muslims PART 2

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I don't know if you could get the non-radicals to kill the radicals...there's that whole "non-radical" problem.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It doesn't. A lie is an assertion contrary to the truth. This is generalization and omission, a very different matter.

I already showed two places where it includes assertions that are contrary to the truth. One is where it says Arabia "embraced" Islam, and the other is where it says it says Islam was "united and peaceful," when it was actually riven with strife and civil war, and almost all of its early Caliphs died at the assassin's blade.

But I think omission that implies something different from what actually happened is a lie. Their omission is absolutely huge and from what's written, a peaceful Muslim expansion is implied. That is an untruth, and hence a lie.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I already showed two places where it includes assertions that are contrary to the truth. One is where it says Arabia "embraced" Islam, and the other is where it says it says Islam was "united and peaceful," when it was actually riven with strife and civil war, and almost all of its early Caliphs died at the assassin's blade.

But I think omission that implies something different from what actually happened is a lie. Their omission is absolutely huge and from what's written, a peaceful Muslim expansion is implied. That is an untruth, and hence a lie.

Technically, Arabia did 'embrace' Islam. It's not as though you can force someone to do something absolutely against their will. They did choose, even if it was only when faced with an unpleasant alternative.

It says a "united and peaceful" community resulted, which I'm sure is technically true, that at one point early on, probably during the persecution, there was a united and peaceful community.

Peruse the dictionaries; it is to make a false statement. American Heritage, Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster's all say so.

And, for a little extra tidbit:

St. Thomas, Secunda Secundae, Question 110, Article 1, Respondeo:

Accordingly if these three things concur, namely, falsehood of what is said, the will to tell a falsehood, and finally the intention to deceive, then there is falsehood--materially, since what is said is false, formally, on account of the will to tell an untruth, and effectively, on account of the will to impart a falsehood.

However, the essential notion of a lie is taken from formal falsehood, from the fact namely, that a person intends to say what is false; wherefore also the word "mendacium" [lie] is derived from its being in opposition to the "mind."

We had a seminar on St. Thomas' article On Lying last year.

[Lief Erikson]

*Double post. This one is slightly less good, so I'm deleting the contents .*

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Technically, Arabia did 'embrace' Islam. It's not as though you can force someone to do something absolutely against their will. They did choose, even if it was only when faced with an unpleasant alternative.

That can hardly be called an "embrace."

It says a "united and peaceful" community resulted, which I'm sure is technically true, that at one point early on, probably during the persecution, there was a united and peaceful community.

We're not talking about the time period of persecution, but about the time after Muhammad's death.

Originally Posted by The Reader

Part 2

How did the spread of Islam affect the world?

The Muslim community continued to grow after Muhammad’s death. Within a few decades, vast numbers of people across three continents – Africa, Asia, and Europe, had chosen Islam for their way of life.

One of the reasons for the rapid spread of Islam was the purity of its doctrine – Islam calls for faith in only One God. This, coupled with the Islamic concepts of justice and freedom, resulted in a united and peaceful community.

We're talking about the Muslim community following Muhammad's victories in Arabia. They're saying that the Muslim community was peaceful and united. It was not.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Peruse the dictionaries; it is to make a false statement. American Heritage, Oxford, Cambridge, and Merriam-Webster's all say so.

Here's the definition of the noun for "lie" according to the World English Dictionary:

Originally Posted by The World English Dictionary

1) A false statement made deliberately.
2) A false impression created deliberately.

The Reader's writers deliberately made it look as though Islam had expanded peacefully, even though it had not. This was a "false impression created deliberately," and hence a lie.

But Gwaimir, I think as we're talking about lies and honesty right now anyway, I've got to be honest about something. I can't debate with you anymore, for a period of time anyway. I'll explain over PM.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Fie on you, sir! That post stinks of libel!

Libel= Any false and malicious written or printed statement, tending to expose a person to public ridicule.

So, since it was an opinion not a statement, I'm off the hook.

Also, the Moot hardly is "the public".

All good things to you GW.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Lief,
If you look at dictionary definitions, you'll find that often they give as a definition of a word, a sense in which we would use that word analogously, and this is such a one as that. That which creates a false impression, I believe, is only called a lie in analogy to a true lie.

You are right, upon second glance, that it refers to the time after Mohammed's death.

But it's possible that the false statement is not made deliberately. I just don't think we should rush so quickly to judge the writers of this pamphlet.

[Insidious Rex]

I think this was from this thread...

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Why am I not paying attention to the quiet elephant? Well, because it isn't being an elephant!

What is it being then?

Roughly (because I hate polls) 75% of Sunnis in Iraq support the insurgency.

In Iraq… But we were talking about the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

And honestly most Sunnis in Iraq would just assume have peace and not be marginalized by the other ethnic groups. But they don’t want to be targets of the Shiite death squads so of course they “support” their own ethnic militias. What choice do they have?

Well it had to do with "getting" all the jerks you said were the ones being violent...and not the regular muslim. I say the soldiers were seeing familiar faces...

Not sure what you mean by this. They all look the same or they actually see the same terrorists blowing stuff up here and protesting there?

you are being black and white, you keep saying that there are peaceful muslims for which you have no evidence

Hector do you really want me to lay out links for you to look at to show that there are peaceful muslims? Because I can find dozens if you really want me to. Its absurd to even suggest there is no evidence of peaceful Muslims quite frankly… All this nonsense about no muslims ever speak out against the terrorists is just ridiculous really. I know muslims myself who tell ME how horrible the terrorist actions are. Do you think they get into the press? Of course not. Why would they. But believe me they do exist. Its up to us to go outside of our white washed western bubble and expose ourselves to differences to find the truth.

and you say that the extremists are the ones killing etc...

Are the moderates killing? I don’t understand how this is relevant to the point.

...which makes me bring up another point: if you don't believe they are born terrorists, where do you think they come from?

Terrorists? They are brainwashed by extremists to think in the same extremist ways and to rationalize acting in horrific ways. And how do they extremists succeed in doing this brainwashing? With the help of American policy in the middle east and cultural gaffs like the cartoons and the popes speech. These are all tools for the brain washers. We are right now making more terrorists willing to kill themselves for their cause simply by our current Iraq policy and our way of handling the Israeli situation.

I find the issue very gray in this respect; because I think a lot of the Iraqi Army are just insurgents who want to exploit the position...

I don’t disagree. Not so much the army but the police. Many are simply fronts for ethnic militias its quite clear.

Ok, I see...you think that when I say "those toilets aren't working!" that I mean all toilets. Understandable, but would it not make sense to read between the lines and assume that I am speaking of however many toilets are not working? I know this sounds ridiculous...

How many “toilets” do you think aren’t working Hector? Its disingenuous to say see this ONE is working so therefore I wasn’t speaking in sweeping generalizations because it certainly sounds to me from your words before this that you really feel Muslims in general and as a group have a real issue with violence and dealing with “modern” society. So how many toilets are we talking about here Hector? 1%? 10%? 50%?

Are you SURE it's 99% percent?

Considering the numbers we are talking about Id say even that’s being generous. 1% of a billion is 10 million after all…

I cut it like this: burning, anything...counts as extreme protesting - though not violence-, especially when it is another country's flag...which of course, it always is, except with American communists...

Um ok and so are you saying “extreme protesting” (Im assuming they don’t use skate boards to do that…) is still an unacceptable form of protesting even though its not violent as you admit?

Well, did they do it because they were protesting the pope or not? It was murder either way, I don't care what they did it for, really; but it seems to me that if you can provoke that just by saying something, it shows a general mentality of violence

It shows no such thing! it says something about ONE person not a whole religion or culture (sorry… the broken “toilets”…). You do realize that even in great and perfect and oh so civilized America we have wack jobs who will shoot you in the face just cause you said something about their girlfriend right? That is ONLY about murder and the pathology of one individual. Don’t even think of using it to condemn whole cultures of people.

Now if you want to say those cultures who have protests have issues well that’s something we can argue about. But NONE of those protesters murdered anybody so its essentially slander to associate them.

Whackos who go out and burn and kill (respectively, in some cases) don't have a responsibility? They have freedom to do whatever they want just because they're mad and protesting?

No one has the right to kill. Even the extremist government in Kartun arrested two men for that nuns murder and they certainly aren’t big fans of western culture. Again, stop trying to directly link the two things, it just makes you look ridiculous.

As for the responsibility of some protesters not to burn effigies and have mean signs well I think that’s much more debatable. Again, WE may find it abhorrent in our culture but theres plenty we do they find abhorrent as well. My thinking is as long as they are not all rushing out and killing random Christians then its ok free expression of their anger. And so far we only have one death. So if as you insist these kinds of protests were so wide spread then I would say you have made the argument that in fact they ARENT inherrintly violent to the extreme because they seem to draw a pretty clear line at not KILLING people. They could easily go after some westerners and string them up for effect but they don’t. they do their silly little flag burning and pope doll shoe hitting and leave it at that.

But let me ask you this Hector. Lets say you had these protests and then you had local government forces react to them with extreme measures, smashing in heads and yanking protestors off the streets by the dozens only to be tortured and killed. Would you be satisfied with this or horrified? Would you think they deserved it or would you then find yourself defending their right to protest freely despite your distaste for their particular actions?

I say each radical muslim extremist has the lives of his brethren in his hand far more than any Pope ever did or could...

How so?

What? Here we are again, trying to clarify what is condemnable about the protesting, when I think it should be pretty obvious: that the protests (namely in the middle east) were violent...and don't think that all the non-violent protesting was inexcusable either, because calling for the death of the pope is kind of extreme, wouldn't you say?

To us. But they would probably argue that sending troops into the middle east is fairly extreme as well and even before that supporting Israel in the way we do is unforgivably extreme. So I think it all comes down to perspective. And frankly Id choose empty words in anger over real physical policy (like 9/11) any day.

I have to go back to the toilet anology; how do you know you aren't generalizing about me when you say I generalize? And besides, how are you not generalizing about peace loving muslims when you say they're peace loving? Perhaps they only want peace on their own terms...

Don’t distract from the point Hector… Again, do you want me to quote muslims who are AGAINST the killings and the conflict? Who simply want a chance to live and work and not fear for their lives or see others suffer every day?

I have said before, that while not everyone is stereotypical fitted, that stereotypes exist for a reason.

Sure. But stereotypes are BY DEFINITION flawed and therefore tend to only make things worse in the long run. So whats the point exactly of jumping up and down and insisting we recognize them as reality?

But see, it doesn't take a Pope in Rome to start a fire, it takes the people who react to him.

It takes the pope saying something that offends others to start your fire. You can see people overreacted to it but that doesn’t take away from the fact that someone of the popes stature should really be quite careful in what and how he says things so as to not risk people getting carried away and fires starting.

This is where I keep saying, that it brings out the violent culture

Well at least yer talking culture now and not “them muslims!”. And I would simply say it highlights the differences between our culture and theirs.

In the same way, not all of the protesters are terrorist-minded, but even the ones who didn't kill nuns, are, IMO displaying violent behaviour. And this is why I say that there are not the Black terrorists, and the White peace lovers...it is very much gray.

Again, I agree with that for the most part (not ALL are displaying “violent behavior” but some are displaying a behavior we in the west find disturbing and so therefore is all over the news).

Why are you now talking in sociological terms and no longer in the awful simpleton religious terms you were insisting on before?

I meant that just because Osama is Islamic and famous that he should be seen as the head of the islamic world. Apply that to the pope; he is not the face of all christians.

Osama bin Laden is not any kind of clerical or religious figure at all. Hes a rebel guerrilla at best. The pope is the ultimate religious figure. Theres no comparison. You can maybe talk about some Ayatollahs or something but not even they are on the same level as the pope.

Are you discriminating against uninformed diatribers? Are you trying to break our culture? The culture of the Uninformed Diatribic Community?

You’ve figured me out. My hope is to recruit young impressionable losers to suicide bomb your meetings but Im having a hard time getting anyone who wants to deal with all the soap box speech making.

But basically, my idea is delusional it could never happen. But your idea that since we keep discriminating against muslims and want to profile them, Bin Laden is going to read our minds and start recruiting blue eyed terrorists...

Doesn’t take much mind reading for him to figure that one out.

If you mean being sensible as in sensitive: "feel" their culture, "respect" the cultural differences...then I have to disagree. And I don't mean that there is only terrorists culture there, but that it will NOT help any in defeating the fundamental problem of Radical Islam.

And not being sensible will? If you want to make everyone more like you Hector you cant start off by making them hate you with a passion. You have to make yourself… likable. Then the true radicals grip over the middle eastern common man is less. But flipping them off every chance we get is only gonna push them further into the arms of the extremists.

[Spock]

Ok, let's see: Muslims blew up and destroyed holy Buddhist carvings; no Buddhist blew up a mosque.

Muslims decapitated Christians;
no Christian decapitated a muslim.

Muslims killed a Catholic Nun;

no priest or official of catholic dogma killed any muslim.

Riots, burnings, bombings, dancing in new clothes; all feature muslims, whether in Iraq, Iran, Gaza, Pakistan, etc. etc. etc.

One might conclude then that muslims ARE to blame.

[Lief Erikson]

Muslims decided to leave for Pakistan at the formation of that state, Hindus then killed over 1,000,000 of them. Hence the radicalism in Pakistan.

There are reasons for all these things, Spock, and I don't think it's right to generalize the radicals' sentiments to all Muslims.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think this was from this thread...

...or outer space?

What is it being then?

Nothing much.

In Iraq… But we were talking about the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Yes, we were...and if you remember correctly, I had referred to the open support of [Shiite] Iraqis for Hezbollah. In Iraq. For Hezbollah.

And honestly most Sunnis in Iraq would just assume have peace and not be marginalized by the other ethnic groups.

And perhaps even the insurgent Sunnis want peace; you never know...but as I said, perhaps they want it on their own terms.

But they don’t want to be targets of the Shiite death squads so of course they “support” their own ethnic militias. What choice do they have?

Agreed.

Not sure what you mean by this. They all look the same or they actually see the same terrorists blowing stuff up here and protesting there?

Let me put it this way: If you were a soldier in Iraq, and this twelve year old boy that walked past you nearly every day; let's suppose you see him among the crowd of Hezbollah supporters that rallied. See what I mean? I don't mean car bombers etc specifically...

Hector do you really want me to lay out links for you to look at to show that there are peaceful muslims?

I would love to see them...

Because I can find dozens if you really want me to.

*Charlotte's Web music plays*

Its absurd to even suggest there is no evidence of peaceful Muslims quite frankly…

Ok, perhaps I shouldn't have said 'none whatsoever...'

All this nonsense about no muslims ever speak out against the terrorists is just ridiculous really.

It really is...you just wish sometimes they'd not whisper their dissent...

I know muslims myself who tell ME how horrible the terrorist actions are.

So do I...well, my dad does anyways.

Do you think they get into the press? Of course not. Why would they. But believe me they do exist.

I believe it.

Its up to us to go outside of our white washed western bubble and expose ourselves to differences to find the truth.

yeah, like finding new ways of defining Peace...

Are the moderates killing? I don’t understand how this is relevant to the point.

*hands Rex a bag of salt* Take a pinch of this whenever you suspect stupidity on my part...

Terrorists? They are brainwashed by extremists to think in the same extremist ways and to rationalize acting in horrific ways.

That's called terrorist training...

And how do they extremists succeed in doing this brainwashing? With the help of American policy in the middle east and cultural gaffs like the cartoons and the popes speech.

Don't just blame our politicians....maybe it's Madonna's highly moral standards, or our culture of moral relativity in general... MOST Muslims definitely see this as immoral behaviour, and here I really do think we ought to look past our cultural differences and try to see it their way...

These are all tools for the brain washers. We are right now making more terrorists willing to kill themselves for their cause simply by our current Iraq policy and our way of handling the Israeli situation.

IRex, if we just bowed down to all the terms Middle-East countries wanted, which would probably include:

1) Withdrawal of support from Israel...which is stupid since nobody has any right to tell us who and who not to support.

2) Pullout from Middle-East areas, including Iraq, which would result in a strong Iran taking over a weak Iraq.

3) If the world really worked by appeasing (and I don't say that that is always a bad thing), the world would never have had any wars, or very few.

It's not our fault that Muslims in general can't stand Jews...it's their own fault.

I don’t disagree. Not so much the army but the police. Many are simply fronts for ethnic militias its quite clear.

*shakes hand with Irex*

How many “toilets” do you think aren’t working Hector?

Thats the thing: we don't really know specifics like that.

[quotes]Its disingenuous to say see this ONE is working so therefore I wasn’t speaking in sweeping generalizations because it certainly sounds to me from your words before this that you really feel Muslims in general and as a group have a real issue with violence and dealing with “modern” society.[/quote]

Very sorry for my very true statements that the people protesting the pope were indeed Muslim...I hadn't said that a certain number were Muslim or not, I hadnt specified anything beyond their ethnicity...and you guys think this is enough to assume that I'm a bigot towards all muslims?

Perhaps this will help illustrate my point a bit better: how many non catholics are there in a catholic church? Not many...but most of the people there ARE catholic. Let's see...how many non-muslims are there in Iraq? Not many...but most of the people there ARE Muslim.

Beyond that: I think Muslims do tend to be more violent, whether it is because of their religion (or warped version of it compliments of the skippy ayatollahs...), or because of their upbringing...

...but It has nothing to do with whether or not I think Muslims ONLY want to be violent.

So how many toilets are we talking about here Hector? 1%? 10%? 50%?

That's what I wanted to know from you, actually...you seem to know a lot better than I the specifics of who's who...

Um ok and so are you saying “extreme protesting” (Im assuming they don’t use skate boards to do that…) is still an unacceptable form of protesting even though its not violent as you admit?

Clarification:

Protesting is not bad.
Extreme protesting has thus far constituted saying that you will; kill someone; hunt them down...and the general egging on of these actions. definitely extreme examples.
Burning effigies and flags is also extreme. While it comes under non-violent silent protesting, the message, if it be for the intent and purpose of harm technically makes this form of protesting fall under the same extreme as saying you will kill etc...

IMO, these actions are not VIOLENCE, but they are VIOLENT.

It shows no such thing! it says something about ONE person not a whole religion or culture (sorry… the broken “toilets”…). You do realize that even in great and perfect and oh so civilized America we have wack jobs who will shoot you in the face just cause you said something about their girlfriend right?

Yeah, it's called moral relativity and the culture that carries it. I never said America was civilized...

That is ONLY about murder and the pathology of one individual. Don’t even think of using it to condemn whole cultures of people.

I say there is SOMETHING (whatever it may be...) in that culture that has not been right for the modern Muslims relations with other cultures (as in contemporary, not avant garde)...and I'm sorry if they hate me for pointing it out...
I'm not trying to point out that Islam and Muslims throughout the ages have been and always will be 100% evil (unlike Ahmadinejad, who beleives that about the Jews)...but I would like to point out that things have not been well with the middle-east for quite some time.

Now if you want to say those cultures who have protests have issues well that’s something we can argue about.

But NONE of those protesters murdered anybody so its essentially slander to associate them.

There was one murder, I know that. But there was a general mood of violent mentality, as can be seen from just the signs.

No one has the right to kill. Even the extremist government in Kartun arrested two men for that nuns murder and they certainly aren’t big fans of western culture. Again, stop trying to directly link the two things, it just makes you look ridiculous.

From now on I'll do just the things that make me look good...got it

As for the responsibility of some protesters not to burn effigies and have mean signs well I think that’s much more debatable.

Again, WE may find it abhorrent in our culture but theres plenty we do they find abhorrent as well.

I agree...

My thinking is as long as they are not all rushing out and killing random Christians then its ok free expression of their anger.

It might be ok, but it is extreme.

And so far we only have one death. So if as you insist these kinds of protests were so wide spread then I would say you have made the argument that in fact they ARENT inherrintly violent to the extreme because they seem to draw a pretty clear line at not KILLING people.

They would be inherently violent by upbringing, not by just being born...just making sure you don't misunderstand me

They could easily go after some westerners and string them up for effect but they don’t. they do their silly little flag burning and pope doll shoe hitting and leave it at that.

Hohei skippity, let's have a day...non-violent burning of effigies of a pope we'd kill if we saw him...

I'm not saying that's extreme though...

But let me ask you this Hector. Lets say you had these protests and then you had local government forces react to them with extreme measures, smashing in heads and yanking protestors off the streets by the dozens only to be tortured and killed.

In Iraq it wouldn't be done, because as I keep telling you, these protesters re everyday people that the police and military know from everyday life.

Would you be satisfied with this or horrified? Would you think they deserved it or would you then find yourself defending their right to protest freely despite your distaste for their particular actions?

IRex since when did it become my chagrin they protested? It's WHAT they are protesting! And I have called it extreme because they called for death to the pope etc, and they showed it was not only Washington DC style when they burn flags etc...

HOW and WHAT they protest speaks of their opinions, do you not agree? Isn't that what protesting is supposed to show?

Never did I make it an issue that you should only be allowed to protest if it's a peaceful message.

How so?

How NOT so?

To us. But they would probably argue that sending troops into the middle east is fairly extreme as well and even before that supporting Israel in the way we do is unforgivably extreme.

Oh yes, supporting Israel is extreme all right...follow the line of reasons generally given in: This Book ...

Don’t distract from the point Hector… Again, do you want me to quote muslims who are AGAINST the killings and the conflict?

Sounds like a threat to me

Who simply want a chance to live and work and not fear for their lives or see others suffer every day?

I have never doubted that they existed.

Sure. But stereotypes are BY DEFINITION flawed and therefore tend to only make things worse in the long run. So whats the point exactly of jumping up and down and insisting we recognize them as reality?

[quotes]It takes the pope saying something that offends others to start your fire. You can see people overreacted to it but that doesn’t take away from the fact that someone of the popes stature should really be quite careful in what and how he says things so as to not risk people getting carried away and fires starting.[/quotes]
By all standards the pope said it in the most delicate way he could. Not very reported is the fact that IN THE MANUSCRIPT he was quoting, the Emperor Manuel was having a discussion with a Muslim Persian king. I'm not sure, but I have a feeling that the persian king didn't produce a sign that said "kill him!" even if he was offended.

Well at least yer talking culture now and not “them muslims!”. And I would simply say it highlights the differences between our culture and theirs.

Well perhaps you ought to be more careful next time you hear generalities, not to assign to that person the button that reads: Bigot...you'd be making a mistake by generalizing like that.

Again, I agree with that for the most part (not ALL are displaying “violent behavior” but some are displaying a behavior we in the west find disturbing and so therefore is all over the news).

Why are you now talking in sociological terms and no longer in the awful simpleton religious terms you were insisting on before?

I'd say it has to do with my calmness the following day... ...or perhaps being pressed to define, more specifically, my general assumptions.

Osama bin Laden is not any kind of clerical or religious figure at all.

...that wasn't what I was talking about.

Hes a rebel guerrilla at best.

Also one of the richest.

The pope is the ultimate religious figure. Theres no comparison. You can maybe talk about some Ayatollahs or something but not even they are on the same level as the pope.

You’ve figured me out. My hope is to recruit young impressionable losers to suicide bomb your meetings but Im having a hard time getting anyone who wants to deal with all the soap box speech making.

Oh my gosh! IRex is not kidding! I'd better call up Osama so he can send the ACLU out here...

Doesn’t take much mind reading for him to figure that one out.

And not being sensible will?

IF by sensible you pretty much just mean: Sensitive.

If you want to make everyone more like you Hector you cant start off by making them hate you with a passion.

...and the best place to start the recourse of forgiveness is by falling down at their feet, right?

You have to make yourself… likable.

Oh yeah, Madonna, Britney...all these morally bankrupt people that reperesent us on TV all the time....
Don't think that even peace-loving Muslims like this culture of ours, and I can't blame them from what they see externally.

Then the true radicals grip over the middle eastern common man is less. But flipping them off every chance we get is only gonna push them further into the arms of the extremists.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There are reasons for all these things, Spock, and I don't think it's right to generalize the radicals' sentiments to all Muslims.

But clearly its a lot easier then dealing with reality.

[hectorberlioz]

Here' what we should really do, and it's non-violent too ...

Gather up all those radical ayatollahs and leaders etc...have them all come to the White House for a party, give them a few martinis, sit them down in a group and blast their ears with this: Bach

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But clearly its a lot easier then dealing with reality.

I don't know about that. I disagree with Spock if he thinks most Muslims are violent, but his views get him a lot of flak here, and that can't be easy.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

These are all tools for the brain washers. We are right now making more terrorists willing to kill themselves for their cause simply by our current Iraq policy and our way of handling the Israeli situation.

On this point, I agree with Insidious. Though I think our policy in Iraq is necessary anyway because of this:

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

2) Pullout from Middle-East areas, including Iraq, which would result in a strong Iran taking over a weak Iraq.

I definitely agree with Hector here; a pull-out would be disastrous for us.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

3) If the world really worked by appeasing (and I don't say that that is always a bad thing), the world would never have had any wars, or very few.

I agree that appeasement is not the best strategy. That strategy stinks, IMO, and that's why I wholeheartedly support President Bush, difficult though the road we've taken can be.

Hector, I agree with most of your post. But I'm going to pick on the parts that I don't.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

IRex, if we just bowed down to all the terms Middle-East countries wanted, which would probably include:

1) Withdrawal of support from Israel...which is stupid since nobody has any right to tell us who and who not to support.

Well, this isn't a very good reason for refusing to withdraw support from Israel. By that logic, Iran could say the same while we're funding terrorists. Because in the Middle East, that's what they think we're doing by funding Israel.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

It's not our fault that Muslims in general can't stand Jews...it's their own fault.

I'd say it's mainly Israel's fault. During the 1948 war, they took advantage of the fact that many Palestinians had fled their land, and they moved in and occupied it. They also exiled by force many Palestinians who had stayed. The UN passed a resolution that Israel had to let the Palestinians return to their homes, so Israel responded by pouring settlers out into the empty Palestinian residents as fast as it could, and bulldozing all the villages it couldn't fill up. It turned over 400 villages to rubble. The Palestinians then had very littl left to them.

For the surrounding Arab nations, if they had accepted the Palestinians into their territory, this would have destabilized their economies. Lebanon did just this, accepting a significant number of people onto its soil, and its economy suffered as a result of the large influx of people.

This was the original injustice that caused the whole Israeli-Palestinian crisis which has endured over so much time. Since then, in later wars, Israel has occupied more land by "right of conquest." They stifle the Palestinians with economic embargos and sometimes have purposefully smashed up the Palestinian economy. Operation Rainbow, a recent Israeli military operation, was notorious for that. They destroyed schools and banks and numerous other civilian targets. Israel uses torture in its prisons and drops cluster bombs as its final punishment act over large civilian populations in Lebanon. There are a million cluster bombs left unexploded in the civilian cities of Lebanon now, since Israel's campaign there.

I know that Israel has to defend itself and that the Arab nations surrounding it have attacked it more than once. This doesn't justify many of the harsh, strong-arm tactics they've engaged in, and those tactics are a key part of what's causing such hatred against Israel.

[Spock]

...fact.....there are more verses for violence and forceful conversion or killing non-muslims in the quran than there are peaceful advocates.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

And by 'peaceful advocates', do you mean verses advocating peace, or Muslims advocating peace?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And by 'peaceful advocates', do you mean verses advocating peace, or Muslims advocating peace?

Thanks for catching that, when written I was in a hurry-what else is new.

Actually it can mean both. Verses and muslims speaking out.

[Lief Erikson]

Here's another modern dispute between Muslims and our free society. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5385058.stm

Rather like the Danish cartoons row, though obviously on a much smaller scale.

[hectorberlioz]

I don't find what and what not the Koran says very relavent; because either way, some form of Radical Islam is being spread/taught.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, this isn't a very good reason for refusing to withdraw support from Israel. By that logic, Iran could say the same while we're funding terrorists. Because in the Middle East, that's what they think we're doing by funding Israel.

Yes, but they always read something bad into everything we and Israel do anyways...

Could someone please affirm the fact that the British had captured a portion of what is now Israel during WWI from Turkey?