PDA

View Full Version : History Speaks...


kryptic
10-13-2004, 01:48 AM
I got this in an email...please take time to read the whole thing. This doesn't represent my personal ideas..but those of the author. I'm just sharing his opinon.

---------------------------------------------------------


WHAT WILL BE THE FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN AND THE GENERATIONS TO COME?
WILL THEY BREATHE THE AIR OF FREEDOM THAT WE HAVE ENJOYED?

THE WORLD SITUATION - A LETTER TO MY SONS (This was written by a retired attorney, to his sons, May 19, 2004.)

Dear Tom, Kevin, Kirby and Ted,

As your father, I believe I owe it to you to share some thoughts on the present world situation. We have over the years discussed a lot of important things, like going to college, jobs and so forth. But this really takes precedence over any of those discussions. I hope this might give you a longer term perspective that fewer and fewer of my generation are left to speak to.

To be sure you understand that this is not politically flavored, I will tell you that since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who led us through pre and W.W.II (1933 - 1945) up to and including our present President, I have without exception, supported our presidents on all matters of international conflict. This would include just naming a few in addition to President Roosevelt - W.W.II: President Truman - Korean War 1950; President Kennedy - Bay of Pigs (1961); President Kennedy - Vietnam (1961); [1] eight presidents (5 Republican & 4 Democrat) during the cold war (1945 - 1991); President Clinton's strikes on Bosnia (1995) and on Iraq (1998). [2] So be sure you read this as completely nonpolitical or otherwise you will miss the point.

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes W.W.II). The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?

Many will say September 11th, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us: Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979; Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983; Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983; Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988; First New York World Trade Center attack 1993; Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996; Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998; Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998; Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000; New York World Trade Center 2001; Pentagon 2001. (Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)

2. Why were we attacked?

Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocation's by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

4. Who were the attackers?

In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.

5. What is the Muslim population of the World?

25%

6. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?

Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt
that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). (<http://www.nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm). Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis, as the 6 million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others. Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection
to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements --killing all of us infidels. I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

7. So who are we at war with?

There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting. So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal
questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the
answer to the second question - What does losing mean? It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads,
bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.

What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want
us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18
years. The plan was clearly to terrorist attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.

We would of course have no future support from other nations for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent
and cannot help them. They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain
hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists
bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do, will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast. See the attached article on the French condition by Tom Segel.

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims. If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else? The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war and therefore are completely committed to winning at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing?
Simple.
Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that
100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war? Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by imploding. That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

- President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling.
Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously?

This is war. For the duration we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently. And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during W.W.II and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him? No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

- Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening, it concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

- Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein. And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of an American prisoner they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners - not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them. Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can. To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned - totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife.
Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates
into all non-Muslims - not just in the United States, but throughout the world.

We are the last bastion of defense.

- We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant'. That charge is valid in at least one respect. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.

We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion freedom of the Press, equal rights for anyone - let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the World.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece. And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power. They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I believe that after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in and will unite to save our country.

It is your future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it.

Love,
Dad

Biffman49
10-13-2004, 09:02 AM
Sheesh, somebody (not kryptic, but the author of this "letter") doesn't like Muslims.

TheKOB
10-13-2004, 09:16 AM
Sheesh, somebody (not kryptic, but the author of this "letter") doesn't like Muslims.

They could narrow it down to Middle East Muslims and those in Checnya. For being a peaceful religion, the govenernments of the middle east sure seem to support the terrorists or at least look the other way for the most part.

Frndlefire
10-13-2004, 10:33 AM
Sheesh, somebody (not kryptic, but the author of this "letter") doesn't like Muslims. I am also no comfortable with his generalization. I mean, just look at his Nazi example. People weren't screaming "All those German Catholics are exterminating [insert group of people]!!" No, it was "All those Nazis are exterminating [insert group of people]!!" To say Muslims, I think, creates an undo profiling. How many millions of Muslims are there in the world? How many are part of one of these terrorist sects?

TheKOB
10-13-2004, 12:03 PM
I am also no comfortable with his generalization. I mean, just look at his Nazi example. People weren't screaming "All those German Catholics are exterminating [insert group of people]!!" No, it was "All those Nazis are exterminating [insert group of people]!!" To say Muslims, I think, creates an undo profiling. How many millions of Muslims are there in the world? How many are part of one of these terrorist sects?


Nazis were not Catholics.

Also, I wouldn't say it's all that much of a stretch. I think it's more contained within the Arab-Muslims though.

RYU
10-13-2004, 03:42 PM
Sheesh, somebody doesn't like Muslims.That's putting it lightly. I found the letter to be reprehensible. It basically preys upon the most primitive of fundamentalist Christian's fears and advocates another 100+ year religious crusade not seen since the Dark Ages. In other words, 'We must kill the Muslims before they kill us. They hate us simply for being Christian.'
France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast... If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less.Yeah, and the sky is falling down too. France's total population is ~60 million. It's total Muslim population is ~5-6 million. That would be ~8-10% Muslim. About 75-80% of French citizens are Christian.
We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.

We can't. If we don't recognize this, our nation as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the World will survive if we are defeated.Again w/ the Crusades... The theme of this letter is that the US should go and kill all Muslims indiscriminantly, b/c Muslims = the Enemy.
Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms.This is a large part of the problem of American ethnocentricism & current US foreign relations & policy. NOT EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WANTS TO BE LIKE THE USA! Not everyone wants the American Way, and not everyone is jealous of our way of life.

There are enough holes & flaws in that letter to write a good, long term paper. I just pointed out a couple of egregiously bad ones.

CharlotteLax1
10-13-2004, 04:08 PM
This is a large part of the problem of American ethnocentricism & current US foreign relations & policy. NOT EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WANTS TO BE LIKE THE USA! Not everyone wants the American Way, and not everyone is jealous of our way of life.
I noticed you couldn't come up with an answer for why they hate us.

I'm all for killing the turban heads. Good post.



Edited, smartass

RYU
10-13-2004, 04:46 PM
I noticed you couldn't come up with an answer for why they hare us.Why who hares us? Terrorists? Is the latest terrorist threat being turned into a bunny rabbit?

Were you referring to Muslims? The vast majority of Muslims on the whole don't hate Americans or Christians. That was implied in my post. To be explicit, I don't generalize the actions of extremist-terrorists to be consistent with the rest of the billion-plus Muslims in the world any more than I generalize the actions of abortion clinic bombing or Branch Davidian Christian extremists to be consistent w/ the rest of the Christian world.

If you're referring to Muslim & Islamic fundamentalist extremists/terrorists, I wasn't trying to explain why they hate us. If I attempted to adequetely explain that, then that's another term paper I'd be looking at. And I doubt you are educated or open-minded enough to listed to the real reasons when:

Muslim = Evil
Muslim = natural Enemy
Dogs:Cats :: Christians:Muslims
Therefore, all Muslims must die.

...is so much simpler & satisfying for you to absorb and all the reasons you need.
I'm all for killing the turban heads. Good post.So now you advocate not just killing the 1/4 of the world who is Muslim but the 1/2 of the world population who wear turbans. That sure is a mature point of view.

To be perfectly blunt, people like you are largely why Islamic extremists hate Americans. You hate Muslims simply b/c they are Muslim, and you think they should convert to Christianity, and their country should adopt the American way of life. Hate breeds hate, and your attitude is what the terrorists use as a recruiting tool to convice recruits that a religious jihad/crusade is underway, and that they must protect the Muslim way of life from imperialistic Americans.

ScottyFlex
10-13-2004, 11:32 PM
Ryu, your reading into the letter incorrectly.

This isn't about a 'crusade'. Not once does the author ever mention Christianity as a driving factor in the War on Terrorism. We aren't going to war to 'convert the heathens'. Sadly, in the society we live in, we have to acknowledge the fact of terrorism coming from a Muslim origin. Does this make all Muslims bad? No, the same could be said of the KKK (they preach Christianity but act on hate so does this make Christianity bad?, loose correlation). The difference is, Terrorism is a new form of war. Its something that we have never been prepared for or know how to combat.

It is undeniable that almost all terrorist attack (major threats) were done by Muslims, so hence, targeting Muslims is the first step to accessing the deeper threat. Racial profiling: deal with it. Its like drug testing, if you have nothing to hide then it's just an inconvience (people have become too impatient).

This is a large part of the problem of American ethnocentricism & current US foreign relations & policy. NOT EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WANTS TO BE LIKE THE USA! Not everyone wants the American Way, and not everyone is jealous of our way of life.
America is quite Geocentric, PRIVATE ENTERPRISE is ethnocentric. Blame large corporations for their influence on foreign culture and being ethnocentric which causes problems in other countries.

roughrider
10-13-2004, 11:52 PM
I noticed you couldn't come up with an answer for why they hate us.

I'm all for killing the turban heads. Good post.



Edited, smartass

wow. i hope you arnt serious and if you are, god help us all. people wonder why other countrys hate us....

TheKOB
10-14-2004, 11:08 AM
Why who hares us? Terrorists? Is the latest terrorist threat being turned into a bunny rabbit?

Were you referring to Muslims? The vast majority of Muslims on the whole don't hate Americans or Christians. That was implied in my post. To be explicit, I don't generalize the actions of extremist-terrorists to be consistent with the rest of the billion-plus Muslims in the world any more than I generalize the actions of abortion clinic bombing or Branch Davidian Christian extremists to be consistent w/ the rest of the Christian world.

The vast majority in (and those from, remember) the middle east do. I think a larger percentage than is commonly thought is behind the terrorist actions. I don't think it's as simple as "Islam is a peaceful religion...except for a few wackos".

I definitely think that there are a whole lot more Islamic terrorists than Christian terrorists. Those which you cited are no where near the level of sophistication, organization and/or international level of Al-Quaida and other organizations. If they stuck to attacking Israel, that would be different.

To be perfectly blunt, people like you are largely why Islamic extremists hate Americans. You hate Muslims simply b/c they are Muslim, and you think they should convert to Christianity, and their country should adopt the American way of life. Hate breeds hate, and your attitude is what the terrorists use as a recruiting tool to convice recruits that a religious jihad/crusade is underway, and that they must protect the Muslim way of life from imperialistic Americans.

I don't think it's nearly as simple as that. This is way more simple than they hate us for being ignorant. They hate us because we support Israel. They hate us for what they see as our intrusion and even contact with the middle east and muslims. They hate us for our conflicting view on such basic things as the treatment of women, criminals, and other "customs".

Also, last time I checked, it wasn't really Christians they were after....the Jews have some muslim extremist troubles from what I've heard too.

You've got to be sure not to overcorrect to think that the problem is with us and not with them. It's definitely with them. "them" meaning the somewhat large portion of Muslims (who are usually arabs) that hate us for who we are. That definitely goes against whatever hate-breeds-hate argument you gin up. We're not the problem....they are, with their suicide bombers and insurgents, killing women and children because they don't follow the same religion as they do, or perhaps just not strictly enough. When was the last time a Jew, Christian, Buddist, or Daoist, etc did anything like that. Jews? Jerhico. Christians? Crusades.....

Not exactly as recently as september 11th, 2001.

gKash187
10-14-2004, 01:38 PM
Here, I recommend you all read this book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1893554589/002-1276680-8967204?v=glance

It provides facts and disturbing evidence that Islam may not be what most of you think it is. Go check it out at the library or buy it. I highly recommend it.

Havernaf
10-14-2004, 02:16 PM
wow, im astonished how many ignorant people we have in here.

TheKOB
10-14-2004, 02:24 PM
wow, im astonished how many ignorant people we have in here.

Feel free to call as many names as you want, but only if you enter the fray.

The problem with Islam seems that it's not very seperated from war. Holy war seems to be mentioned often in their text. It's then taken up by their priests (if you will) like the Shiek who caused all that trouble in Iraq recently. There doesn't seem to be a seperation between church and state, or at least things often left to the state, such as warmaking. That is why Islam is a problem and why a disproportionate number of Islamic followers wield machine guns. It's pretty much a modern day Crusade.

Arguments?

ScottyFlex
10-14-2004, 02:55 PM
Agreed TheKOB. Most Islamic cultures that we are conflicted with are ruled and governed by Theocracy. There is no separation of church and state, they co-exsist as one.

CTLaxer
10-14-2004, 03:52 PM
Well, people mentioned the jewish religion as well as christianity. If you know anything about religions, you'll see that the muslim religion is tolerant of christianity and catholicism, but not of judaism. Just an interesting tidbit for those that think islam is against all religions and out to get us just because we don't support their own religion/religous beliefs. It's the extremists that are the problem, as is the case with almost all religions and conflicts.

gKash187
10-14-2004, 04:20 PM
Muslims are intollerant of people who do not believe in anything. It actually says in the Koran to kill all unbelievers (Christians and other religions count as believers I do believe). There are several instances in the Koran that directly say to kill people or give out strict punishments as stated in the Sharia (Muslim Code Of Law).

anjang86
10-14-2004, 04:20 PM
For all of you that belive that 'in all logic' there should be discrimination at the Airports... I'm so jealous of you. You guys dont have anything to worry about cause you dont have brown skin, you dont have to worry about being seen as a threat. I'm not muslim and I'm not middle eastern but I can easily be mistaken for one... why should they 'check' me? Hindus never did anything to the Americans... I mean you say 'they' can deal with the political incorrectness.. but how can you speak for what 'they' can deal with? You dont have to deal with the political incorrectness but they do and you can't assume that its no big deal to them

gKash187
10-14-2004, 04:40 PM
I don't see how anyone could hate those loveable little brown kids.

Havernaf
10-14-2004, 08:19 PM
I would like to pose a question to KOB. you stated:
"The problem with Islam seems that it's not very seperated from war. Holy war seems to be mentioned often in their text."
1)Have you on any occasion read "their text" as you put it?
2)And as for "It's then taken up by their priests (if you will) like the Shiek who caused all that trouble in Iraq recently." I believe i know but just for clarification what "sheik would you be talking about?
"That is why Islam is a problem and why a disproportionate number of Islamic followers wield machine guns." I would like to know what you are basing that on, seeing as this is one of the most common religions in the world and most people actually arent wielding machine guns?
Just FYI, no i am not muslim, actually very devout christian, however i am a well rounded human being that understands that you need to understand a society/people/religion before you can judge them.

Havernaf
10-14-2004, 08:22 PM
Scottyflex, you cannot say "islamic cultures", well you can but it just makes you sound and look like you do not understand what you are talking about. It would be a muslim culture. Muslims are people that practice the islam religion.

Longest
10-15-2004, 12:30 AM
Scottyflex, you cannot say "islamic cultures", well you can but it just makes you sound and look like you do not understand what you are talking about. It would be a muslim culture. Muslims are people that practice the islam religion.

Islamic - The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world - American Heritage Dictionary

That sounds okay to me, maybe I don't understand what the beef is?

Dan

Havernaf
10-15-2004, 08:31 AM
My beef is with reporters and people that do not know what they are reporting on or talking about. A muslim is a person that practices Islam, you can have an Islamic nation, you have a muslim culture, not an Islamic one, that is like saying Islamic terrorists, or using the term islamics to describe people. what i am saying is that while it is a word, it is used incorrectly way to often. so i guess my beef is with the grammar if you want it in a black and white description, but it is definatly much bigger than just that.

TheKOB
10-15-2004, 10:58 AM
I would like to pose a question to KOB. you stated:
"The problem with Islam seems that it's not very seperated from war. Holy war seems to be mentioned often in their text."
1)Have you on any occasion read "their text" as you put it?
2)And as for "It's then taken up by their priests (if you will) like the Shiek who caused all that trouble in Iraq recently." I believe i know but just for clarification what "sheik would you be talking about?
"That is why Islam is a problem and why a disproportionate number of Islamic followers wield machine guns." I would like to know what you are basing that on, seeing as this is one of the most common religions in the world and most people actually arent wielding machine guns?
Just FYI, no i am not muslim, actually very devout christian, however i am a well rounded human being that understands that you need to understand a society/people/religion before you can judge them.

Thanks for breaking it up. Often, someone just responds in a jumble, making it seem lik there's several conversations at once.

here's a good article by the way...an interesting viewpoint. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6247728/

1) no, I haven't read their text. the reason I put it as "their text" was because I couldn't remember at the time and didn't want to get the Koran confused with the Torah. Yesterday was a loooong day.
2) Muqtada al-Sader, inciter and leader of the al-Mahdi army. Basically what I was getting at is that religion (something that is based on faith, not necessarily facts) can grow pretty fanatical. Also, just because scripture says "thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean Christians don't kill. Just because the Koran says dont kill women and children and innocent, doesn't mean Islamic followers don't. Religion is open to interpretation.

I know it is one of the most common religions in the world. A large portion of people who are muslim are in the middle east. A large portion of them support (either by opinion, finance, or actually being in) what people would consider terrorist organizations. Terrorist organizations have been operating all over the middle east for some time. You can't make me believe that they were operating for all this time without some support from the government, or at least government officials looking the other way.

Remember, the middle east is all Islamic, with the exception of Israel....who they don't like. That should tell you something about their tolerance. They didn't grow up being exposed to different people and different creeds. The US is one of the most free and understanding countries in the world, despite what some people would have you believe. One thing they don't have is freedom of religion.

Also, just because they really hate jews doesn't mean that they don't hate christians. You don't hear of any Muslim on Christian crimes because there's no Christian state in the middle east.

ScottyFlex
10-15-2004, 11:34 AM
Havernaf,

'Islamic Culture' is an acceptable term when referring to their society (or traditions, or economy, or practices, etc...), atleast according to my World Religion class... (opps, at least is two words not one, would'nt want to be displayed as ignorant for that error)

Instead of arguing semantics, why not read the message and argue that...

Havernaf
10-16-2004, 09:30 PM
i like the response KOB, we can actually have a well rounded discussion here for once.

Just a few points:
Like you said "just because scripture says 'thou shalt not kill' doesn't mean Christians don't kill. Just because the Koran says dont kill women and children and innocent, doesn't mean Islamic followers don't. Religion is open to interpretation. "
I agree with you but on average wouldnt you say that most christians dont kill?

The main base of terrorists have actually never read the Qu'ran either. In fact what is different about the Islam religion is that there are certain people that are "Religiously Qualified" to interperet the text and they are widely held with high regard.
These people, who Muqtada Sadr is not one of (although his father was), are also listened to very closely when they make decisions, I point to Grand Ayatollah Sistani when he told his followers to march on najaf to end the conlfict there, EVERYONE did, and he was able to get mr. sadr out of najaf along with his followers. (on a side note he has also recently declared that it is a sin to not vote in the upcoming election, and also a sin to not register, should be interesting to see what happens with that, huh?)

I see your points and they are valid, but i guess my point is that most muslims cannot be lumped into the same category as these terrorists are, because the terrorists are soo far off base it is rediculous. Yes they do not get along with isreal, and that is really a discussion that i do not feel that i am qualified to even begin to delve into. yes the terrorists were supported by governments, mainly the Taliban, who i like to equate to a group of 4th graders leading a country.

I really do not feel like going into all the different issues in which normal muslims are far separated from the terrorists (i will if you would like, but it is a long list), but here is a big one i think: The Qu'ran actually states that martyrdom is something that is highly revered. If you are martyred? there is a special place for you in heaven. However one cannot seek out martyrdom. Muhammad, the original prophet of Islam, interpreted this as being a sin to commit suicide.
So id say that is a far cry from if i kill myself to kill infidels i will have seven virgins waiting in heaven...
(by the way i feel your pain on the looooong day!)

Longest
10-17-2004, 01:20 PM
The main base of terrorists have actually never read the Qu'ran either. In fact what is different about the Islam religion is that there are certain people that are "Religiously Qualified" to interperet the text and they are widely held with high regard.
These people, who Muqtada Sadr is not one of (although his father was), are also listened to very closely when they make decisions, I point to Grand Ayatollah Sistani when he told his followers to march on najaf to end the conlfict there, EVERYONE did, and he was able to get mr. sadr out of najaf along with his followers. (on a side note he has also recently declared that it is a sin to not vote in the upcoming election, and also a sin to not register, should be interesting to see what happens with that, huh?)


Good points. My only question is, if people will listen so willingly and easiliy to ppl religiously qualified, why have they not come out against al Qaeda if they want people to think they're not linked together? Why have they not talked about how Allah does not want terror bombings of civilians? Is that not an implicit support for the terrorists?

Dan

Havernaf
10-18-2004, 07:01 AM
good question, thu funny thing is that they have, the american press just chooses not to cover it. Mainly this is becuase one reason: the people speaking out against these things do it in arabic, something the press cannot understand and also chooses not to. Interesting related note: after 9/11 when the news agencies where showing the videos of all the pakistanis dancing around becuase of that tragedy on the news they failed to show what happened afterwards. When they finally calmed down someone showed them a tape of what had actually happened, the clip of the planes hitting, and almost everyone of those people left in shame/disgust.

TheKOB
10-18-2004, 09:52 AM
i like the response KOB, we can actually have a well rounded discussion here for once.

Just a few points:
Like you said "just because scripture says 'thou shalt not kill' doesn't mean Christians don't kill. Just because the Koran says dont kill women and children and innocent, doesn't mean Islamic followers don't. Religion is open to interpretation. "
I agree with you but on average wouldnt you say that most christians dont kill?

No, of course not. They just don't kill in the names of their religion, and when they do (gay-lynching, etc) it doesn't seem to be nearly as widespread or accepted.



The main base of terrorists have actually never read the Qu'ran either. In fact what is different about the Islam religion is that there are certain people that are "Religiously Qualified" to interperet the text and they are widely held with high regard.
These people, who Muqtada Sadr is not one of (although his father was), are also listened to very closely when they make decisions, I point to Grand Ayatollah Sistani when he told his followers to march on najaf to end the conlfict there, EVERYONE did, and he was able to get mr. sadr out of najaf along with his followers. (on a side note he has also recently declared that it is a sin to not vote in the upcoming election, and also a sin to not register, should be interesting to see what happens with that, huh?)

I don't reject the fact that there are some great muslim holy men out there. It could be that the ones I hear about aren't the "religiously qualified", kinda like David Koresh in Texas. He preached a religion, but it definitely wasn't christianity. There just seem to be a lot more of these fanatical militaristic "cults" (if you will) related to Islam than christianity. I would think that they're more militarisitc than christianity because they actually have a name for holy wars (jihad) and it seems like every time I checked msn for awhile, someone was declaring a jihad. It's not that I'm worried about the individual crazies, it's that people listen to and follow them and the real clergy (who you mentioned) doesn't do anything about it.


I see your points and they are valid, but i guess my point is that most muslims cannot be lumped into the same category as these terrorists are, because the terrorists are soo far off base it is rediculous. Yes they do not get along with isreal, and that is really a discussion that i do not feel that i am qualified to even begin to delve into. yes the terrorists were supported by governments, mainly the Taliban, who i like to equate to a group of 4th graders leading a country.

I really do not feel like going into all the different issues in which normal muslims are far separated from the terrorists (i will if you would like, but it is a long list), but here is a big one i think: The Qu'ran actually states that martyrdom is something that is highly revered. If you are martyred? there is a special place for you in heaven. However one cannot seek out martyrdom. Muhammad, the original prophet of Islam, interpreted this as being a sin to commit suicide.
So id say that is a far cry from if i kill myself to kill infidels i will have seven virgins waiting in heaven...
(by the way i feel your pain on the looooong day!)

Would martyrdom be considered dying when fighting against the infidels? I agree they are so far off base, but it seems that besides an occasional "these guys are against god and aren't really muslim" the religious leaders haven't really said anything about it. Why haven't they (the ones in the middle east) spoke out against Osama? I'd say it's more likely that we're being paid lip service than our press just can't understand arabic.

Frndlefire
10-18-2004, 10:53 AM
you have to keep in mind that a Jihad doesn't neccesarily mean that they are picking up a gun and killing those that dissagree with them. a "holy war" doesnt neccesarily mean that there is any killing, torturing, physical harm, etc. involved. We have a war on drugs, but we arent killing druggies. a "holy war" can be anything from these nutjobs who are killing people to someone who simply stands up against religious persecuting. It is really an all encompasing term.

Havernaf
10-18-2004, 02:29 PM
good points KOB

One thing i would like to clarify, jihad actualy doesnt translate into "holy war". It more accurately translates into "struggle".
In islam there are two types of jihad, the greater jihad and the lesser jihad.
"the greater jihad" is actually translated by Muhammad as the struggle within yourself. I translate this to mean the struggle of religious morality/righ and wrong...loosely.
"the lesser jihad" is what everyone thinks of as "holy war". this is actually a religious struggle against non-believers. the problem with all of this is that the leading religious leaders have spoken out against Osama (i cant think of exact occasions or quotes but i will search for them, and i can garantee they wont be on cnn). And trust me our press is quite possibly the most disgustingly inadequate news source in the world. The jihad that osama has declared is not a "religiously sactioned" one if you will. This is because the only two people that can declare a jihad, are the Sunni Caliph, and the Shi'a Imam. And i do believe i am correct in saying this, (but i could be wrong), the Caliph is dead for a long time, and the Imam, is "in hiding from the world" for the last, say 600 or so years... Also a jihad can only be a defensive war to an extent.

I understand what you are saying about people listening to them is more worrying than the individuals crazies themselves though. It is a worrying thought.
One last thought, and this is a legitimate question not a jab:
If we finally do catch Osama, what do you expect to happen?

TheKOB
10-18-2004, 02:46 PM
good points KOB
One last thought, and this is a legitimate question not a jab:
If we finally do catch Osama, what do you expect to happen?

The way I see it, he's a figurehead (people see him as the head of Al Quaida, both in the muslim world and internationally), financier, contact guy, etc.

His loss would be disasterous to the Al-Quaida movement and all those that have joined with it and have ties (like Al-Zarcawi's (spelled phonetically) movement/struggle against terrorist forces in Iraq).

What mainly brought all this terrorist attention to the US is our continued support of Israel. All but Al Quaida focus just on Israel, but Osama saw fit to attack us. I think all of the groups would attack us as well, but their tactics are limited to suicide bombers running into cafes and buses, and rockets fired at Israeli settlements. They don't have the means to attack us, only Al Quaida. How long that might remain true, it's hard to say.

Few people in the world of terror have the notoriety of OB Ladin. That gives him power and capital. Capturing him wouldn't necessarily cut the head of the Al-Quaida organization, but if we played our cards right, I think it would weaken them and make them vunerable. Also, it would show people in the middle east (if they are simply not acting because they are afraid) that they can have confidence.

Havernaf
10-18-2004, 07:27 PM
Osama is exactly what you have described, a figurehead. In all reality, although he once was a great financer he is one no longer, this is becuase he has divided up his enormous amounts of money between many others so that the funds will never be captured wholly. I fear that we place far too much importance/significance on the capture of Osama than we should. Now before everyone jumps on me i need to explain that statement:
Yes i fully agree that he needs to be captured. He needs to be brought to justice not only for 9/11 but for all other acts that the has committed. But this is all that it is going to accomplish. It might take down a figurehead, but not much else. It would deliver a morale blow to the terrorist world, but not anything significant. They will continue to fight, with or without bin Ladin. And i fear that they will have the means to attack us for a very long time, monetarily at least (that would be thanks to good old papa ladin). just a few thoughts.

TheKOB
10-19-2004, 09:39 AM
Osama is exactly what you have described, a figurehead. In all reality, although he once was a great financer he is one no longer, this is becuase he has divided up his enormous amounts of money between many others so that the funds will never be captured wholly. I fear that we place far too much importance/significance on the capture of Osama than we should. Now before everyone jumps on me i need to explain that statement:
Yes i fully agree that he needs to be captured. He needs to be brought to justice not only for 9/11 but for all other acts that the has committed. But this is all that it is going to accomplish. It might take down a figurehead, but not much else. It would deliver a morale blow to the terrorist world, but not anything significant. They will continue to fight, with or without bin Ladin. And i fear that they will have the means to attack us for a very long time, monetarily at least (that would be thanks to good old papa ladin). just a few thoughts.

He is a figurehead, but he's an important one. The whole network was started and is kept running by him. Even if he no longer has money, the ties he has are worth more than his family fortune to terrorists. He's the decision maker. To take him out would be crippling.