News America you don't know what you've done.

[rutwig]

The comparison gangs/jews is indeed bad. You could have said jews/muslims, since both refer to religious and cultural groups. But the same applies to catholics/protestants/ortodox, etc.

To the terrorism, to kill the opponents is maybe a good solution, but this is a vicious cycle that never ends. And no islamic terrorist will care whether he will be killed if he kills americans, since for them to die is a kind of liberation. Then you should eliminate the whole islamic world, but this is genocide, because the terms would be the same applied to jews along history. To generalize is the worst mistake than can be done.

Surely the actual conflict will generate new attacks, but with the time this will become routine.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
I think you are being oversensitive, like most people are about Jews...and as though you can lump a group together and pretend they all fit in one tiny box.

No, I don't believe I'm being "oversensitive". There is no parrallel between police ridding the city of gangs=armies ridding the world of terrorism=hitler ridding the world of jews. Gangs terrorize communities and in some cases cities, terrorist terrorize cities, countries and in some cases the large chunks of the world. Jews did not terrorize Hitler.

As an aside, it appears to me that kyleb uses arguing tactics that you would never find acceptable were he not on the "anti" war side of the coin.

 

[Laser Eyes]

Originally posted by kat
No, I don't believe I'm being "oversensitive". There is no parrallel between police ridding the city of gangs=armies ridding the world of terrorism=hitler ridding the world of jews. Gangs terrorize communities and in some cases cities, terrorist terrorize cities, countries and in some cases the large chunks of the world. Jews did not terrorize Hitler.

The suggestion that brought up the comparison with Hitler and the Jews was that you can wipe out terrorism by simply killing all terrorists. Hitler couldn't exterminate the Jews (though he tried very hard) and the US isn't going to rid itself or the world of terrorists by the so-called war on terrorism. It will have the reverse effect. The point I have been trying to make is that by invading Iraq America is creating more terrorists/terrorism than would otherwise exist.

After 9/11 I saw many US politicians and others on TV making speeches about how terrible it was but one thing I never heard anyone say (and still haven't) is to ask "What is that we did that could have made someone hate us so much to want to do this to us?" Do you think some Arabs got out of bed one day and for no particular reason decided to form a terrorist group, go to America, learn how to fly, hijack four passenger jets and fly them into buildings to kill thousand of innocent people? There must have been a reason for it but one thing America will not do is look in the mirror to find it.

Think about the effect this invasion of Iraq is going to have in the years to come. If you think Arabs hated America before you aint seen nothing yet. Terrorism is fueled by hatred. The organisers of terrorism will have countless young volunteers who will gladly give up their lives to get back at the "evil empire". There is going to be so much terrorism in America in the next few years that it will transform the country. Life in the US will never be the same. If you think this war against Iraq is going to reduce terrorism you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

The point I have been trying to make is that by invading Iraq America is creating more terrorists/terrorism than would otherwise exist.

As someone else pointed out, 9/10 was a relatively peaceful day. So clearly violence by the US didn't cause 9/11. And since 9/11 there has not been an increase in terrorist acts against the US. So the violence by the US on the terrorists has NOT increased the amount of terrorism.

After 9/11 I saw many US politicians and others on TV making speeches about how terrible it was but one thing I never heard anyone say (and still haven't) is to ask "What is that we did that could have made someone hate us so much to want to do this to us?" Do you think some Arabs got out of bed one day and for no particular reason decided to form a terrorist group, go to America, learn how to fly, hijack four passenger jets and fly them into buildings to kill thousand of innocent people? There must have been a reason for it but one thing America will not do is look in the mirror to find it.

So answer your own question. What is the US doing that is bad enough to warrant killing 3,000 of our civilians (actually, the goal was to kill EVERYONE in the towers - closer to 50,000 people) and how can we change it? Bin Laden has made some specific demands. Do you consider his demands reasonable?

russ_watters, i take it you have reading comperhesion issues?

Actually, kyle I wasn't the only one to question the analogy. Would you care to clarify how jews are like a gang of criminals?

The suggestion that brought up the comparison with Hitler and the Jews was that you can wipe out terrorism by simply killing all terrorists. Hitler couldn't exterminate the Jews (though he tried very hard) and the US isn't going to rid itself or the world of terrorists by the so-called war on terrorism. It will have the reverse effect.

Laser, so you are saying that killing Jews creates more Jews in the same way killing terrorists creates more terrorists? Even if you are correct in your interpretation of Kyle's analogy, its still a flawed analogy.

 

[Zero]

Lets drop the Jews/Nazis thing, ok? I read it to be reflective of the Nazis, not trying to say anything about Jewish people.

 

[russ_watters]

Fair enough, Zero. You're not the one who proposed the analogy anyway.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Zero
Didn't I used to respect you? Too bad you had to post this screed against 'liberals', whoever they are.

The question you need to consider is this: if someone doesn't agree with you, or the chimp in the White House 100%, does that mean they are 100% opposed to you? Did you ever consider the vast grey area between the Bush plan and complete pacifism? Worshipping who? Because we don't worship Bush, we must worship his opposition?

Think on that, and try again.

I don't know if you did or not - we never spoke.

Either way, my post was not so much directed right at you. I posed a specific question to you (which you did not answer) but most of what I said was a rant on common behavior I see in those opposed to Republican's, which Republican's are also guilty of in opposition to Democrat's.

It just bothers me when people point fingers and say "Hey, what you're doing is bad!" when it is apparently the only solution anyone has thought of. Show me alternatives - peace is not one in this case in my opinion. As someone already pointed out, the 9/11 thing happened when we were at peace.

So if you took it personally, sorry. You must be a liberal.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
After 9/11 I saw many US politicians and others on TV making speeches about how terrible it was but one thing I never heard anyone say (and still haven't) is to ask "What is that we did that could have made someone hate us so much to want to do this to us?" Do you think some Arabs got out of bed one day and for no particular reason decided to form a terrorist group, go to America, learn how to fly, hijack four passenger jets and fly them into buildings to kill thousand of innocent people? There must have been a reason for it but one thing America will not do is look in the mirror to find it.

Because, their Koran tells them that Muslims
are the chosen ones. It tells them that they
must spread Islam across the world by any means
availible including force. If they are unable
to do so then they can make alliances with some
of the "infidels" to defeat the others. Such
alliances can be broken, however, since they
are illegal because the were signed with
non-Muslims.

Further more, they believe that Islam will
deliver "them" - that is they will have great
life in "heaven". So, as they see the "infidels"
having good lives and themselves lying in the
"dirt" they simply can't stand it.

The strict and violent laws of Islam are amongst
the reasons that prevented this unfortunate
religion from becoming "reformed" like other
religions. This fundumentalism is totally extreme
and allows no compromise.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LURCH]

I'm afraid that these particular Arabs hate us because we interfere with their genocidal agenda. I'm not trying to bring up the hole "Hitler" thing again, but this groupe of Islamic fundamentalists is bent on renedring the Jewish race extinct. We got in the way of that, and they will continue to attack us until we are willing to stand aside and allow genocide.

But even that (IMO) will only bring the attacks to a halt until said genocide is complete. They will then turn to the US, and all else who are not Arab Islamic fundementalists.

So I'm afraid that, with regard to the question:

Originally posted by Laser Eyes
"What is that we did that could have made someone hate us so much to want to do this to us?"

the answer is, "We exist".

 

[kat]

I've also considered the possibility that there is an effort by Arab{muslim?) leaders to pull the arab (muslim?) countries together by creating a common enemy. Is Saddam the modern day constantine? or is there an Arab constantine yet to come? History shows us that the great motivator of men has been religion and that the greatest weapon of rulers has been fanatics.

 

[kyleb]

Originally posted by drag
It tells them that they
must spread Islam across the world by any means
availible including force.

could you quote the Koran to show that? from what i understand it is quite the opposite.

 

[damgo]

drag, Lurch, this is just not so! The teachings of Islam, like those of Christianity, are far from violent. Of course this has not stopped many rulers, Christian, Moslem, or other, from starting wars of aggression or conquest anyways, or from claiming religious justification for them. I mean, did anyone really expect George "Jesus is my favorite political philosopher" Bush to reject vengeance and follow:

"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

There is famous story in the Qu'ran about how Mohammed refused to attack the people of Medina first, even when they were plotting against him, because he had signed a treaty with them. The Qu'ran also flat-out condemns wars of aggression:

YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

-Qu'ran 2:190

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

It tells them that they
must spread Islam across the world by any means
availible including force. If they are unable
to do so then they can make alliances with some
of the "infidels" to defeat the others. Such
alliances can be broken, however, since they
are illegal because the were signed with
non-Muslims.

Further more, they believe that Islam will
deliver "them" - that is they will have great
life in "heaven". So, as they see the "infidels"
having good lives and themselves lying in the
"dirt" they simply can't stand it.

The above is a very good description of an "Islamist". "Islamism" should not be confused with the word "Islamic". A practictioner of "Islamism" would be titled an "Islamist"

All "Islamists" are Islamic(muslim), but not all Islamics(muslims) are "Islamists". Some unfamiliar with these exact terms may be using the less accurate "radical fundamentalist muslims" who are not necessarily "Islamists".

The distinction between "Muslims" and "Terrorist Islamists" should now be clear.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by damgo
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah...
PICKTHAL: Fight in the way of Allah...
SHAKIR: And fight in the way of Allah...

They only read the first part...
Ever seen that written in the Bible or Hindu
teachings or other places ?
Religious people always exhagerate what they read
in their wholy writings, it's enough for them
that they are told to fight for Islam, the
technicalities are not important.

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Here's something for you to ponder about,
just a simple search for the word "fight"
in the Koran :
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=simple&q1=fight&size=First+100

An exerpt :
"Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah,
who sell this world's life for the hereafter;
and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be
he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant
him a mighty reward."

Think about it...

Live long and prosper.

 

[kyleb]

i have actually studied the Koran and i don't think your position is justified at all. i think you need to think about it drag, and not with the preconception that it is wrong either. damgo made some good point above which i do not see you taking into consideration.

 

[russ_watters]

i have actually studied the Koran and i don't think your position is justified at all

The problem, kyle, is as damgo pointed out the followers of a religion do not necessarily follow the book. IMO, the dominating ideology of islam is violent. This does not mean the majority of muslims are violent, just that the violent ones are in charge. It doesn't matter that the Koran (as I have heard) intends Islam to be a religion of peace.

 

[kyleb]

well it matters when people make unjusfitable statements like the one drag did above.

 

[LURCH]

Originally posted by Alias
The above is a very good description of an "Islamist". "Islamism" should not be confused with the word "Islamic". A practictioner of "Islamism" would be titled an "Islamist"

All "Islamists" are Islamic(muslim), but not all Islamics(muslims) are "Islamists". Some unfamiliar with these exact terms may be using the less accurate "radical fundamentalist muslims" who are not necessarily "Islamists".

The distinction between "Muslims" and "Terrorist Islamists" should now be clear.

(Thanks for clarrifying the terminology, Alias.)

Yea, that's why I reffered to them as "these particular Arabs" and "this groupe of Islamic fundementalists"; because I didn't want to attribute such qualities to an entire race, nationality, or faith, but I didn't know the word for "Islamists".

Would anyone have an idea as to how much of the Arab or Muslim world is of this persuasion? From things I've seen in recent years, it would appear to be a very large segment, perhaps even the majority?

 

[damgo]

the dominating ideology of islam is violent

I have to totally, utterly, disagree. Just a question for you guys that think this -- are you basing this just on vague media reports, or on Moslems you know? Half my family is Moslem (and living in Iran to boot), and I run into lots of other Persians and Arabs around here. Islam is not a violent religion! It has its fair share of fanatics, and even mainstream Moslem leaders love to call on God and martyrdom to support their pet conflicts; but that doesn't mean much.

I mean, if you listen to Bush's speeches, he loves to call on God's blessing for the war, and talk about "a day of reckoning for the Iraqi regime", and make all sorts of other religious allusions. But this doesn't mean Christianity or most Christians are violent, or support this war.

re: the Bible, sure, I know of lots.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.
-Matt 10:34

"Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them," declares the LORD .
"Do everything I have commanded you.
The noise of battle is in the land, the noise of great destruction!"
-Jer 50:21

The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people"...
Moses was angry with the officers of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-who returned from the battle.
"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Numbers 31:1-18

 

[Alias]

That is why I included the clarification of terms in this thread.

What is correct is that the dominating ideology of Islamism is violent.

I was trying to get people to notice that there is a proper distinction between Muslims and Islamists. I think, though that whoever coined the phrase could have done better, because for weeks I've been thinking that there must be some alternative spelling of Islamics or that people were using an incorrect term and should have been using the term Muslims when in fact they were using the term Islamists correctly in describing particular terrorists.

 

[russ_watters]

I have to totally, utterly, disagree. Just a question for you guys that think this -- are you basing this just on vague media reports, or on Moslems you know? Half my family is Moslem (and living in Iran to boot), and I run into lots of other Persians and Arabs around here. Islam is not a violent religion!

Damgo, reread my post. You completely and utterly missed my point.

I said explicitly that I do not believe the vast majority of muslims are violent. What I said is:

the violent ones are in charge

 

[damgo]

Russ, that wasn't directed at you... I just pulled that quote without looking. Mainly I have noticed a general trend by some Americans to think Islam is inherently violent; which is unfortunately understandable if your main contact with Islam is hearing Saddam or Hamas calling for martyrdom. I beat this drum to try and get a better picture across; I'm not trying to accuse anyone.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LURCH
Would anyone have an idea as to how much of the Arab or Muslim world is of this persuasion? From things I've seen in recent years, it would appear to be a very large segment, perhaps even the majority?

There's a wonderful invention called television -
use it(and I'm not talking about these times in
particular).

Look at their countries and societies. If it were
not for their oil and the money they get from it
for many decades. If it were not for the USSR
that supported them militarily, scientificly/
educationaly and financialy because of their oil
and because they were seen as allies
against the west. If it were not for their oil
and connected external influences they'd be
in a much worse situation than those "3d world"
countries in Africa. In fact, I'm pretty sure that
the africans, given the same treatment, could've
had a well developed continent by now.
If their oil ended in the next few years as some
predict is possible they will totally collapse.

Ever seen their non-religous population segments ?
I haven't. Every friday they all go and listen
and guess what they're told...

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by sir-pinski
Was the Christian faith (not the religious institution) or for that matter the Bible to blame for the Witch Hunts or for the Spanish Inquisition?

You forgot the main part - the Crusades.
Nevertheless, those were different times. In the
modern world people are (supposed to be) more
"inlighted".

Originally posted by sir-pinski
...doesn't mean the religion is the problem.

In my personal view - ANY religion is a problem.
But, then again, look at some of the religions
in eastern asia. They seem to prove both you and
me wrong. Not only that they include no violence
whatsoever unlike Islam and never had violent
followers, they also value the kind of values
that I think many people should follow.(Although
the God/gods part is always in the way -
maybe if it were reformed to "optimal for the
human mind behaviour mode" or something.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by sir-pinski
I don't know much of the history to these faiths...

Ooops... Now that WAS bloody, indeed.
Purhaps, what is required at the basis of
a peaceful religion is an ancient war - to
keep the "evil" in sight.

Live long and prosper.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by damgo
I have to totally, utterly, disagree. Just a question for you guys that think this -- are you basing this just on vague media reports, or on Moslems you know? Half my family is Moslem (and living in Iran to boot), and I run into lots of other Persians and Arabs around here. Islam is not a violent religion! It has its fair share of fanatics, and even mainstream Moslem leaders love to call on God and martyrdom to support their pet conflicts; but that doesn't mean much.

Well..aren't there fairly large differences between Iranian(also non-arabic) moslems and the moslem religions of arabic countries? I've never really delved into the Iranian peoples "physcological" mindset but considering they don't even speak the same language...
Also, I believe any ideal can become violent if harnessed correctly, not just god based ideals..and I believe anyone who follows the media in many ME Arabic countries must admit that these ideals are definitely being harnessed to incite violence and hatred.
My children are first generation Arab/American and I too have personal connections to the Arabic world..I have heard some extremely bizarre and prejudicial beliefs, I have read these repeatedly in mainstream arabic media...So, there is a dangerous combination of idealistic religious based fervor, race prejudice, media instigated hatred that falls upon, in many cases either young impressionable and educated minds or..on the other end of the spectrum the uneducated but just as easily impressed.
In countries where the government influences and in most cases controls the media..one has to question whether the media is reflective of the peoples beliefs or if the peoples beliefs are reflective of what the media is educating them to believe. Of course then again, if you delve into what is being taught the children in many ME arabic countries schools..you again see these hate based myths being instilled in young minds.
For me the big question is, who profits from this? It's obviously NOT the common people of these countries..it's obviously not those who are the brunt of their hatred..so that leaves who?
I apologize for the rambling nature of my post, I'm just putting forth my own insights.

 

[Alias]

Originally posted by sir-pinski

What about Taoism? Anybody know the roots to this?

1 : a Chinese mystical philosophy traditionally founded by Lao-tzu in the 6th century B.C. that teaches conformity to the Tao by unassertive action and simplicity.
2 : a religion developed from Taoist philosophy and folk and Buddhist religion and concerned with obtaining long life and good fortune often by magical means

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, that wasn't directed at you... I just pulled that quote without looking. Mainly I have noticed a general trend by some Americans to think Islam is inherently violent; which is unfortunately understandable if your main contact with Islam is hearing Saddam or Hamas calling for martyrdom. I beat this drum to try and get a better picture across; I'm not trying to accuse anyone.

Fair enough.

One thing though: what about the Moral Imperative? The Moral Imperative states that if you see a moral injustice being comitted and you have the power to stop it, you are bound by your morality to do so. I realize that's easier said than done, but regardless, it doesn't make the average Joe muslim a moral person if he doesn't openly object (at the very least) to the violence of his leaders.

A clearer (more extreme) example (the usual one): Nazi Germany. Were the majority of Germans violent/evil people? I doubt it. Did they understand what their government was doing was as evil as evil gets in this world? Probably. That they didn't attempt to stop it (most of them) makes them complicit.

Peaceful muslims need to step up and take control of their religion. It would appear that that is happening in Iran. But that's a rarity.

Or perhaps certain western actions persuade these people to become fundamentalists. A lot of resentment can be generated this way. How would you feel if a large country simply threw it's weight around just to get what it wants without considering you. This has happened numerous times through history (in the US as well as other countries) and always causes problems.

One problem with that thesis - the US throws its weight around EVERYWHERE. And this doesn't cause hatred everywhere - only in some places. Germans and Frenchies disagree with us (pretty srongly) right now but they aren't flying airplanes into buildngs. WHY? Their disagreement is purely political (and economic). Islamic extremist hatred for the US is that plus religious, cultural, and racial. Those last 3 differences are where the hatred comes from - and there is nothing we can do to change that.

Just because someone does something terrible in the name of religion doesn't mean the religion is the problem.

Its not that simple. Sometimes it is impossible to separate the religion from the actions being taken in the name of the reigion. Untl Martin Luther, the Catholic Church WAS christianity and it was horribly corrupt. It was not possible to go against the Catholic church and still be a christian.

Maybe we need a Muslim Martin Luther?

 

[russ_watters]

Well I think it's a bit stronger than just strong disagreement at the moment. From what I have seen there is a growing resentment for the US, it's policies and cultural attitudes. It's not just the "frenchies" and the germans either. Anti-US sentiment is heavily on the increase in the UK and a large number of other countries which were previously quite close to the US. This is not just a war thing either, this has been on the increase for several years.

Thats my point! With all this anti-american sentiment, is a war likely between Germany and the US? Terrorism? Not even remotely possible. WHY!? Because our disagreements are only political and economic, not racial, religious, and cultural.