London Underground Bombings

[Ruso]

Good grief, I've got to say something here!

[RiversideGator]

Do you think if Jesus had had a modern packpack bomb, he would have used that to destroy the marketplace instead? What about the poor people who depended and were using the market?

The Baptist Church down the road is having a fish fry tonight. Wonder if Jesus would have a fit about that too?

Ah yes, Jesus and Christianity are the moral equivalents of the fanatical Muslim terrorists.

[RiversideGator]

By the way, for those who have doubts as to what I am saying about the significant problem we face, I think this new poll of British Muslims confirms it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...3/ixportal.html

nearly a third of British Muslims, 32 per cent, are far more censorious, believing that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end"

one per cent, about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence.

six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified

the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.

This is very disturbing and I would expect that their coreligionists in this country share similar views.

[monsoon]

It should be expected if you read what I posted earlier. You left out the most important sentence in that entire article when picking quotes from it. But I will put it here....

The vast majority of British Muslims condemn the London bombings but a substantial minority are clearly alienated from modern British society and some are prepared to justify terrorist acts.

Once you disenfranchise a group of people from society and remove all opportunity, then you sow the seeds or terrorism. And we are talking about the UK here. Imagine what is going on where tens of millions of arabs, who are well educated, are forced to live lives where there is no opportunity because of their corrupt dictatorious governments. As I said earlier Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Kuwait, etc. all fit this category and are all supported and are allies of the USA. To answer your earlier question I do believe we should quit propping up these dictatorships. But we won't because:

• Pakistan has the bomb now. Best let a military dictatorship keep subjugating the people as long as that dictatorship is happy to given token support to the USA.

• Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, other emirates - These dictators are happy to pump oil for the USA. Who cares how the average citizen lives there?

• Jordan & Egypt - Maintaining the status quo here protects Israel

• Libia - We are happy to let this known terrorist (remember Lockerbee) stay in power because he said he was sorry oh, and he has oil.

Bush family foreign policy over the last 25 years (remember there has been Bush in the White House for all 8 of those years) has led to this mess and unless there is a change, we are going to continue to see terrorists head this way. It has nothing to do with religion as you imply except that religion is used as a powerful motivator to convince people to perform these acts. Just like the Christian KKK used the bible to justify lynchings.

[Ruso]

It should be expected if you read what I posted earlier.  You left out the most important sentence in that entire article when picking quotes from it.  But I will put it here....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Red Herrings. What Michael Moore does. Taking little sentences out of context and exposing them as true. That way, of course, it looks like the arabs were terrible people.

[RiversideGator]

monsoon: My point again is not that all Western Muslims are bad, but that a significant minority of them are at least sympathizers with terrorists and a smaller minority is willing to commit violence themselves. This is the problem I was referring to: Even if a majority of Muslims are peaceable and moderate, a significant minority is willing to kill us in large numbers. And, I can promise you that these fanatics would go for liberals first because of their views. I dont see why this is all so controversial to you.

To quote one of communism's heroes, Trotsky: "You may not be looking for war, but war is looking for you".

[Charleston native]

Well, if he was human, it is natural for him to get mad. And getting mad is not the same as killing. But you know, describing Jesus is very hard, because everybody interprets him according to their ideals(including me). But personally, I really saw Jesus as a peaceful, loving kind of guy. Of course, it is more convenient for a Christian to go to war thinkg he was rather agressive.

Many of you might remember the movement of "Theology of Liberation"in Latin America. They believed that socialism was a christian value, and used Christianity as their fighting motto. I''l look for some pictures, where you can see Christ with a rifle. The goths, barbarians, accepted Roman christianity but pictured Jesus as a soldier-god. Cool Huh--You might be right, Jesus is very happy to see children dying in Iraq, in his name. Remember, for Ben Laden, Alah is happy to see americans and  british dying  with explosions. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aye Kurumba! I can't believe I'm being sucked into this debate....usually debates like this are an exercise in futility.

If you look at all these examples, you will note one important fact: they were using one aspect of Christianity while completely forgetting about the rest of Scripture. For instance, socialism denies self for the benefit of all, which is a Christ-like component; however, it leaves out the fact, preached by Jesus, in that this denial must be voluntary, in a pure act of love and not forced on you, which is what socialism does to its citizens. My earlier example of Jesus throwing out the merchants was not to say that He was capable of anger. All that does is just demonstrate that Jesus had temper tantrums. Jesus showed that in order to render evil useless in its attempt to destroy and to morally degrade, sometimes it must be dealt with physically and with force, and this is the importance of the act in the Temple.

Hence, if you look at what the terrorists do and what the US does in this war on terrorism, the US is justified in its actions. Just because Muslim extremists invoke the name of Allah while they kill innocent men, women, and children doesn't mean that we need to be sensitive to their cause with their links to the Islamic religion. What terrorists do is pure evil and we need to do something about it! I'm agree with Riverside, why is this so controversial?

[Ruso]

Aye Kurumba! I can't believe I'm being sucked into this debate....usually debates like this are an exercise in futility.

If you look at all these examples, you will note one important fact: they were using one aspect of Christianity while completely forgetting about the rest of Scripture. For instance, socialism denies self for the benefit of all, which is a Christ-like component; however, it leaves out the fact, preached by Jesus, in that this denial must be voluntary, in a pure act of love and not forced on you, which is what socialism does to its citizens. My earlier example of Jesus throwing out the merchants was not to say that He was capable of anger. All that does is just demonstrate that Jesus had temper tantrums. Jesus showed that in order to render evil useless in its attempt to destroy and to morally degrade, sometimes it must be dealt with physically and with force, and this is the importance of the act in the Temple.

Hence, if you look at what the terrorists do and what the US does in this war on terrorism, the US is justified in its actions. Just because Muslim extremists invoke the name of Allah while they kill innocent men, women, and children doesn't mean that we need to be sensitive to their cause with their links to the Islamic religion. What terrorists do is pure evil and we need to do something about it! I'm agree with Riverside, why is this so controversial?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How can it not be controversial? Evil and good? I know, am not going to convince you, nor are you going to convince me. The problem is that, for me, it is hard to see how history repeats itself. Religion, manipulated, used to brainwash brains. Lies, propagandas. Everybody just follows the leader. He who doesnt, is not patriotic. The government, created the most inmoral lies to justify their attacks,and used others even worst to justify their lack of action in places where it is or was needed, like Sudan, or earlier, Rwanda. WHat you said abou Christianity, Osama says about Islam. Religion is too ambiguos. For you, those socialists group were a "corruption" of christianity, right? For them, those who did not follow and believe in their ideas, were also a corruption of Christianity. Have you read "The name of the Rose", by Humberto Eco? And, like you said, just because the USA invokes the name of thr Christ, doesnt mean that those idiotic terrorists need to be sensitive to your cause. For them, what you do is pure evil.

Evil and Good-the two words that reduce evry mind to accept all kind of attrocities.

And you are right, these discussions are wothless, but am sorry, I just have to try.

"No one ever goes into battle thinking God is on the other side."

Terry Goodkind

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."

Voltaire

War is only a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."

Thomas Mann

[RiversideGator]

just because the USA invokes the name of thr Christ

When did this happen?

[Ruso]

When did this happen?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please dont be so literal. Dont take little sentences, without context. The use of concepts as "good" and "evil", and the claim that Christianity is, and has been a perfect "proamerican" religion, is for me an invocation. The Christ, goodness, liberty, democracy, am trying to explain that you got no justification, just like the terrorists dont. I dont remember the specific rhetorical device name, but is the use of a word to represent a whole concept. (metaphor maybe?)

Nevertheless if you want literal quotes, here you go:

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

George W. Bush

"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while."

George W. Bush

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the important bridge between church and state."

George W. Bush

The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W. Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language.

"The plain message conveyed by the new administration is that George W. Bush's America is a Christian nation and that non-Christians are welcome into the tent so long as they agree to accept their status as a tolerated minority rather than as fully equal citizens. In effect, Bush is saying: 'This is our home, and in our home we pray to Jesus as our savior. If you want to be a guest in our home, you must accept the way we pray.'"

-- Alan M. Dershowitz, in "Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001

[Ruso]

Other, very interesting ones:

"[A]s you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say." -George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Oct. 28, 2003

I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." -George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself." -George W. Bush, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003

The relations with, uhh

[Charleston native]

Ahh yes, so all these quotes equate to:

"In the name of Jesus Christ, we will defeat the terrorists, crush their Islamic faith, and convert them to Christianity!" If you take many other quotes, you will notice that President Bush's top priority is the safety of the US. Many times President Bush has "invoked" THAT priority. He only acknowledges that he prays to God before making decisions. If you ask me, I will take a leader who prays about difficult decisions in times of war anyday over a secular atheist or voodoo medicine man. Oh, and Christians do worship the same God as the Hebrews.

[Charleston native]

Oh and BTW, please don't quote an intellectual moron like Alan Dershowitz from a semi-credible source like the LA Times.

[RiversideGator]

Please dont be so literal.

Please dont make accusations without any foundation in fact.

"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

George W. Bush

I seriously doubt this was ever said by Bush. Please provide documentation of it from a REPUTABLE media source (this could include any of the major newspapers in America).

Other, very interesting ones:

Congratulations. You have stumbled upon a website containing Bush's well known malapropisms. I fail to see how his poorly worded statements (which are either accidental or sometimes an attempt at humor) prove that his policies are wrong though.

[Ruso]

Ahh yes, so all these quotes equate to:

"In the name of Jesus Christ, we will defeat the terrorists, crush their Islamic faith, and convert them to Christianity!"    If you take many other quotes, you will notice that President Bush's top priority is the safety of the US. Many times President Bush has "invoked" THAT priority. He only acknowledges that he prays to God before making decisions. If you ask me, I will take a leader who prays about difficult decisions in times of war anyday over a secular atheist or voodoo medicine man. Oh, and Christians do worship the same God as the Hebrews.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The security of the USA? By attacking Iraq? Yes, their nuclaer bombs were a real threat....

[Ruso]

Oh and BTW, please don't quote an intellectual moron like Alan Dershowitz from a semi-credible source like the LA Times.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, Ad Hominem. Dont attack your adversary if you cannot refute an argument. LOl, I have heard people who in a desperate act to justify their govs' wars, have denied the authority of people like Noam Chomsky.

[Ruso]

Please dont make accusations without any foundation in fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Am sorry, but you took the "invoking the Christ" expresion as an actual invocation of Jesus, and did not get the general meaning, and it seemed as if you took it very literally.

[Ruso]

I seriously doubt this was ever said by Bush.  Please provide documentation of it from a REPUTABLE media source (this could include any of the major newspapers in America).

Congratulations.  You have stumbled upon a website containing Bush's well known malapropisms.  I fail to see how his poorly worded statements (which are either accidental or sometimes an attempt at humor) prove that his policies are wrong though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are right. I'll look for them, I have them in an especial file. Lol. Hopefully, you will look too.

About the maltropsim, I know, they got nothing to do with the war or all that stuff, but it is just great to see native english speakers speak like that. Just for fun. But, true, they are no argument, whatsoever.

[Charleston native]

Again, Ad Hominem. Dont attack your adversary if you cannot refute an argument. LOl, I have heard people who in a desperate act to justify their govs' wars, have denied the authority of people like Noam Chomsky. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not attacking you...I've read exerpts from Alan Dershowitz's articles and IMO, they are mostly filled with hate speech or completely off-the-wall arguments. I'm just saying that it would be better to quote another person with a better reputation.

[Ruso]

I'm not attacking you...I've read exerpts from Alan Dershowitz's articles and IMO, they are mostly filled with hate speech or completely off-the-wall arguments. I'm just saying that it would be better to quote another person with a better reputation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know you are not attacking me. I was talking about him. Why is he an LA times writer then? Maybe you know him more, but for what I knew he was a respectable intellectual. But who am I or who are you to judge or criticize him as an intelectual? We might or might not agree with him , but not because of that we can deny his credits as a thinker. Anyways, Noam Chomski then... he has a great book about that.

And also, I am not trying to attack you either. I just think it is necessary to open your minds and try to see the world from another perspective, from outside. The same thing happened to me time ago...I got into a discussion with a radical communist , and trying to get him to undersatnd that the USA is not an evil empire was impossible.

[Mith242]

Unfortunately I have gotten into this discussion rather late. But for what it's worth I will add my opinion as well. This has become a very complex issue. Not to make it sound like I'm here to bash the US and so on. But I do think US foreign policy has had a lot to do with all this. Let's be honest the CIA and US government have done things in other countries that weren't very scrupulous. And at one time the US did side with Bin Laden and Hussein in the past. So the US has done things to make people angry in other parts of the world, why isn't everyone else attacking us then? I personally believe part of this stems from the fact on a complex situation that has arisen in the Middle-East. Pretoleum changed the Middle-East in many ways. Before all of these countries were very poor and did not have very good standards of living. Petroleum has pumped much money into some of these countries and has greatly increased the standard of living. In many of these muslim countries the birth rate is very high and with higher standards of living that means more babies survive and more children reach adulthood. As much as the oil industry has helped these countries it hasn't developed an unlimited amount of jobs. Some of these petroleum rich countries still have high unemployment due to the high birth rates of the past couple of decades. Many of these young adults don't have jobs to look forward to. Many of them are persuaded to focus more into religious persuites. I think some of these young people are getting into some of these fundmentalist religious groups as some sort of 'act of rebellion'. They are angry because there are no jobs for them and they see a 'decadent' west that they envy in some ways and that they don't honestly understand. But they do know that the west isn't muslim.

Now no one has been silly enough to state that they believe all muslims are evil and such. But at the same time do the people in the US really understand muslims either? There has been some talk of deporting muslims, maybe they were referring to people from some of these troubled countries in particular. But I believe that it would be a short sighted effort. These people aren't going to disappear of the face of the earth. I've seen the stares some of these muslims receive here in the US. Even if they are legal citizens of the US. I truely don't believe ostracizing these people is going to help matters in the least. From what I can tell even though these people have been allowed into the US and some are even citizens there seems to be absolutely no effort into trying to understand this part of out population. At universities here in the US you will often find Latin American studies, European studies, Asian studies. But how often do you see a Middle-Eastern studies program? Is ostracizing muslims in our country going to make the rest of them stand up and be proud Americans? You'd think even if people were insistant in not liking muslims that they'd still try to learn about them so they could live the phrase 'know thy enemy'.

I personally believe that fundmentalist in any religion can be a dangerous thing. The main reason why christian fundmentalists haven't caused more problems is because we have a better standard of living and don't have all the problems other parts of the world has. Maybe it's also because other governments haven't come in and messed around with our country also. But as far as christian fundamentalist not having caused any terrorism themselves. Wasn't that guy who was bombing abortion clinics because he believed abortion was a 'sin in God's eye'? I haven't said any of this as an insult to comments that others have made. Everyone has their own personal beliefs. But for better or worse we have become a multicutural society and globalization has brought the world closer together. I don't believe turning our backs on one facet of our population here in the US and a region of this world is going to solve any problems in the long run.

[Ruso]

Exactly, it is not about good vrs evil, or christianity vrs islam, but about any idiotic, fanatic, fundamentalism, present in all religions.

[RiversideGator]

Ruso: I think the problem is it is not just a tiny minority of Muslims but a minority which has been supported by states, used as instruments of foreign policies by these same states and may have the capacity to acquire WMDs in the future. This is the problem.

By the way, you mentioned Allende earlier and, I must say that he really deserved to be deposed. He was nothing more than Castro in Chile. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

[Ruso]

Ruso:  I think the problem is it is not just a tiny minority of Muslims but a minority which has been supported by states, used as instruments of foreign policies by these same states and may have the capacity to acquire WMDs in the future.  This is the problem.

By the way, you mentioned Allende earlier and, I must say that he really deserved to be deposed.  He was nothing more than Castro in Chile.  See  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Allende, oh he will always be an interesting character to discuss. Lol, this communist I mentioned before just loves the guy. Yet, I got to clear some things up, as it is my so hated tendency as a "wannabe" devil's advocate. (hated by leftists, hated by conservatives )First of all, he deserved to be desposed? Who si Nixon, or any USA president to decide who deserves or not to be desposed in another country? Was he a terrorist? He was democratically elected. How would you or me feel if a foreign nation decided to simply desposo your president because of theri interest? What would you do if China decided that Bush is a threat to their sovereignty, and desposed him? (All this, hypothetical)Me, as a strong anti-bush man, and the rest of the world, would all be outraged!!! No nation has any right to intervene in other, unless it is about a genocide or a proven threat to the world. Allende did some very beneficial things for the working class, and that is something that the Chilean oligarchical groups could not stand. The USA allegedly supports democracy, Chile proved that only when it is convenient for its interests. You know about Pinochet? If you wanna talk about terrorism, there you got a perfect example. Thousands of deaths, thousand of dissapearances, press opression, massive killings. History, as you might know, is relative. For those less priviledged by the latin american seudo- capitalist system, Allende was a heroe. (reference to Chavez in Venezuela)

[Ruso]

Also, the betrayal with which Pinochet took power is only worth of a rat. Excuse any typing problems, I'll try to edit them later, am just too busy now.