[Spliffdaddy]

I found a stack of American schoolbooks that were printed during World War 2. All I can say is that if you weren't aware the books were printed in 1940 - you'd swear they were written in response to our current war on islamofascism. All of us believe that today's current events are unique in our history - that we're the first generation to ponder the effects of war on our personal freedom - that we're the first generation of Americans to disagree on whether or not we should even be at war. Damn we're a bunch of dumbasses. Americans have been there and done that - 65 years ago! How soon we forget.

Here's an interesting couple of paragraphs that happen to be as relevant today as they were in 1940:

overview:

How can we get the maximum of freedom and still retain our national security? Why do we need a new answer for this question? What is the chief duty of the patriotic citizen? What can you do in order to have a part in solving the problem of freedom and patriotism?

THE MEANING OF PATRIOTISM:

Love of one's country seems as natural as breathing. We take it for granted that men are willing to die for their country. Soldiers respect a brave and gallant enemy even while that enemy is engaged in trying to kill them.
It is very difficult to get hold of the idea of patriotism, although 'patriotism' is a word much used by all sorts of people. Yet our understanding of the meaning of freedom will be incomplete unless we can see the relationship between freedom and patriotism.

Patriotism, first of all, must be a kind of loyalty. But what is that to which a patriot is loyal?

The easy answer is "He is loyal to his country." And this answer is surely correct, as far as it goes. But what is the 'country' to which a man is loyal?

Surely it is not simply a piece of land. Over the centuries, geographical boundaries of every nation on Earth have changed and shifted beyond all recognition. The territory called 'France' (at this point Spliffdaddy asks you to see his footnote* below) contains many patriotic Frenchmen who are working in factories which will supply materials to the Germans. To save France from destruction, these patriotic citizens are doing their duty according to their treaty with Germany. Upon these Frenchmen, and upon the soil of their beloved homeland, other patriotic Frenchmen who have joined the British will drop tons of high explosives. It seems utterly mad that patriots should kill patriots in the name of their common love for a single flag and a single country, yet no one seriously doubts the genuine patriotism of all parties concerned.

The opposite of 'patriotism', perhaps, would be 'treason'. In our country 'treason' means 'giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States in a time of war'.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION:

Thousands of American colonists, during the Revolution, took up arms against England. Bitter words were used at the time, but nobody on either side of the Atlantic thinks of those American patriots as English traitors. Indeed, many people in England were in agreement with William Pitt, who said "I rejoice that America has resisted", or Horace Walpole who said, "If England prevails, English and American liberty is at an end". Burke, Fox, and Chatham, who made no secret of their hope that England would not succeed in bringing America to terms, were not regarded by the British people as traitors. In the same way, thousands of colonists who remained loyal to England were not (except by extremists who love to mob or abuse people who disagree with them) called "traitors". Yet Benedict Arnold WAS a traitor. A brilliant soldier, who had won important victories for the Americans, he had been neglected and mistreated by a stupid Congress until, at last, driven by debt, dispair, and indignation, he went over to the British. We are usually sorry for Arnold, but we do not hesitate to call him "traitor".

-continued in following post-

*footnote

Textbook includes (1940) after the mention of France as a nation - I'm guessing because the author wasn't certain that France would *still* exist in the coming years. In case future students wondered what 'France' was.

[mojo2]

[Athens]

so how can we call terrorists, terrorists when they are actually showing patriotism.

[Spliffdaddy]

-continued-

You have probably read (and you should do so at once if you have not) Edward Everett Hale's "Man Without a Country". Many students learn by heart the famous lines:

"For your country, boy, and for that Flag. Never dream a dream but of serving her as she bids you, though that service carry you through a thousand hells. No matter what happens to you, no matter who flatters you or abuses you, never look at another flag. Remember, boy, that behind all these men you have to deal with, behind officers, government, and people, even, there is the country herself, your country, and that you belong to her as you belong to your own mother. Stand by her, boy, as you would stand by your mother."

These lines are stirring and vigorous. They make patriotism a simple, emotional thing. But we have already seen that simple explanations are not always to be trusted. let us look more closely at the quotation, since we cannot act in terms of it until we know what it tells us to do - what it points to - what it means, if you like.

One thing that it means is obvious. If patriotism commands us to "never look at another flag", then Kosciusko and Lafayette and Von Steuben were not patriots, because they fought for and under a flag not their own - the American flag. In the same way, many Americans fought in the first World War under the British flag, long before America had decided to abandon her "neutrality" (another very tricky word, which you ought to think through soon).

Yet Kosciusko is honored in Poland (or was while Poland existed and still is wherever Poles live) as a great national patriot; and Lafayette is not without honor in his own country. Perhaps the test is that these men fought for what they cared about, both at home and abroad.

PATRIOTISM AND YOU

Let us look further at the quotation. It tells us that we must do as our country bids us, just as if our country were our mother. Most of us would be glad to do this if we could; but who has ever heard his country speak to him? A president or some other official may speak to us and tell us what he thinks our country wants us to do, but that is not quite the same thing. If your mother were in a foreign land, and if some other person were to keep telling you what your mother was asking you to do, you would say "How do you know? Did she write to you, or what? Why didn't she write to me direct?"

Of course your country cannot tell you to do anything in the sense in which your mother tells you to do things. The way you decide what your country "wants" you to do is to think for yourself, and to decide, as well as you can, what will help to make your country the kind of place in which you would like to have your children, and your friends, and your neighbors live; and in which you would like to live yourself. However difficult it may be, and whether you or other people want it that way or not, the simple fact is that only you, yourself can decide what you care about. True, somone else may be able to stir up your emotions, get you excited, and the use you for his purposes, somewhat as one says "sic 'em" to a dog.

WHO WILL DO YOUR THINKING?

There are many matters with which you may not be now prepared to deal, because you know very little about them. In these matters, all of us must of course accept the direction of people we have learned to trust, who -so far as we can tell- do know something about them. But you should be sure of three things when you rely on other people's judgement about matters you do not understand:

(1) Be sure that you really are unable, not just too lazy, to think the matter through for yourself.

(2) Be sure that you know what you are doing; namely, accepting the opinions of some other person or persons you have learned to trust - yet bearing in mind that the country "speaks" to every man directly, as he comes to understand what he wants his country to be like, and how he can help to promote his ideal. If it seems to you that "the country herself" says different things to different people, it is all the more your business to think for yourself.

(3) Be sure to remember that everyone else is facing the same problem you're facing. Nobody has any way of directly asking his country what the country wants. That question can only be answered by asking what the people of the country want, and the people cannot answer that question unless they know what they want. That is why the duty of thinking is the basic duty of the patriot in a democracy.

[Spliffdaddy]

The author had pretty much written-off Poland and France. They were history as far as he was concerned.

That's another lesson - hidden inside a lesson.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The author had pretty much written-off [...] France. They were history as far as he was concerned.
\.

Is he your new personal hero?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Athens

so how can we call terrorists, terrorists when they are actually showing patriotism.

When they have a policy of organized state sanctioned hatred toward a certain ethnic group, it goes beyond patriotism.

When they fool you into believing they are acting ONLY out of patriotism it is very clever.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...yths/mf25.html

[Spliffdaddy]

If America were to reprint that textbook and distribute it among the public schools - it would make most of the pupils heads explode. The ones that can read, anyway.

[spindler]

I guess patriotism means you can sit on your ass and send other people off to war.

If you have some sort of definition of patriotism that REQUIRES SACRIFICE FROM ALL AMERICANS)

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by spindler

I guess patriotism means you can sit on your ass and send other people off to war.

If you have some sort of definition of patriotism that REQUIRES SACRIFICE FROM ALL AMERICANS)

Commie, much?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If America were to reprint that textbook and distribute it among the public schools - it would make most of the pupils heads explode. The ones that can read, anyway.

I guess the kids (most people under the age of 40) of today have conceded the title "The Greatest Generation" to the old guys.

"The Greatest Generation" by Tom Brokaw (1998) Depicts the Americans who came of age during the Great Depression and fought World War II, and went on to build America.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by spindler

I guess patriotism means you can sit on your ass and send other people off to war.

If you have some sort of definition of patriotism that REQUIRES SACRIFICE FROM ALL AMERICANS)

So are you sitting on your ass or going off to war? Last I checked, we had a volunteer military. We send ourselves to war simply by signing the dotted line.

[Moderator]

Patriotism = Stickers on Car

[Pendergast]

Patriotism is a nice way to give one a reason to distantiate himself from "others".

It is easier to bomb one whom is not a patriot than a fellow human being.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Moderator

Patriotism = Stickers on Car

Just putting stickers on a car is really just a lie that the person cares. Does this person do anything to support the families of service members who are deployed (whether they like what those service members are doing or not)? Does the person actively participate in the political process, including making real decisions before voting? Does the person take seriously anything that doesn't immediately impact him personally? The answer is "no" to all those.

To me, patriotism is what the orignial (not the misinterpreted) version of "America, right or wrong" meant: it's my country, and I will not stand by and let anyone, whether they are foreign or local, do her wrong. A lot of idiots screwed that up into meaning that America could do no wrong-at the same time the CIA was helping the plans to assasinate the legitimate president of South VietNam. That's just plain wrong. It came from Carl Schurz's statement:

My Country! When right keep it right; when wrong, set it right!

Patriotism is devotion to an ideal, and the active, demonstrated willingness to sacrifice EVERYTHING for that ideal. See this quote from Sydney J. Harris:

Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.

I do not see this as applying to terrorist fanatics because it's about sacrifice, not imposing one's will on others, and it's about the concept of "nation" as an amorphous, heterogeneous group that thrives on dissent and discussion, not a homogeneous group of "sure, Imam, anything you say" individuals who quash discussion and punnish all dissent.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

Patriotism is a nice way to give one a reason to distantiate himself from "others".

It is easier to bomb one whom is not a patriot than a fellow human being.

Let's NEVER forget what is going on here.

Islam’s goal is to conquer the entire world, all of humankind, by force if necessary, to set up Koranic law, convert as many people to Islam as possible, and to destroy polytheism and disbelief.

http://www.theislamproject.org/educa...deast_etc.html

Muslim Countries of Africa/Asia/Middle East/South East Asia: Circa 2000
Today there are nearly 65 states or countries with significant or majority populations who are Muslim. They include some of the largest nations in the world in terms of population, such as Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan. Others are small countries like Qatar and Djibouti. Many are secular republics such as Indonesia, or monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, or so-called “Islamic states” such as Iran. Some are democracies, such as Malaysia. No majority Muslim state exists in Europe or the Americas. In almost all of those states where a majority of the population is Muslim, a belief in Islam serves as a common bonding among diverse inhabitants in politics and life. It is a source of faith and a significant foundation of social identity and community relations. Almost all of these Muslim states are also developing nations that have only recently emerged from European colonialism.

Israel and Palestine
Submitted by paz on 18 July, 2004 - 06:28.

Take a close look at this present day map of the Middle East. You can see that 22 Arab and/or Muslim (Iran is not considered Arab) nations completely engulf Israel. The Arab countries occupy 640 times the land mass of Israel and outnumber the Jews of Israel by nearly fifty to one. (population) Did you know that there was never a country called Palestine? Did you know that there is no such thing as a distinct Palestinian people?

The ideas that the West Bank and Gaza are occupied Palestinian land, and that the Palestinian people are fighting for their land, have been accepted by most of the governments of the world and by most of the media in the world. However, if you read on, you will see that these two claims are fabrications.

Check out any map of the Middle East and see for yourself. You will find Palestine listed as a region as it always has been, but definitely not a nation. We can locate the Mojave Desert on the map, but we still do not recognize it as our 51st state, let alone a country. Similarly, the region of Siberia is a region, not a state. In addition, the Sahara is a region not a state. Neither is Palestine a state. It never was a country, just a region.

Importantly, the Jews did not displace anyone, because no one permanently resided there. It was a land inhabited by nomadic, Bedouin tribes. The whole region was nothing but deserts and swamps. Only about 120,000 Arabs resided in an area that covered the territories, the state of Israel and Jordan. When Mark Twain visited the area, he wrote that he found nothing but a wasteland.

During the 19 years that the territories, including Jerusalem and Gaza, were occupied by the kingdoms of Jordan and Egypt, no one spoke about a Palestinian state, not the Arab countries, not the United Nations. Nobody asked Jordan or Egypt to abdicate their ownership and give it to the Palestinians. Not even the Palestinians themselves said anything about a Palestinian state or a Palestinian people, because nobody had heard of a Palestinian people, they never existed.
The fact is that there are no Palestinians. These people are Arabs like all other Arabs, and they happen to live in a region called Palestine. They are not a separate people.

What makes a separate people? Religion, language, culture, garb, cuisine, etc. The Arabs in Palestine speak the same language, practice the same religion, and have the same culture, etc, as all the other Arabs. The few minor differences that exist between them are like the minor differences that exist between the American Northerners and Southerners, Easterners and Westerners... but they are still all Americans. People in the south of France are quite different from the people in the north, but they are still all French. These inconsequential differences do not make a people.

The Arabs living in Syria or Jordan are also the same Arabs, but they are each a separate nation because they each have a separate country. The Palestinians want a separate country because they claim to be a separate nation, but they are not. They were never a separate people before the new state of Israel. How did they become one now?

Because of this misrepresentation, the Palestinians feel justified in sending suicide bombers to kill women, children, babies, old men, old women and non-combatant citizens. Because of these lies, the United Nations and the world media are condemning Israel who is acting less harshly than any other country would act in retaliation for such heinous attacks. What is the United States doing in Afghanistan, a foreign country? Defending itself. Why? Because they helped and housed those who attacked us on 9/11. Most understand this. Nevertheless, why do they not understand that that is exactly what Israel is doing, only on a much smaller scale?

Ask yourself this: Should the use of terror ever be rewarded? When is the use of terrorism justified as a military tactic? As a political tactic? As an economic tactic? What implication would this hold for future conflicts?

Examine the facts here:

1) There never was a Palestinian state or a Palestinian nation. There are no Palestinian people, per se. Rather; they are Arabs living in a region that historically has been called many things, including "Palestine."

2) Israel did not go to war against a Palestinian state and occupy its land. Rather, Israel was attacked by six Arab countries at once. She defended herself, defeated her attackers, and won the so-called territories, not from the Palestinians, but from Jordan and Egypt.

3) Jerusalem was never the capital of any state but Israel. It was certainly never the capital of a country that never existed. Why should the Palestinians get any part of it? Because they want it? Because they have terrorists?

4) Jerusalem, under the current Israeli control, is a free and open city. Israel, as a democracy, guarantees freedom of religion within its borders. Contrast this fact with areas that have come under Palestinian occupation. What percentage of Christians have left in recent years because they cannot stand the harassment and persecution?

5) Most Arabs living in Palestine today are not indigenous to the region. It was not until after the Jews had changed deserts and swamps into a productive and thriving land that the Arabs started migrating there. Arafat himself was born and raised in Cairo, Egypt. Did you know that?


The belief that giving the Palestinians a state will bring peace is a delusion. The truth is that they want it all. The short-term goal is a state consisting of the West Bank and Gaza. The long-term goal is a state that includes all of "historical Palestine," including Jordan.

How can we know this?

The late Faisal Husseini, Arafat's Jerusalem representative, a man who was cultured, sophisticated and considered the most moderate of all the Palestinians, shortly before his death on May 31, 2001, expressed his true feelings in an interview with the popular Egyptian newspaper el Arav. Husseini said, "We must distinguish the strategies and long-term goals from the political-phased goals which we are compelled to accept due to international pressures." The "ultimate goal is the liberation of all of historical Palestine." Explicitly he said, "Oslo has to be viewed as a Trojan horse."

He even added and clarified that it is the obligation of all the Palestinian forces and factions to see the Oslo Accords as "temporary" steps, as "gradual" goals, because in this way, "We are setting an ambush for the Israelis and cheating them." He also differentiated between "strategic," long-term, "higher" goals, and "political" short-term goals dependent on "the current international establishment, and balance of power."

Their hope is to acquire all of historical Palestine. Does not this include all of Israel and all of Jordan?

What does this say to you?

Unless the Arabs recognize and accept these truths, even if they are given a state of their own, and no matter how many agreements and treaties they sign, they will always feel wronged, cheated, and forced into giving up what they now claim is theirs. They will continue to plot and look for an opportunity to destroy Israel in order to take back what they claim is theirs, especially the younger generation that has been brainwashed to hate the occupying enemy.

Whether there is a Palestinian state or not, there will be no peace. Only a massive and ongoing re-education of the Arab people to these truths will enable meaningful negotiations to begin, followed by a lasting peace between Arabs and Jews. It is therefore critical that everyone who has an audience, whether in print or other media, use the forum they have available to repeat these truths again and again until they reach the consciousness of those waging war in the Middle East.

Unlike Islam's Quran, which commands Muslims to force the entire planet to submit to literal control by Islam, the Jewish Torah promises the children of Israel a modest and reasonable allotment of land.

Israel in BLUE (above left), is a democratic nation 1/19th the size of California, surrounded by 21 hostile Arab/Islamic dictatorships with 640 times her size, 60 times her population and ALL the oil. How can Arab propagandists call Israel "expansionist?" How dare anyone believe them? How can Israel, which occupies 1/6 of 1% of the lands called Arabia, be responsible for the political dissatisfaction of 22 Arab countries? How can the 13 million Jews in the world (almost 5 million fewer than they were in 1939) be blamed for the problems of 250 million Arabs, who have brotherly ties to 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide?

Israel is an oasis of Western Democracy and Judeo/Christian morality in the middle of an otherwise totalitarian Arab/Muslim Middle East. For over 55 years since she became a nation in 1948, Israel has sought peaceful coexistence with neighbours dedicated to her destruction. Thus far, only Egypt and Jordan have formalized a peace treaty. In reality, these two peace treaties are questionable.

Israel is one of the tiniest nations on the face of the earth, only about 8,000 sq. miles, 2? times the size of Rhode Island and only slightly larger than the Canary Islands. It is only 260 miles at its longest, has a 112-mile coastline, 60 miles at its widest, and between 3 and 9 miles at its narrowest. A very high-powered rifle could launch a projectile right across the country. This is particularly frightening when one considers that 65% of Israel's population is within this 9 mile wide section (Tel Aviv area). Yet Arab propagandists call Israel an expansionist and aggressor against Arab peoples. For those unfamiliar with the Arab interpretation of "aggressor," it means one who dares fight back against Arab aggression. Therefore, even though Israel may have fought only defensive wars, the mere fact that she resisted total destruction is viewed as an act of aggression. That is a case of wacky logic, but unfortunately, Israel does not have the luxury of picking her enemies.

For those who wish to have Israel relinquish Judea and Samaria (West Bank) so that the Arabs can form a SECOND Arab-Palestinian Nation (the first being Jordan), think about this. There are 2,200-foot high Judean Mountains running north to South 60 miles along the entire length of the West Bank. A Palestinian sniper (of which there are many) or a rocket launcher would have a bird's eye view of Israel's most densely populated areas. Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport would also be just a few short miles from the edge of a West Bank Palestinian nation. Israel's capital city of Jerusalem would be nearly encased within Palestinian territory and jeopardizing its ability to survive an attack. In effect, Israel would be reduced to a defenceless nation 9 to 25 miles wide at areas separating Israel proper from the enemy on her eastern flank. In addition, if the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were joined to form a continuous Palestinian land mass, Israel would be cut in half.

If Arafat and his thugs ever take possession of Judea-Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza and call it their State, how will these two separate land areas (West Bank & Gaza) be connected? Will there be some underground tunnel? Some overhead bridge? Alternatively, will the Arabs simply demand a land corridor connecting these areas, in the process, cutting Israel in half? This is a prescription for Israel's suicide and the Arabs know it.

No nation is required to arrange the terms of her own suicide. Any peace making must be at the negotiating table and not upon an autopsy table. If Israel were to turn over land of this magnitude, they would be signing their own death certificates. The Arabs of Judea-Samaria will just have to find some other place to pitch their tents... preferably in East Palestine (a.k.a. Jordan) or in any of the other 21 Arab Nations that surround Israel.

Israel would fit inside nearly every U.S. state. In fact, tiny Israel would fit into the United States (Alaska & Hawaii included) 768 times. Israel could fit into Florida 7 times. The United States is a country surrounded by two vast oceans and two friendly countries, Canada and Mexico. Yet the United States Government has the nerve to tell Israel what it must and must not do for her own survival or in the name of some phoney "Road Map" for Middle East Peace.

If Palestine the nation has history extending back through most of recorded history, answer a few basic questions about the country of Palestine:

1. When was it founded and by whom?
2. What were its borders?
3. What was its capital?
4. What were its major cities?
5. What constituted the basis of its economy?
6. What was its form of government?
7. Can you name at least one Palestinian leader before Arafat?
8. Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence,
at that time or now, leaves no room for interpretation?
9. What was the language of the country of Palestine?
10. What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
11. What was the name of its currency? Choose any date in history
and find the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian monetary
unit against other world currencies on that date.
12. Have the Palestinians left any artefacts behind?
13. Do you know of a library where one could find a work of Palestinian literature produced before 1967?
14. Finally, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
15. If the Palestinians are anything other than Arabs collected from all over the Arab world, if they have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered defeat by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War?

The truth should be obvious to everyone who wants to know it. Arab countries have never abandoned the dream of destroying Israel; they still cherish it today.

The fact is, Arabs populating Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have no legitimate claim to nationhood. The so-called Palestinians have only one motivation, the destruction of Israel. This is not sufficient to consider them a nation.

There is only one way to achieve piece in the Middle East. Arab countries must acknowledge and accept their defeat in the war against Israel and, as the losing side, should pay Israel reparations for the more than 50 years of devastation they have visited upon it. The most appropriate form of such reparations would be the removal of their terrorist organizations from the land of Israel and acceptance of Israel's ancient sovereignty over Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen any time soon.

The notion that the Arab-Palestinians are an ancient people with thousands of years of history is preposterous and they know it. They're relying on the fact that YOU don't know it

http://www.knowislam.info/israelpalestine

[G Barnett]

I think Ambrose Bierce got it most accurate:

PATRIOTISM, n. Combustible rubbish read to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name.

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Also, the following:

PATRIOT, n. One to whom the interests of a part seem superior to those of the whole. The dupe of statesmen and the tool of conquerors.

(From the Devil's Dictionary)

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Let's NEVER forget what is going on here.





http://www.knowislam.info/israelpalestine

This long regurgitation is indigest.

I prefer G Barnett's post, for its directedness and point-like attributes.

It also does not pretend to the truth, but states an opinion, which I respect, although I disagree partly with.

[ghporter]

Think about the environment in which Bierce wrote-the term "patriotism" was given such a jingoistic slant that anything that made money for some big time money guy was considered "patriotic." That's what Bierce was writing against. He was NOT (from what I've seen of his writing and those who wrote about him) against true patriotism (putting one's nation above one's personal self interest), but against the kind that would have us believe that "what's good for Haliburton is good for America."

[G Barnett]

And that is precisely why I think he's relevant again today. The same sort of jingoism is popping up again, twisting the national discourse into something ugly and uncivil.

Alas, considering the intellectual level of most journalists/commentators today, we'll never again see the likes of Bierce. He may not have said things first, but I'll be damned if he didn't say 'em best.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Pendergast

This long regurgitation is indigest.

I prefer G Barnett's post, for its directedness and point-like attributes.

It also does not pretend to the truth, but states an opinion, which I respect, although I disagree partly with.

What a pair we are!

I can't post short. You can't read long!

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by mojo2

What a pair we are!

I can't post short. You can't read long!

No. That still not the issue.

A barrage of words is meaningless if you can't make it carry an understandable purpose.

Your posts are not that different than DOS attacks, and they do you disservice, because seldom read in their entirety.

I'll speak in my name only; long posts bore me. But if that's your thing, post away man!

[Spliffdaddy]

Funny how all the lefties dismiss the definition of patriotism given in my original post.

In a nutshell, the definition was:

Thinking for yourself - and commiting to the ideal that your country should be a place you, your neighbors, and your children would want to live.

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

In a nutshell, the definition was:
Thinking for yourself - and commiting to the ideal that your country should be a place you, your neighbors, and your children would want to live.

That sounds fair to me...lets go with it.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

the lefties dismiss the definition of patriotism given...

the definition was...Thinking for yourself

Well, at least they're living it.

[besson3c]

Perhaps the fact that everything has to be defined in order to think of things in very inflexible ways, assign labels and categories to things, and throw up boundaries is exactly what separates a good percentage of the Right from a good percentage of the Left.

In these forums, the Right often seem to become frustrated when the Left complicates their thinking. They desire easy and bite-sized definitions and assignments to things, and don't allow for complexity. A great example was that thread asking the Left what their solution to terrorism was, and the dissatisfaction with answers that were pretty complicated and verbose.

Many on the Left here make emotional statements that are sometimes irrational (to many), but they also seem more welcoming of complexity.

This very thread is a good example of the inner workings of Spliffdaddy, who is certainly a card carrying member of the Right population I'm (very crudely and inaccurately) generalizing. Why does patriotism need to be defined? Some things just can't be easily defined.

"Jazz" is a fun word to try to define (it's also fun to shoot holes in definitions), but something more seemingly common such as a color also can't be easily defined... Just what is red?

I find that this sort of thinking and conversation is often very much what separates Right from Left, in a very general way.

[besson3c]

When you get into conversations such as "what is red?", you also touch on some philosophy. A rationalist would probably give you the dictionary or scientific explanation (i.e. wavelengths, etc.). However, in our day to day lives, do we actually think about red in terms of wavelengths of light? No, we just know what red is.

A post-modernist will explain red moreso in terms of experience and perception. We know what red is through our experience, in making generalizations, and in our perceptions.

If you were to teach a kid that red = an apple, it is also quite possible to assemble false generalizations too, such as red being particularly tasty, or yucky. This is also what some people in here get stuck in doing - making faulty generalizations.

[vmarks]

besson3c,

Is there value in simplification as a way of gaining greater insight into the essential problems or questions that people face?

Is there value in defining things so that we can reckon and grapple with them rather than being mired in minutiae?

[Dakar]

Its all about balance between the two.

Losing the forest for the trees is just as bad as losing the trees for the forest.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by vmarks

besson3c,

Is there value in simplification as a way of gaining greater insight into the essential problems or questions that people face?

Is there value in defining things so that we can reckon and grapple with them rather than being mired in minutiae?

Human beings are constantly generalizing, that is what we do. Perhaps even altruism is simply a selfish act that ensures that our own genes will survive by only helping those whom we have generalized as being like us?

Generalizations and simplifications are generally only good when it is understood that the *probability* increases when certain conditions are met, not that something *absolutely* becomes true when certain conditions are met. Saying, for instance, that men generally learn certain things better than women according to numeric metrics is much different than saying that women are dummies that cannot learn these things like men can.

If every decision in life was based purely on stats, numbers, and probability, who knows where we'd be? We need to accommodate these exceptions too. Perhaps Muslims are mathematically more prone to violence, but this is not some sort of natural thing - they are genetically human beings just like the rest of us. A solution that doesn't account for the many exceptions (the many non-violent Muslisms) is not ideal, and we should never accept these sorts of non-ideal exceptions unless absolutely necessary.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Let's NEVER forget what is going on here.

Oh my poor little mojo2. I loved that article. They say palestine doesn't exist and base it on "well if it exists, where is it? You don't know? Then it doesn't exist!". Then neatly assume the area belongs to a nation called israel which also didn't exist.

Saying the arabs who have lived there for centuries have no claim to the land is absurd. Saying the land of palestine is less legitimate than israel is also absurd since neither exist in the modern era. The state of today is not the religious nation of israel. Those people simply don't exist anymore.

The land of israel has been called many things, occupied by many people, and for all intensive purposes the original holders do not exist. The land was given as a state to the jewish occupants of the area. Whether or not this gives them a legitimate claim to it is debatable however it does not remove any and all other claims to this land.


Oh and until you can cite specifically, from the Qu'ran, that the goal of islam is this or that you cannot make silly blanket claims.

[invisibleX]

I'd also hesitate to use the american revolution as an example of how we should act today. Had they failed they would have been labeled traitors, and by modern definition terrorists, and lost their heads.

[Spliffdaddy]

Had they failed, you wouldn't be here whining on the internet.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Had they failed, you wouldn't be here whining on the internet.

Because no one would have invented the internet if britain entered another golden age?

For failing to ever back up a point.

[Spliffdaddy]

The interent was developed by the US.

And, no, Britain isn't exactly known for their electronics. In fact, British electronics are the laughing stock of the world. Lucas, anyone?

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The interent was developed by the US.

And, no, Britain isn't exactly known for their electronics. In fact, British electronics are the laughing stock of the world. Lucas, anyone?

Wrong. People developed the internet. There is also no reason to believe it wouldn't have been developed anywhere else as is the case with nearly every technology.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The interent was developed by the US.

And, no, Britain isn't exactly known for their electronics. In fact, British electronics are the laughing stock of the world. Lucas, anyone?

Quite right.

http://www.lk.cs.ucla.edu/LK/Inet/birth.html
Leonard Kleinrock's Personal History/Biography

I saw a filmed interviewed of him the other day, I think it was on a History Channel program about the development of communications.

A factoid put up onscreen before they went into a commercial break said that Kleinrock is believed to have been the first person to commit an online crime when he used the Internet to ask someone in the UK to please send him his razor which he'd mistakenly left when there on a speaking engagement or something.

You see, the internet was forbidden to be used for personal purposes at the time.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Wrong. People developed the internet. There is also no reason to believe it wouldn't have been developed anywhere else as is the case with nearly every technology.

invisibleX, there are certain things for which individual credit HAS to be acknowledged.

Imagine if your hypothetical wife gives birth to your hypothetical child and she says:

"People inseminated me." There is no reason to believe she wouldn't have been inseminated somewhere else, by someone else, as is the case with any hypothetically healthy, fetching and family minded young woman.

But in this hypothetical case, it was YOU, DAMNIT! YOU, who impregnated your hypothetical wife and YOU who are this hypothetically bouncing baby boy's father.

There are certain things for which individual credit MUST be given.

The US invented it and Kleinrock is as close to the father of the internet as I've been able to find.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Oh my poor little mojo2. I loved that article. They say palestine doesn't exist and base it on "well if it exists, where is it? You don't know? Then it doesn't exist!". Then neatly assume the area belongs to a nation called israel which also didn't exist.

Saying the arabs who have lived there for centuries have no claim to the land is absurd. Saying the land of palestine is less legitimate than israel is also absurd since neither exist in the modern era. The state of today is not the religious nation of israel. Those people simply don't exist anymore.

The land of israel has been called many things, occupied by many people, and for all intensive purposes the original holders do not exist. The land was given as a state to the jewish occupants of the area. Whether or not this gives them a legitimate claim to it is debatable however it does not remove any and all other claims to this land.


Oh and until you can cite specifically, from the Qu'ran, that the goal of islam is this or that you cannot make silly blanket claims.

You have proven to be completely disinterested in acknowledging the truth. If you were interested in the truth you would have found it before now. I have posted it enough times. And you could Google your way to sensibility if you so wished.

You haven't.

So, anyone reading this will have to assume you are interested in perpetuating an agenda rather than the truth.

If you look at my earliest posts here until now you will see a progression from being confused and slightly antagonistic toward Israel until now, where I am fully in support of Israel.

You have bypassed this process by way of a familial or religious priority.

Some force prevents you from looking at the truth and so you keep "climbing the wrong tree."

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Oh my poor little mojo2. I loved that article. They say palestine doesn't exist and base it on "well if it exists, where is it? You don't know? Then it doesn't exist!". Then neatly assume the area belongs to a nation called israel which also didn't exist.

Saying the arabs who have lived there for centuries have no claim to the land is absurd. Saying the land of palestine is less legitimate than israel is also absurd since neither exist in the modern era. The state of today is not the religious nation of israel. Those people simply don't exist anymore.

The land of israel has been called many things, occupied by many people, and for all intensive purposes the original holders do not exist. The land was given as a state to the jewish occupants of the area. Whether or not this gives them a legitimate claim to it is debatable however it does not remove any and all other claims to this land.


Oh and until you can cite specifically, from the Qu'ran, that the goal of islam is this or that you cannot make silly blanket claims.

“Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone.”

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/chapter.aspx?g=401&i=41033

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 53, Number 392:

Narrated Abu Huraira: While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews" We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras. He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."

Mission to the World: All Humankind Must be Ruled by Islamic Law.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.

1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.

2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.

3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.

4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).

5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.

http://islamwatch.forumup.in/post-44...watch.html#416

Is this, then, to say that Islam is intrinsically violent and supportive of violence? [26] Is one to attribute the New York Trade Centre catastrophe directly to Islam? Surely there are masses of Muslims who, consciously or unconsciously, reject terrorism and even the military face of Islam associated with jihad in Islam. [27] And surely even if they recognize the historical reality of jihad in traditional Islam, it is still theirs to reject its present validity because, they feel, jihad ought to have been a temporarily imposed duty only and is now obsolete and in need of reinterpretation. [28] In any case, it is ultimately God’s prerogative to judge the terrorist and his act, as well as his intention and source of inspiration.

Yet, at the same time, if jihad is a concern for society (Muslim and non-Muslim), it is imperative that society examine Islam’s source materials and the understanding of the great expositors on the subject.

The majority of the Qur’an’s texts themselves clearly identify jihad as physical warfare in Islam and, Islamically, God’s way of establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. They hardly require to be interpreted metaphorically. Likewise, from the Hadith and the earliest biographies of Muhammad it is just as evident that the early Muslim community understood these Quranic texts to be taken literally. Historically, therefore, from the time of Muhammad onwards, jihad as physical warfare in support of the message of Islam has been a reality for the Muslim community. Hence it comes as no surprise when even terrorists easily appeal to these source materials to justify their actions, not to speak of their teachers who teach the theory and the art of terrorism.

Nor, it may be added, should it cause surprise that many other Muslims today seriously oppose its violent implications and seek out new interpretations. For this we may be grateful.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/is_i..._militant.html[/QUOTE]

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I found a stack of American schoolbooks that were printed during World War 2.

You're going to use propaganda to make a point? This is a new low, even for you...

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by mojo2

invisibleX, there are certain things for which individual credit HAS to be acknowledged.

Imagine if your hypothetical wife gives birth to your hypothetical child and she says:

"People inseminated me." There is no reason to believe she wouldn't have been inseminated somewhere else, by someone else, as is the case with any hypothetically healthy, fetching and family minded young woman.

But in this hypothetical case, it was YOU, DAMNIT! YOU, who impregnated your hypothetical wife and YOU who are this hypothetically bouncing baby boy's father.

There are certain things for which individual credit MUST be given.

The US invented it and Kleinrock is as close to the father of the internet as I've been able to find.

Of course individual credit should be given. However in the world of technology often there are numerous people aware of or working on something. It is also safe to say, and easy to back up, that provided a similar development path some technologies will emerge out of necessity. You seem to be thinking that just because we must recognize one persons contribution it excludes all other possible contribution.

Also you committed the fatal mistake of saying that the US invented it. The US did not invent it. The country itself did not invent it, the man did. You'd also have to come to the conclusion that he was the sole person working in his field.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by mojo2

You have proven to be completely disinterested in acknowledging the truth. If you were interested in the truth you would have found it before now. I have posted it enough times. And you could Google your way to sensibility if you so wished.

You haven't.

So, anyone reading this will have to assume you are interested in perpetuating an agenda rather than the truth.

If you look at my earliest posts here until now you will see a progression from being confused and slightly antagonistic toward Israel until now, where I am fully in support of Israel.

You have bypassed this process by way of a familial or religious priority.

Some force prevents you from looking at the truth and so you keep "climbing the wrong tree."

You've posted the truth? What truth? I have no idea what part of my post you're referring to. Neither have I read every one of your posts. In fact I could probably count them on two hands. You're really going to have to clarify as your statements don't make the least bit of sense without context.

I'll tell you right now: I have no religion, no political affiliation, no agenda.

Be careful with truths you believe are self evident.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Of course individual credit should be given. However in the world of technology often there are numerous people aware of or working on something. It is also safe to say, and easy to back up, that provided a similar development path some technologies will emerge out of necessity. You seem to be thinking that just because we must recognize one persons contribution it excludes all other possible contribution.

Also you committed the fatal mistake of saying that the US invented it. The US did not invent it. The country itself did not invent it, the man did. You'd also have to come to the conclusion that he was the sole person working in his field.

Well, after some more investigation I can now agree with the idea that it is difficult to credit only one person for the internet and this site suggests that if there WERE only ONE person to credit it would be Paul Baran.

http://www.learnedcounsel.com/father.htm

And all of the other possible "fathers" of the internet are all American.

Although Baran WAS an Eastern European immigrant to AMERICA.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

You've posted the truth? What truth? I have no idea what part of my post you're referring to. Neither have I read every one of your posts. In fact I could probably count them on two hands. You're really going to have to clarify as your statements don't make the least bit of sense without context.

I'll tell you right now: I have no religion, no political affiliation, no agenda.

Be careful with truths you believe are self evident.

Please. Research your position before you help propagate a belief which may be unsubstantiated by scripture.

I can support every claim I make.

Can you?

[invisibleX]

As far as I'm concerned Mojo you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this. Notice how you can't say anything but instead out links to anti-islamic websites. Would you consider links to anti-Jewish or anti-Christian websites also valid backing?

Misquoting religious texts to make them mean what you choose is pathetically easy. When the source of quotes and interpretation has a hateful agenda how accurate will they be?

Quran 2:190-193.

Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.

Now explain to me how this excerpt from the Qu'ran means what your little quotes say?

In Quran 2:256; God said "Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error..."

I could go on and on. The bottom line is this: You do not understand islam. You claim your enemy is islamofacists. Take from that what you will.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

As far as I'm concerned Mojo you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to this. Notice how you can't say anything but instead out links to anti-islamic websites. Would you consider links to anti-Jewish or anti-Christian websites also valid backing?

Misquoting religious texts to make them mean what you choose is pathetically easy. When the source of quotes and interpretation has a hateful agenda how accurate will they be?

Now explain to me how this excerpt from the Qu'ran means what your little quotes say?

I could go on and on. The bottom line is this: You do not understand islam. You claim your enemy is islamofacists. Take from that what you will.

I am content to allow that you may see the Koran in this manner and hope that ALL Muslims would come forth and assert this interpretation.

However, the fact remains that your interpretation does nothing to explain what IS behind the jihadists.

If you speak for why Muslims DON'T become violent I take off my cap to you!

But the minute you begin to say that the jihadists are not seeing things from the point of view I can substantiate that is when I suspect you are performing jihad of the heart, mind or pen as part of your religious duty.

The only reason I have become concerned with the Koran or Islam or jihad is because it is aimed at my country.

And while I can accept your interpretation as being valid for the Muslims who are NOT a danger to the US or the Western world, to accept your interpretation and relax in the face of what is a clear and looming danger would be idiotic and suicidal.

And if you are sincerely a peace-loving person you will recognize how Islamic jihadists are a threat to peace and that the jihadist's inspiration and motivation comes from the evidence I present.

Bottom line, keep on looking at the beautiful aspects of Islam! That's a great thing! But the minute you try to discount the information I'm sharing here with the hope of alerting my countrymen and those who love freedom, that puts you in the category of "jihadist."

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I am content to allow that you may see the Koran in this manner and hope that ALL Muslims would come forth and assert this interpretation.

However, the fact remains that your interpretation does nothing to explain what IS behind the jihadists.

If you speak for why Muslims DON'T become violent I take off my cap to you!

But the minute you begin to say that the jihadists are not seeing things from the point of view I can substantiate that is when I suspect you are performing jihad of the heart, mind or pen as part of your religious duty.

The only reason I have become concerned with the Koran or Islam or jihad is because it is aimed at my country.

And while I can accept your interpretation as being valid for the Muslims who are NOT a danger to the US or the Western world, to accept your interpretation and relax in the face of what is a clear and looming danger would be idiotic and suicidal.

And if you are sincerely a peace-loving person you will recognize how Islamic jihadists are a threat to peace and that the jihadist's inspiration and motivation comes from the evidence I present.

Bottom line, keep on looking at the beautiful aspects of Islam! That's a great thing! But the minute you try to discount the information I'm sharing here with the hope of alerting my countrymen and those who love freedom, that puts you in the category of "jihadist."

So when I disagree I'm evil? If I wanted to pursue a holy war I would cut down everyone in my path. The information you share is misleading and patently false.

The problem at hand is fear. You fear islam. America fears islam. I won't pretend to know what Osama really had in mind when this plan was formed. I wouldn't credit him with making islam and fear synonymous, he simply doesn't seem to have been that calculating. However its become clear that we now feel islam is on equal footing with anything that has previously opposed us.

Jihad itself is a misconception. It isn't a holy war. Its a struggle, an aspiration, something you strive for with all your being. It is what I would call the purest form of human ambition. Beautiful and terrifying.

Your assertion of course is that militant islam (or islamofacist, terrorist, etc) is stemming from their religious beliefs is something you may want to reconsider.

My belief is that regardless of what religion is in play events would almost certainly be where they are today. Islam does not breed terrorists any more than christianity does. Now you might say I have absolutely no reason to say this. When I compare young people who are willing to kill the "enemy" for the exact same reasons and yet they're either labeled terrorist or soldier, I wonder. I think maybe these people are not fighting for Allah. It seems obvious to me that islam is more or less a foil that they were born with. If they weren't killing for Allah they'd be killing for God or the cheese in the moon.

In other words you have failed to find the real enemy and more importantly the real inspiration of your enemy. No, you should not relax. I may recognize the humanity in my enemy but that is no reason to give them quarter.

No I would ask you to look past the religion of your enemy. Islam may be our fear but it is not their fire. You say they seek to destroy our freedom, destroy ours gods, and repaint the world with a muslim brush. Yet the people, both terrorist and militant alike, don't adhere to the Qu'ran. How can you act fundamentalist and yet be anything but? The Qu'ran inspires militant islam no more than the bible inspires the invasion of iraq.

Why do you think Iran wants to eliminate Israel? I'll grant the president (or whatever title he holds, supreme something) is fruitier than tucan sam but that will only go so far. They want israel out of the picture because it represents power. More power for Iran. Iraq did the same thing but religion wasn't even needed as an excuse for the brute.

I could go on and on but I'll cut it short for readability.

You and I may have different ideas about the middle east and what needs to be done and why. We do have a commonality and that is we both recognize, willingly or not, we have a fight on our hands that won't go away. The goals that need to be achieved are simple: security for israel, and security for a democratic Iraq, and security of america and other free nations. Looking over both the successes and blunders in america's history will make one thing perfectly clear: know your enemy and know yourself. If you don't hold both these cards you won't get anywhere. The only vehicle for combatting terrorism is understanding it, and likewise goes for militant islam. As of yet you, and the country itself, has failed to do so. There are only two options: understand the enemy, his motivations, his goals, his inspiration. Or kill every man woman and child of the islamic faith without mercy. Nothing short of either one of these will create peace.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by invisibleX

So when I disagree I'm evil?

Not as such.

We are looking at two different sides of the elephant.

You are describing the front end and I am describing the back end.

I agree that you have a reason to describe Islam as you do because that is what you see from YOUR perspective. It is the only perspective of Islam I wish existed. But unfortunately it isn't the only interpretation.

When you look around and you see these huge steaming piles of crap wherever the elephant has been I am trying to tell you and the world of the interpretation used by the jihadists...it explains what is going on from the elephant's back end.

And because the elephant's back end is positioning itself to drop a load on the West I am hollering for the West to pay attention.

But if you say there is no factual basis for my warnings it is as though you want the West to ignore what I say. It is the same as your wanting the West to be shat upon.

THAT places you in the jihadist category. Someone who might never strap on a suicide vest nor pick up a gun, but doing what you might perceive to be your religious duty to jihad with the heart, jihad with the mind, jihad with the pen to help keep the readers here asleep as so many Muslims describe us, as SHEEPLE. Sheep + people.

Your efforts to prevent the readers here from waking up to the truth?

That makes you a jihadist.

Originally Posted by invisibleX

If I wanted to pursue a holy war I would cut down everyone in my path. The information you share is misleading and patently false.

The problem at hand is fear. You fear islam. America fears islam. I won't pretend to know what Osama really had in mind when this plan was formed. I wouldn't credit him with making islam and fear synonymous, he simply doesn't seem to have been that calculating. However its become clear that we now feel islam is on equal footing with anything that has previously opposed us.

Jihad itself is a misconception. It isn't a holy war. Its a struggle, an aspiration, something you strive for with all your being. It is what I would call the purest form of human ambition. Beautiful and terrifying.

Your assertion of course is that militant islam (or islamofacist, terrorist, etc) is stemming from their religious beliefs is something you may want to reconsider.

My belief is that regardless of what religion is in play events would almost certainly be where they are today. Islam does not breed terrorists any more than christianity does.

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/is_i..._militant.html

Originally Posted by invisibleX

Now you might say I have absolutely no reason to say this. When I compare young people who are willing to kill the "enemy" for the exact same reasons and yet they're either labeled terrorist or soldier, I wonder. I think maybe these people are not fighting for Allah. It seems obvious to me that islam is more or less a foil that they were born with. If they weren't killing for Allah they'd be killing for God or the cheese in the moon.

In other words you have failed to find the real enemy and more importantly the real inspiration of your enemy. No, you should not relax. I may recognize the humanity in my enemy but that is no reason to give them quarter.

No I would ask you to look past the religion of your enemy. Islam may be our fear but it is not their fire. You say they seek to destroy our freedom, destroy ours gods, and repaint the world with a muslim brush. Yet the people, both terrorist and militant alike, don't adhere to the Qu'ran. How can you act fundamentalist and yet be anything but? The Qu'ran inspires militant islam no more than the bible inspires the invasion of iraq.

That's incorrect. We do not go to war for God or Jesus or Christianity or the Bible.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/t...ept11/war.html


Since you seem to doubt the Koran inspires the many steaming piles of violent jihad around the world consider this.

Muhammad’s Ministry in Medina

In A.D. 622 Muhammad moved from his home in Mecca to Medina, where Arab tribes had invited him to reside and where they became members of the new Islamic movement. So important is this event in Islamic history – it is called the hijrah ("emigration") – that it actually marks the beginning of the Islamic era. [4]

In Medina Muhammad quickly assumed both religious and political leadership over the whole Medinan community. Soon after he arrived in Medina, he received the first of many Quranic passages (called Medinan passages) which directed him and the Muslim community to fight in the cause of Allah against their enemies. The Qur’an alludes to Muhammad’s conflicts with the Arab polytheists throughout Arabia, with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and with the hypocrites (Arab polytheists who feigned conversion to Islam: cf. 49:14). The earliest extant Muslim biographies of Muhammad detail Muhammad’s military struggles. [5] It is these conflicts which serve as the seeds for the traditional Islamic divisions of society into 1. the House of Islam and the House of War and 2. the Muslim Community; the People of the Book (Jews and Christians, cf. 9:29,30); the Polytheists (who could become Muslim or accept death or slavery).

The following are a few of the Medinan passages which refer to jihad as military struggle in the Qur’an:

Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged... (22:39; cf. 22:39-41) [6]

The (true) believers are those only who believe in Allah and His messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah. Such are the sincere. (49:15; 22:78; 25:52)

Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.

The forbidden month for the forbidden month, and forbidden things in retaliation. And one who attacketh you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you. Observe your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who ward off (evil).

Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah.... (2:190-195; cf. 2:216-218; 2:244; 8:38-40; 8:65,66; 4:84; 5:33-35; 61:4)

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free.... (9:5)

Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they! (9:29,30)

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey’s end. (9:73)

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). (9:123)


As for Jihad’s motivation and benefits:

O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce that will save you from a painful doom?

You should believe in Allah and His messenger, and should strive for the cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives. That is better for you, if ye did but know.

He will forgive you your sins and bring you into Gardens underneath which rivers flow, and pleasant dwellings in Gardens of Eden. That is the supreme triumph.

And (He will give you) another blessing which ye love: help from Allah and present victory. Give good tidings (O Muhammad) to believers. (61:10-13; cf. 9:19-22; 9:111; 2:154; 2:243-245; 47:4-6; 3:195)

... Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than those who sit (at home). (4:95)

From the above Meccan and Medinan verses Muslims have understood that there is a chronological progression in Muhammad’s ministry from peaceful proclamation only in Mecca to peaceful proclamation supported, if needed, by the sword in Medina. This was not to suggest that God had changed His mind and that peaceful proclamation of Islam had ceased. It simply meant that when Muhammad entered Medina, initially he was allowed to defend himself against his enemies with the same weapons they used to attack him and eventually was ordered even to fight all idolaters.

The well known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb, notes four stages in the development of jihad: 1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight; 2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors; 3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them; 4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists. He views each stage to be replaced by the next stage in this order, the fourth stage to remain permanent. [7] To justify the universal and permanent dimensions of jihad he cites the following passages:

They ought to fight in the way of God who have sold the life of this world for the life of the Hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of God and is killed or becomes victorious, to him shall We (God) give a great reward.... (4:74-76)

... and fight them until there is no oppression and the religion is wholly for God.... (8:38-40)

Fight against those among the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, until they are subdued and pay jizyah (tax on non-Muslims) ... (9:29-32)


But, as we sometimes hear, does not Islam teach that jihad as physical warfare is solely defensive? True, a few voices in earlier Islamic history and even more voices from the nineteenth century onwards have held this opinion. No doubt, today also many Muslims in the West espouse this opinion, though one might wonder how familiar some of them are with the source materials and history of Islam. Sayyid Qutb, however, pours scorn upon those who view jihad as solely defensive:

... They are ignorant of the nature of Islam and of its function, and that it has a right to take the initiative for human freedom.

Thus wherever an Islamic community exists which is a concrete example of the Divinely-ordained system of life, it has a God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on earth, while it leaves the matter of belief to individual conscience.[8]

He then cites, during the early advance of Islam, the Muslim response to the Persian general, Rustum, after Rustum enquired why the Muslim leaders had come to Persia with their army:

God has sent us to bring anyone who wishes from servitude to men into the service of God alone, from the narrowness of this world into the vastness of this world and the Hereafter, and from the tyranny of religions into the justice of Islam. God raised a Messenger for this purpose to teach His creatures His way. If anyone accepts this way of life, we turn back and give his country back to him, and we fight with those who rebel until we are martyred or become victorious.[9]

Likewise the popular Pakistani Muslim revivalist Abu’l Ala Mawdudi rejects any distinction between offensive and defensive jihad. So also the distinguished contemporary Pakistani scholar, Fazlur Rahman, while recognizing the extensive presence of jihad in the Qur’an, rejects the stand of those modern Muslim apologists who have tried to explain the jihad of the early (Muslim) Community in purely defensive terms.[10]

According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, "the fight is obligatory even when the unbelievers have not started it."[11] In the words of Rudolph Peters the "ultimate aim of jihad is ‘the subjection of the unbelievers’ and ‘the extirpation of unbelief’".[12] All of these authorities simply echo Islam’s fundamental assumption that world sovereignty must be in the hands of Muslims.

Still, others may ask, is there not a possible conflict in the Qur’an between its peaceful and militant passages? Or, at least, cannot Muslims choose, between the two, which to follow? In fact, the Qur’an itself addresses the problem of change or conflict in general:

Such of Our revelations as We (Allah) abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things? (2:106)

And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, – and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth – they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not. (16:101)

On the basis of these verses there arose within the Muslim community the principle of Quranic interpretation, called naskh ("abrogation") which stipulated that earlier peaceful verses could be abrogated by later militant verses, i.e., in the case of jihad the Meccan verses were abrogated by the Medinan verses. It is well known that many Muslim scholars in the early history of Islam contended that Qur’an 9:5, sometimes called "the verse of the sword", abrogated a host of peaceful passages in earlier portions of the Qur’an. [13] The nineteenth century Indian Muslim leader, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, and a few others have rejected this contention.

Finally we should note here also that at the time of Muhammad’s death most of Arabia had submitted to Islamic sovereignty. With logical consistency his earliest successors dutifully carried on Islam’s expansion beyond the borders of Arabia. Within a century following Muhammad’s death Islam had moved westward across North Africa into Europe and eastward as far as present day Pakistan, a military accomplishment that perhaps remains unparalleled up to that time in history. The enterprise itself was in accordance with the Qur’an’s direction, implemented by Muhammad in Arabia, initiated beyond Arabia by his faithful caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, and continued by their successors. [7] Here is a portion of a poem in praise of Muhammad, his army and jihad, composed by Ka’b b. Malik prior to the siege at Ta’if (in Arabia), about two years prior to Muhammad’s death:

Our leader (Muhammad) the prophet, firm,
Pure of heart, steadfast, continent,
Straightforward, full of wisdom, knowledge, and clemency;
Not frivolous nor light minded.
We obey our prophet and we obey a Lord
Who is the Compassionate, most kind to us.
If you offer peace we will accept it
And make you partners in peace and war.
If you refuse we will fight you doggedly,
‘Twill be no weak faltering affair.
We shall fight as long as we live
Till you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge.
We will fight not caring whom we meet
Whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains.
How many tribes assembled against us
Their finest stock and allies!
They came at us thinking they had no equal
And we cut off their noses and ears
With our fine polished Indian swords,
Driving them violently before us
To the command of God and Islam,
Until religion is established, just and straight, and
Al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Wudd are forgotten [14]
And we plunder them of their necklaces and earrings.
For they had become established and confident,
And he who cannot protect himself must suffer disgrace. [15] ]

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/is_i..._militant.html

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Not as such.

We are looking at two different sides of the elephant.

You are describing the front end and I am describing the back end.

I agree that you have a reason to describe Islam as you do because that is what you see from YOUR perspective. It is the only perspective of Islam I wish existed. But unfortunately it isn't the only interpretation.

When you look around and you see these huge steaming piles of crap wherever the elephant has been I am trying to tell you and the world of the interpretation used by the jihadists...it explains what is going on from the elephant's back end.

And because the elephant's back end is positioning itself to drop a load on the West I am hollering for the West to pay attention.

But if you say there is no factual basis for my warnings it is as though you want the West to ignore what I say. It is the same as your wanting the West to be shat upon.

THAT places you in the jihadist category. Someone who might never strap on a suicide vest nor pick up a gun, but doing what you might perceive to be your religious duty to jihad with the heart, jihad with the mind, jihad with the pen to help keep the readers here asleep as so many Muslims describe us, as SHEEPLE. Sheep + people.

Your efforts to prevent the readers here from waking up to the truth?

That makes you a jihadist.

So, metaphorically, you're eating elephant poop.

You haven't actually warned anyone of anything. What I am saying is that islam is not the root cause. Time and again you gladly quote people misinterpreting the Qu'ran to support their militant ideas. In essence you buy into it as much as they do. If you actually read it you'd see how even their own quotes directly contradict what they are saying. I am saying militant islams use of religion as a flag is not the cause but an effect. This is easily demonstrated by history, current events, and the text itself. I don't need extremist scholars to demonstrate my points.

If you read the bible you'd find very similar treatises on war as in the Qu'ran. Things like leaving nothing alive. Any religious text can be twisted to its users desires. The text is not the agenda, the interpretation is. So if the text is the elephant, and the interpretation is the poop, you'd have us stare at elephant **** and ignore the problem.

No one is blind and we can all see the threat. Unfortunately you would have people be ignorant of its nature, root cause, or motives. If this makes us unable to combat the problem what does that make you? Another jihadist trying to hide the truth behind a religious smoke-screen?