I can't be the only one who's heard the news.
I don't visit news sites so I won't be retrieving an article.
Summary- a car of people bringing aid to a town in iraq were attacked, set on fire, mutilated, murdered and had their charred corspes paraded through the streets by cheering iraqi civilians inc. children.

I think this one event so perfectly symbolically represents the current situation as a whole.
The westerners were defeated for being friendly. The civilians they so badly want to defend help and protect, brutally murdered them. These weren't "extremists" or "terrorists". Not a select little portion of the iraqi community. It was an iraqi community, united in a viscious attack on a carload of people that probably would have given them head jobs if they thought it would "ease their suffering".
Really, bombing civilians isn't such a dispicable concept because the civilians are loudly and openly declaring war. They're like arnold in predator 1, yelling "cahm ahn!!!" while the west just looks at them wondering what to do.
I find the whole thing very bizarre. Oh I don't find it bizarre that the iraqi's attacked these people, not at all. I find the people that were attacked bizarre. And the millions like them. And how these people are affecting the western war machine.
Look what jesus has done.

"I don't visit news sites so I won't be retrieving an article.
Summary- a car of people bringing aid to a town in iraq were attacked, set on fire, mutilated, murdered and had their charred corspes paraded through the streets by cheering iraqi civilians inc. children."

If you did visit a few news sites, you might discover why these two vehicles were not perceived to be "bringing aid".

It got tossed in under "News From the Colonies."

I think the worst moment of it so far came when I heard Wolf Blitzer ask Henry Kissinger if this would cause the US to pull out, as the Somali episode did.

Kissinger gave a bland answer, which is all the question deserved. I mean, really, if this event is what turns people's stomachs, then . . . I don't know what to tell them. I'm actually impressed that it took this long before the Iraqis dragged charred American corpses through the streets and hung them from bridges.

But I'm not surprised that it happened. Americans at home are rather quite dispassionate about the war compared to those whose lives are daily affected. I know that any estimate of anger I could make of a war zone will fall short; thus I should not be shocked by the shocking, nor expect anything should be unexpected.

You all miss the point. This is not a general concensus in Iraq. It is a limited number of idiots in a limited number of asshole communities that liked Sadam and his hencemen. Birds of a feather. And we should pluck each and every feather and make them bleed until there is no question in anybodies mind what happens if you fu_k with us.

Before making my next comment let me make it clear that I see most Iraqi's as favoring there new found freedom from these twit assh_les.

But if it was 100% against us. I still wouldn't give a damn. I'd kill every GD one of them and turn the area over to the Palestinians as a home land.

We will not tolerate piss ants dictating to the world, coming over here, or anywhere in the world, killing our people over some stupid BS Allah.

Well your government is tolerating it I'm afraid.

Americans at home are rather quite dispassionate about the war compared to those whose lives are daily affected. I know that any estimate of anger I could make of a war zone will fall short; thus I should not be shocked by the shocking, nor expect anything should be unexpected.
I agree with your assessment of the people who did this.
But do you have any regard for the anger this event would inspire in some westerners?
It doesn't make me personally angry. But I imagine it would some others, including the us government. Yet I know you would be all over them if they retaliated.
This is what I mean when I say one of the adversaries in this battle is tethered and muzzled. By saying you can not judge these people for their actions you are taking off their muzzle, which is good, but you left the muzzle on their opponent and you are watching them tear their muzzled opponent to shreds. While insisting no one remove the muzzle on the injured beast. Its not right.
Take off both muzzles, and let them go.

Dr Lou Natic,

Well your government is tolerating it I'm afraid.

Don't be so sure. It has been less than 1 day. I wouldn't want to live in that area. If you are sympothetic to the coalition you maybe killed. If you appose the coalition you WILL BE KILLED.

Everybody says, "We simply can't pull all the troops out of Iraq now. Bush may have done a stupid thing by getting us involved in their country, but now that we've destroyed it we can hardly just abandon them."

That sounds exactly like what people said about Vietnam. Eventually we just pulled out and left them to fight it out among themselves. The communists won, but thirty years later it doesn't seem like such a big deal anymore. Certainly not worth the lives of all the soldiers that were essentially wasted in vain.

Let's learn from history and just pull all of our troops out of Iraq right now. Before the next ten are blown up tomorrow.

If civilians want to go over there, take the risk, and try to accomplish something, that's their right. But we've got no right to tell people to keep sending their own children over there in order to accomplish something that simply will never be accomplished, at least not by Americans.

Speaking of which, how come the Moron-in-Chief hasn't ordered his own daughters over there? They're plenty old enough to enlist. Queen Elizabeth sent her own son, Prince Charles, into the battle with Argentina over the Falklands/Marianas. The Bush kids are just hanging out and getting drunk.

The definition of a "moderate" Mideasterner is one who only holds a grudge for six generations. These people have been hating each other for hundreds of years. Long before the Europeans occupied America, killed off the native population, and began repopulating it with slaves. Americans have a deliberate blind spot for history. Anything that happened before our parents were alive is old news. There is no possible way we will ever understand the Mideast. We're the worst possible choice in the whole world of a nation that should be over there trying to solve problems that by our very nature we can't possibly understand.

Bring the troops home. Either some other country with a better sense of history will send their people in to help the Iraqis, or else they won't. In either case things in Iraq won't be any worse than they are now.

Other than that, the best we can do is drag that redneck retard out of the White House so he can't pull a stupid trick like this again.

Yeah, maybe it's all about Halliburton and the oil. Screw 'em.

What happened to these bodies is horrific and very anti Islamic, Islam tells us to honour the dead even if it was our enemies by burying them quickly.

those killed were NOT aid workers according to Al jazeera, there were CIA agents, I am not against hunting the occupiers, the iraqis have every right to kill every solider and occupation symbol on their land, this is INTERNATIONAL RIGHT, but I am against hanging the bodies in such barbaric way.

"according to al jazeera" :p
I don't think the cia drive hatchbacks through iraq unarmed:rolleyes:

I think they had a right to kill them as well, hell i even think burning their bodies was perfectly acceptable. And I think the west has the right to occupy iraq, kill iraqi's indiscriminately or whatever they want to do. The west and east have no moral obligations to one another.

Yeah, Lou, just let anarchy reign. Forget basic human rights. Let's model the world on "might is right"!

Right?

Right.
Glad someone finally understands.

But do you have any regard for the anger this event would inspire in some westerners? To a certain degree, but among all my sunny, life-can-be-beautiful rhetoric is the awareness that nothing comes without a cost. I can't figure any "retaliation" that would suffice, unless we wish to construe some sense of due process and justice amid the war zone, and that would be an arbitrary first. (Gotta start somewhere, I suppose.) But I can't imagine what we should blow up or shoot holes in. The killers, I suppose, but only if their "friend" rats them out.

That we cannot respond or retaliate equally outrageously is part of the price of our society. That we cannot cut and run without the United Nations prepared to take over a very bad situation (as if . . .) is the demand of our choices. I get no moral satisfaction out of seeing this war turn into a disaster, and there are certain things I don't get to say because of that. But the anger I can sense is the gritting of the teeth, a sense of helplessness among the American spectators at least.

I'm sad more than anything else about this. I heard somewhere in the Clarke buzz something or another about the Iraqi Liberation Act, and keep your ear turned toward that because it's going to come up sometime over the next week, I think. And remember that we only ever spent 3% of the allocated money. And whether we draw the line in March, 2003, in 1998 with the ILA, in 1991 at the cease-fire or in the failure to support the Shiite uprising, or in 1982 when Iraq came off the terror-sponsor list, or . . . (US support of the Ba'ath in Iraq, US support for the Shah and opposition to Mossadegh in Iran) . . . .

I find it sad that none of this has to be.

There is a point in history when we can say that humanity, being "enlightened" to a certain degree, set about a method of "rule of law" or "civilization" that is supposed to be morally superior to the barbarism of traditional ways. The Israeli situation is often a highlight of this: where do we draw the line on property claims in history without upsetting the foundation of every nation on the planet? Ideologically, when do we draw the line on faith and nations? When and where in the history of Iraq can we put our finger on the timeline and say, Here! Were it not for ______ we could have avoided this entire mess altogether!

We cannot. Nothing ever begins, really. But I do know that people didn't have to die and be dragged through the streets of Fallujah and hung from a bridge. What if the US responded by putting the heads of insurgents on pikes?

I'm of that generation that grew up to look forward to the 21st century. Talk about starting off with a bang . . . .

You're absolutely correct when you say the West and East have no moral obligations to one another. But people do. Human beings do. Otherwise we might as well admit that society is merely an unfair restriction to our happiness.

Or so says me.

What I don't understand is, if the CIA agents were dressed as civillian aid workers, how did the Iraqi mob know that they were CIA agents? Maybe they thought that the CIA agents were just aid workers?

And are they even CIA agents? Has this been confirmed?

well, for me, Al jazeera is more credible than the shitNN and fox jews.

those 2 cars were distinguishly used by American agents ( ak aid workers ), they left the American military compound just before they were hit, the iraqi resistance fighters were watching them. I am just wondering what AID WORKERS were doing in American ''civilian'' cars and in American military headquarter in Falluja !!! :rolleyes:

As I said, fighting the occupation is very legitimate business but mutelating bodies like that is BARBARIC and very anti Islam...shame on those who did it.

well, for me, Al jazeera is more credible than the shitNN and fox news.

Both are not crediable.

I wonder why aid workers would be leaving military headquarters? Could it be that the US Army helped the Aid Workers organize their aid?

As I said, fighting the occupation is very legitimate business but mutelating bodies like that is BARBARIC and very anti Islam...shame on those who did it.

I agree. :)

You're absolutely correct when you say the West and East have no moral obligations to one another. But people do. Human beings do. Otherwise we might as well admit that society is merely an unfair restriction to our happiness.

Its something. Restriction to our happiness? Not really because it does make people happy in a superficial avoidance-of-suffering kind of way.
It definately is a restriction to many things though, things that are far more significant and meaningfull than the kind of happiness it offers.

Also, east and west aren't members of the same society. They aren't a team. Human beings aren't a global unit despite the effect on the planet suggesting otherwise.
Human beings have a moral obligation to their team. This once meant family, now unfortunately it means society. It doesn't mean "human beings" yet and hopefully never will.
It seems humans are aiming for a future where they are a global team (:earth shudders: killing 12 in krakatoa), they aren't there yet and are experiencing the reason it is a stupid idea.
Jesus' ideals are no more realistic now then they were then.
Ironically, if humans were to become a global team they would first need to compete with one another to ensure the team is of single mind.
The strong would need to pick of the weak that disagreed and a selective process would need to be underwent to streamline the team and make it a unit.

As long as there are different teams, with different ideas, there is no moral agreement between them. When iraqi's are happy about the westerners being in their land the westerners should stop shooting(they already have stopped for some reason) Embracing the soldiers would imply they wanted some kind of alliance. They do not, they want to be seperate, the west just can't understand this.
I can't understand the west.
Or more accurately I disagree with their (maybe even instinctual)plans of uniting the human species as one team. But if they are going to do it, do it properly, unfortunately for muslims this would mean removing muslims from the arms race.
They have proven they can't be "tamed" by the west. If a global team of humans is the dream(and it sounds like it is yours tiassa if you feel you have a moral obligation to ALL humans) the only way to make it happen is to cull the elements resisting it from happening. Its just common sense.
I don't want it to happen. I wish the british never left port. I wish all the human populations were seperate in the natural environments they adapted to, living in harmony with their eco-systems. It seems muslims would agree with that (at least the first part, not sure if many of them are concerned about eco-systems, or know what an eco-system is).

Both are not crediable.

I wonder why aid workers would be leaving military headquarters? Could it be that the US Army helped the Aid Workers organize their aid?

Or could be the '''aid workers'' helped the US army organize their RAIDS ???

:bugeye:

Or could be the '''aid workers'' helped the US army organize their RAIDS ???

:bugeye:

Were there even aid workers in Iraq before the war? Or are you talking about after? If so, we Americans should start watching those Mormons like hawks. They could be planning a mass invasion of some sorts!

indeed, most of the so called 'aid workers' are American christian missionaries who are hoping to take Muslims out of their ''darkness'' into JESUS ARMS !! :rolleyes:

but dont worry, the Iraqis are dealing with them very well:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/16/iraq.main/

But what's objectionable about water purification?

In Liberia, one or the other attacked the water system. In the Occupied Territories, Israel attacks the water infrastructure. Unless someone can prove to me that they were going to poison Iraqis with mind control drugs through the municipal water systems, I just don't see how killing missionaries working on water distribution helps anyone. Now, when World Bank and IMF show up with the water-privatization firms in tow, by all means shoot them on sight. But not these four.

In the United States, I'm generally annoyed by Southern Baptists; they're a contentious voting bloc that people of my political persuasions just don't get along with. And here they are, trying to be useful.

But if you have the time, and want to understand the true danger of American Christian missionaries, Max Weber (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/toc.html) is a good place to start. It's not the faith itself that's dangerous, but what it allows.

In the meantime, the only reason to fear missionary aid work is if the faith is already weak. Were Christianity sufficient, God would not have revealed Himself to the Prophet in the first place. It would not have been necessary.

My parents were missionaries in the Mideast, where I was raised. Close associates were killed in Yemen, and there were many traumatic times in Lebanon. War always rips apart more good than bad, and well-meaning foreigners are common and conspicuous targets for unpredictable and sudden violence and abduction.

Anyone who spends significant time and effort in dangerous places, out of a desire to help people, understands and accepts this. There is no moral justification for any appeal for revenge for the lives of any legitimate "aid worker" or missionary. Those who attempt to do so are likely seeking any justification to escalate warfare, and in my experience, they are usually not people who have lived under warfare in their own street.

Often the UN and other organizations are unjustly derided for pulling out of unstable situations, when their reasons are to avoid becoming not just casualties, but excuses for the many who enjoy war and its escalation from certain vantage points.

When Blackwater security agents drove armed through Fallujah (of all places in Iraq), they demonstrated an irresponsible lack of situational awareness that not only cost them their own lives, but that now will negatively impact the security of many other people.

What we can hopefully learn from this is a recognition for situations where a course of events and past policy have precluded the possibility of repairing the basic relationship between two nations through occupation. The occupation of Iraq, in its primary and most visceral effect, is and will continue to cause animosity toward Americans. This will have serious negative implications for American individuals and organizations (and American-appearing ones) for a very long time, unfortunately.

This can not be compared with the liberation of France. This can be compared to Vietnam 1967. American forces in Iraq cannot serve their national interest, because their very presence will continue to become increasingly corrosive to the relationship between Americans and Iraqis, and between the Middle East and the "Western" nations.

I dream of walking the streets of Baghdad and Beirut again, openly and in comfort, as an American with no agenda but appreciating wonderful people lands, cultures, and cities. But I have an acquired understanding of when it's sadly time to stay out, both for my own good, and the good of the USA while this great country is unfortunately pissing into the wind of history with a hard on.

indeed, most of the so called 'aid workers' are American christian missionaries who are hoping to take Muslims out of their ''darkness'' into JESUS ARMS !! :rolleyes:

but dont worry, the Iraqis are dealing with them very well:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/16/iraq.main/


Omg, Have you NO concept of sarcasm? :eek:

PM,

Since you get your news from the obviously biased and racist Al-jablowme network I think i'll start getting my news from the various KKK news groups. Its only fair.....

indeed, most of the so called 'aid workers' are American christian missionaries who are hoping to take Muslims out of their ''darkness'' into JESUS ARMS !! :rolleyes:

but dont worry, the Iraqis are dealing with them very well:
Why does somebody risking their lives to help the locals deserve death? And why does it matter if they are missionaries, christian or othewise? Why would that make him or her deserving of death.

Any Christian missionaries you do find aren't about to use Spanish Inquisition tactics to force a conversion. The worst you would get would be them asking if they could tell you about Jesus. People are always free to say no or to ask them to go away and if they say yes, what is so bad about that? Whats the difference between a Muslim converting to Christianity and a Christian converting to Islam?

but dont worry, the Iraqis are dealing with them very well:

LOL!

"Kill the missionaries! They are trying to help us rebuild Iraq!"

Talk about morons!

But what's objectionable about water purification?

Do you really believe those christian missionaries are working on ''water purification '' ?

Unless someone can prove to me that they were going to poison Iraqis with mind control drugs through the municipal water systems, I just don't see how killing missionaries working on water distribution helps anyone.

Again, you are taking their words for it, I have iraqi friends who come to Syria for trade, I spoke with some of them and I asked them about those missionaries, they told me, those missionaries are not in Iraq for good, they are there for only 1 purpose, to try to convert Muslims...now, you have to understand something, for muslims, it is deeply insulting to try to convert them, it is a matter of honour and in Iraq ( where tribal mentality ) is still dominant, this is very dangerous business indeed.

But if you have the time, and want to understand the true danger of American Christian missionaries, Max Weber (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/WEBER/toc.html) is a good place to start. It's not the faith itself that's dangerous, but what it allows.

Thanks.

In the meantime, the only reason to fear missionary aid work is if the faith is already weak.

EXACTLY !! we are not afriad from those who worship a man as God!! :p after all, it does not make sense to come to a muslim ( who already believes in Jesus ) and tells him JESUS LOVES YOU !!! it does not work, you know tiassa, in the beginning of the 20th century when most of the arab world was under colonial rule, the colonial rule brought with them huge missionaries..

I remember in Syria ( my own homeland ) we had until today French missionaries and schools from the colonial era, but they failed to convert a single Muslim, mind you, at that time: 1920-1946 the syrians were not as educated as today and yet the french missionaries failed miserably !!

And here I have very funny but TRUE story from Iraq in 1932 about christian missionaries ( this time english ones ):

One of the English missionaries went to Iraq and for 3 years from 1929-1932 there were talking and preaching to the people in middle iraq, after 3 years of hard work, the head of the mission said to his priests, it is the time to gather the tribes leaders and ask them to convert to christianity, and to do that, he arranged a big surprise for the tribes leaders, he said to his priests, I am going to bring electricity to the hall where we will meet and I am going to let 3 lambs and tell the iraqis there that is the JESUS'S LIGHT came to them !! the priests agreed and saw this as geniuse idea to fool illitrate people...when the time of the meeting came, the iraqi tribes leaders were in the hall and the head of the mission came and started preaching about the ''love of jesus'' and all the crap...after that he said to the people there: and now, let me show you jesus lights !! and he switched on the electricity ( unknown at that time for the iraqis ), the moment the iraqis saw the lights, they all Shouted: ALLAHU AKBAR...LA ILAHA ILA ALLAH, MUHAMMAD RASOLU ALLAH ( ALLAH IS THE GREATEST....NO GOD BUT ALLAH, MUHAMMAD IS HIS PROPHET ) !! the head of the mission looked in deep pain at his priests and said to them: you can never ever convert Muslims!!! :p

Why does somebody risking their lives to help the locals deserve death? And why does it matter if they are missionaries, christian or othewise? Why would that make him or her deserving of death.

I am not saying they deserve death, harsh warning and deportation will do the job...beside, who told you there are helping the people there ?? :rolleyes:

Any Christian missionaries you do find aren't about to use Spanish Inquisition tactics to force a conversion. The worst you would get would be them asking if they could tell you about Jesus. People are always free to say no or to ask them to go away and if they say yes, what is so bad about that?

I agree with you totally, the problem is that those missionaries dont understand that it is deeply insulting to approach Muslims and ask them to convert, in iraq, it is even worse..it is about honour, and when it comes to honour, it is better not to mess with the tribes there..

This can not be compared with the liberation of France. This can be compared to Vietnam 1967. American forces in Iraq cannot serve their national interest, because their very presence will continue to become increasingly corrosive to the relationship between Americans and Iraqis, and between the Middle East and the "Western" nations.

Very well said....bravo.

I dream of walking the streets of Baghdad and Beirut again, openly and in comfort, as an American with no agenda but appreciating wonderful people lands, cultures, and cities.

And you are very welcome, our arms are open to ALL AMERICANS who come as guests, the Arabs and the muslims are known to be the most hospitable people on earth when it come to guests, even the prophet muhammad (pbuh ) said that you are not a believer if you dont honour your guest...so you are all very welcome as guests.

They weren't even missionaries. They were contractors. They were there to help in the litteral sense.
I'm afraid your iraqi friends haven't got their facts straight, believe it or not:rolleyes:

They were contractors. They were there to help in the litteral sense.

Well... they were gun-carrying contractors from Blackwater Security Consulting. The four men brutally slain Wednesday in Fallujah were among the most elite commandos working in Iraq to guard employees of U.S. corporations and were hired by the U.S. government to protect bureaucrats, soldiers and intelligence officers...

A Blackwater spokesman said the men were guarding a convoy on its way to deliver food to troops under a subcontract to a company named Regency Hotel and Hospitality.(Full text here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43364-2004Apr1.html))

:m: Peace

I thought this was alreay covered.

Civilian contractors/missionaries/journalists/etc hire security to protect them while they do their job.

To say that everyone that was killed was from some elite commando group is wishful thinking.

Again, you are taking their words for it, I have iraqi friends who come to Syria for trade, I spoke with some of them and I asked them about those missionaries, they told me, those missionaries are not in Iraq for good, they are there for only 1 purpose, to try to convert Muslims

It seems that although both religions have similarities, Muslims fail to grasp the fact that christians have no greater good than sharing their religion with others. They feel they are doing God's work by going on missions to convert others. This may seem disrespectful to a Muslim, but taking another's life?

Geez, I'd hate to try and sell a BMW lover a Mercedes in Iraq!

PM<

"........for muslims, it is deeply insulting to try to convert them, it is a matter of honour ......"

[b]First be it known I don't respect ANY religion. But the radicals of Islam are simply the worst of the worst. They are absolutely nuts. Why in the hell would you think it is an insult to try and convert you ,when you and other fools think they are going to convert (or kill) the rest of the world. LOL.[b]

for muslims, it is deeply insulting to try to convert them, it is a matter of honour
what does it say in the Qur'an about somebody trying to convert you, PM ? what do we do with infidels?

Do you really believe those christian missionaries are working on ''water purification '' ?I'm sure water facilities are in there somewhere.those missionaries are not in Iraq for good, they are there for only 1 purpose, to try to convert MuslimsIn the end, that's how it all works with Christians, it's true. But this is where strong faith comes in. My recommendation is to put up with it long enough to see if you get water out of it. The guys with the rifles? They know what they're signing on for, and they have to be aware that little or no distinction is going to be made between them and regular forces. I'm of the opinion that the whole show there is a bad situation, so you get what you sign up for.now, you have to understand something, for muslims, it is deeply insulting to try to convert them, it is a matter of honour and in Iraq ( where tribal mentality ) is still dominant, this is very dangerous business indeed.I see the note re: Clockwood; I acknowledge the tribal mentality. That's pretty much the distinction I was looking for.

But some of these folks are in it for the genuine love in their hearts. They're not all sinister. Naîve, perhaps, but not all sinister.it does not work, you know tiassa, in the beginning of the 20th century when most of the arab world was under colonial rule, the colonial rule brought with them huge missionaries Aldous Huxley, in Jesting Pilate took note of an old cannon outside some city in India (ca. 1925), where the locals had come to award the relic fertility superstition, and even white women could be seen to bring offerings and press their loins briefly against the phallic ruin. Something about strong and weak faith goes here, I'm sure.

Christmas is attuned to the winter solstice at the time of the first official celebrations; Easter is timed to European pagan fertility rites; Hallowe'en, our best holiday in the West, is set to an ancient harvest festival. Christians, by and large, are lucky if when setting out to convert people, they aren't instead converted.

And sometimes I think that means they're unlucky, but that's another discussion for another day.

There was an impatient man who struggled all his life to deal evenly and fairly with his associates. Worn by time and the battle against his passions, he sought out a local teacher and appealed to him for assistance. The teacher agreed to make him a student, and immediately set him about all manner of simple tasks: fetching water, getting food, cleaning the school.

One day the master said to the impatient man, "You are to go up into the pass, where you will find a withered tree split into a Y at its trunk. There you will provide food and water, and a safe place for travelers to rest."

And so the man set out into the mountains, whereupon he came to a bend in the road beside which stood a withered tree with a Y at its trunk. The impatient man stowed his provisions, set his gun in the Y of the tree, and patiently and carefully constructed a shelter against the sun, and there he sat beside the road, rising to greet travelers as they approached - "Come, rest weary friend. Let me give you food and water."

And over the months the impatient man became quite famous among the travelers, so that holy men could be found to rest comfortably beside thieves, and royalty among the rabble.

Until one day the impatient man saw a traveler hurrying along the road. He called out, "Come, rest weary friend. Let me give you food and water."

But the traveler did not slow, did not even acknowledge the impatient man who, possessed by his passions, reached over to the tree, grabbed his pistol, and shot the rude man in his back as he hurried away.

And when he did, the withered tree suddenly blossomed. A light blazed across the sky and a voice came down to the man. "I am Khidr, the Green One," said the voice. "And God is pleased with you today. The man you have killed is a murderer on the way to the most heinous crime of his career. We cannot always control the passions that are Your gifts, but only use them to meet God's ends."

And such is the best I can remember the story without the text at hand.

So why does every conflict have to be 'another Vietnam'. Get REAL. Vietnam was crap becuase politicians made Military decisions. Oooh lets not invade the North- STUPID. Lets be sneaky about Cambodia- STUPID.
When will you lefties realize that our current Military is NOTHING like the military of the Vietnam era?? WAKE UP. Iraq is not another VIETNAM. And in pure Military terms we kicked the living daylights out of the North.

And PM, Get immediate psychological help.

I am not saying they deserve death, harsh warning and deportation will do the job...beside, who told you there are helping the people there ?? :rolleyes:
Who is to say they were not? I doubt the killers asked any questions. Actually, please read:http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/631b9e8bd5dd539285256e590059c807?OpenDocument

I agree with you totally, the problem is that those missionaries dont understand that it is deeply insulting to approach Muslims and ask them to convert, in iraq, it is even worse..it is about honour, and when it comes to honour, it is better not to mess with the tribes there..
Why? Why be insulted if someone asks you to think about conversion? Its just a perspective on life and a little reflection about it and other ways of seeing things dosn't hurt anybody. Let people think about it and, if they happen to see more logic in another way, let them choose to follow it.

I don't see how someone sharing their beliefs would hurt your honor. Is it imperitive that you keep that certainty that your point of view is the correct one and there is no possibility somebody else's has some element of truth to it?

The following assertion from Crazy151drinker seems at first blush so far off topic it really should be left alone. It's part of a mentality that seeks to bury all mention of major past or present American strategic failures. From my sense of American patriotism, this is a dangerous mentality for us to share.

"Iraq is not another VIETNAM. And in pure Military terms we kicked the living daylights out of the North"

Iraq is being "pacified" with much more limited force than was employed in the US killing of roughly 3 million Southeast Asians. You are seemingly aligned with the opinion that more force would have won the day in that previous but similarly unpopular intervention, throughout which North Vietnam obviously retained more "daylights" in the end than American forces- After all, "in pure military terms" they were undeniably victorious. Had US public opinion not ended the war, GIs could be swapping wounds with the latest crop of Vietnamese defenders to this very day.

During Vietnam, after spectacles like the Mai Lai massacre, there were many American proponents of the war complaining that enemy atrocities did not receive the same media scrutiny as American animal moments. Like Iraq. During Vietnam, the war party wanted the peaceniks to just shut the f@ck up and let the military handle it. Like Iraq. In many ways that are not topical to this thread, there are a multitude of psychological, geopolitical, and logistic parallels with the Vietnam war, because both are examples of situations where pacification and nation-building by force is impossible.

And PM, Get immediate psychological help.

me or your American soldeirs returning from Iraq ???

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_mental_021904,00.html

:rolleyes:

Who is to say they were not? I doubt the killers asked any questions. Actually, please read:http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/631b9e8bd5dd539285256e590059c807?OpenDocument

My friend, we are from the Middle East, we are used to those so called '' Aid Workers'' most of them are either:

1- SPIES or

2- Christian missionaries.

Why? Why be insulted if someone asks you to think about conversion? Its just a perspective on life and a little reflection about it and other ways of seeing things dosn't hurt anybody. Let people think about it and, if they happen to see more logic in another way, let them choose to follow it.

I think you need to understand the Arabic mentality and our culture, when it comes to religion, it is RED LINE, you may not insult Islam, you may not degrade Islam by offering other religion..these are our traditions, those missionaries have to understand that, they better stay away for their own safety.

I don't see how someone sharing their beliefs would hurt your honor.

Their belief itself is an insult to ours, they believe prophet Muhammad (pbuh ) is false prophet and Islam is evil cult !!! now, if you are Muslim, will you allow such people who think of your belief in such manner to share their beliefs with you ???????? I doubt it .

Is it imperitive that you keep that certainty that your point of view is the correct one and there is no possibility somebody else's has some element of truth to it?

We are not talking here about point of views, we are talking about RELIGION...in the Middle East, we take religion very seriously indeed.

I think you need to understand the Arabic mentality and our culture, when it comes to religion, it is RED LINE, you may not insult Islam, you may not degrade Islam by offering other religion..these are our traditions, those missionaries have to understand that, they better stay away for their own safety.

As a Westerner, the only possible way I can interpret your statement is that you are saying the mere act of opening a dialogue about the good and bad points of Islam versus any other religion is an affront to Islam.

You are also saying that the mere notion of a Protestant, Hindu, Catholic, Jewish, etc. missionary in your presence is in danger.

So please tell me how all of this that you are saying reconciles with the proclamation that Islam is a religion of peace? It seems there are some mutually exclusive propositions being put forth by Islam. Please explain.

As a Westerner, the only possible way I can interpret your statement is that you are saying the mere act of opening a dialogue about the good and bad points of Islam versus any other religion is an affront to Islam.

Surely, you did not understood what I wrote, please scroll back and re-read what i wrote !! :rolleyes:

You are also saying that the mere notion of a Protestant, Hindu, Catholic, Jewish, etc. missionary in your presence is in danger.

Where Did I say that ????????? can you please show me ????

So please tell me how all of this that you are saying reconciles with the proclamation that Islam is a religion of peace? It seems there are some mutually exclusive propositions being put forth by Islam. Please explain.

Islam is logical religion, it is a religion of Peace and Tolerance when others let muslims live in peace and tolerance, but when others attack Islam and Muslims and kill them ( like the case now in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmi and The Philippines ) Islam becomes lethal weapon against aggressors and occupiers ( as the case in Iraq and other occupied muslim land).

These people that were killed were there to help rebuild the country not to evangelize about their religions. Matter of fact there were Iraqi interpereters along with them so why do the people kill their own people ? I'd think because they aren't tolerant and only want things done as they see fit. If things aren't done the way those "other" islamic peoples want them done, in other words if you don't lock step with us your dead, then Islamic peoples will never see the light of democracy as we in the west as well as Russia now know.

"you may not degrade Islam by offering other religion"

OK Proud Muslim, I'm inviting you over here to "Truth About Islam" (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=546406#post546406) to defend that, because I think that's heading y@neh out-of-bounds not only topically, but also Islamically.

And by return, I invite you to here:

http://sabeelillaah.2.forumer.com

I am moderator there, so please come and enjoy !! :cool: