Muslims would 'wage Jihad for Australia'

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

OUTGOING Islamic leader Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali did a bad job and embarrassed Australia's Muslims, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

Sheik Hilali stood down from the position of Mufti of Australia yesterday.
The move followed a series of controversial remarks by the Muslim leader in the past year.

"I have to say I think that Sheik Hilali has done a very bad job as the leader of the Islamic community," Mr Downer said on Sky News.
"I know many Muslims who have been embarrassed by him and have felt he hasn't done Islamic Australia any good at all. Him standing down and a new mufti taking over, it has to be a step forward."

The former mufti's spokesman, Keysar Trad, said Sheik Hilali stepped down because of constant government pressure, with Prime Minister John Howard and Mr Downer telling the Muslim community for six months to find a new mufti.

Mr Trad, president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, said there had been veiled threats to withdraw government funding from Muslim communities and some government ministers had threatened not to attend events if the sheik was there.

Sheik Hilali sparked outrage by describing scantily clad women as "uncovered meat" and joking about notorious gang rapes by young Muslim men.

He also said Muslims had more right to be in Australia than people brought to the country in chains as convicts.

"They are playing the man and not the ball. If something can be misinterpreted or carry ambiguity, they will go for the worst possible spin, so the mufti has decided to step down and let someone else take the pressure."

He said the council of imams also had appeared to bow to pressure because it did not insist that the sheik continue in his role as mufti.

"Under normal circumstances they would say, `no way' and insist he continue as mufti and not step aside," Mr Trad said.

He described the new mufti, Sheik Fehmi El-Imam, as "a very nice man".
"It appears the media likes him and people in the Muslim community like him."

Mr Trad rejected calls for the position of mufti to be abandoned altogether, saying such demands came from people ignorant of the religion.
"The position of mufti is not like the Pope," Mr Trad said.

"The mufti takes it upon himself to find answers to difficult theological questions. These people calling for the position to be scrapped are acting out of vested interests or gross misunderstanding of the significance of this position."

Australia's imams elected 79-year-old Sheik Imam to the role when Sheik Hilali said he would not seek re-election.
Today, Sheik Imam defended his predecessor, saying Sheik Hilali was misunderstood.

In his first press conference, Sheik Imam said the Australian media should be more open-minded.
He said his predecessor of 18 years did more good than he was given credit for.

"Maybe sometimes you may let your tongue go too far," Sheik Imam said in Melbourne.

"I know that, but still, maybe he didn't mean to harm others but the way he put it sometimes didn't sound to others as pleasant as you want it."
The new Mufti said the public should remember Sheik Hilali travelled to Iraq "in the midst of battle" to help free kidnapped Australian businessman Douglas Wood.

He called for greater co-operation between the Muslim community and the media.

"I want it to be a good relationship all the way, sometimes people say `we don't like media' I say let us like media ... and let us like each other, let us know how to live with each other, how to handle each other, how to deal with each other."

Sheik Imam has been described as a gentle soul who will not be as high-profile as his predecessor.

Director of the Islamic Council of Victoria Waleed Aly said Sheik Imam was widely respected.

"He is a very gentle soul," Mr Aly said on ABC radio.
"He's been around as an imam in Australia for some 50-odd years, he has got an Order of Australia, he is very widely respected and highly regarded in Victoria.

"He wants to ensure that Muslims and non-Muslim Australians are pulling in the same direction and that there's a convivial relationship between the two.

"I think what you will find is someone who is slightly less high-profile in the role than previously."

Sheik imam came to Australia from Lebanon in 1951 and is senior imam at the Preston Mosque.

He was elected Mufti for a two-year term.
Minders today barred him from answering questions about his views on the Iraq war but when quizzed about Jihad (holy war), the Muslim leader was more forthcoming.

He said the Muslim community would declare Jihad to defend Australia if the country was under attack.

"If you defend your country you are doing Jihad so we'll do Jihad for Australia, to defend Australia."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21887559-2,00.html#

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Normally I stay away from such news in here. I just find it interesting that News Limited picked up a comment to use as a headline as opposed to having a headline saying "Australian Council of Islam elects new Iman" which the article is about.

Sensationalism at it's best

[digrar]

Hilali won't be missed, lets hope this new bloke can make a better fist of it.

[ltrowley]

"If you defend your country you are doing Jihad so we'll do Jihad for Australia, to defend Australia."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21887559-2,00.html#


Excellent news, off you go then, find JI and terminate it. I'll be here sipping tea expecting your swift return.

[frenchy]

Are there a lot of muslims in Australia ?

[ltrowley]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Australia

[Ballistic]

A few.

They make up a very small percentage of the population.

I think there are about 450000 - 500000.

[muck]

OUTGOING Islamic leader Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali did a bad job and embarrassed Australia's Muslims, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

Regardless if he is right or not, it is great for you Aussies to have politicians who still have their say when they want to.
If a politician here would say something like that about the leader of the Muslim council of Germany, he/she would either receive death threats (happened to the famous writer Mr. Giordano recently), or he/she would be labelled a Nazi (happened to Mr. Giordano,too)...
Instead, they hide behind empty phrases and spongy words.

Interesting article in any case, especially it's message. I say this since if Muslims here talk about their feelings concerning they Germany, they use empty phrases and spongy words as well.

[Charlie1time]

Regardless if he is right or not, it is great for you Aussies to have politicians who still have their say when they want to.
If a politician here would say something like that about the leader of the Muslim council of Germany, he/she would either receive death threats (happened to the famous writer Mr. Giordano recently), or he/she would be labelled a Nazi (happened to Mr. Giordano,too)...
Instead, they hide behind empty phrases and spongy words.

Interesting article in any case, especially it's message. I say this since if Muslims here talk about their feelings concerning they Germany, they use empty phrases and spongy words as well.

He was very extreme and out of touch with muslims (I think anyway). For years now there have been many people trying to get him out of the position, for leading politicians to do it was really jumping on the bandwagon. Look at how many times the new guy was mentioned as being liked by the media, the other guy was openly hated in the press.

Just wanted to add I dont think there is much in the way of a racial divide in Australia. Almost everyone is from somewhere else, my neighbors before I left were from Iran on one side and Sri Lanka on the other :)

[Doublethinker]

Just another feather about to break the camel's back. Islam must be destroyed if the West is to survive.

[IraGlacialis]

Just another feather about to break the camel's back. Islam must be destroyed if the West is to survive.
You're kidding right?
There is major need of reform in the institution, but abolishment and destruction of Islam itself?
BTW, I like how you use the term 'camel'. Very original. :roll:

[wicked_hind]

Just another feather about to break the camel's back. Islam must be destroyed if the West is to survive.

Wow, I didn't see that one coming....

[Doublethinker]

You're kidding right?
There is major need of reform in the institution, but abolishment and destruction of Islam itself?
BTW, I like how you use the term 'camel'. Very original. :roll:

Islam and western civilization do not mix. Either western style of life has to be changed to cater to the desires of "new citizens" with quite exotic ideas about fashion, a place of a woman in a society, religious freedom and gay rights, or muslims need to totally give up their beliefs and embrace western paradigm, if they want to become part of the society. Multiculturalism is just one big joke the West has played upon itself. It just might turn out to be a suicidal one. This sounds rather radical, but if we cut the PS bull**** and leave it aside, many will have to concure that right now it is almost impossible to predict how such antagonist beliefs could co-exist within one society, without tearing it down.

[IraGlacialis]

Islam and western civilization do not mix. Either western style of life has to be changed to cater to the desires of "new citizens" with quite exotic ideas about fashion, a place of a woman in a society, religious freedom and gay rights, or muslims need to totally give up their beliefs and embrace western paradigm, if they want to become part of the society. Multiculturalism is just one big joke the West has played upon itself. It just might turn out to be a suicidal one. This sounds rather radical, but if we cut the PS bull**** and leave it aside, many will have to concure that right now it is almost impossible to predict how such antagonist beliefs could co-exist within one society, without tearing it down.
It is one thing to call for the ridding of overcompensating PC BS, but it is another thing to call for the abolishment of a religion and probable deportation of the practitioners (many of which don't care about the issues you are talking about and just want to get on with their lives).
And there are plenty of faithfull adherants to Islam who aren't Western culture-hating zealots (like that idiotic imam (who I am glad is disposed of)) and even embrace the culture of the West.

[bruiserau]

Islam and western civilization do not mix. Either western style of life has to be changed to cater to the desires of "new citizens" with quite exotic ideas about fashion, a place of a woman in a society, religious freedom and gay rights, or muslims need to totally give up their beliefs and embrace western paradigm, if they want to become part of the society. Multiculturalism is just one big joke the West has played upon itself. It just might turn out to be a suicidal one. This sounds rather radical, but if we cut the PS bull**** and leave it aside, many will have to concure that right now it is almost impossible to predict how such antagonist beliefs could co-exist within one society, without tearing it down.


Where you from?

[Hollis]

Where you from?


And your from?

Der Spiegel has a really good article on why multiculturalism is destroying the West.


2nd Part, if a Muslim follows the path of the Prophet Muhammad, Then Islam is not compatible with the West.

3rd Jihad can mean a purification of oneself or the world around them. Sadly when it applies to the world around Muslims, that is not a good thing for non-Muslims.


Maybe read the Qur'an and the Hadeths.

I am not saying that Muslims can not live with tolerance with the West........ BUT.,... read the sentence above.

[IraGlacialis]

^^^^^
That's what reform is for.
If the issue of Islam is going to be brought up like that (with every literal context of the book being followed by heart), then I am not sure Christianity or Judaism is so compatible with today's Western society either.

[bruiserau]

[quote=HOLLiS;2559714]And your from?quote]

Australia

[Laworkerbee]

^^^^^
That's what reform is for.
If the issue of Islam is going to be brought up like that (with every literal context of the book being followed by heart), then I am not sure Christianity or Judaism is so compatible with today's Western society either.


What are you going on about man? Judeo-Christian values form a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values.

[Hollis]

^^^^^
That's what reform is for.
If the issue of Islam is going to be brought up like that (with every literal context of the book being followed by heart), then I am not sure Christianity or Judiasm is so compatible with today's Western society either.


We can argue that based on the action of the past. Read Matt chapters 5, 6, and 7 and then ask that question (I'll let you google that one). Then go to the Qur'an and see if you can find a similar text. There are some big difference.

IMHO, one has to alter or pervert the text that Jesus taught to not fit in. The Qur'an and Hadeths are pretty specific.

Also, study Judaism, a quick read would be Shulhan Aruch which defines the four basic principle that all Jews must live buy. or a quick summation:

his code of practice lays down four distinct principles to guide Jews.

1) Let your every action promote the ways of peace.
2) Let your every action be such as to sanctify the name of G-d.
3) Let your every act be such as to prevent the profanation of the name of G-d.
4) The law of the land in which you live is the law to live by (this quoted from the Talmud B.B. 54)

Your comparison misses a lot.

For Jews and Christian to act similarity it would demonstrate igornance of their religious text. For Muslim they would be following the path of the Prophet that is outlined in both the Qur'an and Hadeths.

Also follow the teachings of some Imams and Mullahs as they express the meanings today.


Edited to add, I missed LA post, he made A really good point.

[IraGlacialis]

What are you going on about man? Judeo-Christian values form a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values.
Even though the base of Western values are set with Abrahamic values (which are quite fair and effective), if every word of the Bible was interpreted into law, it would mean that (if going from the Old Testement sense) seafood platters and BBQ ribs would be outlawed (NOOOO!!!), a gay person would get stoned (Leviticus), and ethnic cleansing would be chic (Joshua). If going with New Testement text, females would have to dress in drab clothing and be outlawed to become teachers (Timothy).
Oh and under Jesus' teachings, preferably all militaries should be disbanded (love thy enemy).

BTW, I hope fundie atheists aren't using my rhetoric as ammo.

[bruiserau]

So ummmm, Whos pumped for Origin #2!!!????? woot


...

[vinny_121_ND]

doublethinker has a valid point. Talk to any muslim who prays 5 times a day and they'll tell you that western life is not for them. They don't drink, go out, party, no drugs, no premarital ***, dating is a no no, only one god allah, why muslim men can have multiple wives etc. All this has a reason they say and if u listen carefully to their reasons, I think they have a point.

all I can say is, I hope the 'us' versus 'them' in australia, or any western country is not bad, and well integrated, and people don't cause any trouble based on who they are as individuals.

[IraGlacialis]

doublethinker has a valid point. Talk to any muslim who prays 5 times a day and they'll tell you that western life is not for them. They don't drink, go out, party, no drugs, no premarital ***, dating is a no no, only one god allah, why muslim men can have multiple wives etc. All this has a reason they say and if u listen carefully to their reasons, I think they have a point.

all I can say is, I hope the 'us' versus 'them' in australia, or any western country is not bad, and well integrated, and people don't cause any trouble based on who they are as individuals.
I don't drink, party that much, take drugs, have premarital *** (which I find personally immoral), or date, and I believe in one God (represented in a trinity) and pray & read Scripture on Sundays.
I guess that western life just isn't for me.

And the "us vs. them" deal is a factor that prevents integration.

P.S. Hehehe... my "I"s lined up.

[Hollis]

Even though the base of Western values are set with Abrahamic values (which are quite fair and effective), if every word of the Bible was interpreted into law, it would mean that (if going from the Old Testement sense) seafood platters and BBQ ribs would be outlawed (NOOOO!!!), a gay person would get stoned (Leviticus), and ethnic cleansing would be chic (Joshua). If going with New Testement text, females would have to dress in drab clothing and be outlawed to become teachers (Timothy).
Oh and under Jesus' teachings, preferably all militaries should be disbanded (love thy enemy).

BTW, I hope fundie atheists aren't using my rhetoric as ammo.


Ira, You missed your Parsha studies, The Kosher laws (most all of the Mitzahs) only apply to Jews and within a Jewish Community. According to Judaism Gentles need only follow the laws of Noah. (suggest taking some classes)

Jesus was not a Pacifist. (same suggestion)

Obviously there is much more, but the topic is not Judaism or Christianity. Also Islam also has some serious issues with Hindus, Buddhist, etc. Being in the West we generally miss those problems.

[IraGlacialis]

Ira, You missed your Parsha studies, The Kosher laws (most all of the Mitzahs) only apply to Jews and within a Jewish Community. According to Judaism Gentles need only follow the laws of Noah. (suggest taking some classes)

Jesus was not a Pacifist. (same suggestion)

Obviously there is much more, but the topic is not Judaism or Christianity. Also Islam also has some serious issues with Hindus, Buddhist, etc. Being in the West we generally miss those problems.
*sigh* Maybe I am not studying it as hard as I should. I'm only a teenager (I'm not even officially in college yet).
And I know that Jesus wasn't a complete pacifist, yet he preached non retaliation (which is pacifistic enough for the times).
BTW, like you said yourself, jihad can just refer to personal strives and struggles in faith (even thoug that erm isn't used today). Usually in that context, non-Muslims can be uneffected.

Still I am at the mind that there can be coexistence with Islam (especially with Age of Reason-scale reform), and whenever someone call for the abolishment of any religion (unless it is truly, without a doubt, some hokey cult) or goes all fudamentalist, I will react.

Can we just agree to disagree?

[Doublethinker]

Where you from?

I am from Moscow, Russia.

[Doublethinker]

^^^^^
That's what reform is for.
How are you going to reform something that doesn't want to be reformed? It takes an idea that something is wrong with the existing system for the idea of reforms to be born. While muslims are just perfectly OK with how things are. It is the western society that is "ill" for them.

[Doublethinker]

Still I am at the mind that there can be coexistence with Islam (especially with Age of Reason-scale reform), and whenever someone call for the abolishment of any religion (unless it is truly, without a doubt, some hokey cult) or goes all fudamentalist, I will react.

Can we just agree to disagree?

That's just wishful thinking. You WANT there to be an easier way, a way which will be less painful and more pleasant for all sides, so you pin all your hopes on it and make it a cornerstone of your world outlook. Politics doesn't work that way, Politics deals with reality, not a sweetend image of it.

[IraGlacialis]

How are you going to reform something that doesn't want to be reformed? It takes an idea that something is wrong with the existing system for the idea of reforms to be born. While muslims are just perfectly OK with how things are. It is the western society that is "ill" for them.
If you notice, most of the ones doing the crying for sharia and the like have been born in the coziness of European society or are radical leaders coming just to stir things. The actual immigrants who came from the Middle East to live in the west, while faithfull, usually just want to get by and not relive what they went through in their homelands. But then their kids turn into complete numties.


That's just wishful thinking. You WANT there to be an easier way, a way which will be less painful and more pleasant for all sides, so you pin all your hopes on it and make it a cornerstone of your world outlook. Politics doesn't work that way, Politics deals with reality, not a sweetend image of it.
If I was going for a sweetened image, I wouldn't be an advocate of reform, which unlike what many activist envision, is not going to be easy or pretty, and will most likely involve lots of time and blood.

[Hollis]

Still I am at the mind that there can be coexistence with Islam (especially with Age of Reason-scale reform), and whenever someone call for the abolishment of any religion (unless it is truly, without a doubt, some hokey cult) or goes all fudamentalist, I will react.

Can we just agree to disagree?


Hey, I agree, I agree with your statement. Did I say we agree, well we do.

[IraGlacialis]

Hey, I agree, I agree with your statement. Did I say we agree, well we do.
Okay, that settles it then. :hug:

[Kant]

So ummmm, Whos pumped for Origin #2!!!????? woot


...

Carl Webb and Tony 'the chin' Carrol to take it to the cockroaches.
Can't wait.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Just another feather about to break the camel's back. Islam must be destroyed if the West is to survive.

If it wasn't for Islam and people from empires with Islam as a religion many sciences, natural history and other discoveries made by the west would have had to of been "re-discovered"

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

What are you going on about man? Judeo-Christian values form a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values.

Your kidding right?

Hello, Greeks invented democracy and education, Romans gave us the principles of legal code and centralized government. And this a good 500 years before Christianity came on the scene and over 750 years before Christianity became the official religion of Rome.

[MG 3]

Muslims cant wage jihad for Australia but if they are Aussies then they can sure join the army and fight.

[Doublethinker]

If it wasn't for Islam and people from empires with Islam as a religion many sciences, natural history and other discoveries made by the west would have had to of been "re-discovered"

So? I'm not denying that muslim civilization used to be more progressive than the Western one during the Middle Ages. But that was long time ago.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Islam as a religion is way more progressive then Catholicism believe it or not.

What we see today in the Middle East is a return to the tribal culture because of the power vacuum left with the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Moorish Empire in Spain.

You could say the West caused the decline of a very progressive society.

You only have to look at how conservative some fanatical Christian groups can be with abortion, divorce, marriage, same *** rights, education and employment.

If you look at the numbers it's arguable that there is more fanatical Christians in this world then fanatical Muslims.

[Doublethinker]

Islam as a religion is way more progressive then Catholicism believe it or not.

What we see today in the Middle East is a return to the tribal culture because of the power vacuum left with the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Moorish Empire in Spain.

You could say the West caused the decline of a very progressive society.

And in what way is islam progressive compared to catholicism, may I ask? Vacuum of power can hardly explain why muslims got centuries left behind in intellectual development. The West has nothing to do with the decline of this "very progressive society". What we see today is the decline called upon itself by the Muslim civilization when it decided to stick to dogmatism during its intellectual crisis caused by contact with the Western civilization.

[Con-man]

Your kidding right?

Hello, Greeks invented democracy and education, Romans gave us the principles of legal code and centralized government. And this a good 500 years before Christianity came on the scene and over 750 years before Christianity became the official religion of Rome.

Justinian's code, many European countries still use it as a base for their legal system, some even using original laws. Now, Justinian reigned in a Catholic Roman Empire, not the Rome where a man wearing lionskin would demand the surrender of a village because Mars said so.

[IraGlacialis]

Your kidding right?

Hello, Greeks invented democracy and education, Romans gave us the principles of legal code and centralized government. And this a good 500 years before Christianity came on the scene and over 750 years before Christianity became the official religion of Rome.
Well, to be more precise, the Athenians came up with democracy; most other Greek states were as undemocratic as they came (just nitpicking).

For an example of Abrahamic values shaping law, the US Constitution was influenced highly by Christian values.

[Hollis]

Your kidding right?

Hello, Greeks invented democracy and education, Romans gave us the principles of legal code and centralized government. And this a good 500 years before Christianity came on the scene and over 750 years before Christianity became the official religion of Rome.


Maybe where you live, Roman's legal was guilty till proven innocent, Torah is the other way. Ok your clueless about Halacha, which is what US law is based on.

Greeks, read Plato's republic. Not very democratic at all.

Greeks Yes were educated barbarians, again read Halacha which is way older.

LA is right.

[Hollis]

Islam as a religion is way more progressive then Catholicism believe it or not.

If you look at the numbers it's arguable that there is more fanatical Christians in this world then fanatical Muslims.


Ok you are very biased against Catholicism.

On the second part, look at this data base, and get back to me,'

http://www.tkb.org/Home2.jsp

BTW there are as many Catholics as there are Muslims, about 1 billion each.


Edited to add, Find a leading cleric who promotes peace as the Pope does.

Also look at liberation theology, Many priest had a part in it. Google Cardinal Romero of El Salvador. Try to find another progressive Islamic writer. They are out there, or where. I forgot the name of the person that I read in the 70's, he was murdered for being a apostate. I don't call that progressive.

I can give you a Hint, of (some what progressive) Imam, (one out of how many) he resides in Italy and is very high ranking.

[MG 3]

BTW there are as many Catholics as there are Muslims, about 1 billion each.

Edited to add, Find a leading cleric who promotes peace as the Pope does.


Promoting peace is linked to peace. Since there is no peace so it becomes pretty difficult.

[ren0312]

I don't drink, party that much, take drugs, have premarital *** (which I find personally immoral), or date, and I believe in one God (represented in a trinity) and pray & read Scripture on Sundays.
I guess that western life just isn't for me.

And the "us vs. them" deal is a factor that prevents integration.

P.S. Hehehe... my "I"s lined up.

Depending on what the definition of the Western society is is, whether it just pertains to only its laws and political institutions, or whether it also emcompesses the stereotypical Western/Hollywood "*** and the City" lifestyle as well, then you may be in fact not be as well integrated as you think you are to Western society, depending on what the definition of being integrated into Western society is.

[Kippari]

Justinian's code, many European countries still use it as a base for their legal system, some even using original laws. Now, Justinian reigned in a Catholic Roman Empire, not the Rome where a man wearing lionskin would demand the surrender of a village because Mars said so.

1st, during the reign of Justinian, there were no Catholic Roman Empire. It was The Eastern Roman Empire, where people spoke Greek instead of Latin. Christianity wasn't divided between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches back then.
2nd, Rome before the fall of Western Empire was the most advanced realm in it's time in Europe. Their armies did not wear lionskins, but metal armors and their political system was more democratic than during the Justinian's reign.

[Calanen]

Islam as a religion is way more progressive then Catholicism believe it or not.

What we see today in the Middle East is a return to the tribal culture because of the power vacuum left with the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Moorish Empire in Spain.

You could say the West caused the decline of a very progressive society.

You only have to look at how conservative some fanatical Christian groups can be with abortion, divorce, marriage, same *** rights, education and employment.

If you look at the numbers it's arguable that there is more fanatical Christians in this world then fanatical Muslims.

Multiculturalist apologist bs - moral relativism at is finest.

Progressive religion that beats women to death for adultery, encourages genital mutilation, wants women to wear headscarves, and calls for jihad on their enemies. Jihad. Still. When the Christians gave up the idea of the Crusades in the 1300s. Hit the streets and calls for death and burns things when Denmark publishes cartoons about Mohammed. Really tolerant and progressive religion.

People like you will be the death of Western civilisation Min - because you just dont get it. Its 'cool' to denigrate your own culture and 'cool' and hip and lefty trendy to say how enlightened and different and special radical islam is. And its just crap. More misery in this world has been inflicted by radical islam than any other religion. It is dictatorship based on religion, and sharia is the antithesis of freedom and human rights and that is not just arguable, its blatantly obvious. To place christianity in even the same realm is fanciful.

See how trendy it is to actually live under sharia.

[Con-man]

1st, during the reign of Justinian, there were no Catholic Roman Empire. It was The Eastern Roman Empire, where people spoke Greek instead of Latin. Christianity wasn't divided between Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches back then.
2nd, Rome before the fall of Western Empire was the most advanced realm in it's time in Europe. Their armies did not wear lionskins, but metal armors and their political system was more democratic than during the Justinian's reign.

Its still Christianity your talking about there, I made the mistake of calling them Catholics, but its still Christianity.

I used the example of a man wearing a lionskin because it was part of a more primitive Rome which was still a Republic, furthermore the messengers from Rome were the ones who wore the lionskin at the time, not the soldiers. What I was trying to get across was that Rome had different religions over time. Also, I wasn't talking about democracy, I was talking about the legal system, two different things.

[oldsoak]

Well that got me confused...lionskin loincloths jihads for Australia an' all....

- I'm not sure Oz needs additional blokes that would wage religious wars for 'em.....take the state of origin rugby matches - if that isnt close to a religious war, I dont know what is :-P

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Multiculturalist apologist bs - moral relativism at is finest.

Progressive religion that beats women to death for adultery, encourages genital mutilation, wants women to wear headscarves, and calls for jihad on their enemies. Jihad. Still. When the Christians gave up the idea of the Crusades in the 1300s. Hit the streets and calls for death and burns things when Denmark publishes cartoons about Mohammed. Really tolerant and progressive religion.

People like you will be the death of Western civilisation Min - because you just dont get it. Its 'cool' to denigrate your own culture and 'cool' and hip and lefty trendy to say how enlightened and different and special radical islam is. And its just crap. More misery in this world has been inflicted by radical islam than any other religion. It is dictatorship based on religion, and sharia is the antithesis of freedom and human rights and that is not just arguable, its blatantly obvious. To place christianity in even the same realm is fanciful.

See how trendy it is to actually live under sharia.

Stop smoking what ever it is your smoking please.

If I had my way all organized religion would be banished into the "experiments that went wrong basket". I despise organized religion of all faiths.

The things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with Islam per se. They are simply a return to traditional tribal customs of the Middle East that transpired with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire who's Sultan wielded extensive influence over not only the subjects within his borders but across large swathes of Muslims outside the Ottoman Empire.

The overthrow of the Ottoman Empire had a devastating effect on Islam that would be the equivalent of the Pope being forcibly removed with no replacement. Combine that with the vacuum created by the division of this empire which removes centralized authority and the Middle East descends into anarchy which plays to British and French interests in the region.

[Hollis]

Promoting peace is linked to peace. Since there is no peace so it becomes pretty difficult.


Yes it is, but it is a goal, a direction to travel, beats a path to violence. I think having goals are important, it is what guides us in the direction we need to go. Like a mission statement in business', they maybe lofty, but they help a business do better.

Look at the US, when it was first founded, the talked of Freedom, but only white male land holders could vote. A lot of has changed because the goal is freedom. The US is far more free and democratic than it was in the beginning.

I don't always agree with the Pope, but I think he is one of the more positive beacons in our world. When you consider he is the head a billion people, that is a lot of influence.

I know it is difficult to compare the RCC with Islam, each being being about 1 billion in population, There is one RCC and many sects with in Islam. I think if the Imams and Mullahs would promote peace and tolerance in a large number it would slowly move Islam in a more better direction of tolerance and peace. I don't think outsiders can do that.

I think outsiders a relegated to condemning, outlawing, restricting, etc Islam, change has to come from within. I think that is pretty much true will most systems.

[Hollis]

If I had my way all organized religion would be banished into the "experiments that went wrong basket". I despise organized religion of all faiths.



I think that is obvious with your "knee jerk" reactions in this thread.

I don't ever see religion disappearing. religion/philosophy is a part of human nature.

Organizing/institutionalizing is also in the nature of humans. (humans like to form herds)

ergo..... we are stuck with both.

[CPL Trevoga]

Islam as a religion is way more progressive then Catholicism believe it or not.

What we see today in the Middle East is a return to the tribal culture because of the power vacuum left with the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the Moorish Empire in Spain.

You could say the West caused the decline of a very progressive society.

You only have to look at how conservative some fanatical Christian groups can be with abortion, divorce, marriage, same *** rights, education and employment.

If you look at the numbers it's arguable that there is more fanatical Christians in this world then fanatical Muslims.

Very interesting observations. "Progressive societies" do not decline, they do not perish, they adapt and overcome. If they failed to survive, that mean something was amiss with them. Survival is ultimate benchmark of that.

As far as tribal culture in the ME, it's not caused by anything, it is their culture. That's how they are. Do you think Turks are not tribal?

I think AU is making a mistake allowing enemies of the state walk around under false mantra of "freedom of speach."

[Calanen]

The things you mention have absolutely nothing to do with Islam per se. They are simply a return to traditional tribal customs of the Middle East that transpired with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire who's Sultan wielded extensive influence over not only the subjects within his borders but across large swathes of Muslims outside the Ottoman Empire.

New spin on the ol Stalin were not *real* communists, and therefore communism is good. Cuba, North Korea and the Soviet Union were not *real* communists, so, you can't use them as an example of why communism was bad.

Just take out the word 'communist' and change it to 'Islam', and you have a tailor made argument to divorce the violence and misery perpertrated by Islam the world over. One size fits all, recycle old defense of communism theories to make them defence of islam theories. Works well...let's have a try shall we:

Al Fatah and Hamas are not *real* muslims, so you can't say any terrorism they do, even if perpetrated in the name of islam, has anything to do with Islam.

Al Quada and Bin Laden, are not *real muslims* so anything they did, even if said to be in the name of Islam, has nothing to do with Islam.

The passive and active support amongst muslims for the radicals to commit atrocities and attack the West is not part of real islam, so, that means that islam has nothing to do with it.

Tailor made post modernist crapola - one size fits all apologist handwringing euroliberal argument to excuse our enemies from taking any responsibility, and avoid solving the real problems.

The fact is that a whole heap of people commit atrocities in the name of islam, and whether there are other people around who say that's not 'real islam' or not is beside the point. That's what we need to address, their acts, their stated reasons for them, who follows them and why - which is all about Islam per se.

In addition, the muted silence from the people who follow 'real islam' in your view is also part of the problem.

The failure of the Ottoman Empire, has nothing to do with the problems we face today. Muslims were attacking infidels in the name of religion before during and after the Ottoman Empire. Even Americans during the time of Jefferson off the coast of Africa. When Jefferson asked why American shipping was being attacked, they told him because they are infidels, and it was their right to commit acts of piracy on them. But of course, they were not *real* muslims either, so islam had nothing to do with it. Those guys were just preempting the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

[Calanen]

http://www.memritv.org/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.memritv.org/images/logo.gif (http://www.memritv.org/)http://www.memritv.org/images/spacer.gif5/25/2007Clip No. 1478http://www.memritv.org/images/spacer.gifPresident of Al-Azhar University and Fomer Mufti of Egypt Ahmad Al-Tayyeb Explains Wife Beating in Islamhttp://www.memritv.org/images/spacer.gifFollowing is an interview with President of Al-Azhar University and former Mufti of Egypt, Dr. Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, which aired on Nile News TV on May 25, 2007.
Ahmad Al-Tayyeb: With regard to wife beating... In a nutshell, it appeared as part of a program to reform the wife. [According to the Koran], first "admonish them," [then] "sleep in separate beds, and beat them."
Interviewer: I think we must stress that this pertains to a rebellious woman...
Ahmad Al-Tayyeb: Of course. It's not that anybody can start beating as he sees fit. [Westerners] who claim this talk about an Islam which is a figment of their imagination. They are villains because they know there's no such thing in Islam, and they want to pin this interpretation on it. Why? Because Islamic culture is the only culture that is spreading, and is viewed with fear by people of other cultures. In any case... This method appeared as part of the treatment of a rebellious wife. I am faced with two options - either the family will be destroyed by divorce, or I can use means that may bring my wife, the mother of my children, back to her senses. The first means is admonishment.
[...]
The second means of treatment is "sleeping in separate beds." Why? Because this targets the honor... A lot could be said about this. The strength of a woman lies in her ability to seduce the man. The man is strong and can do whatever he wants, but the woman has a weapon of her own. This weapon can be targeted. Many women will come back to their senses, when they realize that this is what's involved.
[...]
By Allah, even if only one woman out of a million can be reformed by light beatings... It's not really beating, it's more like punching... It's like shoving or poking her. That's what it is.

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S6

Nothing to do with Islam at all. This guy is just confused about the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, he is just speaking of an important progressive religion that will bring enlightenment and happiness to the world.

That stands in stark contrast to evil Christianity. They don't like abortions you know.

[Con-man]

I think AU is making a mistake allowing enemies of the state walk around under false mantra of "freedom of speach."

Correct me if I'm wrong guys but I have heard that free speech technically hasn't been written down as a part of our constitution, its just never been denied because of the backlash that would cause.

[Kant]

Correct me if I'm wrong guys but I have heard that free speech technically hasn't been written down as a part of our constitution, its just never been denied because of the backlash that would cause.

That is correct, lots of things aren't codified in our constitution.
That is why we have a high court.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Yeah most of our constitution is like the British. Unwritten. It's done simply because it's the way things are done.

Allows for a very flexible system.

Interesting fact. Our High Court is also the Republic of Nauru's highest court

[CPL Trevoga]

Correct me if I'm wrong guys but I have heard that free speech technically hasn't been written down as a part of our constitution, its just never been denied because of the backlash that would cause.

Freedom of speech originally implied ability to criticize government without fear of persecution. Nowdays it implies ability to say anything you want, even speach threatening existence of people and state. The guy wants to wipe you fools of this
Earth and you telling me that this a "right" is in your constitution. Is common sense in your constitution?

[Mastermind]

Multiculturalist apologist bs - moral relativism at is finest.

Progressive religion that beats women to death for adultery, encourages genital mutilation, wants women to wear headscarves, and calls for jihad on their enemies. Jihad. Still. When the Christians gave up the idea of the Crusades in the 1300s. Hit the streets and calls for death and burns things when Denmark publishes cartoons about Mohammed. Really tolerant and progressive religion.

People like you will be the death of Western civilisation Min - because you just dont get it. Its 'cool' to denigrate your own culture and 'cool' and hip and lefty trendy to say how enlightened and different and special radical islam is. And its just crap. More misery in this world has been inflicted by radical islam than any other religion. It is dictatorship based on religion, and sharia is the antithesis of freedom and human rights and that is not just arguable, its blatantly obvious. To place christianity in even the same realm is fanciful.

See how trendy it is to actually live under sharia.
Bravo! Extreemly well put and pinpoint accurate. I personally believe the reason all these trendy "Islamic Apologists in Western Clothing" are so fanciful about the extremist religon of death cults, Islam, is that they are afraid to face the actual truth of what it is we are facing. This threat is not about to go away...not by a long shot. Watching videos of teenage girls being buried up to their hips and then stoned to death by raging men....makes me absolutely sick. To watch the countless videos of Islamists estreemists murdering innocent people, ranting and parading with murdered corpses, dragging dead men and women who resisted them about in dusty streets, slaughtering people because some simplistic cartoons of their "God" were published, and gladly handing severed heads back and forth in celebration of their savagry (to name but a very limited number of acts of savagry they commit) is more than ample proof we are not dealing with any kind of normal foe. Even the Japanese of 1939 were not this savage and blood thirsty. These people are barbarains of the first order. And their cult is growing by millions...and encouraged by the foolish simpletons among us.

These faddish, infantile minded girls and boys who like to brag about how righteous and wonderful their beloved Muslim fundamentalist creatures are should get a first hand dose of what it is they praise so highly.

[Zathras]

doublethinker has a valid point. Talk to any muslim who prays 5 times a day and they'll tell you that western life is not for them. They don't drink, go out, party, no drugs, no premarital ***, dating is a no no, only one god allah, why muslim men can have multiple wives etc. All this has a reason they say and if u listen carefully to their reasons, I think they have a point.

all I can say is, I hope the 'us' versus 'them' in australia, or any western country is not bad, and well integrated, and people don't cause any trouble based on who they are as individuals.

And how many muslims pray 5 times a day? I would wager here in the west that only a small minority actually pray 5 times a day.

People need to stop being so simplistic, muslims are not all mindless bots who follow the quran without thinking. They are human beings with human weaknesses and needs. Not to mention the varying Islamic ideologies and people who talk about Islam like its the truth then go out and get drunk.

There is the danger of extremism, were well aware of this. However treating all muslims as the same is just ridicolous and solves nothing.

[Zathras]

Watching videos of teenage girls being buried up to their hips and then stoned to death by raging men....makes me absolutely sick.

If your referring to the recent video from Iraq, the men who carried out the stoning were Yazidis not Muslims.




These people are barbarains of the first order. And their cult is growing by millions...and encouraged by the foolish simpletons among us.


Growing by the millions, right just where are these million barbarians...

[Mastermind]

If your referring to the recent video from Iraq, the men who carried out the stoning were Yazidis not Muslims.







Growing by the millions, right just where are these million barbarians...

I said videoS...with an "S"...meaning many..more than one. And the stonings were done by Muslims.....did you not see the savagry dealt out against the teen girls in Iran? Nothing happens in Iran that the Islamic leaders do not approve of.

As for "Where are they?" My God...what planet have you been living on ...Do you have a television? Do you have access to newspapers? A radio, perhaps? How about a computer with the capability to down load videos from Youtube or Al Jazeera?

[Zathras]

I said videoS...with an "S"...meaning many..more than one. And the stonings were done by Muslims.....did you not see the savagry dealt out against the teen girls in Iran? Nothing happens in Iran that the Islamic leaders do not approve of.

As for "Where are they?" My God...what planet have you been living on ...Do you have a television? Do you have access to newspapers? A radio, perhaps? How about a computer with the capability to down load videos from Youtube or Al Jazeera?

No the video of the stoning of a girl in Iraq was done by yazedis, no I didnt see the videos of the Iranian stoning however that wouldn't be surprising we all know how the Iranian regime is like.

Yes I am well aware of the situation and I know the enemy very well, but to claim that there are millions of them is just nonsense.

Don't let your ideology or your emotions get in the way of your judgement. If you do that then you make the same mistake the Islamists do.

[getl0st]

I said videoS...with an "S"...meaning many..more than one. And the stonings were done by Muslims.....did you not see the savagry dealt out against the teen girls in Iran? Nothing happens in Iran that the Islamic leaders do not approve of.

As for "Where are they?" My God...what planet have you been living on ...Do you have a television? Do you have access to newspapers? A radio, perhaps? How about a computer with the capability to down load videos from Youtube or Al Jazeera?

This whole muslim, islam stuff is just a side-show distraction.

What we should be more worried about, is our own governments systematic removing our civil rights, right to own guns, etc, etc.

While your so worried about what is happening on the other side of the planet, you have Ed and Elaine Brown under seige in Plainfield, New Hampshire, by the FBI in because of their refusal to pay Income Tax. The only thing is, "there is no law that states you have to pay Income Tax"

So before worrying about the injustices in other countries, maybe we should be more worried about the injustices in your own country first.

[mohica]

A few.

They make up a very small percentage of the population.

I think there are about 450000 - 500000.


450,000 to 500,00 too many. Until the "moderate" Muslims worldwide take a concrete stance - actions not words - denouncing and rallying against the "jihad" with the same fervor millions of Muslims rally for it, they will be held in contempt by many, and are looked upon as the enemy and sub-human savages by many.

[Lazy Lob]

Don't let your ideology or your emotions get in the way of your judgement. If you do that then you make the same mistake the Islamists do.


Now there's a sound bite!

So where would you draw the line and not tolerate the intolerance?

[mohica]

only thing is, "there is no law that states you have to pay Income Tax"



You might want to check your facts sport. Guys like you amaze me. Try educating yourself prior to spouting off.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

[Zathras]

Now there's a sound bite!

So where would you draw the line and not tolerate the intolerance?

I believe our enemies can be categorised like this:

1. Financial and logistical supporters, ie those who allow them to buy weapons and materials by providing them with the money.

2. Ideological, ie imams and preachers who espouse terrorism and the like.

3. Fighters, those who plan and carry out the attacks.

Including civilians who morally back the jihadis as enemies to be neutralised would be counter productive and morally we wouldn't be that much different from the terrorists if we did that.

[Zathras]

450,000 to 500,00 too many. Until the "moderate" Muslims worldwide take a concrete stance - actions not words - denouncing and rallying against the "jihad" with the same fervor millions of Muslims rally for it, they will be held in contempt by many, and are looked upon as the enemy and sub-human savages by many.

Right, so because people don't carry out rallies against jihadis you automatically assume they are with the jihadis?

And where are these rallies where "millions of muslims" call for jihad.

Sub-human eh...

[mohica]

Right, so because people don't carry out rallies against jihadis you automatically assume they are with the jihadis?

And where are these rallies where "millions of muslims" call for jihad.

Sub-human eh...

Uhhhh, yeah. Obviously in your youthful reverence you are lacking in true experience. That is ok, but listen and learn. You may want to ask yourself these questions, "Why aren't there more protests against the jihadists?" "Is it because the moderates are afraid, or are they really sympathetic to the cause?" That is the $64,000 question. I have my thoughts, what are yours?

Try this website and check out a few videos (Know your enemy) - and such for an eye opener and a break from the local soccer game. You might see a little "sub-humanism", if you can stomach it.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

There is plenty more out there.

[shire19]

"Why aren't there more protests against the jihadists?" "Is it because the moderates are afraid, or are they really sympathetic to the cause?"

There are or atleast have been in huge numbers. But these rallies most of the time are not picked on by the mainstream media nor do they really make a difference.. Its just a few thousand people denouncing terror that day and the next its everything back to the way it was..

Most of these moderates don't have the time to rally every other day just so your mind can be put at ease, especially when they know that it won't make a difference.

[Zathras]

Uhhhh, yeah. Obviously in your youthful reverence you are lacking in true experience. That is ok, but listen and learn. You may want to ask yourself these questions, "Why aren't there more protests against the jihadists?" "Is it because the moderates are afraid, or are they really sympathetic to the cause?" That is the $64,000 question. I have my thoughts, what are yours?

Try this website and check out a few videos (Know your enemy) - and such for an eye opener and a break from the local soccer game. You might see a little "sub-humanism", if you can stomach it.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

There is plenty more out there.

First of all you do not know me or my background. As I said in a post before I know the enemy very well, perhaps better then you will ever know them. Muslims have responsibilities just like any other people, they have families, jobs, etc. They don't have to rally to "proove their innocence" to your or like minded people.

[getl0st]

You might want to check your facts sport. Guys like you amaze me. Try educating yourself prior to spouting off.

AMENDMENT XVI
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration

Pity it was never properly ratified

Article V of the U.S. Constitution specifies the ratification process, and requires 3/4 of the States to ratify any amendment proposed by Congress. There were 48 States in the American Union in 1913, meaning that affirmative action of 36 states was required for ratification. In February, 1913, Secretary of State Philander Knox issued a proclamation claiming that 38 states had ratified the amendment.

In 1984, William J. Benson began a research project, never before performed, to investigate the process of ratification of the 16th Amendment. After traveling to the capitols of the New England states, and reviewing the journals of the state legislative bodies, he saw that many states had not ratified the Amendment. Continuing his research at the National Archives in Washington, DC, Bill Benson discovered his Golden Key. This damning piece of evidence is a 16 page memorandum from the Solicitor of the Department of State, whose duty is the provision of legal opinions for the use of the Secretary of State. In this memorandum sent to the Secretary of State, the Solicitor of the Department of State lists the many errors he found in the ratification process!

The 4 states listed below are among the 38 states that Philander Knox claimed ratification from.

The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.

The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.

The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.

The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington.

When his year long project was finished at the end of 1984, Bill had visited every state capitol and knew that not a single state had actually and legally ratified the proposal to amend the Constitution. 33 states engaged in the unauthorized activity of amending the language of the amendment proposed by congress, a power the states do not possess. Since 36 states were needed for ratification, the failure of 13 to ratify would be fatal to the amendment, and this occurs within the major (first three) defects tabulated in Defects in Ratification of the 16th Amendment. Even if we were to ignore defects of spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, we would still have only 2 states which successfully ratified.

After serving time in federal prison for not paying his United States income taxes, Bill Benson still does not pay income taxes and yet our federal government chooses not to arrest him. Why? Because now he can use this book, which he has written : 'THE LAW THAT NEVER WAS' in his defense. To this day, Bill Benson proclaims, just as loudly, that he will not pay an unjust and corrupt federal income tax.

[Lazy Lob]

There are or atleast have been in huge numbers. But these rallies most of the time are not picked on by the mainstream media nor do they really make a difference.. Its just a few thousand people denouncing terror that day and the next its everything back to the way it was..

Most of these moderates don't have the time to rally every other day just so your mind can be put at ease, especially when they know that it won't make a difference.

Protesting does little and to a great degree is irrelevant. There is self censoring going on by the media in this issue but things have gone rather (and very quickly) quiet.

One cannot deny there is a very large minority that sympathises to an uncomfortable extent with Islamists. They seem to have the ability to make themselves heard above all others and seem take control of the main mosques. Like a drunk on a microphone. But they go quiet when a terrorist incident takes place and scream like banshees when something happens to one of their lot.

Local communities should and must take charge at grass roots level and slowly but firmly assert themselves otherwise polarisation will occur. In fact it is already happening. That is the nature of the beast.

Unfortunately there is a draw back. That being government, at least in the UK. They always think they know best and at best hinder or kneecap the average Joe or even Ahmed from being their own masters.

[mohica]

First of all you do not know me or my background. As I said in a post before I know the enemy very well, perhaps better then you will ever know them. Muslims have responsibilities just like any other people, they have families, jobs, etc. They don't have to rally to "proove their innocence" to your or like minded people.


I am sure you know it all at 22 years of age, If I remember correctly, I did too. One thing you don't know is the point of my responses to your posts. You aren't grasping it very well. Nonetheless, I will try once again to get your attention.

"Responsibilities" of family and jobs are irrelvant to this discussion. What is relevant is the lack of participation by "moderate" Muslims in denouncing the jihadists and their "cause", if you can call it that.

"Proving their innocence" likewise is irrelevent. Having the state of mind of a peaceful Islam that the drive-by media tries to cram down our throats is what the moderates should concentrate on. Problem is, we don't really know if it actually exists.

You seemed to have avoided any commentary about the videos and photos contained on the website. Don't you want to know your enemy?
Let's try it again.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

[Zathras]

I am sure you know it all at 22 years of age, If I remember correctly, I did too. One thing you don't know is the point of my responses to your posts. You aren't grasping it very well. Nonetheless, I will try once again to get your attention.

"Responsibilities" of family and jobs are irrelvant to this discussion. What is relevant is the lack of participation by "moderate" Muslims in denouncing the jihadists and their "cause", if you can call it that.

"Proving their innocence" likewise is irrelevent. Having the state of mind of a peaceful Islam that the drive-by media tries to cram down our throats is what the moderates should concentrate on. Problem is, we don't really know if it actually exists.

You seemed to have avoided any commentary about the videos and photos contained on the website. Don't you want to know your enemy?
Let's try it again.

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

No, moderate muslims have done nothing wrong. They have no duty to go out and denounce jihadis, just what the hell do you expect them to do? There have been some marches, however rarely reported in the media.

The problem is with people like you blaming them for siding with the jihadis. You have created an atmosphere where you blame all muslims for the actions of a minority.

Nothing will please people like you, your minds are set. The fact that you call them sub-human shows the kind of person you are.

What do you want me to say about that site, I have seen beheadings and the like before. Do you think im some naive child who doesn't know how cruel and evil the jihadis can get?

And as far as im concerned its you who needs educating not me, age has nothing to do with it. You know nothing about me and think due to my age I know nothing, you are very wrong.

[Hollis]

No, moderate muslims have done nothing wrong. They have no duty to go out and denounce jihadis, just what the hell do you expect them to do? There have been some marches, however rarely reported in the media.

The problem is with people like you blaming them for siding with the jihadis. You have created an atmosphere where you blame all muslims for the actions of a minority.

Nothing will please people like you, your minds are set. The fact that you call them sub-human shows the kind of person you are.

What do you want me to say about that site, I have seen beheadings and the like before. Do you think im some naive child who doesn't know how cruel and evil the jihadis can get?

And as far as im concerned its you who needs educating not me, age has nothing to do with it. You know nothing about me and think due to my age I know nothing, you are very wrong.


I think you missed the issue, maybe some denial/scapegoating?

Non-Muslims are the ones that need not do anything. You can not expect non-Muslim to carry the burden for Muslims.

Unless the media completely ignore the positive actions of Muslims, what is seen is Muslims being very vocal about offenses against the Islamic community and being mute on offenses of members of the Islamic community against non-Muslims or different sects of Islam.

It is not for non-Muslims to understand anything about Islam. Even though that could be beneficial.

For Muslims to speak out against jihadis in a loud voice would insure non-Muslims that Islam is opposed to these tactics, being mute implies some sort of complicity in those actions. Part of the problem is that Muslims seem to not understand non-Muslim, we could say also that non-Muslims don't understand Muslim adds to the problem also.

There is a need to recognize that this conflict is also a PR war. It is naive to assume non-Muslims have the clarity and understanding of the teaching of Islam as a Muslim does. To reiterate a point, Non-Muslims need assurance from Muslims that the action of Jihadis are not what Islam is about. That is something non-Muslims would not be best at.

[IraGlacialis]

Personally (even though many may disagree with me) I see a parallel between the issue about Muslims in Europe and blacks in the US.
Like the fact that most Muslims in Europe aren't screaming for more rights, most blacks are thuggin' in the ghetto. However, there seems to be a gangta mentality that is coming from the African-American community. Just turn on BET and it is either gangland or promiscuality. Yet there is no widespread (widespead being the key word; there have been denoucation by black professors and old school people such as Bill Cosby) denouncation by the black community for this stereotype. Plus you got the racial affirmitive action quotas (I agree for equal opportunity, but not qoutas) and protests that one time a white scholarship was set up. People such as Al Sharton don't help things.

BTW, have you notice that this wave of PC that the Muslim groups are demading haven't come up until after a couple month s after 9/11.
Case in point, South Park showed Muhammad (albiet in a positive light) but there were only a few objections; nothing widescale. The Danish cartoon appeared, and there were protests for, the negative image notwithstanding, just showing his face.

I am in agreement that there needs to be a massive overhaul of the religion, and the only people who can do this are the Muslims themselves.

[Calanen]

Pity it was never properly ratified



The Courts say, it was properly ratified. That's just all conspiracy theory bunkum. There were 42 states that had ratified the 16th Amendment as of 1913, they only needed 36.

And Cheek v United States 498 US 192 (1991) says that to raise such arguments as a defence to prosecution, can be used by the Prosecution to demonstrate wilful violation of the law. Not a good defence strategy.

[Hollis]

Ira, you bring up a good point. There are sources for political power, one is to be a power merchant, like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. What is needed is a entitlement class of people, continue to sell them the idea that they are the victims and the world owes them It is the worse form of slavery, making a person a slave in their mind. It becomes a symbiotic relation, between the power merchant his/her minions. They need each other and feed each other.

The majority does not owe it to accomodate the minority where only the majority has to put forth the effort. To do so creates a co-dependent society. People who are not capable of taking care of themselves.

[Mastermind]

Very well put, Hollis...well done.

[mohica]

No, moderate muslims have done nothing wrong.

It is not they have done nothing "wrong", they just do nothing. Is that satisfactory?


They have no duty to go out and denounce jihadis, just what the hell do you expect them to do? There have been some marches, however rarely reported in the media.

Duty? Would you sit by and watch someone usurp and debase your family? Work? Religion? If so, you have no spirit, no spine. Resistance only works if you don't believe or condone the actions being taken by the perpetrators. It also doesn't hurt to have some balls.



The problem is with people like you blaming them for siding with the jihadis. You have created an atmosphere where you blame all muslims for the actions of a minority.

How do you know it is a minority? Do you have any facts to support that claim? I think that is the key issue that I brought up many posts ago that you have yet to address. I will repeat the $64,000 question. Are the "moderates" afraid or sympathetic?



Nothing will please people like you, your minds are set. The fact that you call them sub-human shows the kind of person you are.

What would please me is any Muslims against the jihadists would stand up and fight them along side the "infidels". Some are, but the numbers are small.

Your reading comprehension is lacking, but I will help you out a bit. I stated the jihadists were sub-human, not Muslims. You need to control your emotions in a debate so you don't make inaccurate statements.



What do you want me to say about that site, I have seen beheadings and the like before. Do you think im some naive child who doesn't know how cruel and evil the jihadis can get?

It is apparent you are an idealist, not a realist. As you get older, your views will change. Hopefully.



And as far as im concerned its you who needs educating not me, age has nothing to do with it. You know nothing about me and think due to my age I know nothing, you are very wrong.

Ahhh yes, perhaps you are the one to educate me. That is funny.



What is needed is a entitlement class of people,

Your use of the word highlighted in red makes the premise of your argument invalid. It is welfare, so let's be honest and skip the PC. No one is entitled to anything.

[Mastermind]

The issue of "the Good Muslims" not denouncing the Jihadists could be looked upon another way....It has been estimated via certain polls of past ...I don't have them before me so I will be rather subjective on this...that there are about billion people on the planet who think of themselves as adherents of Islam in one form or another. Of this number, polls consistently suggest about one third or a bit less are sympathetic (in varying degrees) to the jihadist actions of murder and mayhem. The active militant Jihadists themselves are of a miniscule portion of total "Muslims" and primarily are active in very tiny segments of the realm currently under major influence of Muslim control. Generally speaking, Muslim governments do a pretty good job of maintaining control over their more radical elements.

So, it is pretty safe tos ay, the "Good Muslims", by and large, greatly dampen the activities of the radicals within their population. Events such as 9/11, as terrible as they are, are actually rare and ...in comparision to other major war-like events of the western world, are essentially...that is economically and militarily....insignificant (please note I said by comparision). They, in and of themselves, do not pose any kind of immediate threat to western civilization when put in perspective, However, they do present massive emotional and political results that cause the events and the actions of the tiny percentage of Muslims who are militantly radicalized, to be viewed out of the proper proportion. They were quite effectively designed to do exactly that. By responding as we did, we not only made the radicals much more powerful and influential in the Muslim world, But we stigmatized them in the minds of our own citizens...it is a self destructive cycle that WE have created by responding in our exaggerated manner. Our political leadership was gravely lacking in failing to present the crisis of 9/11 in it's proper perspective and to render a much more appropriate response...invading Afghanistan was indeed proper...but failing to recognize the value of Saddam (as a dampening agent to radical Islam...he didn't want insane Mullahs controlling Iraq as much as we) and to improperly render a massive invasion even based on a qualified mission to remove WMD's was by far outragous and ineffective to the mission of retarding radical Islam...it was gravely counter productive. There were a great many more effective counter measures to Saddam's miniscule threat that could have been taken that were merely tossed aside in favor of a very risky, but quite flashy and politically expediant at home, military intervention that really had no proper end game or goal after the WMDs may have been dealt with (one way or another).

The direct cost of the 9/11 attack has been grossly estimated at about 20 billion US dollars...but the outlandish actions afterward has by far exceeded a trillion US Dollars and still has no end in sight. The effectiveness of our post 9/11 actions is now viewed as failed miserably and the radical elements of Islam have demonstrated massive gains...I cite growth of power Hamas and Iran among others to demonstrate this advance. Additionally, the US influence in world affairs has suffered serious credibility damage. Basically, we can say, the 9/11 attack has succeeded far beyond anything its original planners could have imagined.

The silence of the "Good Muslims" may be from astonishment...almost certainly is is from fear that we have show a miserable reaction to such outlandishness....and I can see "Good Muslims" not wanting to show their hand just yet. That nations like Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi nations and many others that are considered Islamic republics have not gone on the "march" clearly shows to me that the more moderate influences in Islam are in fact working and working well. It is our reaction to the miltants, in terms of appeasement, apathy, ignorance and (yes...I must say it) cowardice that has the "Good Muslim" confused.

All that said...I must say, I have been the first critic of the silent Muslims among us....but, after re-thinking the grand scale of the current situation, I think the situation could be far worse. Most of the damage done since 9/11 has really been self inflicted on our part....not inflicted by the so-called "silent Portion of Islam".

[mohica]

Give your head a shake pal. There is such an abundance of bull feces in your post that I don't want to waste the time responding to such pernicious dribbles. You seem to be the typical lefty loon stating it is the US of A's fault. Suprising seeing your past service to the country. Tell you what, why don't you move over there since it seems you now hate this country. There you won't have the freedom to say the stupid sh!t you are subjecting the rest of us to.

[Mastermind]

Whoa there, Big Fella....All I am saying is that if the majority of Muslims were the grand focal of all Radical Islamic support, we would already be in a shooting war in our streets rather than just in A-stan and Iraq (and a few other remote places). It just is not so. I am merely offering a rational alternative explanation to the silence of the billion or so Muslims who do not strap bombs on their backs and walk into ice cream parlors and buses. Almost certainly, we can now see our "strategery" (to use one of many "Bush-isms") is leading nowhere and accomplishing very little except draining our bank accounts. We might want to take a closer look at alternative ways of dealing with a very tough problem...to keep ramming your head against a brick wall in attempts to down a building is one defintion of pure stupidity...might be time to go get a hammer.

[IraGlacialis]

My thought at silent Muslims in the actual Middle Eastern countries that are going through turmoil, in repose to many who seem to acuse those guys of not doing anything, is that they are being silent out of pragmaticism. They make one peep in support of moderation or the "west", and there is a possiblity of their lives and that of their families, being threatened.
There is a possiblity that if they all rise up at once, then there might be a positive effect. However, a couple would rise up, get singled out, and that would be the end of that, driving the rest back into the safety of silence.

[mohica]

Whoa there, Big Fella....All I am saying is that if the majority of Muslims were the grand focal of all Radical Islamic support, we would already be in a shooting war in our streets rather than just in A-stan and Iraq (and a few other remote places). It just is not so. I am merely offering a rational alternative explanation to the silence of the billion or so Muslims who do not strap bombs on their backs and walk into ice cream parlors and buses. Almost certainly, we can now see our "strategery" (to use one of many "Bush-isms") is leading nowhere and accomplishing very little except draining our bank accounts. We might want to take a closer look at alternative ways of dealing with a very tough problem...to keep ramming your head against a brick wall in attempts to down a building is one defintion of pure stupidity...might be time to go get a hammer.

The tone of your intial post was anti-American at the least. This Muslim "problem" has been going on for thousands of years. It is not our fault 9/11 happened. It is not our fault they blew up the USS Cole, the 1993 WTC bombing, the embassies in Africa, the Aqillie Laural (sp), countless highjackings, the subway in England, burned France, murdered the Israeli wrestling team at the 72 Olympics, shot Bobby Kennedy in the head in 1968, etc., etc., etc. Read what Winston Churchill said post WWII about the brewing problem.

Being a military man and having served in Viet Nam I would think you would have a different outlook. You fight a war to win, not make friends. Hitler didn't attack the US for all practical purposes, yet we joined the fight. If we conducted our battle plan in the desert like Erwin Rommel, the war in the Middle East would be over. If we conducted the war like we did against Germany and Japan, it would be over. Instead, we conduct it like we did in Viet Nam with one hand tied behind our backs and we end up with a clusterf**k.

Get rid of the press and go destroy the enemy. Devistate them wherever they are. Unfortunately the downside is civilan casualties but that is the way it is. Did we screw around when Hitler built arms facilities in residential areas? Hell no, we bombed the sh!t out of them and not with guided munitions mind you. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed. But, many of those civilians supported the war effort. We broke their will to continue that support and thus were greated as liberators in their own country.

"our 'strategery' (to use one of many "Bush-isms") is leading nowhere and accomplishing very little...."

I guess your sources are NBC, ABC, CBS, the NY Times etc. Sad.

Perhaps you could enlighten us to "a closer look at alternative ways of dealing with a very tough problem." Inquiring minds want to know.

[derdeb]

If you look at the numbers it's arguable that there is more fanatical Christians in this world then fanatical Muslims.

Mmmmkay...

Where are these numbers?

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1072/sigto8.jpg

[Mastermind]

First of all, we can not "Devastate" the enemy...who the hell are the "Enemy"? The days of carpet bombing entire cities to rubble because someone set off a mine under a school bus are finished. We could certainly win this thing...but we would have to murder millions to do it. We are not that kind of people...not yet anyway. If you read history of the ME and N Africa about how the west has handled Muslims, you will find there is no way to accomplish a conventional victory....it's like mixing oil and water...it just does not happen no matter what you do. The Italians in North Africa did what you are suggesting..."Fight the damn war..win at all cost...nothing stands in the way of Victory!"....read about the "Lion of the Desert"... There was a Muslim cleric named Omar Mukhtar who led the rebel forces against General Graziani's overwhelming Italian forces. Graziani was ruthless...a real modern day monster. He rounded up people, burned entire villages, set up concentration camps and imprisoned nearly the entire Muslim population...yet, Omar Mukhtar continued to attack with his meager forces. When Graziani finally enduced Mukhtar to a conference table to discuss peace, there was this fateful and telling exchange: Graziani- Omar, do you not see the millions of your people who live in misery in the camps? You and you alone have the power to free them. Just sign a peace treaty and I will release them. (Mukhtar's own sons and daughters were dying in the camps). Mukhtar - Yes..I see them. but, their fate is not in my hands or yours...their fate is in the hands of God. You, General, have no power over them. If they die, they die because it is God's own will. It is God's will that you leave this land...and it is God's will that I am the instrument to force you to leave. As for the people...let them die...or relese them...what ever you do, only God can decide the outcome.

Mukhtar left the conference without a treaty, Graziani continued to murder innocent people until finally world opinion turned against Italy and ultimately, Graziani left with his army and Mukhtar was ultimately able to free what remained of his people Of course, WWII happened and the rest was history...but, the determination of the Muslims in this is not something you can kill your way through....if you do, what do you become then?

Yes, they attacked...the radicals attacked...Saddam was a tyrant...evil to the core. Iran may develop an A-bomb to threaten us with. We may some dau come to a war of massive destruction with some radical regime in the ME....if we do, life as we know it will be over.

So....what is the solution? Who knows?

[mohica]

First of all, we can not "Devastate" the enemy...who the hell are the "Enemy"? The days of carpet bombing entire cities to rubble because someone set off a mine under a school bus are finished.

Therein lies the problem. There is no fear of reprisal. You devestate whole cities, attitudes will change. This is a serious business, this monkey f***ing the football crap has to stop.


We could certainly win this thing...but we would have to murder millions to do it. We are not that kind of people...not yet anyway.

Save me the smarmy idealisitic bullsh!t. We are that kind of people. Explain to me the fireboming of German and Japanese cities, not to mention a couple of glow plugs on the Japs. That is what saves American lives.


If you read history of the ME and N Africa about how the west has handled Muslims, you will find there is no way to accomplish a conventional victory....it's like mixing oil and water...it just does not happen no matter what you do. The Italians in North Africa did what you are suggesting..."Fight the damn war..win at all cost...nothing stands in the way of Victory!"....read about the "Lion of the Desert"... There was a Muslim cleric named Omar Mukhtar who led the rebel forces against General Graziani's overwhelming Italian forces. Graziani was ruthless...a real modern day monster. He rounded up people, burned entire villages, set up concentration camps and imprisoned nearly the entire Muslim population...yet, Omar Mukhtar continued to attack with his meager forces. When Graziani finally enduced Mukhtar to a conference table to discuss peace, there was this fateful and telling exchange: Graziani- Omar, do you not see the millions of your people who live in misery in the camps? You and you alone have the power to free them. Just sign a peace treaty and I will release them. (Mukhtar's own sons and daughters were dying in the camps). Mukhtar - Yes..I see them. but, their fate is not in my hands or yours...their fate is in the hands of God. You, General, have no power over them. If they die, they die because it is God's own will. It is God's will that you leave this land...and it is God's will that I am the instrument to force you to leave. As for the people...let them die...or relese them...what ever you do, only God can decide the outcome.

Good, then let them die. You are comparing us to the Italians in WWII? One more shake of the head might help.


Mukhtar left the conference without a treaty, Graziani continued to murder innocent people until finally world opinion turned against Italy and ultimately, Graziani left with his army and Mukhtar was ultimately able to free what remained of his people Of course, WWII happened and the rest was history...but, the determination of the Muslims in this is not something you can kill your way through....if you do, what do you become then?

You become the VICTOR!


Yes, they attacked...the radicals attacked...Saddam was a tyrant...evil to the core. Iran may develop an A-bomb to threaten us with. We may some dau come to a war of massive destruction with some radical regime in the ME....if we do, life as we know it will be over.

It's already started my friend. do you think this is just gonna go away? You have dodged the question I presented in my previous post. Quoting you, "We might want to take a closer look at alternative ways of dealing with a very tough problem." Give us some alternative ways.


So....what is the solution? Who knows?

I will pose a question to you. What do you think the Chinese would do?

I'll tell you. They would roll 100,000,000 soldiers through the ME and skin the jihadist pricks alive. That is what they would do and nobody would say a God damn thing about it. Not a peep.

[IraGlacialis]

Oooh that's real rich.
Comparing us to a regime that destroyed countless numbers of temples, churches, and mosques (and killing the relgious leaders and adherents as well) because it didn't fit with their atheistic values an still opresses the adherants on the side as well.

If we were going to go through with the Dresden method, our time has passed already. Now we are nation building. NATION BUILDING. The people of Iraq and A-Stan have suffered a lot. Going along with your method will only make things worse and drive them willingly into the hands of the enemy.

And just because someone doesn't support the actions of the regime or is not a war hawk DOESN"T MAKE THEM ****ING ANTI AMERICAN!!

[mohica]

Oooh that's real rich.
Comparing us to a regime that destroyed countless numbers of temples, churches, and mosques (and killing the relgious leaders and adherents as well) because it didn't fit with their atheistic values an still opresses the adherants on the side as well.

Who compared who to who? You must be talking about the Taliban, because they did all you mention above and more.


If we were going to go through with the Dresden method, our time has passed already. Now we are nation building. NATION BUILDING. The people of Iraq and A-Stan have suffered a lot. Going along with your method will only make things worse and drive them willingly into the hands of the enemy.

Our time may have passed, then again maybe not. You know something, we have suffered also, and that is my prime concern.


And just because someone doesn't support the actions of the regime or is not a war hawk DOESN"T MAKE THEM ****ING ANTI AMERICAN!!

Anyone that makes a case that the aformentioned incidences and countless others at the hand of Islamo-facists were the fault of the attackee, be it American, British, Spanish, Israeli, Aussie, Indonesian, Iraqi, Afghani, Phillipine, Kurd, etc. is anti freedom and on the wrong side of history. Anyone that sides with the enemy is ****ING ANTI-AMERICAN as well as anti every other country they commit atrocities in.

Isn't it great you can live in a country where brave men and women make the sacrafice so you can say the stupid sh!t you do?

[Mastermind]

I have to tell ya...and most folks who have read my shares in here can vouch for it, I find your "schorched earth" solutions rather tempting...I have actually been suspended a few times for voicing that kind of thing a bit too exactly...but, we have to face the reality that is just not going to happen...Not for some time to come. I agree whole heartedly that if we let loose the dogs of war, the politicians had better stand back and let the red froth fly. Already, our guys are being so badly mishandled as warriors I get sick to my stomach seeing it happen all over again. Soldiers are not cops and they are not social workers. Right now, as I see it, our guys are just convenient targets and are being played as political pieces. But, I also believe they are honestly doing some real good...the price is too high for the good that is being accomplished, in my opinion...but they are typical GIs, doing the best to get a damn nasty job done.

Yes, I agree, the Administration has set no realistic goals and the exorbitant prices paid in blood and money by the US and our allies is just absolutely not worth the effort for a people who seem happier murdering each other than establishing a real country.

I doubt very seriously the ultimate outcome will be worth it. I personally think Iraq will revert to an Islamic Republic very damaging to our interests and much harder to control than Sadam ever was.

There is a lot at stake. The future after Iraq is really grim...again in my opinion. What happens then is anyone's guess. Probably what Mohica is advocating. I quite honestly think if we had performed a rather impressibve punishment and had just gone away..saying, "This is just a small taste of what you can expect if you ever F**K with us again!" would have been more effective and sure as hell would have cost less in blood and money. I advocated a nuclear demonstration just outside of Mecca....and perhaps one inside Iran...that's how pissed I was after 9/11. But, now...reality. We just can not slaughter 35 million or more because we are pissed off.

Also, I never once said 9/11 was "Our Fault"..that's lunacy. I never once said we should not have done what we did in response. Like I don't think the landings at Anzio in WWII was a good idea...it seemed counter productive considering the Normandy plans ...but it was effective in introducing another cloud of worry for the Germans....just that the cost was too high for the benefit.

Likewise, nation building in Iraq is a poor cost effort and as a "Plan C" after the search for WMD's fell flat...and "Plan B" (the search for Sadam)came to a conclusion.

History will remember we tried in Iraq...and we have not really "failed" ...not yet, at least. And who is to say, the Iraqis will not come to their senses and grab the brass ring and pull their own asses out of their own hell. Yeah, I know...more "Pollyanna" crap.

But, I know for sure, history will never forget what Hitler and his boys did to six million Jews...and the Death March at Battan ..and the horror of Nanking...and more, for the Japanese. And just looks at the contemporary thoughts wqe hear every Augus about what we did to Hirshima and Nagasaki....that was just a few hundred thousand. I doubt those acts would over shadow how history would brand the USA after we immolated tens of millions or even hundreds of millions because we were pissed over 9/11. After

[Mastermind]

Sorry...duplexed it...

[Mastermind]

"I will pose a question to you. What do you think the Chinese would do?

I'll tell you. They would roll 100,000,000 soldiers through the ME and skin the jihadist pricks alive. That is what they would do and nobody would say a God damn thing about it. Not a peep."

ha...I know what the "Paper Tiger" tried to do to Vietnam in 1979...and China got their asses handed to them on a silver platter. Don't give the Chinese too much credit....besides, why would anyone want the USA to be like the Chinese? Talk about regression...sheese!

[IraGlacialis]

^^^^^ Mastermind.
Nice points, and it is nice that you recanted your original thoughts (although I am sure those thoughts still linger, which I can't blame). Detonating a nuclear warhead besides being an atrocity, has the possiblity of dropping into undesireble territory.
IMHO, whether we should have gotten into Iraq is irrelevent. I was actually quite neutral to the invasion. However, I am a firm believer that if we are rigorous enough, and I don't mean by brute force, the desired outcome would come up. Call me a hopless idealist, but that is my belief.

Who compared who to who? You must be talking about the Taliban, because they did all you mention above and more.
Our time may have passed, then again maybe not. You know something, we have suffered also, and that is my prime concern.
Isn't it great you can live in a country where brave men and women make the sacrafice so you can say the stupid sh!t you do?
I was talking about China. The Taliban isn't atheist.
I am not discounting that the Taliban did, and still does, awful things. I think that every member should be destroyed. I think every insurgent killed in Iraq should have their head put on a pike at the town square like the old times. However, I do not agree with the scorched earth policy. But if it were going to be implimented, as I stated before, it should have been done right when we invaded. Not when we are trying to build the countries up from rubble. After the invasion was complete, that would be completely counter-productive. Infact, that policy would probably not instill fear as much as sympathy due to the culture of martyrdom. It would also confirm everybody else in the world that the Americans are evil oppressors.

The 9/11 attacks have been an atrocity to the nation. But discounting the family of those killed in that and other attacks, you can't really say that Americans as a whole are suffering. People felt horrible and violated, but when you look at things, they weren't truly suffering. Hell, many probably practically ****ing forgot about the event, instead concentrating on the next damn antics coming out of Hollywood. Especially when you see what many of the people in the Middle East, hell much of the world, go through, to say that we are suffering is utter nonsense.

Cute. Now you played "service members died for your right to say idiotic ****" card. I guess I am just some idiotic pot-smoking liberal who doesn't care about the sacrifices the members of our armed forces made for our country, and in this case, the well being of the Iraqis and Afghanis. I am only 19 years old after all. Well goodnight then, I am off to my flag burning seminar.

I'm dropping the subject.

[Hollis]

Ira, I think you and Mohica are bumping heads.

What defines us is what we do. I know it creates a paradox, when dealing with groups like the taliban. Our conscience is a big part of us.

I was talking to my kids today, our greatest strength is also our greatest weakness, especially when it comes to waging war.

Maybe that is why in the long run we will prevail.

[BLUE THOR]

Muslims cant wage jihad for Australia but if they are Aussies then they can sure join the army and fight.
bloody oath! :)

how much easier would it be if we just abolished religion????
we could wipe out this "my gods holier than your god" C**P!!
Im sure that being humans we could find another reason to kill each other,
does anyone really believe they are going to heaven?? after all the science, all the evidence that we are evolved from animals ( completely contradicting all the religious texts), after all this why are we still hanging onto something that, in my belief, was written as a GUIDELINE, the Ten Commandments, a GUIDELINE... not a word for word account of how to live your life... ive read the Koran, it runs along the same lines as the bible, its all the same ****, just written differently.
what god is going to sit back and watch his own people kill each other in his name because they are Sunni- not Shiite? Catholic- not Protestant?

If you have to believe in something, believe in yourselves, in helping others, in doing whats right, in your family, in your country, believe in honour and service... not something that was written down once, a long time ago, in a time not of our own.

[IraGlacialis]

^^^^^
Let's just say that humans will act stupid no matter what; it's just relgion is the best excuse someone can have. Without religion, people will be killing each other.
I believe in your last sentence, except for the not believing in a god. I respect your chjoice not to believe, but I have faith in Him. However, I don't use His name as an excuse for my actions, since I also believe that He endowed us with free-will. I also believe in science. May sound like a contradiction of having faith in God and conviction in science, but I believe that they go hand in hand.

[Mastermind]

Here is an excellent article in the NY Times....an editorial....that sets a course for a new policy. I agree 100% about that new tougher policy toward radical Islam the article advocates. Yet, we are faced with something we hesitate to face now days...that is the potential use of horror and death against those who would destroy us. It's really WWII all over again...we are in the 1938 mode of operation. We simply do not want to do this...we despise doing it. And, looking back at that bitter history lesson, only five short years later we were burning a hundred thousand people to death in Dresden and the Nazis were systematically gassing millions of men women and kids. The degeneration of civilization into the hell of war was an agonizing process for western governments and many policicains were relegated to the dustbin of history for their hesitations. We face the same reluctance to go into that hell. Our mistakes and self examinations are those very same kinds of mistakes made for the very same reasons. We would almost rather surrender than do what we are being forced intoBut...now we stand at the very edge of the abyss...our decisions are critical...It would seem the Radical Islamists are forcing us to determine their fate.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070626/EDITORIAL/106260011