The Hezbollah and Israel

[sschaula]

Dan said:

If we keep giving them reasosn to hate us, how then can we turn around and make an issue of the fact that they do?

Kevin replied:

You are right. The West should act in a noble, rational, and fair way that earns respect.

I don't see how the West hasn't been that way. I was watching a documentary today where a soldier talked about how after they'd search a house (in Iraq) they would have to fill out forms so that the householders could be reimbursed for their door that was kicked in. That's so fair and noble that it's bordering on irrational!

And we (the US) has been spending so much on this occupation..but think about what the occupation has been for. Has it been for us, or for them? You can't possibly say the administration was doing it to look good, because anyone with a head on their shoulders (regardless of what's contained within it, or how well it works) could see the entire time that it was unpopular. But they did it. That's pretty noble, at least in my view.

...We don't give them a reason to hate us. If they thought clearly, they'd recognize that. Being occupied isn't a good reason to hate the occupier. Just think about that..."Oh damn, I see these troops patrolling and driving their vehicles in my country everyday and I am just sick of it! I'm gonna make an IED!" That isn't thinking clearly. They give themselves reasons to hate us.

[David Quinn]

Dan,

DQ: Let's not forget that Islam is by far and away the most backward major religion on the planet and does absolutely nothing for the cause of wisdom, except hamper it.

DR: All religon does nothing but hamper wisdom. I personally don't see Islam as worse than Judaism or Xianity in that regard.

Two major differences:

- There is no wisdom to be found in Mohammed and his teachings.

- Even at its most moderate, Islam intrudes into nearly every aspect of one's personal life and assumes control of it.

Both of these factors serve to kill off wisdom before it has a chance to grow. At least there is some breathing space in most forms of Christianity, and some expressions of wisdom contained within its teachings, which can inspire people to become enlightened.

DQ: Christianity is bad enough, but Islam is simply dreadful. I'm sure all of us here would hate living in an Islamic state. This forum would have no chance of existing, for example.

DR: I certainly wouldn't, but then, nor would I want to live in most of contemporary USA either. Naturyl lives in Alabama; ask him what that's like sometime.

I'm sure it is nowhere near as bad as living in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Naturyl is a bit of a whinger at the best of times.

DQ: A lot of us would quickly have our throats slit, if we didn't recant our beliefs and thoughts.

DR: I don't know. If they looked at Misogyny Unlimited first we might be proclaimed as cultural heros in some places :)

Okay, we'd have our day in the sun, and then they would slit our throats.

-

[MKFaizi]

Schultz wrote:

Being occupied isn't a good reason to hate the occupier. Just think about that..

No? I'll be damned.

I did think about it for a about one second -- all that it warrants. So an occupied country is supposed to watch foreigners in tanks and convoys do whatever. I don't think that would go over that good in the US. If the US was occupied by any invading political entity, I think every hardass on Jack Street would be firing up IEDs.

I mean, I would kind of resent a takeover.

Faizi

[Dan Rowden]

The Muslim religion is totally anti-modern, so there can never be a workable compromise.

Anti-modern in what sense? This kind of statement just beggars belief. Frankly, I don't even quite know what it refers to. Of course in some matters Muslims countries have not taken on certain western liberal attitudes, but that is only one aspect of things and doesn't constitute a refusal to be modern in a general sense. If many American Xians had their way in the US, how modern would that place seem all of a sudden? Did you look at the pictorial blog of Iran I posted? Have you seen what any of the Emirate states look like nowadays? Have you seen pics of Dubai lately? As I've said before, remember what Iraq was like before we arrived? Remember what Afghanistan was like before the Russians and then we screwed it up and allowed the necessary vacuum filler of fundamentalism to take hold? Muslims are not to blame for any of that. We have to recognise our role, and not just that or Islam itself, in the rise of the kind of rabidly hostile Islamic fundamentalism that we're all now fearing. If we don't recognise that we are doing ourselves a disservice. That's what I'm mostly concerned about - how our own bullshit will come back to bite us.

And if you can't see the trend towards a loss of western liberalism happening in the west itself you are just not looking. The Muslims are not the only ones getting all "fundie" and werid.


Dan Rowden

[sschaula]

Fuzzy wrote,

So an occupied country is supposed to watch foreigners in tanks and convoys do whatever.

Well of course it depends on what they're doing. Not everyone is brainwashed into believing the US military is only about war and the spread of democracy. In fact, over there they think it's about getting free shit. Gatorade, UN MREs, pens and paper, medical supplies, etc. The true reason why they hate us is probably because they prefer Powerade to Gatorade. Or because they actually have to take the form to the base to get reimbursed for their kicked in door. I can kind of understand that, though. Powerade doesn't contain high fructose corn syrup like Gatorade...and why should you have to do any work for a door that someone else kicked in!

But think about this now...if you see convoys, and they don't bother you, then what could possibly get you to feel hatred for the people in the convoys? I can understand if there are humvees racing around tearing the place up, then yeah that could be seen as a threat. But really, seeing soldiers isn't seeing a threat.

They should be used to it by now.

I don't think that would go over that good in the US. If the US was occupied by any invading political entity, I think every hardass on Jack Street would be firing up IEDs.

I have to admit, I'd probably be one of them.

[Kevin Solway]

Dan said:

If we keep giving them reasosn to hate us, how then can we turn around and make an issue of the fact that they do?

Kevin replied:

You are right. The West should act in a noble, rational, and fair way that earns respect.

I don't see how the West hasn't been that way.

I think the way the West has behaved has been pretty good.

I was thinking more along the lines of the original establishment of the state of Israel, and the manner in how the Israelis acquired land. Perhaps there was room there for more nobility and fairness, but I don't know all the details. I think the U.N at least had good intentions.

Here in Australia we Europeans simply marched-in, grabbed all the best land, and pushed the original inhabitants into the margins, where they rot. Similar thing in the U.S.

That seems to be the normal way human beings acquire new land, and I think the Israelis and the U.N were a lot fairer than that.

Being occupied isn't a good reason to hate the occupier. Just think about that..."Oh damn, I see these troops patrolling and driving their vehicles in my country everyday and I am just sick of it! I'm gonna make an IED!" That isn't thinking clearly. They give themselves reasons to hate us.

I agree.

So far as the large size of the American embassy in Iraq goes, there is a good reason why it can't be small - it wouldn't last five minutes.

[Nick]

Most likely. The question is, how much can we attribute Islamic terrorism to US/Western imperialism and how much to the teachings of Islam itself? That's difficult to answer, but one thing we know for sure is that their scriptures openly preach hatred and murder of unbelievers.

This is what makes be balk at placing all the blame on America.

This is something I haven't been able to come to any certainty about. Does Islam really preach violence against non-muslims. Or is it the Islamic terrorist extremists who have a warped view of what Islam truly is. Here in America there are many muslims who protest, with claims of being opressed because they are lumped in with Islamic terrorists. Contending that it is only the ignorance of westerners who believe Islam supports fascism in its name. If you don't mind, please provide an unbiased link or type a few of these scriptures from the Koran that preach violence and hatred towards non-muslims. Most websites I have found that claim Islam is a violent and destructive religion are biased to the extent of their own religious beliefs, such as Christianity, or Juadism.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...We don't give them a reason to hate us. If they thought clearly, they'd recognize that. Being occupied isn't a good reason to hate the occupier. Just think about that..."Oh damn, I see these troops patrolling and driving their vehicles in my country everyday and I am just sick of it! I'm gonna make an IED!" That isn't thinking clearly. They give themselves reasons to hate us.

I guess my grandparents should have welcomed the German occupation 65 years ago. Most of the time foreign soldiers were patrolling here too and were quite friendly. They used to be neighbours! German PR preached clear thinking all the time to the point of ultimate efficiency. We didn't need liberation from any Yankee, actually the Germans were lifting the economical crisis from Europe!

But occupation in Iraq only occurred after bombing most infrastructure, water purification, industry and all other things that made Iraq work decently. For a decade. Not to mention the sanctions which plunged the country into poverty.

Scott, you talk as if people wake up every day forgetting what happened yesterday. They see an US army truck and think "oh a truck, well, they don't harm us right now so let them drive".

That's extremely naive Scott, all the while ripping many pages from the book of (non-disputed) history. You just cannot believe your president and the leaders of your military are war criminals by every definition since WW2. It's painful to realize but perhaps one day you'll drop that romantic stare and read some history. Stare into the abyss and see your part in it. Humanity is still looking for excuses why their brand of killing is better than the brand of their opponents or the brand of past monsters. It's that damn morality Scott, get rid of it!

[Leyla Shen]

Tharan whined:

Leyla, you are ocillating between cheerleader and motherfigure, shaking her finger and scolding when you think someone should feel bad about their POV. Argue specific points.

There have been many points raised which you and others are yet to competently address.

I am not here to please you, Tharan. I will raise and re-raise points as and when I see fit. Whether you get them or not is not going to break my balls.

.

[Leyla Shen]

Incredible.

Kevin actually wrote:

It does of course treat the Israelis as "oppressors", when, from the Israelis point of view, they are simply trying to survive. I don't think the purpose of the roadblocks and curfews is to "oppress" anyone, but is to reduce the number of Israelis being blown-up. Funnily enough, this possibility was not even mentioned in the documentary.

Obviously you never watched the whole thing. And whether or not you did, you have some serious filters going on, Kevin.

.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

...I would personally prefer to live in an American-styled world, for all its imperfections, than an Islamic-styled world, because of its greater emphasis on individual freedom. So although I have no particular interest in the issue and don't really plumb for one side or the other, if it ever came to the crunch, I dare say that I would side with the Americans.

Let's not forget that Islam is by far and away the most backward major religion on the planet and does absolutely nothing for the cause of wisdom, except hamper it. Christianity is bad enough, but Islam is simply dreadful. I'm sure all of us here would hate living in an Islamic state. This forum would have no chance of existing, for example. A lot of us would quickly have our throats slit, if we didn't recant our beliefs and thoughts.

Well, I don't believe that and I think it's a short-sighted view on the core of Islamic thought and beliefs, as well as of their society. It's too easy to zoom into extremes or backward areas, looking for examples.

Here in the Wild Wild West we have our own new religion, and one that Mr. Bush is often preaching and he calls Freedom (see also below *1). But David, you very well know this Freedom he's talking about is merely a belief, it's an invitation to unlimited consumerism, chaos, crime, state controls (to ensure this freedom), corruption and so on. It's the freedom of nihilism, wrapped with an ornamental Christian religion or the excuse of Capitalism to swallow it.

So the Genius Forum might have not been allowed to exist in some Muslim states, but in other Muslim states it might have. What's the big deal? As if wise people need the Internet to delve into wisdom? It might only be needed in a society that is confused to the core but extremely 'well connected'. A cure for media whores?

I wouldn't have minded growing up in an extremist Muslim country. I'd have studied with the best and wisest teachers I could find and would have tried to surpass them in understanding. Maybe on the outside I'd have dressed and acted out some traditional rituals but there's no difference between that and lets say collecting dole or work for a living. It's unimportant compared to Truth if it only takes a few moments and one remains detached.

The question remains if the Muslim fundamentalist tradition (which is evolving as well) contains enough wisdom to study, and the question came up before. I've collected some material in the last few months and I'll post a synopsis soon, after I found out if all of these teachings are still part of the living Muslim tradition.


*1)

"Because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom. And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts we have lit a fire as well, a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power; it burns those who fight its progress. And one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world."
- GW Bush in inaugural address, January 2005, probably hinting at Dostoevsky's 'The possessed' where this fire is used in relation to a revolution of such destructive power that "bourgeois society" will be completely destroyed.

"And that’s why in my remarks I spoke about the need for those of us who understand the blessings of liberty to help liberty prevail in the Middle East. And the fundamental question is: Can it? And my answer is: Absolutely, it can. I believe that freedom is a universal value. And by that, I mean I believe people want to be free. One way to put it is, I believe mothers around the world want to raise their children in a peaceful world. That’s what I believe. And I believe that people want to be free to express themselves and free to worship the way they want to. And if you believe that, then you’ve got to have hope that ultimately freedom will prevail."

"But it’s incredibly hard work, because there are terrorists who kill innocent people to stop the advance of liberty. And that’s the challenge of the 21st century." - G.W. Bush, August 14th 2006

[Leyla Shen]

Scott wrote:

Of course some things that go on are fucked up, but generally, the theories of "what the government is really doing" are way off. Like going to war for oil...way off, and there's no proof regardless of whatever Leyla wants to say.

Oh, its certainly going to be a battle for you to dig yourself out. Way too much ego.

Nonetheless, I will address this rubbish coming from one who so pridefully claims to be a man of facts. But first let's establish a crucial rudiment for this dialogue: how do you define "fact," Scott -- what kind of evidence makes a fact indisputable? For instance, is it a fact that the good guys are the ones who are militarily and financially superior by virtue of that superiority?

.

[Leyla Shen]

Tharan wrote:

Perhaps every Muslim is not a suicide bomber, but every suicide bomber is damn sure a Muslim. That is simply a reality, whether an person's sense of civil liberties might be offended as a result or not.

[laughs] Superior logic?

I reckon if you gave the Palestinians the same military and financial backing as Israel, you'd not see any Muslim suicide bombers.

I think they'd be smart enough to just blow the shit out of Israel, occupy and then rebuild it -- just like Israel is doing to Palestine.

.

[Leyla Shen]

David wrote:

Most likely. The question is, how much can we attribute Islamic terrorism to US/Western imperialism and how much to the teachings of Islam itself? That's difficult to answer, but one thing we know for sure is that their scriptures openly preach hatred and murder of unbelievers.

This is what makes be balk at placing all the blame on America.

When it should be precisely the reason you should be looking to America.

Do you think it more likely that the West will be successful in rooting out terrorism by addressing its own part in it, or that of the so-called teachings of "Islam itself"?

.

[sschaula]

Diebert,

I guess my grandparents should have welcomed the German occupation 65 years ago. Most of the time foreign soldiers were patrolling here too and were quite friendly. They used to be neighbours! German PR preached clear thinking all the time to the point of ultimate efficiency. We didn't need liberation from any Yankee, actually the Germans were lifting the economical crisis from Europe!

Are you talking Nazi Germany? If so, then it should be obvious why they wouldn't want them occupying their country. They set up concentration camps and killed tons of people. They wanted to erradicate all people that didn't fit their standards. So to use them as a comparison to the modern US military just doesn't work. The goal of the modern US military is liberating the oppressed, not erradicating all non-Americans or non-born again Christians. Huge difference.

Unless your grandparents would've never heard anything bad about the German military. If they ONLY saw convoys and patrols, then what reason would there be to fight against them? Especially if they were friendly and neighbors to them.

But occupation in Iraq only occurred after bombing most infrastructure, water purification, industry and all other things that made Iraq work decently. For a decade. Not to mention the sanctions which plunged the country into poverty.

I haven't heard about destroying the infrastructure for the decade before the occupation.

Scott, you talk as if people wake up every day forgetting what happened yesterday. They see an US army truck and think "oh a truck, well, they don't harm us right now so let them drive".

That's extremely naive Scott, all the while ripping many pages from the book of (non-disputed) history.

It possibly is. I guess I don't have enough knowledge of what has happened in the past.

You just cannot believe your president and the leaders of your military are war criminals by every definition since WW2. It's painful to realize but perhaps one day you'll drop that romantic stare and read some history. Stare into the abyss and see your part in it.

I know about the bombs dropped on Japan. But my president being a war criminal...I don't know about that. What did he do? If you mean ignoring the UN...well that's hardly a crime. The UN can be full of shit. That's like obeying the speed limit. Not many people actually do it. Most people go five over.

Humanity is still looking for excuses why their brand of killing is better than the brand of their opponents or the brand of past monsters. It's that damn morality Scott, get rid of it!

If people are looking for a good excuse for their killing, that's not morality. But sometimes some things need to be done, regardless of right or wrong. Regardless of how you will be after the act. That's not making up excuses or morality, it's just doing what you have to do and telling people why.

It's a poor excuse for a man to use Islam as a reason for strapping plastique to himself. It's a good excuse to use freedom as a reason to kill him. But like I said, morality doesn't have much to do with it, because it's obvious that killing is always not good. It's not something to be celebrated. It doesn't bring anyone peace.

[sschaula]

Leyla,

Oh, its certainly going to be a battle for you to dig yourself out. Way too much ego.

That may be true. But you pointing that out only shows how attached to this whole issue you are. How emotional you are. So I could easily say the same thing about you...and it would be completely pointless because it's a stagnant point in the discussion!

Nonetheless, I will address this rubbish coming from one who so pridefully claims to be a man of facts.

Will you? I haven't seen that happen yet.

But first let's establish a crucial rudiment for this dialogue: how do you define "fact," Scott -- what kind of evidence makes a fact indisputable?

If you have to jump to conclusions, it's not a fact.

For instance, is it a fact that the good guys are the ones who are militarily and financially superior by virtue of that superiority?

I can't understand what that question means. Are you asking me if I think the ones who are the most powerful are the good guys? No, not necessarily. Are you asking if I think people are superior because they have the best military and the most money? I guess you can say that they are superior. However, I think the country that's superior is the one which has the most personal freedoms and the most peace. Australia seems pretty damn nice...even better than the US. I could be wrong. But freedom is superiority, and goodness. People who help spread it around the world are good people. It's more helpful when they have tons of money and a good military.

I look forward to seeing if you actually can make any good points...

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Are you talking Nazi Germany? If so, then it should be obvious why they wouldn't want them occupying their country. They set up concentration camps and killed tons of people.

WW2 didn't start with concentration camps and indeed only much later German (let alone Dutch) citizens started to realize, way after the machinery was set in motion. Most people only understood what happened way after the war. "We didn't know!" is the famous German phrase much quoted.

But the US already have their secret networks of camps and detention centers around the world (the European parlement is furious currently!) and Iraq still has its smaller scale torture camps and a decade of destruction: sanctions + bombing campaigns going back to Clinton killing its tens of thousands of innocents. The sanctions alone are estimated without any dispute to have killed at least a couple of 100,000 of children because of lack of nutrition and clean water that was dependent on 'dual use' equipment.

The goal of the modern US military is liberating the oppressed, not erradicating all non-Americans or non-born again Christians. Huge difference.

No, that's exactly like the rhetoric that started Hitler's rise in Europe and beyond. That it ended in a holocaust must not become a reason to deny huge similarities since the 'war on terror' - called WW3 or WW4 by neocons - just started. WW2 just shows were things like this lead to if unchecked. Many WW2 veterans, researchers and survivors are currently warning for this.

I haven't heard about destroying the infrastructure for the decade before the occupation.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. It's not kept secret but people just skip over it or blame Saddam as being responsible. Like a kidnapper blames the authorities if the kidnapped ones get wasted.

The main problem of the occupation appeared, according to US military, the reconstruction of what more than a decade of US/British raids and UN sanctions had done to the country, not only the short invasion.

It possibly is. I guess I don't have enough knowledge of what has happened in the past.

It doesn't matter, but be more careful not to talk like you have.

I know about the bombs dropped on Japan. But my president being a war criminal...I don't know about that. What did he do?

The Nazi leaders were convicted (also) because they started a war of aggression. Since the big trial war-crimes are defined to include initiation of wars. The term 'preemptive war' is just a legal trick by US federal lawyers to prevent being charged with crimes right away.

UN can be full of shit. That's like obeying the speed limit. Not many people actually do it. Most people go five over.

The UN is designed to slow things down, and not by force of course. By consensus.

It's a poor excuse for a man to use Islam as a reason for strapping plastique to himself. It's a good excuse to use freedom as a reason to kill him.

I think 'Islam' and 'Freedom' are in this context both pure religious ideas, but one has to examine the origin and use to find that out. But for someone how grows up hearing about this magical 'freedom' in every book, movie and politician, it's very hard to understand.

[Leyla Shen]

Scott,

L: Oh, its certainly going to be a battle for you to dig yourself out. Way too much ego.

S: That may be true. But you pointing that out only shows how attached to this whole issue you are. How emotional you are. So I could easily say the same thing about you...and it would be completely pointless because it's a stagnant point in the discussion!

Well, not quite. If it’s true and you have the conviction and strength of mind to admit it, there’s no need for the discussion to stagnate.

It would not concern me if you said the same about me. I would address it or not, as I so decide.

L: Nonetheless, I will address this rubbish coming from one who so pridefully claims to be a man of facts.

S: Will you? I haven't seen that happen yet.

That’s because I haven’t done it yet. Or, with this, are you again implicitly claiming that your own government‘s statistics regarding US oil production, consumption and crude oil resources (to which you never responded) are not factual? In citing the obvious with consequent rises in petrol costs, am I jumping to conclusions?

Do you know who and what OPEC are and when and why they were established?

L: But first let's establish a crucial rudiment for this dialogue: how do you define "fact," Scott -- what kind of evidence makes a fact indisputable?

S: If you have to jump to conclusions, it's not a fact.

Refer above question.

L: For instance, is it a fact that the good guys are the ones who are militarily and financially superior by virtue of that superiority?

S: I can't understand what that question means. Are you asking me if I think the ones who are the most powerful are the good guys? No, not necessarily. Are you asking if I think people are superior because they have the best military and the most money? I guess you can say that they are superior. However, I think the country that's superior is the one which has the most personal freedoms and the most peace. Australia seems pretty damn nice...even better than the US. I could be wrong. But freedom is superiority, and goodness. People who help spread it around the world are good people. It's more helpful when they have tons of money and a good military.

I look forward to seeing if you actually can make any good points...

Well, I am even more convinced that I’m likely to get nowhere fast with you. It was not a difficult question to understand -- not unless there's a lot of emotional garbage to get through first.

Nevertheless, I find myself compelled to address ignorance.

Do you?

.

[sschaula]

Diebert,

But the US already have their secret networks of camps and detention centers around the world (the European parlement is furious currently!) and Iraq still has its smaller scale torture camps and a decade of destruction: sanctions + bombing campaigns going back to Clinton killing its tens of thousands of innocents. The sanctions alone are estimated without any dispute to have killed at least a couple of 100,000 of children because of lack of nutrition and clean water that was dependent on 'dual use' equipment.

Secret networks of camps and detention centers? Smaller scale torture camps? I don't know where you get these ideas from.

No, that's exactly like the rhetoric that started Hitler's rise in Europe and beyond.

Actually it's different. Hitler's thing in the beginning was to clean up Germany...not liberate the oppressed.

That it ended in a holocaust must not become a reason to deny huge similarities since the 'war on terror' - called WW3 or WW4 by neocons - just started. WW2 just shows were things like this lead to if unchecked. Many WW2 veterans, researchers and survivors are currently warning for this.

I think it's good to warn of what may come, and always remain aware of the way things can go...but some people go too far and begin believing that these things are already happening. With no proof and only speculation.

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. It's not kept secret but people just skip over it or blame Saddam as being responsible. Like a kidnapper blames the authorities if the kidnapped ones get wasted.

The main problem of the occupation appeared, according to US military, the reconstruction of what more than a decade of US/British raids and UN sanctions had done to the country, not only the short invasion.

Of course a kidnapper may be the one wasting the kidnapped, but if the authorities do screw it, then it IS partly their fault.

But about what we're talking about, I really have no clue. In fact, I'm so uninformed then I should probably just stay away from politics and history altogether.

The Nazi leaders were convicted (also) because they started a war of aggression. Since the big trial war-crimes are defined to include initiation of wars. The term 'preemptive war' is just a legal trick by US federal lawyers to prevent being charged with crimes right away.

This is kind of funny to me. Having wars is illegal? According to whom? You can make up all kinds of laws but that doesn't actually make them real. I could say "Diebert, you aren't allowed to argue your point anymore, it's a crime!" And you will just laugh at me because it's stupid to say that. We are both human beings who can have any ideas they want to have, and can say whatever we want to eachother. So in the same way, America and the UN are the same. Does "playground rules" make it sensible? If the majority of countries says "no war!" but one country says "war"...does that automatically mean the majority of countires is correct? I don't think so. In fact, I think that's a logical fallacy...appealing to the majority or something.

Anarchy is the true law of the land. That means the strongest survive, and luckily, right now the strongest is democracy. No one can actually regulate the regulators, they can only overthrow them and become them...so if someone who is against democracy actually steps up to the plate for real, and actually makes a good plan to overthrow them, then that's what will happen.

I'm sure America will cry and say "That's a crime! Punish them" when we are overthrown. It's like a kid crying to their parents when their sibling crosses the line drawn in the car seat. "He broke the rules!" Except, we are grown ups now, and we don't have parents. There's no one to punish the people that offend us beyond ourselves.

It doesn't matter if people realize the imperminence of our societies. The fact that we will be beat out by someone else at some point in history. People seeing the truth of the matter is pointless...what cause does that serve? It's not like realizing the truth will save their lives.

So in my opinion, it's fine for people to remain childish about the situation in the world. Like, "You aren't allowed to do this to me!" If they have a good government and country, it's perfectly fine to fight for it and be irrational about it. It should be obvious to anyone that it's better to walk the streets of America than that of China...or that of Mexico..or that of Iraq (pre occupation). Better to live in Israel than Lebanon...or Iran. Not because of their military superiority but because of their freedom. The freedom to walk the streets without worrying.

In other topics people talk about the best environment to foster genius....that environment is one where you have no worries. Where everything is easy to obtain, and life is pretty much boring. Countries that have this - I hope they win all the wars against ones which don't.

The UN is designed to slow things down, and not by force of course. By consensus.

It's obvious that the UN is too slow. There was enough time to move out all WMDs to Syria.

I think 'Islam' and 'Freedom' are in this context both pure religious ideas, but one has to examine the origin and use to find that out. But for someone how grows up hearing about this magical 'freedom' in every book, movie and politician, it's very hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand that freedom is real when it's so apparent. I walk outside and experience it. I sit here and type and experience it. It's not some imagined thing. It's a reality!

I can drive my car downtown and get any kind of food I want...I can walk to a bookstore and buy any book I want...I can talk to people in different countries about politics on the internet...I can have any religion I want...I can dress any way I want...I can have any kind of job I want...

This is freedom.

There are people who can't drive their cars into town to get a meal...they can't read certain things...they can't visit the Genius Forum because it's banned because it's considered religious...they have to believe certain things...they have to wear certain clothes...they have to work at certain jobs...

Those people aren't free.

So this is obviously more real than any idea in Islam. It doesn't take blind faith to believe in freedom, because even if you experience none of it, you can know it's a real thing by the absence of it.

[sschaula]

Leyla,

Well, not quite. If it’s true and you have the conviction and strength of mind to admit it, there’s no need for the discussion to stagnate.

It would not concern me if you said the same about me. I would address it or not, as I so decide.

...

That’s because I haven’t done it yet. Or, with this, are you again implicitly claiming that your own government‘s statistics regarding US oil production, consumption and crude oil resources (to which you never responded) are not factual? In citing the obvious with consequent rises in petrol costs, am I jumping to conclusions?

Do you know who and what OPEC are and when and why they were established?

...

Refer above question.

...

Well, I am even more convinced that I’m likely to get nowhere fast with you. It was not a difficult question to understand -- not unless there's a lot of emotional garbage to get through first.

Nevertheless, I find myself compelled to address ignorance.

Do you?

Don't you see how this is ALL fluff and no substance?

[Kevin Solway]

Does Islam really preach violence against non-muslims.

It preaches violence specifically against those unbelievers who are considered to be a threat to Islam. Depending on the Muslim, just about any non-Muslim can be considered to be a threat to Islam.

Or is it the Islamic terrorist extremists who have a warped view of what Islam truly is.

They have a warped view, but their view is encouraged by the poor quality of the original teachings.

Here in America there are many muslims who protest, with claims of being opressed because they are lumped in with Islamic terrorists.

Yet when you actually talk to them, you find that their views are often not all that different to those of the terrorists.

In my experience there is very little difference between a fundamentalist Islamist and a so-called "moderate".

Poor education is largely the reason for such crude beliefs. If Muslims were better educated I have no doubt their religion would likewise become more civilized and true.

If you don't mind, please provide an unbiased link or type a few of these scriptures from the Koran that preach violence and hatred towards non-muslims.

Here are a few quotations. It is possible to interpret these teachings in a non-violent way, but it requires an extremely good imagination to do so:

Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura ix, 5-6

Say to the Infidels: if they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven; but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end.
-- Holy Qu'ran, Sura viii, 39-42

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
-- Quran Surah 2: The Cow

Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars.
If the unbelievers do not offer you peace [surrender], kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant.
--Quran Surah 4: Women

Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom.
Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, and tooth for tooth. Non-muslims are wrong doers.
Christians will be burned in the Fire.
-- Quran Surah 5: The Table Spread

Never help disbelievers.
-- Quran Surah 28: The Narrative

There are of course equally ridiculous teachings to be found in Christianity and Judaism, but these have made centre-stage in modern Islam.

[Kevin Solway]

Obviously you never watched the whole thing. And whether or not you did, you have some serious filters going on, Kevin.

No, I only watched about 10 minutes, since its "reporting" was so narrow, emotionalist and distorted I didn't have any more time for it. What I saw came across as a cheaply produced propaganda reel, demonizing the Israelis.

[David Quinn]

Diebert:

DQ: Let's not forget that Islam is by far and away the most backward major religion on the planet and does absolutely nothing for the cause of wisdom, except hamper it. Christianity is bad enough, but Islam is simply dreadful. I'm sure all of us here would hate living in an Islamic state. This forum would have no chance of existing, for example. A lot of us would quickly have our throats slit, if we didn't recant our beliefs and thoughts.

DvR: Well, I don't believe that and I think it's a short-sighted view on the core of Islamic thought and beliefs, as well as of their society. It's too easy to zoom into extremes or backward areas, looking for examples.

Here in the Wild Wild West we have our own new religion, and one that Mr. Bush is often preaching and he calls Freedom (see also below *1). But David, you very well know this Freedom he's talking about is merely a belief, it's an invitation to unlimited consumerism, chaos, crime, state controls (to ensure this freedom), corruption and so on. It's the freedom of nihilism, wrapped with an ornamental Christian religion or the excuse of Capitalism to swallow it.

I agree that we in the West abuse and squander our freedoms. However, the fact still remains that we are free to criticize every aspect of our society and, for the most part, not suffer extreme punishments in return. If a person in an Islamic country, even a moderate one, were to begin criticizing the Muslim rituals or teachings, he would be ex-communicated in no time, and possibly put to death.

Have a look at the quotes from the Koran which Kevin Solway posted above. The Koran repeatedly commands its followers to kill disbelievers who pose a threat. Anyone who thinks is, by default, a serious threat to Islam.

I've personally been told by Muslims that I wouldn't last an hour in Pakistan if I said the sort of things I say here in Australia.

I wouldn't have minded growing up in an extremist Muslim country. I'd have studied with the best and wisest teachers I could find and would have tried to surpass them in understanding.

It wouldn't be very hard to surpass the understanding of an extremist Muslim teacher! Simply having a thought should do the trick.

You would only be allowed to pass your teacher's understanding in a very narrow, confined sense - that is, by better reinforcing their own prejudices and deluded understandings. If you were ever to genuinely attempt to surpass the understanding of an extremist Muslim teacher, you would probably be taken out the back and shot.

Again, we are talking about seriously deluded people who are living in their own paranoid, nightmare world and who are beyond the reach of all reason. There is no such thing as a wise Muslim teacher, just as there is no such thing as a wise Ku Klux Klan leader.

Maybe on the outside I'd have dressed and acted out some traditional rituals but there's no difference between that and lets say collecting dole or work for a living. It's unimportant compared to Truth if it only takes a few moments and one remains detached.

It's not just a time issue. Your mind and speech would have to be severely curtailed in order just to survive in an Islamic state, which isn't the case here in Austalia or the West generally. Western culture is immeasurably superior to Islamic culture because it allows criticism and thought to flourish without fear.

The question remains if the Muslim fundamentalist tradition (which is evolving as well) contains enough wisdom to study, and the question came up before. I've collected some material in the last few months and I'll post a synopsis soon, after I found out if all of these teachings are still part of the living Muslim tradition.

I'm looking forward to seeing them.

-

[MKFaizi]

Scott wrote:

I have to admit, I'd probably be one of them.

Well, duh.

Since that is the case, I cannot imagine why you posted the other part of your post to the contrary.

Faizi

[MKFaizi]

In purely Christian absolutism, Father Kevin Solway actually wrote:

but these have made centre-stage in modern Islam.

Has anyone here besides myself lived as a Muslim; lived within a community of Muslims?

I have no doubt that these things are in the Koran in some translations. A lot does depend upon the translation. My husband could read the Koran in Arabic and he translated for me. There was no emphasis upon these things. The emphasis was on cleanliness, prayer, the importance of keeping Kosher, the modesty of women -- not wearing burquas. Noah is in there and a lot about Abraham and Ishmael and Issac; Adam and Eve; Jesus.

To be honest, my husband did feel some anger toward US policy but he never crossed religion with politics. He never claimed that Muhammad said to kill nonbelievers. To the contrary, there was talk about people of the book -- meaning Jews, Christians and Muslims.

Yes, there is plenty of animosity between Muslims and Jews -- over territory. In my years spent as a Muslim, I never heard expressed hatred for Jews or anyone else.

A few years back, I spent considerable time writing a study of Islamic beliefs that are not violent. That was all lost back on the EZ board forum. I am not willing to do that again.

Ultimately, I think any effort to reveal Muslims as anything other than blood thirsty war mongers will never be received here. The collective mind is made up and firm on that. Too bad.

Narrow minded ignorance is always disappointing.

I am glad that I am no longer a Muslim and that I no longer live among Pakistani-Americans or Pakistani-Australians or anything else. I would be fearful.

Faizi