Pope's quote/comments on Islam

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I disagree with this notion. A Christian bombing an abortion clinic is just as wrong as a Muslim bombing a cafe. Murder is murder is murder. It's all wrong.

I believe the discussion about this scale was x number of Christian extremism vs x number of Muslim extremism. I don't know the accurate number, but would you concede the number of current Christian extremism is far less than the number of Muslim extremism?

How do you prevent new recruits from joining the ranks of the terrorists? You have to take away their motivation to become an extremist. And to do this you have to understand their motives. Otherwise, we are fighting a long and costly battle that we will never win

In the 70s, 80s, 90s there are examples of extremists that were militarily crushed to be non-factors. Red Army, Shining Path, Black September (ex. just finished watching Munich) etc. There are some groups that you need to wipe out or reduce to the point where they are no longer significant threats.

You may have a point with Muslim extremists as they are not worried about dying for their cause. However, IMO it will be one-thing-or-another. Move out of ME and there will be another reason. Stop supporting Israel and there will be a reason. I think (and not to be sarcastic) they only way the Muslim extremists would be satisified is if America was to become an Islamic state.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It's true that there are degrees and grey areas. To me, anything which goes farther than impeding the enemy's ability to resist should not be considered.

With all due respect, anything that doesn't go beyond an enemy's ability to resist is at it's very nature ineffective in retreiving information.

If they can resist, they will. The trick is to use methods to ensure they give you the information you're needing.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Fiscally, you have a good point, but what I'm talking about is the term I directly used: "Bleeding Heart Liberal" which really speaks for the most part to foreign relations, our topic in this discussion. In that respect, he was neither a bleeding heart nor a liberal.

But fiscally, yes you're absolutely right.

I think it really depends on who is in power more than the label behind it. Conservatives were opposed to going to war in Europe prior to World War II. They were also opposed to doing any kind of nation building when it was under Clinton's watch. When the occupants in the White House changed, their attitudes took on a different view.

It does make me wonder what would have happened if Gore was president during 9-11. Would the conservatives have backed him?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

With all due respect, anything that doesn't go beyond an enemy's ability to resist is at it's very nature ineffective in retreiving information.

I don't believe this to be true.

[Edward64]

Of course they are oversensitive to the comments, and of course the footage of it was going to get portrayed in a bad light and used as propoganda in Islamic countries, the same way that we are now seeing footage of rioting Islamic people burning pictures of the pope, rather than Islamics having civilised debates about it - which does indeed happen.

Groundhog. I have visited some ME news website and do not see any signicant discussions taking place that you have alluded to and I would appreciate any links. My layman knowledge is that Grand Ayatollahs each have followers, the more followers the more important they are. Has there been any Grand Ayatollahs trying to facilitate this debate?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't believe this to be true.

How about this ... ineffective in retreiving quick, immediate information?

I can see where given time and gentleman tactics, an enemy may give information ... but I don't see how you can argue that for quick, immediate information, torture is a better alternative (not talking about morality here).

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

It does make me wonder what would have happened if Gore was president during 9-11. Would the conservatives have backed him?

I'd like to think so, but it would depend on the actions he took. Frankly, I have no faith that Gore would have been anywhere near aggressive enough after the attacks.

For that matter, I feel Bush wasn't aggressive enough either, but I understand how my opinion might be in the minority.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Groundhog. I have visited some ME news website and do not see any signicant discussions taking place that you have alluded to and I would appreciate any links. My layman knowledge is that Grand Ayatollahs each have followers, the more followers the more important they are. Has there been any Grand Ayatollahs trying to facilitate this debate?

I don't have any links (haven't done any searches), but will see if I can find some. All of what I've seen has been on TV. About a week ago I was watching a debate on TV between young Muslims, some extreme in their views and some not, discussing the issue of violence in response to foreign criticism in the Islamic world. It was very interesting, and promising to see that some of them are willing to address the issue.

There was also an article posted on these boards a few months ago from a cleric(?) in Egypt I believe who was tackling the same issue. He had received numerous death threats from other Islamic folks, but again, it's positive to see.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe the discussion about this scale was x number of Christian extremism vs x number of Muslim extremism. I don't know the accurate number, but would you concede the number of current Christian extremism is far less than the number of Muslim extremism?

Yes, there is no doubt in regards to the numbers. I still stand by the belief that all forms of terrorism are horrible no matter who does it or how many times. Christians are guilty of terrorism as well as Muslims, so it seems hypocritical to me for Christians to point their fingers at Muslims saying how violent they are.

In the 70s, 80s, 90s there are examples of extremists that were militarily crushed to be non-factors. Red Army, Shining Path, Black September (ex. just finished watching Munich) etc. There are some groups that you need to wipe out or reduce to the point where they are no longer significant threats.

But new groups sprung up and replaced them, right? We might wipe out Al Qaeda, but unless we attack the sources of extremism, new groups will arise.

You may have a point with Muslim extremists as they are not worried about dying for their cause. However, IMO it will be one-thing-or-another. Move out of ME and there will be another reason. Stop supporting Israel and there will be a reason. I think (and not to be sarcastic) they only way the Muslim extremists would be satisified is if America was to become an Islamic state.

I don't think most of them care whether America is Islamic or not. If so, why doesn't Al Qaeda send missionaries over here to convert people? I think their main goal is to keep the United States and the West out of the Middle East and out of their affairs. They want to have a society based on their beliefs and their culture, and they view the West as encroaching on that. To be honest, I don't blame them. I don't agree with their courses of action obviously, but would we want them over here telling us what to do or interfering with our governments?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

For that matter, I feel Bush wasn't aggressive enough either, but I understand how my opinion might be in the minority.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

All of what I've seen has been on TV. About a week ago I was watching a debate on TV between young Muslims, some extreme in their views and some not, discussing the issue of violence in response to foreign criticism in the Islamic world. It was very interesting, and promising to see that some of them are willing to address the issue.

What kind of crazy-ass TV shows do you all have in Australia? Serious debates that don't involve screaming, throwing chairs, or name calling? What's that all about?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'd like to think so, but it would depend on the actions he took. Frankly, I have no faith that Gore would have been anywhere near aggressive enough after the attacks.

For that matter, I feel Bush wasn't aggressive enough either, but I understand how my opinion might be in the minority.

What could Bush have possibly done that is more aggressive than invading two countries?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

What could Bush have possibly done that is more aggressive than invading two countries?

1) He waited too long. Even though it's really unrelated, Iraq had a chance to move the WMD's to another country because we waited too long to go in.

2) He warned any country that harbored AQ terrorists that they were as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Both Syria and the Sudan were harboring terrorists, maybe even Bin Laden himself.

Reagan had the right idea: attack first, ask questions later. No mercy for those countries willingly harboring the terrorists.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

1) He waited too long. Even though it's really unrelated, Iraq had a chance to move the WMD's to another country because we waited too long to go in.

But then Iraq ended up not having WMDs, so this is a moot point, or at least points to the fact that they still acted too quickly rather than too slowly.

2) He warned any country that harbored AQ terrorists that they were as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Both Syria and the Sudan were harboring terrorists, maybe even Bin Laden himself.

Very flimsy. You can easily accuse any Middle Eastern country of harboring AQ terrorists without actually having any evidence of them being there, then use that as a pretext for invading.

Often these countries probably are, knowingly or not, harboring members of AQ, but this is just far too convenient. Do you believe that the US may have alterior motives for their actions in the Middle East, or do you believe that they are related to terrorism alone?

Reagan had the right idea: attack first, ask questions later. No mercy for those countries willingly harboring the terrorists.

I take it from this response that you believe it's the later?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

But then Iraq ended up not having WMDs, so this is a moot point, or at least points to the fact that they still acted too quickly rather than too slowly.

I'm talking without any evidence to back me up, so it's a strict opinion -- Iraq had WMD's and moved them, probably to Syria. Sadaam knew US was going to attack (as did the rest of the world), and knew he was going to lose (as did the rest of the world). By moving the incrimidating evidence, it makes it look like to the public at large that there was no basis for the invasion. If you're gonna lose, make your enemy ultimately regret the attack.

Often these countries probably are, knowingly or not, harboring members of AQ, but this is just far too convenient. Do you believe that the US may have alterior motives for their actions in the Middle East, or do you believe that they are related to terrorism alone?

I'm not gonna sit here and say we didn't have ulterior motives, but even though oil was in the equation, I would say it wasn't the primary reason.

Honestly, you know who I blame for the whole Iraq situation? Bush Sr. He should have went in the first time and ended Sadaam's reign then.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree with this. Name tags have definitely changed.

You have to be kidding. FDR a conservative?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm going to start referring to JonInMiddleGa as The Giant Peach.

LoL.

Seriously. That was great.

Nicely Done!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Again, I doubt very much civilians at home during World War II were that concerned about the lives of German civilians when we were bombing their cities. Time have changed, and loyalty and patriotism no longer have any meaning. That's disapointing.

You're disgusting. You sit there and undermine every value that this country was founded on, advocating genocide and torturing potentially innocent people, and lecture me on what it means to be patriotic. I'm sorry, but this is where I draw the line, and I am ashamed that you call yourself an American.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You have to be kidding. FDR a conservative?

FDR as Joe Lieberman. I could buy that, but I'm not completely sold. Certainly the bit about Truman is a valid point. The Dems of today are a different Breed than the Dems of yesteryear. I'll note that I believe the Republicans have changed over time as well.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You're disgusting. You sit there and undermine every value that this country was founded on, advocating genocide and torturing potentially innocent people, and lecture me on what it means to be patriotic. I'm sorry, but this is where I draw the line, and I am ashamed that you call yourself an American.

I wasn't lecturing you, nor did I say anything even to the effect that "Bigglesworth is unAmerican" I was making a general statement.

You can assume that was what I said and say I undermine this countries values by wanting it's enemies dead. That's your right.

If you'll go back and read, I haven't made this a personal attack on ANYONE, and when I felt one of my statement might be misconstrued, I even PM'ed the person to make sure he didn't take it that way. The only one that is taking it to that level is you.

I'm not sorry for what I said. I stand by it. If you feel me to be disgusting, that's up to you. Feel free to put me on Ignore, because I will not stop what I believe just because you disagree.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm talking without any evidence to back me up, so it's a strict opinion -- Iraq had WMD's and moved them, probably to Syria. Sadaam knew US was going to attack (as did the rest of the world), and knew he was going to lose (as did the rest of the world). By moving the incrimidating evidence, it makes it look like to the public at large that there was no basis for the invasion. If you're gonna lose, make your enemy ultimately regret the attack.

Iraq barely even had an army, let alone the capabilities to produce WMDs. They never recovered from the 1st Gulf war, though of course Sadaam was going to boast and be proud and arrogant; his very position inside Iraq depended on it.

I also contend that Sadaam would have been far more likely to actually use the WMDs on the invaders than he would be to hide the evidence to make the US look bad.

I'm not gonna sit here and say we didn't have ulterior motives, but even though oil was in the equation, I would say it wasn't the primary reason.

It's my belief that it is the primary reason. The amount the US is spending on it's military campaign in the Middle East is no secret, and you can bet that they are expecting it to pay off.

I don't believe that it is the only reason though, like many do. September 11 was a massive hit to the US's pride, and as the world's super power it is absolutely neccessary to strike back with force against such an attack if you are to keep face and maintain this image.

Remember the confusion when the US went from bombing the hills of Afghanistan to invading Iraq? The US government was quick to come up with reasons for the invasion (WMDs, links to AQ), but I believe that the US was just desperate for a victory. Tracking a man down in the Afghan desert is hard (especially when he was probably never there), but taking down a leader in Iraq who has still not recovered his strength after DS1 is simpler, as they soon showed.

Clearly few in the administration imagined the troubles that would follow, however.

Honestly, you know who I blame for the whole Iraq situation? Bush Sr. He should have went in the first time and ended Sadaam's reign then.

Maybe the situation in Iraq would have been better if they had taken Sadaam down back then, but maybe not. The rebuilding effort would still have been a nightmare regardless. How many times in the past half century has a foreign power (the US, in particular) taken someone out of power and attempted to replace them with someone else? How often has it worked out as planned? How often has it been a massive stuff up? Why would have Iraq in the early 90s have been any different?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

FDR as Joe Lieberman. I could buy that, but I'm not completely sold. Certainly the bit about Truman is a valid point. The Dems of today are a different Breed than the Dems of yesteryear. I'll note that I believe the Republicans have changed over time as well.

New Deal, regulation of Wall Street, new taxes, pro-civl rights and affirmative action programs, co-operative foreign policy, foreign intervention...he was the most liberal President of the century.

As for Truman, he put a veto on Taft-Hartley, his Fair Deal included Civil Rights reform, national healthcare, and increased welfare. In foreign affairs he started the UN and NATO. One of his most famous quotes is, "Every man should have the right to a decent home, the right to an education, the right to adequate medical care, the right to a worthwhile job, the right to an equal share in the making of public decisions through the ballot, and the right to a fair trial in a fair court." Truman was not a conservative, he just had a hawkish foreign policy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Jonathon and JonInMiddleGA. I'm calling both of you out and asking you to refrain from participating on this thread if you cannot stop your sarcasm and profanities.

I can't, and won't, even try to speak for the other Jon in the thread, but as for me, you are cordially invited to kiss my ass.

edit to add: Unless SD has handed you the keys to this forum, I have no interest in whether my posts suit your personal taste. Don't like 'em, then ignore them. But I don't believe I've done anything in this thread that isn't warranted, and if anything, I've maintained a degree of restraint that (for me) is downright remarkable. In other words Edward, this IS the polite version.

[MrBigglesworth]

This is what Edward and WVUFAN are advocating for:

Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/wo...ge&oref=slogin

There is no evidence that this guy was ever a threat. He is an innocent man. This is just one of many stories just like it. And it also goes to show that torturing doesn't work: this guy admitted to training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan, and he has never even been there.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

FDR as Joe Lieberman. I could buy that, but I'm not completely sold. Certainly the bit about Truman is a valid point. The Dems of today are a different Breed than the Dems of yesteryear. I'll note that I believe the Republicans have changed over time as well.

I agree FDR as Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/569uofdm.asp

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I can't, and won't, even try to speak for the other Jon in the thread, but as for me, you are cordially invited to kiss my ass.

edit to add: Unless SD has handed you the keys to this forum, I have no interest in whether my posts suit your personal taste. Don't like 'em, then ignore them. But I don't believe I've done anything in this thread that isn't warranted, and if anything, I've maintained a degree of restraint that (for me) is downright remarkable. In other words Edward, this IS the polite version.

JohnInMiddleGA. I welcome your opinions and apologize if you took offense.

The only thing I asked was to eliminate your profanities and sarcasm (okay, how about minimize it as everyone participates in sarcasm) and if you need to, start your own thread. Otherwise this thread will go downhill and everyone will lose ... without learning anything new. I think this is a reasonable request.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

This is what Edward and WVUFAN are advocating for:


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/wo...ge&oref=slogin

There is no evidence that this guy was ever a threat. He is an innocent man. This is just one of many stories just like it. And it also goes to show that torturing doesn't work: this guy admitted to training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan, and he has never even been there.

Blame the Canadians ... Arar does.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

The U.S. transfer of a Canadian citizen to prison in Syria was likely caused by misleading information Canadian authorities gave to the Americans, a report from an inquiry into the deportation released Monday said.

It's quite clear that the RCMP sent inaccurate information to U.S. officials," Arar said. "I would not have even been sent Syria had this information not been given to them."

This is not to say that Arar falls under my category of 'repatriatism'. He is a Canadian citizen (not sure about dual citizenship with Syria). I had thought repatriatism was returning a foreign national to home country for interrogation ... any idea how the Canadians would allow this?

[Edward64]

FWIW. Some comic relief with cartoons on this subject.

http://cagle.com/news/PopeRemarks/

These are slanted towards making fun of the (over)reaction. Are there any Muslim/Islamic oriented cartoons making fun of the Pope?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

JohnInMiddleGA. I welcome your opinions and apologize if you took offense.

The only thing I asked was to eliminate your profanities and sarcasm (okay, how about minimize it as everyone participates in sarcasm) and if you need to, start your own thread. Otherwise this thread will go downhill and everyone will lose ... without learning anything new. I think this is a reasonable request.

Edward, the only thing I've "learned" from this thread is just how deep in the toilet America is these days. And that really isn't "learned", I knew it, this thread just reinforces it.

As for profanity, it can be used as an effective method of emphasis or for a variety of other purposes. I don't tend to use it gratuitously and seldom is it used unintentionally. I will continue to use it as I see fit within the confines of the application of forum rules.

With regard to sarcasm, as you noted yourself, it is a frequently employed tool here & I reserve the right to use it as well. It is often much kinder & gentler than what I would replace it with,

As I said, given the level of contempt I have for some of the things I've seen posted, this is the polite version. If you don't care for it, then you have a number of options, from ignoring me to discontinuing your participation in the thread to deleting the thread altogether (and probably a number of other options in between).

You've made your request, which you're well within the bounds to do.
But once a thread is posted publically, I don't believe you have any right to dictate the posts that follow, not their content, not their tone, not their direction. And it's more likely that Hell will freeze over than you will dictate them to me, as I frankly value my ability to express myself as I see fit more than I am concerned with your comfort level with that expression.

Most sincerely,
Jon

[Drake]

The more I think about it, the more I appreciate the post ealier (Mojo Jojo's maybe?) about the perceived humiliation of Islam being part of what's going on here. I don't think the Muslim world clearly understands how far beyond religion and into scientific rationalism the West has moved. It's not just that much of the West doesn't *get* your religion, we secretly *mock it* in our hearts because we've largely given up on religion. Folks who are silly enough to allow their religion to influence their decisions are generally coddled in polite conversation the way one coddles a developmentally disabled child. We'll nod our heads and pretend to care what you're saying while we chuckle into our hands.

Even for practicing Christians who feel as strongly about their religion as Muslims do (and thus have to some extent rejected pure scientific rationalism), there is the fundamental divide that Christ taught that He alone was "the way, the truth and the life" and the sole approach to God. What that means in practice is that many Christians believe that Muslims are *wrong* and that their religion is a lie. Even when they say nice things about Muslims, it's really just a semantic game that they're playing to keep the Islamic world mollified.

Muslims *should* feel like we're trying to humiliate them. We not only mock them in our hearts, we have the audacity to pretend like they're too stupid to understand that we know we're mocking them.

[Drake]

dola...

It strikes me as somewhat ironic -- or maybe not ironic at all, maybe it was Benedict's intended purpose -- that I come back to scientific rationalism as a root cause of this so-called clash of civilizations given that the topic of Benedict's discourse in the first place was the interaction between faith and rationalism.

I am beginning to think that the people saying that the Pope didn't know what he was doing maybe haven't given him enough credit. This isn't a stupid man. I think he knew exactly what he was doing.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Drake

The more I think about it, the more I appreciate the post ealier (Mojo Jojo's maybe?) about the perceived humiliation of Islam being part of what's going on here. I don't think the Muslim world clearly understands how far beyond religion and into scientific rationalism the West has moved. It's not just that much of the West doesn't *get* your religion, we secretly *mock it* in our hearts because we've largely given up on religion. Folks who are silly enough to allow their religion to influence their decisions are generally coddled in polite conversation the way one coddles a developmentally disabled child. We'll nod our heads and pretend to care what you're saying while we chuckle into our hands.

Yes, this is kind of in line with what I posted before. The pope's address seems to be directed at Westerners--the Church is threatened by the West's adoption of the Scientific Empiricism as the gold standard of thought, and the implied rejection of religion by the west. His stances against the pure empiricism of the scientific community are well known. As most educated people in the West have adopted a preference for scientific rationality, and the general public has shown a willingness to have science trump religion on many issues (evolution, birth control, stem-cell research, etc)--the Pope appears to be fighting a losing battle here.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You have to be kidding. FDR a conservative?

It depends on how you look at it. Socially and fiscally he was not conservative. But, what he did to get us into WWII makes GWB look like a piker...

We were effectively in a shooting war with Germany on the high seas in summer '41. He was a hawk. However, given the times he was in, most conservatives were isolationists. I think it is better to characterize him as a hawk which it seems like very few of the dems are nowadays.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

How about this ... ineffective in retreiving quick, immediate information?

I can see where given time and gentleman tactics, an enemy may give information ... but I don't see how you can argue that for quick, immediate information, torture is a better alternative (not talking about morality here).

Well, my stance is that even where it effective at retrieving information, it would still be unwarranted. Sometimes doing the right thing is painful.

I do understand that there are some hypothetical scenarios which really do paint a challenging picture.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I'm talking without any evidence to back me up, so it's a strict opinion -- Iraq had WMD's and moved them, probably to Syria. Sadaam knew US was going to attack (as did the rest of the world), and knew he was going to lose (as did the rest of the world). By moving the incrimidating evidence, it makes it look like to the public at large that there was no basis for the invasion. If you're gonna lose, make your enemy ultimately regret the attack.

I've never understood this explanation from those that were convinced Saddam had WMDs. How can you move "massive stockpiles" of weapons across the border without the US spotting it? Do you mean to tell me that we didn't have constant surveillance on the Syrian border leading up to the invasion? I can't imagine that it would be easy to transport all these supposed weapons, so how could we miss it? And if we did, then the billions we have spent on high tech gadgetry over the past decade have been a complete waste of money.

[Drake]

You're forgetting all about the massive network of underground tunnels, silly. They're there for more than moving Al Qaeda agents round, you know.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think it is better to characterize him as a hawk which it seems like very few of the dems are nowadays.

It depends on the situation. Almost all liberals were in favor of going into Afghanistan. If there is a legitimate reason for going to war, liberals are not opposed.

How many conservatives would have been on board if it was President Gore calling for an invasion of Iraq? Don't you think they would have hounded his ass for not capturing bin Laden and taking care of Al Qaeda?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Blame the Canadians ... Arar does.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html





This is not to say that Arar falls under my category of 'repatriatism'. He is a Canadian citizen (not sure about dual citizenship with Syria). I had thought repatriatism was returning a foreign national to home country for interrogation ... any idea how the Canadians would allow this?

How is it the Canadians' fault? The US shipped this guy, without a trial and based on bogus info, off to Syria to get tortured. We did this. Our government. Not the Canadians.

Your position seems to be that you are in favor of shipping people off without a trial to secret prisons to get tortured, but only the guilty ones. That's obviously flawed, because you can't be sure they are guilty without a trial, and even then you can't be sure.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I agree FDR as Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/569uofdm.asp

This is just wrong. Zell Miller is a southern Democrat of the type that FDR fought while in office. FRD was much more socially liberal than Lieberman. FDR holds the same views as the current Democrats on nearly every issue, it can be argued that he is the founder of the modern Democratic party. Yes, he got us involved in WWII, but getting entangled in foreign disputes is and has been a liberal thing. Democrats are still the ones that are in favor of foreign aid and sending troops over to fight things like Kosovo. Fighting WWII and invading Iraq are NOT two sides of the same coin, and the fact remains that we did not get into the war until we were attacked, and we may not have attacked Germany if they had not declared war on us.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

How is it the Canadians' fault? The US shipped this guy, without a trial and based on bogus info, off to Syria to get tortured. We did this. Our government. Not the Canadians.

Your position seems to be that you are in favor of shipping people off without a trial to secret prisons to get tortured, but only the guilty ones. That's obviously flawed, because you can't be sure they are guilty without a trial, and even then you can't be sure.

Take Arar's word for it, see quote.

Quote:
It's quite clear that the RCMP sent inaccurate information to U.S. officials," Arar said. "I would not have even been sent Syria had this information not been given to them."

I would assume the evidence was pretty significant pointing towards his guilt and thats why the US shipped him (with Canada's acquisence) to Syria.

My position is: in favor of shipping foreign nationals off without a trial to secret prisons to their country of origin to get tortured (maybe if they don't cooperate), if there is evidence pointing to their complicity and it furthers 'significantly' US security interests. This obviously includes Sheik Mohammed caught in Pakistan and sent who knows where..

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Groundhog. I have visited some ME news website and do not see any signicant discussions taking place that you have alluded to and I would appreciate any links. My layman knowledge is that Grand Ayatollahs each have followers, the more followers the more important they are. Has there been any Grand Ayatollahs trying to facilitate this debate?

Here's a link from a scholar: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...EEC7373F4A.htm

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Here's a link from a scholar: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...EEC7373F4A.htm

Thanks for the link.

It would be fascinating to have a Pope/Grand Ayatollah 'discussion' (or a Cardinal/Ayatollah?).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Drake

The more I think about it, the more I appreciate the post ealier (Mojo Jojo's maybe?) about the perceived humiliation of Islam being part of what's going on here. I don't think the Muslim world clearly understands how far beyond religion and into scientific rationalism the West has moved. It's not just that much of the West doesn't *get* your religion, we secretly *mock it* in our hearts because we've largely given up on religion. Folks who are silly enough to allow their religion to influence their decisions are generally coddled in polite conversation the way one coddles a developmentally disabled child. We'll nod our heads and pretend to care what you're saying while we chuckle into our hands.

Even for practicing Christians who feel as strongly about their religion as Muslims do (and thus have to some extent rejected pure scientific rationalism), there is the fundamental divide that Christ taught that He alone was "the way, the truth and the life" and the sole approach to God. What that means in practice is that many Christians believe that Muslims are *wrong* and that their religion is a lie. Even when they say nice things about Muslims, it's really just a semantic game that they're playing to keep the Islamic world mollified.

Muslims *should* feel like we're trying to humiliate them. We not only mock them in our hearts, we have the audacity to pretend like they're too stupid to understand that we know we're mocking them.

I tend to agree with your first 2 paragraphs (although 'mock' is too strong of a term).

Don't think I agree with the last paragraph.

Of course there are exceptions, but specifically referring to the enraged Muslim masses I see pictured ...

Is it so much that the West is 'humiliating' Muslims in the ME, or is it more that they 'feel' humiliated due to one or a combination of (1) inferiority complex (2) ignorance (3) irrationality (4) economic insecurity etc. which results in them lashing out to the most visible and convenient target - US and Christianity?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Yes, there is no doubt in regards to the numbers. I still stand by the belief that all forms of terrorism are horrible no matter who does it or how many times. Christians are guilty of terrorism as well as Muslims, so it seems hypocritical to me for Christians to point their fingers at Muslims saying how violent they are.

We'll agree to disagree here. Scale and Degree matters.

Specifically about recent/current events, the scale of Muslim terrorism outweigh Christian terrorism.

Ex. if I was to punch you, it would not be as bad if I was to shoot you.

But new groups sprung up and replaced them, right? We might wipe out Al Qaeda, but unless we attack the sources of extremism, new groups will arise.

Yes, new groups will always arise. But (1) for a period of time, there will be relative peace and (2) the groups that replace them may not be as signifcant.

I don't think most of them care whether America is Islamic or not. If so, why doesn't Al Qaeda send missionaries over here to convert people? I think their main goal is to keep the United States and the West out of the Middle East and out of their affairs. They want to have a society based on their beliefs and their culture, and they view the West as encroaching on that. To be honest, I don't blame them. I don't agree with their courses of action obviously, but would we want them over here telling us what to do or interfering with our governments?

Why not send missionaries to convert? Specific to Muslim extremists, its not in their nature to or believe it can be done via missionaries.

But I agree with the latter half ... obviously if we were to become totally isolationist, the Muslim extremists would leave us alone. This is not possible, so my contention is, even if we were to become partially isolationist (ex. leave the ME, don't support Israel), they will still find fault with the US and attack our interests.

Again, specific to Muslim extremist, I only see war and decapitation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

It depends on the situation. Almost all liberals were in favor of going into Afghanistan. If there is a legitimate reason for going to war, liberals are not opposed.

How many conservatives would have been on board if it was President Gore calling for an invasion of Iraq? Don't you think they would have hounded his ass for not capturing bin Laden and taking care of Al Qaeda?

I think warhammer's point (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that President Gore would probably not have called for an invasion of Iraq (I have doubts about Afghanistan also, I tend to believe more cruise missiles).

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Is it so much that the West is 'humiliating' Muslims in the ME, or is it more that they 'feel' humiliated due to one or a combination of (1) inferiority complex (2) ignorance (3) irrationality (4) economic insecurity etc. which results in them lashing out to the most visible and convenient target - US and Christianity?

Why would they feel inferior to us? Are they jealous of our culture, that they view as shallow and evil? Why would they care about the economic differences? They don't value the same things that we do. Do they really want a 42" HDTV?

I know that people in this thread don't think history matters, but remember how long the West has been interfering in the Middle East. They have experienced hundreds of years of repression (sometimes violent) at the hands of the West. They've been told that they aren't as good as Westerners and have had to suffer at the hands of violent dictators who were installed by the West (yes, including Saddam Hussein).

And now we come along and tell them that we're going to make it all right, since they obviously can't do it themselves. We overthrow the same dictator we helped install and then set up a government that suits our needs, not theirs. Instead of hiring Iraqis to repair the country we rely almost entirely on American companies. What kind of message does this send? American troops set up camp in Saddam's old palaces. Again, what kind of message does this send? And throughout out it all, we tell them that this is for their own good. It's okay that thousands of innocent Iraqis died because freedom is really what the Iraqis want. We know this because we said so.

Would you find this condescending and humiliating? I know I would.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think warhammer's point (forgive me if I'm wrong) is that President Gore would probably not have called for an invasion of Iraq (I have doubts about Afghanistan also, I tend to believe more cruise missiles).

I think Gore would have invaded Afghanistan. Pressure would have been too intense to do anything else.

And there's no doubt he wouldn't have invaded Iraq. I was just asking a little "What if?" question. What if President Gore decided to invade Iraq? Would conservatives back him?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Why would they feel inferior to us? Are they jealous of our culture, that they view as shallow and evil? Why would they care about the economic differences? They don't value the same things that we do. Do they really want a 42" HDTV?

I know that people in this thread don't think history matters, but remember how long the West has been interfering in the Middle East. They have experienced hundreds of years of repression (sometimes violent) at the hands of the West. They've been told that they aren't as good as Westerners and have had to suffer at the hands of violent dictators who were installed by the West (yes, including Saddam Hussein).

And now we come along and tell them that we're going to make it all right, since they obviously can't do it themselves. We overthrow the same dictator we helped install and then set up a government that suits our needs, not theirs. Instead of hiring Iraqis to repair the country we rely almost entirely on American companies. What kind of message does this send? American troops set up camp in Saddam's old palaces. Again, what kind of message does this send? And throughout out it all, we tell them that this is for their own good. It's okay that thousands of innocent Iraqis died because freedom is really what the Iraqis want. We know this because we said so.

Would you find this condescending and humiliating? I know I would.

Well said Jonathan.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Here's a link from a scholar: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...EEC7373F4A.htm

lololololololol

A link to aljazeera, just what this thread needs.....

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Why would they feel inferior to us? Are they jealous of our culture, that they view as shallow and evil? Why would they care about the economic differences? They don't value the same things that we do. Do they really want a 42" HDTV?

I know that people in this thread don't think history matters, but remember how long the West has been interfering in the Middle East. They have experienced hundreds of years of repression (sometimes violent) at the hands of the West. They've been told that they aren't as good as Westerners and have had to suffer at the hands of violent dictators who were installed by the West (yes, including Saddam Hussein).

And now we come along and tell them that we're going to make it all right, since they obviously can't do it themselves. We overthrow the same dictator we helped install and then set up a government that suits our needs, not theirs. Instead of hiring Iraqis to repair the country we rely almost entirely on American companies. What kind of message does this send? American troops set up camp in Saddam's old palaces. Again, what kind of message does this send? And throughout out it all, we tell them that this is for their own good. It's okay that thousands of innocent Iraqis died because freedom is really what the Iraqis want. We know this because we said so.

Would you find this condescending and humiliating? I know I would.

Even if I agreed with all that, which I don't, it doesn't have anything to do with these facts:

1. We have an economic interest in the area.
2. We have a moral interest in people everywhere enjoying peace and prosperity.

In fact, the second point appears amplified by your analysis.