Could this be counter productive???

[tater]

Everyone buying oil is smoochy buddies with the Saudis.

We should flatten that place, frankly. Islam was less radical when fewer Muslims could actually read Arabic. The Saudis have exported teaching arabic, so Muslims are now actually reading their holy book—and since the teachings within are radical THEY are becoming more radical. Same is true of what the Muslim Brotherhood has been doing in Africa.

But by all means, blame Bush.

Well to a large extent I do blame Bush, or more precisely the US for creating a lot of the mess that now is the Middle-East. European colonial powers have their stake in there as well.

I don't think religion is doing for example the Palestinians any good. If they gave up their irrational religion they would be able to fight much more effectively for an independent Palestine.

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Well to a large extent I do blame Bush, or more precisely the US for creating a lot of the mess that now is the Middle-East. European colonial powers have their stake in there as well.

THIS, makes sense.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Schmoochy buddies.

I'm reminded of this:

[CaptainHaplo]

Lets examine this whole "counterproductive" idea for just a second...

Fact: Some Muslim "radicals" from Chechnya decided that, at the behest of their religion, they would plan and execute attacks against innocent Russian civilians.

Fact: These same Muslim "radicals" choose to corrupt women as well as men to carry out these attacks.

Fact: The supposedly non-radcal muslim population of Chechnya has done nothing to prevent these abhorent actions (though the claim is they do not support such acts - since "moderate" muslims never do).

Fact: If Russia does nothing, these attacks will continue unabated, and worsen in both frequency and likely in destruction

Fact: By offensive action against the areas where these plots are planned, logisticaly supported and staged from, the ability of the "radical" muslims to effectively stage such operations is diminished, thus saving the lives of russian citizens (which the government has the duty to protect).

So we end up with a binary choice ....

A) Do nothing as more of your own people are killed, eventually leading to a reduction of political power due to ruling government's inability to protect its citizenry.... OR

B) Go kill the morons killing your people, as well as those who, being guilty by LACK of action to stop said morons, which improves your standing with your own people since you are protecting them.

Gee - which choice would be "counterproductive" to the interest of the Russian government?

What has to be realized - and its demonstrated every day in the tribal areas of the middle east, is that to the muslim "extremist" - you are either FOR them, or AGAINST them - there is no middle ground. Thus, Russian leaders choose to deal with the Chechen's using the same viewpoint - you were either for them - or you would have worked to stop them.

Lets examine this whole "counterproductive" idea for just a second...

Yes lets.
Does it work?
No.
Do they know it doesn't work?
Yes.
If it doesn't work is it counterproductive?
Yes.

Thus, Russian leaders choose to deal with the Chechen's using the same viewpoint - you were either for them - or you would have worked to stop them.

So the Chechens use the same approach and either russians are fighting against their government or they are legitimate targets to be blown up.
Its a wonderful endless cycle isn't it.

Fact: If Russia does nothing, these attacks will continue unabated, and worsen in both frequency and likely in destruction

Thats a fact??????
Its a guess isn't it.

The main problem with Haplos post is he is too narrow minded, it isn't a binary choice as there are more than two choices.
Unless of course you believe that the choice is a simple one of genocide or doing nothing.

[tater]

The problems with Islam in the MIddle East have nothing to do with US politics. Real some of OBL's rhetoric. He has mentioned events that took place hundreds of years ago (by Europeans) as if they were yesterday, and goes right into beating on the US as if it was us.

The problem is with Islam itself. As an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion, but guess what, Islam is worst by far. The Saudis have spent huge sums teaching people around the world to be literate in arabic. Before this, they were Muslims—but were less devout because they didn't actually understand the qoran. Now, many more can read it. Islam was not "hijacked," it is what it is. Anyone who can read arabic can easily be "radical" since it's right there in B&W.

[Skybird]

The claim that you can only correctly understand the Quran if you read it in Arabic, is nonsense. The texts and scriptures of all cultures have been translated into world'S languages, and where the linear translation was difficult, the diversity of differing translations compensate for the loss in the single one. I have done a version of the Tao Te King myself, working with six German and three English translation and with assistance by a buddy who is Sineologist, so nobody tell me nonsens here.

When Islam claims the Quran must be red in Arabic, then this is for only just one single reason:

CONTROL.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

What has to be realized - and its demonstrated every day in the tribal areas of the middle east, is that to the muslim "extremist" - you are either FOR them, or AGAINST them - there is no middle ground.

To be more precise, you are either Muslim, or you are not - and this not only from"extremist's" perspective, but from a principle perspective of Islamic teaching itself. If you are not Muslim, but christian or Jew, you must be submitted and eventually are allowed to live only in an inferior, legally never equal social condition in which your discrimination by Muslims is not voluntary, but every Muslims'S obligation (to make you aware of your inferiority and the big mistake you made when not converting to Islam), and this also only if you agree to regularly pay the demanded protection money. If you are anything different, or even an atheist, you must be killed.

In this context I remind of that the western world learned a lot about slave holding - from islamo-arabic slave traders who already were there with their businss long before the first black slaves where shipped to Europe and later Northern America. the monumental genocide committed by Islam for raising its slave trade, is being ignored for the most, although it has destroyed many local tribal cultures and in form of the genocide in Darfhur and Sudan and the Christian-hunting in Nigeria is continued until today, not to mention the systematic discrimination and supression of Jews and Christians in almost every muslim country there is - while Muslims in the West enjoy far more tolerance and legal protection in Western countries than in any Muslim countries. If that is not queer! It'S jus that for Islam that is not enough. "Tolerance" in Islam's understanding means: submitting to Islam'S values in totality. Not doing so, is "intolerance".

So much for this precious dialogue with Islam that sensible Westerners hold up so high. What was it that Lenin had to say about useful idiots...

Originally Posted by tater

The problem is with Islam itself. As an atheist, I'm not a fan of any religion, but guess what, Islam is worst by far.

Tell me exactly how Islam in the developing world is and has been worse then say Christianity?

The Saudis have spent huge sums teaching people around the world to be literate in arabic. Before this, they were Muslims—but were less devout because they didn't actually understand the qoran. Now, many more can read it. Islam was not "hijacked," it is what it is. Anyone who can read arabic can easily be "radical" since it's right there in B&W.

So your main problem is not so much with Islam but with the Arabic language? This is getting complicated.

[tater]

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

Tell me exactly how Islam in the developing world is and has been worse then say Christianity?

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."

50% slavery is bad enough for me to not need other reasons, but we can certainly name them.

Regarding Christianity, there were without question many Christian atrocities over the years. Regardless, progressive, western liberalism was born in "Christian" societies. I'm very open to you arguing that this was in SPITE OF Christianity, but none the less, it was allowed to succeed. Such pluralistic liberalism has never—and will never, IMHO—evolve in Muslim lands.

So your main problem is not so much with Islam but with the Arabic language? This is getting complicated.

Presumably, your problem here is a language problem. This is fine, as I don't understand ANY finnish, so I'm at a loss there.

For much of the last few hundred years, the bulk of the world's Muslim population has not actually been able to understand Arabic. The Qur'an is written in arabic. As a result, people practicing Islam were able to be fairly moderate, and even have customs at odds with "real" Islam (as practiced in, say Arabia). The most populous Muslim country, for example is Indonesia, and the fact that the vast majority of Indonesian muslims are fairly moderate I think is directly related to the fact that they can't actually read their holy book.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an.

My point was that increasing arabic literacy in non-arab muslim countries increases radicalism. This is demonstrable, and why "Islamism" is on the rise. The principal way that the Saudis spread their flavor of Islam is via arabic (and coincident koranic) teaching.

Keeping muslims ignorant of what the koran says is in effect a moderating influence.

[Safe-Keeper]

The Saudis have spent huge sums teaching people around the world to be literate in arabic. Before this, they were Muslims—but were less devout because they didn't actually understand the qoran. Now, many more can read it. Islam was not "hijacked," it is what it is. Anyone who can read arabic can easily be "radical" since it's right there in B&W.

The only problem with that hypothesis is firstly that the Qur'an isn't more violent and unjust than the horrific stuff found throughout the Old and New Testament, and secondly, that I can imagine very few people reading it cover to cover if it is half as hard and dull to read (not to mention offensive) as the Bible.

When a Christian reads the Bible and comes across bigotry, injustice and hatred, he or she rationalizes it away. "Oh, he was speaking to the Pharisees, and I'm not a Pharisee". "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, it doesn't count any more". "Oh, but you see, that's just a metaphor for something completely different". Why would Muslims be any different?

Not saying there isn't lots of scary stuff in Islam, but saying they're violent because they read the Qur'an is like saying that any German who picks up and reads a copy of Mein Kampf will inevitably turn into a Nazi. It just doesn't work that way.

You really feel the need to defend Islam? Let's see, 50% of their population are in effect slaves. Property. These 50% are called "women."

This is the kind of hyperbole that makes people shrug and turn away whenever Islam is criticized. You're saying that 50% of Muslims, or 100% of their women, are slaves -- one hundred percent -- and you expect us to take you seriously.

When a Christian reads the Bible and comes across bigotry, injustice and hatred, he or she rationalizes it away. "Oh, he was speaking to the Pharisees, and I'm not a Pharisee". "Oh, but that's the Old Testament, it doesn't count any more". "Oh, but you see, that's just a metaphor for something completely different". Why would Muslims be any different?

Muslims are different because accoeding to some its only the fundamentalist fruitcakes whoi are really muslims.

In places where the large majority CAN read the Qur'an, you'll note that they are MORE "fundamentalist." That's because the really awful bits in Islam are actually in the Qur'an

So if you take the tribal belt in Pakistan where most people are illiterate in their own language let a lone a foriegn one how are there so many fundamentalist nuts?
Ah that would be because they are being told what the book says and what it means by the fruitcakes from Saudi
In the same vein other mid-east and N.african countries with high levels of literacy will be as fundamentalist as saudi if your "theory" were true. But they are not so it isn't.

and this also only if you agree to regularly pay the demanded protection money

Errrrrr....protection money? Isn't that the tax system where the people who go to a church pay church taxes and if you don't pay the church tax as you don't go to the church you pay the other tax.

[CaptainHaplo]

Safe-Keeper, you are totally misrepresenting the Xtian theology in regards to the old and new testament - as well as trying to exclude the reality of the specific teachings of islam.

First of all, there is a reason there are two distinct "sections" of the bible - the Old being the "LAW" - which one was to obey - and did in fact have nearly countless images of violence, whereas the New transitioned from Law - to "Grace" - where violation of law could be forgiven. I challenge you to show me one single instance in violence against innocence being advocated as proper action by xtians in the new testament. They were there in the old testament - but not the new. As for the "well so in so was talking to a pharisee" - I can only assume your referencing specific letters (primarily by Paul) to various churches. While these letters were doctrinal advisements to those churches - they are currently still applicably in that they show how a person or group can wander from the proper path.

I fully recognize that there are some moral and ethical issues in the new testament (specifically on the issues of the rights of women and the lack of condemnation of slavery), yet modern doctrine has in fact adapted to this using Grace as the lever to do so.

However - therin you have the largest difference between the two religions - where Xtianity "matured" via the change from law to grace - to forgiveness rather than physical punishment for transgression - Islam never has - and never will. The Old testament held the promise of such a change in prophesy - the quran and associated works does not ever foretell of such a change in the theology. In fact, it makes it clear that such a change will not come about.

As for the "old testament" not counting - theologically - it doesnt - it has been superceded. It is a history - and a guide to the expectations of the actions a righteous man would portray - but the COMMANDMENTS are not longer commands - because violation of them no longer demands sacrifice, only repentance - for the sacrifice has already been paid. The old testament becomes thus a guardrail - with the new testament grace being the tow truck that can pull your soul out of the ditch should you drive off the road.

Regarding women and islam - when the holy texts make it clear that the woman has no rights over and above what her husband or father grant unto her, what exactly would you call her? After all - the honor of the male outweighs the life of the female in islam - which is why "honor" killings are justified in islam. So if a female life is less than some nebulous mental abstract in your head, if a female has no control over her own life - but is at the direction of a Patriarch at all times - even to the point where he can kill her if he feels like it - what exactly would you classify a woman as? If you take the texts literally - which you want to do so badly with xtian texts - then a woman is property under islam. Yet again - xtianity has moderated - islam has not. In fact - only where the literacy of the commoner is such that they cannot read what they believe is there any "moderation" - not in the religion - but in how it is carried out.

It is not hyperbole that you choose to ignore - but reality. In doing so, you choose to wear blinders - so don't be suprised if your blindsided.

Safe-Keeper, you are totally misrepresenting the Xtian theology in regards to the old and new testament

Don't listen Safe Keeper, the preacher man can't even get his claims right about the new testament which he claims to follow.