I noticed that although your forefathers have suffered hundreds of thousands of losses in the war against nationalsocialism and fascism which are responsible for the slaughtering of so many more, you today still want these to have the freedom to spread their ideologies, to influence people and to infest their minbds until today, calling that freedom of speech. Well, When the negative nature of something is beyond doubt and has been clearly demonstrated and provenm by history, I have a problem with that. To me it then is not an honourable goal, thnat freedom for the evil, but it is the refusal of learning from history, and dancing on the graves of one's own forefathers.

Religions are ideologies. Ideologies influence the mind, that's what they are there for. Even when aking into account that chiuldren are helpless regharding to what they get exposed to in ideological in fluence when they cannot independently think and choose themselves, I still in general hold people responsible for their choices, and I hold the cultural sphere influenced by an ideology as responsible for that. In other words, I call said ideology by its name and by its content and features. It is possible that I end with results that make me concluding that I cannot tolerate these ideologies without violating my own moral values and ethical principles - or where myself or my liberal free society cannot tolerate these ideolgies without submission and/or self-destruction (which in Islamic history shows to be the same, its denial of history and destruction of according evidence and manfestations, is monumental and one of the biggest problems - it nevertheless is a wanted design feature, for it results in totalitarian unity, control and power).

The empirical record of relgiuously motivated "misdeeds" by Islam against infidels, and accordings misdeeds by Jews or Christains again st Muslims, speaks volumnes. It ridicules every intention to seriousl compare it.

We have leanbred from the relgious tyranny we once had, and we show insight enough to demosntrate a bad conscienc eover past sins of pout forefathers. We do not do like back then anymore. But Islam did not follow that path, but acts and is motivated as if this still were the darkest medieval.

Be careful with what you tolerate. Even tolerance should know limits. Else it destroys you, the intolerant consumes you - and with you your precious tolerance as well.

You said it yourself at the end: secularism. Ther eis just one problem: the very design of Islam is absolutely and totally against secularism. The hand that holds the relgious authority is the same hand that weilds poltical power, you cannot separate the two in islam, it is impossible. Some authors call it the "monolithic" nature of Islam, they mean right this. It is not two things being separated. It is just one.

Hello,

@ Neal: "Bush and Obama"
(Well it was't so hard indeed :hmmm: )
:salute::D

We had that discussion before, if in another forum worlds apart. The jewish approach was that jewish religion, just like christianity, has sooner or later drawn a line on how to interprete their holy scripts, and have then had some kind of reformation - something Islam does not seem to have done yet (?) - i may be wrong though.
Even then jewish extremists may well live under their explanation of the Thora, rejecting any progress that has been made by the official Rabbis, just like some christians ..

Anyway, the separation between religion and state is the only way to go. You need religion-independent law, otherwise the religious sub-groups in a state will never stop to harass each other. Even in India with its larger groups of muslims and Hindi, there are clashes all the time, also against christian minorities.

WHat i consider to be starnge is that jews and christians did live well under the reign of some Saladin long ago, even if the foregone fights for Jerusalem were hard to say at least.

Christians and Jews are living , as people of the book, as people of second class under Islamic rule, they have no equal rights, but - by Quranic demand and Sharia rule! - must be discriminated and persecuted, to make them feel infeiror to Muslims (so the demand!) and make them feel sorry for not converting to Islam, which is the final goal anyway. All other people, atheists, believers of others faiths, MUST BE KILLED. Saladin was a ruler with iron fist, eh is repsomnsoible for having death-senbtenced several of the most promising mystiocs and possible reformistic minds of his times. His grave has an inscripture, saying "He cleaned Earth from the dirt of the infidel". You also may want to check his record during the conquest of the city Tiberias, where he raised a bounty after having captured the city, a bounty for every Chgristian brpought to him. The city got almost emptied, and the prisoners got executed by Saldin'S followers, in his presence. And before Richard arriovbed in the holy land, and Saladsin still was in service of a local king, he defated a French army and took many noble men and princes as prisoners. But he refused to follow the habit of that time to trade them for a ransom. He executed them all, sending a message of terror back to Europe. That was before Jerusalem fell to the Muslims. Later, when Richard Lionheart moved to Jerusalem, he also took a huge number of prisoners, I think that was at Akkon. And he also executed them. But there is a difference. Richard had extremely short supllies and extremely long supply lines (to Europe), and he was pushing on the offmnse against Saladin in Jeruslem. Leaving priopsner behind would have needed knights of his to guard them, it would have limited if resources in food and water even more, and it would have left him with a poential enemy amry in his rear if the prisoners mamanged to break out and overwhelm the guards. Richard had a military reason. Saladin had not. He was superior in numbers, had full supply and short supply lines, and was just one or two days on horse away from the kingdom in the North for whose king he had commended that battle.

In Islam, tough rulers are not only forgiven when ruling with iron fists and supressing the people, they are also admired. As long as they can make the people beleive thgat they do it on behalf of Allah and Islam, it is okay. You see that pattern being reapeted throughout history.

It is also a form of Islamic interpretation of Darwinistic selection that should help to keep Islam and Muslims strong.

So, there are many romanticisng myths about Saladin her ein the West, just think of Lessing'S Nathan der Weise. boltaire also once admired Islam and Saladion, Goethe also had a transfugured image of Islam. But Voltaire at least was smart enough to finally realise that he was wring and what a minster this islam really is. He then turned into a bitter critic and enemy of Islam. Goethe and Lessing died in blindness over it.

Well, I know wait that somebody tries to transfigure islam again by painting the picture of the so-called bright times in Grenada during the Caliphate. We then can have a closer look at the repressions and discrimination Jews and Christians were object of. Grenada , beside Saladin, also is one of these massively distorted propaganda stories being told.

Islam knows no equals to itself, and no equal rights for others. That si somethign that many Wetserners - and also some well-meaning socalled Muslims - do not want to understand and although it is in their very basic fundament of scripture itself. And Saladin? Was a tyrant with an iron fist. That simple. Ridley Scott painted him quite heroic in his movie because he wanted to avoid assassination threats agaiunst the project and his staff, and becasue he needed the permission by the king of Marocco to film on location in his country. I like the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven. But I keep in mind that the Saladin as depicted in that movie has little in common with the historcial figure of Saladin.

The western liberal culture is much more of a threat to Islam than other religions.
Jews or Christians under Muslims possibly tolerating each other is irrelevant but i can easily imagine orthodox Jews flourish in Islamastan.
Yet i would have to be careful about this assumption due to years of political indoctrination ME went through.
Again it is irrelevant because that is not the issue the issue is who dominates the holly places and incompatibility of western way of life.

I would never want to try and limit another person's freedom of speech and expression. It isn't what the United States stands for and it isn't what I stand for. Like I said, a line can be drawn when they start infringing on other's freedoms and rights.

Hmmmm..... I think I'm gonna puke... This entire thread misses the point... I'm an Iraq vet. A U.S. Marine. (Those who hate, go ahead and spit, say your insults, etc. You won't break me. I promise. I'm a gruff, grumpy, tough SOB that eats petroleum jelly for breakfast and craps napalm. I'm the most Oohrah, patriotic, Ultra Right Winged conservative Jeffersonian American I know. Give me your worst, America haters...) All this argument over war and what-not. All the bad things being done. Collateral damages, etc. etc. Not a single person in this thread has mentioned something I witnessed firsthand in Iraq.. That I was part of. That I participated in. Were there WMD's in Iraq? Don't know... Don't care.. Was there oil in Iraq? Sure. Lots. But for a war for oil as the left proclaimed it, me being an infantryman on the frontline during the height of the war, never saw a single oil well, never saw trucks of barrels being sent for shipping to the Homeland, never saw any of the crap the American-hating leftist said was going on. Never had to stand guard on an oil well one. I'll tell you a little bit about what I did have to do though. We're a humanitarian nation. Yeah, hard to believe with all the law breaking anti geneva drone strikes going on. For those who didn't catch the sarcasm on that comment forgive me. I guess my aggressive don't give a crap about your whining and complaining in your face attitude got in my way. What I did in Iraq was kind of an odd job for infantry. I guarded hospitals so that medical supplies coming from America, much more advanced than what the Iraqi's had, would get to the sick, wounded, and dying, not Americans, but Iraqi citizens, unmolested. My unit helped build schools. We built like 10 new schools in my 18 months of being deployed. Didn't take oil as payment either. America covered it all. Liberals, here's where you whine about American tax dollars... that's your cue. I guarded schools so the children could get there education without fear. My unit killed/captured 120 KNOWN, not SUSPECTED terrorists, including a man that frequently visited Bin Laden himself. We trucked in food and water by the tons. Built water purification plants by the Euphrates river. Guarded farms and businesses vital to the economy of Iraq. I can't count off the top of my head the number of Iraqi citizens who came up to us to give us hugs, kiss our hands, thank us for coming to "Iraq's Rescue" as they called. Had soccer games with the local children. That was fun stuff. I love how all you see is the negatives. And how willing people are to point them out, especially if it's my America on the subject. Nobody takes the time to think about all the good we do in the world. We're hated by most and criticized and cussed by all. I just love it... All the billions in aide we give out... All the work we do to set people free. All the work we do to try, not successfully all the time, but try to make peoples lives better. How we've integrated our powerful economy into the world by sending our businesses abroad to try and boost the economies of other nations. All the good gets overlooked and it all comes down to whether or not some unmanned radio controlled aircraft bombing some poor sucker who is working with/harboring people that threaten the stability of the world is right or wrong, or legal or whatever. I also lost brothers over there to this 'asymmetrical' war or whatever you want to call it. And they weren't lost to a worthless cause as some of you would put it. Its the cause of freedom. I guess in our lives of luxury though, we've forgotten about that word. Where people are being trampled on (Saddam gassed the Kurds, tried to exterminate them, and invaded Kuwait, along with all the other crap on his rap sheet that's forgotten about) America is there. Ask most of Europe about it. Better yet, don't. Not like they remember, or care. If it weren't for us half the world would be speaking German. Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, and in Lady Liberties crosshairs right now, Iran, China, and Syria. Where tyranny runs rampant... Believe me, America always has, and will always be there. All this "undeclared war", "War on Terror was wrong" stuff makes me sick to my stomach.

We get most of our oil from ourselves, Canada, and South America. That's essentially where the "War for Oil" argument falls apart.

It seems we do not really disagree that much, but see some thinmgs, some longterm perspectives differently. I do not want to fight with you over your post, for it does not really "trigger" me. It is okay what you say. But two things I want to remakr, even if that makes you thinking I am one of those left America-haters. You mentioned oil, and not having seen it being dsriven out of the country in bottles and barrells. Well, I do not even fall back to the obvious joke that today there are pipeleines, but I tell you this: that you see no cash money rolling on the desk when you pay by credit card, does not mean that there is no financial value changing hands. The Iraq war was about gaining control over the opil business, the adminsitration, the contract singing, the stratgeic partnering with customer. It was not about filling oil in bottles and silkently brining it out of the country. It was about gaining in fluence ion the business management, so that one is able to influence the oil flow patterns of ther world. That is how the "theft" was done - or was intended to be done, for it is obvious that something went wrong. And you are right, this is something that yiu indeed do not see when patrolling in the streets or laying at the frontline.

Second, the good thing sbeing done. Well, yes, no doubt about that. Question is - did it last? Will it last? Can it last? Or was it just a one fata morgana that disappears once the sun set? After the Taliban initially were driven out of Afghanistan, there was much reporting about the women now wearing no headscarfs and veils in Kabul'S street anymore, and schools and wells and all that. Not even two years latere, women again moved around in burkhas. News from today: a women that got raped got shot by Taliban in the streets, an execution in front of 150 men who were cheering and celebrating the event. Most schools in afghanistan today have been closed again, the fear or Taliban revenge is too high. And Iraq: the giovenrment is as corrupt as was Saddam. There are secret police and assassination squads again, almost as intense as under Saddam. There is plenty of torturing going on. The ethnic tensions and discriminations lead to much violence. Crime rate is higher than under Saddam.

This you did not mention.

So I wonder how much of what you described in imporvements is to live beyond the end of the day. Or is it for you the motto of "Even if hope lived for just one day, it nevertheless has lived"?

I'm asking you this not becasue you were or are a marine and American (? are you?), but becasue I always ask this -. also regarding the Germn soldiers sending from afghanistan the same kind of reprtts as you just gave: that so much wellmeaning good things got done, and thgat one just needs more time, and that the mission is not completed, and more good things got done this day, and... and... and... To me, that is avoiding acceptance of a mission failed, sorry. Maybe for Afghanistan that is more obvious a mission result than in Iraq. But to be honest, I rate Iraq also as a mission failed. Okay, Saddam is dead. Nice. With Saddam, Iraq was more predictable, more stable, Iran was weaker in influence, and we were better off. Tarik Aziz said after his arrest that there would come a day when Western strategists would miss Saddam. Well, I missed him already on the day when Aziz said that. He was right.

I assume for a vet having fought in said wars, having seen sacrifces by comrades and efforts being done, this must be hard to accept, and that may be the reason why so many soldiers find it difficult to see the bad longterm consequences and stay fixiated on the good subjective personal experience of theirs. But I cannot help it: to me it is a form of reality denial.

Again, no personal attack intended, no fight desired.

Yopu still make money by global oil sales, no matter where in the worlkd, and the dollar still is the currency of oil. And you can gain more money by it when influencing trafficking schemes and contracts accordingly. You can also imporve yoiur global strategic position - against those buying poil from Iraq - by being able to have influence in Iraqi opil business. That is what it was about. Not stealing oil in bottles and smuggling it out of the country.

Don'T dare to imagine what it means to your already disastrous finances when oil producers refuse to do their deals in dollars anymore. OPEC has a formidable Ace in its deck there.

Well, shall it be now? Both statements are mutually exclusive.

And I still cannot see any argument why an ideology that has been proven by history beyond any doubt to be evil and wicked, inhumane, brutal and murderous, why that ideology again is being given space to unfold, grow strong, and cause another giant massacre maybe. Was 60 million dead the last time not enough? Is there still the benefit of doubt for the perpetrator?

Well, not for me. Ban Nazis, smack Nazi, crack down on them and leave them no room to move and no air to breath. But today, America is home to the biggest and richest and most influential Nazi organizations in the world. Not Germany. Not Europe.

America.

300,000 killed GIs turn in their graves.

I take the other view give them plenty of room and publicity and let themselves show very openly what they are so no one can have any doubt about the nature of the scum.



Two small things 19Herr, that crap rap sheet you think people have forgotten about, you seem to forget that he was your buddy back then when he was piling the crap on his sheet.
But thank you for enlightening me, I had never realised that handing Iraq over to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution and its Iranian friends from the theocracy was striking a blow for freedom, I humbly thank you for showing me the truth of your speading freedom as until I read your words I had thought you just handed the country to some fundamentalist nuts of the shia persuation.

That is not surprising, your stomach must really churn so you can still keep down the rubbish you swallowed.
Perhaps it would be easier for you to avoid the sickness feeling if you finally seperated Iraq from the "war on terror".

Hello,
i think your post, MrRapp, was a a good one. It just needs to be talked about more often. I am sure the civilians you met and the schools you built along with helping wounded in hospitals gave a good and shining example (no joke meant), and the people were indeed thankful.
This is unfortunately NOT what we usually see and hear about in the media, including Fox News.

It is not about left or right now.
But it was during the US interventions in middle and south America, especially 9/11 1973 in Argentina, and it is from this time the USA still has its image. "Lest we forget" is also a motto in other nations, worldwide.

I do not doubt the good intentions and what you and others did there - also Iraqis were not quite so badly misled by religious and anti-american propaganda under Saddam, like it was and is done in other countries being ruled by dictatorships being disguised as religious leaders. Saddam with his own dictatorship had been supported with money and weapons for decades, by the US and others, indeed by almost all western nations.

Iraq was attacked because Saddam had turned against the Saudis, and while all western nations agreed with Saddam to attack all his other neighbours (especially Iran) all the time, the milk turned sour with his attacks against the Saudis and their oil. I still do not know what he had in mind, did he think he could remove the Saudi regime and help so the US ?
And let's not talk about Halliburton and influential lobbies seeing their investments in danger.

However it always depends on the people doing the field work, and if your detachment impressed the locals in a positive way, this will probably do more for a better relationship than any political dodge, in the long run. Good will is always being remembered.
And you did something there, which is more than most people here can probably say.


What do you think went wrong in Iraq, or in Afghanistan now ? Should we have stayed after all, for the population, or for resources ?
Imho we cannot beat decades of indoctrination and propaganda by some few years of presence. If we leave too early we let them have their way, again.

Your ignorance groups millions of people as murderous psychopaths so easily. I refuse to limit millions of people's religious rights for your paranoia. I am an atheist, yet I can find room to be tolerant of Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. Being tolerant doesn't mean letting extremists impose their beliefs and practices on the unwilling, however. You wanting to censor their religious beliefs is no different than them being allowed to impose their will on us. You act like if they are allowed to freely practice their religion, then they are free to also practice their laws and suppresion. This would not happen because the Federal law of the US surpasses any other authority, religious or otherwise. The Federal law of the US is also, by definition, secular. If they try to break US law in some way, then throw them in prison for that, not for what deity they choose to worship.


Yet still they still have absolutely no power in government and are a laughing stock for the general public. Free speech is one of the many things that separates us from the Nazi regime. By limiting that, you draw one step closer to them. It also gives them a fee card to act and feel "oppressed". That could draw sympathy for them. I'd prefer to let history speak for itself than to censor out the negative aspects.

Give it up, when it comes skybird and muslims, he is a lost cause, not open to anything other than his own close minded opinion.
And dont bother replying to me skybird, i dont read your paranoid rants about muslims.

:nope: Nazism is no religion. Nor am I paranoid regarding Nazism. The evil nature of it is not my personal mental disease, but proven historical fact.

History has spoken. And the dead roll in their graves that you let the cause of their death still move freely. Why have your forefathers even fought against Nazism ion the first, then. What have they died for? Why was the Third Reich crushed in the first, then?