THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Ya! What she said! (Makes note not to cross JW :wink: )

Laughing

Gel...

0 Replies

The comments about Muslims need some perspective. Don't take the fatwahs of some Muslim leaders as representative of the whole religion. The major sects of Islam are not like, for instance, many of the sects of Christianity, where there is a unified or hierarchical structure. Just because one Imam says something doesn't mean that others (or Muslims as a whole) agree. There is no single voice for Islam--it's a very decentralized religion.

I therefore don't think that you can use "crimes committed in Allah's name" as a general attack on Islam. There simply isn't a unified Muslim voice.

0 Replies

Stepp - that's precisely why I said "some" leaders of Islam and "some" clerics.

Walter - I was reading about the activity on the Syrian border on a military website and realized that CBS article was 3 weeks old just after I posted it. Too lazy to clarify, but I did learn that they've been working on it at least since Aug. 2004.

O'Bill - now that's TWICE I've scared ya Smile

and honest, I'm just NOT all that scary LOL.

0 Replies

We all agree with that Steppenwolf. Every one of us. Don't believe the false accusations to the contrary.

0 Replies

I guess my point is that you might be putting the wrong group in your sights. People too often ask, what's the problem with Islam? The target is much smaller: it's predominantly a group of Middle Eastern contries (mostly Arab). I think we're looking too much at religious issues and too little at socio-political issues.

By the way, this certainly isn't intended as an attack.

0 Replies

Question for whomever

Which is more esoteric, the Bible or the Koran?

0 Replies

Neither are the least bit esoteric if related to populations. If related to necessity for scholarly interpretation, I go with the Bible. Which is most used to justify violence? The Quran, hands down.

0 Replies

I doubt there is an answer...there is so much esoteric meaning in the contents of both. It's going to come down to the particular individuals who read them and try to follow them, and the number who do.

It's completely random IMO.

0 Replies

I don't really know which is more "esoteric." People read totally different things out of both texts. I don't know if that implies that the texts are esoteric as much as it implies that people see things in self-serving or self-reinforcing ways.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Bill, I made no accusations about your behavior. Revel made no accusations about anyone (that I noticed). Maybe you should look up the word accusation.
You described a situation where I'd react the same as Revel, but can cite no example to back it (because no such example exists, because I wouldn't)...[

That's called an analogy and doesn't require real world examples. Indeed you didn't even respond to that analogy with a 'yes I would' or 'no I wouldn't'.

Quote:

FreeDuck wrote:
And if you'll read my post, I'm defending her "behavior" and not her choice of words.
Her words were what I took exception to; not her behavior.

But you specifically said she should change her behavior, and you repeatedly took issue with her behavior.

Quote:

I only relayed an accurate depiction of her behavior; she described that as a put down, not I. :wink:

That was your misunderstanding of what she was taking issue with, which I've already pointed out.

Quote:

I believe you quoted the appropriate statement, but did nothing to dispute it (probably because it was spot on. )

It's possible to be "spot on" and insulting at the same time.

Quote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I stand by that defense as she is pretty consistently reasonable and cordial. I can't say the same for others.
And a fine defense it was. Next time she needs a defense against herself, she'll know just who to call.

Thank you. I'm quite happy with it myself.

Quote:

FreeDuck wrote:
Yes, I understand, and I know what you mean. I also prefer discussions that are respectful exchanges of ideas and not muddled shout fests. I'm hoping this is just an A2K phase we're all going through.
This would have expired long ago if you hadn't kept it going.

Or you could have just not started it in the first place.

0 Replies

JW, I read back two pages before your post to make sure that I had the correct context. It's possible that I (and others apparently) misread your tone, but it's also possible that you meant to make the idea of Islam being about truth and virtue appear laughable.

JustWonders wrote:

We are living in the 21st century, Freeduck, and you can excuse atrocities committed in the name of Allah by comparing it to past actions committed here in this country if you wish, but that really is another thread. The actions, words and deeds being committed by the mad mullahs and clerics of Islam as it relates to aiding and abetting the war on terror is what is being discussed here. It's not about the "deficiencies" of Islam. It's about the edicts issued by some of the Islamic leaders to destroy America, Americans and anyone they perceive as "infidels".

This is all very interesting but I'm afraid you must have misunderstood something. The analogy I made regarding the US was strictly to show how Bill would have responded differently to the two situations, even though they were essentially the same in form. I have specifically not made any assertions as to what was done or whether it would be excusable as, like I said, that requires more than a few posts. Like Steppenwolf said, perspective is needed, but was not provided in you short list of atrocities.

0 Replies

"Blame America first" is precisely the kind of sophomoric charge that engenders responses like mine, Bill, and it has bearing on the overall discussion precisely because you leveled it in asinine assumption. And yeah, you are pretty foolish for doing that, and that's what is understandable from your prediliction to spew your charge, but you already know that. That you find further debate with me "unpalatable" because I take you to task for slinging your emotionally driven drivel "without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification" is pretty rich hypocrisy.

You want to avoid unpalatability, Bill? Don't sling your unpalatable "blame America first" prattle.

One thing is what Bush says, another thing is what Bush and his administration do, Bill, and still another is what successive administrations will do. It is our history of doing indefensable things, some of Bush's actions included, all the while stating noble intentions, that calls Bush's stated intentions into question. I had already stated as much here
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1166972#1166972
Pointing out our support of tyrants isn't about providing insight into Bush's motivation today, per se, it's about providing insight into the US' motivation today.

Bush and his administration are but one in the long line of US administrations, and his is not the last. Throughout its history the US has acted in accordance to what it believes is in its own best interests. That has meant, like in the illustration of our actions in Chile, thwarting democracy itself if we deemed it fit to our interests. We've done that not only in the continent of South America, we've done that all over the world, from South America, to Africa, to Asia, and that includes the Middle East.

So, in light of this long history of actions that I think you yourself wouldn't defend--judging by the fact that you don't defend our actions in Chile--actions by any administration, Bush's included, inspire skepticism, at the very least, and, more likely, they inspire cynicism, especially when those actions involve war.

It is the actions of the US and it's past administrations themselves that have saddled Bush with their indefensible actions, and the subsequent skepticism and cynicism that those actions have affected.

and here
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1167200#1167200
It's the thirty year old wrongs right up to the the present day wrongs (e.g. support of tyrannical regimes in pursuit, paradoxically, of our "war on terror." I can provide examples thereof if necessary.) that taint the actions of the present US administration.

As you have seen, I haven't avoided the topic.

It's not that I don't like your terminology so much as I find your terminology "blame America first" trite, and banal seeing as how you spew it liberally here in this thread, and it makes your points difficult to decifer when it's obfuscated by this unpalatable emotional prattle of yours "blame America first."

I don't find your understanding of ican hard to believe at all.

0 Replies

This is well past silly... but just so you know:

Quote:

But you specifically said she should change her behavior, and you repeatedly took issue with her behavior.

I suggested she should change it if she herself considered it a "put down". I didn't bother to opine myself. :wink:

If you read the thread I linked, you'd see that paying this post no heed isn't an insult... it's a simple statement of fact. This was her final thoughts on that laundry list of state sponsored atrocities. <shrugs>

0 Replies

"Blame America first" is precisely the kind of sophomoric charge that engenders responses like mine, Bill, and it has bearing on the overall discussion precisely because you leveled it in asinine assumption. And yeah, you are pretty foolish for doing that, and that's what is understandable from your predilection to spew your charge, but you already know that. That you find further debate with me "unpalatable" because I take you to task for slinging your emotionally driven drivel "without rhyme, reason or any hint of justification" is pretty rich hypocrisy.

You want to avoid unpalatability, Bill? Don't sling your unpalatable "blame America first" prattle.

One thing is what Bush says, another thing is what Bush and his administration do, Bill, and still another is what successive administrations will do. It is our history of doing indefensibly things, some of Bush's actions included, all the while stating noble intentions, that calls Bush's stated intentions into question. I had already stated as much here

Quote:

Pointing out our support of tyrants isn't about providing insight into Bush's motivation today, per se, it's about providing insight into the US' motivation today.

Bush and his administration are but one in the long line of US administrations, and his is not the last. Throughout its history the US has acted in accordance to what it believes is in its own best interests. That has meant, like in the illustration of our actions in Chile, thwarting democracy itself if we deemed it fit to our interests. We've done that not only in the continent of South America, we've done that all over the world, from South America, to Africa, to Asia, and that includes the Middle East.

So, in light of this long history of actions that I think you yourself wouldn't defend--judging by the fact that you don't defend our actions in Chile--actions by any administration, Bush's included, inspire skepticism, at the very least, and, more likely, they inspire cynicism, especially when those actions involve war.

It is the actions of the US and it's past administrations themselves that have saddled Bush with their indefensible actions, and the subsequent skepticism and cynicism that those actions have affected.

and here

Quote:

It's the thirty year old wrongs right up to the the present day wrongs (e.g. support of tyrannical regimes in pursuit, paradoxically, of our "war on terror." I can provide examples thereof if necessary.) that taint the actions of the present US administration.

As you have seen, I haven't avoided the topic.

It's not that I don't like your terminology so much as I find your terminology "blame America first" trite, and banal seeing as how you spew it liberally here in this thread, and it makes your points difficult to decipher when they're obfuscated by this unpalatable emotional prattle of yours "blame America first."

I don't find your understanding of ican hard to believe at all.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Neither are the least bit esoteric if related to populations. If related to necessity for scholarly interpretation, I go with the Bible. Which is most used to justify violence? The Quran, hands down.

When it comes to justifying violence, mistakenly by the way, the Bible followers make Koran followers look like pikers. Pick an historical period in almost any part of the world and you will find Christians plying their love in odd ways, whether it's the various religious wars of medieval Europe, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition or the institution of American Slavery (oh check out PBS.com for Slavery and the Making of America, premieres tomorrow.)or the decimation to the North and the South American Native populations. More recently, the sectarian bloodshed between the IRA and the Protestants of Northern Ireland, the activities of the Klu Klux Klan (they burn crosses for a reason) and, our brothers in Christ, the Nazis and their complacent Roman Catholic and Protestant adherents.

Islam spread by war through North Africa and into Spain, but was beaten back across the Gibralter Straits by Isabella and, though Salidin tried mightily, out of Europe. It spread Eastward through Persia, India, Siam and Indonesia with nearly no bloodshed until the end of World War II when the dissolution of India into India and East and West Pakistan brought huge numbers of dead, mostly Islamic dead at the hands of Hindus, but who's counting? Oh yeah, we are.

But we shouldn't be. As someone said a few pages ago, we could list the various atrocities performed by misguided believers of any faith, I can personally go on all night about the Texas Roloff Schools and duct-taped teenage girls in their State of Texas sponsored care, but that kind of activity should not be the focus of this discussion. The question was asked which book is more esoteric and I would vote for them both being equally obtuse and open to mis interpretation and equally full of the ways and methods, the legends and guideposts, the means to a spiritual life.

JW said I should ask my friends about the examples, horrific violations of humanity, she listed. I can tell you. They are ashamed, as we should be of anyone who professes the same faith we hold doing something equally shameful.

One might want to judge Islam by looking at the pictures of the Iraqis walking to the polls. Don't these show a people led by their faith more than the few who choose the roadside bomb or the suicide belt as the means to show theirs?

Joe(I know a little about a lot of books, but follow faithfully none)Nation

0 Replies

Freeduck - Revel's comment may have been appropriate if I'd just listed atrocities committed by followers of Islam out of the blue and for your perceived notion that I just wanted to bash Muslims. I did not.

I was responding to Joe's defense of certain Muslims and his saying that "all Muslims know, and the US officials offering the reward could have checked with any Islamic scholar, that no Muslim can accept a reward for doing the right thing, doing the right thing is the reward.

Steppenwolf, I and others have agreed that all Muslims do not feel this way. There is a radical element to this religion, who knows how large or small, that have no problem in committing atrocities, abuse and the most heinous of crimes against humanity all in the name of their religion.

I can't control what tone you read into anyone's posts. I asked Joe a reasonable question and Revel saw that as hateful and bashing of a religion. To my knowledge, the abuses against women and children, such as stoning and hanging, in the ME and in direct accordance with Islamic law, has only been brought up twice here. Once by O'Bill to enlighten Revel and once by me to pose a question to Joe.

No, it isn't possible that I meant to include any ridicule in my reply to Joe. That it may seem that way to one or two here - no surprise.

0 Replies

Boo Hoo, InfraBlue... did you forget? I'm done with you. The answers to all of your past, present and future whining and bickering is found here, here orhere, further back or nowhere at all.

Ican is a role model we could both learn a lesson of civility from and is crystal clear in his positions whether you agree with him or not. Your further insults only serve to reaffirm my decision to not encourage you further. Good day.

0 Replies

NewYorkJoe wrote:

One might want to judge Islam by looking at the pictures of the Iraqis walking to the polls. Don't these show a people led by their faith more than the few who choose the roadside bomb or the suicide belt as the means to show theirs?

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know