Bonneville America Forums Forums Off Topic Discussion Forums Lounge Iran and WMD and Islam

Just wanted to share the attached.

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detai...;d_str=20060421

****** Bogie they sure have a bur under their saddle. I hear there are a lot of people in that country that like us. It's a shame that we may have to make them all glow.

Dave

I hear Israel has a shipment of one thousand of our bunker busters and are practicing and them. They will be shipped our latest meaner ones soon.

Dave

Bombing the problem away leaves the same fanitics in charge.

Oooh, this can't be right . Doesn't the author of the article know that it is all America's fault, everything. And that every single person in the administration, from Bush down, is an idiot. And that we can't seem to see the truth, that Mahmoud is actually a peace-loving flower child who is only getting his hackles up because the evil one is on his doorstep. He is only trying to protect himself and his beloved country, isn't he? Actually, if you think about it, its really the fault of all of the Christians. They are all mindless, and didn't they help put the evil one into office? Thats it.

Ah, I get it now, it is from a Business newspaper . Yep, they are idiots too.

Dwight?

Are you posting as backinthewater?

Oh hey, look, it's another thread about islam. Imagine that.

Paul,

Figured I'd just jump in somewhere. I haven't been around for a while and what the heck, leap in where there's controversy. I mean...why not?

Although I may have misread them, I'm inclined to echo your thoughts in the post I'm responding to. The logic, to me, goes something like this.

If you go to a doctor because you feel terrible, it makes sense that the doctor know what is actually wrong with you before he prescribes a course of treatment. The same logic seems applicable to international relations as well as regarding terrorists. Might not be such a bad idea to find out what they're actually bent about before we are so cock-sure we have "the" cure.

And, if we got all the terrorists on the planet on one island and nuked them to kingdom come...A. We have not eliminated terrorism because terrorism is just a symptom of underlying motive causes, not the causes themselves. They're doing it for some reason and the reason is not that they're all "crazy". B. Unless we get all their kids, friends and relatives on the island too...we likely would simply create the next generation of terrorists because now they're not only going to be bent about whatever it was their parents, friends and relatives were bent about in the first place, but NOW we've added personal revenge to the mix.

As I said, I may have misread your take on the issue but, as I see it, getting rid of terrorists does not eliminate terrorism, getting rid of the causes of terrorism eliminates terrorism.

John Kerry was attacked for saying "we need to reduce terrorism to a tolerable level". His opponents charged him with "thinking terrorism was tolerable". It's a little depressing to me to think that many people never realized Kerry was being accused of saying something he never said.

We cannot ever completely eliminate terrorism, there's just no way to zero it out. So what other choice IS there but to reduce it to some "tolerable level"? Certainly the argument that NO terrorism is ever "tolerable" is valid but since we can't have it, why waste time on something we'll never get? Somewhere between "none" and "all the time" is the only choice we have. So how does one determine that level? And...how on earth could a politician offer such a figure?

The fact that Kerry ever said that makes him either a very brave realist or an incredibly foolish presidential candidate. And practically speaking of course, it's a little of both.

Isaac Newton said that even if he'd proven gravity existed, he had no idea what it actually was and he'd leave that to the future to figure out. Similarly, although I am comfortable with my logic, I do not have any concrete answer to the current problem. My sense tells me however that the tack we're taking is not working...in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or in Iran or in N. Korea. I'm trying to imagine what level of "scary" response on our part might do the trick?

There is certainly some logic to the idea that we may scare future terrorists away from trying something. But that doesn't seem to be working at the moment and if we scare some of them, we'll never scare off the truly dedicated martyrs. So isn't that "reducing terrorism to an acceptable level"?

Tad

Worth remembering


Please pause a moment, reflect back, and take the following multiple choice test. The events are actual events from history. They actually happened! Do you remember?



1. 1968 Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by
a. Superman
b. Jay Leno
c. Harry Potter
d. a Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40



2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by
a. Olga Corbett
b. Sitting Bull
c. Arnold Schwarzenegger
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



3. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by:
a. Lost Norwegians
b. Elvis
c. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



4. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
a. John Dillinger
b. The King of Sweden
c. The Boy Scouts
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



5. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
a. A pizza delivery boy
b. Pee Wee Herman
c. Geraldo Rivera
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
a. The Smurfs
b. Davey Jones
c. The Little Mermaid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
a. Captain Kidd
b. Charles Lindberg
c. Mother Teresa
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40


8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
a. Scooby Doo
b. The Tooth Fairy
c. The Sundance Kid
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
a. Richard Simmons
b. Grandma Moses
c. Michael Jordan
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



10. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
a. Mr. Rogers
b. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
c. The World Wrestling Federation
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
a. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
b. The Supreme Court of Florida
c. Mr. Bean
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



12. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
a. Enron
b. The Lutheran Church
c. The NFL
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



13. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
a. Bonnie and Clyde
b. Captain Kangaroo
c. Billy Graham
d. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40



Nope, ......I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling, do you? So, to ensure we Americans never offend anyone, particularly fanatics intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winning and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim Males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling. Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Gloria Aldreds and other dunder-headed attorneys along with Federal Justices that want to thwart common sense, feel doubly ashamed of themselves -- if they have any such sense. As the writer of the award winning story "Forrest Gump" so aptly put it, "Stupid is as stupid does."



Come on people wake up!!! Keep this going. Pass it on to everyone in your address book. Our Country and our troops need our support.



P. S. And guess who recently bombed London?

The root cause of 99%+ of terrorism today is Islam so the argument that we need to elminate the causes of terrorism to stop it are flawed from the start. Accepting the premise that there are "reasons" these savages kill women and children is to excuse their actions when they do so. This flawed reasoning plays into the hands of those who forsee the USA living under Shira(sp?) law.

Suggested reading "THE LIFE AND RELIGION OF MOHAMMED THE PROPHET OF ARABIA" by Rev. J.L. Menezes

We cannot kill all terrorists, but we can and should destroy all who attack us and the governments that support them.

Paul,

In the spirit of socratic dialogue, I am still compelled to ask. If 99%+ of terrorism, leaving aside the Irish and the British, is Islam, then they commit acts of terrorism...why?

And I'm afraid I don't understand your contention that seeking causes for an action justifies the action. Explaining something is not explaining it away or validating it. You're not actually suggesting that the intent of my post was to excuse their actions or to indicate support for them are you?

And without reading the book you have recommended, I am familiar enough with the history of Islam to know that historically, both Christians and Jews were initially treated respectfully by the Muslims who considered those of all three faiths to be "Children of The Book" since they all drew their basic precepts from the same semitic roots. Such status left the Christians and Jews free from Muslim taxes, no small concession for any government.

For other more historical roots of the animosity between the Muslims and Western Christians (as opposed to Eastern; Byzantine or otherwise) pretty much any decent tome on the Crusades would suffice.

Prior to typing this response however, I did do a little digging and read a few reviews of the book you recommended. Roman Catholic Books publishes it and it is reviewed at Aquinas And More Catholic Goods website. Their review concludes with the phrase, "Your guide into the dark world of Islam".

On the one hand, I am skeptical of the notion of the historical "enemy" of Islam since 1098 creating a genuinely non-biased account no matter how well-intended. On the other, it is an account of a person and a religion that sees any non-christian religion as automatically in league with the devil and any other variation on their interpretation of the christian faith as little better through the sin of apostasy. Hence, I remain skeptical of it's value in substantiating a reason for finding some fundamental flaw in Islam or the behavior of its adherents through the centuries...especially since any close reading of Christian history is no less replete with stories of some of the most monstrous acts Man has ever committed against Man in the name of, of all people, the Prince of Peace. After all, it was Chrisians who showed up in Jerusalem in the first Crusade and since they couldn't tell the Jews from the local Christians let alone who the Muslims were, they simply raped their way through the city and then slaughtered all 44,000 inhabitants with the explanation that "God can sort them out".

Suffice it to say, any account of the Catholic and / or Christian faith generally that set out to show all the bad things done in Christianity's name could easily be reviewed and conclude with "Your guide into the dark world of Christianity".

Again, none of this is written with the intent to justify anything done in the name of violence and hatred. I condemn it all. I wouldn't trust a Christian who told me he had to slaughter babies or other innocents in the name of God any further than I could spit a rat. I hold that standard with respect to any religion.

Tad

Victor,

I alluded to the following in my response to Paul. I am not going to take the time to create a multiple choice test here but I could easily do so with questions running into the hundreds if not thousands of exactly the type you posted but the answers would be "Christians", "Pope so and so", Bishop so and so, King this, prince that, President oh..say Jackson, missionary so and so, priest, nun, monk, etc.

You seem historically-minded enough to know that I could do it. What conclusions should we then draw about Christians? Should we profile and then wage war on ourselves in the name of every innocent slaughtered in the name of our God as atonement to the rest of the world for our wrongdoings?

What's your point? Muslims have an ax to grind with the West? That's not news. How'd we get on profiling anyway? Profiling is common sense when applied in the proper context .

And of course our troops deserve our respect and support. What does that mean?

Tad

Your response "dances" very close to the "moral equivalence" argument. Islam is a cult founded by a man who claimed revelations to suit his political ends at any given time. The Christian religion, in contrast, was founded by an individual (I believe the SON of GOD) who preached and practiced a separation of religion from government.

Mohammed has more in common with David Koresh(sp? of Dranch Davidian fame) then Christ, just an indisputable historical fact.

Tad,
Good to see you back. Glad you're having fun here.

So, Jesus more or less recommended the approach of our current administration which has managed, against all odds and the President's personal belief system, which he's kept cleverly hidden, to keep religion and governement seperate?

As far as moral equivalence goes, I may be inclined to accept your criticism depending on the circumstances. However, two parties engaging in the same behavior does not automatically imply moral equivalence. It is merely equivalence of action. The morality of any action is determined by those who engage in it and is either confirmed or condemned by those outside that group because they either agree or disagree with the action. That is, and will always remain, a relativistic question no matter how hard one tries to establish moral high ground.

Those who do not believe in the validitity of their opponents world view can hardly be expected to accept arguments proceeding from it. In matters of faith and politics, or even bikes, the only "validity" any point of view has is the ability of any one person or group to argue their position with some level of success to some larger group. I mean after all, what empirical evidence is there to suggest our bikes are quantifiably "better" than an HD when we all know there's more to picking the bike we ride than "performance value" and "ease of maintenance".

All that can be said with any accuracy is that the two groups behaved the same way with the same or similar justification. And justification requires no moral component to qualify as justification.

What I have asked is, if two groups commit the same acts, then should we judge them by the same standards? If one is condemned and the other praised, by what standard does one refer to to validate the difference if the actions are the same? If both are condemned, then yes, that is moral equivalency. If both are praised then yes that would also be moral equivalency. But in either case, only from the perspective of the person or group accepting or condemning the action. Others may disagree and so there would then BE no moral equivalency. Only agreement or disgreement among various observers.

Just to be clear, I have condemned any who commit acts of violence with reference to something as philosophically debatable as "the will of God". What, after all, separates the musings of Paul in his cell from David Koresh other than some larger group's inclincation to accept their conclusions? Clearly however, some did accept Koresh's and Jones, and Moon and any number of other "heretics". Admittedly one can argue that "mainsteam" Christianity has gained more adherents that any of those listed above, but then, so has Islam. Perhaps that is because they tap a more universal spirituality than that of fanatics and extremists?

Aa far as me personally advancing an position of moral equivalency based upon anything I've said?...hardly. Just because millions of Germans bought into Hitler, or Russians into Stalin, ditto for Mao, Pol Pot or Mussolini, does not mean that I accept their arguments. I could give a rat's a*s for how many agree or disagree. I think the actions are what should be judged, not how many people buy into their justification.

If you wish to change topics to that of the necessity of immoral or ammoral acts committed by good people, I'd be happy to engage in that exchange as well. It is however, a completely seperate argument and we shouldn't mix them.

The great religions of Hindu, Islam, Christianity and Judaism account for the beliefs of billions, with Christians in the decided minority. While Jesus said we'd be persecuted in his name, the same can be said for any religion and I doubt very much that Jesus simply set us up as sacrificial victims for all the idolitors to prey on. Just doesn't seem consistent with his overall message, which if I remember correctly was that he came for all Mankind and left us with only one commandment; love one another. One could include the "do this in memory of me" thing but I don't remember him following it up with, "or there will be Hell to pay". I may be misreading my history, but ignoring the "love one another as your brother and do unto them as you would have them do unto you" has certainly paid Hell's wages nicely.

So let's be clear. I condemn any act of violence against innocents in the name of higher calling. Are you suggesting that in the interest of avoiding the accusation of promoting "moral equivalence" I must choose to accept the arguments of the butchers in the Christian narrative and reject those of the Muslim? To be clearer, are you suggesting that the actions of Christians, no matter how heinous, are justified because they have been done in the name of the "true" God as defined by Christian doctrine but those of Muslims are not because they have been done in the name of a "false god"? And beyond an individual confession of faith, and the support of like believers, what basis for actionable fact can you offer for such a position?

If this is not what you are suggesting, then what are you suggesting?

Bill,

Thanks for the welcome and nice to remake acquaintances I've missed for some time also.

Having fun? Well, yes, after my fashion. I enjoy debate and I enjoy thinking my way to my conclusions. I don't like being wrong of course but it goes with the territory. I have my opinions changed by my supposedly "less" educated students all of the time. It' not comfy but then, who cares in the end. If you keep your opinion in spite of dedicated efforts to change it, you've lost nothing. If you DO change your mind, it's still your opinion, so again, what has one lost? I'm an equal opportunity hack. If someone can persuasivly argue a position, I will accept it. On the other hand, if there's room for debate, what the heck, that's what we were given brains for

I should change my sigfile to read "Making friends and enemies at roughly the same pace". Whaddya think?

Tad

Quote:

---

I have my opinions changed by my supposedly "less" educated students all of the time. It' not comfy but then, who cares in the end.

---

What the hell, be comfy with it. Teaching should be a learning experience. After all, as you alluded to, debate should be about being open to different ideas. In fact when two opposing ideologies enter into debate with an attitude of learning, the result can be that elusive (anymore) attainment of compromise. Sadly it seems to be an almost forgotten art, lost to blustering Jingoism and denial.

Quote:

---

I should change my sigfile to read "Making friends and enemies at roughly the same pace". Whaddya think?

---

Hmmmm , needs more research . (Dwight may want to fight for that one ).

Ok, fine then...I'll be in competition with him .

BB

The thing that makes me wonder is how the UN and all the commy pinko liberal traitors can say there are no weapons of mass destruction in the middle east when the place is spilling over with wildeyed lunatics who are running around blowing themselves and their neighbors up in market places, mosques and restaraunts. Crikys, the bloody population is a WMD!

Quote:

---

While many evil things have been done in the name of Christ, the words of Christ and his disciples cannot be used to justify them.

---

Sorry Larry, I have to disagree with you. The way YOU and I interpret the Bible means that the words of Christ can't be used to justify them, but just as with Muslim fanatics, Christian fanatics have been successfully pulling verses from the Bible and twisting them for over 2 millenia to justify their actions. It may be easier to find scripture in the Koran that can be used to incite violence, but man is unfortunately possessive of a very good imagination and the ability to find justification for anything he/she desires. And were many of these actions isolated to JUST the fanatics, then it would be one thing, but many of these actions were if not openly endorsed and promulgated by the Catholic Church, they were certainly supported behind closed doors. Pretty much the entire native population of South America was wiped out under the guise of "converting" the savages to Catholicism, as was the Inquisition in rooting out "heretics". That many of the victims also served political gains (power, and gold in South America, political enemies in Europe) by being declared heretics or incorrible and done away was mere coincidence I'm sure!

While there were excesses during the Moslem overrun of eastern Europe and northern Africa (just as there are in any invasion), the later Moslems also allowed enclaves of Christianity to thrive within their midst, as well as preserving early Christian and pre-Christian documents and artifacts.

One of the many problems with today’s version of liberals is that they simply cannot grasp the concept of an enemy that hates us simply for what we are. They are all looking for what "WE" did wrong. What did "WE" do to cause them to hate us. What can "WE" do to mollify them. The Moslems declared war on Christianity, along with every other religion, 1400 years ago. To think there is any way to get them to like us, or to even tolerate us in other than a position of servitude, is a fools dream. Moderate Islam must destroy the extremists or the entire Umma can expect to live at the level of Afghanistan and NW Pakistan.

We better get used to the idea that the extremists hate us for what we are. That to them we are on the level of rats and cockroaches, to be exterminated simply because we are. Reasoning with them is like reasoning with a man on PCP. Islam has caused the relative poverty and backwardness of Moslem countries, but they blame us. Buying into their delusions and paranoia will not end, or even alleviate the problem. Crushing their threat every time it rears it’s head will at least hold it at bay.

Iraq is the testing ground. Can Moslems live democratically, or must they live under autocracies? Never before has an overwhelmingly Moslem country had this opportunity. Iraq is a fairly educated and rich country with the human and physical capital to be democratic. Can they overcome the autocratic imperative that has always defined Islamic governance? The Islamic Jihadists hate us, but they hate and fear true liberalism even more. Democracy, class mobility, women’s rights, modernity, true literacy, freedom, equality before the law, all these are un Islamic and must be stamped out at all costs. If it works everyone in the Middle East will want to live that way. Festering resentments will give way to hope, mobs will become citizens, and energy spent nursing thousand year old grievances will be used instead to promote enterprise and build wealth. And then where will Osama and his fellow Jihadists be?

Ok Greg, pull out your Bible and twist some words of Christ’s into a hate mongering speech for me. I'd love to see you do it with the red lettered verses. I can easily quote hundreds of verses directly calling for death, enslavement and destruction from the Koran. The point I made, and with which you seem to disagree, is that you must twist the words of Christianity beyond recognition to get an incitement for the violence and destruction for which the Koran boldly calls. There is no moral equivalence, Islam is not a religion on peace, and pretending otherwise does not make it so.

I will admit to not having read the Koran for years but I still have my copy. If anyone can direct me to the parts calling for the destruction of all that is not Islam and global Islamic hegemony...I'd be interested in rereading the relevant parts. Thanks.

Tad

Since we have managed to throw in religions, terrorism, democracies and dictators, criticism of political standings, camel-mounted lunatics (on the previous Iran thread) etc. please allow me to throw in my 2 cents (or perhaps 42).

I would also ask for forgiveness if I manage to screw up the use of your language at any point, but, as a lot of you know, English is not my first language.

Ok, here goes!

I would like to throw in a couple of more elements into the current discussion, namely international laws and credibility:

It is tempting to say that the U.S. (foreign policy) has recently been worried by international treaties.
In fact, as long as global rules and institutions helped it's own interests, the U.S. was happy to go along with them.
It now seems that the rules that were intended to constrain others became constraining for their "creators".

It looks like the pendulum "swung" back.

It also seems to have done so moreso under the current president, given that George Bush Snr. was quite keen on the International Court of Justice in The Hague (the World Court) and considered it a "central" and "indispensable" element of an international legal order.

Just for the record, in virtually every other country in the world, an international treaty or convention, once ratified, overrides domestic law.
Apparently not so in the U.S.

Given the obvious disregard for International laws, rules and/or institutions etc. as and when it suits the U.S., it doesn't come as any surprise that many countries choose to abstain from any participation in interventions whatsoever.

On the subject of Terrorism, it seems arrogant, to say the least, to assume and expect various countries would suddenly rally to the notion of opening up their own resources (including military forces) to be "available".

I would think that one would at least examine the issue of credibility in which it would seem that U.S. foreign policy is somewhat lacking.

A foremost example would be the recent invasion of another sovereign country based on non-existent WMD.
Whether this was based on "bad intel" (which I very much doubt), or was intentional is somewhat irrelevant, in terms of credibility.

For the record, I have various examples closer to home, some of which I have written about on this board, over the past couple of years.

So what's the fuss all about?

OK, here's my take (although we have touched on this before on this board).

IT'S JUST BUSINESS!

It is designed to fit with U.S. (and possibly others') foreign policy and national (and probably corporate) interests only.

Nothing to do with democracies or religions.

Very thinly veiled excuses are wrung (sp?) to death in order to justify interventions and/or invasions, all in the name of "democracy" and/or "threat".

Parata mas! (explanation of these 2 Greek words to follow).

If you get to speak to Iraqui refugies, including those that were anti-Saddam Christians (and I can supply a few that live here) you will find they feel that their country is in worse turmoil than ever before. The feeling is that their country is bordering on civil war.


So, in my book it is all about controlling resources and markets.

Interestingly, I offer the following excerpt from a CHEVRON advertisement I read today in a magazine:

____________________________________________________________________

The heading:-

RUSSIA, IRAN AND QATAR HAVE 58% OF THE WORLD'S NATURAL GAS RESERVES.

THE U.S. HAS 3%.

So what does that mean for us?

End of heading.


The excerpt:-

So, what needs to be done? On the supply side, producing nations need policies that allow for efficient development of their natural gas in an open, stable business environment, not one in which the rules of the game change without warning.
The governments of consuming nations, on the other hand, must enact long-term policies (my note: INVADE perhaps?) to encourage such development and to ensure they'll have adequate supplies in the future.

End of excerpt.
___________________________________________________________________


Again I say "Parata mas! (as I said, explanation to follow)".

I find it ironic that we get bogged down in debates, theories and assesments when we can just read the adverts.
They seem to be to the point and tell me a lot.

OK, historically speaking, we have always had a superpower looking after it's own interests and, within that scope, I can understand the motives and strategy.
Also within that context I also say "fair enough".

So, what is next?
We'll probably see the populations of the world get used to the idea of IRAN being invaded soon and then we'll move on to Syria (or wherever the pipelines go).

On the issue of dicatators:-

Since when has U.S. foreign policy shied away from dealing with, supporting or even instigating dictatorships which serve it's interests (believe me, I lived through a US-backed one here, 1967-1974)?
I also notice U.S. foreign policy is back in bed with Qaddafi in Lybia.
Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

A dictator AND a terrorist.

"Parata mas! (ah ... those Greek words again)"

Back on the subject of terrorism and the events of 9/11, I very sorrowfully say "welcome to the club".
Some countries (including my own), have been dealing with terrorism related issues (attacks etc.) for at least 3 decades.
I would suggest it is dealt with as best as possible, without the government waving it in the faces of the U.S. population all the time.

We in Greece had this tactic used on us from our own government, using the "threat from the east" (namely the threat from Turkey) for decades until the people finally told our politicians to "get lost".
The population's "tactic" worked wonders!

By the way, it is the threats you don't receive you need to worry about (similar to 9/11), rather than the ones you do.

So, in concluding, I again say it's JUST BUSINESS! (which is also why I touched on the subjects of international law and credibility).

Not religion (not the Bible nor the Koran), Not dictatorships, Not terrorism, Not WMD.
Not Liberals, Not conservatives, (these standings mean nothing to me, given the subject).
Not the black, the white, the red, the brown or the yellow!

Also, I would agree wholeheartedly with Saxtron's post on the other Iran thread and would NOT waste his son ... NOT for the sake of BUSINESS!


I will now take my leave, change my username and kill the camel that came with it.

Oh yes, I almost forgot, "Parata mas" in Greek means ... Give us a break!

• The Moslems declared war on Christianity, along with every other religion, 1400 years ago.
  
• To think there is any way to get them to like us, or to even tolerate us in other than a position of servitude, is a fools dream.
  
• Democracy, class mobility, women’s rights, modernity, true literacy, freedom, equality before the law, all these are un Islamic and must be stamped out at all costs.
  
• The very words of the Koran ARE the inspiration for violence and CAN be used to directly justify the killing and enslavement of non Moslems.
  
• The root cause of Middle Eastern violence is Islam. It teaches that the entire world must be made to submit. That any act that furthers Islam or hurts those who oppose the spread of Islam is justified.
  

Wow Larry.. you do seem to have a rather large axe to grind with Islam. However, you also seem to base it on a wildly distorted understanding of the Qur'an and Sunnah, the relationship between Islam and it's followers, and even history itself, as demonstrated by your statements above.

If you don’t believe it, just read the Koran.

I have.. have you?

There has been countless others who have addressed these misconceptions much more eloquently than I could here, so I won't take the time to expand on them. If you are truely interested, a quick google search should keep you busy for a while.

Cheers,
Brad

Unfortunately, that is exactly how the militants read it.

It is time to stop this nonsense about it being somehow better to let the seorn enemise of pretty much the entire world walk all over us and get as PO'ed as in 1939 - '41.

My God doesn't tell me to fly aircraft into skyscrapers or the Pentagon to kill thousands of innocent people. However, if he did, I'd know that I had been following the wrong one all my life.

Good Morning!

My .02 - While not every Muslim or Follower of Islam is a terrorist, every one of the terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11, or have been caught/identified/made their declarations in the Middle East/Asia ARE/WERE Muslims. This is reality.
I don't give a crap 'why' they are pissed at the free world. I don't care why they feel they must press their particular brand of religion on every one else. I DO NOT give a hoot where their motivations come from. What I DO care about is the fact that they ARE killing innocent men, women and CHILDREN in the pursuit of their bizarre, twisted goals. Anyone who knowingly and willingly causes harm to a child needs to cease existing. There is no "grey area" here, there is none ambiguity or uncertainty. If you get up in the morning, have your coffee and danish, pray to whomever you worship, plan the day's murder of innocents, kill a child, you need to die.
There really is no other path, IMO. Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE who sits idly by and watches the murder of innocents, or provides support, or gives excuses/rationaliztion for these murderers, has put themselves in the same boat as the actual murderers. You either fight/oppose them, or join them, no third option.
It's funny to see myself write these words. I have always been somwhat of a tree-hugger, liberal, live-and-let-live type of guy. But in this life, you just gotta take a stand on some things. This is one of mine. I just cannot understand or support ANY concept or belief that justifies killing innocent people, especially children.

I hope everyone here has a Great day!

Mike

What I DO care about is the fact that they ARE killing innocent men, women and CHILDREN in the pursuit of their bizarre, twisted goals.

According to a study done by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of Baghdad's Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine, an estimated 100,000 innocent civilians have been killed in Iraq since the start of the war. Those civilians include men, women and CHILDREN. And yet you seem to support that action..

Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE who sits idly by and watches the murder of innocents, or provides support, or gives excuses/rationaliztion for these murderers, has put themselves in the same boat as the actual murderers.

Except when it's collateral damage, right?

Cheers,
Brad

Ah, yes, the old "According to a study" situation. Very interesting. Do you know who funded this study? What their focus was when the study was commissioned? I'm sorry, but such studies prove nothing beyond what the financier of said study desires. to really know what is what, a person needs to see the actual raw data. Now, does the study go on to break out deaths caused by coalition forces or insurgents? During combat operations or vbieds aimed at lovcals? Schools? Hospitals? C'mon Brad, without all the information in the raw form, the study means absutively nothing. You might as well line the ol' birdcage with it.
I do not support killing innocents, for you to say that is an irrational statement from an irrational mind. When our (American and Coalition) troops fire their weapons, the do it because they are under fire themselves. We have a strict, "Don't fire first" policy and there are actually steps we have to follow prior to pulling the trigger. Now, have Coalition troops killed innocents, ie - people who aren't actually firing a weapon at that moment (yes, men, women AND children)? Unfortunately, yes, and that sucks large. Those innocents were unfortunately in close proximity to those waste-of-oxygen insurgents who actually were pulling the trigger.
I do not live in a vacuum, and unfortunately, innocent people do die in a combat zone. I mourn for the children that have been killed/wounded due to our presence here. Now the other side of the coin.
The Coalition does not, and will not target those same innocents. That is exactly what the terrorists/insurgents/taliban are doing. They purposely set up explosives outside of hospitals, schools, etc... They deliberately target innocents to spread their message of terror and hate. They seek out and destroy families, whole generations of a family, that help coalition soldiers. They ambush and capture/torture/kill Iraqi police personnel. They chop off the heads of their captives on live television and brag about it. Heck, Brad, they're chomping at the bit to chop off YOUR head, and you are sympathetic to their cause. How's that for a big "Thank you kindly, sir".

I know that there is never going to be any "Meeting in the middle" on this. Too many people are anti-US no matter what the facts.
On that note, you know what I'd REALLY like to see? I'd really love for every person who is Anti-US who is living in the US to pack up and move over to the country they support. THAT would be an eye opener for them.

Hey, Brad, Are you going to Sturgis this year? I'd like to buy you a beer.

Ah, yes, the old "According to a study" situation.

Ok, even the most conservative estimates put the civilian fatalities starting at around 10-15,000 with all others going up from there. Does that make it more palatable for you? (BTW, in answer to your question, that particular study attributes roughly 85% of the violent deaths as a direct result of collition actions)

I understand where you are coming from, but what I really wanted to point out was the duality of your statements. You claimed that you unconditionally oppose the killing of innocent people. However, what you have really shown is that you oppose the killing of innocents when that is the intention (terrorists), but you accept it when it's an unfortunate side-effect (colliteral damage) of some other purpose and not a direct intent. Since the two are mutually exclusive, you can't claim both.

Heck, Brad, they're chomping at the bit to chop off YOUR head, and you are sympathetic to their cause.

Apparently you don't know me very well, as I can assure you that I'm anything but sympathetic towards any group or individual whos intention is to harm others. Although I have noticed that you tend to fall into that "you are either with us or against us" reasoning that our fearless leader is also so fond of. Fortunately, most things are not so monochromatic, particularly when it comes to human relations.

Along those same lines, I'd like to comment on what others have alluded to, and yourself stated:

While not every Muslim or Follower of Islam is a terrorist, every one of the terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11, or have been caught/identified/made their declarations in the Middle East/Asia ARE/WERE Muslims.

This sentiment is generally expressed, usually along with stating some misconception about Islam/Muslims, to show causality between Islam and a propensity towards terrorism, when in fact there is none. If it were true, then you would expect those countries with the largest Islamic populations to produce most terrorists, however that is not the case.

The largest Islamic population is in Indonesia with some 215 million Muslims. They are followed closely by Pakastan with 160 million, India with 146 million and Bangladesh with 122 million. Iran has only 67 million, Iraq has 26 million, and Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the 911 terrorists came from, has only 22 million (Source: CIA World Fact Book). If any causality existed, then you would expect Indonesia to be the hotbed of terrorist activity

As a side note, has anyone else noticed the complete lack of attention towards Saudi Arabia, even though they were a major player in the 911 attacks? Don't suppose it has anything to do with oil now do you?

I know that there is never going to be any "Meeting in the middle" on this. Too many people are anti-US no matter what the facts.

That's a pretty grim position. A person who knows for sure that they can't learn to swim, will never learn to swim (even though humans are predisposed to swimming from birth). By ruling out any peaceful solutions, you certainly have condemed any from ever happening Hopefully your position will become a little less grim once you get out of your present situation.

Are you going to Sturgis this year? I'd like to buy you a beer.

Alas, I doubt that I'll make Sturgis.. North Georgia is about as adventurous as I'm willing to go, but I'll be there with 'ya in spirit

Cheers,
Brad

Brad, I'll only comment one one of your replies. I stated that every one of the 9/11 terrorists and their brethren since then was/is Muslim. You reply with a LOT of population/religion facts about other countries. Thanks for the lesson (and awesome research, BTW). I must reply with the fact that I never mentioned Nationalities of said terrorists. I only stated that they were Muslim. You are even helping me out by posting those facts. VERY few of the terrorists are Iraqi or Afghan citizens. They are coming from other countries, most of them from the countries you mention.

Now,let's NOT get 'ol Saudia Arabia drawn into this. THEY have their very own special topic waiting for them. You know, they are our 'friends' no matter how much money the royal family gave to the 9/11 terrorists and their other supporters.

Have a Great Day!

Found this. An Islamic view of the Wahabists (bin ladens' sect)

web page

Here's another - Is Islam a religion of Peace?

http://executableoutlines.com/islam/islam_04.htm

After reading this, I'd say "NO". But I also realise that this is the work of one person who's underlying motive I don't know. I will attempt to keep an open mind and accept evidence from all sources.
Until said evidence to the contrary surfaces, everything I have read and seen/experienced leads to supporting my "NO, Islam is NOT a religion of Peace" belief.
I await response with anticipation.

Islam is not a religion, but a cult!