Are you smoking something? Did you bother to read my posts? Please re-read my post before you accuse me of crap.

-S

PS. I don't care if he converted to Bhuddism. He should not be killed for it.

Read your posts and re-read them again. The comment I quoted, along with this one "PS. It is gods punishment to them that they be in the state that they are in", are exactly what I'm talking about.

You're assuming having troops there is helping them (the extremists) permeate their own culture. IMO, Western presence (especially when 'helping' Muslims govern) is certainly the greatest threat to fundamentalists. There's a reason the fundamentalists try to blow us up, and it's not because we're helping them. Abandoning financial and military support to Afghanistan now would simply be abandoning it to the extremists. No matter how bad you want to build a fence around every Islamic country and not let westerners in or Muslims out, it ain't gonna happen...

Oh, and as you may have noticed I don't follow what seems to be the common wisdom on this board that every Muslim is an extremist.

Not so sure. Hitler admired the Muslims, for their unscrupulousness to use whatever force or tool is needed to take over control in foeign cultures. Islam and fascism is very close to each other, the beylong to the same kind of social theories and poltiical systems. I could easily imagine a Nazi Germany cooperating with Islam from a position of thinking nthat it is oin control of that partnership, like the EU today think it is on control concerning the turkey question.

another "What if?" scenario: who would habe been the stronger faction in such a relationship: the Nazis, or Islam?

that Europe acts weak in regard to islam is becasue the Nazis messed up Europe 70 years ago, I do not fully agree to. Remember that Europe had recovered from that, it gained a leveol of freedom and peace and material welath that tops everything mankind has ever seen in millenias before, in any part of the world. But still - or because of that? - it falls to an aggressive attempt to take it over from outside.

In sports you loose your abilities if you do not train, or do not compete. In psychology, you unlearnb, if you do not prqactice, and do not keep your trust in what had been püroven by experience before, if that experience is not challenged every couple of times and then can proove that it still is valid. We have had 60years of peacfe in europe - unique in European history. Two generations had not been haunted by war. And this has crippled our mental attidue or ability of resist6ence, of fighting, in a wide sense of the word. Our wealth made us weak, lulled our reason, made our muscles soft and untrained. now that we are challenged by Islam, me learn that we are not in shape and lack the fitness to do the sprints and lack the breath to compete in the endurance race. and we are old. Ever saw a 50 year old competing at the Olympics?

The problem is - you assume too much.

The second problem is, how do you think we are not blessed when country's like the US are the richest the world have 'ever' seen? Call it like you want it but no country in history has displayed as much wealth as the US - ever! Any history text book can show you this. From the cities to the highways to the massive middle class (which is dwindling I think) - the wealth is immeasurable.

Next inaccuracy - the West, namely the English, Spanish, French... have dominated the world for exactly how long? How many years do you want to go back and still see these same countries dominating the world? Want to add the US in there later on? This is no short time like you describe - so where did this idea come from exactly?

Last - show me a Muslim country that isn't 'Third World'. I personally can't name even one.

No one on this Earth can do no wrong. I am not quite sure where you get this idea from either which is why this sounds more like an accusation directed at me that is baseless and without fact. Matter of fact, your whole post is patronizing, which is why I am asking what it is exactly you are smoking?

-S

I wonder what "blessings" have to do with history.

The wealth of america and europe is man-made, based on historical and often painful and brutal evolutions the West went through and that others have not been subject to - that's why they lack behind. The geographie of europe helped in forming a climate of competition between many different people in a relatively small room. I consider this to be one of the major drives behind the raising of education, science, philosophy, technology, theology, medicine, etc. now that the new media has oushed us into the age of the global village, this factor is no more that important as before, and is equalized. Consequently, european tradition as the motor of innovation and invention looses it's lead and importance.

I prefer to keep religion and history as separate like religion and politics. Although, of course, a great deal of history is dealing with and focussed on religion.

Exactly - it is hard to seperate the two since a lot of what drives past cultures is religion. I do fear for our future though in that the drive for innovation and invention is definitely on the decline. I'd say patent law is one of the root causes of this decline with the forever patants being applied so liberally these days - even to the very people that didn't even invent the idea in the first place. What happened to public domain to spur on new invention and innovation?

Write me a book on the subject Skybird! :)

-S

Techinicly as of now none of them could be considered 1st or 2nd world countries simply because they are not allied (really allied, not we let you fly over our country) with the west or east.

The closest connection to the Nazi's that I can see, is that almost everyone who tries to have an open discussion about these problems, is silenced by left-wing media with the accusation that he is a racist, fascist, Nazi,...

Interesting. So because the West is wealthy it must be blessed by God? I didn't realized he moonlighted as an economist. Since you bring up the US and its wealth, let's examine closer how it came upon it:

First we have the discovery of the "New World" which wasn't really all that new. In fact, the North American continent had existed for millenia before we "discovered" it and had been habited for centuries by tribes of indigenous people. I don't see too many of these original Americans (or Native Americans) being all that "wealthy" today. I'm sure that was God's will that we subjugate them and in fact commit genocide by wiping one race of these native peoples out completely. God's will is indeed mysterious.

Then there were the races we exploited to build our nations on the backs of in the "New World". In the US, that would be the blacks who were enslaved and carted off to the New World in chains to pick cotton for our pioneering industrialists, and in Canada the Chinese whose backs the Canadian Pacific railway was built upon (costing many of them their lives). Interesting how God blesses his chosen people. Though I didn't realize that aside from being an economist he was also a racist who blessed all this wealth that w've created through our exploitation of so many races along the way.

In terms of how long the English, Spanish, and French have "dominated" the world (I didn't know God was into domination either, though we've already established that by your reasoning he's into bondage [slavery] and the two do often go hand in hand... interesting) the answer would be no more than several centuries. Much of which was spent warring with each other. The American civil war, where his "blessed" killed each other in droves, fits with this though as well I suppose. I hadn't realized that was part of some divine plan either. Though in terms of the history of mankind this period of "domination" is but a mere pinprick in history.

Lastly, its been fun but when it comes down to it "God's will" as you seem to see it, makes no sense. But that's the whole problem with trying to simplify complex historical events into narrow religious preconception where everything is based on divine determinism.

The irony in this is that Christianity used to do just that. I think George Carlin said it best:

To sum, I think the biggest difference, the most important difference between the Muslim and Christian dogma is that the former hasn't left the 18th century, the latter has abandoned it's practices that have islamic counterparts ages ago. (IE burning at the stake, trial by ordeal, inquisition , punishment of heretics, etc etc).

First of all, why do you mention the 18th century vis-a-vis Islam? You should be referring to the 7th century.

Second of all, where was "burning at the stake, trial by ordeal, inquisition , punishment of heretics, etc., etc.", commanded by Jesus to Christians? What are the legal theological sources in Christianity for all those etcetera etceteras that you mentioned?

There is a pattern here.

Those actions were justified with texts from the old testament and papal decrees.

Similar to how some parts of Sharia law are based on Hadith, analogies and religious councils.

A pattern indeed.

I was very specific when I asked about what Jesus commanded?

There are 100s of commandments in the Torah, yet Christianity has never espoused abiding by them. How did the Church decide which to chose? Was there a Commandment of the Month Club?

There there is no punishment of burning at the stake in the Torah. Capital punishment by "Sreifa" - fire - is through a gruesome process of pouring molten lead down the convicted's throat. But let's assume the Church were just ignorant on this point and took the Torah literally.

Where is trial by ordeal suggested in the Torah? There is no such thing.

Where is inquisition and its tortures suggested in the Torah? Again, there is no such thing.

Most of these things were pure concoctions, with no foundation in the origins of either Jewish or Christian theological law.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Jesus never commanded that, what I was pointing out is that Christianity, sadly, doesn't always follow the intentions of Jesus.

And we can make humour out of the Christian church' attitude towards the commandments of the old testament. It appears there has always been commandments that have been followed, and others that have been ignored. Sometimes there has been logic in the selection, other times not.

The Christian church has always followed more (and less) rules than those stated in the Bible. And those things mentioned had foundation in Christian theological law, as a pope's word was, and still is, considered, at least in the Catholic church, as law.