Defeat Tehran not with bombs but with culture

[Christians4LessGvt]

Plane, thanks for the great video.
Very interesting.

If you get a chance watch this video too:
(may take a couple of minutes to load)

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1753.htm

[Xavier_Onassis]

The best was the Iranian professor who examines the Tom and Jerry cartoons, which he claims were made by the "Jewish" Walt Disney company to change the way that Europeans regarded mice, which was necessary because Jews were called "dirty mice".

Except the Walt Disney was not Jewish.
Tom & Jerry was a Walter Lantz Looney Tunes cartoon, and not made by Walt Disney.

Mice are not particularly clever. though rats are very clever.

I seriously doubt that Tom and Jerry ever made anyone less anti-mouse or pro-Semitic.

I don't think Mickey Mouse or Mighty Mouse or even Topo Gigio caused any Europeans to cherish their household mice.

It is true that Jews were called mice. That is the basis for Art Spiegelman's graphic novel about the Holocaust, Maus.

I have a lesser opinion of Persian scholarship after watching this.

The Hamas puppet show was definitely third-rate.

[Maccus Germanis]

most Muslims are not pedophiles

Not even in mo's time were most muslims pedophiles. But this paragon of muslim virtue, mo', did, according to islamic sources, consumate marriage with a nine year old girl. How can this be other than a corrupting influence upon what we think are, or could be, otherwise good people?

and are not in anything resembling a state of war with infidels and heathens.

That is demonstrably untrue. Whether by their own will or not, the societies that muslims do live in, do regularly kill apostates and finance overseas attacks upon foreign infidels. How many "moderate" muslims do you suppose would give to a charity that promised to build hospitals in the West Bank? Many did in fact, only the money went to Hamas.

This verse in is in Deuteronomy 21:18-21

That does not fully answer, "where" Christians are called to do this. This law is quite harsh, but is also quite limited to Israel. As most Christians are already "outside of the gates of the city," were never born Jews, and are quite aware that Jesus did say that he'd come to "fulfill" the law, where are Christians called to extrapolate this as a model to be emulated "outside the gates," by all peoples, and in contrast to Christ's peaceful model?

If you'd not intended to suggest that islam and Chrisitanity were the same, then why invite the comparison? Because, "both have a goodly share of wacko nonsense?" That is nothing but an invitation for hypocritical Christians to extend their hypocrisy to muslims, of course without calling it hypocrisy.

I would sooner call Billy Graham an apostate for love of the limelight than for compassion. I see no fundamental contrast between compassion and Christ's model. I do see a fundamental difference between a supposed prophet that raised the dead and another that destroyed the living.

[Maccus Germanis]

That would be your opinion based on, apparently, your opinion of Islam. This is sort of like saying, Protestants exist but only as not fully submitted Catholics. I just don't buy the argument, particularly since I've listened to Muslims argue that there are interpretations of their scriptures that are not in line with the fundamentalist Muslims teachings of Islamic extremists.

In fact any church that calls itself "Protestant" does do so to differentiate intself from Catholicism. But neither "Protestant," nor "Catholic" does mean "one who submits." Muslim does mean "one who submits." That which they point to as source materials revealing that which is to be submitted, are koran, hadith, and life of mo'. Your attempted parallel isn't, even of a sort, like what I did say.

However, when you say that you've "listened to Muslims argue that there are interpretations of their scriptures that are not in line with the fundamentalist Muslims teachings of Islamic extremists," I fail to see the distinction from when I did say, "They have attempted to various degrees of success to moderate a decidedly immoderate faith." The question remains, whether you've given those "interpretations" any scrutiny, or was it simply what you'd already knew that you must believe?

One who submits to the will related by the koran, hadith, and life of mo' does reject common law, liberal democracy, and the golden rule. Are these things not important to the Western mind? Or do muslims become Western as they cross the Volga? the Danube? the Rhine?

[Xavier_Onassis]

So, you think all Muslims should be exterminated because Mohammad furgled a 9 year old girl, a few Muslims have killed the odd apostate?

Again, women were treated as chattel in that period. When Lot had a pair of houseguests, the local Sodomites came and wanted Lot to turn them over so they could be buggered. Lot refused, but he did offer his daughter. I don;t imagine that she was all that square with the idea.

So do you have some other solution for the Muslim "problem"?

Excuse me, but a lot of this anti-Muslim stuff sounds remarkable similar to the talk about the Jewish "problem" in Europe in the 1930's.
I suggest that a Hitlerian solution did not work for a paltry 7 or 8 million Jews (there are still a lot of Jews left), and that trying a similar solution with well over a hundred million Muslims would require vastly superior extermination camps. I also believe that even one extermination camp is immoral, but practicality always should be examined before we get into morality.

I am okay with European countries not allowing Muslims to immigrate there or even to the US, if that is what the people desire.

If Hamas were really well financed, I imagine that they'd have a lot better rockets.

[Plane]

"But there are no rental contracts that do not absolutely favor the landlord."


I am a landlord , and I would like to have a contract that would prevent being dumped on by Tenants , under the law they have plenty of time to go and very limited liability.

[Plane]

So, you think all Muslims should be exterminated .....

Straw man ?

[Maccus Germanis]

So, you think all Muslims should be exterminated because Mohammad furgled a 9 year old girl, a few Muslims have killed the odd apostate?

Quote me where I did say anything of the ilk? The implication is offensive and revealing of your complete ignorance on the subject. More than "the odd apostate" has lost their life. Actual people, who are supposed to have been born muslims, have much more at risk than public embarrassment on an online forum.

Again, women were treated as chattel in that period.

Khadijah was not treated as chattel. She owned property and did much to build mo's reputation. The daughters of allah were worshiped before islam. Mo' even made allowance for this in the famous "satanic verses." If you'd read the entirety of the chapter of Deuteronomy that you quoted then you'd know that mo's treatment of captives was already considered unjust. This "lawgiver" did only codify his own peccadilloes.

When Lot had a pair of houseguests, the local Sodomites came and wanted Lot to turn them over so they could be buggered. Lot refused, but he did offer his daughter. I don;t imagine that she was all that square with the idea.

Neither am I square with the idea. Often, I'm told that I'm wrong to impose my values on the time. If values can never be imposed, but where the do already by concensus exist, then they are of no worth. By the way, I think more than one daughter was offered.

Excuse me, but a lot of this anti-Muslim stuff sounds remarkable similar to the talk about the Jewish "problem" in Europe in the 1930's. I suggest that a Hitlerian solution did not work for a paltry 7 or 8 million Jews (there are still a lot of Jews left), and that trying a similar solution with well over a hundred million Muslims would require vastly superior extermination camps. I also believe that even one extermination camp is moral, but practicality always should be examined before we get into morality.

You seem ill equipped to discuss either. You've yet only displayed your willingness to imply that, for objecting to an inherently violent ideology,  I must be a Nazi.

If Hamas were really well financed, I imagine that they'd have a lot better rockets.

I don't believe that most of the munafiq that got the shake down about helping their fellow muslims, were aware that they funded Hamas. Neither do I believe that most Americans realize that the US does now fund Hamas as the elected representation in Gaza. I have no doubt that Hamas would buy more rockets if they were able.

In answer to this

So do you have some other solution for the Muslim "problem"?

and this,

Push people into a corner and say "conform or else", is that really the way to convince people our way is better?

I find the question much better posed and effectively argued here
http://covenantzone.blogspot.com/2007/10/gods-eternal-word-is-human-freedom.html
than I expect those that have already resorted to, "NAZI!" can match.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It seems to me that Islam of the fundamentalist variety is actually on the decline, because it is boring and if followed, it limits progress of many sorts: intellectual, economic and artistic. What we are seeing is a reaction by the fundamentalists to progress pretty much everywhere in the world except the Islamic part, with the exception of the UAE, Qattar and Bahrain.

Just compare Taiwan and Egypt of 1945 with the same two places today. They were equally poor in 1945, and now Taiwan is a modern, democratic first world country and Egypt is still mired in backwardness, poverty and filth. Eventually the world-wide media makes this obvious to the Egyptians and they begin wondering exactly what is holding them back. And, largely, it's Islam. Eventually this will become obvious, as has happened with the Roman Catholic Church, once a great power and influence in France, Italy, Spain and many other places, people just quit listening to the sermons and quit attending. This is the main explanation for Ireland's rapid prosperity.


We are not in a war with Islam, by the way, just because a few apostates are killed or mistreated and a few buildings are destroyed. We certainly are not at war with Bosnians, Kosovars and Turks.

Mohammad was a nasty old warlike fool that just happened to capture the imagination of Arabs way back when, in the same way that those ghastly bloody Crucifixion paintings grabbed the attention of the French, Spanish and Italians once. Now no one pays much attention to such stuff, and I am sure that eventually this is what will happen with islam, if the West has the good sense to not treat this like some sort of holy war.

Invading Iraq was dumb. Sending bazillions of dollars of aid so the Israelis could colonize the West Band was also dumb. Sending US troops to Saudi Arabia and allowing them to pass Arab Bibles around was also dumb. They'd have accomplished more with videos of Baywatch or even Buffy the Vampire Slayer with far fewer repercussions.

[Universe Prince]

In fact any church that calls itself "Protestant" does do so to differentiate intself from Catholicism. But neither "Protestant," nor "Catholic" does mean "one who submits." Muslim does mean "one who submits." That which they point to as source materials revealing that which is to be submitted, are koran, hadith, and life of mo'. Your attempted parallel isn't, even of a sort, like what I did say.

So it's not the same because "Catholic" doesn't mean what "Muslim" means? You've missed the point. The point is not the exact meaning of the word "Catholic" (which I think does in fact apply because it means universal or pertaining to the whole, and even Protestant denominations still generally use the line "holy catholic church" when reciting the Apostles' Creed), rather the point is that differing theological opinions do and can exist within Islam just as differing theological positions exist within Christianity.

However, when you say that you've "listened to Muslims argue that there are interpretations of their scriptures that are not in line with the fundamentalist Muslims teachings of Islamic extremists," I fail to see the distinction from when I did say, "They have attempted to various degrees of success to moderate a decidedly immoderate faith." The question remains, whether you've given those "interpretations" any scrutiny, or was it simply what you'd already knew that you must believe?

You fail to see the distinction, and you're trying to criticize me about scrutinizing what other people say? The faith of Islamic extremists might be immoderate. That does not mean, however, that Islam as a whole and for every Muslim is immoderate. You seem to be insisting that there is one and only one way to interpret the meaning of Muslim scriptures and moderates are therefore somehow distorting true Islam. I doubt very much I can dissuade you, but I will point out that I disagree just as I would disagree with the notion that Martin Luther was apostate for disagreeing with the practices of the Catholic Church.

One who submits to the will related by the koran, hadith, and life of mo' does reject common law, liberal democracy, and the golden rule. Are these things not important to the Western mind? Or do muslims become Western as they cross the Volga? the Danube? the Rhine?
 

Well, as I understand it, there is something in the Koran which is close to the golden rule. "None of you will truly believe until he wishes for his brother that what he wants for himself." Now some Muslims say "brother" means only Muslims. Some say it means everyone. Which only goes to my point that there can be differing theological interpretations. Anyway, I'm left again with the impression that you seem to think there is one and only one way to interpret Muslim scripture. As best I can determine, there is more than one way, and more moderate/liberal Muslims can and have interpreted Muslim scripture in ways that are quite compatible with Western thinking. There is even a Muslim scholar, Khaleel Mohammed, who claims the Koran says Israel belongs to the Jews. So your insistence that Islam and the Western world are necessarily and inherently incompatible is an insistence that seems to be without merit.

[Plane]

You've missed the point. The point is not the exact meaning of the word "Catholic" (which I think does in fact apply because it means universal or pertaining to the whole, and even Protestant denominations still generally use the line "holy catholic church" when reciting the Apostles' Creed), rather the point is that differing theological opinions do and can exist within Islam just as differing theological positions exist within Christianity.[/color]

Which makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam.

I grant your every point , they are true and trivial.

Although there are differing voices in Islam , there are millions of peace loving Muslims , there is a nacent reform trying to be born into a "European Islam" there are factions of Islam that were never violent since centurys ago.

Yet ...

This is all trivial distraction from the point , Busses in London are blown up by people motivated by Islam , and these guys get more praise than condemnation from the gestalt of Islam.

I will admit they represent a minority , but as we stand in the wreckage you can't admit they represent a problem?

[Universe Prince]

Which makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam.

On the contrary, it is vitally important to discussing the problem caused by some people in Islam.

I will admit they represent a minority , but as we stand in the wreckage you can't admit they represent a problem?

Yes, of course I can admit that some Muslims do represent a problem. I have never, and by 'never' I mean not ever in all of these discussions, denied that some Muslims are terrorists and intolerant fundamentalists. So asking me if I "can't admit they represent a problem" is just... nonsense. That's putting it mildly. If I were to put it more honestly, I'd call your question adult male bovine excrement. And even that does not express my astonishment and frustration that you even felt the need in the first place to ask the question.

[Plane]

Which makes no diffrence at all when discussing the problem caused by Islam.

On the contrary, it is vitally important to discussing the problem caused by some people in Islam.

No this is a triviality, unless there are some of us here under the impression that Islam has an existance seaprate from persons.

On what grounds do you defend the idea that it is non - trivial to mention "persons " each time one mentions "Islam"?

[Plane]

I will admit they represent a minority , but as we stand in the wreckage you can't admit they represent a problem?

Yes, of course I can admit that some Muslims do represent a problem. I have never, and by 'never' I mean not ever in all of these discussions, denied that some Muslims are terrorists and intolerant fundamentalists. So asking me if I "can't admit they represent a problem" is just... nonsense. That's putting it mildly. If I were to put it more honestly, I'd call your question adult male bovine excrement. And even that does not express my astonishment and frustration that you even felt the need in the first place to ask the question.

And I have not ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, eversaid that the majority of Muslims were terrorists.
The frustration is mutual as the discussion cannot center on any issue that makes a diffrence really .

While the minority of Islam is terrorists the majority of terrorists right now is Muslim , and yes in both respects each one is a person.

Can there be no case made that there is a commonality in the majority of terrorists ( a religion comprised of Human beings and a beleif system), while the majority of terrorists themselves (each one a person) claim commonality in Islam ( a beleif system held by persons both terrorist and not).


These Parens are distracting , would you be satisfied with a statement in the form of a footnote at the bottom of each post ?

Something to the effect that it is already resolved that Islam is a religious beleif system held by persons and that terrorism is a behavior system held by some people ?
Not necessacerily the same persons?

[Universe Prince]

And I have not ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever

One would have been sufficient.

And I have not ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, ever,ever , ever, eversaid that the majority of Muslims were terrorists.

I don't recall having claimed that you did. On the other hand, you do seem to have made some blanket comments about Islam.

While the minority of Islam is terrorists the majority of terrorists right now is Muslim , and yes in both respects each one is a person.

Can there be no case made that there is a commonality in the majority of terrorists ( a religion comprised of Human beings and a beleif system), while the majority of terrorists themselves (each one a person) claim commonality in Islam ( a beleif system held by persons both terrorist and not).

I'm getting the impression that you are (however humorously) missing the point.

These Parens are distracting , would you be satisfied with a statement in the form of a footnote at the bottom of each post ?

Something to the effect that it is already resolved that Islam is a religious beleif system held by persons and that terrorism is a behavior system held by some people ?
Not necessacerily the same persons?

I recommend we try something much easier to handle. Just stop making blanket comments about Islam as if Islam itself were the enemy. Acknowledge that Islamic terrorists are not representative of Islam as a whole by not talking about them or about Islam as if they were. In the much the same way we generally recognize that people who bomb abortion clinics are not representative of Christianity by not talking about Christianity as if all followers were people who want, will or support the bombing of abortion clinics. For example, instead of talking about "the problem caused by Islam", one might say, "the problem caused by Islamic extremists". Also, rather than talk about Islam as if it is necessarily and inherently incompatible with the Western world, or as if there was only ever one way to interpret Muslim scriptures, one might talk about fundamentalist Islam, or Muslim extremism, or perhaps even merely conservative Islam.