SO,YOU THINK THAT POLITE DISCUSSION OVER COFFEE WILL DO THE TRICK?

Kill all the homosexuals….they are an aberration and a blasphemy against God.For this there shall be no exception.If you are a homosexual you must repent immediately and beg God’s forgiveness.There is no other way,and no discussion.

Kill all those who are married and are not man and wife.They blaspheme the sacred state of matrimony.They defile the sacred book.Kill those who speak on their behalf.They are an abomination as well and for this there can be no

Kill all those who believe in the equality of woman.Man is superior to the weak and dirty sex.They are put on this earth only to serve any any all of man's needs.They are inferior to man's image.Kill all those that speak on their behalf.For this there can be no discussion,no other way.....

Kill all those who believe in the will of the people.The masses are sheep and must be governed according to sacred tradition.Democracy is the governance of those that have turned from God.They are incapable of decision.They are sinners.They must be killed.Only the rules of the sacred book will show you the way.They too are an abomination and for this there can be no discussion.....

Kill all who think that Jesus is God.He is not.His followers for two thousand years have spread lies.They defile the sacred book.They must all die.They must repent immediately.For this there can be no discussion.....

Comment:
About 100 million people in this world believe the above load of garbage.In numerical terms,100 million people(a population larger than Nazi Germany in World War II) adhere either to the Whahabi or Salafist indoctrination of Radicial Islam.Assume also that the Israeli question somehow is solved and we have remaining these philosophical and religious issues.

For this thread,I want you to to assume the following:Tomorrow the president orders home all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and that he orders the creation of millions of jobs for those unemployed in the Arabian peninsula.

In other words,to make this discussion "easy",I have eliminated the obvious.

Assume also that these four points remain...and only these four points(really there are hundreds,but I chose these four for illustrative purposes).

Remember:No Iraq,no Israel..both have been solved.

How does the West respond?

Will negotiation placate this beast?

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at June 6, 2006 7:48 AM
Comments
Comment #154692

Neither negotiation nor violence (military intervention) will tame this beast. You cannot kill an idea. It will only fuel their fire and rage.

The solution as always is political and economic reform. You need to take their enemy away and their base support. As long as the US is in the middle East installing rogue puppets that keep the oil flowing, setting up large embassies and maintaing a military presence, we will forever be fighting this war on terror.

The US must leave and have no presence in the Middle East, economic liberal reform must take root (without oil) whuch will naturally lead to (over time) to more liberal ideas.

Posted by: Jerseyguy at June 6, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #154693

Will negotiation placate this beast?

Probably not….

Most middle eastern countries teach their children to hate everything western from the time they are born. Their hatered of us and the west is rooted deep in their bones and it will take one or two generations under your conditions to possibly effect change in their additudes towards us.

Posted by: jwl at June 6, 2006 8:22 AM
Comment #154694

Jerseyguy

Ok…let’s take oil out of the equation…how do you square against a believe that is black to your white.
Look at the four issues and respond on those please.

jwl
What’s a solution then?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #154696

sicilianeagle,

It always feels good to dehumanize the enemy, doesn’t it?

If you want to understand how to deal with these people, you must first recognize that they are indeed PEOPLE… they have many of the same motivations, loves, hopes, and fears as the rest of us. You and I might not be able to relate directly to such extreme mindsets, but remember that many of our own ancestors had the same mindset. Except for the “Jesus is not God” part, everything you listed could have described Christians at one point in time.

So my first questions to you would be, what caused the Christian world to change? How did we learn to give up religious extremism and embrace tolerance?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 8:39 AM
Comment #154701

Until I got to the part about Jesus, I actually thought this post was about the viewpoint of the right wing bible-thumper wack-jobs.

Kind of strange that the reich wing
currently seeks legislation against homosexuals, womens rights and eroding the rights and liberties of all of it’s own citizens it while condeming Islam for the same.

Of course, all of the above “points” from the original post are just regurated from the likes of Bill Oh-Really and Rush Dimbulb, none of which are actual qoutes or comments from ANY version of the Qu’ran.

For instance, concerning homosexuality, the the Hanafite Islam (currently seen mainly in South and Eastern Asia) teaches that no physical punishment is warranted.

Seriously, simply cutting & pasting right wing hate propoganda without bothering to spend five minutes with a search engine only shows how desperate the 29 percenters have become.

Posted by: watching quietly at June 6, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #154703

Rob, what in the hell are you talking about? Our Christian ancestors embraced what? Quit making things up, seriously.

Seeking legislation against someone is just like killing them, way to go Watching quietly. Now take the advice you give yourself in your handle.

Posted by: Craig at June 6, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #154704

Rob Cottrell

I am not de-humanizing the remaining 3.9 BILLION of the world’s muslims…rather trying to get you to think about the other 10%…100 million.

My view is that even if the Iraq war did not happen,the fundamental mindset of this group inetivebaly would have lead to a collission.

I will concede the following to you and everybody:The war in Iraq created a certain percentage of fanatics…and for the ourpsoe of this conversation let’s say half of the 10%.

Thus,in my view,even if the war has not happened,we had a serious enemy.

I will concede another poiont to you as well,Rob…that the remaining 90% of Muslims,now ,as a result of this war,are ambivalent at best or hostile at worse to the West.

However,you still didn’t answer the question.

Yes, Christiany has a sorid past.I have read and read read the events leading to the Crudases countless times.I am familiar with the Inquisition..very much so,and bllod most definately is on the hands of ancient Christianity….but not so for generations and generations….certainly not to influence 100 million.

No,there is something more fundamental here,and I want to examine it closely.

My last piece was whimsical.This one is blood serious.

Let’s leave politics at the door today and talk the most serious issue of our lifetime.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at June 6, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #154705

watching quietyly

Thanks for responding but you don’t know me well.

I have studied the Holy Koran and you are correct,it is silent on some of what I mentioned….however…its meaning has been mutated by the imams of hate….going back over 10 centuries.

The Phrophet did not say those things…his followers..some of the most radicial…who “studied” his teachings did…and they are the ones who now have an iron grip on the philosophy.

Posted by: sdicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 10:03 AM
Comment #154709

We liberals sometimes refuse to think in terms of force. Of course force is necessary when you are attacked by a group of religious fanatics. The question becomes what force and how much?

Sam Harris has written a great book, THE END OF FAITH, in which he says exactly what you say. However, he goes on to say the same thing about all religions.

What startled me most as I first glanced at what you had written I thought you might be referring to the Bible! Oh no, you say? Take a look at what our dominionist Christian friends believe. They and the 100 million Islamic fanatics would make good company!

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at June 6, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #154710

Poor Republicans. Another thread full of selective history.

Tsk tsk.

You obviously don’t know that the “West” alongside with Russia created the Fundamentalist Islam you see today.

Another lesson in basic Conservative Ignorance.

Posted by: Aldous at June 6, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #154711

sicilian eagle,

An interesting, thought-provoking piece. The issue it raises in my mind is: how do we best address hatred? Clearly, there are situations where all other options are out the window and military force is a moral necessity (see World War II, for instance).

On the other hand, I think most would agree that military force is the least preferable of all options and should only be used as a last resort. There is tremendous work to be done first in promoting social justice, economic development, respectful dialogue, and promoting moderate voices within Islam. Not to mention the hard work of diplomacy, etc.

I would respectfully disagree if you are proposing that military conflict is inevitable because of their ideology. Indeed, it would be my contention that that the radical elements within Islam would be substantially weakened if (as you propose) the issues of Iraq and “oil” were somehow resolved.

Posted by: steve westby at June 6, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #154712

My apologies. The final sentence of my last post was intended to read “…the issues of Israel and ‘oil’ were somehow resolved.”

Posted by: steve westby at June 6, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #154714

SE:

Pretty meaningless drivel of an article.

Perhaps you could show us any examples of the present Islamic Fundamentalism dated BEFORE 1945?

Perhaps you could bring up examples of Islamic motivated genocides of Jews in the last 2,000 years?

How about Islamic motivated genocides of Christians in the last 2,000 years?

Ignorance is Bliss if your a Conservative.

Posted by: Aldous at June 6, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #154716
Assume also that these four points remain…and only these four points(really there are hundreds,but I chose these four for illustrative purposes).

First, what’s wromg with me: I see five not four points!?

Second, even these 100 millions are human too, not only the 3.9 billions muslims that, according to your numbers (I didn’t check them, though. Any ling to share here?), don’t believe AT ALL these points are true and actually find them very intolerante and extremists.
Most if not all the time our enemies are humans, unfortunatly.

Let’s leave politics at the door today and talk the most serious issue of our lifetime.

Earth resources exaustion? Great, let’s do that!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #154718

SE,


Sorry to get off the point, but has the Iraqi Government elected a Defense Ministry yet? I only ask because three weeks ago you said it would only take “A few days..”

Posted by: Vincent Vega at June 6, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #154719

link, not ling! Damned keyboard ;-)

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2006 10:51 AM
Comment #154720

Wow. Why is it that the left can rarely address the issue, but seem to be compelled to explain to us how bad we all are?

I have read through the Quran, but am no expert. What SE summarized is sewn throughout it. It is not and has never been the “religion of peace and tolerance”.

A serious resolution of this issue is of some importance to me personally as my son is a Sgt. in the big red one. Unfortunately, no obvious solution presents itself to me. Perhaps we need to approach this as a mathematian would and first determined whether a solution exists!

We certainly need to maintain vigilance abroad and fight where need be to protect ourselves and the general cause of freedom. At home, we need to endure some pain, perhaps by allowing oil development in our own backyard. Perhaps investing some of our hard-earned (private) money in companies researching energy alternatives, even though many of those ventures will fail.

And by all means keep talking…my favorite conversation with radical islamic fundamentalists is with 500-lb chunks of concrete dropped from 20,000-ft with precision guidance. Gets their attention and leaves the neighbors alone.

Posted by: Martian at June 6, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #154721

Another in an unimpressive list of strawman arguments, good show!

Posted by: nutty little nut nut at June 6, 2006 10:53 AM
Comment #154722

Aldous,

History? Did you say “History”?

How about the Islamic Jihad in the Balkins in 1389? Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Christians killed by the Ottoman Turks (Islamists) simply for no other reason than they were Christians?

And as far as “selective” history goes, I think you’ll find that Christianity has mellowed (we DON’T mass murder people for publishing cartoons any more) while Islam has become more and more radical.

I think you’ll find that Christian history is just that. History.

While Islamic fundamentalists are in the here and now. The tenants above in S.E.’s post are NOT history. They are current events.

Does the Christian religion TODAY promote killing all the homosexuals? No.

Does the Christian religion TODAY promote killing all those who are married and are not man and wife? No.

Does the Christian religion TODAY promote killing all those who believe in the equality of woman? No.


Does the Christian religion TODAY promote killing all those who believe in the will of the people? No.

Does the radical Muslim religion?

Yes.

There IS a difference between HISTORY…and CURRENT EVENTS.

Posted by: Jim T at June 6, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #154726

Craig,

Rob, what in the hell are you talking about? Our Christian ancestors embraced what? Quit making things up, seriously.

I didn’t make up the Inquisition, or the Crusades, or hundreds of years of bloodshed between Catholics and Protestants. Christianity has an ugly past, Craig. Even I, as a Christian myself, must accept that.

The point, which you seem to have missed, is that we’re not like that anymore. The West has moved on, grown up, and (for the most part) learned religious tolerance. The Middle East has not. If we want to understand how to teach THEM tolerance, then we need to figure out how WE learned it.

SE,

I’m not trying to change the subject, or to muddy the discussion with partisan politics. I brought up Christianity as an example. If we want to figure out how to deal with this problem of extremist Muslims, we need to first figure out what methods have worked with other extremist groups.

For example, in the 1930s and 40s, there were Jewish terrorist organizations in what is now Israel and Palestine, who were fighting against the British Mandate. These folks preached, with scriptural backing (from Exodus and Numbers, I believe) that God wanted them to kill all of the Arabs. At first glance, this seems like a group that couldn’t be negotiated with.

Once the state of Israel as established in 1948, though, they integrated into the Isreali population, and stepped down from their calls for Arab destruction. Many of them became the foundation for modern Israel’s Likud party.

So, while they were, at one time, preaching a doctrine of religous intolerance, it eventually showed that there motivations were more political than anything else. I believe it is the same with most of the 100 million Muslims you speak of. While they use religion to justify their actions, their actions are politically motivated.

Consider Saddam Hussein. His was a military government, not a religious one. (In fact, even Bin Laden opposed him for just that reason.) Yet, when US forces started pouring across his border, he started yelling for a Jihad. Jihad had nothing to do with why he wanted to fight the Americans… the conflict was a political one. But nevertheless, he tried to justify it publicly by preaching religion.

As much as you and I would like to solve the problem of religous extremism without getting into political issues, the two can’t be separated. Heck, if we can’t separate politics from religion in THIS country when debating things like gay marraige and abortion, can we really expect to separate them when talking about open warfare and terrorism?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #154727

aldous,

I have a triple dog dare for you. Can you go one thread without somehow bashing whites, Christians or America? People like you who use your freedom of speech just to cut down others for no purpose and without any positive suggestions for change make me proud to wear the uniform. Its good to know my sacrifices are in the casue of the freedom to be an #$%hole. I read somewhere that the thing Americans should most fear is that the military will lose patience with the incompetence of our civilian leadership. I suppose you can blame the system for tolerating idiots like yourself when this happens. Grow up!

Posted by: 1LT B at June 6, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #154728

Have you ever read the Old Testament book ‘Leviticus’? It’s not to dissimilar from what you mentioned above. I am not Christian, yet I see no need to worry about some kind of phantasm ‘Christian menace’. That’s because, as stated, people are people and books are books. Idiots will always take a literal interpretation of their holy texts to substitute for a lack of self-determination. Most people, despite their religious affiliations, have more common sense than that. Next time, just come out and say “I HATE MUSLIMS” (in all caps too, which appears to be your trademark).

SE, honestly I wish the names were posted at the top of the articles. Then it would be easier to skip the meaningless crap which you claim to be ‘posts’.

Seriously, don’t try to couch your statements of hatred as discussion questions meant to provoke meaningful debate. You do a disservice to questions and conversations in general.

By far, your posts are the least worth reading of any posts in all three columns. That’s giving you too much credit in my opinion. Please, return to chasing ambulances and litigating for insurance companies at once. You are wasting valuable internet space.

Posted by: redwhiteblue at June 6, 2006 11:09 AM
Comment #154729
Does the radical Muslim religion?

Yes.

Nope. Because radical Islam is not a religion but an extremist faith based on an extremist interpretation of Islam.
I would bet we’ve too our bunch of radical christians that promote killing homosexuals, place womens below men and curse the non believers, I’m sure. Maybe not 10% of all christians, but we used to in the past. Regarding the period, Inquisition could have been the worst radical Catholic time for example. Or was it the Crusades?

What, Catholic have nothing to do with Christianity? Hum, then radical islamists have nothing to do with average, moderate muslims. Too.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2006 11:19 AM
Comment #154731

Aldous / Jim T,

Every religion has its examples of intolerance and violence — its moments of stupidity. Inquisitions, genocides, witch trials, crusades, jihads… look long enough and you’ll find them. I’m a Mormon, and even we had the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Historically, no religous group has clean hands.

So let’s not get into this “our religion is better than their religion” argument.

Does the Christian religion TODAY promote killing all the homosexuals? No.

Does the Christian religion TODAY promote killing all those who are married and are not man and wife? No.

Does the Christian religion TODAY promote killing all those who believe in the equality of woman? No.

Does the Christian religion TODAY promote killing all those who believe in the will of the people? No.

Does the radical Muslim religion? Yes.

So, again, with regards to Christianity, what changed? How did we in the “Christian West” grow out of this behavior? Can the same methods be used to help the Muslims grow out of it, too?

Honestly, I believe that our “growth” was mostly economic and political. When we learned how much there was to gain by living in peace and working together, our religious leanings adjusted accordingly.

So, if we want to “tame” the Muslim extremists, we need to start incorporating more Muslims into the international community. Show them what is to be gained. No, that doesn’t mean make Iran a permanent member of the UN Security Council or anything… we need to keep the extremists in check. But at the same time, we need to make more efforts to strengthen more moderate Muslim communities (Turkey, Egypt, etc.) that are already beginning to understand the benefits of working together.

The incentive for radical Muslims to change needs to come from moderate Muslims.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #154733

Hmmm….


So you readily admit that you have studied the Qur’an and yet you still posted the above while all the while knowing that the info presented was false and misleading?

Here in the real world, we call that bullsh@t.

It’s one thing to spread bullsh@t propoganda when you don’t know it’s bullsh@t. Someone doing this is simply a stooge or a blind follower for those that originally wrote the misleading or false material.

But…. someone that spreads false & misleading propoganda that they readily admit they know is false and misleading is little more than a common liar….. or perhaps an internet troll.

I know you quite well, my friend, as I have seen the likes of you come and go so many times in the past. While it’s somewhat fun to back you into a corner and watch you squirm and back-pedal it’s more entertaining to just sit back and watch you hang yourself with your own rope (or words).

But, just for giggles:

“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

“A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death.” (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

“Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.” (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)


“They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.” (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kind of ironic (or more like hypocritcal), huh?

Posted by: watching quietly at June 6, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #154735

Rob, some of the things you attribute to Christianity are better attributed to the era, not necessarily cruelties ‘embraced’ by the Christian faith. It is clear today that all of the items SE lists can uniquely identify our enemies, while the sins of Christian ancestors were not so extraordinary for the day.

Anyway I understand your point, I retract the “what the hell” part of my post.

Posted by: Craig at June 6, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #154736

redwhiteandblue

My name is posted at the top of the article o the front page and readers are free to skip entire pieces…nothing is compulsoty here at Watchblog,and no,I don’t chase abmulances …way too old and can’t keep up.

What statements about hatred do you allude?I respect Muslims…the 90% of Muslims before the religion was highjacked,that is.

The central tenant of the Koran is tolerance….for all people of the book.Yet that message is long lost.

You say you are not Christian.Great.I am.What religion do you follow,if any.I’d like to discuss the issue with you.

RobCotrell
Education..on both sides may be the key…but it may be generation…if all sides can agree.

Aldous
I think you are off base.This issue has been going on since the first Capaphate,I think.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #154737

Am I the only one here who’s heard of ‘The 700 Club’ and ‘Savage Nation’?

Six of one, 1/2 dozen of the other.

Posted by: redwhiteblue at June 6, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #154739

It never ceases to amaze me how some people just fail to get the point. Sicilian Eagle (wrong side of the straits, from a Calabrese viewpoint) was trying to point out that Christianity has evolved/matured/whatever word you find appropriate to the point that it no longer advocates killing people. The fact that idiots like watching quietly are still alive while living in a majority Christian nation tends to prove the point. Get off of the Christian bashing and write something relevent.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 6, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #154740

Sigh - watching quietly, another ignoramus quoting bible scriptures who doesn’t have the first clue about what he is referencing. You know, Satan himself tried to use scriptures out of context - didn’t work then and it doesn’t work now. If you’re so interested in the scripture you quote, why don’t you go educate yourself first to better understand their meaning and place in the bible?

Posted by: Craig at June 6, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #154742

watching quitely

Re-read the entry.

And those who hold the most fanaticial view of Radicial Islam adhere to that philosophy.

NOWHERE did I say that was I wrote was in the Koran….rather what I wrote is what that element themselves THINK it says.

Nor am I trolling.Nor is it bullshit,nor am I misrepresenting anything,my friend,and to think so is myopic,in my view.

Tell me…you do not think that radicial Islam agrees with none of what I posted?Be specific,I want to debate the issue.

By the way,I am a lapsed Catholic and I have written in the past here that guys like the tv evevangist are little more than snake oil salesmen.

I detest that element,frankly.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #154743

Sicilian Eagle,
I appreciate the serious way in which you presented this topic, the way in which you tried to avoid lumping all Muslims in the same group, and the way in which you have tried to frame the discussion to exclude politics. I agree, it is a serious issue that needs to be discussed. Sources for your quotes and numbers would be great, and lessen the posts that you’re just being a partisan hack. I don’t really believe that there are 100 million people who really believe that garbage, certainly not that many who believe in it strongly enought to do anything about it.

I wish both the “All muslims are evil” set and the “Christianity is just as bad” set would calm down a little and discuss the topic.

Although you bugged me when you first started commenting, I greatly enjoy your articles now, even though I don’t think I’ve agreed with any of them.

Rob, that is a great analysis. I wish I could add to what you’ve said, but I think you’re exactly right.

Posted by: Brian Poole at June 6, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #154744

Craig,

Rob, some of the things you attribute to Christianity are better attributed to the era, not necessarily cruelties ‘embraced’ by the Christian faith. It is clear today that all of the items SE lists can uniquely identify our enemies, while the sins of Christian ancestors were not so extraordinary for the day.

I agree that Christianity wasn’t entirely to blame for the “sins of the era”. And I’m glad you pointed that out, because that’s pretty much my argument for Muslims today.

Overall, in the last 2,000 years, the Middle East hasn’t had the political stability that the West has. It was ravaged by crusades and jihads, divided up by colonial imperialists, and more recently used as poker chips in a Cold War. The only stabilizing factor in these people’s lives has been their religion.

In the US, you see Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, and others uniting under the title of Americans. Being a patriotic American is, to many people, almost a religion in itself. It’s that deeply ingrained in people. In the Middle East, religion is what unites people, because they don’t have another strong allegiance.

Anyway I understand your point, I retract the “what the hell” part of my post.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

redwhiteblue,

By far, your posts are the least worth reading of any posts in all three columns. That’s giving you too much credit in my opinion. Please, return to chasing ambulances and litigating for insurance companies at once. You are wasting valuable internet space.

Careful there… remember these six little words…

“Critique the Message, Not the Messenger”

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #154745

Phillipe Houdoin

Bravo.
I agree withn you.
There is a big difference.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #154747

Of course, there is one more point worth bringing up. I believe the Muslims have had a harder time “civilizing” than the West has because of where they live, and that’s not likely to change. Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. can get along a lot easier in a place like, say, Tulsa, Oklahoma than they can in Jerusalem, for one simple reason. Read the Torah, the Koran, and the Bible, and you might notice something…

…God never promised Tulsa to anyone.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #154749

Rob,

So, if we want to “tame” the Muslim extremists, we need to start incorporating more Muslims into the international community. Show them what is to be gained. No, that doesn’t mean make Iran a permanent member of the UN Security Council or anything… we need to keep the extremists in check. But at the same time, we need to make more efforts to strengthen more moderate Muslim communities (Turkey, Egypt, etc.) that are already beginning to understand the benefits of working together.

I agree. An that’s one point why I’m now for Turkey be an EU member.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #154751

Brian Poole
Honestly…I appreciate your comments.We can disagree…that’s fine.Let’s just keep on talking that’s all.

The 10% figure I picked up last year somewhere,and frankly I don’t have it on my fingertips..however,I believe that’s it’s the figure commonly used by intelligence sources everywhere.

From that 100 milion who ascribe to radial Wahabbi or Salafist thought,not everyone is a suicide bomber or guerilla terrorist.Maybe world-wide there are several hundred thousand of those.

Do me a favor if you have a chance:Google the word Jihad.
Then you can spend the next several hours visiting what I call “hate” web sites..they are all over the place…by the thousands now.

On my computer at home,I benchmarked a site that has all the Yahoo Jihadist groups identified.I was shocked as to the quantity.

Vincent Vega

Ya,I am worried…my “few days” is stretching into 3 weeks so far…I HOPE that the new PM can do something quick…we should all hope for that.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #154754

I think you have a good point, SE, however I do feel that you are judging the book by its cover a little to much here (sorry it was too easy). If we worry to much about the worst elements, we are likely to spread fear and misunderstanding, further distancing ouselves from future harmony. Your piece is very bold, and to those who don’t read your posts enough, it could come across as hatemongering.

If we are to arrive at a peaceful solution to the current predicaments, we must learn to view conflict as a true non-resort.Regardless, we must find a rational way to achieve understanding between our two cultures, and an amiable way to resolve peacefully the conflicts of that region. I know that we are great people (seriously, for the most part), and that we can accomplish any task as a nation if we truly put our minds to it. I sincerely hope that we can do this, and that your fears, SE, are unfounded.

Non-Christians ought to remember, also, that they are bound to this conflict inasmuch as the Muslims, Christians, and Jews are. In this way, they too must learn to foster understanding and not division between the secular and religious worlds of their own countries. In order to see a harmonious solution, unity will have to play a key role. Without any form of unity amongst ourselves, how can we hope to nurture mutual understanding with those who would make themselves our enemies?

We must find a way to start appreciating the perspectives of others. It’s only then that solutions are found.

By the way, SE, I think that your posts, at worst, are at least entertaining.

Posted by: beijing rob at June 6, 2006 12:11 PM
Comment #154758

Before you can find a solution, you must understand what causes the problem.
It all comes down to a matter of POWER.

Millions of Muslims are taught that anything Western is evil.
Why?
Because Islam has been controlled totally by the Imams for hundreds of years. These self-serving “clerics” see how Christianity has slowly lost the major portion of its influence through secularism and will do anything to avoid losing their power over the Islamic masses. Thus, they teach the “EVILS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION” to anybody too young or ignorant to think for themselves.

The secular “powers-that-be” in the Islamic world…the Saudi royals for example…have their people living in the same slums their ancestors lived in.
They take billions of dollars in oil from what are essentially their subjects back-yards while giving support to the “clerics” so the Imams will continue to teach their people that they live in huts with no electricity, no plumbing, and often only dirt floors while their royals own palaces and fleets of jets and Rolls-Royces because that is how “Allah wills it”.
In other words…”Be content with your miserable life and you will be rewarded in the next life.”
Hell of a cop-out, isn’t it?

Posted by: Hunter at June 6, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #154759

Jerseyguy,

You need to do less drugs, without influence from a Democratic nation (Democracy breeds liberal thoughts), there would be same old 7th century thought.

Rob Cottrell,

By dehumanize, do you mean tell the truth about traits or characteristics of those people? What if those statements were/are 100% accurate? Does the truth not count?

Posted by: ChrisC at June 6, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #154760

Sicilian Eagle:

I am pleased to inform you that you have a new entrant for the “Mighty Eagle’ Awards:

SE, honestly I wish the names were posted at the top of the articles. Then it would be easier to skip the meaningless crap which you claim to be ‘posts’.
Seriously, don’t try to couch your statements of hatred as discussion questions meant to provoke meaningful debate. You do a disservice to questions and conversations in general.
By far, your posts are the least worth reading of any posts in all three columns. That’s giving you too much credit in my opinion. Please, return to chasing ambulances and litigating for insurance companies at once. You are wasting valuable internet space.

In the interest of space, I was going to only provide one of the three paragraphs, but I couldn’t decide which was the most inflammatory. I felt they all deserved attention. :)

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 6, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #154762

Your all caps title is offensive to my eyes. Your premise is equally offensive to my mind. If only we could label people as one thing or another instead of having to re-act to them as people. If Iraq and Israel were not the focal problems that they have been, we would use the same type of propaganda machine that we always use to create a new “situation” in the middle east. Let’s face it, our oil in the ground began running out in the 70s and those more interested in money than in humanity will always have an excuse to persecute and terrorize other countries for financial advantage.

Manifest destiny was wrong in colonial times and it is wrong now. We (USA) have NO right to force our views on the world, just to keep our financial heads above water. If our government was really interested in keeping the dollar strong and protecting well lined american pockets we would not be, continuously, selling our future to China. The current administration is like a child with a cell phone running up a bill that they can not even comprehend. Thanks, Mr. Bush, I hope my kids can afford the bill when it comes due. (How can they, with cuts in educational programs all over the country?)

Posted by: Tracy at June 6, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #154769

Tracy

Nice try.

Instead of bleating about font size,how about arguing the issue on the merits?

Your post had zero to do with anything in my post.Instead,you try to bring in oil,education,Bush and manifest destiny.

JBOD
So noted.

bejing rob

I am trying to focus in on the points I mentioned…what say you about them?
By the way,thanks!

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #154772

SO,YOU THINK THAT POLITE DISCUSSION OVER COFFEE WILL DO THE TRICK?

God, you’re a fool - no wonder we’re in the mess - sorry - messes we’re in. Offensive, simple minded, angry at every one who doesn’t agree with you - visiting this site when you comment feels like sitting in the back row of a klan rally.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at June 6, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #154773

Well, I’d elaborate on my earlier post, but I’m afraid all I’d do is reiterate what my namesake who does not live in BeiJing has already said. Inclusion and reward of moderate societies will set a precedent for other countries to adopt more moderate policies.

BTW, looks like you have a new candidate for the ‘Mighty Eagles’;-)

Posted by: beijing rob at June 6, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #154776

ChrisC,

By dehumanize, do you mean tell the truth about traits or characteristics of those people? What if those statements were/are 100% accurate? Does the truth not count?

Nope, because if we follow this same path, the worst scenarii about Global Climate Change, if they were/are 100% accurate, will make islamists human status a minor issue pretty soon.

Posted by: ChrisC

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #154779

This is an argument in a bottle. I think that BLOGS suffer from being arguments in bottle anyway, but this is a bit extreme.

I am a student of history and I do not believe there EVER been a truely religous war. Not one. If you remove all the economic disparity issues and the element of our conduct that resembles empire building, radical Islam loses strength. I believe that most fervently.

Therefore, this article seems a little like an effort argue against the legitimacy or moral foundations of Islam itself. I won’t engage in that. I have Muslim friends I know well and respect. The problem is not Islam. There are radicals out there among the Islamic world, but they are not fueled by differences of religion. They couldn’t care less how Americans in Kansas live, for example.

I feel like this argument in a test-tube scenario is ultimately an effort to justify religious bigotry. I hope that is not the case, but that is how it reads to me.

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #154780
… will make islamists human status a minor issue pretty soon.

Which is not open to debate, BTW. Islamists are people (don’t they bleed and eventually die when they’re shooted at? Wait… Yeah, these GIs all comfirm they do). People are human. CQFD.

Next question, please.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 6, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #154781

ChrisC wrote:

By dehumanize, do you mean tell the truth about traits or characteristics of those people? What if those statements were/are 100% accurate? Does the truth not count?

At this time, I would like to publicly retract the first line of my first post in this thread, as quoted below:

“It always feels good to dehumanize the enemy, doesn’t it?”

I would also like to apologize to Sicilian Eagle for implying any partisan motives in his initial post. It was a gut reaction to the all-caps subject line of the thread, instead of a meaningful address of the issues within. Again, I apologize.

I would also like to thank ChrisC for showing me just how annoying it can be to have someone get hung up on the first line of your post, while failing to read or understand the meat within.

Thanks.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #154784

Geez

I am racking candidates for the Eagle award left and right today.

RGF
Honestly,if everone followed the key tenants of Islam,the world would be a far better place.

Far better.

Equality,and kinship with fellow man as well as a fear of God are central,I think.

What the heck is wrong with that?

The trouble is that some Islamic followers(as have some Christians and Jews I think) have put their own value systems ON TOP OF the essence of the religion and now what we see is virtually unrecognizeable with the essence of that relighion.

Some of the reaction today is sad.I try to engage on a tough subject and I get slammed like a door.

However the discussion is a necessasy one…and one that transcends politics,I think

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #154785

Rob C
You’re a good man!

Posted by: sicilian eagle at June 6, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #154791

SE,

___
RGF
Honestly,if everone followed the key tenants of Islam,the world would be a far better place.

Far better.

Equality,and kinship with fellow man as well as a fear of God are central,I think.
___

We are, again, in agreement.

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #154793

SE,

“The trouble is that some Islamic followers(as have some Christians and Jews I think) have put their own value systems ON TOP OF the essence of the religion and now what we see is virtually unrecognizeable with the essence of that relighion.”

Isn’t the very definition of Fundamentalism to follow your book of choice word for word?

Isn’t it when it open to interpretation that the train goes off the rails?

The ancient Islamic people are responsible for some of the most basic foundations in mathematics for instance, that have made modern civilization possible, yet somewhere along the way, the progress that they made centuries ago was left behind.
I find it curious that as the followers of Christianity became more peaceful and tolerant, the followers of Islam became just the opposite.

The Ottomans were much more tolerant than the Islamic radicals of today.

As Rob said, if we can find where in history the root problem occured, we will be much further down the road to solving this issue.

Posted by: Rocky at June 6, 2006 1:39 PM
Comment #154795

RGF,

I feel like this argument in a test-tube scenario is ultimately an effort to justify religious bigotry. I hope that is not the case, but that is how it reads to me.

That was my initial fear, too… but I’ve been pleasantly surprised so far. SE has done a good job of keeping the debate on track, without taking the bait from those who want to turn it into a partisan slam-fest or a bigot-orgy.

I agree entirely, btw, that there is no such thing as a pure “holy war”. Wars of race and religion are usually just wars of economics and politics, painted with a different face. When you’re suffering economically, or oppressed politically, you start to look for a “them” to blame. The groups that offer a “them” to oppose will gain support. Unfortunately, those groups are frequently religious extremists.

SE,

You’re a good man!

Wow! Uh… thanks?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #154796

Sorry, kids, I slept late this morning, all the while a raging religious debate was unfolding…

The way I see it, power hungry imams have been able to radicalize segments of the population who were looking for something to channel their anger against. Very similar to recruiting for the neo-nazi movement in the states, except in the middle east there is no rule of law that will stand up to these terrorists, and that is primarily because of the Isreal/Palestine conflict.

While legally the Palestinians fighters are terrorists, they are in reality the only army that represents those people. Remeber that the only difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary is victory. Think of what we’d teach our children about George Washington had England won.

As long as Palestinian terrorists are fighting Israel, there is a portion of Muslim society that will view terrorist acts as a necessary evil. That allows the radical faction a voice in the greater culture that they wouldn’t normally have.

Posted by: David S at June 6, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #154802

David S,

Bravo, I agree with your assessment. I would add that Isreal does itself no favors by doing as it has done over the years:

Building settlements in disputed areas during peace

Encouraging and even funding the migration of Jews to Isreal from all over the world while simultaneously not allowing any return of Palestinian refugees.

Building a wall that infringes into disputed areas.

Etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 2:16 PM
Comment #154804

This voice of hate began with the twisted child who wanted to be a leader - muhammed. He gained a small following among his family and promised them riches. Thru bloodshed and carnage he gave it to them. They began to demand obedience to allah, who was at first just one of many gods worshipped at mecca, then on muhammeds teaching to obey both allah and his sick prophet. This was well before RUSSIA or THE WEST exsisted. Give me a break all you apologists, you are as dead as are we all unless and until this cancer on society is destroyed. WE didn’t start the hate, but WE and civilized nations will end it, they only way THEY understand, thru death and violence. PERIOD.

Posted by: JR at June 6, 2006 2:20 PM
Comment #154808

WOW.

We really are in trouble aren’t we?
Not from Islam so much as from the hatred growing within us.

BEWARE America, this is what happens to your soul if you Hate fester and grow within you.

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 2:23 PM
Comment #154809

JR,

So are you recommending that I just go for broke and shoot my Muslim coworkers now?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #154810

We still haven’t erased 400 years of racism and hatred in this country. How are we going to negotiate with folks that have thousands of years of hatred inbred in to them?
The policy for the war on terrorism should be easy. Attack us and a Muslim country disappears.


Posted by: Ron Brown at June 6, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #154811

BEWARE America, RGF is what happens to you if you let tolerance of evil grow within you.

Posted by: Craig at June 6, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #154812

SE-
Really. If every one of those people you said were followers of Radical Islam actually followed such dictates, we’d have worse problems than we do right now. You also overestimate the number of Islamic governments. There a number of rather secular governments in the Middle East, including the one we just took down.

The fact of the matter is, the dominance of these people, to the extent that exists, is a matter of public opinion. That opinion can turn against them, but that will happen much slower if we don’t talk with these folks, if we fail to reach an understanding with them.

I mean, if we just declare these people enemies and use force against them, that will make them want to agree with us all the quicker, won’t it? Folks who think the enemy only understands force don’t under force or the enemy themselves.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #154813

JR, and Craig,

So other than erasing 100 million people off the planet, what do you suggest?

Please, be verbose.

Posted by: Rocky at June 6, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #154814

Craig, usually new commenters here get a warning when name calling other WB visitors. But, in your case, you are not new, and your comment that RGF has evil growing within him, is just too over the top. You are banned from Commenting at WB. Sorry, you couldn’t bring yourself to observe our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger policy.

Posted by: WatchBlog Managing Editor at June 6, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #154818

Ron Brown,

The policy for the war on terrorism should be easy. Attack us and a Muslim country disappears.

Should we take time to determine whether that Muslim country was actually connected to those terrorists, or should we just pick one at random?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #154819

Watch Blog Managing Editor. the ban is just for this thread? and not permanent right.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 6, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #154820

Rocky

not all muslims are to blame. just like christians & jews & hindus & buddhists not all are so intensely attracted to their religion that all common sense goes out the window. WE are talking about a finite number of teachers, imams and clerics who for the purpose of world domination in the name of their false god, go back into the 7th century to justify death and destruction to all who don’t believe EXACTLY as they do. When these profiteers of death are weeded out, when the all consuming fire of unadulterated power in the name of THEIR god is extinguished, then and only then will the world at large and muslim populations specifically be safe again. No not genocide, not mass executions, no racial or ethnic cleansing, just the destruction of the few who would be kings, who would decide on behalf of everyone, everywhere, what to think, eat, wear, learn, teach, preach, believe and deny, who lives and dies and why. THIS is the challenge of of civilized nations - much as was the challenge of WWII. Was there an attempt at genocide or ethnic/religious cleansing by the west at that time? NO!!! WE destroyed the leaders, the proponents of such misery and brought peace to the world. Thats what WE mean!!!

Posted by: JR at June 6, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #154821

Stephen

Whoa…hold on partner.

EVERY Muslim society that I can think of has radicials..and far and away the biggest is Indonesia…which I suspect will get more voilent as time goes on.

As I said,not every radicial wears a suicide vest either….only a small percentage actually do.The rest enable them thru alms giving.

Rather,it is a mindset and I fear that sooner or later the tail will wag the dog.

You and I have discussed this in the past.First we have to understand exactly what we are up against..most of us don’t.Then we not only have to educate the remaiming American population but then beginingg the seeminginly enourmous task of education the Muslim world about us.

What do they see now?Well,they see lots of tits and ass on the internet and on the tv…and also in the movies we export…they see opulance and material greed…designer jeans..expensive cars…and the like…they see utopia actually..occupied by the devil,I think.

We,in many respects,are a part of the p[roblem but not all the problem.

For example,I go beserk every time I read about the Saudi government substdizing hate in their textbooks.Or illiterate imams who cannot read,but have memorized the Koran polluting a new generation of kids in those hateful madresses.
I see an enemy who is probably more tech savy now than us,using the internet for communication ,indoctrination,and recruitment.and the like and us with our heads up our asrs.
I see us fighting about politics and sometimes pretty stupid things..Angelina’s baby and Tom Cruise’s baby got all sorts of press last week…American Idol had 30 million voting..Paris Hilton..the list is endless.

Geez,no wonder people think the worse,no?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #154825

I have perceived a polarization taking place that disturbes me. These blogs are a part of it. There is a part of me that is deeply concerned about the possibility that these blogs are only a vent, and not a prticularly healthy one at that. The above exchange that resulted in Craig getting banned is a part of that. Any who have followed my posts have readily seen how angry the tone in my contributions can get.

Abusive tone aside, it amazes me that any would defend the notion of vaporizing entire nations as a solution to hate…or anything for that matter. That’s polarization setting in as well.

I have come to the conclusion that the best part of what goes on here is when disparate views find common ground. Mostly, I vehemently and profoundly disagree with almost everything offered by Jack and much of what is offered by Sicilian Eagle. Yet, we have found common ground on occasion. It is those times alone that I believe the blogs accomplish something. Maybe it takes disparate view hashing it out to arrive at what is really important and essential to an issue.

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #154827

JR,

Not to make excuses.

Up until the end of the middle ages, for instance, the Ottoman Empire was mostly tolerant of other religions.
Yes they conquered, but even as the conquered, Jews, Christians and other faiths, were allowed to practice their religions, without fear of reprisal, as long as it wasn’t done in public.

I believe Rob’s point was to find out when that changed, as their total intolerance of other faiths is a recent behaviour (within the last few centuries).

Posted by: Rocky at June 6, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #154834

The key, if we can figure out how to do it, is to marginalize and eliminate the extremists, without alienating the moderates. We need the moderates on our side.

The religious extremists are working very hard to convince ordinary people that WE are the enemy. We have to prove them wrong!

This is one of those things that bugs me to no end about American politicians. While thugs like Osama and Saddam come to power through force, every single one of our politicians came to power through political campaigning. They came to power by convincing others to believe as they do. And yet, when they finally get in power, they look at a situation like the Middle East and think that force is the only answer…

Yes, using force is sometimes necessary. You watch the extremists, and if they cross your border, you kill them. Sometimes you follow them back to their homes and kill them there. But you CANNOT ALIENATE THE MODERATES IN THE PROCESS! If, by killing one extremist, you recruit 10 moderates to his cause, you’ve lost ground.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #154838

Rocky
Since you seem intent on portraying yourself as an apologist for Islamofacists lets try this exercise. I have just conquered the United States. I hereby say to all that you, Rocky, under penalty of death, dismemberment, torture or slavery can no longer use the internet to post “your” anti JR propaganda. You also must dress as I say, go only where I say you can go, read only what I allow, congregate and worship in secrecy lest you offend me and suffer my wrath and pay the DHIMMI tax @ 3-4 times the tax rate of those who are “TRUE” JR followers. Yeah, that is tolerant! I believe I would thrive under those conditions, (not so sure about you and those of a like mind though). Yep, dhimmitude was wonderful. Those folks never had anything to fear, life was a bowel of cherrys. Get a grip!

Posted by: JR at June 6, 2006 4:02 PM
Comment #154844

Has anyone else noticed that the conflicts in the world today and in the recent past are or have been between:
the Muslims and the Jews (Middle East),
the Muslims and the Christians (Balkans),
the Muslims and the Hindus (India),
the Muslims and the Buddists (India/China).
The common denominator is WHAT??
It appears to me that Muslims cannot get along with anyone else. And they NEVER will!!

Posted by: bobc at June 6, 2006 4:31 PM
Comment #154845

bobc

In this case,pre-emptive bombing is not the answer.
We need to eliminate the root cause of hatred THERE and HERE too.
I realize Americans are getting angry about this issue…next to the abortion debate this is the most polarizing,but we need cooperation from EVERYBODY.
Let’s start with ourselves first and make sure we understand the problem.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #154850

JR,

“Since you seem intent on portraying yourself as an apologist for Islamofacists lets try this exercise. I have just conquered the United States.”

Since when could stating the FACTS being construed as being an apologist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_empire#Religious_Freedoms

“Although the Ottoman state did not directly and harshly pursue a policy of forced individual conversion, it did decree that, for reasons of outward distinction, the people of the different millets wear specific colors of, for instance, turbans and shoes, a policy that was not, however, always followed by Ottoman citizens. Moreover, from the time of Murad I through the 17th century, the Ottoman state also put into effect the devsirme, a policy of filling the ranks of the Ottoman army and administrative system by means of forcefully collecting young Christian boys from their families and taking them to the capital for education and an eventual career either in the Janissary military corps or, for the most gifted, the Ottoman administrative system. Most of the children thus collected were from the empire’s Balkan territories, where the devsirme system was referred to as the “blood tax”. The children themselves were not forcefully converted to Islam, though they ended up becoming Islamic due to the milieu in which they were raised, but any children that they had were considered to be free Muslims.”

How is that different than conscription in the armies and navies of our Western “civilization”?

Spin it any way you want.

Early Persia, for instance, had paved streets and lighting when the population of England was still living in mud huts.

This was an incredibly advanced society.

What happened?

And why?

Posted by: Rocky at June 6, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #154856

Sic-
Y’now as I was taking my son up the mountain to rip his heart out as God ordained….Oh,wait,is it possible that the Muslim population may read the Koran as many Christians do the Bible? AND NOT TAKE EVERYTHING LITERALLY?
Fanatics are the bane of all things.Religion or politics,anyone who is to the extreme must be treated as being abberant. Unsane. Uncool. We have to look at all sides of an issue and make informed decisions. Whether we are comparing theologies or buying a car. Or choosing a President. Which incidentally is a lot like buying a car.( and I just love that new president smell,don’t you?)

Posted by: jblym at June 6, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #154860

All

This is a terrific site.Hope the link works.

linktext

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #154862

Was the Sephardic family happy under the ottomans,that i can not answer. but the Year 1492 and 1497, was Not Fun.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 6, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #154876

SE-
Fear is the mindkiller, like it says in Dune Let’s be rational here. Does everybody share their views? No. Otherwise, al-Qaeda would be the least of our worries. There is a network of support for these people, but not everybody agrees with them.

Do we do ourselves any favor by lumping them together? No. When we do that, we justify responses against the people as a whole. That means doing things that hurt a whole lot of people, making more enemies, where we had folks more neutral or even more friendly there before. That’s not how you win.

A winning strategy in a cultural fight peels people off the fence, then, takes the people who replace them, and peels them off, too, changing the means we use as required.

Such a strategy requires that we be civilized and that we limit our military activity to those who really ask for it, or who put allies and ourselves in immediate danger. It’s not enough that we know we’re right. They have to know it, too. Our behavior can’t be like what we’ve seen in Haditha, no matter how tough it gets.

It’s tempting, of course, but this is what insurgencies want: a stronger occupying power reduced to fighting dirty and doing things that turn the population against them.

It’s also tempting to blame this all on Islam. Convenient an explanation as this may be to the Right, especially the Christian Right, it doesn’t reflect history.

There’s a lot of it, and different currents of it in the Middle East. You’re lumping together as Islamofascists a lot of people who hate each other’s f’ing guts. Even from a Realpolitik point of view, that’s foolish. At the very least we should pit them against each other, like we did the Soviets, the Chinese, and the Vietnamese. If we’re not seeking to take that route, it’s still useful to know who you’re talking to, what their sore spots are, and what sort of things you can offer to get them on your side. Understanding who you talk to to get things worked out is essential.

Instead, though, your people have taken a route of violence and hatred. I mean, do you read what these people are writing? They’re crying out for blood.

A little note on Jesus: The Muslims consider him a very important figure, and the Virgin Mary with him. Though he is not considered to be God, he is considered to be a prophet, and they believe his birth to be a virgin one, Jesus created within Mary, rather than concieved between Mary and God. They actually consider the Gospels to be holy scripture, though they rank it below the Qu’ran, which they believe to be a direct communication of God’s will.

If we insist on having our way over them, we will be in for a long hard fight that’s not bound to go anywhere pleasant.

If we can give them reason to think that all this terrorism and violence isn’t worth the trouble, we can see the end of this in our lifetimes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #154887

Rocky
Conscription in western military didn’t make it right, it also didn’t take a population and change it’s core belief system from their traditional Christian heritage to Islam at the point of a spear. Did Christians, in the past, kill Jews and Muslims out of a sense of “religious duty”? Yes! Has it continued, unabated to this very day, or has the understanding of basic Christian values become more in sync with the truth of the text?

Islam is a danger to the world in the hands of those who would be it’s kings.

When you go out of your way to defend killers, murderers who behead as a way of life, who treat women as personal slaves, forbidding education and any sense of personal freedom, you are in FACT an apologist. Please don’t drag up the old tired playbook of how great life was before the bad old Christian europeans killed off the UTOPIA of the Isamic world. Islam is what happened to Islam, after centuries of conquest and murder and mayhem, Christian europe had no choice but to defend itself and go on the offensive against Islam. Self preservation-vs-slavery and death, thats what happened to “glorious islam”. And yes, Persia was a tremendous civilization, before the attack of the Islamic juggernaut.

Posted by: JR at June 6, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #154889

bobc,

Has anyone else noticed that the conflicts in the world today and in the recent past are or have been between:
the Muslims and the Jews (Middle East),
the Muslims and the Christians (Balkans),
the Muslims and the Hindus (India),
the Muslims and the Buddists (India/China).
The common denominator is WHAT??
It appears to me that Muslims cannot get along with anyone else. And they NEVER will!!

THIS IS NOT REALITY.

Here’s why:

In life, we all tend to find what we are looking for. That is to say you find what you EXPECT to find. The search itself becomes its own source non-objectivity. That is what is evident from your post. You choose several major conflicts with muslim nations and ASSUME a generality that is unsupportable when you consider the whole.

THEW WHOLE:
In modern times, there have been conflicts between -
Catholics and Protestants
Sieks and Hindus
Budhists and Atheists
Atheists and Chi-Gong
Americans against Germans
Americans against Japanese
Americans against Viet-Namese
Americans against North Koreans and Chinese
British against Argentinians
Russians and Japanese
Japanese and the rest of Asia
and even Muslims against Muslims

The only logical, reasonable conclusion is that it is, unfortuneatly, somehow the nature of being human to be continually in conflict.

The generalisation you make is the product of CHOOSING to look only at those conflicts that involved Muslims and then draw some kind of conclusion from that about Muslims. It is the nature of what it is in you that decided to mentally cut and paste and conclude that is troubling. I’m not going to say it, but I believe the implication is rather obvious.

Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #154890

Stephen
Dune is one of my favorites…the first two were great,then Frank Hererty went off the deep end,I think.

I used to quote that passage all the time:

Fear is a mind killer
I will not fear;
I will confront my fear
And let it pass through me
Then my mind’s eye will see it pass.

Or something like that.Great stuff.

You and I are pretty much on the same page on this issue…but as you can see from above,there is white hot anger out there.

Most conservative Christians see it one way,the moderate element another….kinda like real time Opus Dei.

Tell you what though,these beheadings in Iraq are rarreally exposeing the Sunni insurgency to world scorn…what another 9 heads today…7 yesterday…..yikes…seems like the French Revolution over there with a portable guilliotine…

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 6, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #154894

Yes my son, but use the Spice wisely!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 6, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #154897

JR,

“When you go out of your way to defend killers, murderers who behead as a way of life, who treat women as personal slaves, forbidding education and any sense of personal freedom, you are in FACT an apologist.”

I’m not defending anybody.

If you actually comprehended what I wrote, you would have understood that.

This is not the middle ages, or ancient Persia, and thank goodness for that.

I am asking what happened to the advanced civilization between then and now?
What happened to cause the downfall?
What can we do to ensure it doesn’t happen to America?

Now if you don’t get that, you will need to see with better eyes, and you will need to look past your “kill ‘em all” agenda.

The more people we “selectively assassinate”, the more people there will be to fill those spots.


Posted by: Rocky at June 6, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #154909

Rocky
The loss of the “golden age” is attributable to radical islam. Period.
We can assure America survives by defending our core beliefs. WE can eradicate the culture of hate, on the battlefield and by reducing the influence of radicals via the same method they choose to intimidate their constituants, eliminating them. Attaturk made great strides in Turkey to eliminate the radical influence, he jailed/killed those who were a threat, abolished the caliphate and imposed a more secular administration of education. I’m not talking about carpet bombing, or targeted assasinations of civilians. Destroying a cancerous cell in your body takes surgery, radiation or chemo-therapy, all unpleasant to your body, but deadly to the cancer. WE must excise the cancer of Wahhabist influence, by killing the leadership, (a showing of the “strong man” in the muslim world), eradicating the imams who preach hate to inculcate themselves into positions of power and reinforcing Attaturks secular approach to muslim governance. Never had a kill ‘em all agenda, unless the all is the leadership of the cult of death, educationally-spiritually-financially-physically, these need to die the death of a cancer cell.

Posted by: JR at June 6, 2006 7:24 PM
Comment #154912

We will then agree to disagree.

I don’t think your means are the correct way for a “world leader” to do business, and will create more problems than they solve.

If they ever happen at all.

Posted by: Rocky at June 6, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #154913

JR-
We don’t defend killers. Do you see posts decrying the killing of non-innocent armed insurgents on the Blue Column? No. Do you see praise and blessing for those decapitating hostages on video? No.

Do you see us wishing for America to lose? No, and please make a distinction between those who think America has already lost, and those who who want it to lose.

I think it’s fair to say we had our fill with losing a war with Vietnam. It’s a war we started, and which initially enjoyed broad support, but which had unaddressed flaws that haunted it from the beginning, coupled with a failure to properly work with the people we were supposed to save and make allies of. Some of us want to cut our losses. I can’t blame them, since the one person who has the power to make the right decisions refuses to fight this war at full strength, and with full consideration of our options. Others like myself still want us to try and salvage something out of this debacle.

What sabotaged this, in the end, was that you folks weren’t willing to trust anything to the liberals, to those people you’d been taught and taught yourselves to hate. Problem is, we weren’t the ones thinking of us as liberals first and Americans second. You folks were.

I remember wanting badly as an American, to do what had to be done to protect it. My relatives, more liberal than I am, were outraged at 9/11 and wanted vengeance on the terrorists. The trouble is, that doesn’t fit with the old cold war view of Democrats, which relegates us to peaceniks, half-hearted warriors and traitors. Personally I was disgusted and disappointed to find that old tripe brought out once again. You folks could have been at least a little imaginative this time.

We love this country just as much as you. Believe it. The question is, can you folks run this country as if it’s a whole country, or are you going to keep on trying to marginalize the other half, to this nation’s detriment?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 6, 2006 7:34 PM
Comment #154919

When I say defend, I mean seemingly less tolerant of Christian world view here in America than of Saddams regime, of Mahmoud of Iran and Hamas as an organization. No, of course you don’t wish this on anyone, but to continually try to portray terrorisms roots as a response to American aggression is at best insincere, at worst apologetic. Bush lied about WMD’s, America just recruited more terrorist by invading - what about the end of Saddam? Millions dead at his hands, but our Marines are the story? When I say defend, I mean abandon any of the good America brings, by trying to make it all about OIL, MONEY, PROFITS. Us folks run the country as a whole? How many different “balkanized” groups are spread out within your liberal ideology? Winning an election means somebody lost - in the past that meant the loser licking his wounds and joining his “fellow Americans” in the cause of freedom. Today it means America is BAD! Bullship!

Posted by: JR at June 6, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #154925

Rob
Picking one at random works for me. These folks don’t care about innocent lives. Why should we? and don’t give me that were above that crap. We ain’t.

I believe we’re dealing with a mindset that we’re not used to. These folks have thousands of years of being taught that anyone that’s not Muslim is an infidel. And that infidels need to be killed.
How do you deal with a people with this so inbred into their way of thinking?

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 6, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #154931

Ron Brown,

Wow… you can judge whether an entire subcontinent deserves life or death based entirely upon what you’ve read in history books and seen on the news…

Imagine what you could do on a jury! The American legal system would never be the same….

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 6, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #154933

JR:

I was not aware Mohammed Mossadeq was an Islamic Fundamentalist. Why did you support his removal?

Posted by: Aldous at June 6, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #154937

Ron Brown:

“These folks have thousands of years of being taught that anyone that’s not Muslim is an infidel. And that infidels need to be killed.”

Wow. What a remarkably ignorant rant even for this column.

Maybe you could give examples of the massacres Muslims committed to these infidels? Thousands of years, eh? Surely in all those years the ENTIRE population of Christians, Jews and Orthodoxy in the Middle East would have been exterminated?

So tell me the death rate of non-muslims in Muslim countries in the past TWO THOUSAND YEARS.

Posted by: Aldous at June 6, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #154940

RGF,
My comments were about “religious” conflicts (the subject of the thread at the time), not wars between sovereign countries. Because atheism is not a religion and because Sikhs (not sieks) are essentially Hindus, who adopted Muslim beliefs, the only other religious conflict I recognize on your list is “Catholics and Protestants”. But, if by that you are referring to Northern Ireland, that was as much an English/Irish thing than a religious one. So, I would still assert that most “religious” conflicts in the recent past involved Muslims. This is an empirical observation on my part, not a bias. I lived in two countries with large Muslim populations (Nigeria and Indonesia) for over six years and I saw first hand that Muslims cannot co-exist peacefully with people of other religions. This is especially true if they are able to achieve “critical mass” in an area (city, state or country). When that happens they immediately attempt to establish Islamic rule and demand all in it to be governed by Sharia Law, just look at what is happening in parts of Eurabia. The reason I believe they are involved in so many conflicts is that they cannot compromise - their Quran will not allow it. They are driven by it to fight non-believers if they can. When you are dealing with a mindset like that you have to fight fire with fire. They are similar to the Japanese Kamikaze of WWII, they are brainwashed into believing they have Allah on their side. What do they have to lose, if they are killed in the fight they go immediately to heaven as martyrs. Try to negotiate with that. As with the Japanese, they will not cease until they lose enough believers to understand they cannot win.

Posted by: bobc at June 6, 2006 9:12 PM
Comment #154944

Actually, Jews are far more likely to be exterminated by Christians than by Muslims.

Would you like me to give examples of Christian Genocide?

Posted by: Aldous at June 6, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #154945

bobc:

You don’t know much about Japanese culture either, eh?

Posted by: Aldous at June 6, 2006 9:24 PM
Comment #154951

bobc,

Your response to my response is coming pretty close to proving my point.

First some inconsistencies -
Sieks are NEITHER related to Hinduism NOR Islam. I don’t know where you got that, but it is wrong.

Also their is nothing in the quran about not compromising. I can’t fathom where you got either.


Now, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I am fairly well travelled and a student of history. I don’t believe there has EVER been a religious war. The Crusades were about opening trade routes and later about shifting trade dominance from Canstantinople to Venice and Western Europe. Northern Ireland was about economic injustices carried out by the English against the Irish. Pisk a conflict, any conflict, and when you look at more closely you realize religion has never been the real reason behind ANY war. I can’t think of one can you? I’m open to hearing an example of one that doesn’t really stem from other causes.

s far as the religious brain washing you mention, religion IS used as a means of building the rank and file of the lowliest of soldiers. It is a tool, not a reason. I’ve some pretty silly brainwashing from American Christians as well! Silly stuff that doesn’t hold up at all. Mostly it has to do with judgements about others and other religions.

Cromwell tought his soldiers that Irish Catholics had horns and tails and were the spawn of the devil! It worked. It rallied the troops and unfortuneatley also led to amazing atrocities committed against the Irish by the roundheads wherever they went.

So you see, that is nothing new and it is nothing exclusive to Islam, either.

I still feel like there is a VERY unfortuneate tone and motivation in your post. I have muslim friends who have taught me much about what is and is not a real part of Islam. What I see in your post troubles me greatly. Please rethink your position for your own sake if not for anybody else.


Posted by: RGF at June 6, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #154971

SE good post, Whats stronger than Hate? Only one thing - Love. But enough of that my question to you is this- Why should we consider this to be an American problem? Why should this not be a Muslim problem? Would the moderate Muslims not be the right solution to the problem? Maybe it is the moderate Muslims that we need to look to for an answer. I think it is hard for us a westerners to understand the Muslims let alone the radical Muslims. What say you?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #154979

Sicilian Eagle,

To answer your question, to eliminate the israeli/palestinian issue, remove our military presence, and help create millions of jobs would go a long way in shrivelling the “beast” that is abhorrent radical political islam.

However, doing it all at once or without a legitimate and well-thought plan would be disasterous (hear me Bushies?). Military campaigns will not kill the beast but rather feed it.

How would you feel, SE, if you were a muslim in the middle east? You have little productive employment, the U.S. continues to favor the Israelis at the expense of the Palestinians (who were essentially forced from their homeland to make way for the idealogical zionist movement), watched the U.S. overthrow a legitimate government in Iran and prop up a monarchy in Saudi Arabia. The U.S. then kills thousands if not tens of thousands of arab muslims in its war on Iraq while claiming the moral high ground and with no end to the lack of law and order in sight. Can you think of a better recruiting poster for Al Qaida? What would you do if a much mightier China invaded Detroit in the name of liberating the people of extreme poverty and the shackles of democratic capitalism? Let’s say a few Chinese soldiers snap and massacre two dozen women and children and say “Oh, war is hell”.

Why did we invade Iraq? Why didn’t we invade Somalia?

Please rethink the notion that the enemies of our nation can be simply exterminated or clubbed into submission. Jesus Christ would never have endorsed your demonizing, hegemonic, tribal position.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 6, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #154984

America will you please get back in your box and stay there.We do not like to see crazy religious people coming to power across the mid east.Please feel free to come out if there is a real war, but pleeeease be there on time for the next one.

Posted by: The West at June 6, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #154987

“And as far as “selective” history goes, I think you’ll find that Christianity has mellowed (we DON’T mass murder people for publishing cartoons any more) while Islam has become more and more radical.”

SE, selective history? Did I miss a mass murder over cartoons? Hey, maybe you can get Pat Robertson to help you out with that one!

Posted by: Chris2x at June 6, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #154992

“WE didn’t start the hate, but WE and civilized nations will end it, they only way THEY understand, thru death and violence. PERIOD.”

-JR

“The policy for the war on terrorism should be easy. Attack us and a Muslim country disappears.”

-Rob Brown

“It appears to me that Muslims cannot get along with anyone else. And they NEVER will!!”

-BOBC

So, the above statements occur when simple-minded and dangerous reactionaries require simple answers at the expense of good men, innocent women and children, loving fathers, devoted mothers, adoring grandparents all lumped in with a few abhorent extremists.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 6, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #154998

bobc,

You create strawmen wherever you can.

CATHOLICS VS PROTESTANTS - this has killed a few people since the Reformation.

CHRISTIAN AMERICANS and EUROPEANS VS AMERICAN INDIANS - wiping out or pushing aside a good portion of the North, Central, and South American populations makes us morally superior?

CHRISTIAN CRUSADERS vs MUSLIMS

CHRISTIAN SERBS AND CROATS vs MUSLIMS

I think all your post demonstrates is how much evil is done in the name of God/Religion (not to discount all the good belief in God also does). You also overly simplify other conflicts with muslims to that of religion alone and exclude ethnic, nationalistic, and territorial reasons.

I would never apologize for taking out the extremists who only understand violence and hate. However, as a good man, I would have to reason with my fellow countrymen not to succumb to hatred of an entire religion based on over-simplification and a lack of a practical approach.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 6, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #155008

Rob
I’ve sat on three juries. And two times we found the defendent not guilty. The other should have never reached a courtroom as the defendent was caught in the act of his crime.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 7, 2006 12:39 AM
Comment #155009

chris2x there are two Browns on the blog Rodney Brown. and Ron Brown. and the young Rabbi Jesus born from a Jewish mother In Israel. would surely want a peaceful solution in Israel today. i agree with you completely. The Romans called it palestine.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 7, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #155011

Chris2x
Hate to bust your bubble, but the no true Christian ever killed anyone in the name of their religion. I know that a lot of blood has been spilt in it’s name but not by true Christians.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 7, 2006 12:45 AM
Comment #155039

Ron Brown:

He he he… And OFCOURSE the violence done by those Muslims in the name of Allah were done by TRUE MUSLIMS according to you, eh?

So a Christian Murderer acting under God’s Name is a fake?

A Muslim Murderer acting under God’s Name is a real devotee, eh?

Can you spell “hypocrisy”?

Posted by: Aldous at June 7, 2006 4:38 AM
Comment #155041

Ron Brown:

err.. I forgot to mention that the genocides and massacres committed during the Crusades were by definition under the Order of the POPE.

So either the Crusaders were True Christians or the Pope was a heretic…

Posted by: Aldous at June 7, 2006 4:44 AM
Comment #155048

All

If you haven’t yet read “No God But God” by Reza Aslan,please do.
It is a tour de force.
I highly recommend it .

j2t2
The moderate Muslim would be the answer,but they cower right now to the fundamentalist.If one speaks,the next day he is killed.
Kinda tough to establish a dialog that way.
They need help…from us….for now,I think

The more we learn about the Muslim mind (and that is hard because the Muslim mind is many many different philosophies) the better we are.I agree on that point and I have written on that many many times in the past.
First we,as a nation,has to learn what we are up against.
Three and a half years ago,I wrote that there were less than 25 Colleges and universities giving advanced degrees in Arabic Studies.
Pretty scandalous to me,I think.
Finally money is going into these programs,but it will be years until it gets “out there” in the mainstream.

Chris2x
I never said anaything about clubbing into submission anyone.There is a fanaticial element that must be dealt with some way.that is what I said.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 7, 2006 7:09 AM
Comment #155076

Ron Brown,

I’ve sat on three juries. And two times we found the defendent not guilty. The other should have never reached a courtroom as the defendent was caught in the act of his crime.

And yet you still feel justified in saying that EVERY Muslim nation is deserving of a war if ANY Muslim ANYWHERE commits an act of terrorism? That innocent women and children aren’t really innocent if they happen to share religion with an extremist.

You really don’t see the disconnect there?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 7, 2006 9:17 AM
Comment #155090

SE,

The moderate Muslim would be the answer,but they cower right now to the fundamentalist.If one speaks,the next day he is killed.

That’s true in hotbed areas (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), but not everywhere. Moderates are able to operate in relative safety in Turkey and Egypt, and even places like Syria and Lebanon to a lesser extent.

Of course, that safety has lessened considerably since the Iraq war. I consider this to be the greatest casualty of the conflict. While attacking the extremists, we’ve undermined the moderate Muslims that we so desperately need to win this conflict.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 7, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #155108

Rob Cotrell

How about Saudi Arabia,Somalia,Southern Lebanon,Iran,parts of southern Indonesia,western Pakistan…just to scratch the surface.

It’s like a mold.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at June 7, 2006 10:44 AM
Comment #155109

SE,

That “mold” has grown considerably since we invaded Iraq. Moderates were much safer in many of those areas prior to 2003.

Consider the following two questions:

1) What are WE doing to encourage moderates to join us instead of the extremists?

2) What are WE doing to drive moderates into the arms of the extremists?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at June 7, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #155112

RGF,
I’ll give you at least one example of a religious war, even among Christians. In 1568 the Spanish, who then controlled the Low Countries in North West Europe took up arms against the people there who had mostly chosen Protestantism over Catholicism. Philips II, the reigning monarch in Spain was a fanatic Catholic and decided to go to war as a result. For the first 16 years the Dutch were led by the famous William the Silent, who was really a German Prince, until Philips II had him assassinated by Balthasar Gerards in 1584. The war lasted 80 years, including a 12 year armistice from 1612 t0 1624, before a peace treaty was finally signed in 1648. Philips II and Catholicism lost the war and helped to create the powerful Dutch Republic of the 17th century.

Posted by: fred at June 7, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #155121

Nope.

That one was about economics and trade as well. The Dutch, with English help, had begun building a fleet and wished to be shed of the Spanish yolk they were under. England, who encouraged the conflict, wished for a counter to Spanish dominance as this all transpired shortly before Drake managed to assert English naval superiority over the Spanish Armada by guts, tactics and shere will.

This conflict was only a generation prior to Martin Luther and the entire protestant foundation in the North of europe had more to do with German princes wanting to consolidate power and money in their own hands and stop tithing Rome. Luther himself initially wanted to reform the Church from within, but was enticed into more radical action by those seeking to use the movement as a means to an end to achieve greater political and economic power.

Posted by: RGF at June 7, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #155123

uh…

oops.

I said ‘prior’
I meant ‘post’

Posted by: RGF at June 7, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #155131

RGF

Answers to your questions:

1.1) What are WE doing to encourage moderates to join us instead of the extremists?

Well,we have to do a better job,that’s what.We had terrible PR on the Iraq war and made a million mistakes.We need to fix them.The first is getting that goddam government up and running and the second is getting those idiots from giving each other shoulder length haircuts.
We need to help them create meangingful jobs to these kids who build bombs and kill people have something more constructive to do with their time.

2) What are WE doing to drive moderates into the arms of the extremists?

Hopefully nothing.However,incidents like Haditha don’t help one bit.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at June 7, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #155133

Yes, I must say that I believe it would.
I like to hope that people are inherently rational creatures at heart, and will not take part in senseless violence or suffering when they realize that there is another option. I assume that war is your suggestion, though your described situation was not very clear to me at all. The west took the action in that situation- how does the East respond? And I like to believe that they would respond reasonably.

I simply hope that I am not drastically missing your point here.

Posted by: John at June 7, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #155151

RGF, Oops is right!!
Anyway, I’m afraid your are mixing up several subjects and taking them out of context. During the reign of Charles V, Anabaptists and Lutherans were severely persecuted in the Netherlands. This was long before the beginning of the 80-year war, between Spain and the Dutch Republic, which started in 1568 as a purely religious contest. No secondary, tertiary or other reasons. In 1556 Philips the II, a stern and unforgiving Catholic, took over the throne from his father in Spain and proceeded to teach the Dutch protestants a lesson. However, after the defeat of the Armada in 1588 in which event the Dutch fleet played a significant role, both England and Holland grew as seapowers, but it wasn’t until 1652 that the Dutch and British fought the first of 3 wars between themselves, the second of which ending in 1667 led Admiral the Ruyter up the Thames and the Medway where he burned a good part of the British fleet (never since been repeated) and the 2 parties signed another peace. The third time starting in 1672, the Dutch had the French to contend with from the south during the winter, who came in over the ice on the rivers and the British at sea. It was the end of the Dutch Republic as the only serious challenge to British sea power at the time. Inter alia, the Brits had 3 times as large a population as the Dutch. It was amazing it lasted as long as it did. That was also the reason the Dutch got thrown out of Manhattan. remember Pieter Stuyvesant?

Posted by: fred at June 7, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #155166

Ron Brown said,

“Hate to bust your bubble, but the no true Christian ever killed anyone in the name of their religion. I know that a lot of blood has been spilt in it’s name but not by true Christians.”

Again, this is simply an evasive retreat into fantasy. Of course no true Christian would spill blood in the name of Jesus Christ or Christianity. How many “true” Christians voted for W. How many “true” Christians supported killing of thousands of Iraqis as a moral necessity? How many Pat Robertson’s espouse assassination? How many true Christians think enshrining a group of Americans into second or third class status in the Constitution is actually a defense of the sanctity of marriage?
I think Ghandi, when asked what he thought of Christianity had it right. It would be nice if people actually tried it.


SE said,

“I never said anaything about clubbing into submission anyone.There is a fanaticial element that must be dealt with some way.that is what I said.”

In “some way”? Please don’t weasel out of this one. Of course we should take out (kill or drive from power) the fanatical element as much as possible where possible, i.e. Afganistan and the Taliban. However, the notion that the only way to deal with the extremists is to make war on the muslim religion or muslim nations is wrong. I’m not totally convinced you, SE, are espousing this but your opening post does suggest that we cannot deal with the muslims because of their religion except by force. Saddam wasn’t even one of these fanatics (he is an evil megalomaniac but not a religious fanatic).

Posted by: Chris2x at June 7, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #155255

Ron-
Vlad the Impaler killed hundreds of Turks in the name of christianity.

Posted by: jblym at June 7, 2006 4:26 PM
Comment #155303

One mean murdering Madman,Vlad tepes was at that.Dracul or order of the Dragon, bestowed to him by the German Emperor.this guy did not care who he killed , Germans, Hungarians, Turks, Anybody, women, children,A true Evil killer, he would take sides with the turks, and then impale the turks, by the thousands.once a turkish sultan was leading a army to Kill Vlad, the Sultan Saw 20,000 impaled turks. this scared the sultan so much he turned around and Ran.Then when the tide was turning against Vlad by the invading turks, his Wife jumped to her death, of course he got away . he was opposed to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church. but when the rope was running out, He ran to the powerful Hungarian Catholics and showed his Loyalty to Them. but history Says the Turks got him at the end, and cut his Head off and took it back to the sultan. now here’s the Rub.he is A Folk Hero to Many people In Romania And Moldova Today!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 7, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #155317

Chris2x,

Uh…that wasn’t Ghandi, that was G.K. Chesterton, A renouned author/theologian who converted from Anglican to Catholicism and was a truely gifted writer and philosopher.

Posted by: RGF at June 7, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #155320

fred,

I emjoy history immensely and applaud your discussion, but with respect, I disagree with your assessment of the causes. The Dutch were attempting to strike for ECONOMIC independence primarily. The Dutch had a tradition of banking and finance which the Spanish lacked but the Spanish had a HUGE source of wealth coming in from the New World. The Dutch and the English both wanted to curtail Spanish dominance and set up their own sources of weath and independence. Religion was, at best, a side issue. I still hold to the notion that there have never been any truely religious wars.

Posted by: RGF at June 7, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #155337

And the Dutch was still, one of the largest Finance and banking centers of the World during the Revolutionary War . the Great diplomat and Lawyer and President John Adams, went to holland for help. he almost caught his death with a sickness. He said he never got completely over that sickness. The dutch were not quite as Free with the money as the French Were.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 7, 2006 8:08 PM
Comment #155670

RGF said,

“Uh…that wasn’t Ghandi, that was G.K. Chesterton, A renouned author/theologian who converted from Anglican to Catholicism and was a truely gifted writer and philosopher.”

My bad. I mixed up Ghandi’s reply when asked about Western Civilization.

“I think it would be a good idea!”
- In reply to a reporter’s question “What do you think of Western Civilisation?”

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” - Ghandi

Posted by: Chris2x at June 8, 2006 3:52 PM
Post a comment