Allah Tahlize
In F.E. Peters' Course, One God, Three Faiths, Judaism, Chritianity, and Islam are compared and contrasted using themselves as their own perspectives. To clarify, Peters makes no judgment on the validity of the religions, merely pronounces what a subscriber to that belief would say about that religion. Each religion is evaluated in its own light, on its own merit. Historical context is also weighed against the religion as a framework to show the development and spread.
Here are 2 chapters that pertain to my points. If you will partake in the inevitable debate to follow, make sure you have downloaded and listened to each chapter in full. To download, right-click link and choose Save Target As...
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
On to edifying my point of view. Islam, violent and corrupt from the inception.
Islam differs from the other Abrahamic religions in a few significant ways. First, islam was started and spread by one man. God spoke through only one man; Mohammed. When Mohammed spread God's supposed word, it was directly, as though God had spoken directly through Mohammed and not in stories, parables, or accounts.
Myth #1: "Islam is a peaceful religion."
Mohammed himself led raids on unsuspecting travelers, to rob and kill, after he became power hungry in Medina. Justified then by Allah changing his word so that these activities would be blessed. Go figure, God changes his message to accommodate Mohammed, so says Mohammed. He became frustrated in Mecca where fame did not feed his ego. Though fairly successful in Mecca at gaining adherants to the new monotheistic belief, it simply was not enough. Going to Medina proved to be the ego boost that Mohammed may have sought. Or it could have been the poison to his ego that twisted the fate of the movement. Either way, things changed significantly in medina for Mohammed, islam, muslims, and those unfortunately in contact with them. Notice how slowly islam spread though the original Meccan style message of peace and dedication to the one true God, but then took off when Mohammed introduced violence, thievery, murder, probably rape, into the permissable acts of muslims. So, this is also where the infamous surra states that mulims shall seek out the infidel to convert or kill. Since this surra happened chronologically after the more peaceful Mecca surras, it overshadows the former. Mohammed personally gave islam its model of violent action. It is not a new radical development, the founder himself introduced it and practiced it 'successfully' enough to have islam spread by the sword to much of the unsuspecting middle east. Islam spread to subjugate people to Mohammed's ego and rule.
Any claims by moderates or pacifists to say that islam has been distorted into a violent religion are liars and fools, obviously ignorant of their own history.
Myth #2: Mohammed was just a messenger of God.
Maybe in the beginning in Mecca he could have continued that ruse, but true colors became apparent once power became attainable through his Medinan fan club. Once praised and treated like the prophet he wished to be, he readily went to Medina to assume a position of primary power over the startegic town. First order of business was to exploit the citizenry, and begin instilling a grudge against Mecca for rejecting him. Unsurprisingly this is when the words of Allah began to change tone and theme. Violence became the way to his riches, fame, and power. Now that he had an army of mujahdeen, he molded the word of Allah to fit his will. Raids on innocent caravans travelling to Mecca choked commerce in Mecca and made Mohammed wealthy and powerful. Bow to islam or die.
Myth #3: If a religion or idea is changed or modified over time, the religion or idea maintains its original integrity, value, and intent.
Well, this is just obviously a rational argument, but a key point to consider. Many ideas, philosophies, religions, etc. do evolve over time mostly due to cultural influences (eg. Buddism, Catholicism) or but doctrinal disputes (eg. Protestantism). Scientology has become a religion due to the number of kooks that adhere to it and demand it be viewed that way. Weak minded people in the masses allow it to happen to avoid conflict, so the craziness spreads. And as a great xample of someone's idea growing past its intended scope....Jedi now has been listed as a religion. Think George Lucas really intended that to happen?
My point on this is interesting, because it is assumed by many that the violence inherent in islam has been a defect in thought or teaching that has developed over the centuries, more specifically recently with the emergence of the term "militant islam". Many religions, especially the Abrahamic, grew from peaceful and political origins into the violent years. Violence was not necessarily a premise of those religions or cultures. But islam is different in that the very founder, mouthpiece of Allah himself not only procalimed violence and thievery, but had the audacity to claim that Allah blessed those actions, all but proclaiming war on any non-muslim and actually proclaiming war on Mecca. Violence in the seeds of islam, from the founder himself. There is no recent development of violence...it was there since the beginning.
So, the myth that moderate muslims or liberal muslims actually practice legitimate true islam is FALSE. They practice a version of islam that has been picked over with only the palpable parts used. Not islam as Mohammed had meant it or practiced it. Mohammed would not consider them muslims because you do not pick and choose which surras from Allah you obey at your pleasure, you submit to all of Allah's will and words. Seems reasonable, they are words from the most high and holy creator.
Conclusion:
So in conclusion, I have taken a very simple and straightforward look at the origins of Islam as the Islamists have made it. Now, keep in mind that many commenters on this blog have been reduced to simply throwing stones at me, trying to discourage me from thinking that I, one lone man, can erradicate the scourge of islam from the face of the Earth. Not one has posed an argument with any research or veracity behind it. Most, if not all arguments towards my stance have just been denying that I could be correct or accusing me of hatred....like that intrinsically makes me wrong. I wish to point out that one man, Mohammed, started this mess so it should logically be possible for one man to stop it. Me.
posted by Dorman at 14:01
85 Comments:
Dorman, you must have big boots to take on the task you have given yourself, right or wrong. As for the Muslims that do not practice the "true" version of Islam, do you seek to take away their religion as well?
Their religion is fake. It should all crumble.
"Now, keep in mind that many commenters on this blog have been reduced to simply throwing stones at me, trying to discourage me from thinking that I, one lone man, can erradicate the scourge of islam from the face of the Earth. Not one has posed an argument with any research or veracity behind it. Most, if not all arguments towards my stance have just been denying that I could be correct or accusing me of hatred....like that intrinsically makes me wrong."
Despite all your hard work,I'm sure you're going to continue receiving the same old uneducated shizzle.....
Forms of argument
Attacking the person
This is often referred to as an ad hominem argument because the target of criticism is not the argument, but the person making the argument. It is a very common form of argument, especially in political debates. It usually comes in two varieties:
directly abusing the person making the argument, rather than the premises, conclusion and reasoning, is either abused or criticised.
For example, 'X is against conscription because X is a coward (or stupid, or incapable of coherent thought, or…').
indirect abuse: A particular relationship between a person and their beliefs is claimed to exist and then attacked rather than that person's actual argument.
For example, 'X is for conscription because X believes that military discipline makes people more moral'.
Irrelevant conclusion
This fallacy involves arguing for a different conclusion from the one that is supposedly being argued for. This often happens when an argument is long and complicated.
Let's Get It On!!!
I'm just going to play devil's advocate here: Would you like to eradicate Jehovah's Witnesses too? That's all bogus too. And, it'll stop them from pounding on my door at 10:00 when I'm hungover on a Saturday morning! I'm not discounting what your saying on Islam, just throwing another weenie on the fire.
This will be the only *sidenote* I will honor with an answer. Other religions, who cares. Why do I care about islam? Well, tell me when the local Mormons took hostages at the Olympics, or when the Jehovah's Witnesses blew up an airplane over some desert land disputes. Or did the fundamentalist baptists fly a plane into a major landmark recently to stop gay marriage? Did the psyche of the American (sheep) public turn to sympathize, take interest in, then actively defend a faith of which they know little truth about and that just killed thousands of their innocent countrymen? That faith is/was islam. Americans blamed themselves so as not to offend the appropriate bunch of scoundrels or point the finger at the root cause.
I am not afraid to see the truth and say it. Right now, I am in the middle east surrounded by the culture, religion, and the people. So order a fatwa against me, it would be a great compliment.
Dorman, many of of these people, who committed acts of terrorism were men. So should we eliminate all the men on the planet, to prevent future men terrorists from committing these crimes?
Do you really try this hard to be an idiot or does it come naturally?
Well, well, well..looks like you got yourself a little bit of both argument defs going on. Some things never change.
You've put together a great presentation and now the straws are being pulled.
The question was a valid response to the over generalization made in the case of Islam. You mentions stone throwing. I have done none in this thread. However, if you read your last comment, or the snotsucker's, we can see where the stone's are in fact coming from.
The point being made here is that your arguments against Islam fail because they over generalize.
One could easily argue the removal of Christianity because of it's apostolic orgins, and for the harm that was done throughout it's history in it's name.
I use Christianity here, simply as counter point an it is not indication of what I think your beliefs may or not be.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Digress overgeneralization. This is a vague response. You've responded in the manner I assumed you would. With very little, if any basis for your side of the argument. Dorman has provided detail, after detail, and an unbiased historical point of view. Everyone has asked why he feels the way he does. He has answered the question. I've only see opinion from you. Please provide the readers with some references for your point of view. Then, maybe, we can continue dialoging.
Dorman,
Yes, you could be right, and your thesis certainly attempts to follow the path of logic. However, the comparison to other possible statements is useful. It shows that your viewpoint essentially dissolves to nothing because your same approach can be used to attack almost any other target. Since the same thing can be said about men, and since other major religions have inspired and still inspire violence, as has the very idea of nationality ... your assessment of Islam has little real-world applicability.
Your analysis of history leaves aside the power of relativism. Those who kill in Jesus' name feel that they're right to do so. Your account of Mohammed the warrior leaves aside that he no doubt claims to have been attacked. We were attacked on 9/11 and you would use force to defend this country and hopefully your family as well. So he's a killer and you're a man of peace. Feel free to switch the labels, because and act of violence proves nothing about intent.
Naturally, the jihadists' ideology holds that they are trying to throw off an oppressor. American Revolution.
Islam is a religion of peace, yet it contains bloodthirsty items in its holy book just like the other Abrahamic creeds. Just look at Pat Robertson's recent statements for the modern ripples of that.
The current problems with jihadist terrorism are an outgrowth of complex history, both ancient and recent. For you to identify Islam as the enemy is to reach a mistaken conclusion. But this conclusion may comfort you through its simplicity.
Ric
My primary reason for following this blog is to make sure my friend Dorman is ok. As long as he is in an arguement I know he's fine. I haven't read every entry to this blog and so I may be speaking ignorantly to some degree. However, I must throw my two cents in the mix. I see a pattern developing. Dorman makes a statement and others nit pick it, they rarely if ever offer their own solutions to the problems other than the vague idea of peace and understanding. I am in favor of peace and understanding but peace and understanding require thoughtful action of some kind. APV, put out a belief so others can relentlessly question it. You may have done so on your own blog I just haven't checked. I enjoy discussion and debate but only if it is a give and take, not a "I'm interested in what your thoughts are on..." Oh well, what about this, that seems unrealistic... There is no doubt that the people on this blog are more informed than I am on most subjects. This is why I put few comments on the blog. I really don't know about most of what is talked about. I do recognize the constant antagonism though and I find it draining. If people disagree, that's fine, pipe in with your solution, not just the criticism of others idea.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous,
When someone makes a point, it can be helpful to them if you point out what you see as flaws in their reasoning. It's not mere nit-picking, in my view. When someone in the military in Iraq says Islam is inherently evil, I think it's useful to politely disagree. There is a fallacy in the line that one has to solve the problem, or propose a good solution, in order to have standing to criticize the current approach. This response to criticism works well for those in power or defenders of the staus quo, because the person criticizing power usually is not in a position to implement the solution, and then the nit-picking begins, aimed at them.
another flaw is to change adjectives from the ones originally used. Evil is a subjective term. I said Islam was flawed, violent, and corrupt. I also did not generalize at all in my tatement, as a matter of fact, i did specifically the opposite and presented exact historical incidents. If you chose to debate then debate what is presented, it does no one any good to debate arguments you've created yourselves.
Now BH, you pose what looks like a good argument against my view. But it is not argued equitably against my statements. For instance, you say there have been many who have killed in the name of Jesus. You are correct and on the initial reaction one would think that you just won that point. But you failed to argue analogously. I never said there are many who kill in Mohammed's name, I specifically said the vilence in islam was introduced, promoted, and blessed by Mohammed himself, the founder. Jesus never told anyone to go kill in his name, Mohammed did. Still my point.
Another point that you slip in is the assumption that Mohammed was violent in self defense. Wrong, study the material in full. You will see that Mohammed attatcked the caravans to weaked Meccan economy and subsequently use military force to violently overtake the city and impose islam as the form of governmental law on the vanquished. Islam was never "just a religion" like you local Methodists.
Then you illogically revert back to "Islam is a religion of peace" like a drunken parrot on societies shoulder. Where is your proof? I showed that the founder of the religion, culture, law, himself introduced it as a violent mean of subjugating populations and it has spread by those means ever since Mohammed did it himself.
BH, I respect your attempt. truly I do, but it remains as a similar argument to those who wish so much to pull the sheets over their heads and wish it all away, or those that gather their info from the nightly news.
I encourage you, and everyone else, to do independent research outside the realm of popular american media.
Dorman,
> Evil is a subjective term. I said
> Islam was flawed, violent, and corrupt.
I consider that evil, but if you did not use that word, then my apologies. I hope you'll forgive me if I sum these up, in my own mind, as 'evil.'
'Flawed,' 'violent,' and 'corrupt' are also subjective terms, depending on your role in the transaction. We can well imagine the accused considering themselves instead as 'forgiven', 'heroic' and 'pragmatic.'
Religion tends to make people see things differently, that way. To take a page from Anonymous, what's the better religion, in your view? Or if you don't have one, what would a good religion look like (not just what it wouldn't look like)?
>it does no one any good to debate
>arguments you've created yourselves.
Good point. However, they audio clips you referenced, as well as your own views on Islam, appear to me to be carefully-cultivated 'created' arguments.
>Jesus never told anyone to
>go kill in his name, Mohammed did.
Where exactly did he instruct people to kill in his name? Remember the "in his name" part please.
Mohammed made clear that though he was a prophet, he was just a man, not a god or a son of a god. As a mere man, he engaged in commerce, and even war. Naturally, from the viewpoint of his followers, he was attacked, and only defended himself. From your view, he started a war of aggression. You're in the middle of a war right now in which many people over there see you as a crazed, anti-Islamic Crusader and aggressor.
Getting back to 'created' arguments, if I focused on Jesus' "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword," statement, and said that objectively proves he advocates violence, I could garner quite a few objections from Christians who explain away the apparent "problem."
Likewise, your referenced author devotes considerable energy to explaining into existence various "problems" for Islam which the faithful would just as readily explain away.
Right and wrong are subjective when religion is involved. So much for your historical evidence.
>Then you illogically revert back
>to "Islam is a religion of peace" like a
>drunken parrot on societies shoulder.
>Where is your proof?
My proof is the millions of Moslems around the world right now who are peaceful and see Islam as a religion of peace.
>I showed that the founder of the
>religion, culture, law, himself introduced
>it as a violent mean of subjugating
>populations and it has spread by those
>means ever since Mohammed did it himself.
You showed that your opinion is such.
>I encourage you, and everyone
>else, to do independent research
>outside the realm of popular american media.
Good plan. I'm part way there; I don't even watch TV.
Brainshell, thank you for articulating your thoughts. This level of detail was lacking in my responses.
I think you demonstrated an interesting ability to see the points from both sides. In particular how one side views the "facts" as "positive" and the other sides as "negative". Here I am referring Mohammed's military campagns, as "defence" or "tyrany" respectively.
On this subject of the "truth", "bias", and "perspective", it is interesting to remind ourselves, that in a democracy, such as that found in the US, there is notion of innocent until proven guilty.
If this starting point is used, I would respectively ask Dorman, to submit the charges against Islam. But what exactly is Islam? Is Islam a legal person that can be identified in a court of law, say for example, as corporations are identified as legal entities under the law?
So the latter, request is actually two:
1) Who is being charged?
2) What are the charges?
For example, or all clerics the legal entities of Islam? Or is the legal entity the Koran? Is it reasonable to charge a book as a legal entity?
As another example, is the charge that Islam is "flawed", and or "corrupt" etc.? If these are the charges, how do these charges apply to any other legal entity such as the United States.
For example if the charge is promoting war, did not the United States illegally invade Iraq. The United States invaded not under the direction of God, but under the direction of Fredom? Is not the operation in Iraq called something along the lines of "enduring freedom"?
So if Islam is charged with promoting war by the direction of "god", shouldn't the United States be Charged with promoting war by the direction of the supposed principle of "freedom".
As parting consideration it would be interesting consider the charge of "concealing the deaths of civilians". The extremist go to great lengths to advertise the murders they carry out. Whereas, it US military policy in Iraq, not keep track of civilian death tolls.
The quote on the latter can be googled, as can the independent Iraq body count.
The obvious charge agains the United States, is the death of Iraqy civilians, as a direct result of an illegale invasion.
Let's put it this way, what prevents some power from invading the United States, under the charge that it has weapons of mass destruction? What principle of law gives the United States the right to invade other countries on clearly less substantiated charges of weapons of mass destruction?
While Dorman suggest we look at Islam, as some point of urgency, rather, perhaps it is really the United States and it's foreign policy of aggression, as a matter of Urgency. If Mohammed is guilty of promoting aggression, so is the United States: Vietnam and Iraq, to name two recent cases. What were some of the reasons given most recently? Something to with defending the world by attacking first? Interesting policies they remind of something Dorman, mentioned about Islam.
If Islam is guilty so is the United States. If they are both guilty, the solution to world problems is not the removal of one of them, nor both of them.
The long run solution is to reduce dependence on oil. The long term solution, will require an adjustment of how we all live. Gas guzzling SUV's will probably not be apart of the long term. Public transit, and a stop to urban sprawl will probably be apart of the long term future. The world will also have to see the end of US troops marching through foreign soil, for reasons that turn out to be wrong.
If the problem is Islam, then the way to start changing Islam, is to first start changing ourselves.
Naturally, from the viewpoint of his followers, he was attacked, and only defended himself. From your view, he started a war of aggression. You're in the middle of a war right now in which many people over there see you as a crazed, anti-Islamic Crusader and aggressor.
You showed that your opinion is such.
At first, few converts followed Muhammad. In 622, the people of Mecca actually drove him out of the city and he fled to Medina. This flight (called the Hegira) was taken as the beginning of the Muslim calendar. After the Hegira, he turned to warfare, plunder and conquest. In 630, he returned to Mecca in triumph and treated his former persecutors with kindness. He called all his followers to a holy war in which he promised that all who died fighting would ascend straight to Paradise. This single comment from the generally peace - loving Muhammad has been used as the central cause of numerous religious (jihad) wars. Virtually all of his other teachings emphasize peace, charity, tolerance and kindness to all. After he died in 632, the war was carried on by his successors (Caliphs)
BH I've enjoyed your comments so far. But it seems to me as if you've provided the readers with opinions and interpretation yourself. Can you provide us with references so that we may research you view as well, just as Mr Dorman has done?
Believe
Scholars
Anonymous, while the lectures provided by Dorman were interesting, they only add so much to the discussion, because as Dorman points out they are supposed to be only historical facts about Islam. While the lectures were interesting, from a this stand point, the question remains what does it mean to "label" or "charge" Islam with being "flawed" and "corrupt" or so on? Volumes of references are not required to discuss many of the differnces being expressed, because many of the differences are quite fundamental, such as the is it right to try to "demonize" a belief. Here I do not necessarily mean right in the moral sense, but rather right path into the future, which include general peace and stability in the world. The position that Dorman takes serves to polarize the world into those who believe in Islam and those who don't. The battle lines are beginning to be drawn in Dorman's mind if they are not already intrenched. I do nor say this is intrinsically bad or good but this is what appears to me. However, the problem with battle lines are the correct placement. As an example Bush says that by bring the war to Iraq, the fight is being taken to "them" and so preventing "them" from attacking at home. How many people in America believe that they are safer from terrorists because of the war in Iraq? - Fewer and fewer everyday. It is fine to say we must resist the terrorists, it's another thing to say we will invade another country on this pretext, for oil. Here to I draw an analogous concern for the position that Dorman takes. Instead of the terrorists, being the all important concern, it is now Islam. The nature of the alarm being raised by Dorman about Islam,is visceral and fundamentally damming to a belief that is held by 1.3 billion people, only second to Chrisitianity at 2.3 billion people, statistics To condem someone's belief is not a light mannor, becauase it is difficult to separate a person's beliefs from the person. One can even argue that a person is his or her beliefs. I will not go that far, but rather the former close attachment to belief and person is clear. In this vein to condem Islam in these sweeping terms to the point of advocating it's demise is indeed a desire and suggestion of great magnitude. One now asks one's self is that same desire held by people who believe in Islam? So the battle lines are being drawn on both sides, and this general sentement of we need to protect ourselves from "them" the terrorists the Islamics, has one case already lead a once great country astray, and in the former, and in the latter there is rightly little confidence that same wrong battles will be fought. This leads to the suggestion that perhaps these battles are not fought. Perhaps it is better to listen to the wisdom of the fore fathers of the United States of America to adhere to the principles that we are all created equal and that we all have freedom of belief. Dorman, I suppose much of comes down to this. If one group of people can't have freedom of belief, how is anyone assured of freedom of belief? ( I think this question stands without pointing to a reference. ) If Dorman, is succesful in taking away Islam, who is to say someone else won't be succesful in taking our beliefs in the future? This is not to say that Dorman doesn't have an equal right to challenge someone's beliefs. But what I suggest is that it is not our own interests that Dorman or anyone else has the right take away one's beliefs. This is not to say that laws can restrict beliefs, in specific cases such as if someone believes he or she has the right to beat their children. In specific cases, of clear benefit of intervention of law, of course apply the law to restrict one's belief. This is somewhat more complicated balance, but it is a marvolous example of how varying beliefs can coexist and find a balance within a rich and complex society. What is not clear to me is, how Dorman propose to restrict Islam. I am interests in the legal persons being effected, and I am interested in the effect against this perhaps higher principal of good government that people have the freedom of belief. This principal of freedom of belief is a founding principal, of the United States of America. Clearly, Dorman's position against Islam challenges this founding principal. If it does, the burden of proof is on Dorman and not those that question his ideas or the results of Dorman's position. Where else in the world where freedom of belief is banned from it's borders? Now we need to ask ourselves if those are the kind of borders we want to live in? I hope in this thread, no stone throwing was preceived. I have the outpmost respect for the learning that Dorman is trying to do. I am not saying that Dorman's view should be squashed. However, as mentioned earlier, clearly the burden of proof is Dorman's responsibility. If he has not convinced the majority, this is telling and akin to the lessons learned in a democratic legal and politcal system. Such a system has great benefit of affording an equal voice to every person regardless of his or her belief.
When one is discussing specific historical facts such as Muhammed, or Jesus,I feel it is important to reference your information. The change of one word can extrapolate so many different views and totally skew what has been historically documented.
This could lead the readers that are not that knowledgable on the topics astray, in turn benefitting the writer with what is actually inaccurate information.
Let us look at the obvious instead on convolute things for our own intellectual agrandizement, as some of you appear to do. When any of these terrorists blow themselves up or cut the heads off people, THEY THEMSELVES claim it to be a war of Islam vs the world. The surras even spell that out in the Koran. How much violence and war must be perpetrated by people who make it clear their motivations and intentions before you self-blinded peacenics see it for what THEY want it to be seen as? It is THEY who call it a jihad all the time, not the rest of the world.
And APoV, get a new trick to perform. If you don't like america or Bush, great. Get on the bandwagon. But don't think so smugly that every argument o discussion from piss bottles to religion always boils down to some foeign policy problem with the US. Wow, really? The US has disagreeable foreign policy? Must be the answer or crux of everything.
And BH, measuring the pacefulness of anything by counting the number of people not actively participating in the violence is not very weighty as an argument.
One more thing that you all seem to overlook. Islam is not just a religion. Islam is a law, a culture, a governmental form. Here and around the world i is still used that way, as it originally was. Americanized islam is not even within the scope of this debate since it has taken on so many false forms, and only practiced as a religion.
BH, keep up the good work, do other reasearch, get the rest of the lecture series and listen for yourself. Find other academic views of islam and see what the historical accounts say and not the biased views of the faithful.
Dorman, what happened to not throwing stones. In every post you use phrasing like:
>> "get a new trick"
This is not a point of debate it is bullying rhetoric.
As you state THEY want to make it a war between THEM and the rest of the world, why would anyone want to be drawn into their game.
As for the United States any discussion about war promoting groups should include this country. Otherwise the discussion is skewed on the one topic you present, and it does not accurately reflect the context in which THEY wish to draw people into war.
In my last post I was careful not to use the term religion, but rather beliefs. Islam is as you had mention more than a religion it is a way of life, that takes many forms, built around beliefs.
Earlier I had asked what your position was regarding peaceful muslims, and you had said there beleifs should "crumble" too. So, the discussion as you yourself made reference to included these people. If you have changed your mind that's fine. But, this was not your position at the outset.
Perhaps, in your next post, you could refrain from the "wow, really" kind of comments. Because it reduces the posts to button pushing. Of course I can easily add all kinds of color full, sartcastic comments like:
>>"The US has disagreeable foreign policy? Must be the answer or crux of everything"
As for the United States, go around the world and you will find that, the world consider the United States as much if not more of problem than a bunch of fanatics that blow themselves up. While the dramatics are note worthy, it is the placement of 140 thousand armed men in a foreign country which the world, takes not of every day. This is significant. Imagine 140 thousand foreign troops in the United States. While you point to Islam the world is pointing at the United States. Even if you disagree with these people, it obviously relevant to the discussion of what are the greater dangers. Eliminating Islam will not solve the problems of the United States, because by that point the United States will become it's own worst enemy, taking away from itself the very freedoms it was born out of, from it's self. Today, Islam tomorrow, something else. While, understand that military forces have a purpose, it remains unclear to me what you are proposing? Do you advocate killing all the clerics in Iraq? Even if you disagree with my view on what direction you propose to take, perhaps you could clarify, the kinds of things you would advocate, in say, a country like Iraq. Do you advocate the killing of all the Clerics? If you were commander and chief what would you do to eliminate Islam?
I disagree with you, I am not trying to be smug. If that is the way it comes across, than I will try work on the way I write, so that it doesn't.
Anonymous, perhaps I could suggest, not focusing so much on a particular wording of some relgious text, and references to such. While these are important, perhaps, I could suggest that the consequences of what Dorman proposes, is even more important. Dorman advocates the demise of Islam. Fine, lets see for the sake of thinking Dorman's position through, that demise of Islam is what is about to be pursued. So how exactly do you tear down a belief system? Where do you start? In the case of Islam, do you ban the building of mosques? Do you ban the Koran? Do you arrest the clerics that teach the Koran? Where do you impose these laws? Do you do this in the United States? Do you do this in France? Do you do this in Iraq? Do round up all the clerics in Iraq and execute them? Who in Iraq would have the power to this, the US army, it seems stretched as it is? Should more troops be sent in? Are more troops available? How long would these operations take? Would the American public support this? Support seems to wane each day for any operations in Iraq? If troops aren't the answer, are nuclear bombs the answer?
Dorman, what do you propose?
Dorman, by the way
>> peacenics
that counts as throwing stones. It's a derogatory term. If you wnat to encourage dialogue at higher level, perhaps you could include the use of less name calling.
"Anonymous, perhaps I could suggest, not focusing so much on a particular wording of some relgious text, and references to such"
If this were done, then we wouldn't be here in the first place.
No one has convinced me yet that Dorman is wrong. Anyone can talk in circles and lead people to believe what they are saying. In college they deducted points for wordiness. Lets point and counterpoint.
Irrelevant conclusion
This fallacy involves arguing for a different conclusion from the one that is supposedly being argued for. This often happens when an argument is long and complicated.
APOV, I like that you're offering solutions.
I agree Anonymous, "Islam focuses so much on a particular wording of some relgious text, and references to such" so why can't we?
SS,
>> ... so why can't we?
This approach to world politics or life in general is not very useful. It is better to see what we should do, rather than simply react to our would be enemies.
Do you truly advocate the methods I had risen into question?
Because all you have the apparent ability to do is argue US foreign policy, does not mean that it is legitimate to take every conversation and attempt to make it relevant to that one topic.
You speak a lot APoV and say nothing. This has nothing to do with america, or Bush, or even me. My references are what MUSLIMS say about ISLAM. but you and others even deny them the ability to describe themselves to maintain your levels of denial.
Now, how about someone addressing my points of argument instead of lamely attempting to circumvent the issues.
Dorman, this is the response to the issues. I accept that you I have a different position. You could always shoot me or ask me to go away. Either way I would be gone. I asked some specific questions and there were no direct responses. The closest was SS's comments about "me" providing solutions. Your points, set an agenda that I disagree with. Again, this is your Blog, so I will cease to post if you wish. But, if you are asking for a response to what you post, they are in the questions I have asked.
>> I say nothing
The above is a comment that I disagree with. I have asked legitmate questions on what lengths you would go to rid the world of Islam? I think it is very relevant to the discussion. People who may agree with at first, may have second thoughts if they know the path that these ideas you present will take them.
Why don't you answer the questions? They are pretty straightforward.
>> this has nothing with america or Bush
This has everything to do with America and Bush, as the extremist, the moderates, and the third party countries all say it is.
Look, what Latin America is saying, look at what Europe is saying, Look what the Canadians say?
To not ackonowledge both sides in a battle is a failure to carry out a complete analysis.
As for points, there is probably a useful discussion there, and you may very well have valid points. But to have such a discussion in the absence of considering both sides, is not a discussion. It's a lynching party.
Dorman, consider responding to the quesions, how about are they valid questions? If they are not valid why not?
These are the questions that the world is also asking.
You had mentioned that one person could roll back Islam. How will you do it if you don't answer the questions of people who may have doubts as to the direction of your suggestions?
How would you remove Islam? It's a fair question.
You answered your own questions for me. Let me illuminate. You say nothing because all you say is this:
" >> this has nothing with america or Bush
This has everything to do with America and Bush, as the extremist, the moderates, and the third party countries all say it is."
same song different topic.
piss bottles....Bush and Viet Nam. My clear stance on the roots of my distaste for islam...bush and foreign policy. NO ONE CARES ABOUT THAT NOW because it is completely and utterly irrelevant to this entry.
i don't answer your questions because again, they have nothing to do with the topic. How do you answer an obviously thick-headed questions such as: "So should we eliminate all the men on the planet, to prevent future men terrorists from committing these crimes?"
I answered the first question you posed because that mildly had something to do withn the posted entry.
I don't want anyone to go away, it would just be nice that if you are gonna hound a guy about his opinions and that guy produces proof USING THE WORDS OF THE PEOPLE HE OPPOSES ( yes folks the descriptions and history of islam as I have stated are from muslim sources) then at least stay on the topic instead of being purposely obtuse.
Brainhell started addressing the topic, bravo. I applaud his attempts though I don't agree with the methodology of his arguments. Fine. I figure other regulars have been patiently researching the topics for debate and have yet to contribute.
Try attacking the veracity of my sources. Try giving opposing analogs to my assumptions. That's the challenge. You show me I am wrong and my opinions can change. They don't because I am right. And i am right because I am well informed.
Dorman, the problem here is we can't even agree with what the nature of. Your focus is Islam, my focus is Islam and the United States. The reason is you can't understand the Islam and the extremists reaction to the United States without understanding the United States. The battle between the two are naturally interconnected.
I disagree that a valid consideration of Islam, can be obtained merely by looking at what the Koran says. I agree it is naturally extremely relevant and important to understand. Again I applaud that you are investigating these things. I disagree that being informed is sufficient to be right. Information, is a large part of it, judgment, is another part of it.
>> You show me I am wrong and my opinions change
I consider this the wrong starting point. You have charged Islam with "curruptness" and "violence" and that this is what we should focus on. Your own judicial system requires that the charged is innocent until proven guilty. The burden is proof is on you, not me. Convince me that I am wrong and my opinions change.
As for "me" answering the questions I posed, I really hope you don't mean that you would round up clerics and killing them, under the charge of being believers in Islam. I really hope you don't mean the use of nuclear weapons, if they are useful to your cause.
If you do believe in killing clerics, why do you not say such things yourself?
Why do you answer, "I have answered your questions"?
It appears that your ultimate agenda is to make a case for the validity of such killing.
So if this is the agenda, why not get right to the bloody details of it, and discuss what comes once have shown everone "you are right".
Let's say for the sake of argument, that you have proven your case, that Islam is violent etc.
What now?
I have some catching up to do!
It appears to me that several politically charged readers infuse their own agendas into my writings.
I couldn't make my point of view any simpler or clearer. Any attempt to complicate matters is not me, it is the onus of the reader.
Dorman, agreed. We all have are own agendas.
Regarding the discussion, I have offered to concede, for the sake of argument, that you have established, your main points of violence, etc. I have done this so that we can explore further, the idea of removing Islam.
Instead of me hypothesizing what could be done, perhaps you would articulate this your self. From the detail research you have done, down to specific wording in the Koran, one imagines that you have put some thought into the implementation of your judgment on Islam.
I am giving you the lead, I have set aside my own views to listen further how your ideas would move forward.
I think a number of people on both side of this discussion would be interested on how the removal of Islam would take place?
I could use specific example of laws that could be written, but I don't want to be inflamatory.
Despite, my apparent lack of ability to engage you in a less heated confrontation, I am trying to understand your position.
>My references are what MUSLIMS say about ISLAM.
The vast majority commit themselves to peace and justice, while some few justify their terrorism on the Koran. This is nothing new, evil people usually claim to be doing good.
>but you and others even deny them
>the ability to describe themselves to
>maintain your levels of denial.
I for one think you're wasting your energies on a topic that can't get you anywhere. By pointing out that your argument leads to the conclusion that we should eliminate all men, it is intended that you see the flaw in your argument. You, however, reject the silly notion of eliminating all men, stick to your anti-Islam stance, and say that we are in denial or trying to drag this off topic.
You did, however, hint that in questioning your personal crusade to rid the world of Islam, we are helping the terrorists. There are serious logical fallacies here that I hope you can see.
Ric,
Apov, BH,
What would have been your plan to deal with the attacks on 9/11?
I have listened to Chapter 7 and plan to work on Chapter 8. I will not "throw stones" at you or even try to change your opion on the topic. But in return, I ask you to read up on the links I have provided. With an open mind, you may even choose to remark on them.
Thank
You
For
Entertaining
This
OK I read the links. and you successfully pointed out hypocrisy and closedmindedness in Christianity. Bravo. How does this affect the facts of Islam. And just because Bush urges me to realize the "Islam is Peace" means sheisse, like he knows anything about anything.
They were not extremists on 9/11 or during any of the last 30 years of televised terrorism, or the previous 1400 years of warmongering to spread the mind virus of islam. How better to quell the vanquished than to impose self-perpetuated slavery on them? As I am sure someone here will quickly and erroneously tell you, 9/11 was not about islam at all, it was about the effects of Bush's foreign policy on the world. Blah Blah Blah. So were piss bottles.
Someone show me passages from the Koran that promote peace...especially those in the Medina surras. Someone point to a muslim that has responded negatively to my posts. None? Funny my muslims friends have started to see the point and mostly agree with me, they just practice the traditions personally for self-discipline. Where is their outrage on this blog? nowhere. Why? because I have used the words, descriptions, and passages from muslims by muslims abou islam. Like beating someone with their own dismembered arm. And happy to do it.
So far the best argument has been, well million sof muslims haven't blown themselves up. Again, Bravo for such a giant logical leap. Millions of Nazis didn't kill Jews either. So the only real terrorist by that definition is one in mid-detonation.
First step to eliminating islam is to expose it for what it was originally. To dispell the nonsense that has been pushed by the media like so much Soma to keep the american public plaid like sheep. How bad would it be if the american public thought and acted on their own? Take away their guns, take away their opinions, numb their minds by repeated the same old empty mantras until it becomes truth and you all defend what is obviously devoid of merit. I would have applauded bold citizens who would have taken action in their own hands to promote safety for their families and communities, like the men on the flight that crashed in PA, instead of looking to the gov't and media for every thought they should hold.
Why do you all fight so desperately for islam? Have you any idea what islam as a culture practices outside the whitebread suburban american landscape? Any self-respecting woman wanna jump in and educate them?
AYS, I would have started with putting the money that went into attacking Iraq, a country that had no links to AQ, into improving the intelligence that failed to catch the people who committed these acts. I would not have had collin powel lie to the UN about WMD, as he admited he did in an interview with Barbara Walters. I would have bolstered relations with france and germany, and canada, and other european countries, so as to improve cooperation with these respective intelligence communities. I would not sour these relations by going it alone in an unjust war, that his killed an estimated 100 thousand Iraqi's. I would be focusing on reducing fuel consumption, not allowing tax breaks for fuel guzlling SUV's. This is the real threat to American interests, the failure to recongnize that the oil is finite, and that by all appearances we are on the other side of the oil peak. Instead of spending so much on invaded and killing innocent people, I would put money into preparing the US for the end of oil. This is the number one unavoidable threat, in the next 10,20,30,50,100 years. The end of oil is all but certain, within the time of our grandchildren. What has been achieved with the 100's of billions of dollars in Iraq. Nothing, but the increased threat of attacks, as was seen in the UK. What could have been achieved if that money was put into intelligence and long term programs that deal with the eminent reality of a world without a oil.
AYS, I seem to be doing a lot of answering, while my questions go unanswered. I have even conceded points for the sake of moving the discussion along. I would like Dorman to take up the offer to articulate his solutions, given that I concede, for the sake of argument, his previous points. Afterall, this thread is about his position on Islam. It follows, that if we concede his points, for the sake of argument, that he would in good position to carry out the discussion to the end.
Dorman, your first step is clear, what we are interested in is your end steps.
As for woman muslims, I happen to know several from Iran. They are quite modern, one of them doesn't even take the family name of her husband.
As for the promotion of violence in the pursuit of one's end goals, isn't that very nature of any military. Aren't you yourself a volountery member of the greatest military machine on the planet? Aren't you a part of an occupation?
>Why do you all fight so
>desperately for islam?
I think you infer a motive there. I'm just trying to save you from yourself, and point out a little common sense.
Interstellarlass, that was wonderfull.
IL,
Thank you for a well thought out and articulated response.
I too do not have a viable solution. Should we withdraw from Iraq, I feel the violence will continue.
We could all sit here at home minding our own business and they will still attack/antagonize the U.S. because our beliefs are different from theirs.
APOV,
You seem to have some very strong opinions and a lot to say. Why don't you update your blog so that we may address the issues you present?
SS, it's not a bad idea. I will have to think about what to put up next. It was created more as reaction to what I had been reading. I would like to it to be more constructive than the first posts.
APoV, no one answers your 'questions' because you apparently haven't grasped one simple concept....this post and this blog are not about your questions.
IL, wonderful as usual and you gave me now a sufficient basis to answer some issues about the elimination of Islam.
You presume that removing the book would not do it. I agree. But ideology lives in the minds and hearts of men (and women to be PC). Humans die and the ideology goes too. My premise that islam is violent and corrupt shows the basis for its current state of oppression. Reference soccer games in Taliban controlled Afghanistan. No cheering from the crowd or you get beaten by the muslim koran-cops for expressing emotion. Many more examples of how islam is used to oppress muslims.
Some facts that should have been obvious but will now be illuminated. Mohammed did not create islam and spread it in a vacuum. There were beliefs and practices widely spread at that time that he had to eliminate to institute islam as the law.
Also, islam is not a religion, it is law. Maybe in the american mindset it is a religion and many may practice it as a religion but it is by nature and creation law. That is the mandate by which muslim leaders oppress.
So if Mohammed can eliminate the religions of the day by the sword to substitute islam, maybe in a more information-based world one man can start a trend of free-thought. I would wager that given a free-thinking culture, the conversion to and adoption of islam would be so minor compared to the death rate of muslims that it as an ideology wouldeventually fade away.
To sum up: Remove the power of Muslims to oppress people and coerce islam unto them and islam will fade and die.
And one more factoid....Why the tensions between Jews and Muslims? Land? Gaza? US favoritism? No, How's this for deep rooted...Mohammed wanted to be accepted as a Prophet by the Jews in their long line of prophets. He was rejected in Medina. That slap to his ego in Medina was the linchpin moment for the change in tone and direction of Islam.
Dorman,
>> Humans die and the ideology goes too.
Which humans, and who gets to decide and how many?
Dorman,
It seems rather to kill people in power, in this culture of Islam, creates martyrs, not bridges.
Though, in all of this I do agree with the following:
>> So if Mohammed can eliminate the religions of the day by the sword to substitute islam, maybe in a more information-based world one man can start a trend of free-thought.
<<
That is to say, I am not simply out to hound you.
I question, however, how you seek to start this trend. I rather doubt by killing their leaders, you will be an endeared messager.
Take out the killing part, and you may even find me on your side.
IL, If I understand correctly what Dorman would like to see happen is something similar to the cases of Germany and Japan following the second world war. Dorman has in the past equated Islam to Nazism and be this analogy points to the succes of Germany as a free and democratic state. While Dorman points himself the extenet in which Islam is more than a religion, he perhaps does not see in this same way, that Islam is so many times more than any political ideological movement, in the extent that it pervades life of muslims. Islam is not an ideology, it is away of life that has persisted for well over thousand years. Islam, does not constitute the belief of one country, one ethnicity, one people, it is the main religion of peoples: Arabs; Pakistanis; Indonesians; Africans. So while acknowledge the ability to be instrumental for one person to bring about change on the scale on the magnitude of post war Germany and Japan, I think the analogy fails in the context of the depth and breadth of Islam. By depth it is meant the extent in which IL, point out that Islam is a way of life, and by breadth the many cultures in which Islam has been absorbed and in grained within it's people.
I continue to agree with Dorman, that you can bring about change, and that free thought and free speach are crucial to this. However, I disagree that you be blunt and use an accusatory tone to convince these people. That is unless you have utterly devastated them in the case of Germany and Japan. If an analogy to an ideoogy is to be made perhaps communism is better than Nazisim, at least in this case a closer approximation to breadth would be had, though not the depth. From it's peak it has taken more than a generation to see the diminishing of Communism, and Islam is still far more than Communism.
The US is struggling with one country of 26 million people. It does not have the man power to invade other countries, and if anything the presence of force, the removal of Saddam Hussein, created a vacuum in which Shites, closely aligned with the Shiites of Iran. The result a far more Islamic state than in the days of Saddam.
So if force is to be used to remove key people, and if that was in part the goal in Iraq, then apparently the wrong person was removed, or something simply backed fired.
In light on the strain of man power, and economics what has been achieved further, is the clear demonstration of the limitations and weaknesses of the US. Around the world the US is seen as not inviscible, and almighty.
If conventional means are obviously are so limited in bringing about change away from Islam. The only thing that the US could possibly use are nuclear weapons. But this makes no sense. So I can't imagine Dorman or anybody would advocate their use.
So if force is not an option, to bring about change the only means is dialogue, long slow dialogue that will go on for the next hundred years. By a dialogue it is meant an open ended dialogue in which at least one side must take the higher road. By hirer road it is meant not to condemn the other's beliefs or way of life, but rather to offer, not force, a better way of life.
Hi Crys, nice to see you back here. Did you get to here him speak?
I think "emasculates" is not the word you meant. Bush emasculates the values of the future.
hee hee, it's just good to see you back.
a few observations that just obfuscate and infuriate, First, APoV, not everyone in this world dies because someone kills them. So stop putting words in my mouth and just read what I write, maybe the world would be clearer if you and many others didn't keep reading problems into everything for self-perpetuated outrage.
Second, "Save me from myself"? Brainhell said it, many of you feel some burden to do so too. Where the heck do you people come from? How in the hell do I endanger myself by speaking up about a worldwide problem? Or having a voice and excercising my informed opinions? Or is this just one of those keeping the sheep in line, stay programmed and happy like in a Brave New World? Where's my next dose of Soma?
Third, pointing out problems with other eligions has no bearing on the argument against islam. Go ahead, I won't argue but it isn't the point. I would substitute a real democratic secular government and let the culture develop, hopefully sans religion. Oh, wait, isn't that what Bush has been doing without you noticing?
Dorman, to the first point, you are right, I shouldn't be over stepping what I infer from your writings. This was the impression I got, and still do do get, see point three in your last post.
As for point two, it is human nature to try to help those around us. Your effort to rid the world around us from Islam, does sound like you want to save the world from Islam, including the muslims.
As for point three, there is a principle of law which goes like "punishment of crimes should be proportional to the crime; punishment should not be cruel and unusual". To neglect the backdrop of crimes committed by other beliefs or countries, is to fail to see what the norm is, and there by create a situation in which magnitude of charges and punishment are detached from norms. This principle is akin to the prinicple of law that "the law be applied equally; it is unfair to persecute only one group and not the other". So the points about other religions and countries, are very relevant to discussion. As for Bush, compare the two constitutions before and after the war, listen to the points of debate in Iraq. In the original constitution it states tha Islam is the religion of the state. In the new constitution majority Shiites in power are advocating language like, "Islam will be a guiding principle in all laws". This may have been removed over protests by the Sunni's the group in power before Bush invaded. The current president Jafari has already established cooperation with Iran, on port usage, and pipe lines. There was even an offer by Iran to train Iraqi soldiers and police. Needless to say this offer was declined because Jafari wants to maintain good relations with the US, as the military presence is still useful to him. Iraq today is more Islamic then ever it was under Saddam, who wished to suppressed the Shite majority that was aligned with the Shiite majortiy in Iran. Dorman the view that Bush the only thing Bush is achieving against Islam is to provide it with target practice, both in terms of rhetoric and bodies. If this is the kind of change you advocate, please see point one.
To All: here is very good blog by tweenty something year old female living in Baghdad. She appears to have been educated in the west, and very articulate. She provides yet again a different perspective.
riverbend blog of 20 something female in Iraq
I don't believe dialogue will be effective in the effort to remove Islam from the world. A more effective option would be to seduce muslims with the riches of the west, or maybe more truthfully the hedonism of the west. Don't attack Islam just water it down and therefore render it practically meaningless.
ANYS, while I am glad you don't advocate military force. It seems somehow you suggest a pretty limited outlook for the world relations.
once again, it was not me that said "kill them all"....I did in earlier , much earlier posts, to get reactions and to start a dialog but holy hell folks, you can't start a debate with someone that provides simple and straight forward answers to everything by bringing your own statements into it then arguing that I said that stuff. Looking back on most of these comments....some, at best, have very little to do with anything in the original post.
Funny how you all tell me I am wrong about islam or my methodology, but by example you (collectively) don't seem to be able to handle straight and direct information yourselves. What are you saving ME from? Apparently, I have the ability to see things simply and direct when they present themselves that way, and most of you convolute the issues until they are frustratingly obscured.....or is that the point?
Where's my Soma?
>Second, "Save me from myself"? Brainhell
>said it, many of you feel some burden to
>do so too. Where the heck do you people
>come from?
I just mean to prevent you from spinning your logical and emotional wheels on a surface that offers no traction. Because I like your blog and you, I want to help you avoid embarrassing yourself with intellectual error.
>How in the hell do I endanger myself by
>speaking up about a worldwide problem?
You don't. I'm glad you spoke. I hope you're glad some folks answered.
> Or having a voice and excercising my informed opinions?
Having a voice is good. I'm not convinced your opinions are 'informed,' but that can go both ways.
>Or is this just one of those keeping the
>sheep in line, stay programmed and happy
>like in a Brave New World? Where's my
>next dose of Soma?
That's for Washington to administer. I hope I'm not in that business.
>Third, pointing out problems with other religions
>has no bearing on the argument against islam.
True but it's the same thing. There's no traction there. Criticizing an established religion is like arguing over favorite colors. There's no point.
>...you (collectively) don't seem to be able
>to handle straight and direct information yourselves.
My impression is that you've offered some facts, and a lot of opinions dressed as facts. Then you reach conclusions which I don't agree with, based on faulty reasoning from the facts and the the faux facts. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, I'm just disagreeing, which i consider a compliment.
>... most of you convolute the issues until
>they are frustratingly obscured.....or is
>that the point?
I love simple. clear answers. I think sometimes we want one so much that we put blinders on and accept error for comfort.
>Where's my Soma?
Refer to those audio lectures you posted.
My plan, somehow some of you have devined a 'plan' from this post when in fact this post has nothing to do with 'plans' but has everything to do with facing the truth that islam is, vesus the crap disinformation to which you have been subjected by gov'ts and media to keep you sedate and placid.
Because something has been around for over 1400 years does NOT mean that a)it SHOULD be around b)it is right or righteous c( it is impenetrable.
Prostitution has been around much longer and many seek to remove it from society.
Mohammed removed the reigning religion of the day by the sword. Once again, I hoped to take a more civilized approach, apparently no one accepts that, by starting with changing the minds of the civilized people (assumedly you) in reference to your irrational protection of this violent, corrupt, and dangerous religion/culture. Once the masses stop making excuses for islam, then the world can handle it directly and appropriately. Decaptitating islam by preventing further islamic states is a probabe and effective method. We are doing that now. I said eons ago that for islam to be 'safe' it needs to be socially neutrlized like christianity and judaism. Once the religion/culture/law of islam becomes just the religion (as a set of curious superstitions and traditional holiday and fast prctices)then the world is safer and true islam has been defeated.
As for my kill them all and let allah sort them out....sure. Let any of the true muslims seek paradise at the end of my gun. We aren't getting IEDs, RPGs, and shot at by our local girl scout troop down here, and it has nothing to do with secular politics either.
Crys, you are right, we are both pretty wound up. Any suggestions?
Dorman,
>>
Oh, wait, isn't that what Bush has been doing without you noticing?
<<
>>
... Mohammed removed the reigning religion of the day by the sword. Once again, I hoped to take a more civilized approach,...
<<
So what part of the Iraqi invasion was the civil part. It seemed the military and shooting and air strikes and innocent civilians being killed and the "we don't count civilian casualities" part was the military part.
Clarifications?
Dorman,
>>
... Mohammed removed the reigning religion of the day by the sword. Once again, I hoped to take a more civilized approach,...
<<
People will probably be more inclined to believe the civilized part, once you leave the armed forces and leave Iraq as an occupier.
a secular society is one of the first major steps. How much power does the C of E hold right now? How about the vatican outside italy?
Communism was deemed harmful and we as a society and nation worked diligently to bring it down. Same with Nazism. Same with the drug culture, Ruby Ridge, Waco, a whole host of examples of ideologies, religious movements, politics, that you and I have accepted as harmful, negative, and worthy of elimination or neutralization. Islam is no different except in the eyes of the media-trained american public. Notice most of the rest of the civilized world dos not blindly defend the idea of islam as dedicatedly as the americans do. EVEN THO ISLAM AT ITS BEST IS ANTITHETICAL TO AMERICAN PRINCIPLES. Women's rights, equal rights, democracy, capitalism, property rights, free speech, so many more. So this mantra of "Islam is peace" is spoken like so many zombies daftly repeating "Brains...".
Death is peace. submission is peace because you've been dominated and given up. Isolation is peace. Paxil is peace. So many things are "peace" that even that mantra becomes empty upon examnation.
Oh, and anonymous...westernizing the muslims from the middle east, the real muslims, won't work eiher. Many move to europe and what happens? Do they assimilate into society like normal immigrants/people? No, they coagulat into groups, then communities where they set up a little middle-east of their own. Then bring down the host society by sponging off it. Until they then become frustrated or seek paradise and carry out a terrorist attack. Research Sweden's muslim immigration problem, research Britain's response to their bombings, quite different than ours. Research western europe's attitude towards the influx. America is alone in its conflicted view of islam, what we do and what we say are diametrically opposed...and franly, as a nation comes off as patently stupid.
Dorman,
<<
Prostitution has been around much longer and many seek to remove it from society
<<
Will they succede? I will wager you that at the end of my life or your life, which ever comes first, every country in the "free world" will have prostitution.
APoV. This coming from a peron that has not committed to disclosing their gender, age, nor nationality. As a prime Nay-sayer, how about you bring your nay-saying allies down here and take over. Be glad to sweep my tent out for ya.
Nay-sayers say nay so they don't ever feel the need to get involved. I have no time for nay-sayers. Everthing is a negative critique of someone else's actions from the sidelines.
There is a saying we use here....In my left hand i have a pile of excuses and in my right hand, a pile of shit. Which has more substance?
Dorman,
<<
once again, it was not me that said "kill them all"....I did in earlier , much earlier posts, to get reactions and to start a dialog but holy hell folks,
<<
I liked the part "I did in earlier posts" - ( but never mind that now At the same time let's examine what Koran in great literal detail, a book which written "much earlier". This kind of double standard is convenient. )
If you are going to back away from a position that's fine, but at least tell a few people, otherwise how are we supposed to know.
Dorman, if I say nay, to an Iraqi Invasion by the US soldiers, than I am proud to be a nay sayer. The facts are simple the US is an occuyping army for reasons that have turned out to be utterly false. How much simpler can we get.
Dorman, your own country advocates that we are all created equal, regardless of race, sex or beliefs. Why is my identity relevant?
Dorman, as for the a negotiated trasnfer of power that would be the best thing for the US. But guess what, probably the country in the best position to do that is Iran. So much for stopping the spread of Islam.
Dorman, here is an unfortunate article that high lights the Saudi view of what is happening in Iraq. To clarify the Saudi's of course are staunch allies of the US:
The Saudi government yesterday warned that Iraq is hurtling towards disintegration and that an election planned for December is unlikely to make any difference. The government said it was delivering this bleak assessment to both the US and British administrations as a matter of urgency
one way to kill an intelligent debate...drown out signal with noise. Looks like this debate has been buried in noise without much attention to the content and purpose of the original post....who listens to a disembodied voice in the darkness? apparently no one.
IL,Dorman, sorry.
> Looks like this debate has been buried in noise
Define 'noise' as people not agreeing that you are right, and you're home free.
Brainhell, hate to ask this but are you saying that you advise me to give up a fight for what I think is right because in your view it is hopeless for one man to try to make a difference in his fate and the fate of the world?
and I don't mind people disagreeing with me as long as they bring some fact instead of the odd posture of their heads in their asses.
"Looks like this debate has been buried in noise without much attention to the content and purpose of the original post..."
This sure looks like a definition to me.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The closest person to proving Dorman wrong has been IL. Doing their best to disprove something and disagreeing on something are two totally different things. Sorry Dorman but I'm tired of reading useless drivel.
> ...are you saying that you advise me to give
>up a fight for what I think is right because in
>your view it is hopeless for one man to try to
>make a difference in his fate and the fate of the world?
I'm not saying give up, just stating my opinion that you're wasting your time pointing the finger at Islam, because there's no traction there. I cannot prove you wrong, or right, because the 'facts' are malleable when it comes to faith.
I'm trying to be one man making a difference when I share my opinion with you.
>and I don't mind people disagreeing with me as
>long as they bring some fact instead of the
>odd posture of their heads in their asses.
I do have the opinion that you're wasting your time, 'proving' through 'fact' that green is a better color than orange. And good going on the diplomacy, though, I acknowledge, your blog is your place, where you can be you. There's no requirement to be polite.
Amazing that the internet lets me have this discussion with a soldier in a war zone half a world from here.
Well, simply put, I agree 100% with Dorman. There's a world war coming, it's islam versus non-islam. They've been fighting it for years, we're just now realizing it. Spare me all the pc arrogance, the cracks against Jesus and christianity and the like, it means nothing. The goal of islam is the rule the world under islamic law. Any muslim who claims otherwise is a liar. The basis of the religion isn't tolerance and peace for all, it's tolerance and peace if everyone follows islamic law. The crap that passes for rights in places like Saudi is a friggin joke. No religious freedom, no individual rights, no freedom for other ethnic groups, women, etc. How can you look at the way of life in an islamic country and say with a straight face "can't we all just get along".
PC stupidity in the face of the realities of the world around us is dangerous. The only thing that kept OBL and his band of muslim terrorists from killing millions on 9-11 was their ability to deliver the weaponry. They've made it clear that given the tools, they will wipe us off the face of the earth. While there may be muslims who don't believe in all out war against the west, as long as they allow themselves to be represented by groups such as CAIR whose sole goal is to subvert the FBI in trying to identify the next terrorists or squash legitimate questions about their true intentions, I have no use for them. I judge you by the company you keep and those who represent you, and based on that, I'd prefer that your brand of ideology by wiped from the face of the earth.
I believe the PC Nazi apov noted that we should consider what other countries think of us. I really am not interested in what Canadians think. They've lived under our protection for the past 100 years. It's easy to develop your own little shangri lai of peace and stability when you've never had to worry about the things that go bump in the night. Yes, they've contributed over the years, but never once has a Canadian gone to bed at night and wondered about the wolves at their borders. So spare me the self righteous garbage, until your identity has been shaped by standing guard agains the world's evils, I don't really care what you think.
And yes, the United States has been, and continues to be,the best thing going, ever. I don't see millions of Americans racing across the Mexican border now do I?
I agree with Dorman, recently I have also been investigating the origin of islam and the more I delve the more it sickens me. I recomend that before people post comments that they should seriously take a look at the subject. My conclusion is also that it is a law and not a religion. It is a power hungry ideology similar to communism and just like communism is intollerant of other views and religions.
Hey Dorman,how sure are you that Islam is a fake religion??Based on the assumptions and logics is not enough to prove that Islam is a fake religion,or either only law but not a religion.How do you know that Islam is REALLY a fake religion?Did you ever had the guts to read the Koran?Do you REALLY understand what the Koran was conveying?What you said was all totally a blasphemy..If you said that Islam is a a fake religion,then why do Muslims still fight desperately for Islam??Why?
About the 9/11 attacks,yes true they were done by Muslims..But,that does not signifies the whole Muslim community and why the majority of Muslims protested against the act??You said that Islam is violent.If true dat Islam is about violence,then why is it the 2nd world's largest population??You are only a military guy..Not a historian or researcher that truly reseaches for truth.Just only finding fault about Islam..Why?Why?Why?I believed that Islam will live until the Judgement Day.Those who want to crumble Islam will in the end find crumbling themselves instead.
and you are an anonymous poster on a blog.
Lots of people believing in something does not lend to its veracity. People live in denial, masses of people are easier to bring to violence and self-destruction than individuals.
You need to study before you comment, your ignorance of humanity shows.
Islam will be there at the end.....it will be the cause.
Post a Comment
<< Home