After the deaths in New York, I guess that thinking people are the only ones that believe in talking things out? Because unfortunately, violence only begets violence. I don't think that thousands will die in retaliation, but I guess 'Death' will march across the lands, we are all collateral damage!!! Sorry, I only see blood ahead & the cycle of violence continues, onto the end.......
:( :(

Randolfo, can you reason with terrorists? They only know of violence. There mentality is either you do what I say or I blow you up. There is no compromise. They only know violence. I don't know of any terrorist organizations who have Diplomats on there pay rolls. That is a diplomat who is not a spy or suicide bomber etc.

When's the last time Japan bombed the US?

They were so stubborn it took two bombs before they finally got the picture that we weren't playing around.

A swift kick in the ass is sometimes an effective means to end violence.

Reason works with reasonable people. We're not dealing with such people. Do you think we could have talked Hitler out of killing the Jews?

Sorry if you don't like it but you're probably going to learn the hard way with history playing on your TV that violence sometimes is the answer and it isn't pretty. It's also not to be taken lightly. It is never our first choice but I think in this case it's our only choice.

Ben

Kalvin is right after pearl harbor we beat the hell out of Japan, and nobody has touched us since for the most part. Once we get concrete evidence there will be hell to pay.

"Reason works with reasonable people. We're not dealing with such people."

"...violence sometimes is the answer..."

not technically violence, just retribution. Death. Pure and simple, the bad guys will die. We are talking esentially about putting down a mad dog. The guilty parties deaths will be broadcast, show up on rotten.com it will be celebrated.

what I think that the guilty party has failed to realize is that the U.S. has some great backing power, many, MANY nations have stepped forward saying "Give the word, and we'll help."

please keep in mind that I don't really like this, but it's what I see coming.

I don't think you can just crush an enemy by blowing them up if they themselves aren't afraid to die for their cause.
If that is the case the only method you have to defeat such an enemy is to prove there cause is unjust, or to undermine what strengthens their belief.

In this case those people might have been preparing themselves for doing what they did for perhaps a dacade, growing up with thoughts of hate and directed at America, then they are given the chance to do what they have been brought up to do and that's kill there imbedded enemy.

For all we know they were probably convinced by their leader that their families would be given things, or they would have them spared their lives, or that in an afterworld they would have some place (In reality it's nothingness/void, thus dieing is meaningless when you should be clinging to life.)

If they think of themselves martyrs, then there names will be said somewhere as those people rejoice, Although in reality the true martyr's are the people that were innocent and Died for the cause of just having an independant way of life.

By all means you could go out there and drop a bomb on a country and make the biggest mushroom cloud yet, but if it turns out that country was only sheltering and didn't condone that terrorist act then that would be as an attrotious an act as the people that placed this taste of vengence within your mouth.

<HR>
Stryderunknown

I don't think you can just crush an enemy by blowing them up if they themselves aren't afraid to die for their cause.

Let's oblige them, then.

The idea is not to die for your country. It's to make the other guy die for his. - General George S. Patton

But if it's just one man and a number of his supporters, will those few deaths be able to quech the thirst for blood?

And how many more fanatics, with the US adotping a policy that is bound to exacerbate anit Islamic feelings in the US, will be created when bin Laden is martyred?

By all means, exact justice, but there are deeper causes that will need to be addressed if things are to change. As it is are you prepared to see the US kill 100 or so for every 20,000? It's ALL got to end. This is a new type of conflict, one that no one can win through violence.

It's hard to say what will happen, I figured that it's a 95% chance that it was Islamic terrorists, 5% homegrown idiots. Looks like I may be right on both counts? Seems that a lot of them were on work visas here? Still seeing the news as it develops. The US has so many freedoms, that some people take advantage of them. We have an organization, the ACLU (American Civil Liberities Union) made up mostly of lawyers, that help mostly the criminal element get more legal rights than they deserve. We needed an ACRU (American Civil Responsibilities Union), so that as a society we work better together.
If it's always 'ME','Me', 'I', 'I', we forget that it's really "We the People...........". Anyway, beliefs are hard to fathom, we all believe we are right only, some people feel that they have to kill you to prove it!
Also, Islam seems to believe that those that die in 'Holy War, (Jihad)', go directly to heaven. Seems taht they may have a hard time believing that they are wrong, they've been fighting the West for about 1300 years. We may all die in a death embrace because of them, how does a 600th century religion embrace the modern world? By using it's weapons or it's ideas? Look at what happened to Iran during the Shah's last days. The movie 'Pitch Black', had Muslims in the future, I'm not sure that they can stand the future, since all the ideals will probably be anti-Islamic to them. They still seem to live the in past, their 'Golden Age' 622 to 900(?)? Just some thoughts...

It's easy, and apparently now natural, to generalise about Islam. It is essentially no different in substantive terms than Christian religions. Respect others, do good, go to heaven etc. It's a question of interpretation. And when you look at Christian fundamentalists, who I might add hold significant influence in the USA (which looks like a christian fundamentalist country to many muslims).

Yes, there now are radical Islamic groups which preach a version of the Qu'ran quite unlike that most muslims would recognise. My question to you is this radicalisation, which you seem to believe is a result of 6th century culture, a result of the religion itself, or how the area has been treated?

I'm sure that I ned not remind you that the Islamic world was at the forefront of global science, technology, culture and art from 600-1200 AD and beyond at times. Science and technology is in no sense any more alien to Islam than the theory of evolution and genetic research is to Christianity.

As for the radicalisation - in 900 AD muslims were a tolerant people allowing all faiths to worship freely. Then they were attacked by intolerant fanatic Christian crusaders on a 'mission from God' to slaughter the infidels and return the holy land to its rightful owners. Things ain't quite been the same since as muslims and Arabs have been continually ruled, lied to and given false promises. Israel was the last straw, is it any wonder that there are radicalised sections? Intolerance breeds intolerance.

It was not until the 1960s that radical Islam found many supporters. What is the timing of this? Egypt decides to swallow its pride and be friends with the US in 1979 in the hope that the US would balance Egypt and Israel and attempt an even-handed policy in the region. They feel betrayed.

I have no sympathy with Islamic or any fundamentalist. I can always be wrong, and I believe those who cannot contemplate their own error are dangerous. I do understand it though, and I don't think the demonisation is in anyway going to assist peace. There is a deeper problem, and the US is not entirely right, but is sadly not possessing the belief that it can ever be mistaken.

Captain Canada- I don't know if you've had access to this information, but it's reported here, quoted directly from the President, that we aren't screaming for bin Laden's blood alone. The goal here is to destroy all of the terrorist networks regardless of who is leading what. I think the world has put up with more than enough terrorism. This is not just an American tragedy. It's a world tragedy. Our local paper published a list of how many citizens from what countries worked at the Trade Center. Some of those nations aren't known for their self-restraint in hitting back at those who hit them.

On a side note: Yesterday I saw planes in the sky. I was thrilled, excited, and a sense of normalcy began to return. Large silver birds coursing overhead, touching down at SJC, I never saw a more beautiful sight. The F16s were a comfort. The Cobras were a welcome sight in the early morning, but the sight of those 737s, those jumbo jets, the colors of Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, United Airlines, Federal Express, United Parcel Service, and others I coudn't immediately identify were the grandest things I could hope for. Something normal was happening. It may seem trivial to everyone else, but to me it meant that I could look up at the sky again. I don't know. Maybe I just haven't dealt with it yet.

and if you REALLY think that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a "surprise" I have a bridge to sell you.

also for a weird note.....FDR is a direct blood relative of Bush.

Originally posted by Captain Canada
It's easy, and apparently now natural, to generalise about Islam. It is essentially no different in substantive terms than Christian religions.
That quote would come as alarming news to most non-liberal Christians! My understanding of what Islam means & where it comes from, starts from the Bible & the Quran. Both claim to be from God, yet one needed to conquer it's part of the world to impose it's religion, Christianity didn't start fighting until it became the official religion of Rome. Check history. (By the way, the West learned real well, vis-a-vis the Western Hemisphere.) To me the main difference, are the claims of it's founder's. Either you believe Jesus or Mohammad? Either Jesus's followers corrupted the truth or He was the 'Truth'?

Respect others, do good, go to heaven etc. It's a question of interpretation. And when you look at Christian fundamentalists, who I might add hold significant influence in the USA (which looks like a Christian fundamentalist country to many muslims).
Shucks, I thought they felt this was a Zionist-controlled state.

Yes, there now are radical Islamic groups which preach a version of the Qu'ran quite unlike that most muslims would recognise. My question to you is this radicalisation, which you seem to believe is a result of 6th century culture, a result of the religion itself, or how the area has been treated?
Here in Fresno, California, we have had the Ammadiya sect pass out literature that claims that early Christians subverted the Gospel, that a muslim Jesus preached Islam, but us Christians being a devious lot, changed the gospel. I wonder if the quran ever had those problems? vis-a-vis 'the satanic verses'?

I'm sure that I ned not remind you that the Islamic world was at the forefront of global science, technology, culture and art from 600-1200 AD and beyond at times. Science and technology is in no sense any more alien to Islam than the theory of evolution and genetic research is to Christianity.
Sure, after they conquered, they used the knowledge of their subject peoples. Which is smart of them. Also, I think that the world just opened up to them, so much so that they had their own 'renaissance'.

As for the radicalisation - in 900 AD muslims were a tolerant people allowing all faiths to worship freely. Then they were attacked by intolerant fanatic Christian crusaders on a 'mission from God' to slaughter the infidels and return the holy land to its rightful owners. Things ain't quite been the same since as muslims and Arabs have been continually ruled, lied to and given false promises. Israel was the last straw, is it any wonder that there are radicalised sections? Intolerance breeds intolerance.
My point about the Crusades & the Spanish Inquisition. I think Christians followed the muslim example, vis-a-vis the Turks & the last two moorish invasions of Spain around 1100-1300 A.D.(?)

It was not until the 1960s that radical Islam found many supporters. What is the timing of this? Egypt decides to swallow its pride and be friends with the US in 1979 in the hope that the US would balance Egypt and Israel and attempt an even-handed policy in the region. They feel betrayed.
The combination of: 1) US guilt over not stopping the Holocaust, 2) the large articulate Jewish population & 3) fundamentalists Christian belief that Israel is from God, will mean that this will be hard to change, Israel has more support, at least for the foreseeable future.

I have no sympathy with Islamic or any fundamentalist. I can always be wrong, and I believe those who cannot contemplate their own error are dangerous. I do understand it though, and I don't think the demonisation is in anyway going to assist peace. There is a deeper problem, and the US is not entirely right, but is sadly not possessing the belief that it can ever be mistaken.
I think the US has been demonized in this instance, for anyone to declare 'fatwa' Jihad on us, I know we are not clean, but if muslims were as articulate as you, they may be better understood & actually make valid points that would help change the present dialog.

What do I care who George Bush is related to? I'm related to John Hancock, desperado Augustine Chacon, and the Queen of England. What does that amount to? Diddly-squat.

My understanding of what Islam means & where it comes from, starts from the Bible & the Quran. Both claim to be from God, yet one needed to conquer it's part of the world to impose it's religion, Christianity didn't start fighting until it became the official religion of Rome. Check history. (By the way, the West learned real well, vis-a-vis the Western Hemisphere.) To me the main difference, are the claims of it's founder's. Either you believe Jesus or Mohammad? Either Jesus's followers corrupted the truth or He was the 'Truth'?

I was arguing from the perspective of each religion's moral code. Essentially a variation on the 'do unto others' idea. For me, Mohammed, Jesus - it makes little difference. Ultimately it's the same story, just aimed at different people. My opinion, but then I'm an agnostic so it all looks the same from here. As for Islam 'imposing' itself, yes true. Of course they followed the physical path of conquest where the seeds of conversion were most fertile. Arabs followed the Qu'ran, not the other way around. Check history.

As for Christianity. Colonialism, power of the church, missionaries. It may have started as a spontaneous cause, but once the Roman emperors converted, it became a coercive and conservative force. My opinion.

I thought they felt this was a Zionist-controlled state.

Point taken. I don't think Muslims distinguish a huge difference as far as the West is concerned.

The combination of: 1) US guilt over not stopping the Holocaust, 2) the large articulate Jewish population & 3) fundamentalists Christian belief that Israel is from God, will mean that this will be hard to change, Israel has more support, at least for the foreseeable future.

I agree. But let's not forget that Israel's remaining Arab population is growing more quickly than the Jewish. The same applies for the US. As Arab-Americans begin to find a voice and greater influence (which will happen eventually). Under those circumstances, a failure to reach an agrement now, could have dire consequences in the future.

As for extremist/bizarre sects. I do think it is a consequence of the society, and its relationship to the rest of the world that determines the ferocity of faith. Islam appears to be head and shoulders above other religions in this now as a consequence of what has occurred rather than the faith itself. Yes we can all find examples of extremism in Islam, passages in the Qur'an which justify all sorts of things. We can do the same in the bible.

As for the demonisation. Okay, this is a bit of an apparently trivial example, but tell me, when has a Muslim appeared in a major Hollywood film as a good guy? And when as an evil, fanatic terrorist? If you were to watch Arab or Islamic TV you would find little of the reverse - even in Iran or Iraq.

Originally posted by Captain Canada
As for Islam 'imposing' itself, yes true. Of course they followed the physical path of conquest where the seeds of conversion were most ferile. Arabs followed the Qu'ran, not the other way around. Check history.
Unclear, do you mean the conquering part? Or that whatever Arabs do, follows the Quran?


As for Christianity. Colonialism, power of the church, missionaries.
Before or after Rome?


It may have started as a spontaneous cause, but once the Roman emperors converted, it became a coercive and conservative force. My opinion.
True, it became the state religion, supported by the Roman emperors, just like later Western kingdoms supported their 'official' churches & Islamic nations theirs.

I agree. But let's not forget that Israel's remaining Arab population is growing more quickly than the Jewish. The same applies for the US. As Arab-Americans begin to find a voice and greater influence (which will happen eventually). Under those circumstances, a failure to reach an agrement now, could have dire consequences in the future.
That implies future conflict, as I said before, most muslims that I went to college with at Rio Hondo in Whittier, Ca(L.A. area)and Fresno State in Fresno, Ca were descent, generous people. More friendly than most.

As for the demonisation. Okay, this is a bit of an apparently trivial example, but tell me, when has a Muslim appeared in a major Hollywood film as a good guy? And when as an evil, fanatic terrorist? If you were to watch Arab or Islamic TV you would find little of the reverse - even in Iran or Iraq.
Omar Sharif & the possibly Dr. Bashir?(sorry, I'm not a 'Niner)

Don't forget "Under Seige". I don't recall actors' or characters' names too well, but there is this mid-east policeman, plain clothes who plays a major role in the film, and the story did a great deal of justice to the plight of those of middle-eastern descent who rightfully call America their home and adhere to their sense of loyalty of decency even when faced with unreasoning discrimination. I remember the character talking to his son, who was locked up in a makeshift concentration camp. The son was starting to see things from an anti-American point of view, justifiably so under the circumstances. He told his son not to hate America for this, that it was the action of a scared and frightened populace and did not reflect what the founding fathers intended. He urged his son to stay calm and not lose his head. Others within the camp were saying similar things to their families, depicting the American middle-easterns in the movie as largely calm, normal ordinary everyday people who just got caught up in a bad situation. It did not, as I thought it would, show every Muslim in town suddenly taking up arms against the US Army.

Also, although it's pure Saturday matinee fare, don't forget the guardians in The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. They embodied the spirit of nobility and dedication. I remember when the bad-guy armies came swarming out of nowhere and the guardians fought them back, only to have their victory snatched away by a much larger onslaught of more bad-guys. The audience cheered as the guardians got this look of "oh shit", looked at each other, then raised their weapons and boldly charged in.

I don't believe we're very far apart on this issue - perhaps I misunderstand.

When I refer to the Arabs following the Quran, I was referring to the physical conquest of geograpohic areas - where they went was determined to an extent to the popularity of the Muslim faith.

I am not saying that Islam is any better than any other religion, simply that it's no worse. It appears fanatical and extreme at the moment - something I put down more to the social context, sense of oppression and subjugated status felt - especially since the creation of Israel.

There are 56 Muslim contries in the world - stretching from West Africa to the Pacific islands. Not all of these were conquered by Mohammed's followers who then imposed their views. Equally, Christianity has spread far and wide from its small inital base due to its acceptance by the state and function in 'civilising' natives.

As for the Muslim characterisation in Hollywood films - I think you would have to agree on the whole that the most common Muslim/Arab on screen is one wielding a kalashnikov. Exceptions prove the rule.

Originally posted by Oxygen
Don't forget "Under Seige". I don't recall actors' or characters' names too well, but there is this mid-east policeman,
I thought he was an American black convert to Islam?

He urged his son to stay calm and not lose his head. Others within the camp were saying similar things to their families, depicting the American middle-easterns in the movie as largely calm, normal ordinary everyday people who just got caught up in a bad situation. It did not, as I thought it would, show every Muslim in town suddenly taking up arms against the US Army.
Yes, it was a sympathetic treatment, a remembrance of our treatment of the Japanese in internment camps.

Also, although it's pure Saturday matinee fare, don't forget the guardians in The Mummy and The Mummy Returns. They embodied the spirit of nobility and dedication. I remember when the bad-guy armies came swarming out of nowhere and the guardians fought them back, only to have their victory snatched away by a much larger onslaught of more bad-guys. The audience cheered as the guardians got this look of "oh shit", looked at each other, then raised their weapons and boldly charged in.
I may be wrong, but they would probably decendant from the original Eygptians, a black-mixed race people (todays Copts in Upper Eygpt), while todays Eygptians are supposedly the descendants of the 600th century Arab invaders(?)



Originally posted by Captain Canada
I don't believe we're very far apart on this issue - perhaps I misunderstand. When I refer to the Arabs following the Quran, I was referring to the physical conquest of geograpohic areas - where they went was determined to an extent to the popularity of the Muslim faith.
From Arabia outward to Anatolia, to Persia, all the way to Spain, it way by conquest. They crushed 3 empires; the Byzantine (leaving Greece & Ionia), the Persian (total conquest) & the Chinese T'ang Dynasty(forcing China back into itself). The Turks (both Seljic & Ottomon), finished the job, by taking a chunk of Europe & leading most of the Muslim world from about 1100AD(?).

It appears fanatical and extreme at the moment - something I put down more to the social context, sense of oppression and subjugated status felt - especially since the creation of Israel.
Actually, Spain had two fanatical sects go threw it in the 1100's(?) too.


There are 56 Muslim contries in the world - stretching from West Africa to the Pacific islands. Not all of these were conquered by Mohammed's followers who then imposed their views.
You are right, merchants, missionaries also played a role, into Malaysia, Indonesia, islands in the Indian Ocean, & now in the West.

Equally, Christianity has spread far and wide from its small inital base due to its acceptance by the state and function in 'civilising' natives.
The state made it official, they had already gone from one end of Europe to the central Steppes of Asia & into China. There were Jews & Christians in Arabia too.

As for the Muslim characterisation in Hollywood films - I think you would have to agree on the whole that the most common Muslim/Arab on screen is one wielding a kalashnikov. Exceptions prove the rule.
Actually, I think you are right, even the Trek villian 'Khan', I think is supposed to be Sikh?

Randolfo- No, he wasn't black. He was the guy who played the cab driver on "Wings", if you remember that show. Grrrr! I can't remember his name! Need...more...tacquitos! Must...get...tacquitos!

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. ~ Gandhi

Rush Limbaugh has often said that being a liberal is the most gutless thing you can do, because all you have to do is say, "I care." I agree that that’s a pretty easy thing to do, but I submit that being a warmonger, especially at a time like this, is the most gutless thing you can do, because all you have to do is say, "Let’s bomb ‘em back into the Stone Age."
It’s easy to react with the mob. It’s harder to think as an individual.
It’s easy to be emotional. It’s harder to be rational.
It’s easy to fly an American flag when all of your neighbors are doing it. It’s harder to fly a peace flag when you’re the only one in your neighborhood doing it.
It’s easy to be nationalistic, what is referred to today as "patriotic." It’s harder to admit that your country has done and is doing some horrible things.
It’s easy to mourn the loss of innocent Americans. It’s harder to mourn the loss of innocent foreigners.
It’s easy to be spoon-fed answers by the media and the government. It’s harder to ask questions.
It’s easy to act before you think. It’s harder to exercise restraint.
It’s easy to call for vengeance. It’s harder to seek understanding.
It’s easy to sit in front of the lobotomy box listening to people like Wesley Clark and Newt Gingrich tell you what you should think and do. It’s harder to spend hours conducting your own research and arriving at your own conclusions.
It’s easy to attack innocent American Muslims and Arabs. It’s harder to defend people who don’t look like you, whose names are hard to pronounce, or who worship a different god than you do.
It’s easy to remain ignorant of history and current events. It’s harder to educate yourself and remain informed.
It’s easy to call for revenge. It’s harder to be concerned about what happens after that.
It’s easy to call for an eye for an eye. It’s harder to turn the other cheek.
It’s easy to perpetuate the cycle of violence. It’s harder to stop it.
It’s easy to call for U.S. servicemen to be put in harm’s way. It’s harder – much harder – to actually serve in the military and put your own life on the line.
It’s easy to call for the use of the military. It’s harder to acquire knowledge of what it does and what its limitations are.
It’s easy to pass a $40 billion emergency spending bill ("just a down payment"). It’s harder to keep campaign promises about a Social Security lockbox.
It’s easy to declare war. It’s harder to secure peace.
It’s easy to vote with 420 other people. It’s harder to be the lone dissenter.
It’s easy to call a suicide bomber "a coward." It’s harder to admit that you’re the coward for allowing the U.S. military to do your killing for you.
It’s easy to be led and manipulated by "leaders." It’s harder to lead yourself.
It’s easy to surrender your civil liberties for promises of greater security. It’s harder to defend your civil liberties when everyone else is saying you have to surrender them.
It’s easy to anonymously post messages on websites, accusing people of treason and advocating their imprisonment because you disagree with their opinion. It’s harder to use facts and logic to refute an argument.
It’s easy to send hate mail to writers you disagree with. It’s harder to stand up for your principles by writing a column that you know is going to be very unpopular.
It’s easy to call for the silencing of all dissent. It’s harder to defend a person’s right to free speech even when you disagree with what he has to say.

Randolfo:



From Arabia outward to Anatolia, to Persia, all the way to Spain, it way by conquest.

A tiny group of people, from the mountains of Yemen, succeeded in defeating three empires centuries old. And this was achieved by imposing their religious beliefs? DO you not think that perhaps the religion proved attractive, allowing the Arab conquerors to build support? Or was this tiny tribe from Yemen able to impose its beliefs on much of Asia and North Africa? I think if you read accounts of the growth of the Arab world (Which was so decentralised it could bearely be considered an empire), you'll find it was the power of the religion among downtrodden people that so helped contributre to Islam's success.

Actually, Spain had two fanatical sects go threw it in the 1100's(?) too.

I believe we could easily say the same about Christianity. This does not refute my point regarding the link between fanaticism and culture rather than fanaticism and Islam.

There were Jews & Christians in Arabia too.

So not entirely conquered or defeated. And presumably, Muslims not entirely fanatic as Christians and Jews were welcome to worship in Palestine.

If you are trying to suggest that Islam is by its nature fanatic, violent and intolerent, I'll need some evidence. If you're suggesting that Islam was imposed, I'd argue no more so than Christianity. I'm arguing that the major religions are in essence no different - they establish an ethical code through mystical texts that are open to interpretation depending upon the individual. Different interpretations gain popularity relative to the social and cultural circumstances.

If you want to estimate some kind of body count, I think you'll find Christianity's hands are soaked in the blood of so-called 'infidels'.

Originally posted by Captain Canada
Randolfo:

A tiny group of people, from the mountains of Yemen, succeeded in defeating three empires centuries old. And this was achieved by imposing their religious beliefs? DO you not think that perhaps the religion proved attractive, allowing the Arab conquerors to build support? Or was this tiny tribe from Yemen able to impose its beliefs on much of Asia and North Africa? I think if you read accounts of the growth of the Arab world (Which was so decentralised it could bearely be considered an empire), you'll find it was the power of the religion among downtrodden people that so helped contributre to Islam's success.
If you're really that interested in history, check out some books on the subject, both Islamic & Western. That's how I got most of my info, plus talking with some of the protagonists; Greek, Copt, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese. I don't expect you to take my word in everything, but I can't type up a history of the Arab conquest either. Arabs did conquer a large area, they had superb tactics, motivation & battle-hardened warriors. Islam per se, has several points that are very seductive, to me as a Westerner. Though I'm not a psychologist, I see several things that I feel would intice a lot of people; 1) the statement that Mohammad was the final & true prophet, 2) the 5 statements of Islam (easy to remember & to the point), 3) that all pray together at specified hours ( I like the fact that even on the street, Muslims get their prayer rugs out & pray) & the fact that it seems to be a warriors' religion.

I believe we could easily say the same about Christianity. This does not refute my point regarding the link between fanaticism and culture rather than fanaticism and Islam.
Check a timeline, when did each event happen? Are there any correlations? If you are talking about the Western dominance of 75% of the World, that happened after 1492; they got land, gold, silver, slaves. Also, with superb tactics, motivation & battle-hardened warriors. Technology & disease helped too!!!


So not entirely conquered or defeated. And presumably, Muslims not entirely fanatic as Christians and Jews were welcome to worship in Palestine.
I was talking about Arabia itself, these were Arab tribes, Mohammad warred against the Jewish ones, because they did not convert, as he had hoped. If you check out the Quran, Muslims were supposed to pray toward Jerusalem at first, but after this, Mohammad changed it to Mecca. It's hard to find, because the Quran is not chronological, but lengthwise, from longest sura to shortest. "Poll Taxes', were charged on non-muslims, a tax for living in a muslim land, so some converted to escape this & in Bosnia the nobles converted for this reason to (plus they were being persecuted by the Eastern Church for their heretical beliefs). The Ottoman Turks had 'Janisaries', a one child tax on Christian families (kids were raised as muslim warriors). Check the library, good luck!

If you are trying to suggest that Islam is by its nature fanatic, violent and intolerent, I'll need some evidence. If you're suggesting that Islam was imposed, I'd argue no more so than Christianity.
Check some history books & timelines. See when the conquering started? To paraphrase Abbott & Costello, "whose on first?"

I'm arguing that the major religions are in essence no different - they establish an ethical code through mystical texts that are open to interpretation depending upon the individual. Different interpretations gain popularity relative to the social and cultural circumstances.
I think that statement would offend all of them, since they all feel they are the 'one' true religion.

If you want to estimate some kind of body count, I think you'll find Christianity's hands are soaked in the blood of so-called 'infidels'.
I contend that this happened after Imperial Rome converted, why would that make a difference? Because, as a state religion, it had more to lose if all the people did not adhere to its orders. Also, the type of leaders & their mentality changed. Check it's writing, anything by the "Church Fathers", & other histories, or look it up on the Internet too, just use journal &/or college sources, not just anti-Christian sources. All the best, & good reading!!! :D :D

I clearly exaggerate in my claims to make a few points. However, in your claims I don't you feel you have particularly addressed, or supported your basic argument. To take this back to where it began:

Also, Islam seems to believe that those that die in 'Holy War, (Jihad)', go directly to heaven. Seems taht they may have a hard time believing that they are wrong, they've been fighting the West for about 1300 years. We may all die in a death embrace because of them, how does a 600th century religion embrace the modern world? By using it's weapons or it's ideas? Look at what happened to Iran during the Shah's last days. The movie 'Pitch Black', had Muslims in the future, I'm not sure that they can stand the future, since all the ideals will probably be anti-Islamic to them. They still seem to live the in past, their 'Golden Age' 622 to 900(?)?

Perhaps couched in language that suggests these statements do not reflect a personal belief on your part, but nonetheless these are the basic points I am arguing over.

I argued that:

A tiny group of people, from the mountains of Yemen, succeeded in defeating three empires centuries old. And this was achieved by imposing their religious beliefs? DO you not think that perhaps the religion proved attractive, allowing the Arab conquerors to build support?

Your response:

If you're really that interested in history, check out some books on the subject, both Islamic & Western. That's how I got most of my info, plus talking with some of the protagonists; Greek, Copt, Saudi, Kuwaiti, Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese. I don't expect you to take my word in everything, but I can't type up a history of the Arab conquest either. Arabs did conquer a large area, they had superb tactics, motivation & battle-hardened warriors. Islam per se, has several points that are very seductive, to me as a Westerner.

I did not argue that Arabs did not conquer large areas of territory. The argument you respond to is entirely different to the one I am making. What I was saying (perhaps I misled you?) was that Islam began among a very small group of people. Arabs descended from the mountains of Yemen in support of Mohammed and the new faith. I make the point to illustrate that pure imposition of the religion was not possible unless there was fertile territory for conversion (as you yourself state). Tactics and motivation were vital - but what is motivation if not belief? Can such high levels of belief be imposed? I suggest that territorial conquest was not the simple fact behind Islam's growth - it goes hand in hand with its attractiveness to the tribes of the middle east.

With Islam being both a political and religious system, the two do go hand in hand. It is difficult to distinguish. But were the Copts, Christians, Sumarians, Persians etc. entirely converted at the point of a sword or through economic complicity?

As I say, Islam is a political as well religious doctrine. Surely success of the religion would indicate the adoption of a particular political system. Yes, this was partly through conquest, but the longevity of the system suggests something more than imposition.

As for the other claims over Islam's fanaticism, violence and tolerance - I still say a modern phenomena in essence, brought about by the disappearance of any Muslim empire of stature. Through history I would challenge anyone who claims it was more so than Christianity. Read Saladin's accounts of the first crusade - the world's first Jihad with Christians offered a place in heaven. Read accounts of religious tolerance - I accept with some economic charge, but the Quran is explicit in its respect of other faiths, and has allowed worship at Holy sites in Palestine by all. Read accounts of the first crusade in 1090, the slaughter of just about anyone by fanatical religious warriors form Europe.

Islam isn't perfect by any means, but to return to your initial post once more:

Seems that they may have a hard time believing that they are wrong, they've been fighting the West for about 1300 years. We may all die in a death embrace because of them, how does a 600th century religion embrace the modern world? By using it's weapons or it's ideas? Look at what happened to Iran during the Shah's last days. The movie 'Pitch Black', had Muslims in the future, I'm not sure that they can stand the future, since all the ideals will probably be anti-Islamic to them. They still seem to live the in past, their 'Golden Age' 622 to 900(?)? Just some thoughts...

I think this a gross exaggeration. Look at the Sufis of the 19th century - the sophisticated culture and art - use of eroticism through religion, taboo in Europe - tolerance - cultural development of the enlightened Islam that proved so attractive to Europeans. The maintenance of ancient philosophical texts - the springboard for the Renaissance itself. Open-mindedness. Have these changed? Perhaps. Is it due to the intrinsic nature of a '600th Century' (sic) religion, unwilling to accept change? No. You can challenge me to 'read history', but then can't we all? The accounts we read always differ, there is no truth in history (read Collingwood, Hegel) in my opinion. And that's what it comes down to in the end - opinion. We can start comparing the depths of our literary experiences (shall we list books we've read?) and define the argument on that basis, but until the points of debate are actually addressed in a substantive way, the argument gets nowhere.

What is your argument exactly? Do you have one? Are we talking at cross purposes? A fail to detect a consistent line of argument in your posts in this thread.

Originally posted by Captain Canada
What is your argument exactly? Do you have one? Are we talking at cross purposes? A fail to detect a consistent line of argument in your posts in this thread.
Sucks, I didn't know I needed one point? Anyway, some things are just stream of conscienceness, others reaction to 9-11, and in the background; wondering if 9-11 was the first 'shot' of Armageddon, or the last 'shot' of a dying way of thinking?:confused: :( :eek:

You know, although I'm an atheist, I've been tempted to reread the Book of Revelations. We were told to look for an enemy from the east, and all this time we've been eyeballing the old USSR. Hmmm. The antichrist is supposedly known by the mark on his head. Does Garbage bin Laden ever take off his turban? The turban has become quite a symbol recently. Is that the mark? I know all of the incidents relayed in Revelations is just as vague as Nostradamus and can be applied to multiple events throughout human history, but it still has me thinking.

No doubt about it, though. This is the biggest thing our generation has ever faced. Are we up to it? Can we Americans face the demands of a war where the enemy is on our very soil? We haven't had to face anything like this for something like a hundred years. This isn't a Cold War, where Reds are under every bed like childhood monsters in the closet, spying on our every move. These are people in the crowd whose one purpose in life is to kill us. Can we win this war without going stark raving paranoid?

I think we can. We Americans are a pretty adaptable, resilient bunch. With all the different cultures that live here, we have to be.

I know all of the incidents relayed in Revelations is just as vague as Nostradamus and can be applied to multiple events throughout human history, but it still has me thinking. #

In that case I dread to to contemplate what those thoughts may be...

Can we Americans face the demands of a war where the enemy is on our very soil? We haven't had to face anything like this for something like a hundred years.

A little over-dramatic don't you think?

For a country that has numerous 'militia' and 'patriot' training camps littered across the backwoods which have vowed war on the federal government, why does it only become a war when they come from abroad? I realise that the scale of the attack was unprecedented, but it was only so due to the planning and organisation of the terrorists, not their numbers.

I think it's all a little over the top. After the brief fireworks display in Afghanistan this will simply become an ongoing covert operation against a limited group of radicals.

Can the US handle it? Well I've no doubt they can kill a lot of people and damage a lot of hardware. But a solution requires a political rather than military response. If the US accepts that, perhaps they can. If not, it will only breed more violence - but then we are destined to repeat the mistakes of history rather than learn from them. Where's the imaginative solution gone?

I truly feel that were any of the "numerous 'militia' and 'patriot' training camps" Muslim or Black they would have been dealt with a long time ago.

What really bums me out is that logic seems to play no part in our (the US of A's) response to terrorism. First, we fail to learn from the Israelis regarding aircraft security (they haven't had a hijacking since '67, I believe) and then ignore the fact the even with their long experience with terrorism and excellent humint they have not be able to eliminate terrorism even though they have been able to selectively assassinate many of the planners and leaders.

Hell; we couldn't find Saddam and 'neutralize' him back then, I doubt that we'll be able to find Osama now.

Capt. Canada-
Maybe I did get a little overdramatic. I often let my thoughts run away from me. You're right. The irresponsible militias (the ones with the overaged guys running around in the woods playing like they could have won VietNam if they had just been put in command) are as dangerous as anything the Taliban can throw at us. Of course, there are plenty of responsible militias out there. They just don't receive as much press.

If you mourn the loss of an "imaginative solution", it sounds to me like you have one. What is it?

Chagur-
Hussein is still in command because of the UN. We got forced into accepting the goal of just driving him out of Kuwait, which we did. Our original goal was to take him out, which we weren't allowed to do because the UN was pulling the strings. Since Iraq hadn't hit us directly, there wasn't much of a leg for us to stand on. Now that we've been hit directly, the UN has no leg to stand on. Right now, they're doing what they should be doing. They're running the refugee camps and making sure the food and supplies are getting to the Afghanis that are just trying to get out of the way.

I take it then that all the bombing of Baghdad and the surrounding area was to just give our pilots practice taking out command and control centers and the city's infrastructure?

Chagur-

The purpose of such tactics is to cause the enemy to expend his manpower in defending his homeland, thereby causing him to pull troops from the occupied sector, to cause as much chaos as possible on his homefront, and to remove his ability to make war. Whacking Hussein would have been nice, but we were not allowed to make it a priority.

If the US decides to get a little 'payback' on Iraq (which reminds me - payback for what exactly? Is Hussein's mere presence so annoying that it's enough to justify the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis through sanctions and bombing?) then the US will (and everyone else) will suffer. The middle east is at boiling point and there really is little virtue in turning the heat up right now.

At this point I see no justification in dragging Iraq into the war. If they choose to get involved against the anti-terrorist forces, however, I am in favor of taking them out. Iraq's best chance right now is to remain neutral.

Kalvin is right after pearl harbor we beat the hell out of Japan, and nobody has touched us since for the most part. Once we get concrete evidence there will be hell to pay.



Yes guys, It sure was a good thing we managed to get another bomb dropped before peace made it inadvisable to do so.