New president IRAN: Wipe Israel of face of the earth !

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

When you are in conflict with a country or a difference in thinking there really is no separation of good bad guys and bad bad guys. ie:
Axis vs Allies
Catholics vs Protestants
and so on.
If I was an American and you were German you were the enemy period.
If I was Catholic and you were Protestant you were the enemy period.
If you were a nazi and I was a jew I was an enemy period.
In this case if I'm western and you are an islamic what does that make you?
And that is what the world is coming to. Islam uses freedom as a weapon.
Send Billy Graham to Saudi Arabia or Syria and see how long he would live.

Ultimately, there is no excuse for seeing things in black and white, and I don't care how much of a war is going on. If I was soldier A and you were soldier B, and there was a war between A and B, yes you would be my enemy. But only because it was my duty to view you as such. If however I was civilian A and you were civilian B, we would not be enemies. If civilians view other civilians as enemies, it's because of hate. And hate in most cases (this being no exception) is irrational.

[Type941]

If you remember just one thing from this post, remember this: All generalizations are false.

But you just generalized. Ok look, I love people (women especially) regardless of race and color. I'm actually very friendly person. What usually gets me going is politicians, and how they manipulate people, how media manipulates people. IT's how islam has become what it is because of the greed for power of people who live the life style they urge the followers to fight against! But it's passed this point when one of 'them' is calling to wipe out a country from the face of the earth. I'm sorry man, I don't know what's life like in Norway - all I heard it's highest standard of living in Europe. So your perspective might be just a touch philosophical, and detached from reality. Theory is one thing, practice is another. There IS evil in this world. All human are human, but there are those who need to be put to death like mad cows. It's awful may be if you are a Humanitarian Watch, but take yourself down to inner human level, and into environment where the fittest survives. When I was a small, kids that bullied others, etc, in the end of the day got the living sh*t kicked out of them. It was that simple - they did something wrong, and paid for it. So same should happen to these people who are claiming YOUR way of life is deserving of death. Yet you advocate on niceties of their religion. Do I really care about it?? What if I don't belive in god at all - hypothetically speaking, since you like it. Than to me, all of this is pure nonsense! How can you reason with me than? Religion to me would be a nuiance, and it's down to pure evil of these people - who deserve to be exterminated.

We have a conspiracy theorist in our midst.

Ha, at least I'm not naive. This is such a cheap shot and a cliche to throw around. Do you honestly believe that people in politics CARE about what happens to the people more, than they care about themselves? Exceptions are of course present.. but I can reel you off dozens of example of what kind of laws get passed, and who in the end gets the sh8t end of the stick. Conspiracy theorist? Define conspiracy first! What I talked about dosn't imply some secret agreement. It's just a plain fact - I mean COMON, CNN isnt' a propoganda machine? .



I'm moving to Norway.

[Abraham]

One final attempt, but you really don't seem to be interested in a serious discussion:

Originally Posted by Kissaki

Ok, so using your logic, I might argue that the Indian wars wasn't about territory but about spreading Christianity throughout America. Semantics, indeed.

Please don't use my logic, I feel you somehow misuse it..
The Indian wars were no Christian wars, sanctionned by a Church to spread Christianity, but a power struggle about land. Christianity had nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Kissaki

In countries governed by a religious caste, the laws are naturally going to be those of the religion. Hence, whereas in the strictly religious sense only the Muslims need mind the Sharia, non-Muslims have to abide by it too, because it's national law.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head and here we fully agree. I guess you know the inferior position of women and non-Muslims under Sharia. You probably also know about the 'rights' of 'infidels' under Sharia.

Originally Posted by Kissaki

They are ... allowed to do as they please, so long as it doesn't conflict with the law - which happens to be the Sharia.

and which covers all aspects of life. That's why KLM stewardesses have to wear feals when they leave the airplanes in Jeddah or Tehran and are not allowed to look men in the face. That's why an Imam complains with the Mayor of Amsterdam when he sees two gays walking hand in hand in the Oosterpark in Amsterdam and asks for a small Caliphate in Amsterdam!Completely backwarded and not my cup of tea...
So in the end non-Muslims are not allowed to do as they please.

Originally Posted by Kissaki

Now you're talking about fundamental Islam. I've been addressing general Islam.

I am indeed talking about general or fundamentalistic Islam. If there is a difference, please point it out, because I suddenly feel pretty ignorant missing some major distinctions in Islam.

Originally Posted by Kissaki

What can I say? Our experiences differ.

Well, I just keep my eyes open.

Originally Posted by Kissaki

It's all pretty black and white for fundamental anything. Again I must reiterate that I am not defending the fundamentalists, but Islam on a general basis.

A poor defense. Again I must ask for the difference...

Originally Posted by Kissaki

There is no seperation of Church and state in Norway, but we still have religious freedom. As for the US, there are many laws that are the direct result of religion (most of them sleeping, thankfully). Until the '60s, some states forbade the teaching of evolutionary theory, and certain other Christian curiosities could be seen in laws here and there such as no dancing, no card-playing, no pre-marital sex etc. To this day, oral and anal sex remain criminal offenses in certain states, though like I said, today these are "sleeping" laws. Also, the addition of "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the '50s demonstrates that separation of Church and state is like Communism - looks great on paper, but doesn't quite work as it's supposed to in practice. Sure, there is religious freedom, but America is very much a Christian nation.

If you think that those rules constitute a Christian legal system comparable to the Sharia you are clearle daydreaming. And you acknowledge that those rules are "sleeping". Sharia is not...

Originally Posted by Kissaki

Here you are using a very broad brush indeed to pain all Muslim countries as fundamentalist. In many countries where the government itself is Muslim, yes, fundamentalist laws may apply. But there are also countries - like Iraq - which has a secular government, and consequently is quite liberal in religious matters. Furthermore, I am not aware of any laws in either Indonesia or Turkey which is particularly discriminatory against other religions. There are probably little bits here and there, but not more discriminatory than our laws to the Muslims here.

Nonsense, Kissaki.
I'm using a very broad brush allright. The brush of Judeo-Christian Civilisation, which brought us - and went through - the Renaissance and the Enlightment and led to the prescious separation of State and Church that you clearly fail to distinguish from Sharia.
We are now facing a religion of which 90% of the followers are having Dark Age convictions, and I am afraid the number is growing...
They will quickly have to adapt their religion to modern society, like some are desperately trying to do, or either they will get irrelevant with their backward thoughts about infidels, women, Jews, homosexuals you name it... or our Western society will become irrelevant.
Our basic human freedoms are not a given but have to be defended every now and then. This is one of those moments.

[caspofungin]

been away from this board for a while, come back, what do i find? The same old arguments. Crass generalizations, as per usual.

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." How true. I'd rather people knew nothing about Islam, and have it explained by a moderate Muslim, than take quotes out of context. Seeing only part of the picture -- with regards to Islam, Christianity, or any other religion -- is just as bad as blindness.

Regarding "Islamic intolerance" for all other faiths -- when you are learning the Quran, the 6th Surah you learn ends with "To you your religion, and to me my religion." Tolerance of other religions was -- is -- ingrained in my upbringing, just like that of millions of other Muslims. Sure, there's millions of Muslims that are anti-Semitic -- just like there's millions of Christians that are anti-Semitic, or millions of Hindus that are anti-Muslim. And spare me the "holier than thou" arguments that are forming while you read this. There's a sizeable element of the American or Israeli nations that wouldn't mind lining up a bunch of Arbas/Muslims and shooting them dead, regardless of their innocence -- just like theres many Muslims that would do exactly the same thing to Christians or Jews given the opportunity.

People are people -- they stick with those that are like them, and dislike or even despise those that aren't. Religion is just another category to base likes and dislikes upon, just like skin color.

Reading some of the comments on this thread -- some people have quite the knack of ignoring history. Calling Christianity a peaceful misisonary religion? Sure, the religion itself is one of peace, but it has been used throughout history to justify crimes of the highest magnitude. Wasn't the mantra of Spanish conquistadors "For God, gold, and glory?" Those guys wouldn't have won any peace prizes. But people (in general) are willing to separate someone's religion from their actions -- as long as that religion isn't Islam, right?

*********** edited - NS

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Abraham

One final attempt, but you really don't seem to be interested in a serious discussion:

I take it your goal is to change my mind, since you say this. Then you have failed to understand what the purpose of discussion is. Your words above deserve no further comment.

Please don't use my logic, I feel you somehow misuse it..
The Indian wars were no Christian wars, sanctionned by a Church to spread Christianity, but a power struggle about land. Christianity had nothing to do with it.

Exactly! Christianity had nothing to do with it. Nor did Islam's expansion in the 7th-9th centuries have anything to do with spreading religion. Was the Iraq/Iran war about Islam? Certainly not. Nor does modern Iran have any intention of spreading Islam. Fundamentalists want to attack the West (and Israel) to defend Islam.

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head and here we fully agree. I guess you know the inferior position of women and non-Muslims under Sharia. You probably also know about the 'rights' of 'infidels' under Sharia.

Covering up women and the treatment of women are actually not part of Sharia, but are cultural elements which have nonetheless passed into law. Also, in many Muslim countries you are allowed to go unveiled as a woman if you're a Western woman.

On an opposite note, you might have noticed that veils have been banned in schools in several European countries. But I guess this is ok, because they deserve all the restrictions we can impose upon them - but don't they dare tell us what to do!

and which covers all aspects of life. That's why KLM stewardesses have to wear feals when they leave the airplanes in Jeddah or Tehran and are not allowed to look men in the face. That's why an Imam complains with the Mayor of Amsterdam when he sees two gays walking hand in hand in the Oosterpark in Amsterdam and asks for a small Caliphate in Amsterdam!Completely backwarded and not my cup of tea...
So in the end non-Muslims are not allowed to do as they please.

Nor are Muslims in our countries. Though it may please you to think so. When we get to the bottom of things though, what seems perfectly normal here may seem backward there, and vice versa - it's a matter of cultural perspective. How can you expect people to act contrary to their cultural upbringing?

I am indeed talking about general or fundamentalistic Islam. If there is a difference, please point it out, because I suddenly feel pretty ignorant missing some major distinctions in Islam.

General or fundamentalist Islam, which is it? You can't talk about both in the same breath. Fundamentalist live by their respective holy books by the letter, but according to the modern usage, has a more aggressive and possibly violent interpretation. Muslims in general are just like Christians in general, though - they can't keep track of all the rules in day-to-day life. Even Christians who know their Bible by heart often forget themselves, and forget the most important aspect of their own faith: love thine enemy. Muslims are not robots - they have urges and feelings like everybody else. Very few people in this world have the willpower to put religion before themselves.

In conclusion: fundamentalists are in a minority in every single religion, because it's such a difficult thing to be.

Well, I just keep my eyes open.

How do you know?

Nonsense, Kissaki.
I'm using a very broad brush allright. The brush of Judeo-Christian Civilisation, which brought us - and went through - the Renaissance and the Enlightment and led to the prescious separation of State and Church that you clearly fail to distinguish from Sharia.

I nearly choked when I read the above. Judeo-Christian civilization is what necessitated the Reneissance in the first place! To give you a quick repeat history lesson, Reneissance means "rebirth". That should tip you off, right there. Rebirth of what? Of pre-Christian ideas and concepts, from which Christianity had reverted. Ideas and concepts, I might add, to which Islam had made absolutely priceless contributions.

We are now facing a religion of which 90% of the followers are having Dark Age convictions, and I am afraid the number is growing...

There are two kinds of statistics. Lies, and damned lies. I wonder where you got this particular one (I'm guessing "90%" is a figure you made up just now).

They will quickly have to adapt their religion to modern society, like some are desperately trying to do, or either they will get irrelevant with their backward thoughts about infidels, women, Jews, homosexuals you name it... or our Western society will become irrelevant.

In my cousin's daughter's kindergarten, there's a Pakistani boy who likes to wear dresses. His parents help him dress up. Real backward.

Our basic human freedoms are not a given but have to be defended every now and then. This is one of those moments.

Funny. That's just what the Muslim fundamentalists are saying. And I believe their way of life is under more serious threat than ours.

[Kissaki]

Originally Posted by Type941

What if I don't belive in god at all - hypothetically speaking, since you like it. Than to me, all of this is pure nonsense! How can you reason with me than? Religion to me would be a nuiance, and it's down to pure evil of these people - who deserve to be exterminated.

Atheism is itself just a belief, and atheists need to respect other people's decision to believe in something else, on the same level as everybody else. It's not just the religious people who need to be tolerant.

Ha, at least I'm not naive. This is such a cheap shot and a cliche to throw around. Do you honestly believe that people in politics CARE about what happens to the people more, than they care about themselves? Exceptions are of course present.. but I can reel you off dozens of example of what kind of laws get passed, and who in the end gets the sh8t end of the stick. Conspiracy theorist? Define conspiracy first! What I talked about dosn't imply some secret agreement.

Your post came this close to actually containing the words "Great Muslim Conspiracy". It seems like the Muslims can't do anything right. If they don't speak up against atrocities, they support them. If they do speak up against atrocities, it's just to save their hides. They can't win no matter what they do, apparently.

I quoted Full Metal Jacket earlier - I think I need to do it again:

"Anyone who runs is a VC. Anyone who stands still is a well-disciplined VC."

It's just a plain fact - I mean COMON, CNN isnt' a propoganda machine? .

CNN is indeed a propaganda machine. There's no such thing as unbiased media. CNN is still a far better alternative than some really obvious propaganda-machines, though, like far-right FOX News for instance.

I'm moving to Norway.

I think you'll find Muslims preferable to our prices

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

CNN is indeed a propaganda machine. There's no such thing as unbiased media. CNN is still a far better alternative than some really obvious propaganda-machines, though, like far-right FOX News for instance.

Why, indeed, it's funny you mention bias.

Originally Posted by New York Times

Here’s what the NY Times wrote about Cpl. Starr:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents’ home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.

But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

Sifting through Corporal Starr’s laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine’s girlfriend. ‘’I kind of predicted this,'’ Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. “A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances�.

And now here’s everything else the NY Times conveniently LEFT OUT:

Yesterday’s New York Times on-line edition carried the story of the 2000 Iraq US military death[s]. It grabbed my attention as the picture they used with the headline was that of my nephew, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.

Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey’s story. Jeffrey believed in what he was doing. He [was] willing put his life on the line for this cause. Just before he left for his third tour of duty in Iraq I asked him what he thought about going back the third time. He said: “If we (Americans) don’t do this (free the Iraqi people from tyranny) who will? No one else can.�

Several months after Jeffrey was killed his laptop computer was returned to his parents who found a letter in it that was addressed to his girlfriend and was intended to be found only if he did not return alive. It is a most poignant letter and filled with personal feelings he had for his girlfriend. But of importance to the rest of us was his expression of how he felt about putting his life at risk for this cause. He said it with grace and maturity.

He wrote: “Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark.�

What Jeffrey said is important. Americans need to understand that most of those who are or have been there understand what’s going on. It would honor Jeffrey’s memory if you would publish the rest of his story.

There's only so many hours in the day, and only so much space on the page (web or paper). So, certainly, all media is biased; they cannot report every single story that exists. But FOX is as far from the right as CNN is from the center. I don't agree with everything they report, but I find far fewer convienent omissions from FOX than I do CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN/PBS/NPR/Discovery. Boy, those last three I listed are way the hell liberal. CBS is a group of warmongers in comparison to PBS and NPR and Discovery.

Works the same way with Guantanamo Bay. You might just think it's a facist prison, but only in comparison to the Monaco's prisons. In comparison to North Korea, Guantoanamo is a god damn health club.

[Type941]

"FOX NEWS - THEY DECIDE", as the Daily Show spotted very well. :rotfl:
CNN is crap and Fox is crap. you know a good news channel? Euronews. At least I'm not being abused by propoganda to same extent as O'Reily and Paula Zahn do. listen, they are SALESMAN. not newsman. They act like it, they are selling news. They'll scoop to anything to sell news. They'll find a moment to jerk a tear out of you, or be outspoken, etc, It's all been carried out to the dot during Katrina coverage. It's gone way off topic sorry.

I haven't seen any strong argument of why I should 'give a chance' to muslim religion and accept it as a peaceful religion with its own place in europe. The cons outweigh the pros, imo. All those good muslims who get offended by things said here - thank your fellow muslims who think it's ok to blow people up, kill children, and rape/drug women - those who gave you a bad name.

Crusades and inquisition were nasty things. And they took place hundreds of years ago. Islam is a danger to europe, today.

[caspofungin]

Originally Posted by Type941

All those good muslims who get offended by things said here - thank your fellow muslims who think it's ok to blow people up, kill children, and rape/drug women - those who gave you a bad name.

so the majority is given a bad name by the minority, and that's enough to label evryone a danger. great. that's the logic neo-nazis use when they go and beat up immigrants because 1 guy robbed a store or some such.

Originally Posted by Type941

Crusades and inquisition were nasty things. And they took place hundreds of years ago. Islam is a danger to europe, today.

how is islam -- the religion -- a danger? because the size of the minority is increasing? ok, then by that argument christianity in subsaharan africa is a danger -- we should lock up the missionaries. is islam a danger because the precepts of its adherents are different to your own, and they are a threat to the local traditions? ok, then you're using the same argument that people in the middle east use when they want the us and other western forces out. is islam a danger because some of its preachers are using it to bolster their power-grabbing or political maneouvering? if so, then christianity and hinduism are dangers too.

Crusades and inquisition were nasty things? I agree with you there. Religion -- specifically, Christianity -- was used as an excuse, as a motivator, as an adjunct to the base barbarity that's rife in human nature. But if I were to stand up and say Christianity is about the despicable things that are done in its name, would that be right? No. Maybe you should extend the same thoughtfulness towards Islam.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Kissaki

Ultimately, there is no excuse for seeing things in black and white, and I don't care how much of a war is going on.

You have a three muslim men in front of you. One is 18, the second is 21, and the third is 24 and you know one of them is a suicide bomber. Which one is it? The reality is you don't know. You let the wrong one go and a lot of innocent lives will be lost. The answer is all three are your enemy.

Thats cold blooded but you don't have much of a choice when Islamic extremist are not policed by there own countries or are even supported by their countries.

To kill an enemy you are probably going to have to fight like them.
You can't fight with rules when those you are fighting have no rules.

[caspofungin]

yep, it's pretty black and white when you put it like that. real easy when you're not one of the potential non-suicide bombers that's going to be put away just for being an arab at the wrong time in the wrong place. when they put me in jail, maybe you can send me a letter telling me how the world is so much safer now that i'm on ice -- i'm sure i'll feel better.

[bradclark1]

I added a bit more to that comment, but tell me a way that that you think it can be combated short of doing that or sending all muslims back to their homelands.
I do understand the cruelty of my comments but at times right isn't always right. When your enemy wears no uniform how do you identify them individualy?
I read somewhere a long time ago that it is only something like 4% of a countries population decides what a country will do. In arabian countries with extemist it's probably less then that.

[caspofungin]

you have to convince muslims living in the west that its in their best interests to combat extremism. and you can't do that by implementing policies that alienate the potentially helpful majority in order to subjugate the potentially dangerous minority.

my apologies if i come off as a bit snappish. nothing like a discussion of politics and religion to get the juices flowing, right?

[caspofungin]

it's an unenviable position, a difficult position. i agree, right isn't always right, but taking the easy way out is just sowing the wind. Reaping the whirlwind is always much worse than the more difficult choice you had back when all things started.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

my apologies if i come off as a bit snappish. nothing like a discussion of politics and religion to get the juices flowing, right?

No apoligies needed. Politics and religion are always a bad mix.