PDA

View Full Version : Obsessision: Radical Islam's War against the West




ZoliHonig
07-24-2006, 10:54 AM
I poseted this over in the other thread but I felt that this was such an important movie to watch I really wanted to get it out:

I just watched this video.... All I can say is wow. extremely well made and really opens up you eyes in this situation and the entire global jihad:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6162397493278181614&q=obsession+ho nestreporting

It's long, I know, but worth every second to watch it...




GyroGo
07-24-2006, 11:54 AM
EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH


"The only thing necessary for
for the triumph of evil...
...is for good men to do nothing."

Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Irish philosopher, statesman

roro
07-24-2006, 12:23 PM
EVERYONE SHOULD WATCH






...and a Michael Moore Video, too.
To remain impartial.

Rob

ZoliHonig
07-24-2006, 01:10 PM
Michael moore gets a segment in this video...

Desert_Seg
07-24-2006, 03:19 PM
Zoli, good post. Had seen the majority of it before but watched it again. Now, please don't take my response below as an attack of any sort. This is only meant to point out BOTH sides from somebody who has lived it for 20 years (by lived it I mean studied, taught, and lived in the region).

I would also like to point out that I am not a Zionist nor am I an Islamist. I believe my self to be an Arabist....one who has studied the region's history, culture, and religions, from the view point of the Middle East Arab and focused on the Levant and GCC (that is from Egypt to Oman and most things in between, including Israel).

Now, my comments....

Much of what is presented is true, at least from my point of view. Yet any movie that spends 1 hour and 17 minutes banging home a point about Radical Islam is trying to polarize the viewer.

That being said I don't disagree with the premise of the movie and it dovetails nicely with some very same topics I taught, wrote about, or have discussed in the past three (3) years.

There IS a huge problem out there that is being ignored. It is being ignored by the western world because it happens in mostly poor countries where a charismatic leader can often easily influence the disenfranchised (sound like anybody from the late 30's?). It is being ignored by the western world because it happens "over there". Yet we need to be aware that it is happening...not only "over there" but also within our own borders.

Even worse it had been ignored (much less so now) by the regional world (that is, the Middle East) until recently. Ignored because it focused the attention of the disenfranchised upon the western world. However, the same problems the western world is facing (the bombings, etc) have struck home and the regional governments have realized that there is a GLOBAL problem that also affects them, a problem that was virtually home grown (after all Wahabism is a root of many of the Jihadists) and has now come back home to haunt them.

In past discourse (not here, but elsewhere) I have likened the Islamist Movment to the Crusades of 600 years ago, a time when Christians tried to take over the earth and convert everybody to the one true church. If we fail to study history, we are doomed to repeat it, this time with 200 million Islamic extremists (yes, that is a conservative number of about how many extreme Muslims (aka Jihadists) are out there) trying to succeed where others failed.

HOWEVER....all that being said....

I can also say, in the same last three (3) years, I have seen very similar productions from Islamic sources against Zionism and have also listened to some true radical Zionists condemn every Muslim in the world, not just the Jihadists. So, although there is a lot of shots of Muslims being worked up into a frenzy, many Muslims yelling anti-US and anti-Israel slogans, it isn't the only side of the story. There have been terrorist Zionist organizations, even in the US, even on the US watch list.

Of course, I'm not equating the size of one group to the size of the other, just pointing out that there are two sides to every coin. BTW, from my point of view the mental pattern of true zeaolot Zionists is extremely similar to Jihadists...it is a thought pattern of fanaticism and extremism, and the like. Neither is right, neither is the path to follow.

So, to wrap it up. There is a huge problem out there....a HUGE problem. It is much larger than though and it does live and breath within the borders of EVERY country. That being said, the MAJORITY of Muslims are peace loving, Islam is a peaceful religion, (after all Islam comes from the root word Salam, which means peace). So, while this might polarize you into trying to understand the situation even more, please don't let it polarize you into believing the dramatic representations in their entirety.

Yes, Radical Islam is a problem, yes Radical Islam needs to be controlled BUT, the same can be said of Radical Zionism. I'd also like to point out that the anti-Semitism that we see in the Radical Islam movement is nothing unique, heck, we see it in the US militia and white supremacists, we see it in the European skinhead movement, we see it in many places...and those are threats we do NOT want to ignore either.

I also don't think this is going to get better any time soon, not at all. But the Muslims who live in peace, side by side with Jews, Copt Christians, Catholics, Hindus, Taoists, you name it, are the majority but, if you believe much of popular press they are in the minority.

So, while there is a problem DISCOURSE is the way to solve it, although that is much easier said than done.

Again, good presentation but it is meant to polarize and you probably need to be worried when its tagline is "zionist propaganda" so please do more research than just this piece.

Finally, I'd like to add something...Michael Moore is an idiot. What brain cell did he use to say there isn't a terrorist threat? I can't say it enough, Micheal Moore is an idiot!

Steven

GyroGo
07-24-2006, 06:13 PM
One thing I wonder about is how the 10%-15% number was calculated. How do these stats break down? Is Jihad more of a Sunni or Shite dogma? What about geographically, for example, what are the different percentages in the GCC states, in Egypt, in Afghanistan, in Jordan, in Sudan, in Syrian, in Iran... the rest of the Muslim world? THAT's one I'd like to see in the CIA fact book, maybe it's in the classified version.

ZoliHonig
07-24-2006, 07:51 PM
Steven- I understand that you are just showing both sides of the coin here, but seriously, come on. When's the last time you heard of 'Radical Zionists' blowing themselves up in a crowded pizza shop or flying planes into civillian occupied buildings?

You're comparing an elephant to a paramecium.... there is no comparison and are entirely different (not just size-wise).

KSagal
07-24-2006, 08:57 PM
I too wish to thank ZOli for bringing that link to this forum.

I found that it was dreadfully long, and simply full of dread.

While I generally find that I aggree with much of Steven says, and surely do understand much of what he offered here, I am not so sure I would come to some of the same assessments that he has... There is surely merit in many of his arguments and considerations, and clearly the hour an a third was heavy on propaganda.

As far as giving Michael Moore equal time, that not needed. He can make his point in much less than an hour. After about 5 minutes of Michael Moore, if you do not understand his position and ALL the facts that he has, you are not his audience anyway. I feel him to be an opportunist and partisan fool, and only preaches to the same. The rest who are listening are there for another reason beside contemplative consideration...

One thing that has bothered me about the muslim jihad and all the numbers that have been bandied about, is just how accurate the estimates are for the support in the muslim community for the extreamists.

Pam commented on the reaction to the people from the neighboring convention in Chi town, about the segway. It was dismissed because Kamen was declared to be Jewish. I would doubt that we would call them jihadists.

When Jim Jones had his followers in Guiannna, and fed them all coolaide that killed them (Many young people do not understand the reference to coolaide drinkers) and they willingly drank it because he convinced them that it was the religiously right thing to do...

Anyway, Jones had declared himself as a proper christian, who was enlightened. He then killed all those followers... There was outcry from christians from all over, including the Pope, and the head of many if not most all christian churches all over the globe, distancing themselves and their churches from the 'Christian" that Jones was. They were very quick to say that Jones did not represent christianity in any way...

Now think of the many attacks and events in this jihad. How many muslim leaders have been vocal in denouncing these attrocities? Very few. One or two have come out like Arafat, and said that he did not condone terrorism when speaking in english, then turn right around and speak in arabic about supporting the jihad. Most others have been deafeningly silent.

I recall the scramble that the media went thru to find muslim leaders to explain what was going on after 9-11. They had no muslim leaders, they had 'department heads of muslim studies' from 2nd rate universities as the spokespeople. Not leaders of muslims.

Even Jewish leaders around the world are vocal about support or lack of it for activities in Israel. Other religions speak openly about others within their religion, either in support or to declare them as out of the mainstream...

Muslim Sunami victims were denied aid offered by Isreal. Their own governments would rather not allow Israeli aid workers in their country. This is not the action of people who do not support jihad.

I don't know of any government sponsored textbooks for children that teach hate, other than in muslim national schools in various countries. Here, the parallel to the Hitler youth is a good one. These are not the school textbooks of people who do not support jihad.

Now, I do not doubt that there are christian fundementalists who are radical. I do not doubt Jewish fundamentalists who are radical as well. I also believe that they could conspire within their little groups and may even assinate an opposing leader from time to time. But the numbers are not the same as what we are looking at here...

Let's look at one more thing. All those missles in southern Lebanon that are raining down on northern Israel. What about that great mass of Israeli army, out in plain site, in large groups sitting around. Talk about painting a target on themselves...

Yet the missles are still comming down in the towns and villiages, not on the military targets... THis indicates a great deal to me. THis is not a war against Israel. It has nothing to do with Israel's occupation of Lebanon, as they have been out for years. This is about killing jews. Any jews. Preferably women and children, as this is a better target to demoralize people...

I will state again as I have stated before. I am a libertarian, and feel that the government should stay out of people's lives, and let them do what they want without interferance. THat is only if that which they do does not adversly affect their neighbor. Any person who's chosen path leads over the dead children of any neighbor, does not have any of my respect, no way, no how...

roro
07-25-2006, 04:50 AM
I've been in Cairo in June.

In the Arabic TV they showed an US tank in Iraq.
In this tank there were three soldiers, the oldest maybe 23 or 24.

On the helmet of one soldier was written : www.fullautofun2.com
-have a look on this homepage-

The other soldier was playing obsessively a war game on his
Portable Play Station.

The driver -finger on the trigger- had an Ipod on his helmet and was listening to Bruce Springsteens "War".
The sound level was so high that you could hear it from outside.

I don't understand Arabic, but only the pictures were enough.

The US Movie which Zoli posted makes people scared.
But also the Arabic Movie makes people scared.

My heart beats for America, but nobody should watch this Propaganda-Shi*

God Bless America

Rob

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 05:25 AM
One thing I wonder about is how the 10%-15% number was calculated. How do these stats break down?

This is very hard to gauge and some of the experts in this field with whom I've spoken say that is is nothing more than a SWAG (Scientific Wild *** Guess). Statistically this can be computed with a high degre of accuracy but the unknown is how many more "followers" will happen if certain events occur.

I should also point out that the 10 - 15% number is those who are considered radical. They are NOT all suicide bombers or even people who might go out and cause harm, they are just the extreme right of Islam.

Is Jihad more of a Sunni or Shite dogma?

Much more Shiite than Sunni but that doesn't mean the Sunni's dont' also have rhetoric. This majority lean is often attributed to the source of leadership for the Shiite....Iran.

What about geographically, for example, what are the different percentages in the GCC states, in Egypt, in Afghanistan, in Jordan, in Sudan, in Syrian, in Iran... the rest of the Muslim world? THAT's one I'd like to see in the CIA fact book, maybe it's in the classified version.

The dogma v geographical separation is predominantly on the Shiite / Sunni lines rather than on a pure geographical separation. As an example, Egypt, which is predominantely Sunni, is the home of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is classified as a terrorist organization and is built upon the Sunni sect.

However, it is my belief that this 10 to 15 % is likely fairly close in many countries, just some are more overt than others.

Hope this helps,

Steven

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 05:29 AM
Steven- I understand that you are just showing both sides of the coin here, but seriously, come on. When's the last time you heard of 'Radical Zionists' blowing themselves up in a crowded pizza shop or flying planes into civillian occupied buildings?

You're comparing an elephant to a paramecium.... there is no comparison and are entirely different (not just size-wise).

Size matters not. After all, Timothy McVeigh had only one helper and in one fell swoop destroyed the lives of thousands.

In 1928, who would have thought that the Muslim Brotherhood would be what it is today?

In 1990 who would have thought that Al Quaeda would be what it is today?

Doesn't take much to become big real fast.

Steven

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 05:44 AM
Now think of the many attacks and events in this jihad. How many muslim leaders have been vocal in denouncing these attrocities? Very few. One or two have come out like Arafat, and said that he did not condone terrorism when speaking in english, then turn right around and speak in arabic about supporting the jihad. Most others have been deafeningly silent.
Many Muslim leaders have condemned the attacks. King Fahd and King Abdullah (Saudi), King Abdullah (Jordan), Sheikh Zayed and Sheikh Mohammed (UAE), Sheikh Al Thani (Qatar), Sheikh Sabah (Kuwait), and on and on. Yes, some do not condemn it but many have.

However, please note that Muslim leaders are different than ISLAMIC leaders / scholars.

Muslim Sunami victims were denied aid offered by Isreal. Their own governments would rather not allow Israeli aid workers in their country. This is not the action of people who do not support jihad.
Agree and I thought it was deplorable.

I don't know of any government sponsored textbooks for children that teach hate, other than in muslim national schools in various countries. Here, the parallel to the Hitler youth is a good one. These are not the school textbooks of people who do not support jihad.
Heck, the Egyptian schoolbooks say they won the Six Day War!

This practice is banned in both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (the two worst offenders a few years ago) but it does still happen.

Let's look at one more thing. All those missles in southern Lebanon that are raining down on northern Israel. What about that great mass of Israeli army, out in plain site, in large groups sitting around. Talk about painting a target on themselves...

Yet the missles are still comming down in the towns and villiages, not on the military targets... THis indicates a great deal to me. THis is not a war against Israel. It has nothing to do with Israel's occupation of Lebanon, as they have been out for years. This is about killing jews. Any jews. Preferably women and children, as this is a better target to demoralize people...
I point out again that if it was Christians there they would still be raining the rounds (not missiles) down upon them. This is not a war against Judaism, it is a war because they belive the land is theirs. The war agains Judaism is a convenient excuse (sad excuse, but convenient none the less). Remember, they have nothing agains Judaism (that is why there are Synagogues in Egypt and Syria, two Muslim countries).

While I have been called conservative liberal or, depending on your point of view, a liberal conservative, I am really a centrist who does believe we can all get along...but it sure takes a hell of a lot more effort than just blowing the S**T out of each other.

As Steven Wright once said "I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize"...and many have!

Steven

ZoliHonig
07-25-2006, 06:34 AM
Steven- if ti isw a war for land, than why were ther terrorist attacks fro 1948 to 1967 when we didn't own the West Bank or Gaza, and why where there terrorist attacks days after we pulled out of gaza? Why was the 1947 Partition plan denies as well as countless other land for peace agreements?

I don't know if you noticed bu there was guy in that video- Wallid Shoeblat was a former PLO terrorist that moved here and converted to christianity. He spoke at my school last year and told us.... Don't waste your time with giving the Palestinians land. They don't want land. They want you dead. This wasn't coming from some right wing Jew, this was coming from a former Palestinian that lived his life with them for more than 18 years. I'd sasy he has a pretty good grasp on things.

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 08:27 AM
Steven- if ti isw a war for land, than why were ther terrorist attacks fro 1948 to 1967 when we didn't own the West Bank or Gaza, and why where there terrorist attacks days after we pulled out of gaza? Why was the 1947 Partition plan denies as well as countless other land for peace agreements?

Because at that time you owned (and still do) something that they believe is their birthright. The rest of Israel.

I don't know if you noticed bu there was guy in that video- Wallid Shoeblat was a former PLO terrorist that moved here and converted to christianity. He spoke at my school last year and told us.... Don't waste your time with giving the Palestinians land. They don't want land. They want you dead. This wasn't coming from some right wing Jew, this was coming from a former Palestinian that lived his life with them for more than 18 years. I'd sasy he has a pretty good grasp on things.

I too have heard Walid Shoeblat speak and his is a compelling story. But I believe he is also the one who got me thinking along this path...that this isn't a religious war, that it is a war about land...ALL the land.

Remember, Islam has nothing agains Judaism, Arabs have nothing against Jews...if not those synagogues (some more than 800 years old) wouldn't be there, nor would you have Arab Israelis, nor would you have Muslims living in Israel.

This whole thing is a land grab. Much as the Arabs believe that is how Israel was formed (a land grab agains them) they are trying to do the same thing to Israel.

Steven

pam
07-25-2006, 08:36 AM
But, looking at it as a land grab (which I'm not discounting) ignores the fact that there are many of the extremists who have now generalized the land issue into a hatred of the Jewish race in general. If you gave them ALL the land, they'd still want to and try to kill the ones they perceive as their "enemy" -

Pam

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 08:44 AM
But, looking at it as a land grab (which I'm not discounting) ignores the fact that there are many of the extremists who have now generalized the land issue into a hatred of the Jewish race in general. If you gave them ALL the land, they'd still want to and try to kill the ones they perceive as their "enemy" -

Pam

This I dont' disagree and, in fact, it supports another facet of radicalism, that nobody except a Muslim can live and THAT is the real problem.

BTW, there are quite a few Arabs who believe that this is a land grab that has turned into political hot potato and that there is no real value to the argument. In fact, many hoped that when Yasser Arafat died that much of this would go away, as this was his raison d'etre.

He did....it didn't.

Steven

ZoliHonig
07-25-2006, 11:01 AM
Note: Obviously I'm a Zionist by my israeli flag icon / bubble but this is common sense here:

Steven, you gotta stop the garbage of a land grab. If your definition of "land grab" is to obtain all the land, and I mean every square inch in not just Israel but every square inch on every single continent with all the non muslims dead, then yes. It is indeed a land grab.

Otherwise it's not. Let's say one day *poof* Israel disapears and becomes Palestine. No Jews there at all... we move to Uganda. Do you really think that the radical Muslims will just give up and say, thank you very much. We're good now. DO you think they'll just stop burining Israeli, American, and British flags??

America has taken none of thier land, nor has Britain, yet their flags are beling stepped on, burned, and desecrated along with the flag of the Jewish State.

Let's make one thing clear though: There was never a sovereign "Palestine" that the jews "stole" from the palestinians. The land was owned by Turkey, then Britain, then the UN decalred a partition plan in 1947: The jews (then called the palestinians) accepted, the Arabs did not. Thus, The Jews declared the state of Israel, while the Arabs could have done the same but did not declare a state, rather stocked up on weapons and continued its daily terrorist attacks.

Once again, if all the land in Israel is all they want then there would not be a Sept. 11th or Madrid train bombings, or Iraq car bombings, or Egyptian hotel bombings, or London bus bombings..... It's not just the land. period.

Sal
07-25-2006, 11:36 AM
I agree, this is not merely a land grab, it cuts much deeper than that. This is all truly about ideology -- radical Islam's warped worldview.

-Sal

GyroGo
07-25-2006, 11:36 AM
This I dont' disagree and, in fact, it supports another facet of radicalism, that nobody except a Muslim can live and THAT is the real problem.
Steven, I find myself often agreeing with much you say, but here I find you talking out of both sides of your mouth. So you are saying that it is a land grab not just to destroy infidels, and, oh, by the way, they want all the infidels dead too. I find it hard to reconcile that.

Also interesting that you address Zoli: "Because at that time you owned (and still do) something that they believe is their birthright. The rest of Israel." Zoli's location says NY. hehe, a little irony.

On another small but interesting point, if there are Muslims that aren't interested in Segway because it was invented by a Jew (Pam's anecdote - maybe on the other Israel thread), then I could not even imagine the amount of science and technology they would have to turn away from. A search of "Jewish" in Wikipedia's article on the Manhattan Project would indicate that they would have to ignore nukes too.

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 11:55 AM
Steven, you gotta stop the garbage of a land grab. If your definition of "land grab" is to obtain all the land, and I mean every square inch in not just Israel but every square inch on every single continent with all the non muslims dead, then yes. It is indeed a land grab.

Not garbage but an opinion and belief. You believe otherwise and I respect that, at least respect both my opinion and that I have studied this for 20 years. And no, I don't mean every inch of the world, and neither do Hezbollah and Hamas, at least not in this instance. They just want the land they declare is rightfully theirs.

Otherwise it's not. Let's say one day *poof* Israel disapears and becomes Palestine. No Jews there at all... we move to Uganda. Do you really think that the radical Muslims will just give up and say, thank you very much. We're good now. DO you think they'll just stop burining Israeli, American, and British flags??

America has taken none of thier land, nor has Britain, yet their flags are beling stepped on, burned, and desecrated along with the flag of the Jewish State.


You are making a common mistake, one in equating the attacks on Israel by the Hezbollah or Hamas with events that happen elsewhere in the world. A has nothing to do with B except in that they might both be perpetrated by people who have similar hate patterns.

You are also equating the burning of flags to the bombing of and in Israel. The burning of the flags often have to do with expressions of hate and disgust and may lead to bombings but don't mean anything more than symbolic events.

You are also making an unstated claim (that is, you are attempting to create a tie in) of:

They burn Israeli flags
They attack Israel
They burn US and UK flags
ERGO
They must be about to attack US and UK

Based on that analogy, Venezuela, Cuba, and most of the countries in the G8 are also going to attack the US....

Let's make one thing clear though: There was never a sovereign "Palestine" that the jews "stole" from the palestinians. The land was owned by Turkey, then Britain, then the UN decalred a partition plan in 1947: The jews (then called the palestinians) accepted, the Arabs did not. Thus, The Jews declared the state of Israel, while the Arabs could have done the same but did not declare a state, rather stocked up on weapons and continued its daily terrorist attacks.

I never said that there was a sovereign Palestine, nor did I say it was stolen from them. What I said is that Arabs feel that the land was taken from them, an assertion that has been made over and over and over again by the Arabs.

I also never said that I believe the Balfour Treaty and the ensuing UN initiatives were wrong. I reiterate...the Arabs feel this was wrong and that these wrongs are the root cause of their angst.

Once again, if all the land in Israel is all they want then there would not be a Sept. 11th or Madrid train bombings, or Iraq car bombings, or Egyptian hotel bombings, or London bus bombings..... It's not just the land. period.

Yes, those would likely have happened....different groups against different causes.

1. Sept 11th - Anger against the Great Satan (US)

2. Madrid - Retribution for Spain's support of and action in Iraq

3. Iraq car bombings - Attempt to overthrow a new government / country and to inflict damage on the US

4. Egyptian Hotels - Muslim Brotherhood trying to overthrow Hosni Mubarak's government and install a Sharia compliant government

5. London bombings - Attack against the UK for their participation in Iraq and Afghanistan and their support of the Great Satan.

Don't confuse A and B....it is what polarization is all about!

Steven

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 12:04 PM
I agree, this is not merely a land grab, it cuts much deeper than that. This is all truly about ideology -- radical Islam's warped worldview.

-Sal

Remember, there are two different subjects we are talking about here.

Hezbollah and Hamas and the reclamation of what they see as their land (again, I'm not saying it is, only their perspective that it is).

Al Quaeda and the like who are trying to bring down non-Sharia compliant countries.

Neither is mutually exclusive of each other BUT their stated objectives may be different.

Steven

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 12:10 PM
Steven, I find myself often agreeing with much you say, but here I find you talking out of both sides of your mouth. So you are saying that it is a land grab not just to destroy infidels, and, oh, by the way, they want all the infidels dead too. I find it hard to reconcile that.

Remember, there are two different subjects we are talking about here.

Hezbollah and Hamas and the reclamation of what they see as their land (again, I'm not saying it is, only their perspective that it is)...which I call the Land Grab.

Al Quaeda and the like who are trying to bring down non-Sharia compliant countries, which is the death to the infidels.

Neither is mutually exclusive of each other BUT their stated objectives may be different.

Also interesting that you address Zoli: "Because at that time you owned (and still do) something that they believe is their birthright. The rest of Israel." Zoli's location says NY. hehe, a little irony.

Nah, more of a slip. I was talking about the Israelis, not Zoli in particular.

On another small but interesting point, if there are Muslims that aren't interested in Segway because it was invented by a Jew (Pam's anecdote - maybe on the other Israel thread), then I could not even imagine the amount of science and technology they would have to turn away from. A search of "Jewish" in Wikipedia's article on the Manhattan Project would indicate that they would have to ignore nukes too.

Agreed. But remember, strange bedfollows in strained times. BTW, I have sold more than 50 Segways to Muslims, and I'm sure there are many more. This anecdote is cute but that's about it.

BTW, the Manhattan Project was the first to "develop" the atom bomb...there were others close behind. As a totally off-topic comment, my physics teacher at UCSD had worked on the Manhattan Project ... boy did he have great stories to tell.

Steven

GyroGo
07-25-2006, 12:24 PM
BTW, the Manhattan Project was the first to "develop" the atom bomb...there were others close behind.
It's probably not very PC of me to say this, but if you take away all the science and technology by ALL infidels, take away the money from oil, the Muslim countries that would be "close behind" would be so by about a thousand years.

I hope humans can still inhabit this planet a thousand years from now.

Desert_Seg
07-25-2006, 01:01 PM
It's probably not very PC of me to say this, but if you take away all the science and technology by ALL infidels, take away the money from oil, the Muslim countries that would be "close behind" would be so by about a thousand years.

I hope humans can still inhabit this planet a thousand years from now.

I'm going to be even more un-PC. Background:

I have a very good Saudi friend. Father is a US educated PHD professor at one of the leading Saudi Universities, Mother is college graduate (very rare in Saudi at her age), both sons are US college graduates, and their daughter (who now is in her early 30's) was sent to school in the US (high school and college because her parents thought it would be in her best interest.

This family is very well off, very well educated, and very open minded. Like many Saudis, they also have a series of maids, a couple of which were Filipino. All their staff are treated as close to family as is socially acceptable.

One day, sitting at their house chit chatting, somebody (one of their guests) made a comment about how he couldn't believe that Filipino's belonged on earth as they were dirty. Eisa (my friend) responded in a one line major cut down (I'm paraphrasing as I dont know the exact words):

There but for Allah's will go you. If oil had been found in the Phillipines and not here, we would all be in the Phillipines making their beds and serving their drinks. You need to think of that the next time you make fun of them.

Eisa then threw the guy out and let everybody know that he would do it to them too.

Anyway, I agree with Eisa. It is all luck of the draw.

Oman, almost no oil, 90 KM in one direction, 9% of the world's oil reserves.
Dubai, almost no oil, 160 KM in one direction, 9% of the world's oil reserves.

Sometimes I wish that the deserts would be turned into giant glass plates (sand (silica) + heat = glass)....let's see where people stand then.

Sad, but I don't think we will be around in 1,000 years. If we don't kill ourselves one by one, we will destroy the planet.

Steven

RC Mike
07-25-2006, 03:02 PM
Remember, there are two different subjects we are talking about here.

Hezbollah and Hamas and the reclamation of what they see as their land (again, I'm not saying it is, only their perspective that it is)...which I call the Land Grab.

Al Quaeda and the like who are trying to bring down non-Sharia compliant countries, which is the death to the infidels.

Neither is mutually exclusive of each other BUT their stated objectives may be different.
On this very narrow technical issue, I would agree with Steven. But something tells me, that in Zoli's hypothisis (in addition to a bunch of pissed off Ugandans) that these people who have no skills to speak of, no job prospects, no worthwile government, Etc. would find something else to be mad at, and would probably quickly become Al Queda of Palestine.

Mike

GyroGo
07-25-2006, 04:22 PM
(in addition to a bunch of pissed off Ugandans)
And the 16% of the Ugandan population that are Muslim (according to the CIA Factbook) would be really REALLY pissed off :eek: .

:D

ZoliHonig
07-25-2006, 06:52 PM
I mentioned Uganda because that was suggested to the Jews living in English Palestine as a state.

RC Mike
07-25-2006, 07:34 PM
I was just poking a little fun trying to make a point. That no matter where someone "set-up" a state, it will not make people happy. See also Iraq, Turkey, Chekozlovakia, pretty much all of Africa, India, Pakistan, Etc.

The only real unoccupied land around is Antartica, and putting the jews there will really piss Al Gore off, so it looks like bad news for the jews.

GyroGo
07-25-2006, 08:13 PM
That no matter where someone "set-up" a state, it will not make people happy. See also Iraq, Turkey, Chekozlovakia, pretty much all of Africa, India, Pakistan, Etc.
That explains why New Yorkers are so unhappy.

OK, calm down, it's a joke. I'm a Jew married to a Catholic.

KSagal
07-26-2006, 04:42 AM
The only real unoccupied land around is Antartica, and putting the jews there will really piss Al Gore off, so it looks like bad news for the jews.

I would think, if one were to actually listen to Al Gore, he seems to think that antartica is headed for a semi tropical climate. Just what Israel has now. Coincidence? Maybe not...

Actually, I'm good with Israel where it is. I seem to recall a popular book that spoke of Abraham hanging out there a few thousand years before Mohamed was born. So much for the palestinians wanting to 'take their land back'.

Find a dictionary or enclyclopedia from before the 40s. You may be surprised to see the definintion of palestinian. My dictionary includes, in part, the presumption of "Jews from the area around Jeruslem"...

And lastly, even though I believe Steven believes what he says about the different factions of radical Muslims that hate Jews for different reasons, and therefore are all separate and not-so-connected a problem, I cannot agree. That would be the same as saying that the Germans and the Japanese could not be called enemies during WW2, because they had different agendas, and had very different reasons for killing americans. As if we could not call them common enemies.

I don't care why a particular person wants to kill any jewish baby. They are all wrong to go there. It shows me comonality when they blow up buidings in NY and Washington DC, overlook the Israeli military and bomb children in Haifa, allow their own children to starve rather than accept help from Israeli aid workers, or thumb their nose at Pam, because she is on a scooter that a jew invented, blow up partiers in Bali, car bomb US Marines in Lebanon, Kill other "less moslims" and their children, Kill Russian school children, etc. This paragraph could go on for pages...

It is nice that Steven was able to offer a list of Moslim leaders that condemned some terrorist attacks, but it did not make much press here. Perhaps the press where Steven lives is almost as 'hate America" as the press is here...

I do recall a (I believe he was a Saudi Prince) that had a check and offered it to Rudi Guliani right after the world trade center bombings. He offered the money, but it came with a lecture on how the United States had brought it on themselves... I am proud to say he refused the check and sent the man on his way...

I do believe that people should be allowed to live their lives in peace, and the governments should stay out of it.... Unless someown is in danger of gettin hurt. THen the governments need to protect their citizens...

Desert_Seg
07-26-2006, 05:34 AM
Actually, I'm good with Israel where it is. I seem to recall a popular book that spoke of Abraham hanging out there a few thousand years before Mohamed was born. So much for the palestinians wanting to 'take their land back'.
True, but since the Muslims trace their heritage all the way back to Abraham you've sort of just supported their point

Find a dictionary or enclyclopedia from before the 40s. You may be surprised to see the definintion of palestinian. My dictionary includes, in part, the presumption of "Jews from the area around Jeruslem"...
Again true but most dictionaries (including yours maybe)also includessomething similar to "an ethnic group of Arabs formerly living in Palestine."

I'd like to make another point. Jew or Jewish denotes the religious practice of a group of people NOT an ethnic group. Not all Israelis are Jewish and not all Jews are Israeli.

Arab denotes people of a particular region. The broad definition of an Arab is:

"A member of a Semitic people originally from the Arabian peninsula and surrounding territories who inhabits much of the Middle East, Levant, and northern Africa"

Many people now called Jewish are also Arabs.

And lastly, even though I believe Steven believes what he says about the different factions of radical Muslims that hate Jews for different reasons, and therefore are all separate and not-so-connected a problem, I cannot agree. That would be the same as saying that the Germans and the Japanese could not be called enemies during WW2, because they had different agendas, and had very different reasons for killing americans. As if we could not call them common enemies.
You put words in my mouth. MY words are:

These are two different topics. the attacks on the US / UK, the hate mongering, the burning of the flags v the attacks on Israel

I also didn't say they weren't connected. They are...by Radical Islam. However, Timothy McVeigh (and all white supremacists) also want the destruction of all Jews so are they included in this radical battle?

Yes, they are all common enemies and we need to face them all BUT as any battlefield commander will tell you, each battle front is different.

I don't care why a particular person wants to kill any jewish baby. They are all wrong to go there. It shows me comonality when they blow up buidings in NY and Washington DC, overlook the Israeli military and bomb children in Haifa, allow their own children to starve rather than accept help from Israeli aid workers, or thumb their nose at Pam, because she is on a scooter that a jew invented, blow up partiers in Bali, car bomb US Marines in Lebanon, Kill other "less moslims" and their children, Kill Russian school children, etc. This paragraph could go on for pages...
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The commonality isn't to kill jewish babies (trying to polarize anybody?) but the expansion of Islam worldwide. That is where the problem lies. Yes, we have to fight the common enemy but just where does that enemy lie?

It is nice that Steven was able to offer a list of Moslim leaders that condemned some terrorist attacks, but it did not make much press here. Perhaps the press where Steven lives is almost as 'hate America" as the press is here...
Actually, it was on NBC or CBS nightly news last night, MSNBC again this morning. And the Washington Post also put it on their website. As to why it didn't make the press because....maybe because it doesn't polarize?

I do recall a (I believe he was a Saudi Prince) that had a check and offered it to Rudi Guliani right after the world trade center bombings. He offered the money, but it came with a lecture on how the United States had brought it on themselves... I am proud to say he refused the check and sent the man on his way...
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk. Actually an often misstated "fact". Prince Al Waleed bin Talal (he of many riches and many properties, including a huge chunk of Citibank) gave a check for $10M to a 9/11 Fund. No lecture attached and, in fact, condolences were extended and Prince Al Waleed bin Talal describeb the act as heinous and criminal.

Sometime AFTER the check was accepted (I believe the same day but can't swear to it), Prince Al Waleed bin Talal issued a press release announcing the donation and in there was a statement regarding the US need to address the issues that led to the attack, including commentary about the Israel / Palestinian issue.

Again, no lecture, no scolding, nobody was sent packing. Giulani said check was to be returned, although I believe it was ultimately deposited (but please don't quote me on that).

I do believe that people should be allowed to live their lives in peace, and the governments should stay out of it.... Unless someown is in danger of gettin hurt. THen the governments need to protect their citizens...
I agree but you know what, everybody is a busybody and everybody wants to get involved and, as we all know, too many cooks spoil the broth.

Rodney King, idiot that I think he is, did come up with on lasting legacy...his statement of "Can't we all just get along?".

Steven

GyroGo
07-26-2006, 10:24 AM
Rodney King, idiot that I think he is, did come up with on lasting legacy...his statement of "Can't we all just get along?".

He also said, "I din't do nuthin, get away from me pig".

KSagal
07-26-2006, 12:30 PM
This fun, revising history! It's nice to see so many of us are afflicted with the same selective memory desease...

You say tomato, I say tomaato, let's call the whole war off...

I say, I don't care that the cause is complicated. I don't care that there are horrible injustices all around. I don't care what brought it on, but when any group captures a school, and kills children, they have no ability to justify themselves to me.

When a person feels justified to brainwash their own children and have them wear an explosive vest and send them to the pizza parlor, they will get no quarter from me.

Yes, this is the big time, and when there is war, there will be innocent people that get hurt. There is a huge difference from that and the specific targeting of those innocent people.

It takes two to have a fight. One alone is a dominator, another who resists, makes the war. No one can claim exclusive high moral ground here, in my opinion, but one side surely has lowered the depths that man can go to in this effort of the few trying to subjugate the masses.

It is my opinion that if solutions were wanted, they could be had. I really do not think that is what is being looked for here. That is why you cannot have peace with a group that does not want it, and you cannot have a non-polorized conversation about it.

We all choose our associations, and with the association with a person, we get their baggage. Not too bad a deal, but not perfect. I am happy with my associations, and value my friendships. Even when I know that my baggage burdens my friends, and their baggage burdens me. He is not heavy, he is my brother. That does not mean I cannot shake him and tell him to wake up and fly straight!

GyroGo
07-26-2006, 04:23 PM
This fun, revising history! It's nice to see so many of us are afflicted with the same selective memory desease...

"History is written by the victors".

I'm not sure how that applies here, but it seems to have some poetic relevance.


...I guess I'd rather be in a position to rewrite history than be the victim of twisted fabrication.

ZoliHonig
07-26-2006, 07:18 PM
These thread posts get longer and longer....

I realized what stevens debatign tactics are- write enough and eventually your debater will say its not worth it to read this all... thus defeating his fellow debater.

BTW steven, and Karl, from my studies on Islam, I may be wrong, but that the Quoran doesn't mention jerusalem even once and that Muhamed was never even in Israel....

Am I mistaken?

Sal
07-26-2006, 09:37 PM
"History is written by the victors".

I'm not sure how that applies here, but it seems to have some poetic relevance.


...I guess I'd rather be in a position to rewrite history than be the victim of twisted fabrication.

Churchill said: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

I'd rather Churchill say something like that than the wise folks in our current administration.

-Sal

KSagal
07-26-2006, 10:04 PM
Churchill said: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

I'd rather Churchill say something like that than the wise folks in our current administration.

-Sal


Ah yes..., but SEG America is about to embark with a new administration. And this thread has finally come full circle!

GyroGo
07-27-2006, 04:03 AM
Ah yes..., but SEG America is about to embark with a new administration. And this thread has finally come full circle!
According to the new SegAmerica by-laws, the Segway was invented by Karl Sagal???

Desert_Seg
07-27-2006, 06:34 AM
In the interest of brevity I'm no longer quoting the posts I'm refering to...but I will quote them in order.

1. Gary - Yeah, and he only wanted to get along AFTER he won millions of dollars. Funny how money helps you forgive!

2. Karl, - Yep, your right, you say tomaato, I say tomatoe. Revisionism is the latest form of "creating" history. It's happening in the entire world, including the US.

3. Gary - Sometimes history is also written by the losers. That's why Egypt won the 6 Day War (at least if you live in Egypt they did).

4a. Zoli - Not quite. I write to explain my point, the lenght is because I'm quoting to avoid confusion.

4b. Zoli -You are right. Jerusalem is not SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Koran at all and that, in the bible is is referenced more than 400 times.
- I say referenced because "Jerusalem" isn't the only name by which Jerusalem is know. It had three or four other names, including Zion (spelled, originally I believe, Tzyon) which is how the term Zionist came about.
- HOWEVER, there is a reference to Jerusalem in the Koran. In one of the Suras (chapters) of the Koran there is a description of a dream that Mohammed had in which a horse carried him from the Holy Mosque in Mecca to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. It is believed by many that this reference refers to the location at which the current Al Aqsa Mosque resides, Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

4b. (cont'd) Zoli - sorry that this might be a little long but I wanted to explain why Jerusalem (Quds in Arabic) is holy to Islam.

- Mohammed founded Islam in the early 7th century (circa 622), well after the Judeo-Christian connection to Jerusalem
- Every scholar I've talked to or read (including some Jewish Scholars, BTW) agrees that Mohamed was heavily influenced by both Judeo and Christian beliefs.
- So heavy was the influence that the Qibla (the Islamic prayers) was to be done pointing toward Jerusalem
- Much later during the formative years of Islam the direction changed to Mecca, a city that was originally a pagan "worship" site. It was at this time that Mecca became a holy city to the Muslims
- Whe Mohammed died circa 635, he had not, as Zoli correctly points out, physically ever visited Jerusalem. However, his succesor, Caliph Omar, captured Jerusalem in AD 638.
- I mentioned physically because in the same Sura I mentioned above, Mohammed is said to have ascended to heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel and "visited" with Allah. This ascension is the cause of Lailat al-Miraj, which is a holiday in the Muslim world.
- So, in short, this is ONE of the reasons that Muslims hold Jerusalem holy.

4c. As an aside, the word Arabic word Quds is based on the Hebrew word for holy, and the full Arabic title of Jerusalem is Madinat al-Quds, or Holy City.

4d. As a further aside, the Arabs have also called Jerusalem Zion, a funny coincedence if you ask me.

4e. As an even further aside (last one, I swear) Jerusalem was an Islamic city until circa 1917 (except, of course, when the Crusaders had control of it for 80 or so years). That is but another reason for the Muslim / Arab belief that this land is their land (sung to the Arlie Guthrie tune!).

A few other tidbits:

5. Between 1917 and 1948 the current Israel was under control of the British

6. During the same time period, the Old City of Jerusalem and all of Temple Mount was under the control of Jordan

7. During the 6 Day War Israel captured the Old City and for the first time in more than 2,000 Jerusalem and Temple Mount were under Jewish control

8. Almost immediately Israel handed control of the Old City and Temple Mount back to the Waqf, which is a Muslim Religious Trust.

9. Of almost even greater importance is that since that time it has been illegal for Jews to pray at Temple Mount, although they are free to visit at any time.

Sooooo, the histroy of Jerusalem is one of war, battles, war, poverty, war, battles, and so on and so forth.

By the way, there are only three mono-theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) in the world and they all claim Jerusalem as their holy city. Coincidence?

For more than 2,000 years these three religions have been fighting over Jerusalem. I, for one, wish it to become a "public" city (e.g., not "owned" by any one religion), a form of Vatican, as it were. The devil is in the details on how to make that happen.

I know, I know, I tried to make it brief but 1,400 years of history doesn't easily fit into a few lines!

Steven

GyroGo
07-27-2006, 06:56 AM
I know, I know, I tried to make it brief but 1,400 years of history doesn't easily fit into a few lines!

Somehow, The Brief History of Time is shorter than the history of religion, and much easier to understand.

KSagal
07-27-2006, 09:02 AM
- Mohammed founded Islam in the early 7th century (circa 622), well after the Judeo-Christian connection to Jerusalem

- Whe Mohammed died circa 635, he had not, as Zoli correctly points out, physically ever visited Jerusalem. However, his succesor, Caliph Omar, captured Jerusalem in AD 638.


4e. As an even further aside (last one, I swear) Jerusalem was an Islamic city until circa 1917 (except, of course, when the Crusaders had control of it for 80 or so years). That is but another reason for the Muslim / Arab belief that this land is their land (sung to the Arlie Guthrie tune!).

I know, I know, I tried to make it brief but 1,400 years of history doesn't easily fit into a few lines!

Steven



Okay. I know I exerpted just a few tidbits. Zionist were there first. (By thousands of years) Many people have had control, who were not the originals.

Any land that has to be captured had to be captured from someone, and that someone is the original owner...

It is like a theif complaining about the loss of a painting they stole so long ago they now believe themselves to be the rightful owner.

Hey Hey, I used less words and described 6000 years of history. (Jewish calendar, not 2000 or 1400) who is the rightful owner depends on how far back you go. WHy is 1400 years right and 6000 not?

Desert_Seg
07-27-2006, 09:38 AM
Okay. I know I exerpted just a few tidbits. Zionist were there first. (By thousands of years) Many people have had control, who were not the originals.

Any land that has to be captured had to be captured from someone, and that someone is the original owner...

It is like a theif complaining about the loss of a painting they stole so long ago they now believe themselves to be the rightful owner.

Hey Hey, I used less words and described 6000 years of history. (Jewish calendar, not 2000 or 1400) who is the rightful owner depends on how far back you go. WHy is 1400 years right and 6000 not?
Oh, so then you advocate giving the American Indian all the land back?

Sorry, Karl, you were the first one who fell into the trap I laid :).

BTW, Caliph Omar took the land from the Byzantines who took it from the Persians who took it from the Byzantines who took it from the Romans who took it from....well you get the picture.

Also, I'd thought I'd point out that it was the Jews of Palestine who helped Caliph Omar seize control of Jerusalem. As part of this partnership, the Jews were allowed back into Jerusalem and, for a period of time, were the guards of Temple Mount.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, the first record of Jerusalem is as part of Egypt (around 3500 BC). It wasn't until King David seized control of Jerusalem from the Jebusites that it became part of the United Kingdom of Israel, and that wasn't until around 1000 BC.

See, I made it short this time :-)

Steven

Steven

GyroGo
07-27-2006, 10:02 AM
Hey Hey, I used less words and described 6000 years of history. (Jewish calendar, not 2000 or 1400) who is the rightful owner depends on how far back you go. WHy is 1400 years right and 6000 not?
I think one of the great counter-productive arguments in this whole struggle is when people who are here and now talk about how many hundreds or thousands of years "my" religion or "my" people "owned" the land. This is a very specious argument. There is no iron chain of land deeds that follows blood lines back through the history of the millennia. In fact, in spite of being able to make assumptions based on apparent ethnic mix, one can't even precisely track a blood line through the millennia, there is cross-over and mixing here and there.

While the "history of the land" may have seemed to be a good or bad argument during the establishment of Israel, the FACT is that it is MEANINGLESS to go back to argue the status of the land further than a generation or two prior to those who are CURRENTLY ALIVE.

I'll bet that a majority of all countries in the world (perhaps by simple number count, but certainly if you are measuring land mass) have had some portion of their borders changed in the last 65 years. Borders get changed.

As Americans, we are a perfect example of how family histories of just a few generations have been moved all over the globe.

While there is a small percantage of Palestinians who were alive when Israel gained independence, a great percentage were either born into the status quo in Israel, or were born in Jordan, Lebanon, or elsewhere. A great percantage of current Israelis were born in Israel. This is the most practical argument that can't be ignored.

EDIT: and, as I understand the confusing history, no Palestinian alive was ever born into what would have been an independent and sovereign Palestine.

Israelis are willing to try to somehow co-exist with Palestinians; Palestinian leadership (Hamas) isn't willing (so far) to try to find a way to co-exist with Israelis.

KSagal
07-27-2006, 12:35 PM
Gary,

While I may agree that the historical inhabitants of a land may bear little value in who gets to own it now, I was responding to Steven's assertion that the Moslims that have vowed to push Israel into the sea are only trying to regain their land. My comment was to demonstrate that who's land is simply a matter of how far back on the calendar you go.

Surely, borders do change often, and surely a border of anything that is more than a couple of generations old is more the exception than the rule, but that argument only works when it is a rational conversation with two peoples that recognise the other's right to exist, somewhere.

When one of the two groups of people state time and time again that their goal is not land, but the extermination of a whole people, then debates like this one become moot. While we are trying to one up each other, they are cutting off heads or blowing up shopping malls.

Steven, I did not step into any trap. I simply went to where you do not want to tred. If we use your numbers, why is a 1400 year old claim more valid than a 3000 year old claim? And for the indians, they were nomads who did not feel they owned the land as much as it owned them, and that not withstanding, they were indeed treated very poorly. And, of course, they did immigrate from Asia via the land bridge.

For that matter, there is a claim against the southwest in the US saying that it was settled by Mexicans, and they want it back. The spanish cultures were introduced by invading Europeans who killed or did their best to kill all the indiginous indians. So again, who owns California? Depends of what page on the calendar you are looking at.

The world continues to change. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

So, in closing, I will quote the apparent wise old statesman, and say, "Can't we just all get along? Cause if we can't, then get away from me you pig!" It really is more profound than it seems... In my mind it demonstraits that getting along is best, but if not, then we go overboard in the disagreement.

One of the hardest things to do in life is to agree to disagree and still live harmoniously...

GyroGo
07-27-2006, 04:31 PM
Gary,

While I may agree that the historical inhabitants of a land may bear little value in who gets to own it now, I was responding to Steven's assertion that the Moslims that have vowed to push Israel into the sea are only trying to regain their land. My comment was to demonstrate that who's land is simply a matter of how far back on the calendar you go.
Karl, I got that. I just used the quote as an opportunity to comment on that kind of logic. :)

slowride
02-17-2007, 07:17 PM
I would also like to point out that I am not a Zionist nor am I an Islamist. I believe my self to be an Arabist....
Steven

Is "Arabist" a religion? Just wondering. I call myself a spiritualist. Mostly because if I call myself an Athiest I find people of all religions are suddenly against me. All the feuding amongst religions stops when an Athiest enters the room. I just watched a show last week where an Athiest couple said they have had their house firebombed and their car tires slashed since they came out in public and stated their beliefs. Obviously, by some real God loving people.

A society ruled by God's law is doomed because no one knows what that is, although many claim to. How many wars would have been avoided if everyone was an Athiest. No, I think the belief in God has outlived it's usefullness. Now we have prisons that threaten punishment if one misbehaves. There was a time when the "fear of God" was all that held men in check.

The idea that some of the middle east wants governments based on "God's law" is obsurd and doomed to fail. The idea that the Holy Bible or the Koran is the "word of God" is obsurd. Who said so? God? Please. Get rid of God and the wars will only be about borders (and oil). We all have more in common than we think if we remove God from the equation.

I believe most people are like me; getting up each morning, caring for my kids, putting food on the table, and just trying to get through another day. Hoping for good times with loved ones can be squeezed in between the madness. Having to dodge bullets or worry about getting blown up on a bus should not be a way of life for anyone.

I know the believers will get on me for this post. It was hard for me to come to my philosophy. It was hard for me to realize that there is no Santa Claus, and it took awhile for me to come to grips the fact that man has created God in his own images, as many images as the diversity of man himself.

Besides, any belief system that thinks man should be the authority over woman is not only dumb it's just plain wrong.

My 2 cents.

Desert_Seg
02-18-2007, 12:08 AM
Patricia,

The standard "definition" of an Arabist is somebody who has specialized in the study of Arab language and culture. Nothing about religion there.

I'm with you on the religion aspect. We, as individuals, have the right to choose whom or what we worship. But for a government to not have a separation of Church and State is problematic.

However, this isn't just a problem in the Middle East. It is a problem in most countries in Africa, most countries in the sub-Continent, many countries in Europe and Latin American, and a problem in the US.

Yes, there are varying degrees of separation and some countries take it to the furthest extreme (Saudi Arabia as an example) but what is worse, taking it to the extreme or saying there is a complete separation of Church and State and then allowing religion to dictate our policies (stem cell research ban and President Bush comes to mind).

This is a complex argument that has been with us for ages and won't go away anytime soon.

BTW, being an Atheist is just fine by me. That is your choice and your right. I'm more of an Agnostic (believe in God but prove the miracles) but can still have lively discussions with any faith, even an Atheist!

Steven

KSagal
02-18-2007, 03:24 AM
I am not very big on lables. I suppose agnostic is reasonable lable if I must have one... I was raised Jewish, in a manner of speaking, but not by particularly observant ones...

Personally, I bellieve there is far more than the eye can see, there are bigger things than the needs of man, and there is clearly right and wrong.

I also feel that many people desire conflict.

I have long said that I have no gripe with organized religion. I do have a gripe with the organization of religion. Most religions are run by men or women who loose sight of the concepts that brought them there, and they eventually become corrupted by the power that the position affords them. The notable few that do not become corrupted are very much the exception.

Most of the people that I have met want the same thing. They want to raise a family in peace, they want to protect their children from the hardships they have endured, and to teach them to be honorable people. I have found these values in most every religion and culture that I have encountered, and I have encountered many...

Unfortunately, day to day trials and tribulations get in the way of many people keeping their eye on the simple basic values that they hold dear. People allow themselves to believe others who offer them a quick fix to the lifelong project of simple basic values...

In my opinion, there is no shortcut to heaven, there is no substitute for the truth, right and wrong are not situational, and there is no easy way to get to enlightenment.

Lastly, I believe that each person has the capacity to shine on their own, and no amount of shifting the blame or diminishing your neighbor will help that. I believe that people are often willing to let people convince them that another is responsible for their own shortcommings and "raw deal" instead of working for the common good. I continue to choose to believe that people have the ability to rise to great heights, and those who wallow in the depths of hurting others are less than they can be, and less than they should be...

Desert_Seg
02-18-2007, 05:02 AM
Karl,

Very well said!

Steven

byped
02-18-2007, 12:47 PM
....

I also feel that many people desire conflict.

....



This tiny statement alone makes this tread both applicable to the world and to SegwayChat as well! :D

IcanGlide
03-02-2007, 01:49 PM
I'll join this fray, and take my lumps as they arrive. I have been a Christian for most of my life, therefore I view the things that have happened and are happening in the world today through the lens of Christianity. However, there are more open doors in my mind than there are closed ones. My mindset has been, and will continue to be, to get along with and to agree with as many people as possible. I have not been appointed as your judge or your critic, and though the God I believe in may be minimalized or boxed up by some, I won't cut your tires or burn your house down. I'll still be your friend if you will let me.

As far as determining what is or isn't God's word, name another book on this planet that contains God's prophecy that has happened exactly as was written. One instance in the bible is the name of the king that set the Israelites free. This prohpecy was given 600 years before this king was born and the country he was to be king over wasn't even in existence yet. His name was Cyrus.

Blaming God for all of the wars that have happened or are happening is failing to understand all of the factors that have been in play since the dawn of creation. Satan is the one opposed to God and it is he that entices mankind-even Christians- to fight. Why God allows things to happen, only he knows, everything belongs to him anyway.

To take the atheist's view that there is no God, and to ignore the teachings of the Bible is dangerous. So what, if they are correct, but I would rather live as best I could according to the Bible, die, and find out that there is no heaven, than to live contrary to it, die, and find out that there is a Hell.

The outcome for the "War for land" in Israel has already been written.

Frank