Islam: Our Partners in Peace...

[bobsticks]

All this and you're a Republican?

Whew! Speaking of historical revisionism and head-in-the-sand.

Is it a case if cognative dissonance?

Lol...stop bein' so grumpy...

Don't make me pull yer Medicaid...oh, wait...

[bobsticks]

Sticks, are you Republican? I used to consider myself one before the Bush administration, now I have no affiliation that I claim. I feel the U.S. needs a third party, at least, one who can be conservative yet still tend to the needs of the people. By needs I mean place the same importance on education and way of life as much as missiles.

I agree with this.

But, just because I don't regard today's perversion of the Republican Party as a fair statement of it's values doesn't mean that I still don't prefer to more strongly align myself with that one of the two viable parties.

[bobsticks]

The middle ages sucked, no matter who was in charge, but that's hundreds of years ago...

Is it? Because many of the same socioeconomic imperatives still exist...though, admittedly, if you were a stranger in the tourist district of a strange land that might be harder to divine.

[bobsticks]

I went back and re-read your first post...I still can't see this^message in that post...you sure like takin' the roundabout approach Bobby

But I totally agree...history is full of opression. No one religion or philosophy has been any worse or better than another. One culture has usually advanced at the expense of another. Cultures fall for various reasons, many of them self-inflicted. Since humanity doesn't actually ever learn anything from history, we should prolly just avoid it.

It is too bad that the only outreach of 'education' from our end seems to be religious missionaries who have a Bible-first agenda. The underclass has always been the target of religious missions...its an easy sell - "you are not in charge of your own situation, let God take care of it for you; here, have some bread and water and this new soccer ball".

So, if "it's in all our best interests that everybody be educated", who is doing the educating, and how?



that's just not the NWO way...the best part about being in charge is by being able to tell at a glance who the downtrodden are, and keeping them there by manipulating them - its why people want to be in charge. It isn't just about having a piece of the pie, its about saying who else gets to have some too.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I do like the "roundabout" approach, breh...if only because it creates conversation...and only through the attempt at dialogue will the multitudes of sides meet.

[bobsticks]

Unfortunately, when a self-replicating welfare society is created, you just wind up with mindless hordes of people who simply take from society. These people are socially and morally ambivilent and add nothing to society.They don't care about anything until the handout sstop and reality whacks them upside the head with a 2x4. By then it's too late.

The same could probably be said true of past generations that have knowingly, and willingly, mortgaged the financial futures of their descendents.

[bobsticks]

Do you mean Iran, Afganistan? Or do you mean Alabama, Texas?

Religious extremists are bad nooz!! Whether Islamic Fundamentalists or Christian Fundamentalists, they are equally filled with self-righteous certainty.

Yes...

[bobsticks]

What an outright jackass comment.

Really? Because the intent can be just as malevolent and controlling...

[bobsticks]

My final thought here is that the problem that western nations have today with Radical Islam, Islamists, Jihadists, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, is a political problem, not a religious one. At its roots are the politics and economics of the 20th century, not theology.

If only that were the case.

[bobsticks]

If it is to survive, human society needs to find a middle ground for religion, culture, and wealth. As much as it may displease us here in the US, our American society is not it, so we should really stop trying to force everyone to be like us.

You're right. Unfortunately your entire argument previous to this did nothing to prove thhis conclusion.

It's not just Americans that have to do the changing. You don't think the mindful pawns of the powerbrokers in other states need to stop preaching hate. I don't think it's a coincidence that the largest growing sectors of the fringe elements of religion come from economically poor areas and prisons.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that this thread comes on this particular anniversary...it's my generation's Kennedy Assassination

[bobsticks]

<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4w9EksAo5hY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color 2=0x999999&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4w9EksAo5hY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color 2=0x999999&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>

[Rich-n-Texas]

Liberal amounts of rain today in this Islamic State of Texas. Doing my lawn a world of good!

God is great! Death to the Infidels!.

[Mr Peabody]

Rich, did you say you were going to cut my grass? That's nice of you, I'll even let you use my mower, I still burn gas and it's quasi self propelled.

[Rich-n-Texas]

www.cititurf.com Mr. P. Maybe they have a branch up there in St. Loius.

[nightflier]

Really... I'd sure like to know how the little woman felt about this. After all, that is a fairly misogynistic society and I can see why you wouldn't be bothered by It.

It's all about doing as the Romans do, rather than doing as American tourists do. You should travel more, it might be enlightening.

dunno. But in hindsight it was a mistake. But, many countries provided intelligence to support it.

What? Iraq 2.0 was the single biggest political & military blunder since Vietnam and all you can say is "dunno"? Maybe that should be something you give a little more thought. Ahem, many countries provided intelligence about the terrorist having anything to do with Iraq??? Name one.

Now you're saying that all saudis were involved? Interesting conspiracy theory. Maybe it was for their safety?

Where did I say that they were all involved? The point is, why did they need to leave in a hurry and couldn't anyone stop them from leaving. Gee, citizens from country A just attacked country B, and the very next day, 200+ people from country A are allowed to leave when no one, absolutely no one else is? Doesn't that bother you just a tad? For their safety??? I distinctly remember reading in the papers that our security agencies had some very important questions to ask several of these "special" individuals, questions related to fund-raising and other shady stuff. You're kidding me with these questions, aren't you?

Hindsight is 20/20, isn't it? The clues to finding the killer in a good mystery novel is always obvious when one gets to the end, isn't it?

Hindsight? It was a mess before, during and well after. I already mentioned the questionable stuff that happened before. And afterwards, investigators were hindered for months trying to figure out what happened. Many key people in the investigation resigned, were fired or re-assigned. Doesn't it bother you just a tad that we suffered the worst attack on American soil since the Brits were last here and we retaliate against the wrong country, we are prevented from finding out what happened at every turn by high-level co-conspirators and traitors in our own government, and our own president boldly lied to the world about it all? Yes, I know presidents lie about spots on dresses, but jeez, those are certainly some rose-colored glasses you see the world through.

I'm glad to hear that, but what "green light" are you referring to? Who do you think gave it? Please share and offer some proof. I'm curious.

I thought I was pretty clear. The FBI finds out that radical Saudi nationals are wanting to learn how to fly but not land or take off. They send their concerns up the chain of command, and then are told this is OK? That's a pretty big f'ing green light, if you ask me. Then some 4/5ths of personnel assigned to defend against terrorist attacks by the Clinton Administration are "reassigned" to Iraq just months before the attacks? Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty big friggin' green light too, don't you think? The the FBI notes that major investment firms are dumping their stocks just days before, and again they are told to find other things to focus on. How many more green lights do you need?

MAybe sharia law has nothing to do with it. Maybe it IS all the muslims over there being allowed to run around unchecked.

You seem to be confusing Sharia law with Muslim immigration and suggesting that one invariably is a consequence of the other. That's a bit of a stretch. The vast majority of Muslims immigrants are of the more progressive variety, but as with any population, there are extremists and so yes, they are there too. But why should Muslims be "checked"? Maybe you'd have them wear a yellow crescent on their clothes too? Just to make sure they could be "checked" if they should suddenly turn terrorist, of course.

**************************************8

It's not just Americans that have to do the changing. You don't think the mindful pawns of the powerbrokers in other states need to stop preaching hate. I don't think it's a coincidence that the largest growing sectors of the fringe elements of religion come from economically poor areas and prisons.

And who was primarily responsible for creating that reality? Ever heard of blow back? Not to throw more Chomsky your way, but when a colonial power so dominates and squeezes other states, it's not always possible for the dominated states to give much more. The colonial power, on the other hand, should have plenty to give and this would probably be relatively painless to do. More importantly, the dominant power being the architect of the situation, has a moral obligation to do so. There are hate-mongers on both sides, but when the one side also has everything from nuclear weapons to death squads at its disposal, their hate-mongering (Dobbs, Limbaugh, Coulter, there's a long list...) carries a whole lot more weight.

Perhaps 911 has some similarities with the Kennedy Assassination, but that is precisely why we should be asking these questions. Unless you believe that a bullet can change trajectory in mid air, Kennedy was not killed by Oswald, that's pretty much a given, and the fact that any other possibilities are dismissed as conspiracy theories, pretty much leaves that generation holding the questions in their hands indefinitely. I would like to hope that we've progressed a bit further as a society and could start to face some of the difficult questions surrounding our big event.

This has nothing to do with being progressive or conservative either. There will always be nut jobs on both sides who will believe and preach the most unlikely scenarios, but somewhere in the middle lies the truth. Rather than also dumping all this uncertainty into the proverbial dustbin of history and create another disaffected generation with its associated social consequences, I think we owe it to our generation to ask the questions and answer them. Nay, it's not so much the Kennedy Assassination of our generation as it is an American Reichstag. The parallels with Nazi Germany are disturbingly numerous, don't you think? In the words of the perpetual philosopher figure: this has all happened before.

[ForeverAutumn]

For your information, Ayaan Ali is what most would consider a conservative (member of the Dutch Ultra-Right Party, read: anti-Muslim), but she never disavows her faith, despite the Fatwa on her head. She's essentially been dealt the same punishment as Salman Rushdie, and yet she perseveres. That's the type of courage we need right now, not guns and angry rhetoric.

You're wrong about that nightflier. She quite clearly states in her book that she no longer believes in her religion and has become an atheist. Although she was a very devout Conservative Muslim as a young woman. She began to question her religion even before she escaped Somalia and her marriage.

[nightflier]

Well Ali is a bit ambiguous on that. in 2007 "Ali described her intellectual and religious journey as one in which she "lost respect not for Muslims but for what they fear." Stating she was accused of hating Muslims, and vilifying the Qur'an and Muhammad, she clarified that she did not hate Muslims, but rather the submission of free will. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayaan_Hirsi_Ali). She has said that she is an atheist, but then later said that she isn't. More recently she said that was praying again, so I think she's still trying to find out where she stands.

But you are correct that she did disavow her faith in both public statements and in writing, which in Islam is pretty much the worst crime she could commit. On the other hand, she has many times contradicted that and returned to the faith. I guess being so rooted in such absolutist conservatism is a bit of mind-bender. As they say: the bond that binds too tightly snaps itself.

[markw]

Apparently, you think sharia law and living under the muslim influence is the bee's knees. But, I don't see you doing anything to make that a reality. ...or are you,, only covertly.

did you do that google I suggested? Interesting, eh? did that give you hope?

Perhaps you should be under investigation. hmmmmm?

And, I still don't see your wife saying that she loved it. Only you putting words in her mouth. Keep that woman in line. That's the muslim way.

Face it, if you can justify sharia law, you're a misogynist. Period, end of discussion.

sometimes I think you post just to post and say nothing. Lotsa words, but totally worthless in content.

[02audionoob]

Really? Because the intent can be just as malevolent and controlling...

I don't understand this reaction to what I said, but to summarize my own thoughts:

1. Some people's knowledge of Texas, Alabama or other states in the southern US seems to be limited to tired stereotypes. My own education in the Texas public schools and colleges never once included a class on religion.

2. Atheists seem to have self-righteous certainty to equal or exceed the Christians, Jews and Muslims...combined.

3. These posts that require a dictionary and a thesaurus would probably be better off to just say what they mean and mean what they say.

[nightflier]

Apparently, you think sharia law and living under the muslim influence is the bee's knees. But, I don't see you doing anything to make that a reality. ...or are you,, only covertly.

Interesting how you don't address any of my points and just jump straight to insults and incongruous associations. I never said Sharia law was the bee's knees. What I said was that you are confusing Sharia law with Islam as a whole. Your xenophobic posturing about the threat of Islam, is not only completely unsubstantiated, but also akin to hate-mongering.

Let me repeat this: I abhor Sharia law and the injustice that women and children under it must endure. That said, I will not go propounding that this is cause for another crusade against it. And neither is the supposed spread of Islam a cause for another crusade. Such talk only gives Muslim extremists their reason for being - you're creating your own self-fulfilling prophesy that way - how convenient.

did you do that google I suggested? Interesting, eh? did that give you hope?

Yes and it bored me.

Perhaps you should be under investigation. hmmmmm?

So I should be under investigation for what exactly? Having an opinion that differs from yours? Urging cooperation and understanding between cultures and religions? Calling out paranoiac xenophobes? Pray, do tell.

And, I still don't see your wife saying that she loved it. Only you putting words in her mouth. Keep that woman in line. That's the muslim way.

She didn't and neither did I, but we respected the will of the people who so gratiously allowed us to visit them, who opened their homes to us, and who fed us. I'm not a Muslim, I'm a Christian, so you can stop with your ignorant taunts too. They make you sound rather silly, don't you think?

Face it, if you can justify sharia law, you're a misogynist. Period, end of discussion.

Justify it? Huh? That's not my place. I acknowledge it exists and I accept that some people prefer it. I don't want it in my neighborhood, but then again I don't have any fear that it will arrive there. Your fears really are based on extreme views, you know. They are neither mainstream nor factual. You really should check your facts.

sometimes I think you post just to post and say nothing. Lotsa words, but totally worthless in content.

That is your biassed opininion, as uneducated as you've made it clear it is. In the case of this thread, I posted to respond to some pretty idiotic asumptions. Sharia law is not the same thing as Muslim immigration. The longer you keep repeating that nonsense, the further we'll get from the truth. And your assertions that Islam is some kind of ideological plague that is bathed in violence sand should be responded to in kind, sounds so much like the rhetoric of National Socialism that it aught to raise a few more eyebrows.

Seriously, you really need to travel more.

[markw]

This thread was about the brutality of sharia law. That you got it off-topic is to your credit, but off-topic it is. No matter what you said in your last post, you had nothing to argue with it's it's impentation. In fact, all your posts read like a tourist brocure for it.

And, I've never "taunted" your or anyome's religion, or lack thereof, although I do suspect you harbor a distinct desire for the stricter sharia law structure. It would give you more control over those around you, at least the women.

That you say my suggested google search "bored" you tells me that there was simply too much evidence to support my statements. So, why IS there so much muslim terrorism in the one western country that allowed a bit of sharia law into it's books? Coincidence, or simply a side-effect of the muslim influence in general? Hmmmmm...?

It's too bad you mix so few valid statements with your patented 99% bullshiite that it's impossible to tell one from the other. Argue if you want, but since you'll be doing with yourself, it will truly be mental masturbation.

I've stated my case, and so have you.

[Luvin Da Blues]

[bobsticks]

And who was primarily responsible for creating that reality? Ever heard of blow back? Not to throw more Chomsky your way, but when a colonial power so dominates and squeezes other states, it's not always possible for the dominated states to give much more. The colonial power, on the other hand, should have plenty to give and this would probably be relatively painless to do. More importantly, the dominant power being the architect of the situation, has a moral obligation to do so. There are hate-mongers on both sides, but when the one side also has everything from nuclear weapons to death squads at its disposal, their hate-mongering (Dobbs, Limbaugh, Coulter, there's a long list...) carries a whole lot more weight.

Economic partnership doesn't equate to the physical realities of insurgency and colonialism. We buy a product. They sell that product and make a huge profit from it but, in turn, do nothing to take care of the 99% of the population not profiting from the gold in the desert. What they do, however, is in order to ameliorate a population that is everyday groing younger and poorer is refocus their anger.

I'm surprised in your many travels it never dawned on you that a majority of the leaders in the Middle East are quite secular.

Perhaps 911 has some similarities with the Kennedy Assassination, but that is precisely why we should be asking these questions. Unless you believe that a bullet can change trajectory in mid air, Kennedy was not killed by Oswald, that's pretty much a given, and the fact that any other possibilities are dismissed as conspiracy theories, pretty much leaves that generation holding the questions in their hands indefinitely. I would like to hope that we've progressed a bit further as a society and could start to face some of the difficult questions surrounding our big event. .

Actually, every bullet changes direction midflight...every single on of them. The degree of that change can be altered by barrel modifications, changing or coating the jacket, hot-rodding grain loads and, of course, natural issues like windsheer.

I agree that Oswald was a toady and that there is certainly some element of conspiracy involved in that incident, it's just that the words you typed do nothing to elevate your argument.

This has nothing to do with being progressive or conservative either. There will always be nut jobs on both sides who will believe and preach the most unlikely scenarios, but somewhere in the middle lies the truth. Rather than also dumping all this uncertainty into the proverbial dustbin of history and create another disaffected generation with its associated social consequences, I think we owe it to our generation to ask the questions and answer them. Nay, it's not so much the Kennedy Assassination of our generation as it is an American Reichstag. The parallels with Nazi Germany are disturbingly numerous, don't you think? In the words of the perpetual philosopher figure: this has all happened before.

I appreciate the way that you waited some years before converting a national tragedy into an implication of the corruption of the American system. Perhaps you should visit a Fire Department or Police Precinct in NYC and share your views.

[bobsticks]

I don't understand this reaction to what I said, but to summarize my own thoughts:

1. Some people's knowledge of Texas, Alabama or other states in the southern US seems to be limited to tired stereotypes. My own education in the Texas public schools and colleges never once included a class on religion..

My intent was not single out the South. I have spent significant time in Dallas, Florida, georgia and Louisianna. There I have been received almost universally with warmth, hospitality and civility.

My intent was to point out that the Middle East doesn't have a stranglehold on religious fundamentalism and extremism. As Americans we can't afford to be hypocritical on this issue. I have indeed, on occasion, seen it in the South...as I have on the Eastern seaboard and in the Midwest.

2. Atheists seem to have self-righteous certainty to equal or exceed the Christians, Jews and Muslims...combined.

Um...okay...but I'm not an athiest. I am, however, an individual that believes that people, all people, shouldn't be descrimated against (and definitely not exterminated) for spiritual beliefs that can neither be quantified nor qualified.

3. These posts that require a dictionary and a thesaurus would probably be better off to just say what they mean and mean what they say.

Much like everyone on these boards, I'm a busy guy. I tend to write quickly and off-the-cuff. It's not my responsibilty to take extra time to write down to the lowest common denominator.

[3LB]

This thread was about the brutality of sharia law.

ok

I've stated my case

what was that again?

sharia law is bad? - sure is

the muslims are coming the muslims are coming? - so

Lotsa words, but totally worthless in content.

same can be said for those who beat around the bush

I get a strong impression yer not really saying all you have to say on the subject of muslim immigration (you keep touching on it) - so lets hear it. Since it is clearly a problem in your eyes, what's the plan?

[nightflier]

I'm surprised in your many travels it never dawned on you that a majority of the leaders in the Middle East are quite secular.

Secular towards conservative Islamic movements, yes, at least for most countries. But that hardly makes them model leaders because they still imprison, torture, and execute more dissidents than in any state in the world. I'm not blind to the fact that conservative Islam is the backbone for their opposition, but like so many issues we're covering here, this isn't as black & white as some here would like it to be.

Actually, every bullet changes direction midflight...every single on of them. The degree of that change can be altered by barrel modifications, changing or coating the jacket, hot-rodding grain loads and, of course, natural issues like windsheer.

Isn't that a making a mountain out of a grassy knoll? You're talking about mild fluctuations in directions, but the kind turn Oswald's single bullet had to have made could not have occurred by barrel modifications or hot-rodding grain loads. And why would Oswald do any of that? Sticks, let's not start fabricating plausibilities Limbaugh-style, now. How did you put that so elegantly again? Oh yes, and I quote: "it's just that the words you typed do nothing to elevate your argument."

I appreciate the way that you waited some years before converting a national tragedy into an implication of the corruption of the American system. Perhaps you should visit a Fire Department or Police Precinct in NYC and share your views.

You appreciate that? Uh, yeah.

Obviously the NYC police and fire departments bore much of the brunt of the aftermath of the attack (calling it a tragedy sort of whitewashes it, IMO). So yes, the expectation on a political level is that they would be pretty resistant to any suggestions that there was some home-grown participation and neglect on the part of our own officials. Yet, after having experienced first-hand this same administration's continued neglect of the concerns from victims, injured officers, firemen, construction workers and their families, that black & white distinction is not so clear anymore. The fact is, there is widespread discontent in the NYPD and NYFD with the administration's flip-flopping and back-tracking on recognizing their sacrifices.

By the way, you never answered my question: what is so blatantly false about Chomsky's research?