How badly is the US inciting Islamic hatred against itself?

[Taraz]

This may belong in Politics, but I always post here and respect the opinions of many posters here. I'm hoping that this post will spark rational discussion rather than senseless jabbering back and forth.

I've been reading about Islam and the Quran recently and the more I learn, the more scared I become that we are playing right into the hands of the radical and violent Islamic leaders.

There are many passages in the Quran that declare Christians and Jews to be spiritual brothers to Islam. The 'infidels' are only those who actively persecute and oppose Islam. And, from what I can understand, it seems like Muslims cannot justify aggression through their faith. Only self-defense.

So as long as our government keeps insinuating that Islam is a religion of violence and hate, Muslims can view America as attacking their religion. When we claim that we have to go into the Middle East and spread our ideology, radical Muslim leaders can claim that we are assaulting Islam.

It's downright scary since I can't really see either side backing down. It seems like whatever action is made, the other side will claim self-defense and continue the aggression. I think that we might have to be the first one's to turn the other cheek a little bit and stop insisting that the Muslim world conform to all of our ideals when they are clearly unready to do so.

[BluffTHIS!]

You are selectively reading the Koran. Read more and search past politics forum threads on this topic, and how the Koran says to treat non-believers if they will not convert. *And* see what current Islamic leaders/clerics say about non-believers, and Jews in particular (like Iran's president). Also, you might want to bone up on one of their philosophers, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini), a Palestinian who supported Nazi Germany.

There is all the proof in the world that Islamic fundamentalism is not content with securing freedom of worship for their own believers, but as well in denying that freedom to non-believers in many majority Moslem countries, and in imposing Shari'a law by force of arms irrespective of the wishes of the non-believers, or even fellow Moslems of differing sects. Read up on the Sudan and the religious genocide by radical Islam against Christians and animists.

Radical Islam is the primary threat to world peace now. And if some apologists for Islam maintain that really isn't what the majority of Moslems believe, then that can only be proven by that supposed majority firmly and constantly speaking out and acting against the Islamic radicals/terrorists.



Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
--9:29


People of the Book = Jews and Christians

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Radical Islam is the primary threat to world peace now. And if some apologists for Islam maintain that really isn't what the majority of Moslems believe, then that can only be proven by that supposed majority firmly and constantly speaking out and acting against the Islamic radicals/terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's no more true than claiming your poisition can only be supported if the majority constantly speak out in favour of Islamic radicals/terrorists.

One problem imo with US policy and British policy is that its acted in a way that makes it easier for extremists to thrive within otherwise more moderate communities and pushed people to become more extreme.

If we're not going to take an ethical approcah and try to maintain some moral high ground and win hearts and minds then the alternative is unpleasent but competent foreign policy - almost the complete opposite of the Iraq fiasco.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

chez,

I take the mostly silence of the supposed majority, as either de facto support of the radicals, or cowardly appeasement. If the majority of Moslems are agains these radicals, and in fact oppose the imposition of Shari'a by force and the commitment to destroy Israel/the Jews, then they need to SPEAK UP.

This whole "we're alienating the moderates" [censored] is a red herring. If the majority of Moslmes truly want peace and religious tolerance, then let it be shown in the actions of the governments of their countries, and in their own personal attitudes toward women in general, and also non-believers. They expect and demand religious freedom when they emmigrate to the west, but they most often, whether overtly or more subletly, deny non-believers living in majority Moslem countries, those same rights, and you know that is true. And what is more, just as is constantly demonstrated in Iraq, they fight among themselves over religious differences.

As has often been discussed in these forums, Islam is still stuck in the mindset and practices of the middle ages, that Christians and other religiouns mostly left behind. And note that all these comments are directed mainly at the majority Moslems countries, and not to Moslems living in western countries.


When all of the following are true, we will know the majority of Moslems sincerely want peace and not to impose their faith on others by force:

1) Israel's right to exist is acknowledged;

2) A christian minister/priest can freely proclaim the gospel in Riyadh;

3) Moslems everywhere stop trying to impose Shari'a law on anyone Moslem or non-beliver who doesn't want to live under it (i.e. the rights of the minority are protected even if a majority wishes more religion in government);

4) A majority of Moslem clerics *in majority Moslem countries* denounce all the actions of Islamic terrorists, no matter against whom they are directed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

I take the mostly silence of the supposed majority, as either de facto support of the radicals, or cowardly appeasement. If the majority of Moslems are agains these radicals, and in fact oppose the imposition of Shari'a by force and the commitment to destroy Israel/the Jews, then they need to SPEAK UP.

This whole "we're alienating the moderates" [censored] is a red herring.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know you do and as you must know I think you're completely wrong and we're never going to agree. I assume both our points are view are honestly held.

BUT even if for the sake of discussion we assume you're correct then the question is how best to deal with it and I find it hard to imagine how anyone thinks the incompetence of the Iraq fiasco hasn't made the situation worse. On that basis alone I think the US (and come-on we Brits deserve some credit) have done a great deal to incite Islamic hatred.

chez

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
--9:29


People of the Book = Jews and Christians


[/ QUOTE ]
What is this even supposed to "prove?"

Do you know what the Jizya is referring to?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
--9:29


People of the Book = Jews and Christians


[/ QUOTE ]
What is this even supposed to "prove?"

Do you know what the Jizya is referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually I did pass googling 101 and wiki-ing 102. And indeed I was hoping someone would fall into the "trap" there. For while that is defined as a tax on non-believers that is *supposed* to allow them to live in a Moslem civil society with freedom of worship, that isn't the way it is practiced when Christians and others in fact don't have *full* freedom of worship in many Moslem countries (even more secular Turkey which hassles and places ridiculous restrictions on the Orthodox Christians and their patriarchate). And you ignored the other parts of that quote, which indicate that the term there isn't being used in the manner it is defined as, since Moslems are enjoined to "fight" non-believers and make them "feel subdued".

The history of the spread of Islam is a violent history of forcible conversion. Though that can fairly be said of Christianity of certain limited eras, it is a constant theme in Islamic history with their desire to force Shari'a on the unwilling non-believers, even if those non-believers constitute a majority of the population in a democracy.

[Lestat]

My personal view:

While Americans value their freedom and way of life to the point we are willing to die for it, so do people of different ways of life. I feel it is wrong for the US to shove democracy down other people's throats.

I can easily see their side... A devoutly religious Muslim who lives a pious life and raises his children to do the same. He sees our way of life as the epitome of evil. Cities where gambling and prostitution are legal. Women parading around in public in skimpy revealing clothes, bars, liquor, partying, etc. etc. Of course, he doesn't want his children indoctrinated into this way of life. He has every right to feel threatened when we proclaim our wish to spread this way of life to the rest of the world. Add to this the hypocrisy we have shown in our dealings with different figures of the Mideast, and it is easy to see how we have come to be called the Great Satan.

The fact is, democracy is not for everyone, nor should we cram it down other country's throats. There are people who relish the simple (albeit difficult) life of what seems oppressive to us. Working 8 to 5 in a factory would be pure torture for me, yet I understand others find a sense of security in it. They couldn't handle my life any more than I could handle theirs. Whereas, I may make nothing or even lose money in any given week, they find comfort in collecting their guaranteed weekly checks. Never mind they have nowhere near the potential I do, nor the freedom I have. They couldn't make it. The pressures and hardships of freedom is not for everyone.

Now if people don't want to live that way, it's a different story. If people feel oppressed then we should help them find their freedom. But it's not up to us to force it upon them. That's my take anyway.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I take the mostly silence of the supposed majority, as either de facto support of the radicals, or cowardly appeasement. If the majority of Moslems are agains these radicals, and in fact oppose the imposition of Shari'a by force and the commitment to destroy Israel/the Jews, then they need to SPEAK UP.</font>

I knew if I kept reading your posts, there would one day be something I absolutely agreed with! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
You are selectively reading the Koran.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm sure you're giving a very faithful interpretation of the text . . .

[ QUOTE ]
Read more and search past politics forum threads on this topic, and how the Koran says to treat non-believers if they will not convert.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Koran is pretty explicit in saying that Jews and Christians are brothers and kindred spirits.

Quran 5:69: "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Christians, and those Sabeaans, whoso believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness--their wage waits them with their Lord, and no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

5:82. " . . . and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: 'We are Christians.' That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud."

And it is pretty clear that you can't fight somebody who wants peace:

4:90 "Exempt those who join a people with whom you have concluded a peace treaty, and those who come to you with hearts unwilling to fight you, nor to fight their relatives. Had God willed, he could have placed them in power over you and they would have made war on you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then God gives you no way to go against them."

4:94: . . . Do not say to one who offers you peace, "You are not a believer," seeking the spoils of this life. For God has abundant treasure. You used to be like them, after all, and then God blessed you.

[ QUOTE ]

*And* see what current Islamic leaders/clerics say about non-believers, and Jews in particular (like Iran's president). Also, you might want to bone up on one of their philosophers, Mohammad Amin al-Husayni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini), a Palestinian who supported Nazi Germany.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, these people are about as representative of Islam as Jerry Fallwell is of Christianity. Why are "current Islamic leaders" in your mind only the ones who want war?


[ QUOTE ]

There is all the proof in the world that Islamic fundamentalism is not content with securing freedom of worship for their own believers, but as well in denying that freedom to non-believers in many majority Moslem countries, and in imposing Shari'a law by force of arms irrespective of the wishes of the non-believers, or even fellow Moslems of differing sects. Read up on the Sudan and the religious genocide by radical Islam against Christians and animists.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why it's called Islamic fundamentalism and radical Islam and not "mainstream Islam". That's like pointing to the Inquisition, the Crusades, and Hitler and saying, "look at the genocide by radical Christianity against non-believers!"

[ QUOTE ]

Radical Islam is the primary threat to world peace now. And if some apologists for Islam maintain that really isn't what the majority of Moslems believe, then that can only be proven by that supposed majority firmly and constantly speaking out and acting against the Islamic radicals/terrorists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I most definitely agree that radical Islam is a huge threat to the world. But I don't understand why you are ignoring the majority of the Muslim world. Here is a breakdown of Muslims by country:

Iran - 67 million
Iraq - 25 million
Egypt - 72 million
Afghanistan - 31 million
Saudi Arabia - 26 million
Syria - 16 million

Compare that with these countries:

Indonesia - 213 million
India - 175 million
Pakistan - 161 million
Turkey - 79 million

Now if you couple that with poll results done by the Pew Global Attitudes project you see something interesting. The following % of people responded that violence is often or sometimes justified against civilians in defense of Islam:

Pakistan - 25%
Turkey - 14%
Indonesia - 15%

This means about 120 million Pakistani Muslims, 68 million Turkish Muslims, and 181 million Indonesian Muslims think violence against civilians is never or rarely justified. That's over 350 million Muslims!!!! That's more Muslims than there are total Muslims in that first group of countries!!!

[soon2bepro]

Gotta love a christian hitting on the Koran for immoral passages

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Gotta love a christian hitting on the Koran for immoral passages

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotta love a christian agreeing that moderates are part of the problem when it comes to overzealous sects. Dawkins and Harris are nodding along.

luckyme

[Lestat]

Interesting stats, and I don't doubt them. But it does leave me curious why they don't publicly decry radical Muslims. Why aren't they more vocally against such practices or try and distance themselves from these radicals?

If the KKK were harassing African Americans in my community, I would go out of my way to let them know these rogue white guys were in the minority and did not represent typcial opinion. Why wouldn't Muslims do the same?

[Ben K]

Because muslim teaching says that to disagree means you are no longer a muslim and therefore apostate which is well bad for dem boys.

So if the KKK were doing x but you were an affiliate member of the KKK and subject to the death penalty for speaking out against the KKK, would you really go out of your way to decry their behaviour??? The evidence (from the muslim comparison) says no.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Because muslim teaching says that to disagree means you are no longer a muslim and therefore apostate which is well bad for dem boys.

So if the KKK were doing x but you were an affiliate member of the KKK and subject to the death penalty for speaking out against the KKK, would you really go out of your way to decry their behaviour??? The evidence (from the muslim comparison) says no.

[/ QUOTE ]

The KKK was probably a terrible analogy. The only thing I have in common with them is that I'm white (and probably not the "type" of white they consider superior). I mainly meant to illustrate that if I were a member of a group gone wild, I would try to dissassociate myself with them and promote what my group was "really" about.

So you're saying moderate Muslims (the majority), will be cast out of their religion if they denounce terrorism? I would think that since they are the majority, it would be the radicals who would be (should be) cast out. This is what should happen and I wonder why it isn't.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting stats, and I don't doubt them. But it does leave me curious why they don't publicly decry radical Muslims. Why aren't they more vocally against such practices or try and distance themselves from these radicals?

If the KKK were harassing African Americans in my community, I would go out of my way to let them know these rogue white guys were in the minority and did not represent typcial opinion. Why wouldn't Muslims do the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on who you are talking about. There are many Muslim leaders who do speak out against the violence. As far as the governments go, I would guess that they probably don't want to become a target of terror themselves. Politics probably also plays a factor since a significant minority probably are radicalized themselves.

[Taraz]

I was searching for Muslim leaders who have condemned Osama Bin Laden and terrorist attacks. There are too many to include, but these two sites have a good list:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/friedman-wrong-about-muslims-again-and.html

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

They include the following people/entities:

The Grand Imam of the Al-Azhar Seminary, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi. Al-Azhar University in Egypt is the center for Sunni scholarship and apparently whoever holds this position is the leading moral authority for Sunni Muslims.

Sheik Muhammad Hussain Fadlallah, the spiritual leader of Hezbollah, condemns Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

Countless Muslim scholars and leaders in countries in the "Western" world.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I take the mostly silence of the supposed majority, as either de facto support of the radicals, or cowardly appeasement. If the majority of Moslems are agains these radicals, and in fact oppose the imposition of Shari'a by force and the commitment to destroy Israel/the Jews, then they need to SPEAK UP.

[/ QUOTE ]
BluffTHIS,

Do you feel responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa? Because your support of the Catholic Church is a contributing factor in it.

Similarly, when your government messed in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries (i.e. creating a coup of the democratically elected Iranian government), as they continue to do illegally to this day, did you SPEAK UP against it? If not, you are complicit.

Similarly, when the US government blocks UN resolutions requiring Israel to end its illegal occupation of sovereign lands and human rights violations, did you SPEAK UP about it? If not, you are complicit.

If you don't accept these arguments then I humbly suggest there is some hypocrisy in your position.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I take the mostly silence of the supposed majority, as either de facto support of the radicals, or cowardly appeasement. If the majority of Moslems are agains these radicals, and in fact oppose the imposition of Shari'a by force and the commitment to destroy Israel/the Jews, then they need to SPEAK UP.

[/ QUOTE ]
BluffTHIS,

Do you feel responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa? Because your support of the Catholic Church is a contributing factor in it.

Similarly, when your government messed in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries (i.e. creating a coup of the democratically elected Iranian government), as they continue to do illegally to this day, did you SPEAK UP against it? If not, you are complicit.

Similarly, when the US government blocks UN resolutions requiring Israel to end its illegal occupation of sovereign lands and human rights violations, did you SPEAK UP about it? If not, you are complicit.

If you don't accept these arguments then I humbly suggest there is some hypocrisy in your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for posting this, I was going to bring up this point as well. I just wanted a few others to post so I wouldn't monopolize the thread /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't accept these arguments then I humbly suggest there is some hypocrisy in your position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Positional hypocricy is an American birthright. I'm content with it in small measures.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting stats, and I don't doubt them. But it does leave me curious why they don't publicly decry radical Muslims. Why aren't they more vocally against such practices or try and distance themselves from these radicals?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat,

How many Christian leaders are publicly decrying what terrible acts of inhumanity and aggression an admittedly Christian administration (and every previous one) has done around the world?

My guess is very few, if any, and those that do are not of enough significance to be heard.

So why the double standard?

[JussiUt]

I just want to contribute by saying that it's pointless to argue whether the Qur'an advocates killing people of other religion or if it advocates peaceful co-existance and respect. Because it does them both. The Qur'an is contradictory just like the Bible. Did that come to as a suprise to anyone? It shouldn't.

As an example Dawkins list in his book The God Delusion many citations from the Qur'an which advocate violence against non-believers. I'm sure they are valid citations (btw, Dawkins doesn't crusade against Islam particularly but against the whole concept of a personal God).

It's the old pick-and-choose story with the Qur'an like it is with the Bible.

[Lestat]

I certainly don't condone many of the things the US has done, but I don't think any action has ever been proclaimed to be an action based on Christianity or a matter of religious belief. We've certainly never put a "jihad" spin on any of our military missions.

Who knows what's goes through this president's mind, but I don't think his predecessors have shown a double standard as far as religion goes.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't condone many of the things the US has done, but I don't think any action has ever been proclaimed to be an action based on Christianity or a matter of religious belief. We've certainly never put a "jihad" spin on any of our military missions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Bush II came awfully close when he referred to the War on Terror as a "Crusade". Even though it's obvious to us that he didn't mean it literally, the word has only one meaning to most of the world's Muslim population: Christian war against Islam.

This brings me back to what you said earlier about democracy not being for everybody and that the US shouldn't shove it down other people's throats.

The probelm isn't so much that people in other countries don't want democracy, it's that they don't trust the West (and the US in particular) to just walk into a country and set up a new political system as if they were a neutral, un-biased bystander. Most of the population assumes that the US has its own agenda and that they won't sacrifice their "national interests" for the sake of the locals' deocrativ desires. This position is perfectly understandable, even if it tends to get exaggerated out of proportion.

You can add to this the fact that the fact democracies are only as stable as their history allows them to be. For example, if your country has no history of peaceful transfers of power it would be naïve to believe that those who are first elected into power will just step down when it becomes obvious that they'll lose (or even just might lose) the next election. What I'm trying to say is that democracy needs more than just democratic institutions to thrive. It also needs a thriving democartic culture, and these don't just materialize overnight.

And this leads me back to why moderate muslim's don't tend to speak up en masse against the radicals. Most of these countries have no history of peaceful popular displays of protest. Most of the rallies you see are in support of the local government or denouncing some foreign power (with the full supposrt of their local government). The exceptions are almost universally met with violent repression.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't condone many of the things the US has done, but I don't think any action has ever been proclaimed to be an action based on Christianity or a matter of religious belief. We've certainly never put a "jihad" spin on any of our military missions.

Who knows what's goes through this president's mind, but I don't think his predecessors have shown a double standard as far as religion goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our religion is the worship of the dollar. It has the same delusional destructive power.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to contribute by saying that it's pointless to argue whether the Qur'an advocates killing people of other religion or if it advocates peaceful co-existance and respect. Because it does them both. The Qur'an is contradictory just like the Bible. Did that come to as a suprise to anyone? It shouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

My problem with the situation is that this isn't nearly the case to the extant that many anti-Islamists claim. Violence against non-believers is only sanctioned when said non-believers don't want peace and are on the attack.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I certainly don't condone many of the things the US has done, but I don't think any action has ever been proclaimed to be an action based on Christianity or a matter of religious belief. We've certainly never put a "jihad" spin on any of our military missions.

Who knows what's goes through this president's mind, but I don't think his predecessors have shown a double standard as far as religion goes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our religion is the worship of the dollar. It has the same delusional destructive power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But there's a big difference between that and destruction in the name of God.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Our religion is the worship of the dollar. It has the same delusional destructive power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. But there's a big difference between that and destruction in the name of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? They are both pretty despicable in my view.

[Peter666]

"Do you feel responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa? Because your support of the Catholic Church is a contributing factor in it.

Similarly, when your government messed in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries (i.e. creating a coup of the democratically elected Iranian government), as they continue to do illegally to this day, did you SPEAK UP against it? If not, you are complicit."

AIDS is spread by fornication, sodomy and tainted needles, not the Catholic Church. If people followed Catholic doctrine, AIDS would not be spread.

Likewise, if the US listened to the Catholic Church before it invaded Iraq, it would not be in the mess it is now, inciting Islamic hatred. And the same goes for Israel.

And if the Crusaders managed to defeat the Moslems in the middle ages, we wouldn't have the problem with them today either.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"Do you feel responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa? Because your support of the Catholic Church is a contributing factor in it.

Similarly, when your government messed in the internal affairs of other sovereign countries (i.e. creating a coup of the democratically elected Iranian government), as they continue to do illegally to this day, did you SPEAK UP against it? If not, you are complicit."

AIDS is spread by fornication, sodomy and tainted needles, not the Catholic Church. If people followed Catholic doctrine, AIDS would not be spread.

Likewise, if the US listened to the Catholic Church before it invaded Iraq, it would not be in the mess it is now, inciting Islamic hatred. And the same goes for Israel.

And if the Crusaders managed to defeat the Moslems in the middle ages, we wouldn't have the problem with them today either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being a member of the Catholic Church was not the complicity Phil was talking about in the second example.

[Peter666]

I realize that was not Phil's point in the second example, but I am using it to reemphasize my propaganda in favour of a worldwide autocratic Catholic utopia.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that was not Phil's point in the second example, but I am using it to reemphasize my propaganda in favour of a worldwide autocratic Catholic utopia.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is why you're my favorite poster /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If people followed Catholic doctrine, AIDS would not be spread.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, AIDS is directly caused by the Catholic Church. Married couples, where one partner has AIDS and the other doesn't, are not permitted to use condoms, even though the sex is permitted. Their policies also lead to more AIDS babies, overpopulation, and the problems that brings. But as long as there are more Catholics in the world, right?

Also, lol@ the Catholics being peaceful. Good one.

[Peter666]

A couple could not get married if one partner had AIDS. That would be a health impediment to marriage. If the AIDS was acquired during marriage, then it was as a result of breaking moral law except some fluke cases. The use of condoms is redundant as a prior immoral action was already undertaken. People with AIDS should not be having sex, period.

Also, I don't understand the contradictory stance of being concerned with the spread of AIDS and overpopulation. The former helps negate the latter, so you should be encouraging the spread of AIDS to be logically consistent.

And Catholics should not be peaceful all the time. They should go to war for the right reasons. However, the Iraq war was not done for the right reasons, and is thus a mess rightfully inciting hatred towards the USA.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple could not get married if one partner had AIDS. That would be a health impediment to marriage. If the AIDS was acquired during marriage, then it was as a result of breaking moral law except some fluke cases. The use of condoms is redundant as a prior immoral action was already undertaken. People with AIDS should not be having sex, period.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a couple of wows in there.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I don't understand the contradictory stance of being concerned with the spread of AIDS and overpopulation. The former helps negate the latter, so you should be encouraging the spread of AIDS to be logically consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
By this reasoning anyone who thinks overpopulation should be addressed should also support any kind of genocide in order to be logically consistent.

[ QUOTE ]
And Catholics should not be peaceful all the time. They should go to war for the right reasons. However, the Iraq war was not done for the right reasons, and is thus a mess rightfully inciting hatred towards the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]
To get this thread back on track: The hatred of the US runs far deeper than Iraq. And the Arabs do have a legitimate case against the US based both on history and current events. The US messes in the internal politics of the region, props up favorable regimes with money, arms, politic support and CIA help, and generally messes in Muslim affairs. This is where the extremists draw their biblical right of defence, and it's a reasonable argument. I daresay terrorism would not be noteworthy if not for US meddling in Middle Eastern affairs. Yes, there a bunch are crazy towelheads who would like to see Sharia law everywhere. But they're also just people trying to get on with life, and much of the distilled hatred comes specifically from the effects of US meddling, which directly their lives and the pride of their people.

BTW, I agree with what BluffTHIS says about "sheltering extremism", although his biblical quotes and understanding of Islam is pretty silly - especially given that he's a Christian with an absurdly contradictory bible of his own.

But I wonder if he agrees what I say about his complicity in not SPEAKING UP about immoral and violent acts by his own government which directly affect Muslims. The hypocrisy is so thick you can taste it.

[govman6767]

Ok someone work with me here. I do not believe in Islam so according to the radicals I must die. So am I justified in my nuke Iraq stance as a policy as self defense. I did not wish to kill anyone before some radical came out and said that I must die. They started it so we should finish it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok someone work with me here. I do not believe in Islam so according to the radicals I must die. So am I justified in my nuke Iraq stance as a policy as self defense. I did not wish to kill anyone before some radical came out and said that I must die. They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do any muslim who don't want to kill you respond to this? Especially if they live within this 'to be nuked' zone and especially if they aren't morons and hence realise that these radicals almost certainly wont harm you?

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They(?) started it??? What was the "starting" date and circumstances?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok someone work with me here. I do not believe in Islam so according to the radicals I must die. So am I justified in my nuke Iraq stance as a policy as self defense. I did not wish to kill anyone before some radical came out and said that I must die. They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's a shoe-in that the Catholics, the British, and the Americans started it.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok someone work with me here. I do not believe in Islam so according to the radicals I must die. So am I justified in my nuke Iraq stance as a policy as self defense. I did not wish to kill anyone before some radical came out and said that I must die. They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's a shoe-in that the Catholics, the British, and the Americans started it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was the Germans and a couple of young Turks.

chez

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok someone work with me here. I do not believe in Islam so according to the radicals I must die. So am I justified in my nuke Iraq stance as a policy as self defense. I did not wish to kill anyone before some radical came out and said that I must die. They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would have to be in imminent danger of death to justify killing the Muslim. There is no such case unless you were on one of the planes during 9/11.

People can hate you and want to kill you as much as they want, but unless that is an immediate possibility, you can't do anything drastic about it.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

They(?) started it??? What was the "starting" date and circumstances?

[/ QUOTE ]

They killed Charlton Heston in El Cid You mess with Charlton Heston You get nuked

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok someone work with me here. I do not believe in Islam so according to the radicals I must die. So am I justified in my nuke Iraq stance as a policy as self defense. I did not wish to kill anyone before some radical came out and said that I must die. They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would have to be in imminent danger of death to justify killing the Muslim. There is no such case unless you were on one of the planes during 9/11.

People can hate you and want to kill you as much as they want, but unless that is an immediate possibility, you can't do anything drastic about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 4 mortar rounds that hit pretty close today don't count ??? as immediate danger ??

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok someone work with me here. I do not believe in Islam so according to the radicals I must die. So am I justified in my nuke Iraq stance as a policy as self defense. I did not wish to kill anyone before some radical came out and said that I must die. They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would have to be in imminent danger of death to justify killing the Muslim. There is no such case unless you were on one of the planes during 9/11.

People can hate you and want to kill you as much as they want, but unless that is an immediate possibility, you can't do anything drastic about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 4 mortar rounds that hit pretty close today don't count ??? as immediate danger ??

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you are being ridiculous on purpose here, but I'll just pretend this is a serious question.

You don't get to kill everyone who lives even remotely close to the person you are defending yourself from. You also don't get to kill everyone who looks like the person you are defending yourself from, nor anyone who likes the same football team.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok someone work with me here. I do not believe in Islam so according to the radicals I must die. So am I justified in my nuke Iraq stance as a policy as self defense. I did not wish to kill anyone before some radical came out and said that I must die. They started it so we should finish it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would have to be in imminent danger of death to justify killing the Muslim. There is no such case unless you were on one of the planes during 9/11.

People can hate you and want to kill you as much as they want, but unless that is an immediate possibility, you can't do anything drastic about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The 4 mortar rounds that hit pretty close today don't count ??? as immediate danger ??

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand you are being ridiculous on purpose here, but I'll just pretend this is a serious question.

You don't get to kill everyone who lives even remotely close to the person you are defending yourself from. You also don't get to kill everyone who looks like the person you are defending yourself from, nor anyone who likes the same football team.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only the jerks of 2+2 think I'm serious about this stuff. I just act disgrunteled because I'm stuck over here and I want to go home and drink beer.

But anyone who cannont laugh at my El Cid post needs to get a sense of humor.

[Taraz]

I apologize if I don't think it's funny to joke about nuking an entire population. It's especially not funny since there are actually people who would be alright with said nuking.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
I apologize if I don't think it's funny to joke about nuking an entire population. It's especially not funny since there are actually people who would be alright with said nuking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the U.S. government has been joking about it for YEARS think about all the drills you went through as a child in school in case of a nuclear attack. The world was at times in the past on the verge of nuking itself.

If anything the world is much more safer and anti nuking today. So your whining about people nuking each other is kinda nannyish.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why the U.S. government has been joking about it for YEARS think about all the drills you went through as a child in school in case of a nuclear attack. The world was at times in the past on the verge of nuking itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... and which country was the one threatening to do the nuking? Which country has aver dared using nuke weapons? Wait, nothing has changed except that today there is nothing like a balance of power any longer. The US is totally unbriddled and dangerously so!

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why the U.S. government has been joking about it for YEARS think about all the drills you went through as a child in school in case of a nuclear attack. The world was at times in the past on the verge of nuking itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... and which country was the one threatening to do the nuking? Which country has aver dared using nuke weapons? Wait, nothing has changed except that today there is nothing like a balance of power any longer. The US is totally unbriddled and dangerously so!

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you did not read the article today about the new russian missles that supposedly can defeat the U.S. missle shield. Also it seems they have MERV capability now too.

Next !!!