K
Karmastrike
Guest
I Support it. Taking care of World dictators is pretty just to me.
- Status
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Please quote the Constitutional clause and Church Doctrine to support your position.
E
Ender
Guest
I’d like to believe it is a perversion or at the very least an extreme interpretation and not something we can look forward to as the future of Islam. I really don’t think it will be all that attractive to most people.
I don’t see any similarity at all.
No to both. I don’t really know much about Islam but I know some of the history and even the little I know makes me wary.
I don’t know what you’re referring to here.
Ender
R
RWMorris
Guest
You make a point worth discussing. Let’s see, if we would’ve just stopped just three men in the past century we would’ve saved in excess of 150 million lives.
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
B
bobzills
Guest
The USA under FDR was an ally of Stalin during WWII.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
I think the first 1300 years of Islamic history suggests it is not a perversion or extreme interpretation. The last 100 (roughly) years is an anomoly with respect to how Islam is perceived and understood particularly by the West.
I think many non-Catholics do and that plays a role in my position on Iraq and American foreign policy.
I first began a study of Islam about 10 years ago. Moslems do not agree with my view of their faith but then again I do not agree with their view of mine. The difference is as you might guess…our faith is correct and theirs is not so I have a greater reason to believe my view of theirs is also correct.
It would be wise to understand the enemy you are supporting this war for I think. If the declaration of war was against Islam I would support these efforts. Since it is not I think we do ourselves a great disservice. Its like using a teacup to empty the sinking boat. The boat will sink because we refuse to plug the hole first.
I said earlier that our creating weak Islamic demoracies are not in our interest for that reason. The ideology of bin Laden is simiar to that of Mohammed. Islam will not deny Mohammed and a reformation is not forthcoming. Even if it were I am convinced one of two things would happen; #1 Islam will collapse due to its obvious falsehood removing the ideological threat supporterd by its current Doctrine and Dogma, or #2 it will be unified under the current ideological threat supporterd by its current Doctrine and Dogma. I support finding out either, but to be unwilling to find out either at all like we are now is like the ‘when will you stop beating your wife’ question. Stupid.
The Presidnet has often said Islam is a honorable religion of peace hijacked by radicals. I do not believe this and think that view is more dangerous to us than forcing Islam to declare now one way or the other.
The news just said we have reached 4000 dead in Iraq. Wrong battle, wrong war…right fight.
R
RWMorris
Guest
Politics, and war, make for strange bedfellows. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I could go on, but I’m sure you catch my drift. But it doesn’t make it pleasant.
S
Shoshana
Guest
Code:
R
RWMorris
Guest
I really wish President Bush had not said that. There were more than a few Americans who knew better, in fact he should have known better. You bring some interesting ideas to this discussion. How would you have handled the situation after 9/11? And I assume you would not have taken on Iraq? Was it just bad timing on our part, or truly the wrong battle? It also appears you are against democratising the middle east. What would be your strategy?
R
RWMorris
Guest
Come on, you know the answer to your own question, even before you asked, and even if you disagree. We were fighting communism in Latin America. And, except for some setbacks (Chavez), we won.you were not at war with pinochet or even the Contra when the US supported these dictatorial activities with american money and ammunition…than what was the politics? What is the excuse for this outlandish support of a man who destroyed life no different than Saddam?
Shoshana, remember, you are talking with someone who believes it was immoral to withdraw from Vietnam. I truly believed in the fight against communism. I think Oliver North is a hero. I think Ronald Reagan was the greatest president in the last 50 years of the 20th century. And I think George W. Bush is a true patriot, even if he is a terrible orator.
B
bobzills
Guest
In Eastern Europe and in Russia, communism, more or less died from its own weight, no war was necessary. Sad to say, but I am coming to believe that many of these other wars have been supported by war profiteers, under various pretexts or smokescreens.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Personally I would have sent every active duty combat soldier, Marine, and air power from Germany, ROK, Italy, and the UK into Afghanistan once the word was given to close the borders, and then an overwhelming stabilizing ground force to exact our proper justice. That was the coin President Bush did not spend from potential adversaries like Kim and Putin or China; they would not have attacked us and that is why those forces are there.
I would have occupied every square inch of Afghani land and found bin Laden and Zawahiri with others like Mullah Mohammed Omar who are still living free from my/our hand after six and a half years of occupation and war. They should have been killed/captured in no less than 4 months and if they went into Pakistan I would have immediately followed. I would not have relied on Pakistan or anyone else to do this mission and I would not have stopped at the border even at the risk of war with Pakistan. Pakistan would not have fought us but if they did so be it. Combat forces in Afghanistan should have lasted less than a year. I would have asked for and likely received logistical support from the UK, Austrailia and Canada is there was a need.
If alive I would have brought them to Ney York for trial. I would publicly demand their public unconditional surrender of all the fighting forces they influence. If they accept it is the shortest and least costly all around. We did this with Japan and Germany after WW2 except we kept them in their own nation to exact justice. They accepted the terms.
We never demanded the people or government of Afghanistan or Iraq, to unconditionally surrender and we haven’t killed their false god that prevents them from doing so. The Japanese are reasonable rational people as a race and maintained dignity in defeat and have emerge stronger and more free than ever. Non-violence is a condition of surrender. We may have freed 25 million from the Taliban but it did not eliminate the ideological threat from us.
The average Germans did not do their evil deeds as a collective society for God like the Japanese did for their emperor god, Hirohito. The Germans did not beleive Hitler was a god like they did Hirohito. “According to Japanese legend and tradition, Hirohito is directly descended from the “Sun God.” He was forced to admit this was not true after Japan’s defeat.”
We killed a false god in Japan 1945 because that ideology led its adherents to die violently to the last man in defense of their god on the battle field of war they began with a surprise and unprovoked attack. History proves this. It sounds very familiar to where we are now except we have deviated from a proven method of success. I think the average Afghani might be tolerant if it were not mandated by god even if currently no longer enforced by the civil police. It is tradition since Islam came to that land.
Kill the false god so we can move on to the next step of introducing a more reasonable ideology of personal freedom and the respect for others to be different to ensure we do not get attacked again. We outlawed the ideology of Nazism because it was a violent and intolerant ideology hurtfull to Jews, the intellectuals and the infirmed among quite a few others and we did the same in Japan. Once it was establised we left. Victory. Our foreign bases were not to contol the conqured but to deter the the next ideological threat.
The next threat is here. Kill it, don’t promote it even in the slightest.
R
RWMorris
Guest
Sorry Bob, you’ll never convince me that the Soviet Union died on its own. I fought in the cold war for 25 years. No it was not a shooting war in the traditional sense, but thousands of men died just the same. We were victorious because of Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, the millions of men and women who served in the military, and the strength of such ideas as liberty and democracy.
E
Ender
Guest
The concern is a valid one but I am not (yet) convinced that the threat is as great as you believe.
I accept that some people believe Christianity is as dangerous as Islam. I put them in the same category as those who believe in alien abduction.
There was no possibility of a war against Islam; only time will tell whether the changes we have wrought in Iraq will have a permanent, modifying influence in the region.
Getting the people out of the 14th century and into the modern world is probably useful in getting them to face the realities of their beliefs. Then again, given the behavior of some Muslims in Britain, more is obviously needed.
Ender
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
It took a while for me to accept what now seems obvious to me. It is bizarre to western thought. Even after 9/11 it was actually a hard thing for me to accept at first because of the Abrahamic root Islam claims. The strength of the threat is limited only by our willingness to overlook the intent dicated by their Doctrine. We seem very willing today.
Some do, but more think Catholicism has been subdued, properly, by Luther and the Reformation. Social and civil/political rule was never the intent of the Church though it filled a void left by a crumbling emmpire. It is ultimately relevant to the views our President holds as a non-Catholic imo.
This full statement by a non-Catholic made a significant impact on me when I first read it near its publication date. So much so it was the straw that pushed me over the edge with respect to this war and at the same time softened my outlook toward some politicians and hardened it to others. I would like to know your opinion on the substance if not the author. The relevant portion though maybe unintended to the far reaching effect of the Reformation is, in my view:
We replace one ideology for another.
No, there wasn’t. I recognize that. Just as there is not one now. It does not mean however it is not the correct response. Correct is a dangerous term here. I mean correct in the sense that it is without question that ideology that is the root of the threat against us even if most of the billion followers do not put into practice it’s god given mandate.
Jihad (holy fighting in Allahs Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #216)
Many Catholics do not follow our Doctrine perfectly either such as “love your neighbor as yourself…”.
The ideology is what keeps them in the 7th-14th century. The ideology rejects modernity in many cases and Britain and France are beig challanged by that ideollogy. What we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is trying to temper that ideology and we are loosing. Both still have the Koran as it’s center. The Koran is that ideology and Mohammed is its most perfect example of it. Just because it is hard and maybe difficult to kill it, does not mean it shouldnt be killed or at least properly identified.
I do not say ‘declare war on Islam’ as much as I am saying let Islam declare a unified position in our modern day and age to how we should deal with them. I think it reasonable to ask places like Jordan and Turkey, much less Iraq and Afghanistan if they will reject certain aspects of their Doctrine.
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #193)
Some Moslems say these are specific to a particular battle or a particular time in the prophets life. Others say it is an eternal word that is valid until the Last Day. Which of them is right? i think we non-Muslims have a right to know.
Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day would not ask your leave to be exempted from fighting with their properties and their lives, and Allah is the All-Knower of Al-Muttaqoon (the pious - see V.2:2).
( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #44)
It is only those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and whose hearts are in doubt that ask your leave (to be exempted from Jihad). So in their doubts they waver.
( سورة التوبة , At-Taubah, Chapter #9, Verse #45)
O you who believe! Take not as (your) Bitanah (advisors, consultants, protectors, helpers, friends, etc.) those outside your religion (pagans, Jews, Christians, and hypocrites) since they will not fail to do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse. Indeed We have made plain to you the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses) if you understand.
( سورة آل عمران , Aal-e-Imran, Chapter #3, Verse #118)
B
bobzills
Guest
I think you are wrong on this. I think that communism died of its own weight. The internet and radio and tv were a help for the people to see that there was a better way possible.
E
estesbob
Guest
My Pastor is Polish, he often mentions life under the communists in hios sermons. -I woud love to see you tell him that communism fell of its own weight. I suspect, however, that he would not trun the other cheek.
The only people who beleive that Communism fell of it own weight are those who whined for 40 years that we needed to follow a policy of appeasement and unilateral disarment. They were wrng then and they are wrong now.
B
bobzills
Guest
Communism in Eastern Europe fell of its own weight. There was no invasion of US forces to topple the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. These regimes fell of their own weight. This is unlike the situation in Vietnam, where the war profiteers supported the invasion and expansion of the war against Vietnam. Billions and Billions of dollars were spent, and much of this money went into the p;ockets of the war profiteers, young lives were lost, American soliders were killed and maimed and crippled for life, and the result of the USA invasion is that the current regime is communist and does not allow political dissent. This is the fruit of the war profiteers. At least they did not succeed in getting the USA to invade Eastern Europe. And since the USA did not invade, the communist empire there collapsed on its own, without a single American soldier being crippled or being killed by invading a country where they are not wanted.
R
RWMorris
Guest
The subject of cold war casualties is incredibly complex, with many estimates from the millions to a few thousand. But you are the first person I’ve ever heard say that there were none.
E
estesbob
Guest
His comments on the cold war and the fall of communism show such a profound ignorance of History it is impossible to carry on a meaningful discussion with him on the subject.
As far as casualties lets start with Hungary in 1952. How about the “Prague Spring” in 1968? How many we killed trying to cross the berlin wall? How about the airliner shot down over the sea of japan? do they count? Does Francis gary Powers ring a bell? wasnt he SHOT down?
- Status