[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

I totally agree with what you say as an explanation of politics and political structures in the middle east. But the issue here is inequity and racism irrespective of political structure. Politics play a role, but in the end it's whats happening on ground level(the common man) that concerns me. With the extremist Christians in the U.S. who target abortion Clinics...... im not implying that democracy was the reason why their threat is mitigated, but the fact that their influence is mitigated by other Christians. You dont see the vast majority of 'moderate Christians' siding with their 'brothers' on issues of murder.

You see few, if any Christians behind issues of murder. Their degree of faith does not birth these reprehensible actions. The act of one lone psycho over 10 years ago does not reflect the general views of their system of governance in multiple nations that perpetuate an enemy. Extremist Muslims on the other hand most definitely can. The speeches of their leadership religious and official are not veiled in secrecy, they're out in the wide open for all to hear and see. It most definitely starts from the top. Death and destruction is entirely too inconvenient for most. Most will not even fight it if it exists because people are generally non-confrontational. IMO, even a democracy in Turkey that looks little like our own experiences exponentially greater peace and prosperity among its people. Why? Top-down different form of governance.

And from what ive heard so far these "extremist Christians" seem to be an issue(where human lives are threatened) primarily in the U.S..

You could practically consider it a non-issue entirely, even in the US. They have no such blessing from their religious leadership and they enjoy even less support among official US leadership. Which seems to be what you're saying, but I guess I take a little issue with the comparison.

Its not as big an issue in Europe, Australia, etc....right ? Now take "extremist Islamists", theyre a problem(human lives are threatened) in almost ever muslim country on the planet and many nations in the free world, to me...that constitutes a much bigger deeper problem.

In this I entirely agree.

Then you have the specific instances ive pointed to above where the demons wo admitted killing innocent civilians are treated like heroes, i dont know any Christians or Jews who would treat members from their communities this way. Even when U.S. soldiers target civilians in Japan, Afghanistan and Iraq they are dealt with appropriately and not treated like heros. the rare Jew who kills muslims in Israel is usually taken down by Israeli forces and you dont have the majority of Jews proclaiming those devils as heroes. Heck, it was the the predominantly Christian nations of Europe and the N.America who came to the aid of Muslims in the balkans by stopping other "Christian" monsters, as opposed to siding with them cause of their religious affiliations.

I agree with this as well. It was the whistle-blowing of an American solider that exposed inhumane treatment of prisoners in Gitmo for example. There are literally countless examples like these.

Whether it's a monarchy like Saudi Arabia, a democracy like Iran, Turkey, Egypt or Indonesia a dictatorship like Libya..... irrespective of political systems, these groups operate and the "moderates"(or anyone in their communities) are doing nothing to stop them. That, to me... begs the question.... do they want to stop it ?

I say yes. If they could wave a pen and have this violence and hatred be ancient history, they most definitely would. The problem is, they must confront the dangerous element head on. This is not what most would like to do. Saddam's Iraq had much the same "whooped puppy" syndrome. It is not until the oppressive regime is removed that the desire of her people can be expressed. Most will not do it on their own. It starts and is propagated from the top down IMO.

It seems we're saying essentially the same things, but with a slightly different conclusion.

[Eug]

The Taj has been secured.

Apparently 195 dead. At least one terrorist captured alive. Still, no organization has taken responsibility. The assumption by everyone, including Pakistan it seems, is that these are muslim terrorists, but we have no idea who they represent. Pakistan has firmly denounced them, but isn't forthcoming either on who they think may be directly responsible. There were a few that tried to implicate Pakistan's ISI, but even the Indians are not suggesting that.

The Indian commandos claim that at least some of the terrorists likely have had military training, given the complexity of the attack and the relative precision to some (but not all) aspects of the attack.

The UK denies that any are Brits. They are not denying that outside possibility, but say that there is no current evidence to support this. The claim by others that some were Brits was conjecture, repeated by some reporters.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You see few, if any Christians behind issues of murder.

Well, let's not forget how President Bush killed over a million iraqis with his little crusade in the Middle East. The Roman Catholic Church opposed the war, but he had ample support among Christian Conservatives and fundamentalist churches in this country. The means of murder are different, but it's murder nonetheless. And if they got what they wanted, a theocratic government, then we'd have all sorts of religion-backed violence.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Well, let's not forget how President Bush killed over a million iraqis with his little crusade in the Middle East.

Sure as long as we also recall that the UN policy of economic sanctions was serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death. Let us not also forget the number of those killed by Saddam and his henchmen. A focus on the US while fashionable, has no regard for the complexities of the region or geopolitics in general. There was absolutely nothing to suggest we wouldn't have been in Iraq regardless.

The Roman Catholic Church opposed the war, but he had ample support among Christian Conservatives and fundamentalist churches...

... and secular officials, Republicans, Democrats, and even some Iraqis who had wished we'd finished the job during Bush Sr. I don't see how this action can be connected in any way, shape, or form to "Christian Conservatives" and "fundamentalists churches" when so many of all walks of life overwhelmingly supported the doctrine of the non-conservative/fundamentalist Administration prior to Bush Jr.'s.

The means of murder are different, but it's murder nonetheless. And if they got what they wanted, a theocratic government, then we'd have all sorts of religion-backed violence.

Naturally I disagree and feel that not only does historical data affirm my position, common sense is on my side as well. It is not religion that causes tyranny, it is the bastardization of it through power-hungry leadership in an attempt to manipulate a religious populace by creating enemies out of thin air. Change the regime, allow the populace to realize its true desires of peace and prosperity.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sure as long as we also recall that the UN policy of economic sanctions was serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death. Let us not also forget the number of those killed by Saddam and his henchmen. A focus on the US while fashionable, has no regard for the complexities of the region or geopolitics in general. There was absolutely nothing to suggest we wouldn't have been in Iraq regardless.

? This war was not sanctioned by most other countries.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What if it is shown that democracy is the most compelling cure for the system of governance that perpetuates the need for an enemy? If it can be shown statistically that democratic nations are more peaceful, prosperous nations, one could say the problem is fascism and oppression. To solve the problem, regime change is necessary to begin a movement towards another system of governance. Is this too lofty a goal?

What if the people within the country don't want a democracy?

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sure as long as we also recall that the UN policy of economic sanctions was serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death. Let us not also forget the number of those killed by Saddam and his henchmen. A focus on the US while fashionable, has no regard for the complexities of the region or geopolitics in general. There was absolutely nothing to suggest we wouldn't have been in Iraq regardless.

Bush won in 2000 and 2004 with the help of Christian Conservatives.

They voted for the guy; they are responsible for what they got, unless they actually disown their previous vote. The fact is that Christian-backed violence and murder is even more prevalent than Islamic violence. Christians (with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, abortion bombers, and white power groups) just tend to do it through government and under the veil of the democratic process. It's a complicated calculus, with abortion, "values," and war on their plate, but when push came to shove, they voted for more war deaths.

(And if you're seriously arguing a Democrat would have invaded Iraq, then that burden is on you to prove. There's no evidence that we would have.)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... and secular officials, Republicans, Democrats, and even some Iraqis who had wished we'd finished the job during Bush Sr. I don't see how this action can be connected in any way, shape, or form to "Christian Conservatives" and "fundamentalists churches" when so many of all walks of life overwhelmingly supported the doctrine of the non-conservative/fundamentalist Administration prior to Bush Jr.'s.

Certainly others supported the war. But if several people murdered someone, you can't say that you can't attribute the murder to any one person because others helped. They're all responsible. Same thing here. Christian conservatives are responsible for at least a million war deaths. But they want to save the babies, so it all works out in the end (according to their view).

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Sure as long as we also recall that the UN policy of economic sanctions was serving only to starve hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to death. Let us not also forget the number of those killed by Saddam and his henchmen. A focus on the US while fashionable, has no regard for the complexities of the region or geopolitics in general. There was absolutely nothing to suggest we wouldn't have been in Iraq regardless.

I would rather see hundreds of thousands of Iraqis starve than US troops die to "bring" or "give" them democracy. You CANNOT impose democracy at the end of the barrel of a gun. Regime change != democracy and no matter how much you say it will not make it true.

[icydanger]

Bush choice: war, target country Iraq. Consequences: terrorism remains on the planet & immigration on the + send them to US?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7754097.stm

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Bush won in 2000 and 2004 with the help of Christian Conservatives.

They voted for the guy; they are responsible for what they got, unless they actually disown their previous vote. The fact is that Christian-backed violence and murder is even more prevalent than Islamic violence. Christians (with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, abortion bombers, and white power groups) just tend to do it through government and under the veil of the democratic process.

Got to laugh at this, man. It's nonsense. Christians don't have a jihad against any nation or religion. OK, maybe two of them do and it never leaves their small town in Kansas or wherever.

And McVeigh stated he was a lapsed Catholic and an agnostic. His partner in crime, Terry Nichols, apparently was in the Philippines attending a university at the same time as Ramzi Yousef. He is also said to have met a few other Islamic extremists during that time.

[Eug]

Hmmm... They're saying again that the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility. This was mentioned before, but nobody seemed to really believe they actually exist. Who knows.

However, if true, they would represent a homegrown Indian muslim group. However, most Indians don't really believe that's the case, but it's mostly conjecture at this point. And even if they are a real homegrown Indian muslim terrorist group, they could have many connections outside of India.

[Cold Warrior]

Group names could be meaningless — just a way for one organization to mask its involvement and therefore its strategic goals. Let's think about the region's players for a moment.

The Indians and Pakistanis have been in détente for some time, which has worked to the disadvantage of Al Qaeda. The US needs Pakistan to fight the jihadis within its territory and the ISI in order to deny them sanctuary in Pakistan and support from government elements. The United States used Indian hostility to pressure Musharraf into action against Al Qaeda and sympathetic Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) agents. Once he began applying pressure to those elements, India through US mediation relaxed the nuclear standoff.

In the interim years the US has effectively defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgency; pressured Saudi Arabia (vis-a-vis the Iraq war) to go to war with its own jihadis and supporters; and is now in a position to turn greater attention to Afghanistan and the parts of Pakistan that harbor Al Qaeda core leadership and the Taliban.

AQ and the Taliban are certainly aware of this. They know increased US forces combined with Indian détente allow for focused pressure in their direction. The solution to this problem is to undermine the peace and disrupt Pakistan's ability to manage two crises at once: the tribal areas and India.

But AQ has learned that effecting strategy requires strategic events. 9/11 and Madrid were some; Mumbai could be another. Strategic events differ from tactical ones (run-of-the-mill bombings) in that they force a nation's government to clearly react or abdicate legitimacy to govern.

Mumbai will force India to react in some way or a number of ways. Regardless of specific actions, it will draw Pakistani attention and resources away from the tribal areas to the east and tie up intellectual bandwidth at critical politico-military echelons.

It wouldn't be surprising at all if AQ engineered this entire event.

[Eug]

Except that even the Americans aren't really thinking AQ is involved.

It's possible, but AQ doesn't seem to be high up on their list, at least according to most reports.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Hmmm... They're saying again that the Deccan Mujahideen claimed responsibility. This was mentioned before, but nobody seemed to really believe they actually exist. Who knows.

However, if true, they would represent a homegrown Indian muslim group. However, most Indians don't really believe that's the case, but it's mostly conjecture at this point. And even if they are a real homegrown Indian muslim terrorist group, they could have many connections outside of India.

There has been speculation that Deccan Mujahideen is a front group for either Indian Mujahideen or Lashkar-e-Toiba

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

? This war was not sanctioned by most other countries.

The threat of "serious consequences" was in fact signed onto by a majority. The disagreement was not whether or not Saddam was a threat to the planet, it was how to address Saddam. Interestingly, we'd already tried talks and stiff economic sanctions. Too bad they didn't qualify exactly what "serious consequences" would be upon breech of the already serious consequences. Some were profiting off of Saddam's actions and would understandably not support an effort to remove him. This does not mean we weren't destined for Iraq regardless. We'd been there in some way, shape, or form for over 12 years and it was apparent nothing was going to change.

Of course, none of this matters as the US actions in Yugoslavia were never brought before an International body for approval. It's only reprehensible if there is an (R) after the President's name apparently.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What if the people within the country don't want a democracy?

The only problem with your argument is the fact that they do. In a country of more than 27 million people, I'm guessing had they not wanted democracy it would've been patently apparent. It was apparent not only in the fact that we were fighting small pockets of insurgency instead of mass uprising and the fact that upon a vote, over 70% of them participated. They may not want coalition forces hanging out there, but they certainly seem to support the coalition-trained Iraqi forces and democracy.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Too bad they didn't qualify exactly what "serious consequences" would be upon breech of the already serious consequences.

They probably wouldn't have been able to pass it if "serious consequences" was defined as "military intervention". Instead, they left it vague so they could define it however they wanted to when the time came.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

Bush won in 2000 and 2004 with the help of Christian Conservatives...

... and democrats, moderates, and non-Christians alike. Democrats won the election with the help of terrorists, but I wouldn't necessarily claim this as the Democrat identity all of a sudden.

They voted for the guy; they are responsible for what they got, unless they actually disown their previous vote.

How many of the demographic that voted Bush into office, also voted Clinton into office with the initial regime change doctrine for Iraq?

The fact is that Christian-backed violence and murder is even more prevalent than Islamic violence.

This is nothing more than opinionated blathering about your vitriol for Christianity and has nothing to do with any stated goal of Christianity. Not from its leadership in any form nor its practitioners; who I might add comprise the majority of "Christians" asleep at the two services a year they manage to attend.

Christians (with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, abortion bombers, and white power groups)

You're perfectly welcome to cite the actions of a disgruntled serviceman who connected with Islamic extremists committed a horrible act and you're even welcome to cite the singular instance of an abortion clinic bombing ( what over 10 years ago?) as some comparison to the actions of multiple nations through a single bastardized religion by the players at the top, bent on manipulating the masses by creating an enemy, but it really doesn't help you make a point.

just tend to do it through government and under the veil of the democratic process. It's a complicated calculus, with abortion, "values," and war on their plate, but when push came to shove, they voted for more war deaths.

You may believe war is never justified, I disagree.

(And if you're seriously arguing a Democrat would have invaded Iraq, then that burden is on you to prove. There's no evidence that we would have.)

It was the stated agenda of the Clinton Administration and I can cite countless speeches given by countless democrats to prove they were absolutely and wholeheartedly on board. With all due respect, you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Certainly others supported the war. But if several people murdered someone, you can't say that you can't attribute the murder to any one person because others helped. They're all responsible. Same thing here. Christian conservatives are responsible for at least a million war deaths. But they want to save the babies, so it all works out in the end (according to their view).

I'm guessing you kind of hate Christians huh? No, generally the rule of law would hold that all those who contributed to murder would be culpable for the deaths. You of course would single out the Christian and hang him. Doesn't make you right that's for sure. Action in Iraq enjoyed the overwhelming majority support of Americans as well as both sides of the aisle in Washington including seculars, liberals, Iraqis, and people from all walks of life. Don't take my word for it, avail yourself of some very recent US history.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

They probably wouldn't have been able to pass it if "serious consequences" was defined as "military intervention". Instead, they left it vague so they could define it however they wanted to when the time came.

IMO, common sense must prevail at some point. Try to remember back as a kid when taking your tv away didn't work, your parents threatened to ground you, and when that didn't work they threatened "serious consequences". Would that mean they're going to take the atari away? I agree it was left sufficiently vague, but at least this action actually saw a UN body. Many here do not recall actions conducted by prior Administrations that never even saw the light of UN day yet... it is only those actions by the (R) that are reprehensible.

I can certainly hope first and foremost that we won't have to find out, but I don't know if I can stomach all the support Obama will get when he decides to go to war to prove himself through our next "test". I'll be here to remind each and everyone about the (R)/(D) anomaly and repeatedly point out hypocrisy. The absolute last thing you want to do is piss off a Democrat. They'll make Bush look like friggin' Ghandi.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'll be here to remind each and everyone about the (R)/(D) anomaly and repeatedly point out hypocrisy. The absolute last thing you want to do is piss off a Democrat. They'll make Bush look like friggin' Ghandi.

And, I'll try to listen. And, I'll do the same when the conservatives criticize any military action that Obama is forced to take.

Some military actions are justified, others are not. If I recall, most of the liberals in here supported Afghanistan.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

And, I'll try to listen. And, I'll do the same when the conservatives criticize any military action that Obama is forced to take.

Some military actions are justified, others are not. If I recall, most of the liberals in here supported Afghanistan.

Many Russians may have supported action in Afghanistan, but they soon relented. War in Afghanistan is starkly different and while I can see what the US strategy was, I can also see why it was a difficult sell to the American public. I'm guessing the precursors for war would look much like they did in Iraq if brought before a UN body and it will be met with the usual indecision. If action is truly justified, it will have to move forward with or without UN approval. Like I said, regime change in Iraq was a stated agenda of the Clinton Administration, acknowledged by Gore, and supported by a majority of both sides of the aisle in 2003 when action finally began. Its funding continues to this day.

As you mentioned however, we may be in total agreement at some point.

[Mithras]

I just saw Slumdog Millionaire, which was a mediocre movie, but a wonderful insight into the lives and history of the slums of Mumbai. One scene in the movie depicted the 1993 Bombay riots, in which some 900 people, mostly Muslims, were killed by rioting Hindu extremists. Many were burned alive in the street.

Those riots were a response to earlier, smaller riots by Muslims, which were a response to the destruction of the Babri Masjid mosque by a Hindu crowd whipped up by the BJP (the ruling Hindu Nationalist Party). And after the riots, a series of bomb attacks by a Muslim crime syndicate killed more than 250.

Now, I don't know whether these attacks can be placed in a direct chain with that earlier violence. But they certainly happened in the context created by it.

My point is not just that "Hindus have violent extremists too"; it's more that an unwinding of this cycle of violence is going to take more than just a relentless pursuit of those responsible for these latest atrocities.

[Big Mac]

Two diametrically opposed groups of people cannot peacefully live in the same land at the same time. It's true for Hindus and Muslims, and it's true for Jews and Muslims. Really, it's true for any group and Muslims because Islam is an inherently triumphalist, domineering and violent religion that sees all other religions as defective in comparison to itself and actively seeks to punish the non-Muslim for his supposedly incorrect belief system. Muslims are supposed to deal peacefully with Jews and Christians as they have similar theological backgrounds to Islam and are what Islam terms "People of the Book," but we all know how that works out in practice. And as for Hindus and Muslims, it's no small wonder that Muslims have disdain for them since Islam abhors polytheism. Muslim countries will claim to tolerate their non-Islamic minorities, but substantial Muslim minorities will almost always choose violence periodically because it is a great indignity in the traditional Muslim mindset to be ruled over by non-Muslims. That's why we see throughout the world that nearly every major conflict you can find has an Islamic component to it. Of course, there are exceptions. There are some small Muslim groups that are peaceful toward whichever ruling power they live under, like the Bedouins, but those cases unfortunately are the aberrations.

Actually, the experience of India is a stark reminder to other countries (most notably Israel, in my opinion), that peace with Muslims is impossible as long as they remain a large minority in a non-Muslim country. In 1947 India gained its independence, and two Muslim countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh were carved out of the land that was previously known as British India. There were during that time population transfers between the countries in which India absorbed fleeing Hindus, and a portion of Muslims living in India left for Pakistan and Bangladesh. However, India was still left with a huge minority of Muslims within its borders, and there have been acts of terrorism and anti-Hindu attacks committed by Muslims in that country ever since. Again, two diametrically opposed groups of people cannot peacefully live in the same land at the same time. If this is homegrown Islamic terrorism from Muslims in India, it's just another reminder to countries with large Muslim minorities that they too face the very same threats from their Islamic populations. Now Sayf will very likely reply to this message asking me to affirm my commitment to ethnic cleansing, but in doing so he only reveals that he has no substantive rebuttal to my contentions and can only resort to politically correct attacks on the messenger.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Muslim invasion of Lebanon?

Care to elaborate?

After "Black September" when Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein; the PLO was expelled from Jordon to Lebanon, where they promptly set up and started what became the Lebanese Civil war.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

I just saw Slumdog Millionaire, which was a mediocre movie, but a wonderful insight into the lives and history of the slums of Mumbai. One scene in the movie depicted the 1993 Bombay riots, in which some 900 people, mostly Muslims, were killed by rioting Hindu extremists. Many were burned alive in the street.

etc

My point is not just that "Hindus have violent extremists too"; it's more that an unwinding of this cycle of violence is going to take more than just a relentless pursuit of those responsible for these latest atrocities.

Hindus have balls. For that reason the Islamic conquests of India were never able to convert the whole of South Asia to Islam the way that the Jihadists did elsewhere in Asia and Africa. If you have balls, then by and large the Muslims respect that because they respect power. That's why India has a massively successful Muslim community who treat the Hindus with respect, because they fear them.

In the West we have the opposite. We have cowardly liberal white guilt that makes pathetic excuses for all acts of terrorism.

[stumblinmike]

So...If you stand up to the "evil muslims" they will leave you alone? I think there's enough "balls" in the good ol USA to do that. Problem solved! Next issue...

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

So...If you stand up to the "evil muslims" they will leave you alone? I think there's enough "balls" in the good ol USA to do that. Problem solved! Next issue...

Yes, Americans have guns. That's why chicken **** Islamists had to use planes to attack.

If Britons had guns the Islamists under Abu Hamza would not have tried to take over towns like Bradford.

[Hawkeye_a]

On the subject of India by itself:
-Earlier this summer Hindu extremists(aka terrorists but rarely publicized as such) in the south started killing christians and burning churches.
-A few years ago a train in the north caught fire due to a gas stove being used on the train. the blame was put on Muslims, and Hindu extremists(aka terrorists but rarely publicized as such) in Gujrath(spell?) killed around a couple of thousand muslims.

I would hardly consider the Hindus to have clean hands. While Islamic terrorists are one of the many issues in India, it is my opinion that, the following issues should supersede it:
-Illiteracy and ignorance
-Religious racism from all parties
-Law and order, of which there is almost none
-Corruption in every level of government.

After those have been addressed and solved can it really deal with "terrorists".

The indian government and authorities appear to be making a big show of force now, but where were they a few months ago when Christians were being slaughtered in several states ? wheres the Justice there ?

They talk about Intelligence networks, but honestly... there appear to be none, nor any checks n balances for those in power, nor any accountability for those in government.

It had to be said. India wasnt all butterflies and rainbows two weeks ago.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

After "Black September" when Arafat tried to overthrow King Hussein; the PLO was expelled from Jordon to Lebanon, where they promptly set up and started what became the Lebanese Civil war.

Wow, you don't know much about the history of Lebanon do you? Do you think that before the Palestinian diaspora came to Lebanon Lebanon was a non-Muslim country?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

On the subject of India by itself:
-Earlier this summer Hindu extremists(aka terrorists but rarely publicized as such) in the south started killing christians and burning churches.
-A few years ago a train in the north caught fire due to a gas stove being used on the train. the blame was put on Muslims, and Hindu extremists(aka terrorists but rarely publicized as such) in Gujrath(spell?) killed around a couple of thousand muslims.

The Muslims in Gujarat attacked the train IIRC. But in no way did the Muslim community deserve the following attacks.

I would hardly consider the Hindus to have clean hands.

Neither do the Christians in India. In fact, I don't think any group in India has clean hands.

[The Crook]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Christians don't have a jihad against any nation or religion. OK, maybe two of them do and it never leaves their small town in Kansas or wherever

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Yes, Americans have guns. That's why chicken **** Islamists had to use planes to attack.

If Britons had guns the Islamists under Abu Hamza would not have tried to take over towns like Bradford.

You seem to be confusing guns with courage or self-confidence. They're unrelated. If anything, guns are kind of a cowardly weapon — that's why they're called "the great equalizer."

[PB2K]

what a messed up thread.

[lpkmckenna]

Gov't + Religion = Evil.

Christianity has become a benign movement because it lost almost all of its state powers. Islam still has control over many governments. When Islam is politically neutered it will cease to be a source of terrorism. (Because the real source of terrorism is dictatorship, not religion.)

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Gov't + Religion = Evil.

Christianity has become a benign movement because it lost almost all of its state powers. Islam still has control over many governments. When Islam is politically neutered it will cease to be a source of terrorism. (Because the real source of terrorism is dictatorship, not religion.)

I think that's one of the most sensible things you've written here, mckenna, although I disagree with you that what you wrote applies to Islam as much as it does to Christianity. Muslims don't have the political power in Western Europe, and yet they increasingly impose their will on those governments through violence and terrorism. The political goals of Christianity and Islam are very different. While Christianity may have had a very violent period when it was the state religion of the most powerful countries on earth, and while Christianity has been twisted into hateful forms in the past (and even in present in fringe quarters), Christianity's underlying theology is not inherently violent like Islam's is.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Wow, you don't know much about the history of Lebanon do you? Do you think that before the Palestinian diaspora came to Lebanon Lebanon was a non-Muslim country?

Lebanon was majority(55%-60%) Christian, Maronite Catholics making up the largest denomination, until the mid 70's. Today it's down to 39%
CNEWA – Christians in the Middle East- at a Critical Mass? ( 8 October 2008)

39% of the population of Lebanon (pop. 3.9 million) is Christian (Maronite Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Melkite Greek Catholics, Armenians of the Apostolic and Catholic churches, Syriac Catholics, Syriac Orthodox, Latin Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Assyrians, Copts and Protestants are all found in this tiny country);

[Chongo]

First pictures of burned-out rooms inside Mumbai terror siege hotel | Mail Online

The first pictures of burned-out rooms at a luxury Mumbai hotel where terrorists were holed up for three days were released today after the siege ended.

The shocking images emerged after crack troops killed the remaining three insurgents at the five-star Taj Mahal after a fierce one-hour gun battle.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Gov't + Religion = Evil.

Christianity has become a benign movement because it lost almost all of its state powers. Islam still has control over many governments. When Islam is politically neutered it will cease to be a source of terrorism. (Because the real source of terrorism is dictatorship, not religion.)

I agree for the most part. But how do you explain monarchies like Saudi and some of the other Gulf states, and democracies like Algeria, Egypt, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc ?.... even with democracies, they seem to be choosing Islamist governments.... look at Hammas, for example.

So wheres the problem.... the governments and political leaders, or the people who elect them and/or keep them in power ?

[Sayf-Allah]

The Muslim graveyards in Mumbai have denied burying the terrorists in their graveyards. Will be interesting to see how this turns out but in the meantime...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...dWXPQD94PSI3G0

to that decision

[Big Mac]

I apologize to you, Sayf. You're apparently a lot more moderate than I thought you were before.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by The Crook 

/Ann_Coulter.gif

lol, that's Ann Coulter. She talks out of her ass a lot but never means it. She's a blonde who needs attention.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

lol, that's Ann Coulter. She talks out of her ass a lot but never means it. She's a blonde who needs attention.

Right. But, how many times do you quote the Ann Coulters of the Muslim world and generalize their statements to the entire Muslim population?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I apologize to you, Sayf. You're apparently a lot more moderate than I thought you were before.

He's always been moderate in his beliefs just very strident in how he presents those moderate beliefs.


As for the topic: ship the bodies back to wherever they came from (northern Indian and Pakistan). That would be like the US burying the remains of the 9/11 attackers on US soil (i.e.: horrifically offensive and inappropriate).

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Right. But, how many times do you quote the Ann Coulters of the Muslim world and generalize their statements to the entire Muslim population?

You have never seen me do such a thing. When I quote crazies I do not apply it to entire populations. And there really aren't Ann Coulter's in the Muslim world. She says everything with a tongue firmly in her cheek. Even her belief in Jesus is just a way to sell books to a market sector. The fanatics in the Muslim world are genuine wannabe tinpot dictators who kill children to get to the top.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

The Muslims in Gujarat attacked the train IIRC. But in no way did the Muslim community deserve the following attacks.

Neither do the Christians in India. In fact, I don't think any group in India has clean hands.

Yeah thats what was reported initially, but i read an article recently after the Bombay attacks, that that wasnt the case (i think it was the LA Times, not sure). But either way.... one ethnic indiscriminately killing people from other groups is unacceptable.

Also, to the best of my knowledge i haven't seen anything about Christians or Jews in India being 'militant' in anyway.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yeah thats what was reported initially, but i read an article recently after the Bombay attacks, that that wasnt the case (i think it was the LA Times, not sure). But either way.... one ethnic indiscriminately killing people from other groups is unacceptable.

Also, to the best of my knowledge i haven't seen anything about Christians or Jews in India being 'militant' in anyway.

Jews maybe not (too few to really be able to do anything of note.

Christians... take a look at Nagaland and Tripura. Organisations like National Liberation Front of Tripura.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah 

Christians... take a look at Nagaland and Tripura. Organisations like National Liberation Front of Tripura.

Christians will say those people aren't really Christians ... and be oblivious to the irony.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Christians will say those people aren't really Christians ... and be oblivious to the irony.

The liberation front as well as several other terrorist groups claim to be acting under the tenets of Christianity just as those who bastardize Islam claim to be acting under the tenets of their faith. What a Christian might say if not spoken for by one who isn't; the irony of numbers is not lost on any of them. Terrorists are born from extremely poor socio-economic conditions under which an enemy is necessary to distract you from your true oppressor. While there is an unquestionably dominant religious demographic among those most actively involved in terrorist activities and border warfare throughout the world, it is not indicative of that religion. It is indicative of human nature, greed, imperialism, and a leadership bent on manipulating a religious populace to fulfill this nature the best they know how; the religion of the populace. There's nothing ironic about it.

[tie]

From the NY Times today, "A former Defense Department official said Wednesday that American intelligence agencies had determined that former officers from Pakistan’s Army and its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency helped train the Mumbai attackers. But the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that no specific links had been uncovered yet between the terrorists and the Pakistani government."

Interesting. Selling nuclear weapons and training terrorists, we have the best allies. I think is too bad that we attacked Iraq instead of trying to change Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.