounded with three enemy civilians who have been forced to act as a shield.

(3-4) Same as above, but with friendly civilians.

(5) Civilians who wear the enemy's military uniform in a battle zone.

(6) Civilians who wear the enemy's military uniform and marcn en masse on a military stronghold.

(7) Civilians resupplying the enemy combatants with ammunition during a firefight.

(8) Civilians transporting military equipment to a battle zone.

(9) Civilians in a military installation.

(10) Civilians willingly shielding a military installation.

(11) Civilians unwillingly (or unknowingly) shielding a military installation.

[Outcast]

civilian casualties are acceptable in all of them.

[JohnDubYa]

I don't think there is a distinction between enemy and friendly civilians. I would suggest Points (2) and (4) are the only ones worth analyzing. The others are pretty cut and dried.

[Adam]

Killing civilians is never acceptable. Go further back, and look at the reasons behind the conflict which may give rise to such circumstances.

[Hurkyl]

(12) Civilians providing shelter for enemy combatants.

(13) Civilians providing medical care for enemy combatants.

(14) Civilians providing entertainment, and other morale boosting functions, for enemy combatants.

(15) Civilians providing direct economic support for the enemy military.

(16) Civilians providing indirect economic support for the enemy military. (I suspect the level of indirectness may matter to some; comment on it in your response)

(17) Civilians showing moral support for enemy combatants.

(18) Enemy civilians dressed in friendly military garb in a combat zone.

(19) Friendly civilians dressed in friendly military garb in a combat zone.

(20) Civilians providing tactical military support to enemy combatants.

(21) Civilians living in a combat zone you are attacking.

(22) Civilians living in a combat zone you are defending.

[Hurkyl]

Killing civilians is never acceptable. Go further back, and look at the reasons behind the conflict which may give rise to such circumstances.

When we have time machines available to avert these dilemmas, this will be an acceptable option.

[amwbonfire]

Killing civilians is never acceptable. Go further back, and look at the reasons behind the conflict which may give rise to such circumstances.

Adam's right. Civilians never deserve to be harmed in conflict. let alone killed. How would you respond to the news that your family and friends had been killed?

When we have time machines available to avert these dilemmas, this will be an acceptable option.

No, when leaders stop pushing their own agendas and realise that people die in war, the 'dilemmas' (how could you call casulties a dilemma?) would cease to exist.

There is NEVER a cause for war. I know that may seem like a naive view, but it's not. Can you justify war for me?

Andy
AMW Bonfire

[Adam]

When we have time machines available to avert these dilemmas, this will be an acceptable option.

Or perhaps simply stop the activities which cause these things?

[Artman]

Adam's right. Civilians never deserve to be harmed in conflict. let alone killed.Rules in a war are there to prevent intentionally injuring those not directly involved. Civilians should stay out of the way. It has nothing to do with what they deserve.

No, when leaders stop pushing their own agendas and realise that people die in war, the 'dilemmas' (how could you call casulties a dilemma?) would cease to exist.Wishful thinking, my friend. Wars do happen and civilians if they wish to be considered civilians, should stay as far from the battles as possible.


There is NEVER a cause for war. I know that may seem like a naive view, but it's not. Can you justify war for me?
Andy
AMW BonfireI don't think that Hitler would have stopped without violent opposition.

[Adam]

Rules in a war are there to prevent intentionally injuring those not directly involved. Civilians should stay out of the way. It has nothing to do with what they deserve.

They deserve to be safe in their homes without attackers bringing the war in there. Hard to "stay out of the way" when soldiers come into your town, conduct searches in your family's home, park tanks out the front, drop bombs on your town's infrastructure, and in general turn your home into a war zone.


Wishful thinking, my friend. Wars do happen and civilians if they wish to be considered civilians, should stay as far from the battles as possible.

See above.

[russ_watters]

I don't think there is a distinction between enemy and friendly civilians. I would suggest Points (2) and (4) are the only ones worth analyzing. The others are pretty cut and dried. In the first set of circumstances, none of them provide a basis for stopping a fight (from the point of view of the other side). In Gulf II, American civilians did go to Iraq to act as voluntary human sheilds. That act is only half a step above treason.

The real question is would the soldiers with civilians around them do anything to protect them (and would the civilians do anything to protect themselves). According to the rules of war, its the people using forced human shields who are comitting a crime.

In the second set, #12, they are combatants.

#13 isn't specific enough: are they providing medical treatment in the middle of a battle? In that case, they are treated the same as any military medical personnel - they are noncombatants (you can't shoot them on purpose), but you don't stop the battle for them. If they are not treating injured people in a battle (say, they are in a MASH hospital), then none of them, including the soldiers, are combatants. Anyway, 13 is generally a "no."

#14, they are not combatants, but being around military makes you a target: a USO show is a legitimate target - Bob Hope's presence (Playboy bunnies or not) doesn't give all the soldiers a free pass.

#15 also is not specific enough. Does that mean giving money to buy weapons or what? In any case, that would generally be a no, with the caveat that if they are near combatants by choice at any time, they are not protected.

#16, I can't think of any situation where economic centers are viable targets. Again, the rules have changed (for the civilized world) since WWII.

#17 - moral support as in waving a flag from inside your house? No. Again, the critereon are action based and its the level of participation in the battle that matters.

#18 and 19, impersonating military is likely to get you arrested, but if you're in the middle of a battle, you might get shot.

#21,22, these civilians should be protected to the extent possible/reasonable. Obviously, there is wiggle room there, but actions such as shooting from residential apartment buildings (which the terrorists have done) and hiding your equipment/vehicles in civilian neighborhoods (which Saddam did) are war crimes. For the more general case of collateral damage, precision guided weapons make it possible to vastly reduce the number of civilian casualties - but not all are avoidable.

As a general rule, Artman's characterization is correct: Rules in a war are there to prevent intentionally injuring those not directly involved. Civilians should stay out of the way. Using that as a guidline will allow you to figure out 95% of cases.

amwbonfire and Adam: 'we shouldn't go to war in the first place' is a nice sentiment, but it does not answer the question asked. Its completely irrelevant here. Worse, it ignores reality. You can't close your eyes and wish and make these situations disappear. When you open your eyes, they are still there and rules on how to act still have to be made. If your objection is to the current conflict, thats also irrelevant as Hurkyl framed his question in general terms. Killing civilians is never acceptable. Thats a nice, canned thing to say, but it also ignores reality. Real life is seldom that simple as the cases Hurkyl brought up (and you utterly ignored) indicate. Further, this directly contradicts what you said in another thread. You said the WTC was a legitimate target. Your attempts to be black and white about this are a transparent attempt to avoid the issue. They deserve to be safe in their homes without attackers bringing the war in there. Hard to "stay out of the way" when soldiers come into your town, conduct searches in your family's home, park tanks out the front, drop bombs on your town's infrastructure, and in general turn your home into a war zone. That's true, of course. But one at a time:

-"They deserve to be safe in their homes" - in the incident that precipitated this discussion (and in several of the cases presented), they chose to leave their homes.

-"Hard to "stay out of the way" when soldiers come into your town, conduct searches in your family's home, park tanks out the front..." - Indeed, and I'm sure that will come up at Saddam's war crimes tribunal. The Al Queda terrorists who started the specific battle in question will be more difficult to prosecute.

-"drop bombs on your town's infrastructure" - there is nothing wrong with destroying infrastructure (bridges, roads, airfields, power stations) that are active parts of the war effort.

-"and in general turn your home into a war zone" - again, I'm sure that'll come up at Saddam's war crimes tribunal. For the specific case in question, the civilians who were cavorting with the terrorists (and harboring them in their homes) need to ask themselves the question "which side am I on, or am I a bystander?" otherwise someone else will answer it for them.

[Adam]

Thats a nice, canned thing to say, but it also ignores reality.

Not at all. The reality is, those questions only come into play after people have done all sorts of stupid and immoral things. Things need not get that far. To say it is simply unrealistic to hope we can avoid wars is just another attempt at dodging responsibility.

[Hurkyl]

Adam, amwbonfire, I think the words y'all're looking for are something like:

"I am unable or unwilling to respond to these scenarios. However, I think all due effort should be made to prevent them from occuring."

Although prevention of these scenarios is entirely off topic, I can certainly understand the desire to mention it.

[Hurkyl]

There are some more scenarios I wanted to offer, but I'll hold off for a bit.

[Outcast]

Human shields. By allowing human shields to be effective in protecting military targets, then you encourage their use and put even more civilians in harms way.

[phatmonky]

There is NEVER a cause for war. I know that may seem like a naive view, but it's not. Can you justify war for me?

Andy
AMW Bonfire

Yes, I can justify war for you. When the Japanese invaded Singapore and began debating how to attack Australia, that was a good time for war.
In this example, the best way to prevent war would have been to simply let the Japanese take over Australia. Is that a good idea to you?
Instead, brave Australian and American troops lead the battles against the Japanese, pushing them back from invading.
Do you believe that this was a lost cause? a bad idea?

If I come to your house and steal something, the easiest way for there to not be a problem is let me take and leave. In reality, that place the rest of us exist, conflict is real. Some people are evil. That's reality.
War is conflict. Wishing that one person hadn't done something won't stop it. Conflict can, and often does.

[Outcast]

Killing civilians is never acceptable. Go further back, and look at the reasons behind the conflict which may give rise to such circumstances.
In Germany during WW II, we killed 2 million civilians in order to stop the Holocaust and the enslavement of Europe. If the killing of civilians is never acceptable, then should we have left the Nazi in power to continue the Holocaust?
World War II: Combatants and Casualties (1937 - 45) (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html)
the victims of Saddam's regime exceeded 1 million, but there was no accurate estimate.
Iraqi Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amin (http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=ba3721e4a72c240f) Iraq Body Count (IBC), a volunteer group of British and US academics and researchers, compiled statistics on civilian casualties from media reports and estimated that between 5,000 and 7,000 civilians died in the conflict. War may have killed 10,000 civilians, researchers say (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html)So those civilians death were not acceptable either?

In proportion to its population, Cambodia underwent a human catastrophe unparalleled in this century. Out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,0001 Cambodia probably lost slightly less than 4,000,000 people to war, rebellion, man-made famine, genocide, politicide, and mass murder. The vast majority, almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children (including 35,000 foreigners), were murdered within the years 1970 to 1980 by successive governments and guerrilla groups. Most of these, a likely near 2,400,000, were murdered by the communist Khmer Rouge. Statistics Of Cambodian Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP4.HTM) United States could have stopped this, but we didn't.

[phatmonky]

United States could have stopped this, but we didn't.

hey, so long as there was no war!

[Outcast]

hey, so long as there was no war!Yeah, the main thing is we aren't the ones killing civilians.

Same thing here in Sudan. If we get involved, we might hurt a non-combatant or some endangered species of bug or weed. Since the start of the conflict in Darfur in February 2003:
- More than 30,000 people are believed to have lost their lives;
- 1.2 million civilians have been internally displaced by the conflict;
- 170,000 Sudanese from Darfur have sought refuge in neighboring Chad. But you know things must be getting kind of bad when even MTV (http://www.mtvu.com/on_mtvu/activism/sudan.jhtml) starts carrying the story.

[russ_watters]

Same thing here in Sudan. The US gov't is starting to make noise like they want to act there. Powell recently dropped the "g" word in the UN, which compells action. The UN response: complain about it (Powell's use of the word, not the situation in the Sudan). In light of this and past failures of the UN to do its job, the US leading the way outside of the UN is more than justified: its our moral responsibility.

RE: Camboadia - I didn't realize it was that bad. I'm not convinced we could have stopped it though. The Sovs would not have approved of us entering another war in SE Asia.

North Korea is a similar situation today: somewhere around 2 million of a total population of 20 million have starved to death in the past 10 years. With such a large army though, it would be tough for us to do anything about that.

In any case, where and when to act is a complicated question and depends on the situation. The first criteria of course, is can we actually help. In situations like the Sudan, where it would take a relatively trivial military force, there is no excuse whatsoever for inaction.

I hope we didn't just hijack the thread, Hurkly - if you have more hypothetical scenarios (or want to discuss some of the tougher ones you already posted), by all means....

[amwbonfire]

Ok, this is becoming a bit off-topic. Maybe start another thread for "War - ethical?" or something similar.

Andy
AMW Bonfire

[BobG]

#15 also is not specific enough. Does that mean giving money to buy weapons or what? In any case, that would generally be a no, with the caveat that if they are near combatants by choice at any time, they are not protected.

#16, I can't think of any situation where economic centers are viable targets. Again, the rules have changed (for the civilized world) since WWII.

If you're talking inadvertent deaths as a result of collateral damage, all could be acceptable (depends on how important the target was - obviously killing 500 civilians to get one enemy combatant armed with one AK-47 is a bit of a stretch - and the example's meant to be extreme, not a comment on any actual events).

If you're talking targets, I'd say both 15 and 16 are viable targets. How is it different than resupply convoys - WWII oil tankers and cargo ships, factories vital to creating war supplies, for example - or command and control and communications centers in Iraq and Kosovo. Once again, there has to be serious consideration of the war benefits vs. the cost in 'innocent' human lives, but it's this that has changed the rules enough since WWII to at least reduce the number of civilian casualties. We've not recently fought anyone that was a serious enough threat to our (or our allies) existence to warrant all-out warfare.

[Outcast]

When General Sherman said, "War is hell," he was wrong, the innocent do not suffer in hell.

[Hurkyl]

I hope we didn't just hijack the thread, Hurkly

I don't mind; there's not really much on-topic discussion anyways. *sigh*

[omin]

You did not mention civilians who pay taxes for bombs who are dropped by the leaders they allowed or voted into office. Do they coun't to in this scenario? We should include every category. I think they are. That's why I want Bush out. If I were an Iraq, (I'm more intelligent American), using the logic of the Golden Rule, you bet your a** I'd be out to get even any way I can.

Those stupid and evil, like Bush, can't stand the Golden Rules logic.

Bush Guarantees an attack if he makes it into next term, although Kerry's diplmomatic attitude is claimed to be the threat. Do you really think the world said no to Bush will let Iraq go undefended?

[omin]

BTW,

The collateral damage in Iraq is MOST of the damage! Collateral damage is supposed to be a very low percentage. The attacks upon Iraqis are obviously directed. Which makes the significant amount of attacks nothing more than terrorism in the small sense and big sense.

If you vote for Bush, you are a retard.

[Hurkyl]

Do you have responses to the scenarios I presented, or are you just interested in election rhetoric?

[devil-fire]

can we agree that the term 'unacceptable' means that what ever brought about the situation needs change? there are a lot of changes that can be made and i think everyone can agree that death is not a desired thing but often, changes do not make things any better. like with those situations, trying to spend more money on more accurate small arms and soldier training could result in less fatailtys and more injuries Or policy changes could prevent the situations from arising in the first place. both of these options have costs to saving the lives in any of the scenarios mentioned so the real question is how much value do you put on the lives in each case? and are there any solutions that the benefit of saving lives outweighs the costs to do so?

i think that what this forum lacks is alternate solutions being proposed and the costs/benefets being debated instead of debating how valid the points of cost/benefits of solutions already mentioned over, and over, and over (either staying in iraq and continuing to do things the same way, or withdraw the effort)

[Hurkyl]

The thing about bad situations it that you must consider both approaches: preventing them from occuring, and dealing with them when they do occur.

This thread was started specifically to consider the latter question, "what is the right way to handle a bad situation once it has occured?" I intended to get into some more complicated scenarios, addressing questions like "when is it okay to cause a bad situation in order to avert a worse situation?" but people are practically kicking and screaming in order to avoid addressing these easier scenarios, so I have even less expectation that the harder questions would get discussed.

[studentx]

You did not mention civilians who pay taxes for bombs who are dropped by the leaders they allowed or voted into office. Do they coun't to in this scenario? We should include every category. I think they are. That's why I want Bush out.

American tax payers dont pay taxes because they want to, but because they have to.

If I were an Iraq, (I'm more intelligent American), using the logic of the Golden Rule, you bet your a** I'd be out to get even any way I can.

Luckily, most Iraqis are intelligent enough not to go out and kill as many civilians as possible.

[Outcast]

American tax payers dont pay taxes because they want to, but because they have to.
Luckily, most Iraqis are intelligent enough not to go out and kill as many civilians as possible.
What does intelligents have to do with it? It has more to do with their lack of better weapons. Even without them they are doing a good job of killing civilians.

Their level of acceptable civilian casualties seems to have no limit.

At least 73 people were killed on Tuesday in a Baghdad car bombing (http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en71790&F_catID=&f_type=source)

[studentx]

What does intelligents have to do with it? It has more to do with their lack of better weapons. Even without them they are doing a good job of killing civilians.

Their level of acceptable civilian casualties seems to have no limit.

At least 73 people were killed on Tuesday in a Baghdad car bombing (http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en71790&F_catID=&f_type=source)

But thats not done by "most iraqis". Could even have been foreign fighters. Most Iraqis arent fighting, tho theyre probably pretty pissed, they would never think of going to the US and taking revenge on civilians.

[russ_watters]

If you're talking inadvertent deaths as a result of collateral damage, all could be acceptable (depends on how important the target was - obviously killing 500 civilians to get one enemy combatant armed with one AK-47 is a bit of a stretch - and the example's meant to be extreme, not a comment on any actual events).No, that's not what I meant (I meant "near" as in really near - literally standing next to a combatant), but that's still a valid point you have. A decent part of the saturation bombing done in WWII was that way because there was no other way to hit the target. You literally had to cover a full square mile with hundreds of tons of bombs just to make sure you hit a single building. Today, obviously, thats not necessary, as laser guided weapons have a better than 50% accuracy rate at 10m. With that improvement in technology comes the change in rules: now that its not just possible, but easy to avoid killing everyone within a square mile of your target, you must avoid doing it.If you're talking targets, I'd say both 15 and 16 are viable targets. How is it different than resupply convoys - WWII oil tankers and cargo ships, factories vital to creating war supplies, for example - or command and control and communications centers in Iraq and Kosovo.

Once again, there has to be serious consideration of the war benefits vs. the cost in 'innocent' human lives, but it's this that has changed the rules enough since WWII to at least reduce the number of civilian casualties. We've not recently fought anyone that was a serious enough threat to our (or our allies) existence to warrant all-out warfare. The critereon I use is how far from the battle (in both time and space) is the target. If you blow up a supply convoy of trucks (btw, these are all uniformed military personnel), you hinder the affected unit's ability to fight tomorrow. If you hit a supply ship (these are a pseudo-military force - government owed, civilian operated), it hinders the affected unit's ability to fight next month. If you hit the factory that is building the weapons, it hinders the military's ability to fight in maybe six months. Hitting the WTC (we'll assume for now that this was the actual goal - as we know, it was not), had it actually done serious damage to the economy, it would affect the military's ability to fight in two years.

In WWII, hindering the military's ability to fight in 2 years, was a legitimate concern. WWII was a "total war," which means it absorbed all of the excess production of the countries involved in fighting it (it actually absorbed virtually all but the essential production).

WWII was the last total war and I believe it was the last there will ever be. Wars like the first and second Gulf war are called "limited" or regional wars by the military. They do not require a significant re-direction of the resources of the countries involved (caveat: Iraq was a military dictatorship, so all of its excess resources already went to the military). Since hitting economic centers, and even manufacturing centers doesn't do anything at all to affect the outcome of the war, except possibly, psychological impact, they are not valid military targets.

[russ_watters]

You did not mention civilians who pay taxes for bombs who are dropped by the leaders they allowed or voted into office. Do they coun't to in this scenario? We should include every category. I think they are. That's why I want Bush out. One thing I left out of the "total war" characterization was that civilians who are part of the economy are indeed a part of the war effort. If I were an Iraq, (I'm more intelligent American), using the logic of the Golden Rule, you bet your a** I'd be out to get even any way I can. If you were an Iraqi, you'd consider the US the enemy? Even considering what kind of regime Hussein ran? I think you underestimate how bad it really was under Saddam.

[russ_watters]

This thread was started specifically to consider the latter question, "what is the right way to handle a bad situation once it has occured?" I intended to get into some more complicated scenarios, addressing questions like "when is it okay to cause a bad situation in order to avert a worse situation?" but people are practically kicking and screaming in order to avoid addressing these easier scenarios, so I have even less expectation that the harder questions would get discussed. Unfortuantely, it is my perception (I'm saying this a lot lately), that its far easier for most people to complain about a situation they don't like than to actually discuss how to deal with it once they are in it. Certainly, we are not ready for a rational discussion of Hiroshima, for example.

[russ_watters]

What does intelligents have to do with it? It has more to do with their lack of better weapons. Even without them they are doing a good job of killing civilians.

Their level of acceptable civilian casualties seems to have no limit.

At least 73 people were killed on Tuesday in a Baghdad car bombing (http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en71790&F_catID=&f_type=source) Judging from your last post, I'm guessing thats sarcasm (just want to clarify). The "insurgents" are indeed doing everything they can to kill as many civilians (caveat: yes, police do fall into a middle-ground) as possible and prevent the formation of a stable government.

[Hurkyl]

A decent part of the saturation bombing done in WWII was that way because there was no other way to hit the target. You literally had to cover a full square mile with hundreds of tons of bombs just to make sure you hit a single building.

Wow, I never realized that bombing was so inaccurate in WWII!

[selfAdjoint]

Wow, I never realized that bombing was so inaccurate in WWII!

Read From Apes to Warlords by Sir Solly Zuckerman. During WWII he had a good way to knock out railroads, essentially bomb the switches. He had developed it empirically by studying ralroads in England that had been attacked by the Luftwaffe; what was different between the ones that were quickly repaired and the ones that weren't? "Bomber" Harris, the head of RAF bombing command refused to consider his plan because he considered his bombardiers too innacurate to ever hit anything that small.

[JohnDubYa]

You can also read the history of the war in the Pacific. In the book Guadalcanal, the author points out that the Japanese were amused that one of their high altitude bombers was actually able to hit a ship. They had a saying along the lines of "even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occassion."

High altitude bombing was notoriously inaccurate -- one of the reasons Curtis LeMay decided to try low-altitude bombing of Japanese cities, much to the dismay of his pilots.

[Stanley_Smith]

"Militants who survived the strikes in the compound sought refuge in nearby villages, but U.S. forces said they broke off an offensive to hunt them down to avoid civilian casualties. "

( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716 )

How would you solve this problem and how do you deal with militants' sympethizers ?

What is the new definition for military installations or militants in urban warfare ?

[Hurkyl]

I guess it makes more sense when you remind me about high-altitude bombing; I was having mental images of dive bombing!

[Outcast]

Wow, I never realized that bombing was so inaccurate in WWII! Add Vietnam to that also. Almost 70 years after WW II we were still dropping dumb bombs that were no more accurate than the WW II ones. The Dragon's Jaw Bridge (http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Farm/4779/dragonsjaw.html)

Desert Storm bombing wasn't much better.
May 8, 1999

FACTS:

75% of all dumb bombs in Desert Storm landed off target
93% of all bombs dropped in Desert Storm were conventional ("dumb")
Source: US Air Force (after the war was over) http://www.brasscheck.com/yugoslavia/directory/50899a.html

If we are willing to drop bombs that miss their targes 75% of the time, then we must have a high level of civilian causalities acceptability.

[Outcast]

Judging from your last post, I'm guessing thats sarcasm (just want to clarify). The "insurgents" are indeed doing everything they can to kill as many civilians (caveat: yes, police do fall into a middle-ground) as possible and prevent the formation of a stable government. No I wasn't being sarcastic. If they had WMD, they would not hesitate to use them on the civilian population.

[JohnDubYa]

In the Persian Gulf War we relied mainly on dumb bombs dropped by B-52s on isolated targets. Calculate the spread of bombs dropped a half second from each other from a B-52 travelling 600 mph. Naturally 75% are going to miss their target unless they are intended to strike Rhode Island. That doesn't mean that they will strike civilians, however. We weren't trying to destroy city industry like in WWII.

[BobG]

No, that's not what I meant (I meant "near" as in really near - literally standing next to a combatant), but that's still a valid point you have. A decent part of the saturation bombing done in WWII was that way because there was no other way to hit the target. You literally had to cover a full square mile with hundreds of tons of bombs just to make sure you hit a single building. Today, obviously, thats not necessary, as laser guided weapons have a better than 50% accuracy rate at 10m. With that improvement in technology comes the change in rules: now that its not just possible, but easy to avoid killing everyone within a square mile of your target, you must avoid doing it. The critereon I use is how far from the battle (in both time and space) is the target. If you blow up a supply convoy of trucks (btw, these are all uniformed military personnel), you hinder the affected unit's ability to fight tomorrow. If you hit a supply ship (these are a pseudo-military force - government owed, civilian operated), it hinders the affected unit's ability to fight next month. If you hit the factory that is building the weapons, it hinders the military's ability to fight in maybe six months. Hitting the WTC (we'll assume for now that this was the actual goal - as we know, it was not), had it actually done serious damage to the economy, it would affect the military's ability to fight in two years.

In WWII, hindering the military's ability to fight in 2 years, was a legitimate concern. WWII was a "total war," which means it absorbed all of the excess production of the countries involved in fighting it (it actually absorbed virtually all but the essential production).

WWII was the last total war and I believe it was the last there will ever be. Wars like the first and second Gulf war are called "limited" or regional wars by the military. They do not require a significant re-direction of the resources of the countries involved (caveat: Iraq was a military dictatorship, so all of its excess resources already went to the military). Since hitting economic centers, and even manufacturing centers doesn't do anything at all to affect the outcome of the war, except possibly, psychological impact, they are not valid military targets.

You've got a valid point. Targets that were valid in WWII just wouldn't pass muster today. Wars don't last long enough to think about affecting an enemy's capability a year in the future.

Today, a target has to have a pretty immediate and significant effect to be a target or even worth the collateral damage.

[Outcast]

In the Persian Gulf War we relied mainly on dumb bombs dropped by B-52s on isolated targets. Calculate the spread of bombs dropped a half second from each other from a B-52 travelling 600 mph. Naturally 75% are going to miss their target unless they are intended to strike Rhode Island. That doesn't mean that they will strike civilians, however. We weren't trying to destroy city industry like in WWII. True, I think Baghdad was our first attempt to use smart bombs in urban areas against military targets to limit civilian casualties.
The Urban Sanctuary in Desert Storm? (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/spr97/arkin.html) # In 43 days of war, a mere 330 weapons (244 laser--guided bombs and 86 Tomahawk cruise missiles) were delivered on Baghdad targets (a mere three percent of the total of all smart weapons expended) (see tables 1 and 2).3
# Ordnance impacting in Baghdad totaled 287 tons (not even one--tenth of one percent of the total in the air war).4 Contrast this with Linebacker II, during which aircraft dropped 15,000 tons on Hanoi in 11 days, 50 times the bomb tonnage on Baghdad.
1991: Bush orders Allies to begin bombing Baghdad (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/17/newsid_2530000/2530375.stm)
Their bombs were aimed at military and strategic targets, including an oil refinery and Baghdad airport. Flashback: Desert Storm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/1118611.stm) The main targets were military, but Baghdad, the Iraqi capital, was heavily hit and there were many civilian casualties.

In the capital, military and communications installations were targeted, as well as the parliament, airport, defence ministry, and various palaces.

A US stealth bomber dropped two laser-guided bombs on what the allies had pinpointed as an important command and control bunker.

The bombers had intended to drop the 900kg bombs into the ventilation shafts of the shelter. One missed and exploded nearby, blocking the only escape route.

The second plunged into the bunker and exploded in the middle of the largest room on the upper floor. That strike was 50/50 with laser bombs

War Protests Articles Site Map Lighter Side

Operation Desert Storm: Collateral Damage (http://www.thomasin.com/bte2/gulf/articles/article2.html)

Fog of War (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/fogofwar/dbasetargets.htm)

But back to the original statement. "The dumb bombs in Desert Storm were no more accurate than the dumb bombs of WW II"

[Outcast]

But thats not done by "most iraqis". Could even have been foreign fighters. Most Iraqis arent fighting, tho theyre probably pretty pissed, they would never think of going to the US and taking revenge on civilians. Isn't it? I don't recall any Iraqis coming to the aid of Westerns being attacked, like in
Fallujah (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/pictures033104.html). Nor do I see the Iraqis doing much to end the violence in their country.

Let me clarify my earlier statement, whoever is behind the attacks on Americans and other Westerns, have no regard for civilians casualties. It doesn't matter to them if they kill 100, 1,000 or 100,000 civilians as long as they kill Westerns.

[Outcast]

Here is an excellent scripture to keep in mind the next time you read of Muslims inflicting needless causalities.

Sûrah al Isrâ 17.33
Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life for he is helped (by the Law).

If they feel their cause is just, then a Muslim can take any life they wish. Whether it be pushing a handicap person in a wheelchair off a ship, shooting fleeing children in the back, flying planes into buildings, as long as their cause is just, then their god permits it.

[Smurf]

First of all, The Iraqis just lost a war and are being occupied by US, they ARE forming their own police and they ARE trying to stop the violence, no one wants to live in a warzone.

Secondly, That passage does not state that anyone can kill if they think the cause is just, Allah did not decree that killing children and handicapped is just. Stop trying to make the muslims out to be evil warmongers.

[Outcast]

I have been warned not to discuss religion on here, so I will not reply.
However if you feel that Islam is a religion of peace as President Bush states, and wish to discuss this further. Please go to http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/ they have some wonderful topics on there such as.
Muhammad His life, his examples and his psychology

The Quran and Hadith Shari'a, Errancies, Miracles and Science,

Women's Rights The rights, or lack thereof, of women in Islam

Islam defended Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.

Minorities' Rights Slavery, Dhimmitude and Jizyah

The effect of Islam on Muslims. Honour killing. Human rights abuses of Muslims. Poverty caused by Islam.

Married to a Muslim How to survive. Share your stories, good and bad.

Testimonies of those leaving Islam Share your story.

Islam vs. other religions Debate how Islam compares to other faiths and religions.

Jihad and Islamic Terrorism How serious is this threat and can it be stopped? The threat of Political Islam

The danger of Islamic infiltration in non-Muslim countries through lobbying and political action

I am sure with your knowledge and understanding of Islam, you would be more than a match for these people. I normally post over at http://s4.invisionfree.com/The_Chatter_Lounge/index.php?act=idx Its a new forum, just starting up

[studentx]

Outcast, its fine to discuss religion (it wouldnt be the first time here), but you generalize it a bit. Passages that promote violence are also in the bible, its all a matter of interpretation. The problem as i see it is that Islam today offers no counter arguments to extremist interpretations of for example, that passage. Most moderate muslims (well over a billion) dont follow the books tho, they follow the culture and have never read the Quran or hadiths. But because theyre moderate, they can also said to be weak by scholars or extremists who take scriptures literally and even be condemned.
I read somewhere about Salman Rushdie who was condemned and sentenced to death in fatwas by islamic scholars all over the world. A muslim who investigates the origins of Islam is sentenced to death a hundred times, and Osama has not a single fatwa against him. Muslims really do have the power to cut off this extremism, but right now there is just no base for counter arguments in the religion and unless they reform, this thing is just gonna grow and grow imvho...

[Outcast]

Outcast, its fine to discuss religion (it wouldnt be the first time here), but you generalize it a bit. Passages that promote violence are also in the bible, its all a matter of interpretation. The problem as i see it is that Islam today offers no counter arguments to extremist interpretations of for example, that passage. Most moderate muslims (well over a billion) dont follow the books tho, they follow the culture and have never read the Quran or hadiths. But because theyre moderate, they can also said to be weak by scholars or extremists who take scriptures literally and even be condemned.
I read somewhere about Salman Rushdie who was condemned and sentenced to death in fatwas by islamic scholars all over the world. A muslim who investigates the origins of Islam is sentenced to death a hundred times, and Osama has not a single fatwa against him. Muslims really do have the power to cut off this extremism, but right now there is just no base for counter arguments in the religion and unless they reform, this thing is just gonna grow and grow imvho...
What I bolded is the problem. All arguments must be based on the The Qur'an. The The Qur'an does not teach peace, love or forgiveness. Go to Prophet of Doom (http://www.prophetofdoom.net/) and look at their material. They have a free Ebook if you are interested.

[Outcast]

Here is an Iranian website
THE IMAGES OF ISLAMIC PARADISE (http://www.sumka.org/islamic_paradise_e.htm) The Islamic society of Compassion, Culture, Education, Security, Freedom, Equality, Health, Happiness, Comfort, Women & Children Rights as Promised! Not pretty.

[studentx]

Those are anti islamic hate sites. You should know better where to get unbiased information

[Outcast]

Those are anti islamic hate sites. You should know better where to get unbiased informationYou mean I should use sites like these?
CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/religion/islam/framesource.html)
Aljazeera (http://www.aljazeera.com/)
MSA-USC (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/)

You mean I should not read articles like
Religious fatwa in Egypt says Islam forbids yoga (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1095566007581&p=1006688055060)
Calif. DOE forcing Islam on children (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/shroder/040918)
Despising Islam? (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/l/lowry/2004/lowry091904.htm)
Europe Trudges Relentlessly Toward Islam (http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=9776&catcode=11)

Go to Google News and do a search on Islam, again it is not pretty. I don't believe that there any unbiased websites. Islam is either the religion of peace and Christianity is the religion of hate or Islam is the religion of hate and Christianity is the religion of peace. There is no middle ground. The question a person has to answer for themselves is, which side are they own?

[studentx]

Islam is either the religion of peace and Christianity is the religion of hate or Islam is the religion of hate and Christianity is the religion of peace. There is no middle ground.

Why not........
I see you talking about Islam as if you want to wage a giant war against muslims. Could you post something constructive about the problem and your view on solving it.

[Outcast]

Why not........
I see you talking about Islam as if you want to wage a giant war against muslims. Could you post something constructive about the problem and your view on solving it. We are alreadey at war with Islam, in case you haven't noticed. The problem is Christianity and Western Civilization is slowly being over ran by Islam. 1) Recognize the problem, 2) Recognize that Islam is not a religion of peace as President Bush stated. 3) Stop immigration from Islamic countries. 4) Begin deporting Muslims back to their native country, that are not U.S. citizens 4) Stop teaching Islam in public schools. 5)Stop giving special privileges to Islam here in the United States. 6) Take back US property that was seized by Islamic nations.
Calif. DOE forcing Islam on children (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/shroder/040918)
How Judges Rip Up Faith (http://www.blessedcause.org/PressRelease/HOW%20Judges%20Rip%20up%20Faith.htm)
What's wrong with "ACROSS THE CENTURIES" Houghton Mifflin Social Studies Textbook 7th grade 21st Century Edition, nationwide (http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Across%20the%20Centuries%201.htm)
'Europe Will Be Islamic by the End of the Century' (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=5096)
A Seat at the Table: Islam Makes Inroads in Education (http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/News/040920a.asp)
Wakeup Non-Muslims!! (http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/9825/)
Just for starters

[Hurkyl]

We are alreadey at war with Islam, in case you haven't noticed.

I haven't.

As you mentioned , the first step is to "Recognize the problem". Follow your own advice: argue there is a problem before you move onto the next step.

[Capitalist]

Many of the threads here boil down to an argument over what constitutes an acceptable civilian casualty rather than discuss the issue from which the thread arose, so I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the topic that people are really discussing.

It doesn't matter. Enemy civilian casualties per se should never be a hindrance when applying force.

[studentx]

I haven't.

As you mentioned , the first step is to "Recognize the problem". Follow your own advice: argue there is a problem before you move onto the next step.

I agree. Outcast your analysis of the problem is flawed and i think you arent looking for a peaceful solution.

[Outcast]

I haven't.

As you mentioned , the first step is to "Recognize the problem". Follow your own advice: argue there is a problem before you move onto the next step. Does this indicate a problem between Islam and the Western World?

Two powerful and aggressive religions that both believe they have the divine truth cannot coexist.

The Battle of the Yarmuk took place between the Arabs and the Byzantine Empire in 636. This was the first clash between Islam and the Western world. The Byzantine army was defeated and Syria and the Middle East, which had formerly been Judo-Christian was lost to Islam. The next Christian state to fall to Islam was Egypt in 642. The Islamic conquest continued across North Africa In 711 the Berber Tarik invaded and rapidly conquered Visigothic Spain. The Moslems invasion of Western Europe was stopped in France at the Battle of Tours in 732. In 1453 the Ottomans defeat the Byzantine Empire and continue expanding into the Balkans. In 1492 Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, ended Muslim rule in Spain.

The Ottoman Empire failed to keep up technologically with its European rivals, especially Russia. It suffered a huge naval loss at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571. After its defeat at the Battle of Vienna in 1683, the Ottoman Empire began a long period of decline. After the great defeat of the Ottomans at Vienna, Prince Eugene of Savoy lead Austrian forces to further victories. By 1699, the whole of Hungary had been conquered from the Ottomans by the Austrians. The decline culminated in the defeat of the empire by the Allies in World War I. History of the Ottoman Empire[url

Between 636 and 1683 there was over a thousand years of aggression by Islam against Christianity and the Western World. Why did it end? Did Islam renounce the sword? Did it go thru a reformation, a renaissance ? Did a new prophet arise with a message of peace? No, Islamic conquests of Europe ended because Islam had not changed. It had over time become a primitive backward culture that was unable to compete in the modern world.

Beginning in the late 1960's Islam renewed its attack on the Western World. Again the question to be asked is what had changed in Islam? Had Islam undergone an industrial or technological revolution that would allow it to compete with the Western World? No, Islam was still the same primitive religion that first attacked the Western World in 636. What had changed can be summed up in one word, money. Money from the oil fields began to flow into the Middle East and North Africa. In the mid 1960's Islam nation began again their raids on the West with the nationalization of oil fields and refineries. Islam now had the money to purchase the weapons they could not produce and to finance a renewed assault on the West.

The first modern attack on the a Western nation, was a dismal failure, when tiny Israel single handily defeated the entire modern Islam world. The combined might of Egypt, Jordan, Syria along with their supporters Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria was not enough to defeat one small Western Nation. The lesson of the inferiority of the Islamic fighters in open combat, despite overwhelming superiority in men and equipment, was not lost on Islamic militants. From that point on Islamic militants began to use terror as one of their weapons against the Western world.

The first attack against the United States in the renewed war came at about 12:15 am on June 5, 1968, when Sirhan Sirhan shot presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy for his pro-Israel stance..

Another weapon that the Islamic world had in its arsenal to use against the United States was the 1965 Immigration Act. This Act, sponsored by Democrats, allowed Muslims throughout the world to pour into the United States in numbers that were never before possible. The Muslim population in America is estimated to be between 8 to 10 million. American Muslims represent about 3.7% of the total population and about 9.4% of the total voting public [URL]http://www.ijtihad.org/Muslimvote2004.htm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ottoman_Empire) You and I would vote for a candidate, because we felt that he had the best interest of our country at heart. The Muslims will vote for a candidate that they feel has the best interest of Islam at heart, even to the determent of this country.

On 9-11 the cries of “Allahu Akbar” rang out over an open mike as a hijackers struggled for control of an airplane. This was the same battle cry that Muhammad had taught his followers to scream almost 1400 years ago. You may not think we are at war with Islam, but Islam is at war with us as it has been for almost 1400 years, whether you agree with me or not.

In 1938 Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement as an appeasement to the Nazis and have his infamous “Peace in our Time” speech. On September 17, 2001, President Bush gave his “Islam is peace” speech as an appeasement to Muslims.

In 1936 Mein Kampf" was published. No one took the writings of a failed revolutionist sitting in jail seriously. Six years and 55 million lives later, they did. The Qur’an is Muhammad’s Mein Kampf. If we fail to take his writings seriously, then WWII will pale in comparison to what our children and grandchildren will face,

Mein Kampf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf) was an influential text among the Arab Ba’ath Party activists. An Arabic edition of Mein Kampf has been published by Bisan publishers in Lebanon. It ranks on the best-seller list among Palestinian Arabs.
Why don’t the moderate Muslims speak out against the “terrorist that have hijacked their religion?” They can’t, because they cannot defend their position using the Qur’an or other holy Islamic books.

[studentx]

Why don’t the moderate Muslims speak out against the “terrorist that have hijacked their religion?” They can’t, because they cannot defend their position using the Qur’an or other holy Islamic books.

Well at least this makes sense. Before you were saying to deport all muslims, but at least now you acknowledge that the majority of muslims is peaceful and against terror, not because theyre muslims but because theyre humans like the rest of us.

[russ_watters]

You and I would vote for a candidate, because we felt that he had the best interest of our country at heart. The Muslims will vote for a candidate that they feel has the best interest of Islam at heart, even to the determent of this country. I don't buy that any more than I buy the argument against JFK (at the time) that he would act in the interest of the Vatican. American muslims, by and large, are Americans first and foremost (otherwise, they wouldn't choose to live here). In fact, a great many are more patriotic than the average American because they have seen how 'the other side' lives and know how much better they have it. They can't be compared to muslims in the middle east.

[BobG]

The references Outcast uses are just plain wrong to paint all Muslims with the same brush. These views don't even describe Saddam Hussein.

They do reflect the views of some Muslim groups, al-Quaida being one of them. In fact, the extreme fundamentalist viewpoint of al-Quaida is one reason why a strong, close relationship between Iraq and al-Quaida would be a surprise (That wouldn't rule out a temporary relationship out of mutual convenience, just make one more difficult. According to the 9/11 report, the al-Quaida did try to ally itself with Iraq when al-Quaida was newer and weaker - Iraq rejected them, most likely because at that point, al-Quaida was more capable of causing problems for Iraq than the US. Later, Iraq did try to reach an alliance with a stronger al-Quaida, but was rejected - most likely because al-Quaida felt it had passed the point where it felt it had to ally itself with a secular type government that it philosophically opposed).

Your fundamentalist groups do feel there should be no separation between their religion and their government. In the view of al-Quaida, the governments of countries such as Iraq (pre-war secular dictatorship) and other secular Arab governments need to be replaced by a clerical government, such as the Taliban ran in Afghanistan or the Ayatollahs try to run in Iran.

This is the type of government al-Quaida wants to see in Iraq now that an opportunity has presented itself. It's also the type of government it wants to see in Chechnya, another war al-Quaida has supported. If the reference is strictly limited to the current war we're fighting in Iraq, Outcast's posts aren't totally out of line, since they do reflect a large percentage of the people that we're currently fighting. But it is totally wrong to paint this as a war against all Muslims.

[Outcast]

Well at least this makes sense. Before you were saying to deport all muslims, but at least now you acknowledge that the majority of muslims is peaceful and against terror, not because theyre muslims but because theyre humans like the rest of us. No, I said none of those things.
4) Begin deporting Muslims back to their native country, that are not U.S. citizens Not all Muslims, just the non US citizens.
I never said the majority of Muslims are peaceful and against terror. I never used the word majority.
(moderate) muslims is peaceful and against terror, not because theyre muslims but because theyre humans like the rest of us Yes, I agree with your statement. Those Muslims that are opposed to the bombings, beheadings and shootings, do so as humans. They cannot be opposed to the bombings, beheadings and shootings, as Muslims, because that would be heresy.

Christians on the other hand decry Jonestown, Waco and the abortion clinic bombings, not only as humans, but as Christians as well. Those events violated the teaching of Christ. Bombings, beheadings and shootings do not violate the teachings of Muhammad.

[Hurkyl]

Your reasoning seems to be split into two parts: historical and theological.

I don't think your historical argument holds any water: it has happened quite a few times that someone has managed to organize a society then that society conquers its neighbors. You could probably argue that the Arabs would not organized without Islam, but you'll be hard pressed to show that the subsequent conquests were any more ideological than, say, the Mongol Hordes or the Roman Empire.

Your religous argument is nonexistant: while you've stated multiple times your interpretation of Islam, you've given no arguments to back it up.


Furthermore, I don't see how your (alledged) contrast with Christianity bears any relevance to your claim.

[Outcast]

The references Outcast uses are just plain wrong to paint all Muslims with the same brush. These views don't even describe Saddam Hussein.

They do reflect the views of some Muslim groups, al-Quaida being one of them. In fact, the extreme fundamentalist viewpoint of al-Quaida is one reason why a strong, close relationship between Iraq and al-Quaida would be a surprise (That wouldn't rule out a temporary relationship out of mutual convenience, just make one more difficult. According to the 9/11 report, the al-Quaida did try to ally itself with Iraq when al-Quaida was newer and weaker - Iraq rejected them, most likely because at that point, al-Quaida was more capable of causing problems for Iraq than the US. Later, Iraq did try to reach an alliance with a stronger al-Quaida, but was rejected - most likely because al-Quaida felt it had passed the point where it felt it had to ally itself with a secular type government that it philosophically opposed).

Your fundamentalist groups do feel there should be no separation between their religion and their government. In the view of al-Quaida, the governments of countries such as Iraq (pre-war secular dictatorship) and other secular Arab governments need to be replaced by a clerical government, such as the Taliban ran in Afghanistan or the Ayatollahs try to run in Iran.

This is the type of government al-Quaida wants to see in Iraq now that an opportunity has presented itself. It's also the type of government it wants to see in Chechnya, another war al-Quaida has supported. If the reference is strictly limited to the current war we're fighting in Iraq, Outcast's posts aren't totally out of line, since they do reflect a large percentage of the people that we're currently fighting. But it is totally wrong to paint this as a war against all Muslims.
The references Outcast uses are just plain wrong to paint all Muslims with the same brush. Which references are wrong? If this had been a term paper, I would have footnoted everything.

These views don't even describe Saddam Hussein. How is that? True, he did not learn the lesson from the Six Day War, The Yon Kipper War or Gulf War I, Saddam, though a secular leader, is the product of an Islamic society. He was educated at the Cairo University in law. His Ba’ath Party was influenced by Mein Kampf. There is a lot of similarities between Hitler and Muhammad and between the Koran and Mein Kampf.

Your fundamentalist groups do feel there should be no separation between their religion and their government. It is not the fundamentalist group, but the Koran that calls for Muslims to live in an Islamic state. Khilafah is fard - Evidence from the Quran (http://www.islamic-state.org/fard/obligation1.shtml)

And what are the duties of a Muslim living here in America or some other Western country under our form of government?
What can Muslims in Britain and other non-Muslim countries do to re-establish the Khilafah? (http://www.islamic-state.org/west/)The Prophet said, "Man mata laysa fi uniqihi bay'ah mata maytan Jahilliya" "Whosoever dies without a bay'ah on their neck dies the death of Jahilliya (ignorance)" So it is Fard for all Muslims whether young or old, male or female to work to re-establish the Khilafah (Islamic State) so that we can give the bay'ah to the Khalifah and not die in a state of sinfulness. And this Fard cannot be achieved only by an individual working by himself. Rather this Fard requires a group to establish it. to work to re-establish the Khilafah (Islamic State) = to overthrow the existing government. This is not radial Islam, but Islam.

You keep talking about al-Quaida, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. They seems to have become Presidents Bush's whipping boys for his reelection. Just take a look at this list and see what the Western World is up against. Para-Military Groups (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/) Notice how may of these are Islamic and what their mission is.

[Outcast]

I don't buy that any more than I buy the argument against JFK (at the time) that he would act in the interest of the Vatican. American muslims, by and large, are Americans first and foremost (otherwise, they wouldn't choose to live here). In fact, a great many are more patriotic than the average American because they have seen how 'the other side' lives and know how much better they have it. They can't be compared to muslims in the middle east. Patriotics like Johnny Walker Lynn? or FBI Agent Gamal Abdel-Hafiz? or Spc. Ryan G. Anderson? or Sgt. Asan Akbar of the 326th Engineer Battalion or Muslim Chaplain James Yee or American Muslims that refused to fight in the Gulf War? The Japanese Americans were more loyal to this country in WWII, even after the way we treated them. If the Muslims here are good loyal Americans then they are heretics.

They can't be compared to muslims in the middle east Why not? Didn't most of the come from North Africa, The Middle East and Central Asia? What about the 19 hijackers? Weren't they good American Muslims up until 9-11?

Also would you please look at my previous post to BobG so I won't have to post it again. The part at the bottom about " And what are the duties of a Muslim living here in America or some other Western country under our form of government? "

[Smurf]

Now your comparing Mohammed to Hitler!! Is there no end to your bias?

[Outcast]

Now your comparing Muhammed to Hitler!! Is there no end to your bias? Have you ever read their biographies?

[JohnDubYa]

Careful Outcast, you don't want to wind up like Salman Rushdie, with the Muslim population vowing to kill you. (Cat Stevens' role in the threats has mysteriously been forgotten.)

[Outcast]

Careful Outcast, you don't want to wind up like Salman Rushdie, with the Muslim population vowing to kill you. (Cat Stevens' role in the threats has mysteriously been forgotten.)They got more to worry about than just me. More people are beginning to wake up to the threat that Islam poses.

[Outcast]

Now your comparing Muhammed to Hitler!! Is there no end to your bias? Here is a nice little bedtime story about the religion of peace. The author is drawing a comparison between the actions of the German Nazis and the Islamic Turks.

The Armenian (Christian) and Roma Genocide’s (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/armromgen.htm) In the course of the First World War two thirds of Turkey's 2,100,000 Armenians were killed. Of the remainder, many were exiled, and the rest lived in fear.

A connection between the Armenian massacres of the First World War, and the policies pursued in the Second, has been alluded to be some scholars. The Armenian Genocide demonstrated that it was not difficult to implement such policies in time of war, and that the long-term repercussions were manageable. According to the Archives of the Nuremberg Proceedings, Hitler, at a meeting of SS units at Obersalzberg, on August 22, 1939, at which he instructed them "to kill, without pity, men, women and children" in their march against Poland, commented that such activities would have no long term repercussions. Who, he said, "remembers now the massacres of the Armenians?" (Staub, p.187, and 309)

Although the term genocide is at times used rather loosely, there is generally broad agreement among scholars that Gypsies and Jews during the period of Third Reich hegemony in Europe during the Second World War, and the Armenians of Turkey during the First, were all targeted for “destruction, in whole or in part”. In tracing the origins and implementation of these policies it is, as I sought to demonstrate, necessary to inquire into the nature of the structural relations that obtained between the perpetrators and victims of genocide, as it is the matrix of these relations that helps to explain why such policies emerged and particular groups were selected as victims.

And what would the god of Islam say about all of this?

Qur’an 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an 9:111 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

Qur’an 8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Ishaq:324 “Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must not have rivals.”

Qur’an 9:14 “Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them.”

Ishaq:300 “I am fighting in Allah’s service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah’s war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good.”

Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”

Qur’an 8:57 “If you gain mastery over them in battle, inflict such a defeat as would terrorize them, so that they would learn a lesson and be warned.”

Qur’an 8:67 “It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land.”

Ishaq:588 “When the Apostle descends on your land none of your people will be left when he leaves.”

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

I think the god of Islam would have been pleased with the way the Turks carried out his commandments.

[Smurf]

Lets make this fun!! :biggrin:

Bible Quotes:
Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves. (Numbers 31:17-18)
I tell you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence. (Luke 19:26-27)
"Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35)

http://www.islam101.com had this to say:
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate some verses from the Holy Quran for their own goals.
But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.
:cool: This guy's smart.

[Smurf]

Now some Koran Quotes :biggrin: :biggrin: !!!

"God commands justice, the doing of the good, and liberality to kith and kin. He
forbids all shameful deeds, injustice and rebellion. Thus does he instruct you, that you may receive admonition." 16:90
"O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of male and female, and made you
into nations and tribes, that he may know and cooperate with one another." 49:13
2.192. Then if they desist, know well that Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Most Compassionate.

[Outcast]

Lets make this fun!! :biggrin:

Bible Quotes:


http://www.islam101.com had this to say:

:cool: This guy's smart.
Yes those things are in the Bible, but we are not talking about Christianity or Judaism. We are talking Islam. I understand for your need to change the subject.

[Smurf]

And the rest of my post?
tsk tsk, your avoiding the subject again :shy:

The bible quotes were to back up my argument, nothing more.

[Hurkyl]

I invoke Godwin's law. Outcast loses!

[Outcast]

And the rest of my post?
tsk tsk, your avoiding the subject again :shy:

The bible quotes were to back up my argument, nothing more.And what argument was that?

[Smurf]

I believe I said this:
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate some verses from the Holy Quran for their own goals.
But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.
And then gave some compassionate, peaceful quotes from the Koran. :yuck:

[Outcast]

And the rest of my post?
tsk tsk, your avoiding the subject again :shy:

The bible quotes were to back up my argument, nothing more.Tell me how those few quotes indicate there is not problem between Islam and the Western World? How does those few quotes refute 1400 years of history?

Also Godwin's law does not apply, because the comparison between Hitler and Muhammad is quite valid and not used as an insult.

[Smurf]

1400 years, lets see that'd be.... since 604 AD.
Allow me to examine this time period in detail and I'll get back to you on it.

The proof that there is not problem between islam and the western world is all the Islamists living IN the western world, quite peacefully.

[Outcast]

I believe I said this:

And then gave some compassionate, peaceful quotes from the Koran. :yuck:
http://www.islam101.com had this to say:
Quote:
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted. It is true that some Muslims manipulate some verses from the Holy Quran for their own goals.
But this is not only with Islamic texts, it is also true with the texts of other religions. I can quote dozens of verses from the Bible which seem very violent, if taken out from their historical context. These Biblical texts have been used by many violent Jewish and Christian groups. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Recently Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians.

If http://www.islam101.com had this to say:, then how can it be your arugment?

[Smurf]

Because that IS my argument. the first 2 lines:
It is important that we study the religious texts in their proper context. When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted.
There is nothing extremist or violent about the Quran. Thats bad translation, propoganda, whatever you want to call it. A few terrorists who managed to manipulate a few sections from it does not make it evil.\

And what are you trying to get at about the 1400 years of history? That Islam hates christians? hates the west? or is just inherently violent?

[Outcast]

1400 years, lets see that'd be.... since 604 AD.
Allow me to examine this time period in detail and I'll get back to you on it.

The proof that there is not problem between islam and the western world is all the Islamists living IN the western world, quite peacefully. Yes, why don't you get back to me when you have some valid arguments. Next time do a little better than just a cut and paste from a website.

[Locrian]

Next time do a little better than just a cut and paste from a website.

As someone just standing by reading to learn, I find this statement to be absurd. When I look through your posts I don't see references... just a few quotes from holy scriptures (which he did as well) and whole lot of web site links...

Making childish, snide remarks about cut and pasting from webistes would be at least minimally acceptable if you hadn't done the same yourself.

[Outcast]

As someone just standing by reading to learn, I find this statement to be absurd. When I look through your posts I don't see references... just a few quotes from holy scriptures (which he did as well) and whole lot of web site links...

Making childish, snide remarks about cut and pasting from webistes would be at least minimally acceptable if you hadn't done the same yourself.I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. I stated my arguments, I posted material to support my arguments and referenced the material I posted. I thought there would be some serious discussion, but I was wrong.

Perhaps you should learn to read first, then read to learn.

[Locrian]

I don't have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Well, that could certainly be true, though I don't see it as that complicated a post. You chide him for doing the same thing you did - post links to net sources. Is it any suprise you came back with the time honored "learn to read" response? For years this has been the knee-jerk of choice for those backed into a corner, and I suppose there is no reason to break tradition here.

No amount of insulting me will make your comment towards him any less petty and invalid.

[Smurf]

I invoke Godwin's law. Outcast loses! It's been proven: Any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

[Artman]

Sadly Outcast, you're just illustrating the problem rather than describing it. Religious works cannot be taken literally without regard to the age that they were written, the intended audience of the work, or without the benefit of an overall understanding of the intent of the entire book. Furthermore, you are taking verses out of context for the purpose of proping up your misconceptions.

This is the same problem that moderate Christians have with many conservatives. They think that the literal meaning for a 20th century western person is the same as for a Middle Eastern person living in the time the passage was written. This is not the case, and it must be understood that way in order to gain any true insight from the passage.

The Muslims have the same type of problem with extremists. They take verses out of context, read them literally disregarding any understanding of different meaning to a person from the time it was written and apply them to their twisted view of the religion.

Thank you for your illustration of this process in action.

[Outcast]

I am just amazed at how blind people are. Nothing I said about history or currents events means anything.

So what you all are saying is that there is no problem between the Western World and Islam?

[Artman]

So what you all are saying is that there is no problem between the Western World and Islam?There are other problems that you have not mentioned that are more difficult to overcome. For instance, Islam is a community religion for many of its followers. If one follower in the community starts to follow western culture and this leads to a negative effect, it is thought to effect the entire community and not just the offender. This is what makes US presence there such a problem even for the non-extremists.

Please understand that this is a basic explanation of my understanding of one of the problems.

[Outcast]

So it is ok with you folks that we a dual standard of law, one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims? Muslim women who fled the strict Islamic laws in their home countries to live in a more liberal environment in Canada may now face a similar regime in Ontario, where a Muslim civil court for family disputes is being considered under the arbitration act.
Muslim leaders 'scared of the rights of women' (http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=34084) So it is ok for Islamic women in Canada and soon to be the US to become second class citizens? It must be ok since there is no problem with Islam and Islamic law.

[Outcast]

There are other problems that you have not mentioned that are more difficult to overcome. For instance, Islam is a community religion for many of its followers. If one follower in the community starts to follow western culture and this leads to a negative effect, it is thought to effect the entire community and not just the offender. This is what makes US presence there such a problem even for the non-extremists.

Please understand that this is a basic explanation of my understanding of one of the problems. I am it total agree with your statement. That also applies when Muslims move to the Western World, their community moves with them so to speak, right?

[studentx]

I agree theres a problem with Islam and the problem is that it allows extremism to spread. I just disagree that its not a majority of muslims who want to kill westerners, and that "most iraqis" wouldnt use WMD on westerners if they could.

[Artman]

That also applies when Muslims move to the Western World, their community moves with them so to speak, right?Yes. This is somewhat true, but our society is built from differing cultures.

I think my main point is that the majority of Muslims don't hate us, but view us in a way that is similar to a divorcing couple splitting up for irreconcilable differences. We don't hate each other, but we know we can't live together. I guess the ones who come over here view it as "staying together for the children" (better living conditions and more opportunities, outweighing the cultural problems).

[russ_watters]

That also applies when Muslims move to the Western World, their community moves with them so to speak, right? I tend to think that they move to the West because they no longer fit with their community.

[Hurkyl]

It's been proven: Any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

I know. :frown: But I do it anyways because it makes a good lead-in for my typical next comment:


Also Godwin's law does not apply, because the comparison between Hitler and Muhammad is quite valid

You entirely miss the point of Godwin's law. Whether or not the comparison with Hitler or Nazis is valid, it is logically irrelevant to the issue at hand; the only purpose such a comparison serves is its emotional appeal. Since it is so obvious, it can be safely taken as a clear sign you don't have any logical argument to make in its place.

With that in mind...

Nothing I said about history or currents events means anything.

Then why did you say it? Stick to your point, don't go off on all these tangents.


So what you all are saying is that there is no problem between the Western World and Islam?

No, I am saying that I have no compelling reason to believe there is a problem with Islam and the western world.

[Smurf]

What I'd like to see is what exactly in the last 1400 years makes outcast believe that there is a problem.

[Outcast]

Yes. This is somewhat true, but our society is built from differing cultures.

I think my main point is that the majority of Muslims don't hate us, but view us in a way that is similar to a divorcing couple splitting up for irreconcilable differences. We don't hate each other, but we know we can't live together. I guess the ones who come over here view it as "staying together for the children" (better living conditions and more opportunities, outweighing the cultural problems). Perhaps a good example would be like Nazi (again) Germany in WWII. Though we were at war, there was not strong underlying current of hate on either side. Nazi ca be divided into four groups. 1) Those that truly believed the propaganda. 2) Those that supported it for social or economical advantages. 3) Those that supported it out of fear of death or prison and 4) Those that were brainwashed: Hitler's Youth. Hitler's Youth was by far the most dangerous of Germany's soliders, even the regular German solider was afraid of them, because of their fantasm. I believe the same four groups exist in Islam. It is the fourth group of Muslims that is so dangerous to the Western World.

[Outcast]

I tend to think that they move to the West because they no longer fit with their community. That may be true, along with wanting jobs and a better life. The problem arises when what the tried to leave behinds follows them. For example, in the article I posted
Muslim leaders 'scared of the rights of women' (http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?x=34084) it says Muslim women who fled the strict Islamic laws in their home countries to live in a more liberal environment in Canada may now face a similar regime in Ontario, where a Muslim civil court for family disputes is being considered under the arbitration act.

“Someone like me who was forced to leave her home country, exactly because of the re-Islamicization in our country,” said Haideh Moghissi, a sociologist at York University who came to Canada from Iran 20 years ago.

Moghissi has been interviewing migrant Muslim women in Canada for an academic project involving diaspora, Islam and gender, and says she discovered “a lot of resentment” towards the proposed Islam-based (Sharia) court.

“They have been brought to this country through the sponsorship of their husbands. They are dependent on (them) for various reasons and they simply don't have a say that the men have in cases like this. They can be pressured into arbitration,” she said. As I posted to Artman about the four different groups, Islamic women appear to fall into the third group, they are being forced to accept strict Islamic beliefs by groups one.

Group one is also responsible for creating group four.

[Outcast]

What I'd like to see is what exactly in the last 1400 years makes outcast believe that there is a problem. Smurf, if I were a serial killer or rapist, I would love to have you in the jury. If you can ignore almost 1400 years of warfare between the Western World and Islam, then you could easily ignore anything in a person's past history.

[Outcast]

I know. :frown: But I do it anyways because it makes a good lead-in for my typical next comment:


Then why did you say it? Stick to your point, don't go off on all these tangents.
I said it because I was using history to support my position. Then I came to realise that history doesn't mean anything on here. I was sticking to my point. " Islam and Christianity have had a problem with each other". The problem has existed for almost 1400 years.

[Smurf]

Smurf, if I were a serial killer or rapist, I would love to have you in the jury. If you can ignore almost 1400 years of warfare between the Western World and Islam, then you could easily ignore anything in a person's past history.
Ok, but what events specifically make you think that islam has been at war more than the west has been at war with them selves?
And what makes you think that we and them (aside from you) still hold grudges?

[Outcast]

Ok, but what events specifically make you think that islam has been at war more than the west has been at war with them selves?
And what makes you think that we and them (aside from you) still hold grudges?We are not talking about the wars between Europeans, we are talking about the war between Islam and the Western World.

Events? Pick one starting with The Battle of the Yarmuk in 636 up until the present. When has Islam and the West not been at war during the last 1368 years?


Why Muslims Hate Us (http://www.citizensoldier.org/hateus.html) The bottom line is that Muslims hate the West because the Koran tells Muslims that the West rejects Islam, and consequently is evil.

The Koran is confirmed to be true in the minds of Muslims by our own desire to throw out God's rules. There are 14 reason given for that quote.

Grudges? Ever hear of Bosnia, Kosovc or the Spanish Reconquista?

[Smurf]

:mad: I've had enough of this. I thought you were done with your Quran quoting, I thought you were accually going to clarify when Islam has been at war with "The West". Hell I thought you were going to clarify what part of "The West" has been at war with Islam for so long and why you think they are still "our" enemy today.

I believe its already been ascertained that there are many translations of the Quran that contradict eachother. I believe I've pointed out you need to use them in their proper context. I believe its already been determined that many muslims havn't even read the Quran, they're beliefs are based on their familly traditions or whatnot.

Yes, I've heard of Bosnia and Kosovo, no I don't know what happened there.

And what the hell does the Spanish Reconquista have to do with TODAY? In that time christian kingdoms were fighting amongst themselves just as much as with the muslims, and yes, they allied with Muslim kingdoms as well, and orthodox kingdoms, and some even had deals with the 'barbarians' and pagans of the era.

[studentx]

Yep, the more you study Islam the less you understand moderate Muslims and the more you understand extremists.

[Smurf]

I think thats an accurate statement.

[Outcast]

:mad: I've had enough of this. I thought you were done with your Quran quoting, I thought you were accually going to clarify when Islam has been at war with "The West". Hell I thought you were going to clarify what part of "The West" has been at war with Islam for so long and why you think they are still "our" enemy today.

I believe its already been ascertained that there are many translations of the Quran that contradict eachother. I believe I've pointed out you need to use them in their proper context. I believe its already been determined that many muslims havn't even read the Quran, they're beliefs are based on their familly traditions or whatnot.

Yes, I've heard of Bosnia and Kosovo, no I don't know what happened there.

And what the hell does the Spanish Reconquista have to do with TODAY? In that time christian kingdoms were fighting amongst themselves just as much as with the muslims, and yes, they allied with Muslim kingdoms as well, and orthodox kingdoms, and some even had deals with the 'barbarians' and pagans of the era.

Again, from a earlier posting of mine on this thread.
The Battle of the Yarmuk took place between the Arabs and the Byzantine Empire in 636. This was the first clash between Islam and the Western world. The Byzantine army was defeated and Syria and the Middle East, which had formerly been Judo-Christian was lost to Islam. The next Christian state to fall to Islam was Egypt in 642. The Islamic conquest continued across North Africa In 711 the Berber Tarik invaded and rapidly conquered Visigothic Spain. The Moslems invasion of Western Europe was stopped in France at the Battle of Tours in 732. In 1453 the Ottomans defeat the Byzantine Empire and continue expanding into the Balkans. In 1492 Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile, ended Muslim rule in Spain.

By the numbers

1) The Battle of the Yarmuk took place between the Arabs and the Byzantine Empire in 636. Do you understand that sentence?

2) This was the first clash between Islam and the Western world. Understand that?

3) The Byzantine army was defeated and Syria and the Middle East, which had formerly been Judo-Christian was lost to Islam. Now is that so hard to understand?

Do you understand that the Middle East was once part of the Western world for 700 years? It was the first part of the Western World to be attacked by the Muslims in 636 AD

[Hurkyl]

Well, allow me to start with something simple: what would it even mean for Islam to be at war with the Western World? Do you simply mean "A country whose predominant religion is Islam had a battle with a European or American country"?

[Smurf]

I'm very sorry outcast but I don't think like you, and I can't read your mind. Therefor I don't know where your coming from so your going to have to show me your logic behind this. As far as I can see "The West" (which I'm speculating means christians in Europe + North America, since you refused to clarify) has been at war with its self just as much as with any Islam nations, and as I recall the Islams have had plenty of bickering amongst themselves, and its not unheard of for an Islam nations and a Christian nation to sign an alliance.

Yes Im very familiar with the battle of Yarmuk, but as You said before... IT HAPPENED 1400 YEARS AGO. you know we prosecuted jews and pagans 1400 years ago, had witch hunts and thought the world was flat too. Things change. What does Yarmuk have to do with Today.

[studentx]

Outcast the worst thing you can do is admit to a war with Islam. This is exactly what extremists believe in, that the west is trying to destroy Islam and admitting this will just breed more extremism. Insulting Mohammed is also counter productive, its the root of their religion and even the most moderate muslims will be disgusted by this.

[Smurf]

Hell, I'm disgusted by it and I'm not muslim.

[Outcast]

Well, allow me to start with something simple: what would it even mean for Islam to be at war with the Western World? Do you simply mean "A country whose predominant religion is Islam had a battle with a European or American country"?No, not just a battle, but almost a thousand years of battles in an attempt to conquer and convert Europe to Islam. War in the conventional sense of battlefields ended in the 1700s due to the technological inferiority of Islam. Today Islam still wages war against the West other than open warfare on the battlefield.

[Hurkyl]

So if there were only 999 years of battles, it would not be considered a "War between Islam and the Western World"? I suspect you did not mean to put the time frame into the definition...


So "War between Islam and the Western World", you mean an attempt, by a nation whose redominant religion is Islam, to conquer or convert a region of Europe through force?

[Outcast]

I'm very sorry outcast but I don't think like you, and I can't read your mind. Therefor I don't know where your coming from so your going to have to show me your logic behind this. As far as I can see "The West" (which I'm speculating means christians in Europe + North America, since you refused to clarify) has been at war with its self just as much as with any Islam nations, and as I recall the Islams have had plenty of bickering amongst themselves, and its not unheard of for an Islam nations and a Christian nation to sign an alliance.

Yes Im very familiar with the battle of Yarmuk, but as You said before... IT HAPPENED 1400 YEARS AGO. you know we prosecuted jews and pagans 1400 years ago, had witch hunts and thought the world was flat too. Things change. What does Yarmuk have to do with Today.Ok if you are familiar with the Battle of Yarmuk, then why did you ask
I thought you were accually going to clarify when Islam has been at war with "The West". I had also posted that answer earlier.

I'm am sorry that it was unclear to you as what I meant by the Western World and I didn't realize that you were asking for clarification.

Yes, every country has been at war with someone at sometime over something. And even the worst of enemies will sign alliances when it is in there interest. England signed an appeasement pact with Nazi German, Nazi signed a pact with the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union and the United States fought on the same side in WWII. During WWII Islam supported Nazi German.

you know we prosecuted jews and pagans 1400 years ago, had witch hunts and thought the world was flat too. Things change Not all things Islam has not changed.

What does Yarmuk have to do with Today. It was where and when the conquest of the West and its conversion to Islam started. It was the start of a pattern that is unchanged even today.

[Outcast]

So if there were only 999 years of battles, it would not be considered a "War between Islam and the Western World"? I suspect you did not mean to put the time frame into the definition...


So "War between Islam and the Western World", you mean an attempt, by a nation whose redominant religion is Islam, to conquer or convert a region of Europe through force?Yes

Remember I said, "War in the conventional sense of battlefields ended in the 1700s." That means the war is now being fought off the battlefields in an unconventional manner. The goal of is Islam is still the same as it was 1400 years ago, to convert the world to Islam.

[Outcast]

Outcast the worst thing you can do is admit to a war with Islam. This is exactly what extremists believe in, that the west is trying to destroy Islam and admitting this will just breed more extremism. Insulting Mohammed is also counter productive, its the root of their religion and even the most moderate muslims will be disgusted by this.It is Islam that is trying to destroy the West not the other way around. Did we try to install a Christian government in Afghanistan or Iraq the way the Muslims installed Islamic governmets in countries they conquered? Have we outlawed Islam the way Saudi Arabia has outlawed Christianity or even discriminated against it the way every Muslim country discriminates against Christianity?
Insulting Mohammed is also counter productive, So telling the truth about Mohammed is insulting? You can quote anything from the New Testament or what the early church fathers wrote about Christ and I don't know of too many Christian would be insulted. If I quote from the the Qur'an, and the inspired Sunnah collections of Ibn Ishaq's Sira, al-Tabari's History, and Bukhari's and Muslim's Hadith. then Muslims are insulted?

[Outcast]

Hell, I'm disgusted by it and I'm not muslim.
Yes, Muhammad was a very disgusting person.

[Outcast]

This is just one example how Islam wages war against the West.
Storm over Italy crucifix ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3215445.stm) A controversy has erupted in Italy over a court ruling ordering a state kindergarten to remove crucifixes from its classrooms.

A judge in the central town of L'Aquila upheld a complaint by an Italian Muslim leader, Adel Smith.

[studentx]

It is Islam that is trying to destroy the West not the other way around. Did we try to install a Christian government in Afghanistan or Iraq the way the Muslims installed Islamic governmets in countries they conquered? Have we outlawed Islam the way Saudi Arabia has outlawed Christianity or even discriminated against it the way every Muslim country discriminates against Christianity?

The west is not christianity and the east is not Islam. By admitting that this is a war of total destruction between Christianity and Islam you turn billions into a spot where they can not be tolerant anymore. You want the world to acknowledge the problem as total warfare, but why? Shouldnt we be looking for a better way out than the destruction of the planet?

So telling the truth about Mohammed is insulting? You can quote anything from the New Testament or what the early church fathers wrote about Christ and I don't know of too many Christian would be insulted. If I quote from the the Qur'an, and the inspired Sunnah collections of Ibn Ishaq's Sira, al-Tabari's History, and Bukhari's and Muslim's Hadith. then Muslims are insulted?

Like was said before, you DID twist the meaning of some of your Quranic quotes by not supplying the entire verse. I think you did it unintentionally, because youve learned Islam from Islamic hate sites, and i suggested before that you find some unbiased sources.

[Hurkyl]

This is just one example how Islam wages war against the West.
Storm over Italy crucifix ruling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3215445.stm)

And how is this "war"? It's entirely peaceful: there is no force involved. And other groups have been doing this sort of thing for a long time in the U.S., so it's hardly a Muslim-specific phenomenon.

(e.g. search on the keywords prayer school)

[Smurf]

In france they banned headscarfs, along with other religious symbols. This is them trying to be a 'secular state' not descriminating, or waging war, muslims is it.

[Outcast]

The west is not christianity and the east is not Islam. By admitting that this is a war of total destruction between Christianity and Islam you turn billions into a spot where they can not be tolerant anymore. You want the world to acknowledge the problem as total warfare, but why? Shouldnt we be looking for a better way out than the destruction of the planet?
Like was said before, you DID twist the meaning of some of your Quranic quotes by not supplying the entire verse. I think you did it unintentionally, because youve learned Islam from Islamic hate sites, and i suggested before that you find some unbiased sources. First if the West is not Christian, than what is it?
Shouldnt we be looking for a better way out than the destruction of the planet? Yes, I agree! But first you have to make people realize that a problem exists. Most of you refuse to admit a problem exists. Once you admit a problem exists, then you can work toward a solution. Is there something wrong with that?
Like was said before, you DID twist the meaning of some of your Quranic quotes by not supplying the entire verse. Posting the entire Quarn around those verses I quoted would not change the meaning of them. Go look them up on the net for yourself and see how they are used.

Try this one Ishaq: 676 “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet.

The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said, ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’

‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’” Put it back in context to show why Muhammad was justified in asking someone to kill this women. And his attitude toward her death, justify that also. Or maybe you could find something similar out of the New Testament to show Christ was that cold blooded or maybe something to show that Budda was just as depraved.

Good luck

[Outcast]

And how is this "war"? It's entirely peaceful: there is no force involved. And other groups have been doing this sort of thing for a long time in the U.S., so it's hardly a Muslim-specific phenomenon.

(e.g. search on the keywords prayer school) It is the same thing we are facing here in American. The destruction of our culture by the Left, but that is a whole different topic.

Jailed Terror Suspect Helped ACLU Draft Schools' Anti-Christian Rules (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/13/172143.shtml) WASHINGTON – Abdurahman Alamoudi, an alleged senior terrorist operative, is behind bars on an 18-count indictment. But he can take satisfaction in the fact that a court in California has just given the green light to schools following ACLU’s religion-in-the-classroom guidelines, which he helped to formulate.

Left-Wing Groups Silent on Schools' Muslim Indoctrination (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/21/115449.shtml) WASHINGTON – Parents who are furious that their children are receiving indoctrination in Islam in their schools have yet to hear support from most of the same left-wing groups that loudly lecture Americans on what they call “separation of church and state,” a phrase that appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.

Thus far, not a peep out of American Civil Liberties Union, Moveon.org, the misnamed People for the American Way or many others of their ilk. ACLU continues to refuse NewsMax's request for comment.

MANDATING THE KORAN (http://www.blessedcause.org/Antichrist%20ID/aclu%20and%20islam.htm) TThe ACLU finally finds a religion it can tolerate. Surprise--it's Islam.

When a state university requires students to immerse themselves in the study of a particular religion, it can expect trouble. That's exactly what the University of North Carolina got for its summer reading requirement that all incoming freshmen read portions of the Koran and commentary by a religious scholar. The school now faces a lawsuit from a group of students and alumni, charging violations of the First Amendment..

RELIGION AND PRAYER IN U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACCOMMODATING MUSLIMS (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_praf.htm)
When most North Americans think of prayer in the public school system, they usually consider:

Brief morning exercises involving the entire class, with prayers prepared by the local school officials.

Prayer in student-organized and led religious clubs whose right to exist is guaranteed in most public schools by the Equal Access law.

That may be true for Christians and followers of many other religions. Their religion allows them to pray at random times during the school day and through the week. But Muslims represent a special case. They are expected to pray at specific times each day.

2001-DEC: Canada: Ryerson University, Toronto ON : Some Muslim students are frustrated at having to use halls, student lounges, or a tiny Multifaith Center to pray. They have enlisted the support of Hakeem Olajuwon - a devout Muslim and a 7-foot tall basketball star who plays center for the Toronto Raptors. He wrote a letter to the university administrators, asking them to provide students with a larger prayer room. Administrators have said it's not Ryerson's responsibility to provide a bigger space.

2001-NOV: NY: New York City public schools: Chancellor Harold Levy stated that the city would facilitate prayers for Muslim students during the lunar month of Ramadan -- an Islamic holy time of fasting and spiritual activities. Students would be allowed to leave classes briefly to pray. Prayer rooms would be established where they could worship. Response was varied:
bullet Some have objected to the linkage of religion and public schooling; they regard Levy's decision to be a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

Others object to special privileges for one faith, and the exclusion of all others. William Donohue, president of the Catholic League "commended Chancellor Levy for his decision to endorse the rights of Muslim students. However, he told Levy that 'in the spirit of inclusiveness,' it was only fitting that public schools extend that same respect for religious tradition to every child."

Others point out that Islam is the only popular faith in the city which needs to be accommodated in this way. Islamic prayers are expected to be said at specific times during the day. Christians and others can organize Bible Clubs and similar groups which can hold prayer sessions outside of classroom hours.

Ok, now what do you want me to search for to prove your point about school prayers?


And how is this "war"? It's entirely peaceful: there is no force involved.

I posted earlier War in the conventional sense of battlefields ended in the 1700s due to the technological inferiority of Islam. Today Islam still wages war against the West other than open warfare on the battlefield.
Islam and the ACLU (http://yconservatives.com/Guest-72.html) Islam President Bush and others have referred to Islam as a “peaceful religion” and say that Islam itself is not America’s enemy. And I say, “Wanna’ bet?” The following excerpt is taken from the editorial section of the Dallas Morning News, October 1, 2003, in reference to a Mr. Abdurahman Alamoudi, a “prominent American Muslim leader.” His words should strike fear into the heart of every freedom-loving American:

“Mr. Alamoudi, a backer of Hamas and Hizbollah…told an Islamic audience in Chicago: ‘I think if we are outside this country, we can say, ‘Oh, Allah, destroy America,’ but once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it. There is no way for Muslims to be violent in America, no way. We have other means to do it.”

Notice the "mission" this Muslim leader explicitly stated, with respect to Islam, Muslims and their plans for the future of the United States: “once we are here, our mission in this country is to change it.” But they’re smart enough to know that violence here will not get it done. So he says, “We have other means to do it.” Do what? Take control of America from within through political and other channels, and then turn it into a nation governed under the iron rule of Islam. In virtually every country where Islam rules, it denies the people there the most basic rights of human freedom, including: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of worship, and freedom of assembly.

[Outcast]

In france they banned headscarfs, along with other religious symbols. This is them trying to be a 'secular state' not descriminating, or waging war, muslims is it. If you would read the news more often you would learn that

1) the ban in France was issued by the government, not through a lawsuit by an individual.
2) the ban in France was aimed at ALL religion, Islam, Judaism and Christian, and not just Islam
3) The Christians are not taking hostages and threating to cut off heads, unless the Cruifix is restored.
This is them trying to be a 'secular state' not descriminating, or waging war, muslims is it. What did I say earlier?
Islam is at war with the West, the West is not at war with Islam.

[studentx]

Ishaq: 676 “‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling babe and then plunged his sword into the poet.

The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said, ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’

‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’”

And you took this from where? Many Hadith and other islamic writings are considered falsified bull**** by muslims. I dont know where you got this quote from, but are you sure this is considered authentic?

[Outcast]

And you took this from where? Many Hadith and other islamic writings are considered falsified bull**** by muslims. I dont know where you got this quote from, but are you sure this is considered authentic?Yes I am sure or I would not have posted it. I am too use to writing term papers to not be able to defend my position. I don't have to make up lies about Muhammad. He is really a vile immoral person. I first ran across that verse in Prophet of Doom: (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0971448124/qid%3D1096227486/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/102-9668541-9557736) Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words
Editors ReviewCraig Winn's controversial and inflammatory work, Prophet of Doom, begins with this statement: "Islam is a caustic blend of regurgitated paganism and twisted Bible stories. I didn't think anyone on here would accept him as creditable source.

I then found Muhammad (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1565847520/qid=1096227227/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9668541-9557736?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
by Maxime Rodinson, Anne Carter. The editor review said A definitive and fascinating introduction to the life, ideas, and impact of the founder of Islam. Maxime Rodinson's Muhammad has long been regarded as one of the touchstones of scholarship on the founder of Islam. He too made reference to the same verse. It is much harder to dismiss him as a hate monger.
You can read the whole thing in context
MUHAMMAD AND THE DEATH OF ASMA BINT MARWAN (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/asma.htm). You may not like the website, but its the same verses that Rodinson mentioned.

Now do you want to hear about Muhammad being a pedophile?

[Smurf]

Once Again:
Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for ‘true Islam’ or quoting the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern pictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind.

[studentx]

Once Again:
Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for ‘true Islam’ or quoting the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern pictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind.

The Quran makes up about 1% of islamic literature, even tho the book says it should be the only one.The lifes of both messengers, Jesus and Muhammed are completely opposite of each other, and Muhammed isnt the peaceful one. Theres quite a big difference between what the Quran says and the story of Muhammeds life.

[Outcast]

Once Again:
Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents and prohibits suicide. Nothing will be solved by searching for ‘true Islam’ or quoting the Qur'an. The Qur'an is a vast, vague book, filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). You can find in it condemnations of war and incitements to struggle, beautiful expressions of tolerance and stern pictures against unbelievers. Quotations from it usually tell us more about the person who selected the passages than about Islam. Every religion is compatible with the best and the worst of humankind. filled with poetry and contradictions (much like the Bible). Tell me about all these "contradictions" in the Biblical teachings. The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years by 40 diffrent men. The Ouar was written in 22 years by one man. You would think one man could keep his story straight.

Yes men do pervert the teachings of Christ for their own evil ends, but men do not have to pervert the teaching of Islam. Islam is already perverted. Yahweh is the God of the Bible. Allah is the god of the Quran. The two are not the same.

Look at the life of Jesus or Buddha and you will find nothing like what you see in the life of Muhammad. Were Jesus or Buddha pedophiles, Muhammad was. Did Christ or Buddha ever have their critics assassinated, Muhammad did. Did Christ or Buddha ever lead their follower on raid, to kill, to rape, to pillage, to gain slaves, Muhammad did. All the fine words and poetry that were plagiarized from the Bible are meaningless, when you are being robed and killed, you wife and daughter is being raped and sold into slavery. Of course Islam condemns the slaughter of innocents, its hard to rape the dead and to sell them into slavery.

To be Christian is to be Christ like.
To be Buddhist is to be Buddha like.
To be Muslim is to be Muhammad like. And you see what Muhammad was like. That is what the Western World is facing today, what if first faced almost 1400 ago. Islam has not changed since the death of Muhammad.

My heart does go out to the Muslims of the world who worship in ignorance. Is it any wonder that Islam will tolerate no other religion the way other religions do. Islam cannot stand up to the light of truth.
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." I pray that someday they will know the truth and become free.

[selfAdjoint]

It's ironic that on this view, Christians have never been consistently able to emulate Jesus, who preached to the good side of humanity, but Muslims have had no trouble emulating Mohammed, who preached to the dark side.

I repeat that this comment is entirely contingent on Outcast's view of Islam, and I do not necessarily endorse that. I would like a specific source in the Islamic scriptures for that woman-murder story. Reminds me of Henry II and Thomas a Becket, with the wrong ending.

[Outcast]

It's ironic that on this view, Christians have never been consistently able to emulate Jesus, who preached to the good side of humanity, but Muslims have had no trouble emulating Mohammed, who preached to the dark side.

I repeat that this comment is entirely contingent on Outcast's view of Islam, and I do not necessarily endorse that. I would like a specific source in the Islamic scriptures for that woman-murder story. Reminds me of Henry II and Thomas a Becket, with the wrong ending.What type of specfic source would you like?

Ishaq: 676

[Artman]

Yahweh is the God of the Bible. Allah is the god of the Quran. The two are not the same. Both are the God of Abraham. Abraham had only one God. They are the same.

Quit trying to talk like you intimately know this religion. You apparently do not.

[Smurf]

To be Christian is to be Christ like.
To be Buddhist is to be Buddha like.
To be Muslim is to be Muhammad like.

You forgot:
To be American is to be Bush like.


question: Does Judaism have a prophet?

[Artman]

question: Does Judaism have a prophet?
Many. Moses, Noah, Daniel, Joseph, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, were a few. Jesus was even considered by many Jews as a prophet (they don't believe he was more than that). The word prophet basically means to speak for God.

[Outcast]

Both are the God of Abraham. Abraham had only one God. They are the same.

Quit trying to talk like you intimately know this religion. You apparently do not. I may not be intimate with Islam, but it seems I know more about it than you do. Just because the Arabs trace their ancestry back to Abraham through Ishmael, does not make Allah the God of Abraham. Yes, Abraham did worship one God, but Allah was not that god.

So you are saying that Christ is the son of Allah? And the Jews and Christians actually worship Allah without knowing it?

[Outcast]

You forgot:
To be American is to be Bush like.


question: Does Judaism have a prophet? There was two class, major and minor prophets.
They were the ones that spent 1400 years writing the Bible. Interesting people. I don't believe any of them ask for the job and some tried to get out of it. None got rich doing it.


And to be Canadian is to be Martin like.

[studentx]

I may not be intimate with Islam, but it seems I know more about it than you do. Just because the Arabs trace their ancestry back to Abraham through Ishmael, does not make Allah the God of Abraham. Yes, Abraham did worship one God, but Allah was not that god.

So you are saying that Christ is the son of Allah? And the Jews and Christians actually worship Allah without knowing it?

Actually it is the same god. You didnt read the Quran did you?

[Outcast]

Actually it is the same god. You didnt read the Quran did you?Yes , I have and Muhammad may have made that claim, but anyone one that is familiar with the Bible and the Quarn can easily see that they can't possible be the same. For example compare the story of the creation in the Bible with the story of creation in the Quarn. Why would Yahweh give Muhammad several different conflicting version of the creation? Also why would Yahweh change His name to Allah?

[studentx]

Yes , I have and Muhammad may have made that claim, but anyone one that is familiar with the Bible and the Quarn can easily see that they can't possible be the same. For example compare the story of the creation in the Bible with the story of creation in the Quarn. Why would Yahweh give Muhammad several different conflicting version of the creation? Also why would Yahweh change His name to Allah?

This isnt about you or your views. Like i said before, the more you study Islam the less you understand the giant majority of muslims.

Muslims believe they worship the same god as Jews and Christians. The Quran says that Christians and Jews have nothing to fear as long as they believe in Allah. Allah is arabic for one god, and there could be many reasons he wanted to be called like that. Especially since many ppl see Jesus as a god and Islam supposedly corrects this "mistake".
Also you forget that Muslims believe the bible has been falsified or corrupted over the years and the Quran corrects it and supercedes all previous scriptures. Yahweh didnt give Muhammed conflicting versions of creation, that was just a piece corruption by the Jews;)

[Artman]

So you are saying that Christ is the son of Allah? And the Jews and Christians actually worship Allah without knowing it?Yeah, ain't that a kick in the head. Your knowledge of this religion seems to be culled from Islam hate sites. It's off-topic, biased, and does not reflect the views of the majority of Muslims. They say it's a religion of peace and you claim, through your conservative-Christian-point-of-view to say that it is one of hate.

I don't claim to know their religion. My claim is that a cursury study of any religion will not give much insight into the heart of its true practitioners. In fact, even people studying the books of their own religion often miss the point because of a lack of indepth knowledge of the author, the time it was written, the events surrounding it creation, how the work was interpreted, and how the modern audience finds inspiration in the passage.

What you see as a passage of hate can be interpreted totally different by someone else. Ask ten different people to read a passage from the Bible and you will get ten different interpretations.

Get back on topic, what has this to do with the acceptable number of casualties?

[russ_watters]

This duscussion is probably too far religious, but the way I see the "who'se god?" issue is pretty simple:

-The Jews worship one God.
-The Christians worship one God and are a branch off of Judaism.
-The Muslims worship one God and are a branch off of Judaism.

Therefore, they all worship the same god, just in different ways. Isn't that logical?

You could even take it a step further to say that if there is one god, then anyone who worships one god worships the same god. Its kinda axiomatic.

In any case, the 3 major religions I noted above are so similar in their roots, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to coexist.

[Smurf]

Exactly!!

And to be Canadian is to be Martin like
my point being that I'm NOT like martin, americans ARN'T all like bush and muslims ARN'T all like muhammed, christians ARN'T like christ and jews ARN'T like any of their major prohpets.