DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Richpo64 on August 14, 2007, 04:21:21 PM
-
Islam: What the West Needs to Know About Islam
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/14/2007
Frontpage Interview?s guest today is Gregory Davis, the author of Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World. He received his Ph.D. in political science from Stanford University. He is the managing director of Quixotic Media and producer of the feature documentary Islam: What the West Needs to Know -- which has just been released on DVD.
FP: Gregory Davis, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Davis: Thank you for having me.
FP: So tell us a bit about this documentary.
Davis: The documentary originally came out in 2006 but is now in wider release on DVD. There have been several documentaries done on the subject of terrorism, but none so far that examine the sources of Islamic violence within Islam itself. For the most part, there has been a great effort to keep violence done in the name of Islam and Islam itself separate. In contrast, our movie examines the doctrines and history of Islam with the aim of discovering the roots of Islamic violence and intolerance. We focus on the canonical Islamic texts -- the Koran, hadiths ("reports" of Muhammad's life), and the Sira (or Life of the Prophet Muhammad) -- and how Islam has operated through history. We then move on to the role Islam is currently playing in conflicts around the globe -- from Nigeria, to Sudan, Kosovo, Chechnya, Kashmir, Thailand, etc. -- as well as international terrorism, and what the future is likely to hold.
FP: Why do you think there is so much that the West actually doesn?t know about Islam? Why the impulse to deceive oneself?
Davis: I think that there are several reasons. The first is a natural if unwarrantable reluctance to face the very uncomfortable reality that there is an entire civilization seeking our subjugation under nothing less than a totalitarian system of government, i.e., Islamic (Sharia) law.
When faced with National Socialism and Communism, the West demonstrated a similar unwillingness to face up to very grim realities. The continued emphasis on a "new world order" in which violence and warfare will be swept into the dustbin of history makes it that much more difficult for people to realize that, far from a coming era of perpetual peace and happiness, we are facing a future of conflict and civilizational struggle.
The second reason I believe is the persistence of the multicultural myth that all peoples, religions, and civilizations are morally equivalent. Despite its manifest absurdity, this idea nonetheless continues to taint just about every public discussion on Islam and throttles any kind of objective analysis of the origins of Islamic violence.
Thanks to multiculturalism, every theory except the obvious one -- that Islamic violence has roots in Islam -- is advanced: that the jihadists are acting out of "frustration" due to "poverty," "disenfranchisement," etc. Such theories are belied by such jihadists as the 7/7 bombers in London, who were native Britons, and the more recent British doctors, who seemed to have plenty to live for in Western society.
And then there is of course someone like Osama bin Laden, a multimillionaire many times over, a father, poet, and animal-lover, who nonetheless is willing to throw it all away in order to follow in the footsteps of Muhammad. The unhappy truth is that the jihadists are, to a great extent, acting from genuine, deeply-held religious conviction.
Invariably, the jihadists are serious, pious Muslims, many of whom recently rediscovered the tenets of their faith. It is an uncomfortable fact for a tolerant society such as ours to acknowledge that sincere religious belief can pose an imminent danger to a society's physical safety. We would be better off discarding "religion" as a term and instead focus on the very real distinctions between religions and their implications.
FP: So what hope exists that there can be a modernization and democratization within the Islamic world? How can this even begin to happen when the extremists appear to be in command in most of its quarters?
Davis: Hope that a "reformation" of Islam will somehow eliminate its fundamental hostility to the non-Muslim world is wishful thinking. The only even modestly successful attempts to "reform" Islam have taken the form of de-Islamization. This was the policy of Attaturk, who in Turkey replaced the cult of Muhammad with the cult of himself.
Throughout Islamic history, the only alternative to the rule of Islamic law is military dictatorship. It is between these two extremes that modern Turkey continues to oscillate.
Democratizing Islam is really a contradiction in terms: one might as well try democratizing National Socialism or Communism. Islam is what it is: a repressive, expansionary, militaristic religious and political system with a mandate from Allah to conquer the globe. Putting it that way almost sounds silly to the Western ear, but this does not deny the truth of it.
The fundamental problem is that the Muslim extremists are not really "extreme" at all -- rather they are the orthodox faithful. By Western logic, Muhammad himself -- who engaged in political assassination, wars of aggression, and massacre --- would qualify as an "extremist." Violence and intolerance are mainstream in Islam, not distortions of its orthodox traditions as they would be in a religion such as Christianity.
FP: But we have many Muslim moderates and reformers who are our allies. We don?t want to alienate them. They are our allies in this struggle. Surely many Muslims are our allies against extremism. What should our strategy be?
Davis: The primary task for Western leaders today is to mobilize their societies to confront the Islamic threat -- it is not to manipulate the Muslim world to develop a fictive "moderate" Islam. The danger of encouraging "moderate" Muslims is that it gives a false signal to Westerners that there can be a long-term modus vivendi between Islam and the West. We must understand that, while there are peaceful Muslims, there is no peaceful Islam. The distinction is capital. Muslims who have rejected Islam's violent injunctions, consciously or unconsciously, have thrown out one of the essential elements of their faith. An analogy would be with the Mensheviks, who rejected the necessity of the violent revolution that their Communist ideology required. The Mensheviks were thus forever trying to square a circle: they remained Communists while rejecting one of Communism's primary tenets. It was inevitable that their illogic would ultimately give way to the more logically rigorous -- and bloody -- Bolsheviks. The same with Islam. Throughout Islamic history, there have been those who rejected Allah's call to violence, but they have never managed to become politically efficacious precisely because their position so obviously contravened Islam's unmistakable teaching on jihad.
Pretending that there is a peaceful Islam will only foster further muddled thinking and disastrous policy. Fearing that we will alienate peace-loving (unorthodox) Muslims by properly identifying Islam as violent is a recipe for disaster. As Osama bin Laden has put it, people will naturally favor a strong horse over a weak one. Islam today is showing itself as the strong horse, confident in its purpose and determinedly pursuing it, while the West cannot even bring itself to speak plainly about the enemy. However well-intended, the Western statesmen who insist on "reaching out" to "moderate" Muslims are objects of contemptuous fun to the jihadists, who move from strength to strength while Western governments spin themselves dizzy to avoid the plain reality that Islam is at war with the world.
Publicly affirming Islam as the imperialistic political program that it is, rather than alienating peaceful Muslims, will draw to our side many on the fence and signal to the jihadists that we are through with the political correctitude that is our chief impediment to decisive action. As infidels, we are not going to have much effect on the long-term course of Islam one way or the other; we should concentrate on mobilizing our own civilization, which necessitates a frank discussion of what Islam is -- not what we wish it to be.
We should encourage genuinely peace-loving Muslims to take a hard, unflinching look at their religion and to draw the necessary conclusion: as have prominent apostates such as Ibn Warraq, Walid Shoebat, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They have had the intellectual integrity to acknowledge the violent nature of Islam and to reject it by renouncing Islam in its totality. That sort of courage is a tall order -- apostasy is a capital offence in Islam -- and we in the West should do everything to encourage and protect such acts of conscience. But the half-measure of encouraging peaceful Muslims to take up a "moderate" form of Islam is not only an act of intellectual dishonesty, it is a sure way to foster future acts of jihad. Many of the Islamic terrorists of recent years have been formerly "moderate" Muslims who reawakened to an orthodox interpretation of their faith. The European "youths" responsible for the intermittent riots in France and elsewhere are largely the offspring of "moderate" Muslim immigrants who fled the repression of their native Islamic lands. Trying to foster a "moderate" form of Islam is like trying to foster a "moderate" form of Communism or National Socialism.
FP: What are your thoughts in terms of the Left?s behaviour in the terror war? And how about how the Left recoils from allowing an honest examination of Islam, when for years it has made vicious attacks on Judea-Christian values?
Davis: The defining characteristic of the dogmatic Left is that they will align themselves with any movement that has as its aim the destruction of Western civilization. The Left proved themselves a significant fifth column during the Cold War, less from open advocacy of Communism than from rearguard activity that eroded Western cultural and institutional integrity. The Left are instinctively sympathetic to Islam primarily because they can use it today as a battering ram against the West much as they once used Communism. Recall the Left's silence following 9/11: their dilemma at that time was to reformulate their arguments so as to come up with a way of taking the side of the jihadists without seeming totally insane or provoking a devastating public reaction. It took them a little while, but they finally managed it with variations of "we asked for it" interwoven with sanctimonious condemnation of "all religious extremism." The cult of multiculturalism continues to forestall any serious examination of just what Islam is, what it has done, and what it means to do -- the essential questions that we ask in Islam: What the West Needs to Know. In the DVD, we go directly to the Islamic sources in order to understand Islam from its own point of view -- a violation of the first commandment of political correctitude, thou shalt not ask questions. We do ask questions, the simple but necessary ones that have been so absent from the public discourse on Islam.
Significantly -- and sadly -- it has not only been the Left who have been guilty of intellectual laziness on this issue. Many of the Right have similarly declined to give Islam a hard look. The phrase "war on terror" is an example of this tendency to avoid serious examination of the origins of Islamic violence. A "war on terror" is a war with the primary object of not hurting anyone's feelings; it is a half-hearted war against an unreal enemy. While the Left fail to see Islamic imperialism as a threat to the freedoms they ostensibly cherish, the bias of much of the right is to see "religion" as a natural conservative force in the world and therefore resurgent Islam as a natural ally. Such conservatives are fighting the last war: they correctly diagnose the secular Left, but they fail to realize that Islam is a far older, more determined, and ascendant enemy. They are committing the same error as many Leftists by refusing to draw the necessary distinctions between cultures. The hope of a "new world order" in which conflict of all sorts will happily melt into the past has blinded many to the irreducible hostility of Islam toward the non-Muslim world. The exploding Muslim population worldwide combined with the demographic collapse of Europe mean that the balance of forces are changing very rapidly.
The choices confronting us are not between a maintenance of the old nation-state system, with its uncertainty and occasional violence, and a new era of global peace and prosperity, but between the survival of our civilization and global Islamic hegemony.
Safeguarding our survival and containing Islam, as opposed to building a brave new global regime in which traditional identities are submerged into one, must be the order of the day.
FP: What do readers need to do if they would like to get a hold of this dvd?
Davis: The DVD is available at a number of online retailers. They can visit our website, www.WhatTheWestNeedsToKnow.com, or go directly to Amazon.com.
FP: Gregory Davis, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Davis: Jamie, it is always a pleasure.
-
In contrast, our movie examines the doctrines and history of Islam with the aim of discovering the roots of Islamic violence and intolerance.
What a fair hypothesis from which to start ::)
Why do you think there is so much that the West actually doesn?t know about Islam?
I think the answer is far simpler and far less sinister than the one given here. The West doesn't know much about Islam because they simply don't care. It is the very same reason the west knows very little about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Orthodox Christianity, and even Catholicism (outside of those who are Catholic). It is the same reason that Americans didn't give a damn about the bloodiest war since World War II (the Congolese Civil War) which took place only a few years ago, but if you took a poll of Americans I can guarantee that the vast majority will have never heard of it.
They know nothing about Islam because they could care less. They know slightly more know because it disrupted their lives a little.
When faced with National Socialism and Communism, the West demonstrated a similar unwillingness to face up to very grim realities.
Bullshit. Hitler was widely praised for his work in Germany and it was considered a miracle of economics in how he turned an economy that was seeing wheelbarrow loads of money required to purchase bread into a smooth running industrial nation within a short span of time. People like Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh praised Fascism and the west in general saw it as a unique way to stop Communism - something they were united in detesting.
The second reason I believe is the persistence of the multicultural myth that all peoples, religions, and civilizations are morally equivalent.
That isn't what postmodernist relativism claims. It says that one's moral beliefs are formed by one's historical, cultural, and societal background. It makes no claims that there is an equivalency (that would be emotivism, a rarely proscribed theory). The opposing view is one of blatant racism and Imperial arrogance that white western civilization is inherently superior in morality.
Tell that to the Auschwitz survivors.
Such theories are belied by such jihadists as the 7/7 bombers in London, who were native Britons, and the more recent British doctors, who seemed to have plenty to live for in Western society.
An obvious ignorant view of Islam in Britain. There is a stark difficulty, especially for Muslim youth to live in Britain and be torn between two cultures - Islamic culture, which is very strict and western culture which is not. Islamic dominated areas, such as Dewsbury have incredibly low crime rates (far lower than their white counterparts) but the youth are really outcasts in both societies. It is a difficult problem they face.
Is it strictly one of Islamic roots? No. No more than the difficulty of being Irish Catholic and growing up in Northern Ireland was a Catholic problem and inherently meant that Catholics were violent. That is a stupid thesis.
The danger of encouraging "moderate" Muslims is that it gives a false signal to Westerners that there can be a long-term modus vivendi between Islam and the West. We must understand that, while there are peaceful Muslims, there is no peaceful Islam. The distinction is capital. Muslims who have rejected Islam's violent injunctions, consciously or unconsciously, have thrown out one of the essential elements of their faith.
In other words, Gregory Davis knows their faith better than they do?
Right...
However well-intended, the Western statesmen who insist on "reaching out" to "moderate" Muslims are objects of contemptuous fun to the jihadists, who move from strength to strength while Western governments spin themselves dizzy to avoid the plain reality that Islam is at war with the world.
They are? Then why haven't deaths from international terrorism increased dramatically? It is still a rather paltry number that hasn't changed much in decades. Where is this lion that everyone keeps talking about? We've heard stories of the roar for quite some time, but all we've seen are cat scratches.
Publicly affirming Islam as the imperialistic political program that it is, rather than alienating peaceful Muslims, will draw to our side many on the fence and signal to the jihadists that we are through with the political correctitude that is our chief impediment to decisive action.
What decisive action? Going to invade another Muslim nation are we? We cannot handle the one we've invaded already.
The defining characteristic of the dogmatic Left is that they will align themselves with any movement that has as its aim the destruction of Western civilization.
Oh no, the dogmatic left and multiculturalism, evil Islam, jihadists...
We better build some bomb shelters and call the John Birch Society.
-
uhm
islam knows nothing about the west also
most(if not all) muslim`s I know think 100% of america is divorce and we don`t respect our women because we allow them to work.
pretty much all cultures know nothing of others.
-
"reluctance to face the very uncomfortable reality that there is an entire civilization seeking our
subjugation under nothing less than a totalitarian system of government, i.e., Islamic (Sharia) law."
This hits the nail on the head.
Thank you Rich for the wonderful article.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa56/USA2008/Politics/l_707048c4f6ac09f59ae828d6a7dc0290.jpg)
-
<< . . . Gregory Davis, the author of Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World.>>
The title says it all - - the man's full of shit. Islam is at war with the World, but meantime it is the World that has been invading Islam, whether actually invading Afghanistan and Iraq, overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran or bankrolling the 40-year Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Or, going a little further back in time, installing the undemocratic Hashemite monarchies in both Iraq and Jordan, supporting the Saud family in Saudi Arabia, bankrolling the torture-state dictatorship of Egypt. I'd love to read this guy's account of the Holocaust - - it's probably entitled, "The Jewish Assault on Nazi Germany."
What do you call it when a guy is telling you something and your own eyes are telling you something entirely different? Cognitive dissonance? Who ya gonna believe, me or your own lying eyes?
-
JS, respectfully and collegially, your brilliance has reached a new peak. Indeed, THIS fight may be as important as the one with radical Islam. (It is possible to fight on two fronts.)
-
What is missing is the discussions on why Christianity is seemingly the only religion that seems preoccupied with proselytization.
When is the last time a Buddhist or a Hindu knocked on your door?
On the global scale, we have the phenomenon of missionaries, trotting about trying to convert everybody to Christianity.
The Jesuits represented the Catholic Church, but it must be remember that the church more or less was the state. Therefore, they were agents, the initial agents, of imperialism. Currently, the Mormons, who have probably the largest army of religion replacement contingents, and the ever vibrant evangelicals, have virtual armies of missionaires sent in to save the peoples in their native lands.
Send in the collars to shame the people and their ways, encourage them to give up their pagan idolatries, and get some junk food emporiums on every corner.
Yep, pure salvation, no matter how you put it.
-
Crane, your point, trenchant as usual, raises another issue that resonates through this thread. I have for a while tucked away for later exploration the notion that Islam's foundational texts, like the central life they chronicled and celebrated, grew out of harsh circumstances indeed (desert life, warfare) such that these rigors are embedded to some extent in the literature itself. (This does not make them central to the faith necessarily, however, only existentially material.) Thus, the basic impression of a warring mentality REFLECTED in Islam, what I think to be the sensible translation of the opposing side's concerns in this current discussion here, has at least a plausible resonance in the culture that produced this great religion. That it's ability to grow beyond its rather rough birth pangs and period of consolidation and development (like Christianity itself in some regards, although its central figure is gentle indeed) is a given I won't question.
But like the Christian textual "mandate" to "spread the Good News," it needs a very critical examination in the postmodern world.
-
>>What is missing is the discussions on why Christianity is seemingly the only religion that seems preoccupied with proselytization. When is the last time a Buddhist or a Hindu knocked on your door?<<
Once again the liberal/communist template rears it's ugly head (as I knew it would).
Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. But once again, we're treated to the template. It's almost funny if it weren't so twisted.
-
<<Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. >>
I'M a drooling liberal zombie. Are they gonna burn in the same hell as those of us who aren't down wid Jesus?
-
<<Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. >>
I'M a drooling liberal zombie. Are they gonna burn in the same hell as those of us who aren't down wid Jesus?
http://www.al-islam.org/leadership/14.htm
If therefore religion regards its teachings as the source of salvation and happiness of society, it must give thought to the system of rule, propose a specific system of governance equipped with all the necessary laws and ordinances. Only then will it be able to establish religion in society and clear the way for God's religion to advance.
http://www.thechristianexpositor.org/page115.html
-
Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. But once again, we're treated to the template. It's almost funny if it weren't so twisted.
I think the point here is that they're not going to knock on your door to give you pamphlets.
-
Obviously the Christians feel the same impulse to insert their religious beliefs into your government, hence the partial ban on stem-cell research, the insertion of the words "under God" into what was previously a purely secular pledge, the push for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and deprive gays of the same rights that all other citizens enjoy, the continuing push to ban women's free choice on abortion and the severe distortions of sex ed programs in high schools across the country.
Anyone who thinks it's only the Muslim religion that wants to get its hands on the levers of power is seriously blind to the realities of everyday life. I'd say your chances of living under a Muslim theocracy are zero but your chances of living under a Christian theocracy have already been partially realized and will grow stedily over the next few years thanks to Bush, his "base" and their Supreme Court.
-
>>I think the point here is that they're not going to knock on your door to give you pamphlets.<<
What's your point?
-
>>I think the point here is that they're not going to knock on your door to give you pamphlets.<<
What's your point?
Errr... let's recap.
Crane said: What is missing is the discussions on why Christianity is seemingly the only religion that seems preoccupied with proselytization. When is the last time a Buddhist or a Hindu knocked on your door?
Rich said in response Crane: Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. But once again, we're treated to the template. It's almost funny if it weren't so twisted.
Henny said in response to Rich: I think the point here is that they're not going to knock on your door to give you pamphlets.
The discussion had turned to proselytization. It appeared that you were commenting in that discussion. If I read that wrong, then what's YOUR point?
-
So nice guys in short sleeved white shirts and ties is worse that hooded animals roasting your son and serving it to you for dinner?
Is that what you're saying?
err?
-
So nice guys in short sleeved white shirts and ties is worse that hooded animals roasting your son and serving it to you for dinner?
Is that what you're saying?
err?
Um, no. I was commenting on proselytization. I think your overwhelming hatred and obsession in this topic has skewed your ability to read what a person says.
-
Domer provides the proper historical context to Islam in the modern world.
This is not the 7th or 8th century. Mainstream Islam of all varieties has comprehended this, just as most mainstream Christianity has. It is only a radical fringe that does not and even they must be viewed as a product of their own times.
One has to be careful when reading the Koran, just as reading the Bible (or any religious text) as the vast majority of adherents do not accept everything literally as it is written. There is an amount of interpretation that goes into any text.
-
>>One has to be careful when reading the Koran, just as reading the Bible <<
Actually what you should do is read both critically. See if you can find any passages in the New Testament that describe how to kill non-Christians.
-
why Christianity is seemingly the only religion that seems preoccupied with proselytization. When is the last time a Buddhist or a Hindu knocked on your door?
i wonder if it is because buddhist/hindus make up such a tiny fraction of the us population?
but i have heard there is islamic proselytization in many us jails/prisons
and i wonder if christianity "knocks on your door" because christianity is many times in more tolerant religious cultures/countries?
christianity "knocks at your door" because it is "in a competitive maket place" if you will and because it is allowed to.
many times the other religions are in countries less tolerant of other religions.
i would not get upset if a buddist/hindu/muslim "knocked on my door", in fact it would be informative/educational
but in saudi, iran, and other less religious tolerant countries that might get you killed or jailed if you knocked on someone's door
-
Actually what you should do is read both critically. See if you can find any passages in the New Testament that describe how to kill non-Christians.
That's not reading critically, that is reading with intent. There's plenty of examples of Christians killing non-Christians, under a Christian banner (that goes for Protestants and Catholics). I don't think that's the path you want to take in this debate. Besides which, one was far better off being a Christian or Jew in a pre-15th Century Muslim nation than being a Jew or Muslim in a pre-15th Century Christian nation.
If Islam was as nasty as you claim it to be and inherently so, then that could not have been the case.
but I choose to address this threat
Oh really? How? By posting right wing hate speech? You think that does anything to al-Qaeda? I'm guessing that they wish every American thought like this guy.
You can make excuses and call it hatred if you like, but I see no difference in pointing out Islam's actions as our grandparents pointed out Nazi atrocities.
Point them out?!? We appointed Nazis to high positions within the West German Government. We considered them "anti-Communists" and that was more important than having been a Nazi. We became fast friends with Fascists like Franco, Salazar, and the Perons. But yeah, we did support Israel and did put a few guys on trial - though we had to order a bunch of Air Force officers to quit wining and dining Hermann Goering.
As for Islam, it is a religion with a lot of very good people who are adherents. There are some really awful people who are adherents as well. Christianity is no different in that regard. Neither is Judaism.
-
"As for Islam, it is a religion with a lot of very good people who are adherents. There are some really awful people who are adherents as well. Christianity is no different in that regard. Neither is Judaism"
But Islam is the one with the current major problem concerning adherents to Islam killing hundreds and thousands of innocent people "in the name of their religion". Radical Islam is killing alot of people and their primary motivation is their translation of their religion. Today radical Islam threatens world peace in a real way. There is no current threat to world peace from radical Christianity killing people "in the name of their religion".("Allahu Akbar!" as they kill innocent people) By dismissing the real threat to world peace today that radical Islam poses by attempting to equate it with other much smaller, much less funded radical sects in other religions, that in reality in the current time don't even come close in scope of current threat, current damage, current killings in the name of their religion, don't you feel like you are ignoring the true situation?
-
No, I think looking at reality is of the utmost importance!
Calling for a war against Islam is not realistic.
Talking about radical Islam as a threat against the entire world is exaggerating reality.
In reality international terrorism is not on some dramatic large scale increase. It just isn't (look at the State Department's numbers for yourself). There is a massive amount of sectarian violence in Iraq, but wasn't that expected after the invasion?
-
>>That's not reading critically, that is reading with intent.<<
Really? All you have to do is pick up a Quran (careful, you'll have to wear gloves you Christian scum) and read it, critically or with the intent to be honest. What you'll find is many many references to killing or subverting those who aren't Muslims. It's all right there. All you have to do is read it. should I quote it for you? You realize I can don't you? Now I challenge you to find the same kinds of pronouncements in the New Testament.
>>Oh really? How? By posting right wing hate speech? You think that does anything to al-Qaeda? I'm guessing that they wish every American thought like this guy.<<
:D No JS, al Qeada loves the fact that some Americans think like you and the rest of the liberals. In fact, they're using you to their own ends as we speak. Do you really think they want me spreading the truth about who and what they are? Please. You're not stupid.
>>Point them out?!? We appointed Nazis to high positions within the West German Government. <<
Oh brother. I'll be happy to welcome Islamo-fascists with open arms when they renounce thier terrorist ways and join us in the fight against Islamo-fascists. I'm a Christian, I can forgive. It would be stupid to exclude anyone on the fight against evil.
>>There are some really awful people who are adherents as well. Christianity is no different in that regard. Neither is Judaism.
True. But you have to go back 600 years to find anything remotely similar. But hey, if the template affords you some kind of comfort, so be it.
-
Really? All you have to do is pick up a Quran (careful, you'll have to wear gloves you Christian scum) and read it, critically or with the intent to be honest. What you'll find is many many references to killing or subverting those who aren't Muslims. It's all right there. All you have to do is read it. should I quote it for you? You realize I can don't you? Now I challenge you to find the same kinds of pronouncements in the New Testament.
Sure. What Sura do you wish to start with?
:D No JS, al Qeada loves the fact that some Americans think like you and the rest of the liberals. In fact, they're using you to their own ends as we speak. Do you really think they want me spreading the truth about who and what they are? Please. You're not stupid.
Reactionaries love their own kind Rich. Notice that Serbian nationalists did not kill the old son of a bitch hardliner Franz Joseph, but instead killed the reformer Archduke Franz Ferdinand. As for you? I'm guessing you are a microscopic spec of dust on the al-Qaeda business plan.
Oh brother. I'll be happy to welcome Islamo-fascists with open arms when they renounce thier terrorist ways and join us in the fight against Islamo-fascists. I'm a Christian, I can forgive. It would be stupid to exclude anyone on the fight against evil.
Do you not believe that we appointed Nazis to high positions in West Germany? Or are you saying it was a good thing to do at the time. I suspect the latter given your statement above.
True. But you have to go back 600 years to find anything remotely similar. But hey, if the template affords you some kind of comfort, so be it.
Really? Manchester was bombed in 1996. The Omagh bombing was 15 August 1998. I'm fairly sure that wasn't 600 years ago.
-
>>As for you? I'm guessing you are a microscopic spec of dust on the al-Qaeda business plan.<<
I'm crushed. Really.
Please, continue making excuses. It's what you people do. Well, for terrorists anyway.
-
Talking about radical Islam as a threat against the entire world is exaggerating reality.
Do you not read newspapers?
Do you not hear the President of the Islamic Theocracy speaking of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth"?
What would happen to world peace if the President of Iran attempted to do that? Nuclear exchange?
Did you not see the Islamic Thoecracy's proxie Islamic group Hezbollah conduct a war with Israel last summer?
Do you not see security lines at airports all over the world?
Are those security lines due to Christian/Hindu/Buddist recent bombings/killings?
Do you not see governments from every continent spending record amounts for anti-terror measures?
Why are those governmenst spending that kind of money? Threats from Christian, Hindu, or Buddist terror groups?
Do you not see bombings/killings/terror happening every single day carried out by radical Islam killing people in the name of their religion?
It's everywhere, India, Spain, England, The United States, Morocco, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, The Phillippines, Lebanon, Chechnya, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, Yemen, Nigeria, Egypt, France, Turkey, ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect
How can you even distantly attempt to equate other religions in todays world with this scope and level of violence we see coming from within Islam?
(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/BusBurning.jpg)
-
Talking about radical Islam as a threat against the entire world is exaggerating reality.
Do you not read newspapers?
Do you not hear the President of the Islamic Theocracy speaking of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth"?
What would happen to world peace if the President of Iran attempted to do that? Nuclear exchange?
Did you not see the Islamic Thoecracy's proxie Islamic group Hezbollah conduct a war with Israel last summer?
Do you not see security lines at airports all over the world?
Are those security lines due to Christian/Hindu/Buddist recent bombings/killings?
Do you not see governments from every continent spending record amounts for anti-terror measures?
Why are those governmenst spending that kind of money? Threats from Christian, Hindu, or Buddist terror groups?
Do you not see bombings/killings/terror happening every single day carried out by radical Islam killing people in the name of their religion?
It's everywhere, India, Spain, England, The United States, Morocco, Pakistan, Algeria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, The Phillippines, Lebanon, Chechnya, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, Yemen, Nigeria, Egypt, France, Turkey, ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect
How can you even distantly attempt to equate other religions in todays world with this scope and level of violence we see coming from within Islam?
(http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/BusBurning.jpg)
Do you not read newspapers?
Yes, I do. Several in fact.
Do you not hear the President of the Islamic Theocracy speaking of "wiping Israel off the face of the earth"?
Yes. And? He has a penchant for pissing off the simple-minded. Just as he has a penchant for gaining support from the simple-minded.
What would happen to world peace if the President of Iran attempted to do that? Nuclear exchange?
That's a real likely scenario. We better teach the kids to duck and cover! Maybe we should start selling bomb shelters again.
Did you not see the Islamic Thoecracy's proxie Islamic group Hezbollah conduct a war with Israel last summer?
I saw Israel act like imbeciles and bomb the hell out of Lebanon. They also made Hezbollah, a political party in Iran with a militant wing (similar to the IRA/Sinn Fein of Northern Ireland) into massive heroes in that country. You act like this is something new and amazing. Why the knee-jerk reaction? Israel acting stupid in Lebanon is a time-honored tradition.
Do you not see security lines at airports all over the world?
I have to say, for a sign of the end times, that is pretty lame. Have we really gone from vastly and purposefully overrating Soviet military equipment to overrating queues at the airport?
Do you not see governments from every continent spending record amounts for anti-terror measures?
Well, technically speaking I don't think Antarctica is spending more on anything. Yet, if we had been keeping up to date this wouldn't have been such a big deal. Plus, you are using circular logic. The 9/11 hijackers had stanley knives. That's it. Yes, we're spending more because of a great deal of exaggeration and fears of dirty bombs, bioterrorism, and other unlikely events.
Why are those governmenst spending that kind of money? Threats from Christian, Hindu, or Buddist terror groups?
Actually, in Japan and China they do spend quite a bit on preventing terror from other non-Muslim groups. In Pakistan they spend money fighting Hindu terrorist groups. In Spain they spend money fighting ETA. In Colombia they spend a lot of money fighting a lot of groups that loathe the government. So Muslims may take up most of the money, but not nearly all.
Do you not see bombings/killings/terror happening every single day carried out by radical Islam killing people in the name of their religion?
No, I do not.
How can you even distantly attempt to equate other religions in todays world with this scope and level of violence we see coming from within Islam?
I haven't equated anything. I simply refuse to bring it up to a level that it does not reach.
Have you looked at the deaths from international terrorism? Look at them. The State Department of this very country publishes them. Go find them and report them here and tell me what a horrible and massive threat "radical Islam" is to the world.
Do it. I want to see the facts, not what you, Rich, and Sirs blow out of proportion.
-
searchable Koran
www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/quran/
http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/61.htm#6
14. O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah. As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah." Said the disciples, "We are Allah.s helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed.
-
Do it. I want to see the facts, not what you, Rich, and Sirs blow out of proportion.
Al Queda probably only amounts to an hundred thousand guys , but they have blown up two of our Embassys , and I think that sort of irritation is signifigant.
There is indeed a Christian Equivelent , ask a KKK leader if you ever get the chance , he will be able to tell you in great detail how Christian he is.
-
<<Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. >>
I'M a drooling liberal zombie. Are they gonna burn in the same hell as those of us who aren't down wid Jesus?
Yes. Read the Quran. Even the Mormons let us have a "lower Heaven". :-)
-
Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. But once again, we're treated to the template. It's almost funny if it weren't so twisted.
I think the point here is that they're not going to knock on your door to give you pamphlets.
No, they'll just kill you if you don't subscribe to thier religion. Hmmm, I wonder which is more devastating?
-
What is missing is the discussions on why Christianity is seemingly the only religion that seems preoccupied with proselytization.
When is the last time a Buddhist or a Hindu knocked on your door?
On the global scale, we have the phenomenon of missionaries, trotting about trying to convert everybody to Christianity.
The Jesuits represented the Catholic Church, but it must be remember that the church more or less was the state. Therefore, they were agents, the initial agents, of imperialism. Currently, the Mormons, who have probably the largest army of religion replacement contingents, and the ever vibrant evangelicals, have virtual armies of missionaires sent in to save the peoples in their native lands.
Send in the collars to shame the people and their ways, encourage them to give up their pagan idolatries, and get some junk food emporiums on every corner.
Yep, pure salvation, no matter how you put it.
Your hatred of Christianity shows throguh, Crane. Christianity has also brought positives to the world as well. You cannot really judge the whole by the few.
-
Obviously the Christians feel the same impulse to insert their religious beliefs into your government, hence the partial ban on stem-cell research, the insertion of the words "under God" into what was previously a purely secular pledge, the push for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and deprive gays of the same rights that all other citizens enjoy, the continuing push to ban women's free choice on abortion and the severe distortions of sex ed programs in high schools across the country.
Anyone who thinks it's only the Muslim religion that wants to get its hands on the levers of power is seriously blind to the realities of everyday life. I'd say your chances of living under a Muslim theocracy are zero but your chances of living under a Christian theocracy have already been partially realized and will grow stedily over the next few years thanks to Bush, his "base" and their Supreme Court.
Ok, so you agree that living under Islam, if you are not Moselm, is zero. This is positive. You also admit, implicitly, that living under Chrisitanity, though not what you really desire, is possible. This is good news.
-
>>I think the point here is that they're not going to knock on your door to give you pamphlets.<<
What's your point?
Errr... let's recap.
Crane said: What is missing is the discussions on why Christianity is seemingly the only religion that seems preoccupied with proselytization. When is the last time a Buddhist or a Hindu knocked on your door?
Rich said in response Crane: Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. But once again, we're treated to the template. It's almost funny if it weren't so twisted.
Henny said in response to Rich: I think the point here is that they're not going to knock on your door to give you pamphlets.
The discussion had turned to proselytization. It appeared that you were commenting in that discussion. If I read that wrong, then what's YOUR point?
Well, I welcome one and all. When they come, I let them come in and DISCUSS it with them. It is fascinating! (The Jehovah Witnesses apparently have me on a list to not visit as they have "lost "some of their flock to REAL Christianity this way)..lol
-
Domer provides the proper historical context to Islam in the modern world.
This is not the 7th or 8th century. Mainstream Islam of all varieties has comprehended this, just as most mainstream Christianity has. It is only a radical fringe that does not and even they must be viewed as a product of their own times.
One has to be careful when reading the Koran, just as reading the Bible (or any religious text) as the vast majority of adherents do not accept everything literally as it is written. There is an amount of interpretation that goes into any text.
A post I certainly expected from you, JS. A crock, of course, but, in its own template, well-reasoned.
-
why Christianity is seemingly the only religion that seems preoccupied with proselytization. When is the last time a Buddhist or a Hindu knocked on your door?
i wonder if it is because buddhist/hindus make up such a tiny fraction of the us population?
but i have heard there is islamic proselytization in many us jails/prisons
and i wonder if christianity "knocks on your door" because christianity is many times in more tolerant religious cultures/countries?
christianity "knocks at your door" because it is "in a competitive maket place" if you will and because it is allowed to.
many times the other religions are in countries less tolerant of other religions.
i would not get upset if a buddist/hindu/muslim "knocked on my door", in fact it would be informative/educational
but in saudi, iran, and other less religious tolerant countries that might get you killed or jailed if you knocked on someone's door
Good point .There is not a level playing field. It is as if Muslims sense they will "lose" on this spirtual battlefield if they even allow discussion of other religions. Deos this make Islam a religion of fear?
-
No, I think looking at reality is of the utmost importance!
Calling for a war against Islam is not realistic.
Talking about radical Islam as a threat against the entire world is exaggerating reality.
In reality international terrorism is not on some dramatic large scale increase. It just isn't (look at the State Department's numbers for yourself). There is a massive amount of sectarian violence in Iraq, but wasn't that expected after the invasion?
I seem to remember that many Jews in the early stages of WWII said idientifcal things about "rumors of cleansing". They found, as we might, that sticking your head in the sand is NOT an an effective tactic. This pacificism I continually sense in your posts, JS, do not serve you or anyone well. PAcificsm can lead to its own path to death and destruction and then you are left with "Gee, I never dreamed it would be like this!"
I respectfully disagree with this approach. Think: the Allies placating Hitler before WWII, as an example, of executing a policy of too much pacificism can lead to worse ultimate results.
-
What is missing is the discussions on why Christianity is seemingly the only religion that seems preoccupied with proselytization.
When is the last time a Buddhist or a Hindu knocked on your door?
On the global scale, we have the phenomenon of missionaries, trotting about trying to convert everybody to Christianity.
The Jesuits represented the Catholic Church, but it must be remember that the church more or less was the state. Therefore, they were agents, the initial agents, of imperialism. Currently, the Mormons, who have probably the largest army of religion replacement contingents, and the ever vibrant evangelicals, have virtual armies of missionaires sent in to save the peoples in their native lands.
Send in the collars to shame the people and their ways, encourage them to give up their pagan idolatries, and get some junk food emporiums on every corner.
Yep, pure salvation, no matter how you put it.
Your hatred of Christianity shows throguh, Crane. Christianity has also brought positives to the world as well. You cannot really judge the whole by the few.
Spare me the word "hate."
Everybody not wearing a hood is aware of how often today's version of radical Christians use the word "hate" reflexsively whenever they encounter the least criticism. According to your lights, one either embraces fully your religious creed or is guilty of hating it. One hears it from you, Rich, and and of the assorted, livid eyed, yadda yadda tv Christian mega generals.
This inappropriate thinking stems from the base structure of your belief system--one of totality, extremism, total inflexibility.
That part I do hate--it insults my intellect, as indeed does every other totalitarian-oriented, either/or philosophy which presents itself to me.
Instead of your emotional defensiveness, you might address the notion of 'proselytizing,' which was the point.
I'll start again. Why do you think that, because certain Christians proselytize while almost all other religions do not, and while cults do, the whole business should not own up to a certain degree of cultism exactly because of the result of this singular comparison?
As I have a thousand times on this and other boards, I remind all that when I refer to such Christians, I do not refer to ALL Christians in America. That is another assumption that you and your radical ilk are guilty of--disagreeing with any single fact of any of the general Christian creed means that one hates the entire religion.
-
I'll start again. Why do you think that, because certain Christians proselytize while almost all other religions do not, and while cults do, the whole business should not own up to a certain degree of cultism exactly because of the result of this singular comparison?
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
This is a false premise.
Most of the big ones do proselytize , that is how they get big.
Yes I have had Buddists come to my door , it was a very rare experience and it was a long time ago.
Most Christians are aware of their duty to witness but are content to stand ready and witness on ocasions that strike them as appropriate , this isn't easy to do, but it is a lot easyer than being a missionary.
Of course we almost all contribute to missions , but "missions" is a concept , one of my favoriate missions is a local one , one of our churches posts a sign that women should bring their car in for an oil change , while the men of the church are under her car , the women of the church serve refreshments.
-
>>Really? Manchester was bombed in 1996. The Omagh bombing was 15 August 1998. I'm fairly sure that wasn't 600 years ago.<<
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
Again, Ireland's "troubles" aren't religious in nature. The Republic of Ireland isn't trying to convert Protestants To Catholicism by force. Do you understand the difference now?
-
Anyone who isn't a drooling liberal zombie knows what Islam says about those of us who aren't down with Muhammad. But once again, we're treated to the template. It's almost funny if it weren't so twisted.
I think the point here is that they're not going to knock on your door to give you pamphlets.
No, they'll just kill you if you don't subscribe to thier religion. Hmmm, I wonder which is more devastating?
Wow. I'm just amazed that I survived living in an Islamic country for a year. They must have missed me when they were searching out non-Muslims to kill. ::)
-
<<Wow. I'm just amazed that I survived living in an Islamic country for a year. They must have missed me when they were searching out non-Muslims to kill.>>
LOL. We are very good friends with a couple a little older than we are, the husband is an Eastern European Jew and the wife is from a large Jewish Iranian family whose ancestors have lived in Iran for centuries. "They" must have missed a lot of people for a very long period of time.
During the time our friend's family was living and growing in Iran, Jews in Spain and Portugal were either hiding from the Inquisition or burning at the stake, being burned alive in their homes during various European pogroms, or beaten to death by mobs, often rushing straight out of church after listening to the usual Easter sermons about how the "perfidious Jews" killed their so-called "god," hiding all over Europe from the Germans or sucking down Zyklon B in a German gas chamber. The Religion of Peace and the people who were raised up in it were really working overtime.
What is really surprising to me in all this anti-Muslim bigotry is not so much the pure ignorance of it, but how people raised in the Christian faith and supposedly all its teachings are apparently oblivious to one of the few things in it that make any sense at all, the admonition that you are keen to point out the mote in the other's eye while ignoring the log in your own. That a Christian can point an accusatory finger at ANY other religion has always amazed me. The sheer fucking gall of it!
-
>>Really? Manchester was bombed in 1996. The Omagh bombing was 15 August 1998. I'm fairly sure that wasn't 600 years ago.<<
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
Again, Ireland's "troubles" aren't religious in nature. The Republic of Ireland isn't trying to convert Protestants To Catholicism by force. Do you understand the difference now?
So then we can discount all the "terrorism" in Iraq, which is really just sectarian violence as it was in Northern Ireland.
Though I find it interesting that you believe that the attackers came from The Republic (they did not) and that The Troubles had nothing to do with religion. What do you think the bogside was about? What was the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland for?
You might also note that Manchester isn't in Ireland or Northern Ireland and tell the people whose lives were shattered that they weren't victims of terrorism.
Now, does the Professor, Rich, Sirs, or Plane have the guts to answer my question?
How many people have died from international terrorism according to our very own State Department?
-
>>Really? Manchester was bombed in 1996. The Omagh bombing was 15 August 1998. I'm fairly sure that wasn't 600 years ago.<<
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense?
Again, Ireland's "troubles" aren't religious in nature. The Republic of Ireland isn't trying to convert Protestants To Catholicism by force. Do you understand the difference now?
Now, does the Professor, Rich, Sirs, or Plane have the guts to answer my question?
How many people have died from international terrorism according to our very own State Department?
If I understand your question, you are asking "How many people have died from international terrorism according to our very own State Department?"
If thisis the case, I am not really sure what you mean. Can you please clarify?
-
I seem to remember that many Jews in the early stages of WWII said idientifcal things about "rumors of cleansing". They found, as we might, that sticking your head in the sand is NOT an an effective tactic. This pacificism I continually sense in your posts, JS, do not serve you or anyone well. PAcificsm can lead to its own path to death and destruction and then you are left with "Gee, I never dreamed it would be like this!"
I respectfully disagree with this approach. Think: the Allies placating Hitler before WWII, as an example, of executing a policy of too much pacificism can lead to worse ultimate results.
Do you know what else the Nazis did Professor?
They exaggerated threats to the country to spur nationalism and they demonized pacifists. Yet, that aspect of Nazism is often overlooked in America, Australia, and other ex-colonies.
Let me cite you some examples:
"Nov.29, In Wadenberg, Germany, a court has taken parents away from their children because they refused to teach them Nazi ideology. The parents are pacifists, members of a Christian sect called International Bible Researchers. The court accused them of creating an environment where the children would grow up 'enemies of the state.' The children were delivered into the state's care.
"The judge delivered a lengthy statement reading in part, 'The law as a racial and national instrument entrusts German parents with the education of their children only under certain conditions, namely, that they educate them in the fashion that the nation and state expect.'"
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Hermann Goering
In the 1930s Remarque's books were banned in Germany by the government. All Quiet on the Western Front and The Road Back were among the works consigned to be publicly burnt in 1933 by the Nazis. Stores were ordered to stop selling his books. The film's premiere was disrupted by Nazi gangs; Remarque was accused of pacifism.
-
If I understand your question, you are asking "How many people have died from international terrorism according to our very own State Department?"
If thisis the case, I am not really sure what you mean. Can you please clarify?
The U.S. State Department prints a report on deaths due to international terrorism around the world. I'm asking how many died in a recent year. The largest number on record was in 2001 (three guesses as to why) and it was a bit over 3000 people. That number has fallen since then.
But I'd like to see a chart of the deaths over the past decade or so. Then we can use some facts and real data compared with the doom and gloom you and others here are presenting us with.
-
I seem to remember that many Jews in the early stages of WWII said idientifcal things about "rumors of cleansing". They found, as we might, that sticking your head in the sand is NOT an an effective tactic. This pacificism I continually sense in your posts, JS, do not serve you or anyone well. PAcificsm can lead to its own path to death and destruction and then you are left with "Gee, I never dreamed it would be like this!"
I respectfully disagree with this approach. Think: the Allies placating Hitler before WWII, as an example, of executing a policy of too much pacificism can lead to worse ultimate results.
Do you know what else the Nazis did Professor?
They exaggerated threats to the country to spur nationalism and they demonized pacifists. Yet, that aspect of Nazism is often overlooked in America, Australia, and other ex-colonies.
Let me cite you some examples:
"Nov.29, In Wadenberg, Germany, a court has taken parents away from their children because they refused to teach them Nazi ideology. The parents are pacifists, members of a Christian sect called International Bible Researchers. The court accused them of creating an environment where the children would grow up 'enemies of the state.' The children were delivered into the state's care.
"The judge delivered a lengthy statement reading in part, 'The law as a racial and national instrument entrusts German parents with the education of their children only under certain conditions, namely, that they educate them in the fashion that the nation and state expect.'"
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Hermann Goering
In the 1930s Remarque's books were banned in Germany by the government. All Quiet on the Western Front and The Road Back were among the works consigned to be publicly burnt in 1933 by the Nazis. Stores were ordered to stop selling his books. The film's premiere was disrupted by Nazi gangs; Remarque was accused of pacifism.
I know, JS, but how does that invalidate my statement?
-
If I understand your question, you are asking "How many people have died from international terrorism according to our very own State Department?"
If thisis the case, I am not really sure what you mean. Can you please clarify?
The U.S. State Department prints a report on deaths due to international terrorism around the world. I'm asking how many died in a recent year. The largest number on record was in 2001 (three guesses as to why) and it was a bit over 3000 people. That number has fallen since then.
But I'd like to see a chart of the deaths over the past decade or so. Then we can use some facts and real data compared with the doom and gloom you and others here are presenting us with.
Good thought. I do not know the numbers either.
Doom and gloom? Well, I am not sure about that. I do believe that radical Islam IS a danger to the West, primarily because the West is too comfortable being who and what they are. Living peacebly with Islamic neighbors is no problem; I've done that before. I have a neighbor who is a Mormon one that is a Jehovah's Witness and that works fine too. But then again, I cannot remember when Mormons or JW's destroyed buildings like the World Trade Center either.
-
Because this could just as easily be an extreme exaggeration of the situation as opposed to a case of sticking one's head in the sand about Islam. I have yet to read anything that leads me to believe that all of Islam is dangerous and there is a rising tide of a coming war against Islam.
Remember, during the Cold War the evangelical eschatology of choice was an armageddon against the great peril of communism. ;)
-
Well, I guess only time will tell...
However, if Islamic terrorists do another 9-11, will you still be this complacent?
-
Well, I guess only time will tell...
However, if Islamic terrorists do another 9-11, will you still be this complacent?
Don't confuse calm analysis for complacence. Similarly, don't confuse knee-jerk reactions for positive action.
-
Deal.
-
Don't confuse calm analysis for complacence.
specifically what would you do to counter and respond to another 9/11?
-
Don't confuse calm analysis for complacence.
specifically what would you do to counter and respond to another 9/11?
I'd use my jedi mind powers to defeat terrorism.
-
"I'd use my jedi mind powers to defeat terrorism"
exactly what I thought
-
<<specifically what would you do to counter and respond to another 9/11?>>
I'd urge my political representatives to get all Americans out of Iraq in the next sixty days with or without their equipment, pay major war crimes reparations to the Iraqi people, adopt a fair and balanced policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian question and pull out support for dictatorships such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait unless they show real and immediate progress towards democracy. I'd make sure that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Woflowicz, Feith, Powell and others went on trial before the International Court of Justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, plotting and waging a war of unprovoked aggression and generally show that when America preaches a world of obedience to law, it means a world of obedience to law.
And if I couldn't do all of those things, then I'd triple airport, border and harbour security, stay away from large crowds and public transportation and tell my kids to avoid the big cities.
-
Don't confuse calm analysis for complacence.
specifically what would you do to counter and respond to another 9/11?
I'd use my jedi mind powers to defeat terrorism.
Funny, but do you have any ideas? If so, I would like to hear them.
-
<<Wow. I'm just amazed that I survived living in an Islamic country for a year. They must have missed me when they were searching out non-Muslims to kill.>>
LOL. We are very good friends with a couple a little older than we are, the husband is an Eastern European Jew and the wife is from a large Jewish Iranian family whose ancestors have lived in Iran for centuries. "They" must have missed a lot of people for a very long period of time.
During the time our friend's family was living and growing in Iran, Jews in Spain and Portugal were either hiding from the Inquisition or burning at the stake, being burned alive in their homes during various European pogroms, or beaten to death by mobs, often rushing straight out of church after listening to the usual Easter sermons about how the "perfidious Jews" killed their so-called "god," hiding all over Europe from the Germans or sucking down Zyklon B in a German gas chamber. The Religion of Peace and the people who were raised up in it were really working overtime.
What is really surprising to me in all this anti-Muslim bigotry is not so much the pure ignorance of it, but how people raised in the Christian faith and supposedly all its teachings are apparently oblivious to one of the few things in it that make any sense at all, the admonition that you are keen to point out the mote in the other's eye while ignoring the log in your own. That a Christian can point an accusatory finger at ANY other religion has always amazed me. The sheer fucking gall of it!
The truth about religion is that it is separatist by nature.
We can speculate in here about the various tenets of each religion, and sign on or off on how each single aspect or verse of each religion hits us in terms of truth, trust, validity. But this is a discussion board designed for that very purpose.
But you won't get that on the street.
In today's American religions, especially the ones who stay on the front page, what you have are people who are not by their very nature rigid to the teeth, but because many of the teachings of each one demands that they "have no other God before me" they become rigid because they have been taught that.
Religion is without, putting in. I find that spiritually a contradiction. In religion, it is from without that your decisions about what is significant to God are made. In religion, you are rarely called upon to think. Conversely, to illustate the opposite, the current rightwing fundamentalists spend a lot of time talking about the salient need for being obedient. I would bet the rent that if you channel surfed on next Sunday, one of the coxcombed would be drastically intoning the despicable sin of being disobedient. In psychology, it is called reinforcement.
It is the very nature of religions to find bugaboos to point to because then they can save you from the horrors of those who stray from their organized thought. In codependency, it is called creating a crisis so you can solve it.
I honestly think that if the perfect scenario would work--open discussion, openness to new ideas, broad subject study--it would come from the dark side--the liberals. The capacity to start a new religion--one of crystalized verity born of exchanged thought and a million offerings of opinion and tried and true existing universal elements of metaphysics--is perfect, time wise; the internet could provide the very forum necessary for developing one.
But it won't happen. There won't be a newly created religion that will grow and spread. This is because the rightwing element has already gained more than you might think they have. As it stands now, they control the common room, implicitly, by their ready passion, their emotional smouldering, and above all, their license-to-kill confidence. Rarely in any room is the noisy one not one of them.
Almost any approach to honest discussion about religion would have you seeing, surrounding you, a gathered crowd (who only came to debate) suddenly let their shoulders droop noticably at the first syllable of a truly open discussion, knowing that the rightwing religions are all about to explode about it.
We don't discuss religion with them because we know them by their manners--we know that they will sneer and shout us down. We also know if we remain too long, deferring, suspicions about us and Satan will emerge. In their own enclave, they see themselves as mirrors full of lambs, but to the rest of us who are exposed to their bristling disapproval, they are simply potentially dangerous because of their smite-happy tyranny.
-
<<specifically what would you do to counter and respond to another 9/11?>>
I'd urge my political representatives to get all Americans out of Iraq in the next sixty days with or without their equipment, pay major war crimes reparations to the Iraqi people, adopt a fair and balanced policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian question and pull out support for dictatorships such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait unless they show real and immediate progress towards democracy. I'd make sure that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Woflowicz, Feith, Powell and others went on trial before the International Court of Justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, plotting and waging a war of unprovoked aggression and generally show that when America preaches a world of obedience to law, it means a world of obedience to law.
And if I couldn't do all of those things, then I'd triple airport, border and harbour security, stay away from large crowds and public transportation and tell my kids to avoid the big cities.
I liked JS Jedhi powers better , more likely to be effective.
-
<<We don't discuss religion with them because we know them by their manners--we know that they will sneer and shout us down. We also know if we remain too long, deferring, suspicions about us and Satan will emerge. In their own enclave, they see themselves as mirrors full of lambs, but to the rest of us who are exposed to their bristling disapproval, they are simply potentially dangerous because of their smite-happy tyranny.>>
I discuss religion with any and all of them because I know I can win every time. Religion - - any religion - - is pure ignorance, but some are more stupid than others. Regardless, I have never lost an argument with a religious person. Usually, they find an excuse to terminate the discussion if they want to save face, another technique is to refer to some obscure religious tract and try to leave it with me, claiming it will answer all my questions. However, if you want to know the reason for the love of violence that seems to infect the religious right, it is frustration: they know they can't win an argument with an informed opponent if logic and fact are the deciding factors, so violence is really the only option they have to defend their POV.
I believe there is no short-term solution to the problem of religious thinking. It is obviously due to ignorance but the ignorance is deeply ingrained and people have formed emotional attachments to their delusions. I think over time, as long as there is freedom of speech, education will slowly dissolve religious thinking and one day people will regard religion they way they regard any other outmoded belief system - - the same sort of bemused contempt that we now feel if informed that our ancestors once practiced cannibalism or human sacrifice as a matter of course. Yeah? THAT'S what people REALLY thought?
-
I have never lost an argument with a religious person.
You haven't or can't?
Who was it who said a Fanatic can't change his mind and won't change the subjet.
"...the same sort of bemused contempt that we now feel if informed that our ancestors once practiced cannibalism or human sacrifice or communism...."
Lets not be contemptuous of people , I hope that the future includes some people who have a minor humility to realise that they are the same sort of creature as we are and our ancestors were , an overlay of new knoledge does not change the basic nature of our creature.
-
<<You haven't [lost an argument with a religious person] or can't?>>
Haven't so far.
<<Lets not be contemptuous of people , I hope that the future includes some people who have a minor humility to realise that they are the same sort of creature as we are and our ancestors were , an overlay of new knoledge does not change the basic nature of our creature.>>
Please. I did say a bemused contempt. That is not the same as merely contemptuous. We will know that we are much smarter than our backward ancestors but will not despise them for their backwardness, we will smile at it.
<<Who was it who said a Fanatic can't change his mind and won't change the subjet.>>
I dunno. Let's change the subject.
-
<<specifically what would you do to counter and respond to another 9/11?>>
I'd urge my political representatives to get all Americans out of Iraq in the next sixty days with or without their equipment, pay major war crimes reparations to the Iraqi people, adopt a fair and balanced policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian question and pull out support for dictatorships such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait unless they show real and immediate progress toward democracy. I'd make sure that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Perle, Woflowicz, Feith, Powell and others went on trial before the International Court of Justice for war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture, plotting and waging a war of unprovoked aggression and generally show that when America preaches a world of obedience to law, it means a world of obedience to law.
And if I couldn't do all of those things, then I'd triple airport, border and harbor security, stay away from large crowds and public transportation and tell my kids to avoid the big cities.
Just my feeling, but I sense all this wouldn't make a difference, MT, because you fail to note that the real reason they HATE us is that they are JEALOUS of our success. This is why millions want to come here. If we did all you mention, it still wouldn't matter; they would still HATE us and try to gut us every chance they could. So, the real issue is: Do we disengage and come back here anyway since they aren't doing anything for us and watch them cut each other to pieces (as in Shia veruss Sunni and so on) or stay and try to slow their descent into anarchy while watching them closer in case they are contemplating evil in our direction?
-
Do we disengage and come back here anyway since they aren't doing anything for us and watch them cut each other to pieces (as in Shia veruss Sunni and so on) or stay and try to slow their descent into anarchy while watching them closer in case they are contemplating evil in our direction?
I'm guessing Tee's not going to have any problem with whatever evil they throw in our direction, because basically America "has it coming" with their own evil ways, illegal wars, & fascist policies :-\
-
What this fails to take into account, that Canada will feel their wrath as well, because, whether he likes it or not, Canada and the U.S. are interwined. A friend of mine was bon in Egypt and now lives over here in Ohio. I discussed this isue with him a couple of years ago and he said people in Egypt really do not care to distinquish between us and Canada and for that matter, Great Britain. They basically see us an one entity. So, Canada' past actions such as divesting itself from nuclear weaponry is and will come to naught. It is only a wimp's way out, a "head in the sand" approach. All Canada does is implicity rely upon our nuclear shield if the wosr comes, whether they admit it or not.
-
To be honest, I don't think it would matter (if Canada got a bit of whatever evil was directed at America), so long as America gets it primarily, and gets it good. His desire, via his rhetoric, to see heaping upon heaping of misery upon the U.S., by these boys with balls is almost tangible. I'd wager that he's likely going to be one of those jumping up and down in glee, with the next 911 that hits us
-
The Professor:
<<Just my feeling, but I sense all this wouldn't make a difference, MT, because you fail to note that the real reason they HATE us is that they are JEALOUS of our success.>>
EXACTLY, Professor, it's "just your feeling." My feeling, for what it's worth, is that they have plenty of good reasons to hate you, as I enumerated. Moreover, Iraqis - - in the days before Uncle Sam egged Saddam Hussein on into attacking Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, had a very good standard of living, with a liberal, secular, Western life-style and all medical and educational expenses paid from cradle to grave. They had little if any reason to envy the U.S.A. for its material success, nor did the Saudis who actually carried out the September 11 attacks.
sirs:
<<To be honest, I don't think it would matter (if Canada got a bit of whatever evil was directed at America), so long as America gets it primarily, and gets it good. His desire, via his rhetoric, to see heaping upon heaping of misery upon the U.S., by these boys with balls is almost tangible. I'd wager that he's likely going to be one of those jumping up and down in glee, with the next 911 that hits us>>
Lemme see, I've got family in Detroit, Allentown, Washington DC, Seattle, Brookline, Mass., Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, friends in Chicago, South Florida, Palm Springs, friends' children in Raleigh NC, NYC and Atlanta, family in Ann Arbor and Jackson Michigan; not counting my two grandchildren, my daughter and her husband in Manhattan. But this fucking moron thinks I'll be jumping up and down with glee when the shit hits the fan. Fuck you, my friend. You need to grow a brain.
I'll jump up and down with glee whenever your military gets the ass-kicking it richly deserves and even more when it finally has to pull out in ignominious defeat with no victory.
-
I've got family in Detroit, Allentown, Washington DC, Seattle, Brookline, Mass., Dallas, Los Angeles, San Diego, friends in Chicago, South Florida, Palm Springs, friends' children in Raleigh NC, NYC and Atlanta, family in Ann Arbor and Jackson Michigan; not counting my two grandchildren, my daughter and her husband in Manhattan
So, if it's in any other locale you don't have any family/friends, then all will be just peachy. Is that what we can pull from your comment?, since that's largely my point.
I'll jump up and down with glee whenever your military gets the ass-kicking (meaning as much death and carnage as possible) it richly deserves and even more when it finally has to pull out in ignominious defeat with no victory.
Kinda helps make my point. Thanks
-
<<So, if it's in any other locale you don't have any family/friends, then all will be just peachy. Is that what we can pull from your comment?>>
No, it would NOT be "just peachy." You must really be some kind of moron to believe that. For that to be "just peachy," I would have to believe that in a nation of 300 million Americans, only my friends and family are decent enough to be spared Arab revenge, and everyone else (including the members of this group) is just an expendable, worthless piece of shit. Including many fine Americans we have met on our travels and don't even know where they live.
<<since that's largely my point.>>
Really, sirs, doesn't say much for your point, does it?
I<<Kinda helps make my point [that I, [Tee] 'll jump up and down with glee whenever your military gets the ass-kicking (sirs adds: meaning as much death and carnage as possible) it richly deserves and even more when it finally has to pull out in ignominious defeat with no victory.]. Thanks.
What point would that be? That the U.S. Army has the God-given right to invade any sovereign state without lawful justification in flagrant violation of the UN Charter any time it chooses without being soundly thrashed for its criminal war of aggression? Kind of a stupid point, IMHO, and I wasn't really helping you make it, but if you're stupid enough to want to make a point like that I guess you're stupid enough to think I was helping you make it. So, you're welcome.
-
<<So, if it's in any other locale you don't have any family/friends, then all will be just peachy. Is that what we can pull from your comment?>>
No, it would NOT be "just peachy." You must really be some kind of moron to believe that. For that to be "just peachy," I would have to believe that in a nation of 300 million Americans, only my friends and family are decent enough to be spared Arab revenge, and everyone else (including the members of this group) is just an expendable, worthless piece of shit.
That's sure the inferrence I get. Why wouldn't you simply have said "no, I wouldn't want to see another 911 occur in the U.S. Not on your life". But know, you simply brought up family and close friends, and the particlar areas they life in. Your words, not mine. Try to be more clear next time, if you wished no further terrorist attacks on the U.S.
<<since that's largely my point {That the U.S. needs to suffer heavy loss of life within their military ranks.}>>
Really, sirs, doesn't say much for your point, does it?
I<<Kinda helps make my point [that I, [Tee] 'll jump up and down with glee whenever your military gets the ass-kicking (sirs adds: meaning as much death and carnage as possible) it richly deserves and even more when it finally has to pull out in ignominious defeat with no victory.]. Thanks.
What point would that be?
Answered already. Massive U.S. casualties with their ass getting kicked.
-
<<Answered already. Massive U.S. casualties with their ass getting kicked.>>
Exactly what they deserve. Might make 'em think twice before they invade another country in violation of international law.
-
(http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r58/vermilion8/political/prop4.jpg)
-
I got a better poster, but I'm not too good at drawing dogs.
It's "Whoever You Elect, HE'LL Run Out With His Tail Between His Legs Just Like His Daddy Did in Nam."
(picture of a mutt with a U.S. helmet scampering out of the frame)
-
<<Answered already. Massive U.S. casualties with their ass getting kicked.>>
Exactly what they deserve.
Thank you. Not sure why all the run-around
-
hence the partial ban on stem-cell research,
What part of the research has been banned?
the continuing push to ban women's free choice on abortion
I thought they were fighting for the right of the child to live.
-
<<What part of the [stem-cell] research has been banned?>>
the part that would have gone ahead had federal funding been available
<<Quote from: Michael Tee on August 16, 2007, 09:54:16 AM
<<"the continuing push to ban women's free choice on abortion""
<<I thought they were fighting for the right of the child to live.>>
Kinda hard to think of a lump of cells hooked up to an amniotic sac as a "child" but I guess if you're a conservative it's as easy to torture the language as it is to torture a prisoner.
-
the part that would have gone ahead had federal funding been available
So, it was not banned, but just not funded by the government? In that how they "ban" things in Canada? Didn't the research go on? Seems to me I read a number of stories posted by Lanya about that "banned" research which continued...
Kinda hard to think of a lump of cells hooked up to an amniotic sac as a "child" but I guess if you're a conservative it's as easy to torture the language as it is to torture a prisoner.
Then one wonders why killing a pregnant woman usually results in two charges of murder - if it's not a child?
As soon as I found out my wife was pregnant, I considered it my child. I wept over the miscarriages as well.
So, exactly what point does it stop being a "lump of cells" and become a child?
-
<<So, it was not banned, but just not funded by the government? In that how they "ban" things in Canada? Didn't the research go on? Seems to me I read a number of stories posted by Lanya about that "banned" research which continued...>>
You're right, de-funding isn't the same as banning. My mistake. However, de-funding or refusing funding to otherwise valid research projects on religious grounds is just plain nuts. It's giving the loudest crackpots in the asylum a potential veto over scientific progress. Anytime religion interferes with good science is a bad day for science. Science has to conform to ethcal and humanitarian limits on what it can do, but religious limits? Gimme a break!
<<Then one wonders why killing a pregnant woman usually results in two charges of murder - if it's not a child?>>
I don't think it does in Canada or England. Only in America. And the answer to your question is because you are allowing the religious fruitcakes to interfere in your legal system as much as they do in your educational and scientific systems. Just another sign of America's decline in the world. Get a grip or in few generations you'll have a Taliban-like society to go along with your Third World status.
<<As soon as I found out my wife was pregnant, I considered it my child. I wept over the miscarriages as well.>>
With all due respect, weeping over something doesn't make it human. I wept when MY wife miscarried and that was after about four years of trying to conceive. I believe the weeping is for the loss of what might have been. That "lump of cells" had the potential to become a real child. That potential died with the miscarriage.
<<So, exactly what point does it stop being a "lump of cells" and become a child?>>
When you can hold the little guy in your arms and give him or her a kiss.
-
When you can hold the little guy in your arms and give him or her a kiss.
So, a premature baby that cannot be handled because of possible infection is not human?
-
Who says you can't handle a premature baby AND avoid infection? They keep the baby in a sterile incubator and the parents reach in with rubber gloves that are a part of the apparatus. I've done it. Even Americans can, if they've got insurance.
-
And kiss the top of the incubator?
-
Well, they met half of my criteria, so maybe you'd like to make them half-human? I like to keep things simple, and an either-or classification seems to work for me. But feel free to classify them any way you like.
-
I like to keep things simple, and an either-or classification seems to work for me. But feel free to classify them any way you like.
I have. And I consider conception to be the beginning of life. It's a simple either-or classification, and unlike yours, is not arbitrary.
-
If the eternal goal of Islam has always been to spread itself throughout the world by force, then how is it that it has not even succeeded in vanquishing an idolatrous society like that of Hindo India in a period of over a thousand years?
The US cannot defeat Islam, just as no one can destroy Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism or any other religion. Declaring war on a world religion will only produce martyrs, and is even dumber than declaring war on an abstract npoun such as terror or drugs.
The main thing that this clown refuses to recognize is that Al Qaeda and the so-called Islamic fundamentalists are on the defensive. Islam today is about in the same position as Catholicism was in the early 1500's: the fanaticism and intolerance is seriously threatened and inevitably doomed, not by the ersatz "war on terror", but by modern technology. There can and will be no economic development in the Islamic world - at least the part of it that is not oozing oil money, like Qatar, the UAE and Brunei, without an abandonment of the restriction against investing money at interest, and eventually inconveniences like prayers five times per day and banning women from the workplace.
Al Qaeda has accomplished relatively nothing while on the offensive: 3000 people killed in 9-11, several hundred more in bombings here and there are nowhere near normal traffic fatalities, even though they have provided a lot of ammo for the deprivation of the rights of hundreds of millions in the US and other countries and the utterly silly and mismanaged war in Iraq.
The only thing greater in incompetence than Osama in destroying the West is Juniorbush's bungling the only war that had a raison d'etre: the one in Afghanistan, which COULD and SHOULD have been won years ago, save for the toitla incompetence of Juniorbush and Cheney.
Most Moslems simply want progress and to be left the Hell alone to achieve it on their own terms. Intervention is counter productive.
-
<<And I consider conception to be the beginning of life. It's a simple either-or classification, and unlike yours, is not arbitrary.>>
No doubt conception is the beginning of life, but I thought the issue was when does cell life become human life? Because in the real world, no woman is going to sacrifice what she sees as her future for a single cell or a collection of cells, whereas a mother will sacrifice everything for her child.
Simple is good. Simplistic, not so good. Your argument is simplistic, not simple.
-
No doubt conception is the beginning of life, but I thought the issue was when does cell life become human life? Because in the real world, no woman is going to sacrifice what she sees as her future for a single cell or a collection of cells, whereas a mother will sacrifice everything for her child.
Simple is good. Simplistic, not so good. Your argument is simplistic, not simple.
Would you like some references to situations where mothers sacrificed lots - in some cases their lives - so that their unborn child (aka "collection of cells") could live?
Perhaps it's not as simplistic as you suggest?
-
I would say that for the purposes of discussing abortion, we can say that the fetus becomes human when the mother thinks it is, provided that it is between the moment of conception and a minute or so before birth. It is none of anyone else's business when it takes place, and no woman should have to have a child unless she wishes to.
Any other opinion is an intrusion upon the rights of the mother.
What exactly do you anti-abortionists plan to do in the event of an "illegal" abortion, anyway? Arrest the would-be mother? Arrest the doctor? Perhaps both?
What punishment do you purpose for a doctor and a woman who disagree with you about that child that is not yours and never will be? Why is it important for you gaboons to deprive a woman of her opinion and her rights, anyway?
It's real simple: if you don't believe in abortion, do not have one.
It is none of your business if it isn't going to be your kid.
-
Why is it important for you gaboons to deprive a woman of her opinion and her rights, anyway?
Perhaps the "gaboon" is the person that assumes anyone that is pro-life is also trying to outlaw abortion.
It is none of your business if it isn't going to be your kid.
One of the problems many people have is that the current law also deprives the father of his rights regarding his offspring.
-
Okay, so if you outlaw aboortions, WHAT IS THE PENALTY?
Suppose a fifteen year old girl gets knocked up and her parents get her an abortion.
Would you try all of them and the doctor for murder? Is there a death penalty proposed here, or would a life sentence for the four of them be okay for the "murder" of an unborn "child"?
If not, what do you propose?
-
Okay, so if you outlaw aboortions, WHAT IS THE PENALTY?
I'm not suggesting outlawing abortions. Please don't use strawman arguments.
-
<<Would you like some references to situations where mothers sacrificed lots - in some cases their lives - so that their unborn child (aka "collection of cells") could live?>>
What could it possibly prove? I acknowledge that mothers feel an attachment to their unborn children. The question is the strength and universality of the attachment. Ask any mother who has lost a child in utero whether her attachment to the lost fetus is as strong as her attachment to her living children. And while almost all mothers would sacrifice for a child already born and living, a whole lot less make the kind of sacrifices you're talking about for their fetus.
We waited six years for our first child, and when my wife was about four or five months into her pregnancy, she began spotting. The doctor ordered bed rest. We couldn't travel to Montreal for the World's Fair (Expo 67) which was also a celebration of Canada's 100th birthday. We were glad to make that small sacrifice and would have gladly sacrificed lots more in order to have that baby. The loss of that child would have crushed us. But let's not kid ourselves - - the "baby" at the time was a collection of cells; as much as we loved it, it was not a human being with rights of its own. It was my wife's decision and hers alone whether that mass of cells would mature and ripen into a human being or not. Once the baby was born, of course, that was no longer my wife's decision to make.
I can tell you, if that fetus had been the 12th or 13th and we were at our wits' end (financially speaking) with no desire to become parents for the 13th or 14th time, that fetus could easily have been sacrificed. Only a lunatic would have considered it a human being with human rights. It had no thoughts, no feelings and no memories except of the most rudimentary kind as for example an invertebrate might have had. I don't like to kill invertebrates either, but I sure as hell wouldn't let the future course of my life be determined by the life or death of an invertebrate and nobody has the right to force any woman to do so either, unless it's entirely of her own free will.
I will always be amazed and dumbfounded by the way that conservatives can in one breath defend the right to life of a fetus, and at the same time accept the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as justified in order to bring them "democracy." Something is seriously out of whack in their pointy little heads.
-
Only a lunatic would have considered it a human being with human rights. It had no thoughts, no feelings and no memories except of the most rudimentary kind as for example an invertebrate might have had.
You make this claim as if it's a fact. I suppose you have some supporting evidence?
-
do these people actually believe an abortion is ok and should legal be for any reason at 8.5 months?
-
<<You make this claim as if it's a fact. I suppose you have some supporting evidence?>>
Well, who the hell really knows, eh? In the 60s or 70s, some wacko claimed that even plants have feelings and an orange feels the pain of being peeled. I mean, anything is possible. All things considered, it's probably better not to kill the fetus than to kill it. But it's really up to the woman. I might feel differently about it if our society showed any real reverence for life, but you gotta admit, faced with the joy that most conservatives feel over the slaughter of "terrorists" in Iraq and the almost visible hard-ons they get when discussing what would happen if the U.S. cast loose all restraints and nuked their most annoying enemies, it's just a really annoying hypocrisy to read all this "reverence for life" coming from "conservative" politicians and critics.