DescentBB

Saddam once prayed to Mecca once and -- I S*** you not -- he faced the wrong direction.

I stand by my opinion that separating politics from religion is a conditio sine qua non, no matter how you look at it. It is fundamental to our democracy, because it offers institutional independency, and in case of the muslims, it is the only way to moderation.

There can be no religious leadership in a democracy without endangering the very principles democracy stands for.

Tricord wrote:1)I stand by my opinion that separating politics from religion is a conditio sine qua non, no matter how you look at it. It is fundamental to our democracy, because it offers institutional independency, and in case of the muslims, it is the only way to moderation.
2)There can be no religious leadership in a democracy without endangering the very principles democracy stands for.

Re., #1 Again I ask who is going to bell the cat?
As for #2 Hear.Hear!

Arol wrote:Re., #1 Again I ask who is going to bell the cat?

I already told you, I have no answer. Definitely not US military action.

I have to point out in support of Arol's post that Turkey is a functioning muslim democracy and has a strongly enforced separation of religion and politics.In fact religion is not allowed to be openly displayed in any government sponsored function such as schools. Turkey is successful enough to be on the edge of EU membership. Turkey's democracy in the past has been interupted by military takeovers whenever the government moved away from secular principles but has been functioning quite well for some time now.

Ford Prefect wrote:I have to point out in support of Arol's post that Turkey is a functioning muslim democracy and has a strongly enforced separation of religion and politics.

I'm afraid that I can't take the credit for that posting. Even though I do agree in part with what you refer.
When I say in part it's because there is a political party the Islamic Conservative Justice and Development Party and its leader Tayyip Erdogan is the current head of governement. This party wants Turkey to become an Islamic republic, so even in the most progressive Islamic nation we can mention, there are reactionary forces simmering, waiting to gain control.
Also their hard handed treatment of the large Kurdish minority, had ben one of the main reasons that they have not been asked to join the EU.

Lothar wrote:.....and whether "cultural" or "devout religious", the leaders that arise need to be moderate if there's going to be peace.

Which COULD happen if said terrorist didn't blow them away everytime they go for a drive.

Whenever politics and religion are united, there are always problems - just read a few history books and you'll understand. This problem will never go away, unless the religion goes away. Here's why:(a brief explanation).

There have always been extremists: The Japanese in WW2 were some of the most vicious fighters ever enountered. But when the Emporer said "Stop," they stopped, because he was considered a god, and his order was final. There is no one in power who can say "Stop" to Muslim exrtremists. Why? Because their code of conduct, their rule of law, is the Koran ( and a few other collections of writings). The Koran is very straight forward about how Muslims should interact with unbelievers (specifically Jews and Christians). "What is the matter with you, why are you divided into two groups concerning the hypocrites, while Allah has cast them off on account of their misdeeds? . . .So, you should not take friends from their ranks unless they immigrate in the way of Allah; and if they do not, seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and do not take them as protectors or helpers (friends)." That's from Surah 4: 88,89 in the Koran. There are many more verses like this one. The root of the problem is the religion; Islam began as a peaceful faith, but eventually drifted into violence due to a changed attitude in their prophet Mohammed. That is history, and available for anyone to examine.

Whatever the motives, the result is carnage to the extreme; bloodshed equal to that caused by another major religion. The problem has always been religion, either Muslim or Christian, or whatever.

I find it interesting that the final solution to all this is mentioned by the God that the Muslims claim to serve; "In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a Kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. It will crush, and put an end to all these kingdoms . . . and it will stand forever." Daniel 2:44

I agree with you, Shoku. But Islam was not originally a religion of peace. Mohammed, after being exiled from his home city of Mecca and travelling to Medina, lead the people of Medina to attack the city of Mecca and conquered it. Islam spread rapidly from that time by force of arms alone. The Mohammedan armies conquered everything they could get their hands on, and were working on Europe when Charlemagne stopped them. Islam has never been a true religion of peace.

Quotes from Lothar's post.

"75% of AQ's leadership has been captured or killed, and most of their Afghanistan training camps are gone. I'd say that's "knocked down". "

I'm willing to believe this, if we have some evidence.

1) Is this is a Bush administration figure, or an outside assesment?

2) How well do we really know AlQ to make that assesment? From what we're now hearing about Bin Laden who we thought was the major funder/leader, he's actually more of a contributor. As I mentioned from time to time, we never had direct evidence of him being involved in 9-11, but he became the scapegoat, which is now apparently wrong. I don't have very much faith in our intelligence agencies at the moment, and this is an election year.

3) How many new recruits does AlQ have? This is like the war on drugs in some ways. Knock down a coke dealer but have you really defeated the overall infrastructure? If you knock out some lower henchmen and the occasional leader, did other people immediately fill in the ranks, or did you actually remove a whole irreperable section of the group? Are we cutting off the lizard's head or its tail? How many new enlistees are in AlQ? I guess my real question is, in terms of overall growth how much smaller has AlQ gotten since we began the war on terror?

"Saddam is no longer funding $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Not exactly a "network", but definitely a major contributor."

Nobody ever committed suicide for that money. They died for the holy war. Big deal.

"The black-market nuclear network out of Pakistan (AQ Khan, I believe) has been shut down. "

Interesting, I haven't heard this. Link? I thought US troops weren't allowed in Pakistan.

Funny thing about Bush's statement of WoT can't be won, I actually would have respected him more if he had stuck to the original statement. Terorrism is nothing new and it's not going away. It will be an ongoing fight.

"Mostly agreed, though you're still INTENTIONALLY misinterpreting Bush's "axis of evil" statement."

I fully understand your repeated rationalization of Bush's speech. But you fail to understand diplomacy. Around the world, what most people heard was the very short soundbyte of Bush declaring certain things to be evil. Very few people around the world and even in America can even tell you what he really meant by the speech. You can't deny that--so you're stuck in the world of soundbyte diplomacy. We looked bad to those people that saw only that clip. Also dropping the word "crusade" in a speech wasn't the best thing for muslims to hear. We've got to be very careful.

"you shouldn't shy away from saying it when it needs said, and in the case of Iran, Iraq, and NK it needed said"

I don't think you know what diplomacy is. To paraphrase a famous quote "sometimes diplomacy is giving the other guy an out." What Bush essentially did with that is pit countries against us instrinically. People don't like being called evil. Patriotism abounds in countries like Iran and NK as well. Even if he's calling the NK government evil, many people will take this to heart. Especially after bush invades Iraq, people will start to get scared.

If Bush had left those countries an out, they would have looked better. If those countries do what Bush wants, they look weak to a people. You have to remember to work diplomacy in terms of peoples' egos. If you have called a government evil, they will be seriously pissed at you and less likely to be co-operative. You are banking on a scare tactic. That is not diplomacy. If Bush had instead given a much more even handed address, he would have "given the other guy an out." If he had intelligently outlined why these countries are wrong and let those words resonante rather than use what amounts to hateful speech, maybe the countries would have had more of an open of an ear. Think about it-you're the government of another country. Another government calls you evil, but you think of yourself as just and good. This same leader is asking you to drop your nuclear weapons program, while refusing to stop his own. What would you do?

Shoku wrote:The root of the problem is the religion; Islam began as a peaceful faith, but eventually drifted into violence due to a changed attitude in their prophet Mohammed. That is history, and available for anyone to examine.

Stryker wrote:I agree with you, Shoku. But Islam was not originally a religion of peace. Mohammed, after being exiled from his home city of Mecca and travelling to Medina, lead the people of Medina to attack the city of Mecca and conquered it. Islam spread rapidly from that time by force of arms alone. The Mohammedan armies conquered everything they could get their hands on, and were working on Europe when Charlemagne stopped them. Islam has never been a true religion of peace.

I think now we're getting to the real root. My belief is that the TRUE origin of Islam was much more sinister than anyone in public life would ever dare to suggest. It was only a matter of time before the Muslim population was large enough that enough of them would begin to take on the work of its 'crafter'. I'm sure that most here will probably consider me a complete wacko, but I'm sorry to say that's what I believe.

Those that believe that all "religions" were just made up by humans as a way of explaining things that could not have been otherwise explained, or as ways of gaining power and followers, would certainly never come to the same conclusions I have.

I'm NOT saying that the Muslim population is evil. At the present time, I think the vast majority is peace-loving and deserving of dignity and respect. Perhaps the moderate and reasonable majority will indeed rise above, and make a difference, but I don't hold much hope of that happening.

Birdseye wrote:"Saddam is no longer funding... suicide bombers."

Nobody ever committed suicide for that money. They died for the holy war. Big deal.

You don't think the money ever pushed anyone over the edge? You don't think there was ever anyone who wouldn't have done it if the money wasn't there? Why would Saddam have funded them if it wasn't going to help? Don't be so quick to dismiss things.

Birdseye wrote:"The black-market nuclear network out of Pakistan (AQ Khan, I believe) has been shut down. "

Interesting, I haven't heard this. Link? I thought US troops weren't allowed in Pakistan.

A google search yields this page with extensive links to news stories about AQ Khan. I'm not going to dig through the last year and a half of news stories trying to find all of the relevant ones for something you should've already been aware of, but you can certainly browse the headlines if you're interested. And, BTW, I never said it was US troops that did it. I do recall US intelligence being in on uncovering the network, though.

Funny thing about Bush's statement of WoT can't be won, I actually would have respected him more if he had stuck to the original statement.

What I quoted IS the original statement. It's not a correction. That is the original context of the quote where he said "I don't think you can win it" that everyone is making such a big deal about. He was asked "can you win it in the next 4 years?" and he said "no, I don't think you can win it" and then he described the long-term strategy for winning it in longer than 4 years. But people took the "no" and ripped it out of context to make it sound like he was saying you can't win it at all.

You're right that it will be an ongoing fight -- but I believe the levels can be reduced to the point where there's no more need for a war on terror. You don't need to wipe out all terrorists to win the war, you just need to push them down to the point where they're a fringe minority that can no longer do anything very impressive, and make it so that they can't gain many new recruits. There will always be terrorists -- but if there's no longer a huge organized terror movement, if they can no longer mobilize and attack, then the war is won. If you follow basically the strategy in the quote I linked to, then the war will be won -- it'll just take longer than 4 years.

Birdseye wrote:you fail to understand diplomacy.... To paraphrase a famous quote "sometimes diplomacy is giving the other guy an out."

And sometimes diplomacy is telling the rest of the world not to work with those guys, and encouraging dissent within those countries. What makes you think Bush's speech was directed mainly at Iran, Iraq, and NK's governments? If he'd said those same words at a conference with Iran, Iraq, and NK's leadership I might agree with you a little bit, but still not entirely, due to the following:

Birdseye wrote:If he had intelligently outlined why these countries are wrong and let those words resonante...

George W Bush, in the [url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html]state of the union[/url], wrote:North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world.

He gives them an out right there -- he describes exactly what those regimes are doing and why he's calling them evil. They can reverse course -- there's their out. Now, granted, most of the outs he leaves aren't outs those guys would take -- but then, sometimes that's the way you have to address a situation. You don't leave Saddam an out by which he can remain in power and keep gassing civilians; you don't leave KJI2 an out by which he can keep pursuing nukes; you don't leave the mullas an out by which they can keep supporting terrorism. It's not "diplomatic" to tell those regimes that they can keep doing what they're doing and only make a token change. It's not "diplomatic" to tell those regimes that they can have an out but keep doing evil. It's foolishness.

To return to the topic of this thread: there have been some successes against terror that have come through striking major terrorist networks and governments that harbor them. Now it's time for the moderates to step up, worldwide, and denounce terror and encourage Muslims to live up to the name "religion of peace". It's good to see that some of them have.

I hear my dad talking to his friends about the war. I heard him say that he now has doubts about his own religion, and that it's religion that is causing all the grief. His friend wants to kill all the muslims and islamics before they kill all the little kids.
I'm thinking that way too now. What has religion done for anyone anyway. Religion just means death.

It's too bad people scapegoat "religion" (in general) when the problem is "religious extremism" relating to a particular religion.

The problem has always been extremism. Islam is just its most recent home, and that's why moderates have to overcome it.

Christianity, in its pure forms, has sponsored both peace and strife. It has sponsored peace in that Jesus himself said "Love your enemies, and pray for those that persecute you," and it has sponsored strife from those who hate Christianity so much trying so hard to kill Christians from the time of Nero to the present. Think about it. When has there ever been an effort to destroy all muslims? And before someone says the crusades, the crusades were aimed at taking back the holy land, not exterminating islam. Besides, think about it: the crusades were a spinoff of a corrupt catholic church that placed more stock in relics than in Christ or the Bible. The crusaders wanted to take back a relic (the place where Jesus lived). True Christianity brings freedom.

This country was founded by Christians; most of the revolutionary party were Christians, the people who settled America successfully were Christians, and Christopher Columbus was a Christian, albeit a somewhat misguided one. Most of your prominent scientists (Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Louis Pasteur, et al.) have been Christians.

Take a look at the people and governments who have wanted to destroy Christianity: Hitler, Chinese Communism, the Roman Empire, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, et al. Do you think any of these people constitute freedom-loving benevolent philanthropists?

My point here is that Christianity is a good thing. It has improved the world immeasurably. Think about what would have happened had Christianity never gained popularity. The Roman Empire might still be in existence. We would probably not have achieved a high level of scientific development. We would not be free to speak our minds on the DBB (if it even existed). When you really tihnk about it, Christianity, when held pure, has had a positive influence on the world. The same cannot be said for many other religions.

There are two muslim students in my school. They wear small headscarfs, and try to convert people in every converstation. Nobody hangs out with them, so I tried to be friends with them but all they want to talk about is islamic teachings and how much of a good muslim I would make. I tried to find some mutual ground, but it wasn't happening so I walked away.
If they like flaunting religion so be it, just don't push it in my face. I don't want or need it. As long as their is religion, there will be extremists.

Lothar wrote:It's too bad people scapegoat "religion" (in general) when the problem is "religious extremism" relating to a particular religion.

The problem has always been extremism. Islam is just its most recent home, and that's why moderates have to overcome it.

Actually "religion" is the problem; "organized" religion that is. As a Christian, I recognize God's view on the matter. Faith, when dictated from an established, political hierarchy, always leads to problems; which is why Jesus condemned the Pharisees.(read Matthew Chapter 23) We do not need formal places (buildings) to worship; Jesus said, "Whenever two or three are gathered in my name, I am with them." First Century Christianity was nothing like what we have today; there was no "Clergy." Jesus said, "But you, do not be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, whereas you are all BROTHERS. Neither be called 'leaders,'for your Leader is one, the Christ." (Matthew 23:9,10)

Because of the bloodshed at the hands of organized "religion," God will destroy it. Read Revelation, Chapter 17 and 18, which discuss the distruction of all religion. How do we know this? Referred to in vision as Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots, organized religion is "hurled down and will never be found again." "And the sound of singers. . .musicians . . .will never be found in her again, and no craftsmen of any trade will ever be found in her again, and no sound of a millstone will ever be heard in her again, and no light of a candle will ever shine in her again, and no voice of a bride or bridegroom will ever be heard in her again; because her traveling merchants were the top ranking meen of the earth, for by your spiritistic practice all the nations were misled. Yes in her was found the blood of the prophets, and of holy ones, and of all those who have been slaughtered on the earth."

All the things mentioned above that are "no longer found in her," can be found in some form inside religious institutions. I could deliniate examples for each item, but I really don't think it necessary. Anyone with any intelligence knows that brides and bridegrooms are found in churches. The above says they will no longer be found "in her," Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots. She is called a harlot, because organized religion has committed spiritual adultery with the kings of the earth. "And the woman whom you saw means the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth. . . .For because of the wine of the anger of her fornication, all the nations have fallen victim, and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her. . .And I heard another voice out of heaven say: "Get out of her my people, if you do not want to share with her in her sins, and if you do not want to recieve part of her plagues."

Organized religion will fall, at the hands of the kings of the earth. "For God puts it into there hearts to carry out his one thought." That thought is to destroy organized religion forever." Read Revelation 17 and 18.

Shoku, I think your views are a little mistaken. Christ himself founded organized Christianity. His apostles were chosen to be leaders in the early Church. Remember the words, "Whoever's sins you forgive will be forgiven, and whoever's you hold bound will be held bound." And what about St. Peter? Remember Christ's words to him: "You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church." Peter was chosen as the leader of the apostles and head of the Church on Earth. He is considered the first Pope of the Catholic Church. Remember, the idea of Christianity without hierarchy is a relatively new concept. Before the Protestant Reformation, all members of the Church were part of an organized hierarchy.

I also have no idea where you're getting the idea of organized religion as the "harlot" in Revelation. Most of the book of Revelation is rich in symbolism and allegory; it's not meant to be taken as a literal description of the Apocalypse. Christ meant the Church to have human leadership as well as divine; he entrusted its care to his closest followers. I never understood the idea of, "I'm a Christian, but I'm not part of any denomination." By those criteria, anyone at all could just say that they are a Christian.

I also agree with Lothar that "religion" is used as a scapegoat for many of the world's problems. Fanaticism and irrationality are the problems, not religion.

"The Roman Empire might still be in existence. We would probably not have achieved a high level of scientific development."

The Roman Empire brought development and technology eveywhere it went. It was far more lenient to scientists than Christianity/Catholicism was, that's for sure.

I saw the video last night that one of the wankers shot, of the scene inside the gym at Beslan as they were connecting the detonators to the explosives. Needless to say i was revolted. My mind just can't get hold of their mindset. Seeing the hundreds of kids, wild eyed with white terror. The youngsters who didn't have a clue that they were about to be ripped to peices in the name of ...well what exactly?

This is not about religion. It's not about who has the better god. It's about humanity, and if we want to make any progress we have to first cut out the wankers, then make sure that no-one finds themselves in a position to be a wanker. No bloody god is going to do it for us, we are going to have to do it ourselves as one, for ourselves, in the name of ourselves.

Fat chance huh!!!!!

Top Gun wrote:Shoku, I think your views are a little mistaken. Christ himself founded organized Christianity. His apostles were chosen to be leaders in the early Church.

First, I apologize for going off-topic.
Second, this really isn't the place to discuss this very lengthy subject.

I will say this: As I mentioned above, early Christianity had no Clergy. The "Church" Jesus mentioned were his followers, not an established organization in the modern sense. The Apostles were directed to lead the preaching of the Good News. Their responsibility was to educate new converts and bring them all up to the same level of Chistian maturity. Yet, as Jesus mentioned, they were all BROTHERS, no matter if they were Apostles, "older men", or new converts. One should be careful not to let "tradition" dictate understanding. By the end of the 2nd century, Christianity no longer resembled what Christ had intended - he even predicted it's corruption. If the Apostle Paul were resurrected today, I think he would be apalled at the present situation among so-called Chritians. And he would not hold back from denouncing Islam as an organization directed by Satan.

I also apologize for getting into a doctrinal discussion here. Suffice it to say that I believe that the majority of the current followers of Islam have peaceful intentions, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the founding of that faith. However, radical fundamentalist Islam is responsible for the vast majority of current terrorist actions. There's only so far that military or diplomatic means can go to solve this problem. The true solution has to come from within the international Muslim community.

Well, I must say again that it is the RELIGION that's the problem, no matter how "peaceful" some Muslims may be. Whenever a religion's holy writings tell the believers to seize and kill unbelievers, the root of the problem is definately the religion. Even if some refuse to acknowledge such verses in the Koran, they exist, and they propel the extremists into Jihad. A good faithful Muslim will adhere to everything the Koran says, and it says to Kill unbelievers.

Shoku wrote:Even if some refuse to acknowledge such verses in the Koran, they exist, and they propel the extremists into Jihad. A good faithful Muslim will adhere to everything the Koran says, and it says to Kill unbelievers.

Tried to bring this message across once before!
Better prepare yourself for Brick Walls and Snipers!
Good Luck!