Islam

[Hitch]

Has the time come to recognize Islam as a terrorist organization?

[spl_cadet]

Of course. With one exception, every single terrorist attack on the US in the past couple decades has been by Muslims. And let's not forget their tendency to blow themselves up in all their various conflicts (they do so in more places than just Israel).

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Not even. If you want to classify the entire worshipping body of Muslims by the actions of a handful of extremists, then you as Christians had better get ready to be classified by the handful of nutjob crazies in your own ranks, and you've got quite a few. Anyone remember that Christian terrorist organization called the CSA who operated out of Arkansas? That's but one example of many. And should we non-Christians judge all Christianity as a terrorist organization because they harbor such groups as the CSA? Or would you prefer that we made our judgments by actually learning about the religion itself and not just by watching the activities of your terrorist elements? Should we accept that the average practising Christian denounces the activities of such groups as the CSA, yet ignore the fact that the average Muslim equally denounces the activities of groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 01:16 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43094#post43094)
Eireann:
Not even. If you want to classify the entire worshipping body of Muslims by the actions of a handful of extremists, then you as Christians had better get ready to be classified by the handful of nutjob crazies in your own ranks, and you've got quite a few.

It's not just a handful of nutjob crazies. There are entire nations full of these people.



Anyone remember that Christian terrorist organization called the CSA who operated out of Arkansas? That's but one example of many.

Never heard of them. They were probably before my time.



Or would you prefer that we made our judgments by actually learning about the religion itself and not just by watching the activities of your terrorist elements?

Well okay. So, I guess I'll judge the expansion of it via the wars it fought. Islam has always expanded via war and violence. This is just a continuation of the same using different tactics.



Should we accept that the average practising Christian denounces the activities of such groups as the CSA, yet ignore the fact that the average Muslim equally denounces the activities of groups such as Al Qaeda and Hamas?

Well here's the thing. CSA wasn't at all Christian. It was a neo-Nazi group with Christian coverings (basically just the name). Not so with Al Qaeda and Hamas or Hezbollah or the PLO or Fatah or any of the dozens of terrorist groups out there.

[Ryokan]

Al Queda, Hezbollah, etc. are Arab nationalist groups with Islamic coverings. You can't blanket condemn Islam.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 03:25 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43109#post43109)
spl_cadet:



It's not just a handful of nutjob crazies. There are entire nations full of these people.
No there aren't. Our media is trying to portray the numerous anti-war protests in Arabic countries as being pro-terrorism protests, but that is just bad journalism. They are protesting in favor of terrorism, they are protesting in opposition to what they see as an unjust war against their Arab brethren. These same protests are going on in several non-Muslim countries, too. To suggest that entire nations are comprised of terrorists is just plain dumb.


Well okay. So, I guess I'll judge the expansion of it via the wars it fought. Islam has always expanded via war and violence. This is just a continuation of the same using different tactics.
Ah, well there are a number of religions that spread the same way. I'll give you a good example of one: Christianity.


Well here's the thing. CSA wasn't at all Christian. It was a neo-Nazi group with Christian coverings (basically just the name). Not so with Al Qaeda and Hamas or Hezbollah or the PLO or Fatah or any of the dozens of terrorist groups out there.
Well, the Muslims say the same thing about their extremists. Would you reserve for yourselves that convenient escape clause, but deny it to others?

[Jaltus]

Christianity never used war to expand itself, it was used by countries to expand their borders.

Even the Crusades were a REACTION to Mulsims taking over the Middle East. Christianity conquered by conversion, Islam converts by conquering, a big difference.

At the same time, I do not think that today all Muslims are terrorists. However, I do think the majority of non-North American Muslims are anti-American to the point that they would kill Americans if given the chance.

Let us not forget, either, that all the Muslim nations are bent on destroying Israel just for being Israel.

[Hitch]

Today @ 09:27 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43111#post43111)
Ryokan:

Al Queda, Hezbollah, etc. are Arab nationalist groups with Islamic coverings. You can't blanket condemn Islam. I most certainly can while Islamic clerics blanket the world in mosques on every continent calling for the destruction of the United States.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 04:49 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43158#post43158)
Jaltus:

Christianity never used war to expand itself, it was used by countries to expand their borders.
I disagree. You analysis of the Crusades is insufficient. The actions of the Crusaders in Asia may have been just such a reaction, but the actions of the Church in non-Muslim lands, forcing people by the hundreds of thousands to either convert, die or lose your lands and properties was certainly no reaction to the Muslims. Stringing people up by the neck or burning them at the stake or drowning them or crushing them to death by the thousands because their interpretation of the bible differed from that of the Church or because they believed in another religion entirely is not a reaction to the Muslims taking over the middle east. It is a a shining example of Christianity using war or warlike methods to propagate itself.


At the same time, I do not think that today all Muslims are terrorists. However, I do think the majority of non-North American Muslims are anti-American to the point that they would kill Americans if given the chance.
Given a chance, not likely. Given a good reason, perhaps. If they would kill Americans anytime they had the chance, we would be seeing the wholesale slaughter of Americans in every Muslim nation in the world, but we don't see that, and believe me, if they had the chance, it is now.


Let us not forget, either, that all the Muslim nations are bent on destroying Israel just for being Israel.
No, they are bent on destroying Israel because it was freely given to the Israelis by the US and Britain with no say whatsoever given to the people who were already living there, the people who were kicked out of their homes and off their lands to make room for all these millions of immigrant Israelies who had never before set foot on those lands for generations! I said it before, if you want to know how those people feel, ask a Native American.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 05:49 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43158#post43158)
Jaltus:

Christianity never used war to expand itself, it was used by countries to expand their borders.What the heck was the Manifest Destiny all about? The ignorance hurts in here.

[Socrates]

Jaltus correctly pointed out that the Crusades were initially organised as a REACTION to Muslim agression. This is shown on the website http://freespace.virgin.net/nigel.nicholson/SSCLE/Crusade%20Faqs/questions.html by a Professor of Medieval History at Cardiff U. in the UK, and I'm not sure whether she's a Christian.

Eirann responded:I disagree. You analysis of the Crusades is insufficient. The actions of the Crusaders in Asia may have been just such a reaction, but the actions of the Church in non-Muslim lands, forcing people by the hundreds of thousands to either convert, die or lose your lands and properties was certainly no reaction to the Muslims. Stringing people up by the neck or burning them at the stake or drowning them or crushing them to death by the thousands because their interpretation of the bible differed from that of the Church or because they believed in another religion entirely is not a reaction to the Muslims taking over the middle east. It is a a shining example of Christianity using war or warlike methods to propagate itself.What nonsense. These atrocities were INCONSISTENT with Christianity, while the Muslim conquests were CONSISTENT with Islam.

It's important to note that the crusaders lived in a time of widespread Biblical illiteracy, and many of them had a "salvation by works" mentality, as did the 9-11 terrorists.

Jaltus rightly pointed out:


Let us not forget, either, that all the Muslim nations are bent on destroying Israel just for being Israel.

Eireann respondedNo, they are bent on destroying Israel ...What more need be said? Eireann has just conceded what lefties try to deny -- that the PLO will not be satisfied with just a Palestinian state, but with the obliteration of Israel. But this anti-semite thinks this is OK.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 09:05 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43298#post43298)
Socrates:
What nonsense. These atrocities were INCONSISTENT with Christianity, while the Muslim conquests were CONSISTENT with Islam.
Tell that to the Church. They were the ones who committed those atrocities.


But this anti-semite thinks this is OK.
I've told you more than once that I am not an anti-Semite. If you call me that one more time, I will request of the administators of this website that you be banned for repeated and flagrant flaming. If you can't handle people having a different view than your own, then I strongly urge you to grow up! By the way, why don't you respond to the rest of that comment you quoted? No? I didn't think so!

[Socrates]

Socrates:
What nonsense. These atrocities were INCONSISTENT with Christianity, while the Muslim conquests were CONSISTENT with Islam.

Eireann:
Tell that to the Church. They were the ones who committed those atrocities.Equivocation. Some members of the visible Church committed those atrocities, but it's too late to tell them because they died centuries ago :dufus:


But this anti-semite thinks this is OK.

I've told you more than once that I am not an anti-Semite.And I don't believe you, because you made it perfectly clear that you condone the destruction of the Jewish State. If you call me that one more time, I will request of the administators of this website that you be banned for repeated and flagrant flaming. You do that, and I will continue to defend my right to call a spade a spade when it comes to those who condone the obliteration of the Jewish state, or terrorist actions against Jewish civilians.

[Woman]

Islam has not kept up. It's stuck in the middle ages. It encourages fanatacism, a deadly condition in any religion. They often do not have secular government, which is a huge problem. It is NOT a religion of peace.


Still, we cannot condemn an entire group of people, most of whom live in poverty and ignorance.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Socrates, I am going to request that you refrain from calling Eireann an anti-Semite. An anti-Semite is a person who hates anything to do with the Jewish state or Jewish people specifically because they are Jewish. If I am understanding Eireann correctly he is not in favor of the state of Israel because he objects to the way it came about, and would be equally in objection no matter what ethnic group was involved. I also do not see Eireann as condoning terrorism, but even if he was, that would not per se make him an anti-Semite but a pro-terrorist, which I do not in the slightest believe for a second. I know Christians who are not in favor of a Jewish state for the very same reasons as Eireann, and they are not anti-Semitic. I personally believe that when that term is used so broadly, it is cheapened, in the same way that the phrase "racist" has been cheapened. Thank you so much!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 09:19 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43321#post43321)
Socrates:[list]And I don't believe you, because you made it perfectly clear that you condone the destruction of the Jewish State.
Not once have I indicated anything of the sort. I have opposed the policies sponsored by the state of Israel in targeting attacks against Palestinian civilians and I have condemned the act of kicking Palestinians out of their homes and off their lands. There is nothing remotely similar in those ideas to condoning the destruction of the Jewish State. In fact, there is nothing whatsoever in those ideas that addresses the religion of Judaism in any way, shape or form. You are simply carrying on your personal flame war because you can't tolerate someone having a different opinion than you.


You do that, and I will continue to defend my right to call a spade a spade when it comes to those who condone the obliteration of the Jewish state, or terrorist actions against Jewish civilians.
Well, when you find someone doing those things, you go right ahead. But you have never seen me advocate either of those things. I have merely pointed out that Israel sponsors what we would call terrorism just as much as any other Middle Eastern state. If you are reading "condone the destruction of the Jewish State and terrorist attacks against Israel" in that, then maybe you need to relearn the English language.

[yxboom]

Just tonight it was stated by the military representative that the guy (not soldier) who threw the grenades into his commanding officers tents was a Muslim convert. Also the reason why he was being withheld from going into the war because of his presence as a threat. Islam the religion of peace surely taught him well.

[Socrates]

Admin deleted, see explanation below.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:00 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43351#post43351)
Socrates:

Admin edited out part of above post which was edited....
First of all, your racist comments are unwarranted and stand directly counter to the numerous warnings and reprimands the moderators of this forum have laid down. You wanna get banned, keep it up.

Secondly, you apparently didn't read the post that I was responding to with that comment, otherwise you would have understood the context. I am not making excuses for anyone, nor am I advocating one side or the other. Jaltus made the comment that the Arab states want to destroy Israel simply because it is Israel, thereby suggesting their reasons for opposing Israel are biblical. I countered that there reasons are political and quite understandable. The Arabic world felt completely disrespected when the US and Britain came in and just kicked the Arabs out of their homes to make way for the Israelis, without even bothering to ask what the Arabs thought of this. Israel stands as the tangible symbol of that disrespect the Arab world has gotten from the West. Do I condone and agree with their activities against Israel? No. Do I understand their reasons for it? Yes. Understanding and condoning are two different things.


Today @ 09:54 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43348#post43348)
yxboom:

Just tonight it was stated by the military representative that the guy (not soldier) who threw the grenades into his commanding officers tents was a Muslim convert. Also the reason why he was being withheld from going into the war because of his presence as a threat. Islam the religion of peace surely taught him well.
There is probably a lot more to why they wouldn't allow him on the front lines than simply that he was a Muslim convert. There are a lot of Muslim soldiers over there wearing American uniforms. And I'm not talking about Iraqi Muslims who donned American uniforms to fool our troops. I'm talking about loyal American soldiers who just happen to be Muslim. There are thousands of them in the US armed forces.

[Hitch]

Heh heh

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

By the way, it is good to finally see a poll where the sensible are outnumbering the nonsensible. As of the moment of this post, those who refuse to condemn all Muslims as terrorists outnumber those who do 7-5.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Administrator Note

Socrates, I have deleted your last post. Please refrain from characterizing Eireann as anti-Semitic. I am satisfied he is not, and we cannot allow such slurs against other members.

[Hitch]

I dont know if this fool is antisemetic or not. I have seen his posts employing all manner of foolishness to support a pro Saddam view over the Whitehouse view.

And I know George Bush is more favorable to Israel than I am and certainly more than Saddam is.

But is this type of support for an avowed antisemetic, with whom we are officially as war with, in and of itself antisemetic? Is an apologist for an international terrorist who has attacked Israel an antisemite?


I'll wager the semites would think so.


Hitch

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 10:28 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43379#post43379)
Hitch:

I dont know if this fool is antisemetic or not. I have seen his posts employing all manner of foolishness to support a pro Saddam view over the Whitehouse view.

And I know George Bush is more favorable to Israel than I am and certainly more than Saddam is.

But is this type of support for an avowed antisemetic, with whom we are officially as war with, in and of itself antisemetic? Is an apologist for an international terrorist who has attacked Israel an antisemite?


I'll wager the semites would think so.


Hitch
Again I ask, when have I ever supported Saddam Hussein? At what point did I say, "Leave him alone! Leave him in power?" Hmmm? When?

Again, I reiterate:

what you say we say: "No war. Leave him alone and in power. He isn't hurting anyone."

what we are really saying: "Get Saddam out of there, but find a way other than all-out war to do it. If war is the only option, then give us some facts backed with proof, not just assertions and propaganda. If you're going to send our people to die, then tell us the truth about why, quit lying to us."

If you cannot see the difference between those two things, then you have serious problems.


Today @ 10:28 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43379#post43379)
Hitch:

I dont know if this fool is antisemetic or not. I have seen his posts employing all manner of foolishness to support a pro Saddam view over the Whitehouse view.
I found a very interesting and rare gem at a used bookstore. It is the "Hitch Dictionary," published 2003 by Hitch Publications.

Here are two relevent entries:

Fool -- 1. one whose opinion differs from Hitch. 2. one who doesn't immediately jump to believe everything the current administration tells us especially after said current administration has been caught in so many lies and so much misinformation already. 3. one who does not believe that good American soldiers should be sent to give their lives based on somebody's "hunch."

Foolishness -- 1. the condition of having an opinion that differs from Hitch. 2. the act of questioning the reliability of information spoon-fed us from the government. 3. the act of opposing a war that is based on somebody's "hunch."

You should all read this dictionary if you can find it. It's quite funny, actually.

[Epoetker]

Eireann is not Cherith. That is all.

[Hitch]

Again I ask, when have I ever supported Saddam Hussein? At what point did I say, "Leave him alone! Leave him in power?" Hmmm? When?

Earlier today;


what we are really saying: "Get Saddam out of there, but find a way other than all-out war to do it. If war is the only option, then give us some facts backed with proof, not just assertions and propaganda. If you're going to send our people to die, then tell us the truth about why, quit lying to us."

If you cannot see the difference between those two things, then you have serious problems.

Well, let's examine the facts as they've been presented so far:

1) Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction.

none have been found. This is an assertion, not a fact.

2) Saddam plans to use his WMDs against the United States and our allies.

Conjecture


Perhaps you are unaware that this is the same Saddam who attacked Israel. And being that foolish you may also be unaware that Israel is an ally of the United States.

Hitch

BTW I'll still bet an average Israeli would think you are antisemitic.

[Socrates]

Hitch to Eirann:
Perhaps you are unaware that this is the same Saddam who attacked Israel. And being that foolish you may also be unaware that Israel is an ally of the United States.

BTW I'll still bet an average Israeli would think you are antisemitic.But they would be forbidden from saying so on TW, since anti-semitism doesn't cover condoning those whose expressed aim is obliterating the Jewish State in their ancestral homeland obliterated, or Jewish civilians targeted. They are not anti-semitic since they don't hate Jews as long as they don't have any desire to live in their ancestral homeland, and as long as they submit to persecution and terrorism without fighting back.

PS: I didn't see DD's first note before I posted that other one. Well, no one can accuse the mods of favoritism anyway, since no one is immune from getting posts obliterated by the chakram :bow:

[Hitch]

Foolishness -- 1. the condition of having an opinion that differs from Hitch. 2. the act of questioning the reliability of information spoon-fed us from the government. 3. the act of opposing a war that is based on somebody's "hunch'

You should all read this dictionary if you can find it. It's quite funny, actually.

This is a terrible charge. The President of the United States is accused ,by Eriann ,of sending our trops to war on a 'hunch.'

Ms MODERATOR

I would like to see this proven . If no proof is forthcoming this and similar inflammatory remarks by Eriann should be deleted.


HITCH

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 11:02 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43413#post43413)
Hitch:

Again I ask, when have I ever supported Saddam Hussein? At what point did I say, "Leave him alone! Leave him in power?" Hmmm? When?

Earlier today;
Copy and paste, please?


Perhaps you are unaware that this is the same Saddam who attacked Israel.
At what point did Saddam attack Israel with a WMD? Iraq's only attack against Israel (and I'm not talking about terrorist attacks that may or may not have been officially sponsored) was with ballistic, conventional Al Hussein missiles during the first Gulf War. They have not attacked Israel outside of wartime, and they only threatened the likelihood of another attack against Israel if US or Coalition forces invaded Iraq.


And being that foolish you may also be unaware that Israel is an ally of the United States.
Irrelevent. See above.


BTW I'll still bet an average Israeli would think you are antisemitic.
And you would be wrong. I've talked to a number of "average Israelis," some of whom attend the same university as I, some of whom I communicate with online through various forums, and some of which share the same views I have of Israeli policy. All of them are aware of my views of Israeli policy, and none of them think I'm anti-semitic. That's probably because, unlike you, they actually know what anti-semitic means.


Today @ 11:30 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43435#post43435)
Hitch:
This is a terrible charge. The President of the United States is accused ,by Eriann ,of sending our trops to war on a 'hunch.'

Ms MODERATOR

I would like to see this proven . If no proof is forthcoming this and similar inflammatory remarks by Eriann should be deleted.
Are you actually trying to win a "how lame can I be" contest? That would certainly explain the bizarre bent of your attacks against me. Are you that insecure with people having differing opinions from your own? Wow, now that is some deep insecurity!

Wow, the tally of nonsensibles (yes, all Muslims are terrorists) have actually caught up with the sensibles (no, you can't make such a blanket assumption). Consequently, I'll bet the average IQ level on this forum dropped comparitively.

[Socrates]

Eireann wrote:

Iraq's only attack against Israel (and I'm not talking about terrorist attacks that may or may not have been officially sponsored) was with ballistic, conventional Al Hussein missiles during the first Gulf War. They have not attacked Israel outside of wartime, and they only threatened the likelihood of another attack against Israel if US or Coalition forces invaded Iraq.I.e. Saddam and his Ambassador to TW think it's OK to use Israel, in effect, as a hostage, even though they were not involved in the war. Israel didn't even retaliate although I would not have blamed them if they did. I still bet that an average Israeli would think it smacks of anti-semitism when the Jewish State is singled out as a place where such attacks are uniquely condoned, and the only country which is the repeated VICTIM of terrorism that's accused of being a terrorist state.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Socrates, your insistence on using Iraq's attack against Israel during the first gulf war as feeble evidence of your contention that Iraq is a threat to the US and our allies is duly noted, but wholly irrelevent. We're talking about present-day, post-sanctions, post-stripping-of-arms Iraq, not the old Iraq circa 1991. Iraq has made no threats against Israel since 1991, so your point is moot.

[Socrates]

Eireann:
Socrates, your insistence on using Iraq's attack against Israel during the first gulf war as feeble evidence of your contention that Iraq is a threat to the US and our allies is duly noted, but wholly irrelevent.Not at all. The same Butcher of Baghdad is in charge!! We're talking about present-day, post-sanctions, post-stripping-of-arms Iraq,Oh has he been stripped? Then why the pathetic games he played with the ineffectual UN? not the old Iraq circa 1991. Iraq has made no threats against Israel since 1991, so your point is moot.Not yet, anyway, but there has been no repentance for their unprovoked attack in 1991.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:24 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43478#post43478)
Socrates:

Eireann:
Not yet, anyway, but there has been no repentance for their unprovoked attack in 1991.
Did you really expect any Arab state to be repentent for an attack against Israel? We are all agreed that they hate Israel. We just differ on why they hate Israel. As for the "Not yet, anyway" part -- we can only hold people accountable for past acts, not for future acts that may or may not ever happen, unless of course you believe that "Minority Report" was nonfictional.

I'm all for getting Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq. I also think they are foolish for planning to leave the Ba'ath party in power after Saddam is gone. But, my position is that going in with guns a-blazin' with 250,000 heavily armed troops in full-scale aggression before you actually have any real proof that he still has WMD and that he plans to use them for aggression is both premature and wreckless. If this chemical munitions plant proves to be real, then I would say at this point that war is justified. But celebrating the finding of proof after the war has started only serves to underscore the fact that they didn't have proof before the war.

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-unjustified-war. Once I see that this chemical munitions plant is the real thing, and it sounds like it probably is, then I will no longer be anti-war. Still, I won't be pro-war either. If they go the extra step and show that Saddam planned on using the munitions for aggression (not just defense), then I will step over the line and become pro-war.

And before someone asks, "Why would anyone keep chemical weapons for defense?" I'll point out that the US has the second largest chemical weapons stockpile, second only to Russia (the stats I know specifically are 11,700 tons of Sarin gas in Russia, over 5000 tons of Sarin gas in the US arsenal). Do we plan to use them for aggression?

[flipper]

Nevertheless, I believe that this should have gone through the UN (yes, I know what you all think about the UN). I am in favor of promulgating democracy. I am in favor of curtailing proliferation. I am in favor of trying to enforce UN resolutions. I am also in favor of reining in the Israelis in some of their more egregious policies.

I am not very pleased with the unilateralism of this action, because I believe it should never have come to this. It concerns me because it has overstressed important alliances and led to further polarization across the globe. Contrary to what you may think, I am not anti-american, and it pains me to see the US being painted as a self-interested global bully, and one might see why people would think that.

I appreciate that politics is not a popularity contest... sorry, no scratch that - foreign policy is not a popularity contest, but the nature of modern war is that it is fought on many more fronts than on the battlefield, and the US has shown itself to be quite unskilful at managing these. I believe that the long term effects of this will be quite detrimental and potentially far out of proportion to the benefits of this unilateral action. The only upside I can see is if this war is really related to a coming oil crisis, as I have argued before.

Or, if the Iraqis prove suitably tractable, and the US proves to be suitably diplomatic and invested in the country to really improve it, that Iraq becomes a model state for the rest of Islam. I very much doubt that it will be able to shake the image of being a subservient client state of the US for many years, and so will prove somewhat irrelevant as anything other than a lightning rod for fundamentalists to rail at.

I'm concerned by what we are storing up for ourselves by this action. If some hard evidence that Iraq was supplying its illegal chemical or biological weapons to our enemies was forthcoming, then it this war would seem much more justifiable in the eyes of the world. As it happens, it will do the west no favors.

[Solly]

Not ever.

The terrorism in Europe is caused by "Christians" like the IRA and ETA, not Muslims. I think it is pretty dumb to start making this kind of generalisation; it just plays into the hands of RightWing fanatics, and gives former TOL posters like GreenWorld all the ammunition they need to say that the West is anti Islam.

And lest we forget, let us remember the unofficial political and financial aid given to the IRA by the American people and administration over the years. It seems to me, the US call a group Freedom Fighters or Terrorists depending on what they gain from it, and only got "tough" on terrorism when it finally landed on their own doorstep.


Today @ 03:20 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43322#post43322)
Woman:

Islam has not kept up. It's stuck in the middle ages. It encourages fanatacism, a deadly condition in any religion. They often do not have secular government, which is a huge problem. It is NOT a religion of peace.

Islam isn't stuck in the middle ages (since they are a Christian term), they were civilised while we were still having a bath once a year. We got much of our science from the Arabic cultures that grew up under the patronage of Islam. What has happened was that the islamic cultures furstly fell into decline, and then were cut up by the Western Powers. Countries like Jordan and Iraq are modern western constructs, just like the countries in Africa.

[Socrates]

Did you really expect any Arab state to be repentent for an attack against Israel?Yes I do actually. And it is more respectful of our shared humanity to expect them to have the capability to admit that they are wrong. Alas, too many Western liberals have a view which is racist in a sense, in that it expects lower standards for non-white people. We are all agreed that they hate Israel. We just differ on why they hate Israel.Apparently we are not agreed that they are totally unjustified in the intensity of their hatred. They hate Jewish children more than they love their own, and unless that can be overcome, there will be no peace.
I'm all for getting Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq.And how would you propose to do that except by war? 12 more years of sanctions starving the ordinary people while Saddam lives in luxury. I also think they are foolish for planning to leave the Ba'ath party in power after Saddam is gone.I agree! Please frame this for posterity.
But, my position is that going in with guns a-blazin' with 250,000 heavily armed troops in full-scale aggression before you actually have any real proof that he still has WMD and that he plans to use them for aggression is both premature and wreckless. If this chemical munitions plant proves to be real, then I would say at this point that war is justified. But celebrating the finding of proof after the war has started only serves to underscore the fact that they didn't have proof before the war.But according to information that your elected representatives, like the honorable Colin Powell, they DID have all the proof they need at least to make a plausible case. And events have proven them right.

I'm not anti-war. I'm anti-unjustified-war.So am I!!
Once I see that this chemical munitions plant is the real thing, and it sounds like it probably is, then I will no longer be anti-war.But if the Yanx had followed your advice, then it's likely that Saddam would still have the WMDs, as well as become even more emboldened by the wimpiness of the UN. Also, the no-fly zone could not have been maintained forever, which would mean that the semi-autonomous Kurdish democratic state in the North East would be obliterated by Saddam's butchers.

Still, I won't be pro-war either. I don't know anyone who is, per se.If they go the extra step and show that Saddam planned on using the munitions for aggression (not just defense), then I will step over the line and become pro-war.
Good to hear.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I thank you all that the conversation has steered away from labelling other members as anti-semitic, and I would like to interject something else here. Remember that anti-semitic means that a particular person hates Jews and things Jewish specifically because they are Jewish. No such view has been expressed here whatsover by any member that I have seen, and so labels of persons here as anti-semitic must cease, and I thank you again that it has.

Now... more personally and in general, I personally am not denying that anti-semitism plays into the politics of the events going on over there, and such is a proper avenue of discussion of proofs and counter-proofs. If such then is proven, a proper avenue of discussion is why a non-anti-Semitic person would support any such groups, etc. It is proper to point out that such views may have logical outworkings in supporting anti-Semitic activity, views etc. Is this splitting hairs? I do not think so. A charge of being a bigotted racist against one's entire person is serious charge indeed. You may think Eireann's view have logical outworkings in direct contradiction to his non-anti-semitism, and that is a valid question as well. You may strongly feel that Eireann is wrong about the ultimate motivations of Israel's enemies (as I do), but that simply makes Eireann wrong, not personally anti-Semitic.

I support the nation of Israel politically. Unlike most Christians, I do not support them because of any belief in any biblical right to the land etc, a belief which I do not have.

[Solly]

Yesterday @ 08:34 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43066#post43066)
spl_cadet:

Of course. With one exception, every single terrorist attack on the US in the past couple decades has been by Muslims. And let's not forget their tendency to blow themselves up in all their various conflicts (they do so in more places than just Israel).

Really? Oklahoma?


Today @ 03:05 AM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43298#post43298)
Socrates:

Jaltus correctly pointed out that the Crusades were initially organised as a REACTION to Muslim agression. This is shown on the website http://freespace.virgin.net/nigel.nicholson/SSCLE/Crusade%20Faqs/questions.html by a Professor of Medieval History at Cardiff U. in the UK, and I'm not sure whether she's a Christian.

Eirann responded:I disagree. You analysis of the Crusades is insufficient. The actions of the Crusaders in Asia may have been just such a reaction, but the actions of the Church in non-Muslim lands, forcing people by the hundreds of thousands to either convert, die or lose your lands and properties was certainly no reaction to the Muslims. Stringing people up by the neck or burning them at the stake or drowning them or crushing them to death by the thousands because their interpretation of the bible differed from that of the Church or because they believed in another religion entirely is not a reaction to the Muslims taking over the middle east. It is a a shining example of Christianity using war or warlike methods to propagate itself.

What nonsense. These atrocities were INCONSISTENT with Christianity, while the Muslim conquests were CONSISTENT with Islam.



Strangely enough socrates, the perps thought it was very much consistent with Christianity. The Inquisition killed about 50,ooo,ooo it is estimated, all for God. The wars of the 17th century laid central Europe waste, all for religion; Cromwell bashed the Irish, and religion was a key factor. My Baptist forebears, and the Quakers, were persecuted and imprisoned by the liberty loving Americans in the 17th and 18th Centuries. This current intervention is done by a man who invokes the name of God as his warrant.


Anti Semite

The appropriate use of this term is to denote someone who opposes a group of people on the basis of their RELIGION. I don't see much religion in the State of Israel and the Occupied Territories. I am Anti israeli in the sense that I do not condone their actions against the Palestinian majority, nor the feeble reasons they give for stealing further land from them. I Believe America is morally culpable due to its bankrolling the Israeli state, as it is apparently about to do once again.

regards, Solly. That is, Solomon, a noble Jewish name I bear with pride, but not blindness.

----

Wasn't this thread about the Communist...oops sorry...Islamic threat to the Free World?

[Socrates]

Solly wrote:Strangely enough socrates, the perps thought it was very much consistent with Christianity.And I've already pointed out that this was a time of widespread biblical literacy. The Bible CORRECTED these problems. The Inquisition killed about 50,ooo,ooo it is estimated, all for God.Are you out of your mind :dufus:? That's an even bigger whopper than the Infudgels tell -- at least they stick to only a few million or a few hundred thousand. But REALITY CHECK: the TOTAL POPULATION of Spain at the time of the Inquisition was only about five million :doh:, and the actual total killed numbers about 2000. :cir:

Maybe you should study more history than what you learned off infudgel websites, e.g. the book Christianity on Trial (see this review[url]). More specifically, this article on the Inquisition [url]http://www.tektonics.org/spaninq.html. (http://www.tektonics.org/chrtrial.html) Do you also believe that the Church in Columbus's day taught a flat earth (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp#flatearth) and that the Church opposed [url=http://www.tektonics.org/norods.html ]lightning conductors[url]? At present, with a whopper like that, you have no credibility whatever.

And Solly need to learn that the deaths of the last century due to the evolution-based régimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot just dwarf the deaths of the so-called "religious wars".


Anti Semite
The appropriate use of this term is to denote someone who opposes a group of people on the basis of their RELIGION.Not at all. Hitler killed Jews whether they were Orthodox, Messianic or atheist!I am Anti israeli in the sense that I do not condone their actions against the Palestinian majority,Like bulldozing house of families who shelter proven terrorists? nor the feeble reasons they give for stealing further land from them. More revisionism. The Jews bought the land legally, and had a continuous presence in the land they held since King David's time. I Believe America is morally culpable due to its bankrolling the Israeli state, as it is apparently about to do once again.Solly would be happy if the Israelis couldn't defend themselves against enemies with the avowed and unretracted intention of pushing them into the sea. I bet Solly would have cheered on the Arabs every time they tried to invade (the War of Independence and the Yom Kippur war), but when the Israelis got the upper hand, he would have joined the UN in bleating for a ceasefire (although they were silent when the Israelis looked like being wiped out).regards, Solly. That is, Solomon, a noble Jewish name I bear with pride, but not blindness.Actually it's the Greek rendition of the Hebrew Shlomo.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Note

Okay enough is enough. I am closing this thread to give everyone some step back time. Socrates those comments about Solly were completely uncalled for and simply flaming. I am NOT in agreement with Solly's or Eireann's politics (I support President Bush and I support this war effort) or with a lot of their comments here (i.e. the Crusades etc), but also we can discuss this without so much personal attacks. You have impugned his character IMHO and I can testify that Solly is person of utmost integrity. This flaming has got to stop. If it does not, all posts by persons who tend to flame in this area will be "moderated" meaning that they will be held in abeyance until a moderator releases for public view.

[Solly]

The Bible corrected the problems.

--Most of the problems I quoted happened after the Reformation, and were carried out by very literate men. Unless you wish to say that the persecutors of Baptists in America were not literate enough to frame the Constitution?

The Inquisition killed about 50,ooo,ooo it is estimated, all for God.


--I fat fingered that, it sould be 5,000,000. However, i don't need to rely in "infudgels" [sic], there is plenty of stuff about; neither did I restrict it to the Spanish Inquisition, but used the general term that covers all the persucution of those who did not toe the party line, from individuals to groups like the Waldensians, against who a pogrom was launched.
A link: here (http://www.wayoflife.org/otimothy/tl030002.htm)
"According to the calculations of Llorente, compiled from the records of the Inquisition, it appears that from the year 1481 to 1808 this tribunal condemned, in Spain alone, upwards of three hundred and forty one thousand persons. And if to this number be added all who suffered in other countries, then under the dominion of Spain, what would the total number be? Torquemada, on being made Inquisitor-general of Arragon in 1483, burned alive, to signalize his promotion to the Holy Office, no less than two thousand of the prisoners of the Inquisition."
Your figure of 2000 shows a lack of research.
The Office of the Inquisition was never closed but changed its name.
However, i am not on this thread to continue that discussion.


And Solly need to learn that the deaths of the last century due to the evolution-based régimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot just dwarf the deaths of the so-called "religious wars".

--Well mercy me, would that be because we had the technology to kill more people? An arrow kills one man, a bomb many more. Wars tended to be fought by armies around the populace (as we are seeing again now), but in the 20th cent were directed against the populace. I don't doubt the ferocity of the things these men did. I just don't seek to paper over what has been done in god's name. I call a spade a blunt instrument when I see it used as such.

Not at all. Hitler killed Jews whether they were Orthodox, Messianic or atheist!

--*sigh* Hitler grew up Catholic, as inherited all the prejudices of catholic Europe. AntSemitism is still a religious thing, because it goes back to the view that they are Christ killers. It became a very handy political tool as well, since persecuting them provided a lot of ready cash, and nobdoy would bewail the fact.

Like bulldozing house of families who shelter proven terrorists?

--I look forward to seeing this tactic used frequently in the US.

--Solly would be happy if the Israelis couldn't defend themselves against enemies with the avowed and unretracted intention of pushing them into the sea. I bet Solly would have cheered on the Arabs every time they tried to invade (the War of Independence and the Yom Kippur war), but when the Israelis got the upper hand, he would have joined the UN in bleating for a ceasefire (although they were silent when the Israelis looked like being wiped out).

--No, because Solly would not have started from here.

Actually it's the Greek rendition of the Hebrew Shlomo.

--You don't say, how could I not have know that?

At present, with a whopper like that, you have no credibility whatever.

--At present, with an attitide of continual flaming against Eirann, and evolutionists, and athiests, you have rarely had any credibility whatever, and I for one do not see you as a poster boy for the defence of Christianity, esp when you resort to the charge of AntiSemitism just to get your point across. That tactic reminds me of another board.