# Bush's Middle East Policy



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

That policy has been to promote democracy there starting with Iraq.Is it working?So far no.Look what is happening....

1.Fundamentalist Shiites won elections in Iraq.
2.Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has won in Iran
3.Hezbollah has won in Lebanon
4.Muslim Brotherhood is winning in Egypt
5.And now Hamas has won in Gaza and the West Bank

All of them anti-Israel and anti-US.

We pushed for Hamas to participate in elections.....surprise,surprise....they won....now he says we won't recognize their government.

This president is digging a hole we may never climb out of....Islamic nations are doing what we asked for and now we don't like the consequences.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Wow!!!! there's a surprise, a democrat that supports democracy!! :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Wow....another profound statement

What I'm saying is that we will reap what we sow.....This bunch is pushing for it and then doesn't like the results. And the hole gets deeper. :eyeroll:


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Ken W , this is no suprize these people do not even comprehend our freedom and way of life, this is what I have been yapping about for awile. Our goal in the middle east is a good one but unatainable IMOP.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Whenever politics and religion are the same there is hell to pay and someone is going to get hurt. Sorry for being so simplistic but.... Religious zealots and political zealots only know that everyone else is wrong and they are right.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

sorry!


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Ken,

You are again off on this one. You are in-essance blaming Bush for that stuff but you have done what most folks of your affiliation do, you stop looking for an answer when you had one that fit what you wanted.

Go back farther then G.W.B. and find the _real_ person to blame. You can comment again but I won't. I can not use facts to fight your unfactuale beliefs. There is 'someone' that could have ended this long ago but didn't because, as always, _he_want to keep the public happy, just not as safe. There was always a threat but never an action, even when he watched our soldiers and saliors dying and bleeding.

I am done with this topic...the hallway of thought is too narrow in here. :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"I can not use facts to fight your unfactuale beliefs" :eyeroll: ....not quite.....the information I put up there comes from today's column by Pat Buchanen.They are HIS beliefs,whether you believe them or not.....Everything I said comes from a conservative Republican columnist.

Here is the last paragraph verbatim.....his words not mine.....

"Bush has unleashed a revolution in the Middle East,and it is everywhere bringing to power Islamic fundamentalists.Either we deal with them,fight them,or get out of the Middle East."

This situation is totally Bush's doing.He and Rice pushed for Hamas to participate in elections in Gaza and the West Bank.Now they don't like what they asked for.

More about Rice from Buchanan......"Now,Condi,who denounced Bush's predecessors back to FDR for supporting dictators while preaching democracy in the Middle East,appears about to engage in a bit of hypocrisy of her own."


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Ken W, Old pat Buchanen is the old type of thinking conservative like Barry Goldwater, Some of these new neocon types are just haters, not capable of thinking.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Ken W wrote ...

This president is digging a hole we may never climb out of....Islamic nations are doing what we asked for and now we don't like the consequences.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken don't "OVER estimate" the Keen'ness of what you are saying ...

The difference between "Democracy" and "Theocracy or Dictatorship" is that Democracy evolves and is ever changing as it pretains to Who Rules and Why.

Folks in those lands will need to see results and if they don't like the results they see ... things will be changing at the next election ...

It seems you may exist in an instant gratification frame of mind ... if I've learned one thing during my five decades on this planet it's this ... "things that come cheap and easy are usually of little value."


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Buchanen is not a conservative Republican. He is a Independent Isolationist that was so far out of the main stream he had to leave the Republican party to get on the ticket. He is a Independent that speaks for only two people, Pat Buchanen and babe Buchanen. To tag Buchanen as a Republican is akin to tagging Ramsy Clark a Democrat.......... neither being the case.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=48626

heres a good read about buchanan's lack of consistancy on this issue it has alink to the article ken is quoting also


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

By Benjamin Shapiro

This week, the terrorist group Hamas won an overwhelming electoral victory in the Palestinian Arab parliament election. Hamas, an organization that pledges to seek the destruction of the state of Israel, now holds 76 out of 132 seats in the relatively powerless legislative body.

This election gives the lie to two fallacious yet extremely influential ideas upon which American foreign policy has been based. First, the Arab-Israeli dispute remains intractable not because Palestinian Arab leadership is corrupt or evil (though it is) but because Palestinian Arabs, like their Muslim brethren across the globe, hate Israel and want the Jews thrown into the sea.

For decades, we've seen blame cast on Yasser Arafat, his Fatah movement and the Israelis. The one group that has by and large escaped criticism is the Palestinian Arab population. We would prefer that the large mass of Palestinian Arabs be peace-loving, open-minded human beings who wish only to see their children grow and prosper in a society that values coexistence, education and liberty. Unfortunately, that hope has blinded us to a larger truth: The Palestinian Arabs, as a people, are not peace loving. They support terrorism because they think it right, not because they are desperate or hopeless. They support the annihilation of the state of Israel not because they have been misled but because they truly - and religiously - believe that Israel must be wiped off the map.

It is difficult to misread Palestinian Arab hatred for the West and for Jews in particular, but somehow we have deliberately ignored all the evidence in favor of more palatable motivations. It's about economic discontent, we tell ourselves. It's about supposed Israeli occupation of formerly Arab-occupied lands. It's about this or that. *It's never about simple hatred, and it is never about Islam. * :eyeroll:

Of course, that is precisely what the Arab-Israeli conflict is about: simple hatred and Islam. *That is what the War on Terror is about: a clash between Islamic theocracy and Western liberalism. *The same week that the Palestinian Arabs waved Hamas green, Iran continued its program to build nuclear weapons with the express purpose of attacking Israel. :******:

The same week that Hamas emerged victorious in the Palestinian Arab elections, Muslims throughout the Middle East went ballistic over a cartoon in a Danish newspaper. That cartoon depicted the Quran author Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse. Saudis beat two Danish workers, the Danish Red Cross has been forced to evacuate two employees from Gaza and another from Yemen after threats of violence, and Iraqi terrorists may have targeted a Danish-Iraqi patrol near Basra. Muslims have threatened massive boycotts of Danish companies, and Egypt's parliament refused to discuss a $72.5 million loan by Denmark to Egypt. United Arab Emirates Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs Mohammed Al Dhaheri described the cartoon as "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," and then ominously warned, "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations."

It is ironic that Muslims protesting the Danish cartoon in the Middle East prove the very point the contested Danish cartoon attempts to make: Islamist values are in direct conflict with democratic principles like freedom of speech and political thought. Islamist values are in perfect concert with a far more blunt political instrument: the lit bomb.

Which brings us to the second fallacious yet widely believed principle upon which American foreign policy has been based: *Democratic institutions mean nothing as long as the people who operate that machinery despise democratic values. Elections are only as good as the people who vote in them. Elections do not, by themselves, guarantee freedom, economic liberalism or peace. If people prefer violent theocracy to democratic liberalism or kleptocracy to accountable government, that is what democracy will bring. *

We must rethink our Iraqi policy in light of Hamas' victory; we must ensure that the Iraqis do not value terrorism over liberty or violent Islam over its more peaceful counterpart. The Iraqi constitution's pledge to overturn any law contradicting "the universally agreed tenets of Islam" is a dangerous pledge. Perhaps Iraqis are more democratically minded than the Palestinian Arabs - perhaps not. Doubt about the nature of the Iraqi people must breed caution, not mindless confidence in the power of ballots.

Democracy is not a bromide to be prescribed at the first sign of violence. Cancer cannot be cured with a sleeping pill. Democracy can flourish only in a society with democratic values. The Palestinian Arabs do not have those values, nor do they wish to cultivate them. *We should be more optimistic about the Iraqi people but no less suspicious*. The future of the West rests on our jealous guardianship of democratic values, not blind faith in democratic institutions.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I did not say Pat Buchanen was a republican, he is an independent thinker
which is admirable in this day and age,


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Based on what I gather out of that article ... We (Westerners of whatever variant form) ...

Can take this as a test ... "The Democracy test in the Middle East" ...

as "THE ULTIMATE SANCTION from the NATIONS OF THE WILLING."

If the folks on the streets of the Middle East PROVE through THE VOTE over time that they do believe in the inialation of all "Non-Believers of Islam" ... then we are indeed down to a "War of Civilizations."

Under which case ... it is a war of RELIGIONS and yes, a war of CIVILIZATIONS ... and quite possible ARMAGADON ...

ESPECIALLY if they are armed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The world is ironic isn't it. The conservatives of this nation are the more willing to defend it. The liberals who are more tolerant of radical Islam are the very people that the Islamic people hate most. Together we will survive, but I often think of what would happen if there were two United States. One full of liberals and one full of conservatives. I am sure the liberals would think they as superior intellects could reason with the radical Islamic groups, but it would be no question they would loose their nation in short order.

It would be like any other predator keying in on the weak. Like watching a rabbit trying to be tolerant and reason with a coyote.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

This Counrty couldn't last a year under *all* liberals.
Who would be in the Armed Forces??? 
Who would do the *WORK*?? Where would our high Tech stuff come from?
Then again he said ALL liberal,..so I wouldn't be here to worry about it. uke:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

adokken, I wasn't speaking about anything you said. What I was pointing out was about the comment "all this coming from a conservative Republican". Buchanen doesn't speak for the Republicans anymore than Clark speaks for the Democrats. I give both equal attention which is zero.

Bob, I find Shapiro's article so openly contradicting a blind person can see it. For example he says everyone was blaming Arafat and the Fatah movement when they should have been looking at the hatred by the Palestinian Arab population for Israel. Well, who does he think instilled that hatred in the people. Then he goes on to say "They support the annihilation of the state of Israel not because they have been misled but because they truly - and religiously - believe that Israel must be wiped off the map". How is that possible? No one can believe something that is wrong unless they have been mislead. Hatred is learned, not automatically inherited at birth. Without question these things do exist in that part of the world but it wasn't the attempt to install democracy that caused it.

The Hamas victory in the Palestinian Arab elections may very well cause a civil war amongst themselves. That may be good or bad depending on one's view point. Just my thoughts............


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

learned or not the hatred is firmly entrenched its a religion of fanatics, and I just posted the article because I thought it was thought provoking.

I don't believe we have the will in this country, or the ability to accurately access the hatred islam has for the rest of civilization.

We have become a weaker socialist leaning society, with too many wanting to view the world with what they consider an "enlightened" rather than a realistic view. What should be rather than what is :eyeroll:

Read the weak socialist viewpoints in Ben Eli's thread about decodeing the presidents speech, they cannot view the world realistically and that weakness combined with the dumbing down of our society his post showcases makes the future look bleak.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Thanks for printing that article Bob.It basically says what Buchanan is saying....

"Bush has unleashed a revolution in the Middle East,and it is everywhere bringing to power Islamic fundamentalists.Either we deal with them,fight them,or get out of the Middle East."

Our choice.How do we handle what is happening over there?


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> The world is ironic isn't it. The conservatives of this nation are the more willing to defend it. The liberals who are more tolerant of radical Islam are the very people that the Islamic people hate most. Together we will survive, but I often think of what would happen if there were two United States. One full of liberals and one full of conservatives. I am sure the liberals would think they as superior intellects could reason with the radical Islamic groups, but it would be no question they would loose their nation in short order.
> 
> It would be like any other predator keying in on the weak. Like watching a rabbit trying to be tolerant and reason with a coyote.





> The liberals who are more tolerant of radical Islam


The wise plainsman speaks. Oh brother.  The liberals are not tolerant of "radical islam" as you state, but are tolerant of other religious beliefs in general.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Who is pushing this cartoon thing in Europe? I just can't believe the big deal they are making out of it? Is Fatah pushing this as an issue just to make things tough for the newly elected Hamas?

Talk about ridiculous though... freedom of speech.. ever heard of it? But obvioiusly there is a lot more behind this than these cartoons...


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

some examples of the "tolerant liberals" seabass speaks of :wink:

http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/

this isn't religion it is a clash of western civilization vs. Islam

to them there is no compromise and liberals are too weak to face that reality


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> some examples of the "tolerant liberals" seabass speaks of :wink:
> 
> http://www.whenangrydemocratsattack.com/
> 
> ...


hey, that one with Osama holding the Bush/Cheney poster was sort of funny. :wink:

So if no compromise can be made... I guess then that leaves the only solution of carpet bombing then? Hey, I'll be the first to admit there are PLENTY of whiney dems/libs...but on the other hand, there is something to using diplomacy instead of brute force like the repubs would rather choose. It will be interesting to see how the EU-3 do in their talks with Iran.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Let's just KISS um to death.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

unfortunately you cannot reason with a madman fanatic, the guy running Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map, says the holacaust never happened, and will give nukes to terrorists to use against us. 
At what point do you want to stop "negotiating" after one of our cities goes up in a mushroom cloud or before??? Thats our choice, we have to make it being president ages the hell out of people and when you consider the choices they have to make its easy to understand why.

I just don't understand how anyone can be this naive about our national security

carpet bombing is a option and one we may have to use for our own survival and one I would support without hesitation if Iran fails to stop development of their nukes.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Didn't they used to paint a set of lips on the front of the bombs.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bob to say " hatred is firmly entrenched its a religion of fanatics" is exactly my point with emphasis on the words "religious fanatics". To lump all Muslims all over the world into the fanatics teaching of hatred is a dangerous thing. It's the same as saying all Republicans are far right fanatics or all Democrats are far left fanatics and I got the impression that is exactly what Shapiro was attempting to do. Maybe I just read it wrong.............


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Bobm said:


> unfortunately you cannot reason with a madman fanatic, the guy running Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the map, says the holacaust never happened, and will give nukes to terrorists to use against us.
> At what point do you want to stop "negotiating" after one of our cities goes up in a mushroom cloud or before??? Thats our choice, we have to make it being president ages the hell out of people and when you consider the choices they have to make its easy to understand why.
> 
> I just don't understand how anyone can be this naive about our national security
> ...


That's just it though... I'm not convinced that going to war (read carpet bombing if you will) makes us safer in the long run. To me that is what is naive. We will never be able to get rid of every Islamic extremist, right? And it only takes a handful to do serious damage (9/11). I'm certainly not saying a full-scale war isn't an option, but I am not convinced it is the only option.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Gohon said:


> Bob to say " hatred is firmly entrenched its a religion of fanatics" is exactly my point with emphasis on the words "religious fanatics". To lump all Muslims all over the world into the fanatics teaching of hatred is a dangerous thing. It's the same as saying all Republicans are far right fanatics or all Democrats are far left fanatics and I got the impression that is exactly what Shapiro was attempting to do. Maybe I just read it wrong.............


Cheers... :beer: bob and I have gone head to head on this about a dozen times.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Alaska bear cub killer, Why don't you read a little history about WW 2. Seems to me your hated liberals were doing a hell of a job in that war. And I do remember that we did have a few people that vented their hatred against our party but the men I served with were Americans and we did our duty without all this rancor that you display. Especially that juvenile puke display.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

One thing about the internet the info is there for anyone willing to look at it, I never said all Muslims are violent. When you have these discussions you must speak in generalities. For instance take Democrats they are unreasonable and unrealistic, Ken however is an exception :beer: there is always one. :wink:

So I still contend the fun loving religion of Islam is violent

"....*Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world's population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence than the people of any other civilization *[includes Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Hindu, Chinese, Buddhist, Jewish]. The evidence is overwhelming...". Huntington cites the data provided below in support of his contention that at least in the 1990s (and likely in the greater part of the 20th century) Muslim countries or people have shown the highest propensity for violence in relation to the conflicts they have engaged in. At least in later part of the 20th century, he cites data (below) indicating that Muslim countries have also shown the highest military force ratios in relationship to their population and wealth. He clarifies that the data does not mean that other civilizations do not indulge in violence (for instance he points out that "...In the past Christians killed fellow Christians and other people in massive numbers..."), but just that *Muslim groups and countries engage in disproportionately higher violence*.

1. Ethnopolitical Conflicts, 1993-1994

Source: Ted Robert Gurr, "Peoples Against States: Ethnopolitical Conflict and the Changing World System," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 38 (Sep. 1994), pp. 347-378. 
Note: one item in the table below shifted by Huntington to Inter from Intra - the Tibetian-Chinese conflict

Comments: 
*3X inter-civilizational conflicts involving Muslims compared to other civilizations *
Conflicts within Islam also higher than within other civilizations 
West involved in only two inter- and intra-civilizational conflicts at this time 
Conflicts involving Muslims tended to have heavier casualties. Six wars had estimated casualties >= 200,000 : three were inter-civilizational involving Muslims (Sudan, Bosnia, East Timor), two were intra-civilizational involving Muslims (Somalia, Iraq-Kurds), and one conflict had only non-Muslims (Angola). 
Civilization Intra-civilization conflict Inter-civilization conflict Total 
Islam 11 15 26 
Other 19* 5 24 
Total 30 20 50

* Of which 10 were tribal conflicts in Africa

2. Ethnic Conflicts, 1993

Source: New York Times, Feb. 7, 1993, pp. 1, 14

Comments: 
*Nearly 50% of conflicts involved Muslims *
*Two-thirds of inter-civilizational conflicts involved Muslims *
Civilization Intra-civilization conflict Inter-civilization conflict Total 
Islam 7 21 28 
Other 21* 10 31 
Total 28 31 59

* Of which 10 were tribal conflicts in Africa

3. Wars, 1992

Source: Ruth Leger Sivard, World Military and Social Expenditures 1993 (Washington, D.C.: World Priorities, Inc., 1993) pp. 20-22

Comments: 
29 wars (defined as conflicts involving >= 1000 deaths/year) identified in 1992 
9 out of 12 inter-civilizational conflicts involved Muslims 
*Muslims were fighting more wars than people from any other civilization *
4. Militarism of Muslim and Christian countries

Source: James L. Payne, Why Nations Arm (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1989), pp. 125, 138-139. Muslim and Christian countries are defined here as those in which more than 80% of the population adhere to the defining religion.

Definitions:

Average force ratio = # of military personnel/1000 population

Average military effort = force ratio adjusted for country's wealth

Comments:

*Muslim countries had much higher military force ratios and effort indices than other countries *(rows 2 and 3 below), and ratios were about 2X those of Christian countries. Christian countries had significantly lower military force ratios and effort indices than other countries (rows 4 and 5 below)

Countries Average Force Ratio Average Military Effort 
*Muslim countries (n=25) 11.8 17.7 *
Other countries (n=112) 7.1 12.3 
Christian countries (n=57) 5.8 8.2 
Other countries (n=80) 9.5 16.9

5. Use of violence to resolve conflicts, 1928-1979

Sources:

Samuel P. Huntington's book referenced above, page 258

Christopher B. Stone, "Westphalia and Hudaybiyya: A Survey of Islamic Perspectives on the Use of Force as Conflict Management Technique" (unpublished paper, Harvard University), pp. 27-31

Jonathan Wilkenfield, Michael Brecher, and Sheila Moser, eds. Crises in the Twentieth Century (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1988-89), II, 15, 161.

Comments:

Countries Total # of crises
involved in 
(1928-1979) # Crises where 
violence was used 
in part or whole % Crises where 
violence was used 
in part or whole Other comments 
China Data not provided Data not provided 76.9 % - 
*Muslim 
countries 142 76 53.5 % High-intensity violence 
used in ~80% of the 
cases where violence 
was used *Soviet Union Data not provided Data not provided 28.5 % 
U. S. Data not provided Data not provided 17.9 % 
U. K. Data not provided Data not provided 11.5 %

Root causes of violence in Islam?

Although Huntington does not conclusively show the causes leading to the higher propensity for violence in Islamic countries, he lists some possibilities:

(a) Propensity towards violence: Huntington's view is that the Koran and other statements of Muslim beliefs contain few prohibitions on violence, and that *the concept of nonviolence is absent from Muslim doctrine and practice.*

(b) Demographic shift, i.e., due to a significant growth in population of Muslim youth in a region, exceeding a certain threshold or next nearest demographic group. Huntington links such trends to many conflicts, and clarifies that a large number of unemployed Muslim males in the age group of 15-30 goes a long way in explaining Muslim conflicts and violence in the 1980s and 1990s.

(c) Difficulty living with(in) other cultures: Huntington says that of the major religions/civilizations, *Islam is essentially alone in not separating religion and politics,* and as a result, "...Confucians, Buddhists, Hindus, Western Christians, and Orthodox Christians have less difficulty adapting to and living with each other than any one of them has in adapting to and living with Muslims..." The example he cites is how Chinese live as an economically dominant minority in most Southeast Asian nations, and assimilated well into Buddhist Thailand and Catholic Philippines, but are more subject to anti-Chinese riots and/or violence in Muslim Indonesia and Muslim Malaysia.

(d) Absence of a "core" state in Islam: Islam lacks a "dominant center" or state that could play a leading role in moderating or managing conflicts involving Muslims, and one that could act on behalf of Islam.

Finally, he states that the arguments offered by some Muslim supporters that Muslims have been victimized by "anti-Muslim prejudice" and "trapped on reservations converted from their ancestral lands" *does not explain *conflicts between Muslim majorities and non-Muslim minorities in countries such as Sudan, Egypt, Iran and Indonesia.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

take a stroll through this page

http://www.pmw.org.il/indoctrinating%20 ... olence.htm

those non violent palestinians are great parents :eyeroll:

Muslims are violent fanatics,

Democrats and republican may vehemently disagree but I don't recall any of them strapping bombs on their kids to kill those they oppose. When you consider that act you have to conclude the obvious....

There aren't any cultures that come close to this crowd not in modern times anyway.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

I don't consider myself a theologian or a Bible-banger, so forgive me. However, let me try to put the current religious tensions in a theological light:

We must remember that Muslims worship the same god as Christians and Jews do, namely the God of Abraham. Muslims call him "Allah", and Jews call him "Yahweh". However, the key difference is that Christians believe in Jesus Christ and concept of grace. We also need to understand that Christian theologians talk about the god of law and the god of gospel.

In the Old Testament, we largely had a god of law, meaning that God issued laws that his followers were required to obey, from the Ten Commandments to all of the social and hygiene laws discussed in Leviticus. Believers believed that the path to heaven depended on following these laws. Modern Jews are still in this theological "place", believing that they will get to heaven if they simply follow God's law and live a good life.

Muslims also worship the God described in the Old Testament. However, in addition to the writings in the Old Testament, Muslims recognize the writings of Mohammed, a prophet that they believed was given additional laws by God, just as Jews and Christians believed that God did with Moses. Similar to Jews, Muslims believe that the path to heaven depends on rigorous following of these laws. Some of these laws deal with ethnic issues and ridding the world of unbelievers. However, carrying these teachings to action depends on one's interpretaton as to whether we take some of these passages literally or whether we view them in the context that the were written. For instance, there are modern Christians that take up snakes during worship because they have found a bible passage that they interpret differently than most. Militant Muslims interpret the ethnic cleansing laws to the extreme, but there are other Muslims that do not.

In the New Testament, Jesus discussed the concept of grace and redemption. A new class of believers (Christians) believed that the path to heaven did not depend on following God's laws per se, but by simply believing that Jesus died for their sins. Christians recognized the importance of following laws such as the Ten Commandments out of love and respect, but also recognized that the price for redemption was paid through grace. Thus, Christians also believe in a god of gospel.

Therefore, both Jews and Muslims are followers of the God of law, meaning that they both believe that the path to heaven dependence on adherence to God's laws. The key question is whether we believe that all laws should be followed, whether we interpret the laws the same, and whether we believe the prophets in question truly received these directives from God.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> For instance, there are modern Christians that take up snakes during worship because they have found a bible passage that they interpret differently than most


what percentage of Christians do they represent? answer .0000000000000000000000000001 of a percent.

The muslim culture is one of violence,even and infact especially to one another. If they disagree with someone they will kill them which is the whole point, you can't negotiate with people with that mindset they have to be defeated either by us or hopefully by their own modern thinking members probably a combination of the two.

But if the current Iranian regime gets to close to Nukes we have to kill them, or they will kill us.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Gotta question for ya Bob: Is the Muslim affinity for violence a cultural or religious condition? In other words, is it a reflection of the Arab culture or because of Muslim religious teachings?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Based on the fact that the excessive violence exists in all Muslim societies worldwide my opinion would be the Arabs are not the reason although in the middle east Wahabyism SP? is a big part of it, and that has Arab roots.

Look at the latest

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/sarticle.php?id=12146

Admit it, this turban/bomb thing is just an excuse for violence

Muslim outrage huh. OK ... let's do a little historical review. Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia. A Christian school. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt. No Muslim outrage.

A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India. Kills six. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia.

Muslims shoot children in the back. No Muslim outrage.

Let's go way back. Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses. Over 700 are injured. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali. No Muslim outrage.

Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons. No Muslim outrage

Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world. No Muslim outrage.

Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge. No Muslim outrage.

Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed. *Muslims are outraged*.

*Dead children. Dead tourists. Dead teachers. Dead doctors and nurses. Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.*

Come on, is this really about cartoons? They're rampaging and burning flags. They're looking for Europeans to kidnap. They're threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon. *They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged*. 

You don't really need a reason. You just need an excuse. Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan. :lol:

I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims. When, though, do they become outraged? When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule?

*Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims * in a New York Times article three years ago. "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, *why are they not screaming*?"

Indeed. Why not?

I contend that silence is because its not being hijacked its what Islam is


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I'm not Bob ... but I'll take a stab at it &#8230;

I think you're talking about a distinction without a difference.

Since the year 632AD the Arab Culture and Islam have been near synonymous.

This entire battle has been fought a few times since then and fought in a very big way twice, once in about 1100 AD and again in about 1500AD.

The religion is very prone to fanaticism ... the only way to avoid having to beat it back and stuff it in it's can every few centuries is to allow it to take over the World ... which is exactly their goal

As I have said before &#8230; we are about 1400 years too late to kill Mohamed and burn his papers &#8230; His written work exists and will be interpreted by man (for better or worse) into eternity


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy, ask your pastor if the Christian God, Jewish God, and Muslim God are the same. I asked our pastor and he said Mohammed was deceived and he believes by Satan. If they were the same God do you think he would preach love to one group, and killing to another?????????


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

The Qur'an repeatedly refers to God as compassionate and just. It also says that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256): submission to God must be freely chosen, not forced (Ali). The Qur'an urges Muslims to use "beautiful preaching" to persuade people to accept Islam and to "argue nicely" with Jews and Christians who are seen as worshipping the same God as their own (16:125, 29:46, Firestone). This is probably the attitude of most Muslim people today. Jewish and Christian communities have often been tolerated and protected under Muslim rule.

Muslims have six books they believe in and worship. They are.......

The Scriptures to Abraham
The Torah sent to Moses
The Psalms sent to David
The Gospel sent to Jesus
The Qur'an sent to Muhammad

Plainsman ask your pastor if the above, which I pulled from another article sounds like something that Satan would promote. Comments such as what your pastor said is the very reason I stopped going to church service only to have some pastor try to fill my head full of his personal ignorance. There are a estimated three million Muslims in this country and to listen to some our streets should be running red with blood from all the bombings and murders from these people.

I'm not directing any of this towards you but I find it amazing that a pastor of a church would make such a statement.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> There are a estimated three million Muslims in this country and to listen to some our streets should be running red with blood from all the bombings and murders from these people.


Most of those are American converts " useful idiots" in the parlance of the former soviet communists. You're probably the only person on this site that will know what that means :lol:

They did manage to kill three thousand of us in one fell swoop, not a bad lick :roll: as bombings and murder go. It sure got my attention...

I believe the enhanced efforts of the Govt to disrupt terroist activities is working and the principle reason there hasn't been more blood spilled here


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

where Iran is heading if thy don't take it down from within

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB03Ak02.html

it will be interesting


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon



> Comments such as what your pastor said is the very reason I stopped going to church service only to have some pastor try to fill my head full of his personal ignorance.


I wouldn't call it ignorance. I am sure they learn a lot more in seminary than we do an hour or two a month.

I remember an old black gospel song called "you got to serve somebody". The gist of the song is no matter what, perhaps even menial thing, you do it serves either God or Satan. In that light what do you think a pastor will say. Personally I think Mohammed contrived a story for his own self promotion.

02/05/06 edit The people of Medina thought Mohammed a prophet because he survived his travels in the desert. He said God had spoke to him. The more realistic scenario is; we got a new religion based on a man who survived the desert on hallucinogenic cactus juice.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> Bigdaddy, ask your pastor if the Christian God, Jewish God, and Muslim God are the same. I asked our pastor and he said Mohammed was deceived and he believes by Satan. If they were the same God do you think he would preach love to one group, and killing to another?????????


Plainsman: I have asked my pastor, and she confirmed that the god of Muslims (Allah) is indeed the god of Jews and Christians.

Your question on how a god can advocate killing and love is a great one. Let me offer this and reiterate the distinction between the god of law and god of scripture:

If you think about the Old Testament, it is very much about following God's law and getting ready for a messiah. The God in the Old Testament loved his people very much. However, there were also directives in the Old Testament to conquer opposing nations, as well as statements such as "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". The teachings in the Old Testament are very much centered on a concept of a god of law... follow God's law or you will be punished. Remember, this is the religious cotext that Jews and Muslims are in... you are not given a key to heaven, but you must earn it through obedience, faith, and following God's laws.

Fast forward to the New Testament, and you will see a dramatically different theme. The New Testament announces a reedemer, a Messiah, who paid the price for all of us. In other words, we don't have to earn redemption, but it is given to us. The New Testament is very much about love, grace, forgiveness, and love for our neighbor.

So, to answer your question, I would propose that the god of law (meaning the god of the Old Testament) was not particularly a god of law. Instead, the god of the Old Testament was very much a god of law.

Many so-called Christians get stuck in remembering the words of the god of law from the Old Testament, dusting off the "eye for an eye" statements to justify revenge and war. However, they forget that the Word of God that is the focus of the New Testament threw away all of those concepts. He advocated turning the cheek, "judge not, lest ye be judged", and similar messages of forgiveness and grace that many would be wise to remember.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy

From what I can find the Muslims claim we have the same god, but Christians and Jews do not. The Muslims recognize the existence of Jesus, but they claim he never died. They say the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah are corrupted. However the Bible predates Mohammed by 500 years and the Torah predates Mohammed by 3000 years. Original copies of the Bible were deposited in the Vatican as the Codex Vaticanus and in the British museum as Codes Siniaticus before Mohammed and would have been available for his inspection.

There was no original Qur'an, and 450 reciters of the Qur'an were killed at the battle of Yamama. The Qur'an is bits and pieces mostly from scraps of writing they found under the bed of his child wife who still lived in Medina.

Here is a site with the history of Islam. Rather than go on and on read this it debunks the idea we worship the same God.

http://www.bibleprobe.com/muhammed.htm


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Plainsman

I'm certainly not as well versed in these matters as you are but it is my understanding that there were several versions of the Bible (New Testament) in existence until somewhere around 400 AD at which time a final version was sanctioned. You may find the following site interesting reading. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html The article was put together by a Conservative Jew, a Southern Baptist, a Orthodox Jew, a Catholic, and a Lutheran. Certainly a broad range of religious minds that if studied could lead support that the author of "Muhammad" is expressing his personal views only, which are conflicting in some area's. Both of these articles support my view that the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an are merely books written by man, edited by man, for man. Personally I believe there is a supreme power and that we don't just simply become born and then die. But, no one has been able to show me what that supreme power is just yet. Maybe someday......


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Both of these articles support my view that the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an are merely books written by man, edited by man, for man. Personally I believe there is a supreme power and that we don't just simply become born and then die


I agree I've always felt that organized religion was just dreamed up as a means to control the populace. I also feel that its the biggest obstacle between man and God. But what do I know :wink:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

So the more we try to help them the more they seem to hate us. Bob says to bomb them. The people of Isreal have been doing that for decades and now Hamas has been elected as the ruling body for Palestine. We have done the same to Iraq and I'm not sure who is in charge other than the American military. The same holds true in Afganistan. And now we are saying we will strike Iran's nuclear program. This is only going to get worse before it gets better. Hatred for the Muslim world is only getting deeper across the rest of the world but the problem is that hatred for America is also getting worse as we respond. We justify our position of violence being a necessary evil but that is also the postion of Islamist's. Some people call Iraq the next Vietnam but I think their view is very shortsided because it will not be Vietman until it includes the whole Middle East and that seems to be our destiny. It will be interesting to see how many fingers we need to stick in the dike to stop the tide. Do we have the will to finish the job and how bad will it have to get to finish the job? Boy, this thing is getting more and more complicated. Instead of finding reasons to rally around America as the liberator in Iraq and Afganistan it has added fuel to the fire of radical Islam. Bob, I agree with you when it comes to training dogs and I have to agree with you when you are wondering where the Muslims who are not Islamists are when it comes to defending their faith and their culture. Without these people we are doomed to failure. I am really worried that they do not have the fortitude to stand up to radical Islam and that may be our destiny. For this I am deeply afraid. [/i]


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I didn't say bomb them without cause, I said bomb them before they get nukes. It should be obvious to all but the dimmest bulbs among us these folk are willing to kill us and themselves in the process if necessary. You cannot negotiate with that type of fanaticism.

There is no compromise in the Islamic jihadists world they want to kill or subjugate us period.

DJ you're corect in noting its a complicated situation what you fail to recognize is that

1) we have no choice, its really rapidly becoming fight or die time and don't bother blaming Bush this has been coming on since long before Bush was gettting drunk in frat parties he inheritied it.

2) You don't have to fear them, you, I and all of the free world has to stand up to them and if that means kill every last one of them so be it, again its them or us....the good muslims of the world (if there are any any I don't see enough outcry from them to believe there are many) :eyeroll: better get involved and real quick.

3) its not a time to "be afraid" its time to stand up for our Western civilization and let them know we intend to coexist in peace, but will kill every last one of them if they attack us and "attack" in this case with Iran means continue to put themselves on the course to get nukes, because if they get nukes thats what they will do either directly, thru a war with Israel or thru our back door with the terrorists that Iran is notorious for supporting :sniper:

Tough times are always facing the free, sometimes there is no choice but to fight. This is one of those times!!! Jihadists view hesitancy and compromise as a sign of weakness. We cannot afford to show weakness anymore than the free world did agaist the Nazis.

Afganistan and Iraq are just the beginning of a long conflict much like the cold war was with the Soviet Russians, only even more dangerous because of the lack of a state to deal with.

Our culture is at stake. I would rather be dead than be lorded over by these Jihadist fanatics!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Maybe France isn't so stupid, they are powered by over 90% nuclear energy. I wonder how much oil they import and how addicted to it they are???


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I agree about the nuclear stuff but France is really let them selves into a position of weakness with their politically correct acceptance of aculture that will and is attempting to supplant theirs. They have a mess on their hands


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Gohon

Thanks for the internet address http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html

I read it, and could find nothing to disagree with. I keep trying to educate myself in this area.

What I have found, as of late, is a lot of violence in the Muslim past. As a matter of fact violence was part of it's birth, when Medina, which Mohammed controlled, went to war against Mecca. People who feel that Christians started this war with the Crusades are absolutely wrong. The Crusades were a reaction to Muslim encroachment and murder of Christians. Unlike today Europe resisted and stopped them in Spain.


----------

