OT: What should we do in Iraq?

[LoneWolf23k]

So, the real problem isn't that Islam is evil in and of itself, but that the people who practice Islam in most of the world are currently stuck in the Dark Ages.

[J4N1]

i'd say that pretty much sums it up

[Wanderwolf]

Ralph, I mean no offense when I say this; please keep that in mind.

The website you have chosen to use is not an effective research tool. While it does make a token nod to the idea that not every Muslim is Osama:

"At the same time, we have no patience with name-calling, lies, or acts of violence. No Muslim should be harassed or harmed anywhere in the world because of his or her religion. Islam is a broad faith and every Muslim should be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds.

In fact, there are exceptional Muslims whose faith gives them character, and who sincerely denounce terror and work to end it. They stand in sharp contrast to groups like the American CAIR and MPAC Islamic supremacist organizations, which use their influence to complain of petty grievances and inflame hatred against a country that tries hard to accommodate their faith in spite of the violence and whining."

... it classifies an animal sacrifice and meat-for-the-poor arrangement as part of its "Jihad du Jour" news, and seriously considers Islam to blame for the Oklahoma City bombing of the Murrah Federal building. (Forgive me, but did they miss a guy named Timothy McVeigh in there somewhere?)

Could you please cite a site that actually makes some pretense of factual discernment? You might remember their list of terrorist attacks, which includes several items that have never appeared in any news document or on any website, anywhere in the world... I can reference my last post on the subject if it will help.

Please, Ralph: Find an honest site. Referencing thereligionofpeace.com on Muslims is like referencing Rush Limbaugh for a discussion of Gloria Steinem.

Yours truly,

The well-meaning,

Wanderer

[Merry]

Please, Ralph: Find an honest site. Referencing thereligionofpeace.com on Muslims is like referencing Rush Limbaugh for a discussion of Gloria Steinem.

Well, you find on the web what you want to find. That site Ralph uses is basically anti-islamic propaganda. If you search for that, you have to find this site (sooner or later, the web is a big place afterall)

[Merry]

Jesus' teaching wasn't that "The world would be a better place if we where[sic] a bit nicer to eachother[sic]". Whipping the money changers from the Temple was not "nice". Turn the other cheek (once you understand it in its proper cultural context) is nonviolent resistence, again not "nice". Saying that you should carry weapons is not "nice". Saying the poor will always be with you is not "nice".

Well, "nicer" doesnt automatically mean "nice". As far as I understand it whipping the money changers (and vendors) from the Temple is a lot nicer than skewering them, and passive resistance is a whole lot nicer than open rebellion and civil war. Jesus was quite an intelligent man - even if half of his story is made up - and nobody would found a religion on him and his teachings if he was a potsmoking hippie that just wanted to smell flowers and spread love. Wich basically means he wasnt. His "nicer" was enough to stir things in people, and not so much that people thought he ate strange mushrooms and smoked weed.

There's a lot of love in Jesus' message, after all, God is love.

Plus, he didnt build himself an empire by force, which makes him so much more likable than other religion founders. (not pointing fingers here)

[TMLutas]

So, the real problem isn't that Islam is evil in and of itself, but that the people who practice Islam in most of the world are currently stuck in the Dark Ages.

Actually the major part of the immediate problem is that the practitioners we are alarmed about are intimidating and killing off those who we wouldn't mind as neighbors. The vast majority of the islamist death toll is other muslims who have yet to toe their line. In that sense, 9/11 is a sideshow of the great muslim civil war. One can be a dark ages practitioner of Islam and not bother me in the US in the least. What we call the dark ages actually featured a higher level of islamic practice than you find in a lot of muslim centers today. But this is all consequences and does not reach the heart of why Islam is evil.

Islam is evil in and of itself because its theological errors form a barrier to properly knowing God. That's christian doctrine 101. Islam has the mirror image of this doctrine btw so don't think that any intelligent muslim will be offended by this or that this implies that the christian/muslim interaction must be violent. This sort of problem in Islam is not something that's best resolved by Air Cav assault but rather by debate, discussion, and love. The consequences of that basic problem end up with Osama and Co. and other problems that require force to resolve.

Thus any resolution of the problem of Islam has to rely on two tracks. First there must be a physical guarantee of the physical integrity of the combatants in track two. This is where the Marines come in. But the most important track, the one that can eventually resolve the friction permanently is the debate track, the one that the Pope gave a big shove forward at Regensberg. You discuss, you find where the grounds for agreement are, and you provide moral challenges to the other side that force them to interpret their own doctrines in a more sustainable, less violent fashion until there is no violence at all and, eventually, not even any disagreement.

This 2nd track, inevitably, must also open christianity to muslim dawa. I'm confident that in any open, fair encounter, the christians will prevail. Muslims, until the very last, will likely be as confident in their own superiority. In the end, truth will out.

[TMLutas]

Jesus' teaching wasn't that "The world would be a better place if we where[sic] a bit nicer to eachother[sic]". Whipping the money changers from the Temple was not "nice". Turn the other cheek (once you understand it in its proper cultural context) is nonviolent resistence, again not "nice". Saying that you should carry weapons is not "nice". Saying the poor will always be with you is not "nice".

Well, "nicer" doesnt automatically mean "nice". As far as I understand it whipping the money changers (and vendors) from the Temple is a lot nicer than skewering them, and passive resistance is a whole lot nicer than open rebellion and civil war. Jesus was quite an intelligent man - even if half of his story is made up - and nobody would found a religion on him and his teachings if he was a potsmoking hippie that just wanted to smell flowers and spread love. Wich basically means he wasnt. His "nicer" was enough to stir things in people, and not so much that people thought he ate strange mushrooms and smoked weed.

Actually one of the criticisms of Jesus in his time was that he was a 'wine biber' who hung around with disreputable people. In other words there were plenty of people who thought the 1st century equivalent of 'pot smoking hippie' about Jesus.

My point is that Jesus wasn't about moving everything in a nicer direction but about realigning humanity more in agreement with God's plan. In some instances, this was pushing things in a 'nicer' direction and in others, not so much. Whether something is nice or not is only coincidental to christianity. Whether something is in conformance with God's desire for us is everything.

Clutching a serpent to your breast is the 'nice' option when dealing with a serpent. It is not the christian one. If you don't "get it", you'll constantly misunderstand an awful lot of real-world christian practice that is perfectly normal and conforms to christian teaching.

[Merry]

Clutching a serpent to your breast is the 'nice' option when dealing with a serpent. It is not the christian one. If you don't "get it", you'll constantly misunderstand an awful lot of real-world christian practice that is perfectly normal and conforms to christian teaching.

I dont know. Putting a serpent in a box with a glass side and feeding it a mouse every other day seems nice too. And it doesnt endanger my breast in any kind of way

But you are right, Christian practice and teachings arent that up-to-date for me. And even if i still was going to church all the time, my view of Christ might be different than yours, because you live half the world away, and probably in different branches (sects) of Christianism (Christiandom?).

[TMLutas]

But you are right, Christian practice and teachings arent that up-to-date for me. And even if i still was going to church all the time, my view of Christ might be different than yours, because you live half the world away, and probably in different branches (sects) of Christianism (Christiandom?).

It's a common modern attempt by non-christians to shorthand christianity (christendom's the territory that christianity claims as 'its own' and christianism is never a friendly label). It promotes subtle errors and misunderstanding. Men of good faith can make this mistake and it leads them to no end of frustration over the long haul. God's plan is God's plan and we are to conform to it, however it leads us (see: the book of Job for a particularly nasty example). But God is love though we may not understand his reasons and his actions may strike us as hard and capricious at any one time.

I just got through disciplining my kids again. 1 got sent to the corner, another got a smack on the wrist. The third got a very stern look. Each according to their own culpability in the preceding chaos and mayhem. Was I nice? No. Was I nicer to one than the other? Again, no. I was just, at least as just as I could be and nice had nothing to do with it. We structure our families as we perceive God rules over us all with love and justice and forgiveness for our children's transgressions but not where such forgiveness would do more harm than good.

There are an awful lot of christians who have a different view of christianity than the Romanian Byzantine Catholic Church that I belong to, greater than 99.99% in fact. However, the majority of christians have a compatible view of God as this Church is a member in good standing of the Catholic Church (over 1B strong and growing). It is the tolerance of inessential (but often profound) differences while rejecting essential differences as error/heresy that mark all of the great churches.

[RHJunior]

Instead of accusing the site of "anti islamic propaganda," why don't you try finding evidence to refute their claims?


The people at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com are not postulating or theorizing.... they are listing what is printed right in the Hadith and Koran, what is actually said by the Islamic leaders, <I>and what is actually being done by Muslims around the world.</i>

All the Islamic apologetics I have seen consists of armchair scholars sitting in their dens, struggling to reinterpret Koranic verses in a more favorable light, spin-doctor islamic history, and draw wildly skewed parallels between the behavior of the Catholics 1,000 years ago, the Jews 5,000 years ago, and the Islamics today.

Just because all the evidence is against you does not make it "propaganda."

[Xellas]

The problem with your story RHJ is that you are going only by what gets into the news. When Muslim extremists blow up a bus stop and kill dozens, it makes the news. When a Muslim moderate walks/rides/drives to the store and buys bread and goes home peacefully, it doesn't make news. Which do you honestly think happens more often?

The point is that however visible the atrocities commited by Muslims, both past and present, they do not make up anywhere near the majority of Muslim behavior or beliefs. You can reference all the sites you want RHJ, but that simple fact will remain. Islam is, overall, a peaceful religion that is being given a terrible name by a (relatively) small number of nutjobs.

[Wanderwolf]

Just because all the evidence is against you does not make it "propaganda."

Likewise, just because you don't like it doesn't make it wrong.

To start with: Care to explain how the sacrifice of animals, with the meat being distributed to the poor, belongs in a heading of "Jihad du Jour"? Seems like a combination religious practice and charity drive from over here in the cheap seats.

Then there's the "probe into Oklahoma City bombing 'blocked'" item from the front page (you can follow my link in the previous message if they've rotated it out). Given that Timothy McVeigh, the arrested and executed bomber himself, was raised Roman Catholic, I don't see how the article (which claims Muslims bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building) can claim to be factual in any way.

Then there's their lovely list of "Islamic terrorist attacks", many of which are either unclaimed by any group (meaning the perpetrators can't be positively identified) or unverifiable (including several alleged to have occurred in allied nations to us).

Then there's the "Muslim genocide" in the Sudan. Not a mistake or error if you interpret it as written: A genocide of Muslims. The Janjawid are slaughtering all non-Arabs, and they frankly don't care what religion their victims might have been. It's the KKK with guns.

Then there's the "Fatwa Farce", to cite part of the title on TROP's front page. (Down at the bottom.) Apparently nobody's explained to them that a fatwa, being the stated opinion of a Muslim scholar, is counted seperately for each signature; each scholar makes a separate fatwa.

On a separate heading, while I agree that al-Qardawi is hardly a model citizen, Israel isn't known for being gentle, either. At least not since they used Hellfire missiles to kill a blind paraplegic, his three bodyguards, and eight bystanders. (That *is* the conservative estimate, mind you.) Admittedly, the blind paraplegic was one of the original founders of Hamas; I still think using Hellfire missiles on a target that small is downright crude. (Israel doesn't agree; they used the same method to kill the guy's replacement. Still, with only four bystanders dead this time, their aim seems to be improving...) Oh, you won't find the missiles mentioned on TROP; that's outside their scope, you know. Try Wikipedia.

Oh, and could someone explain the "Camel Clubbed to Death as Sacrifice" article to them? They took the word "clubbed" away from its context; the Muslims in question formed a club to purchase the camel, which was sacrificed to mark the last delivery of 100 aircraft at Istanbul International Airport. (Turkish Airlines promptly suspended them for not asking permission first.) Honestly, some people just don't read...

Then there's the complaint of "Islamist infiltration of the military" (they linked to a WorldNet article), now that an Islamic chaplain has <gasp> been promoted to lieutenant commander. The new lieutenant commander is Abuhena Mohammed Saifulislam, the chaplain who set up the Muslim considerations at Gitmo. Never mind that it was the guy who succeeded him as Gitmo chaplain (Yee) who mishandled classified information... that isn't even mentioned until paragraph four.

Shall I continue, O wondrous one?

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

[RHJunior]

And Hitler was kind to puppies and small children.
At least in person.

Irrelevant argument, Wanderwolf. You don't get a free pass on mass murder because you once helped a kitty down out of a tree, nor does your creed get a free pass on its violence, racism, misogyny, slavery, and jihadist ambitions because <I>some</i> of its followers and advocates maintain a normal lifestyle.

If I spend every day passing out bread in the street, yet continually say "blacks are an inferior race," I'm still a racist. A racist with a P.R. campaign, but a racist nonetheless.

You have seen their actions, you have been shown still more of their deeds that would never make it to the front page or the 11 o'clock news. You have read the transcripts of their sermons, you have been shown the history of their most holy prophet, <I>you have been read the very scriptures that every single one of them holds as sacred.</i>

Yet you still insist on defending the indefensible and apologizing for the unspeakable. And you are <I>proud</i> of it!

Not since Chamberlain has one man been so triumphalist about his own willful ignorance....

[Xellas]

And Hitler was kind to puppies and small children.
At least in person.

Irrelevant argument, Wanderwolf. You don't get a free pass on mass murder because you once helped a kitty down out of a tree, nor does your creed get a free pass on its violence, racism, misogyny, slavery, and jihadist ambitions because <I>some</i> of its followers and advocates maintain a normal lifestyle.

If I spend every day passing out bread in the street, yet continually say "blacks are an inferior race," I'm still a racist. A racist with a P.R. campaign, but a racist nonetheless.

You have seen their actions, you have been shown still more of their deeds that would never make it to the front page or the 11 o'clock news. You have read the transcripts of their sermons, you have been shown the history of their most holy prophet, <I>you have been read the very scriptures that every single one of them holds as sacred.</i>

Yet you still insist on defending the indefensible and apologizing for the unspeakable. And you are <I>proud</i> of it!

Not since Chamberlain has one man been so triumphalist about his own willful ignorance....

Little known fact RHJ... MOST (and by MOST i mean over 90%) Muslims have never PERSONALLY read their own holy documents. They get SELECTED READINGS read to them by their religious leaders... mostly because a vast majority of them either cannot read Arabic, which the Quran is written in, or cannot read at all. Therefore, quoting the Quran and Hadith and claiming ALL muslims read and know it is a massive error.

And apparantly, you still don't get the idea that WHAT IS SHOWN ON THE NEWS IS DONE BY A MINORITY. A very SMALL minority. As I pointed out before, estimating that a total of 5% of Muslims do these things would probably be a GROSS overestimation.

Seriously RHJ, do you just cram your fingers in your ears and hum a miserable little tune to block out any sembalance of rational, factual thought getting in? As I've said at least 5 times IN THIS THREAD, you cannot take the MINORITY's actions and cast them upon the MAJORITY and then condemn the whole lot. Doing that is an abortion of justice that would make Hitler proud, were he not rotting in Hell.

[Wanderwolf]

And Hitler was kind to puppies and small children.
At least in person. <snip> Not since Chamberlain has one man been so triumphalist about his own willful ignorance....

<lets the opening slide>

Ralph, you asked for a refutation of stated facts on thereligionofpeace.com. I gave you a refutation of specific facts, and you made a personal attack out of it. See if you can be bothered to read what I'm writing this time, rather than making it up as you go:

FACT: Turning "a club purchased a camel for an animal sacrifice" into "camel clubbed to death" is either stupidity or willful misinterpretation. (It can't be accidental misinterpretation because reading the article tells you the true story.) It is alarmist and wrong, and ignores the facts in favor of a titillating headline.

FACT: There is no evidence (and by "evidence" I mean actual physical or electronic data from a verifiable source) linking Islam to the OKC bombing masterminded by Timothy McVeigh. Yet TROP links to an article calling for an investigation of "the Islamic link to the bombing". That ignores facts in evidence, and is therefore wrong.

FACT: Calling a massacre of all non-Arabs a "Muslim genocide" is outright falsification in the name of a good anti-Muslim headline. They don't care if you're Muslim or not; they'd kill Muhammad Ali as soon as they'd kill you or me.

FACT: Calling any terrorist attack an "Islamic terror attack", regardless of location, credit and target, is called "padding the figures", Ralph, and is as wrong in stats as in accounting.

FACT: Calling it a "farce" when hundreds of Islamic scholars come out against terrorism? That's called ignorance of what a fatwa is, coupled with a desire not to learn anything that could adversely impact your own hatred. (Seriously, all the article needed was "HAHA! Muslimz pwned!")

FACT: Declaring all Muslim soldiers in the army traitors (as they very effectively did in their article) by calling it "Islamist infiltration" is a denigration of our soldiers and their actions. Further, it ignores the very real desire of American Muslims to strike back against the terrorists who have sullied their religion. Don't believe me? Try looking up the Japanese-American platoons of WWII sometime (should be easy, judging by your extensive list of WWII-based insults). Same basic need to strike back against those who tarnished your group.

FACT: Linking a Muslim Army chaplain to someone that succeeded him, strictly for the purpose of insinuating that he's a traitor, is called "yellow journalism", Ralph. (Appropriate, considering where they pulled some of the info from...) But then, I guess it's okay to INSULT OUR TROOPS if they're Muslims, right, Ralph? I mean, they're not REAL Americans, huh?

I'm no Chamberlain, Ralph. Unlike him, I don't blindly swallow any and all information I'm spoonfed by people that want to lead me by the nose.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer