R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => R/E/P Saloon => Topic started by: Ashermusic on November 30, 2007, 05:06:23 pm

Title: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on November 30, 2007, 05:06:23 pm
And no doubt some of you will.

Muslims are calling for the DEATH of a teacher who committed the sin of  allowing her students, after they voted to do so, to name a teddy bear Mohammed. More moderate Muslims only want her to be whipped.

No other religion in the modern era has examples of this kind of intolerance even remotely commensurate to this from its adherents.

Please spare me the Chrisitianity did this hundreds of years ago, not all Muslims are like this, and the other obvious facts that we are all aware of and acknowledge.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: el duderino on November 30, 2007, 05:31:46 pm
there is no defense for it. but, as always, when traveling abroad you should know the rules of where you are going. And considering this happened in Sudan, she should have known better and feared the worst.

like i said, its unjustifiable to ME. but in an age where the world is an ever increasingly small place people need to remember home rules do not always apply no matter how basic they seem.

btw, from what i read a couple hundred people were protesting for death. she got 15 days. maybe i'm wrong but I swear I've seen hundreds of people demonstrating in the usa on platforms of hate that ALSO made no sense to ME.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: i dig music on November 30, 2007, 05:41:59 pm
asher, no disrespect to you, but it appears like you are trying to call some people out.

we all have different opinions and views, but i don't believe anybody here is going to to try to "defend" that.

there's all sorts of unbelievable shit going on in this world, but you can't lump in all muslims in to the same basket and tell us that they all feel the same way, or approve of the same things.

in the middle east {or everywhere else} you have radical, moderate and stoned nonconformists. it's hard to get people on the same page, but when radicals in any neighborhood are using chainsaws to sever heads and getting away with it, people that live there take notice and don't make to many waves for obvious reasons.

what we see and hear about in that part of the world is not only to terrorize us, but to terrorize the people that live there to. the point to this brand of terrorism is to keep any opposition to an ideology or government afraid and compliant.

we have seen it in history many times before. it's nothing new.

it's very hard to take a stand against. all sorts of things motivate people, but fear usually does the trick in most cases.

it should not to be taken lightly.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Larrchild on November 30, 2007, 06:38:23 pm
A call out as it may be, the stewards of Stone Age Thinking in this country marginalizing the predictable lefty musos, as to believe they would not condemn Stone Age Thinking abroad is oddly confusing to me. And not a friendly gesture.

We're not like that.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: danickstr on November 30, 2007, 06:56:12 pm
I say death to anyone who wants death to anyone else for a lack of a crime with a victim...uh....wait...forget that. Shocked
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: CCC on November 30, 2007, 07:14:24 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 30 November 2007 17:06

And no doubt some of you will.

Muslims are calling for the DEATH of a teacher who committed the sin of  allowing her students, after they voted to do so, to name a teddy bear Mohammed. More moderate Muslims only want her to be whipped.

No other religion in the modern era has examples of this kind of intolerance even remotely commensurate to this from its adherents.

Please spare me the Chrisitianity did this hundreds of years ago, not all Muslims are like this, and the other obvious facts that we are all aware of and acknowledge.


I agree that this is indefensible.  But then, before we Westerners take the moral high road, let us not forget that 50 years ago in certain parts of this continent an African-American could easily be lynched for any number of insignificant reasons.  As I understand it, from the late 19th century through the 60's there were literally thousands of lynchings.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not analogizing racists with "religion"...but .....
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: studiojimi on November 30, 2007, 07:22:31 pm
kill everybody
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Larrchild on November 30, 2007, 07:26:58 pm
It was pointed out that moving out of the Stone Age occurs when people who live in it find out about what's out there.

As I Dig Music put it really well, these countries have a vested interest in people-control through fear. And keeping the Western Devil Culture out.

But time is not on their side.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Daniel Farris on November 30, 2007, 08:52:36 pm
It's pure nonsense and indefensible.

I do suspect, however, that it is xenophobia and racial hatred conveniently couched in a nominally religious argument.

DF
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 01, 2007, 02:16:55 am
We give the religious aspect too much blame, when the real culprit is the vast difference in overall culture, of which religion is but a component.  The appeal of western culture makes it necessary for its opponents to go to great lengths.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: J.J. Blair on December 01, 2007, 02:44:49 am
Christians would never do such a thing!  Like, they would never bomb abortion clinics or shoot OBGYNs who do abortions.  Those Muslims are horrible people!

I love how the same people who decry a Muslim theocracy are frequently people who would embrace a Christian theocracy.  
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Chris Ilett on December 01, 2007, 08:06:37 am
studiojimi wrote on Fri, 30 November 2007 18:22

kill everybody


Laughing
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: PP on December 01, 2007, 10:03:34 am
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 01, 2007, 11:10:19 am
i dig music wrote on Fri, 30 November 2007 22:41

asher, no disrespect to you, but it appears like you are trying to call some people out.

we all have different opinions and views, but i don't believe anybody here is going to to try to "defend" that.

there's all sorts of unbelievable shit going on in this world, but you can't lump in all muslims in to the same basket and tell us that they all feel the same way, or approve of the same things.

in the middle east {or everywhere else} you have radical, moderate and stoned nonconformists. it's hard to get people on the same page, but when radicals in any neighborhood are using chainsaws to sever heads and getting away with it, people that live there take notice and don't make to many waves for obvious reasons.

what we see and hear about in that part of the world is not only to terrorize us, but to terrorize the people that live there to. the point to this brand of terrorism is to keep any opposition to an ideology or government afraid and compliant.

we have seen it in history many times before. it's nothing new.

it's very hard to take a stand against. all sorts of things motivate people, but fear usually does the trick in most cases.

it should not to be taken lightly.



It was indeed meant as a call out but not a hostile one. I am just trying to shake the folks who believe that "all cultures are morally equal, it  is just a matter of your perception and you simply need to get together to talk out your differences" crowd out of their dream world and recognize what it is we are dealing with.

I guess what bothers me overall these days is the refusal of liberals ( I am a Centrist) to simply acknowledge  that fact that unlike any other religion at this point in history Islam has a large number of adherents that believe death is an acceptable punishment for any perceived disrespect for their religion and are unwilling to condemn that.

Do I believe that ALL muslims or even MOST believe this? Of course not. Do I believe that out of the app. 1 billion Muslims on the planet perhaps millions and certainly at least hundreds of thousands do? You bet I do and every kind of polling that is done supports that.

We cannot deal with the cultural differences if we do not acknowledge they exist and be willing to simply say that it is wrong to advocate putting a person to death for this kind of offense.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 01, 2007, 11:55:52 am
JS wrote on Fri, 30 November 2007 16:14

But then, before we Westerners take the moral high road, let us not forget that 50 years ago in certain parts of this continent an African-American could easily be lynched for any number of insignificant reasons.  As I understand it, from the late 19th century through the 60's there were literally thousands of lynchings.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not analogizing racists with "religion"...but .....

50 years ago? How long ago was it that a man in Texas was was chained to the back of pickup truck and torn in two?

Must have been those Texas Muslims did it.

Asher, it was Polish Catholics who put my family in gas chambers and ovens, while the Pope watched. It was Polish catholics who slaughtered Jews in 1946 when they returned home. Do I think this could happen again? In a heartbeat - do I think this could happen again here - yes, but this time it might be you doing it to Muslims. I don't mean that as a personal insult - this shit begins somewhere. Usually inside people. May I suggest with respect and love - please calm down. No one means you any harm. The world evolves. I'm married to an Irish/German/Swedish catholic girl. You can't force anyone to see it your way.  Lucky for me. Its another thing to appreciate about America - you live in a land where you agree with the laws. If you didn't you could go elsewhere.

How about you start a thread in which we all get to list all the things we don't like elsewhere? How about we just focus on our opinions of Africa and see how high up on the list this one is?

Some religious fanatics going apoplectic in Africa means little to me - I'm more concerned about religious fanaticism at home - condemnation of Islam being one manifestation of it in my opinion.

There - got what you were looking for?

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 01, 2007, 12:11:41 pm
All religions are susceptible to manipulation because the adherents are willing to believe and act on ideologies that circumvent the need for demonstrable proof.  Then anything can become acceptable behavior.  The subjugation of women is often found in these cultures along with the demonization of outsiders.  These are simply ways of controlling behavior that have been handed down from tribal societies and still exist in many isolated places in the world.  As the isolation breaks down, the clash of ideologies results.

Demonizing Muslims and implying that liberals support their right to outrageous behavior is ridiculous, just the kind of right-wing rhetoric we hear daily from the administration in Washington.  Liberals/progressives are the first group to denounce the subjugation of women and other cultural forms of discrimination.  But liberals are not willing to resort immediately to the warlike tribal response you seem to be advocating.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 01, 2007, 01:14:08 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 30 November 2007 23:06

And no doubt some of you will.

Muslims are calling for the DEATH of a teacher who committed the sin of  allowing her students, after they voted to do so, to name a teddy bear Mohammed. More moderate Muslims only want her to be whipped.

No other religion in the modern era has examples of this kind of intolerance even remotely commensurate to this from its adherents.

Please spare me the Chrisitianity did this hundreds of years ago, not all Muslims are like this, and the other obvious facts that we are all aware of and acknowledge.



There is no defense for this. This shows trully how stupid obscurantism can lead, as well as lack of basic knowledge of history and tolerance, Ignorance and simple understanding of religion, you name it ...

This sad event trully shows the stupidity of humanity.

This, and your own post of course.

Peace

malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 01, 2007, 01:38:51 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 17:10


We cannot deal with the cultural differences if we do not acknowledge they exist and be willing to simply say that it is wrong to advocate putting a person to death for this kind of offense.



But is it ok to emprison and torture a person for no clear reason without giving him the right to get a proper defense according to our laws ?

malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 01, 2007, 01:40:31 pm
Larrchild wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 01:26



As I Dig Music put it really well, these countries have a vested interest in people-control through fear.


That would NEVER be the case in US of A Very Happy

malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 01, 2007, 02:41:58 pm
malice wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 18:38

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 17:10


We cannot deal with the cultural differences if we do not acknowledge they exist and be willing to simply say that it is wrong to advocate putting a person to death for this kind of offense.



But is it ok to emprison and torture a person for no clear reason without giving him the right to get a proper defense according to our laws ?

malice



No it is not. But it is better than killing him.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 01, 2007, 02:48:04 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 20:41

malice wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 18:38

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 17:10


We cannot deal with the cultural differences if we do not acknowledge they exist and be willing to simply say that it is wrong to advocate putting a person to death for this kind of offense.



But is it ok to emprison and torture a person for no clear reason without giving him the right to get a proper defense according to our laws ?

malice



No it is not. But it is better than killing him.


1) This poor teacher has not been sentenced to death as far as I know.

2) torture being better than death is highly debatable

3) Does the expression wiping your own floor before giving lesson to anyone else rings a bell now ?

malice


3)
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 01, 2007, 02:51:34 pm
mgod wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 16:55

JS wrote on Fri, 30 November 2007 16:14

But then, before we Westerners take the moral high road, let us not forget that 50 years ago in certain parts of this continent an African-American could easily be lynched for any number of insignificant reasons.  As I understand it, from the late 19th century through the 60's there were literally thousands of lynchings.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not analogizing racists with "religion"...but .....

50 years ago? How long ago was it that a man in Texas was was chained to the back of pickup truck and torn in two?

Must have been those Texas Muslims did it.

Asher, it was Polish Catholics who put my family in gas chambers and ovens, while the Pope watched. It was Polish catholics who slaughtered Jews in 1946 when they returned home. Do I think this could happen again? In a heartbeat - do I think this could happen again here - yes, but this time it might be you doing it to Muslims. I don't mean that as a personal insult - this shit begins somewhere. Usually inside people. May I suggest with respect and love - please calm down. No one means you any harm. The world evolves. I'm married to an Irish/German/Swedish catholic girl. You can't force anyone to see it your way.  Lucky for me. Its another thing to appreciate about America - you live in a land where you agree with the laws. If you didn't you could go elsewhere.

How about you start a thread in which we all get to list all the things we don't like elsewhere? How about we just focus on our opinions of Africa and see how high up on the list this one is?

Some religious fanatics going apoplectic in Africa means little to me - I'm more concerned about religious fanaticism at home - condemnation of Islam being one manifestation of it in my opinion.

There - got what you were looking for?

DS



1. I am calm.

2. No there are people who do mean me harm and  you harm also because we do not share their values or religion. The difference is I acknowledge it and you dismiss it. The Jews in Germany did the same thing. And Hitler and Stalin, who killed the vast majority of people killed in the 20th century, were not Christians or Jews.

3. There is a difference between the actions of people in isolated incidents and the religious/ cultural belief in the correctness of these actions of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions.

Slumber on, folks, slumber on.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 01, 2007, 02:53:19 pm
malice wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 19:48

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 20:41

malice wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 18:38

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 17:10


We cannot deal with the cultural differences if we do not acknowledge they exist and be willing to simply say that it is wrong to advocate putting a person to death for this kind of offense.



But is it ok to emprison and torture a person for no clear reason without giving him the right to get a proper defense according to our laws ?

malice



No it is not. But it is better than killing him.


1) This poor teacher has not been sentenced to death as far as I know.

2) torture being better than death is highly debatable

3) Does the expression wiping your own floor before giving lesson to anyone else rings a bell now ?

malice


3)


You have no sense of proportion, do you? The torture of hundreds is identical to you to the killing of thousands?
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 01, 2007, 03:07:36 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 20:53


You have no sense of proportion, do you? The torture of hundreds is identical to you to the killing of thousands?



Killing of thousands ?

Do you know how many innocent people, including women and children,  died in Iraq because of the war and embargo ?

It is hundred of thousands trully,  it's about half a million lifes. Human lifes.

You're not that consistent over sense of proportion yourself ...

Does torture justifies to lose your soul ?

Are you willing to defend your country's actions over this blatent negation of human rights ?

again, I find this news outrageous and indefensible, but the way you brought a judgment over a whole religion over the actions of a few iluminated idiots does not, in my book, seperate you from the lot of uneducated humanity.

Especially when your own country couldn't dismiss itself from its own barbary.

To be even more explicit : Guantanamo is NO BETTER than what is hapening to this poor teacher.

Again : wipe your own floor before giving lessons to people.

malice

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Chris Ilett on December 01, 2007, 03:20:03 pm
Purely to calm things down a bit, and remember this is just a forum and it's very easy to misconstrue each other.

http://jesusandmo.net/strips/2007-11-30.jpg
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 01, 2007, 03:29:20 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 11:51


1. I am calm.

Starting threads like this suggests otherwise. So does your response.

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 11:51


2. No there are people who do mean me harm and  you harm also because we do not share their values or religion. The difference is I acknowledge it and you dismiss it. The Jews in Germany did the same thing. And Hitler and Stalin, who killed the vast majority of people killed in the 20th century, were not Christians or Jews.

I'd be surprised if Hitler killed anybody personally. Somebody had to carry out those actions. Stalin was enough of a military guy that he might have done a little killing, but they both had a lot of people assisting them when the numbers got big. Probably very few of them Muslims. And if those guys weren't Christian then what were they? Do you exempt them from their heritage because of their actions, as unchristian actions? Despite the long history of Christian "conversion" and violence? And if you do, wouldn't that be an equal argument on the other side?

Your views are more dangerous to me than actions taken half way around the globe because they serve as the foundation for violence against Muslims here.

Now that's something to watch out for.

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 11:51

 
Slumber on, folks, slumber on.

Slumber on? My duty is to be awake to those trying to incite violence in and around me. Bush, Cheney and you. There are crazies everywhere. Your specific problem with Islam is your problem. OK - defend that.

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 01, 2007, 03:29:22 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 11:51

1. I am calm.
How can you remain calm in the face of what you evidentally perceive as an existential threat to the entirety of Western civilization?
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 11:51


2. No there are people who do mean me harm and  you harm also because we do not share their values or religion. The difference is I acknowledge it and you dismiss it. The Jews in Germany did the same thing. And Hitler and Stalin, who killed the vast majority of people killed in the 20th century, were not Christians or Jews.
No one is denying the existence of the opponents of our way of life.  What we've been trying to point out to you is that they lack the numbers and the ability to carry out their wishes.  You have a vastly exaggerated estimation of their power.
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 11:51

3. There is a difference between the actions of people in isolated incidents and the religious/ cultural belief in the correctness of these actions of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions.

Slumber on, folks, slumber on.
Sometimes it's wiser to sleep on it rather than go off half-cocked.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 01, 2007, 04:01:47 pm
The last word on religious threats:
index.php/fa/6859/0/
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Larrchild on December 01, 2007, 04:12:55 pm
Ok, despite a bucket of lib-chum being dropped in the water here, we all universally condemn this.

Now how do we effectively protest it?
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 01, 2007, 04:52:17 pm
I am calm because I do believe that most of the Western world does understand the threat that radical Islam  poses to our civilization and will respond as is necessary. Historically, it takes us a while but  we  do. I even believe that it is possible that eventually large numbers of non-radical Muslims will find the courage to condemn those but I do not think it is likely.

I have already said I am against torture and think Guantanamo should be shut down. I totally agree with John McCain in his unequivocal condemnation of torture. He was tortured and understands it well, although my guess is he would say that since he is still here with a family and a good life it was  preferable to being killed. I did not, nor  would I, vote for Bush/Cheney, or anyone who supported this. So I wish you guys would stop laying that at my doorstep. Correcting what is wrong here and condemning the Islamic fanatics are not mutually exclusive tasks.

Those who carried out Hitler and Stalin's orders were not doing so because of Christian philosophy or beliefs or in its name.

The day Americans start attacking Muslims here I will be among the first to condemn it loudly. I am not inciting violence against anyone who does not support violence as a tool for killing those that merely offend their sensibilities. Far more Muslims have been killed by other Muslims than Americans.

Malice, I do not believe for a nonosecond that a country or person for that matter has to be perfect in order to condemn things that are wrong. If so, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, even Gandhi, would be disqualified and no nation on earth would ever be justified in criticizing another.

Jay, apparently you are not aware that the Cole was bombed, the WTC attacked twice, attacks on the  Spanish, the British, and, oh yeah, the French and Germans, who did not support the Iraq war. You underestimate them at your peril.

The actor Ron Silver said it best when he said, "We are not a war with Islam, we are war with Jihadistan."

When the U.S. engages in war with Iraq and in the opinion of some kills innocents wrongfully, hundreds of thousands of people in free Western civilizations protest and condemn it. The proof of one's integrity is willingness to criticize your own people when they are wrong or even to see it as wrong.

I marched against the Vietnam War because I believed it to be wrong. I have written my congressman to protest Guantanamo and Abu Grave and I vote against those that support it. Many of you do also and perhaps more

Such behavior among Muslims in the Middle East is practically non-existent and that is why they are such a threat, because if you  hold beliefs that contradict their religious/cultural values and express them, or their daughter dishonors them in their eyes, or someone names a teddy bear Mohammed, they belief that if you are sentenced to death the punishment fits the crime.

When this kind of thing happens to  this teacher, or a Fatwa is declared against Salmon Rushdie, or Al Qaeda attacks innocents, or even Muslims kill other Muslims, please folks, guide me  to the articles that report large numbers of Muslims in the Middle East condemning this and protesting and saying "This is not what Islam is about." You sometimes see Muslims in Western countries do so, though not in large numbers, but not in the Middle East.

Why? There are only two possible reasons that I can come up with:
1. They are afraid they will be killed.
2. They agree with the actions.

Once again, if you can point to me to any information or articles from any main stream Middle Eastern publications, TV stations, editorials, polls, etc. that show large numbers  of Muslims in the Middle East speaking out against Islamic extremism then I will modify my opinion and state so plainly.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Chris Ilett on December 01, 2007, 05:05:42 pm
We could offer Asher as some sort of trade.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Larrchild on December 01, 2007, 05:12:05 pm
Quote:

Why? There are only two possible reasons that I can come up with:
1. They are afraid they will be killed.
2. They agree with the actions.


If you apply this model to why Italians didn't have a public outcry against the Cosa Nostra, you would find it to be mainly "1", eh?
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 01, 2007, 05:13:44 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 13:52


Jay, apparently you are not aware that the Cole was bombed, the WTC attacked twice, attacks on the  Spanish, the British, and, oh yeah, the French and Germans, who did not support the Iraq war. You underestimate them at your peril.


Compare that with World Wars I and II and tell us if you think it's the same level of threat.  Overestimating the threat is not without its own consequences.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 01, 2007, 05:17:18 pm
Larrchild wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 22:12

Quote:

Why? There are only two possible reasons that I can come up with:
1. They are afraid they will be killed.
2. They agree with the actions.


If you apply this model to why Italians didn't have a public outcry against the Cosa Nostra, you would find it to be mainly "1", eh?


I have no knowledge but my guess would be for some #1, some #1 and #2.

Although I remember once that a Mafia member who turned said that the average person had no reason to fear them, only those who tried to do business with them and double-crossed them. An interesting ethical code, no?

Either way, how is this germane to our discussion?
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 01, 2007, 05:20:18 pm
Jay Kadis wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 22:13

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 13:52


Jay, apparently you are not aware that the Cole was bombed, the WTC attacked twice, attacks on the  Spanish, the British, and, oh yeah, the French and Germans, who did not support the Iraq war. You underestimate them at your peril.


Compare that with World Wars I and II and tell us if you think it's the same level of threat.  Overestimating the threat is not without its own consequences.


That  is a fair point Jay and the only reason I fear that it is perhaps potentially the same level is that so few Muslims in the Middle East condemn it.

If I saw Tienneman Square type Muslim protests in the Middle East against these behaviors I would be far less worried.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 01, 2007, 05:32:31 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 13:52

Those who carried out Hitler and Stalin's orders were not doing so because of Christian philosophy or beliefs or in its name.

So they did it despite their faith which explicitly forbids them from harming another person. You're quibbling about words. There have been tens of millions slaughtered in Jesus' name. They've still got the edge over Islam when it comes to numbers.

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 13:52


When the U.S. engages in war with Iraq and in the opinion of some kills innocents wrongfully...

In the opinion of some?

I'm not interested in defending the actions of some loony Muslims in Africa- I'm more more concerned with and interested in the Western obsession with the so-called Islamic threat to our precious civilization. The threat in my own back yard is bigger - and a far greater danger to our civilization. Witness the rationales for fear, war and hate put forth here.

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Larrchild on December 01, 2007, 05:47:47 pm
index.php/fa/6860/0/
The Commie Threat has been handily replaced by the Muslim threat in the fear trade of the right, that is apparent.

What's missed in your camp is that these "funny religions" like Islam have, for the majority of their participants, the same narrow goals of Job, House,Family, Internet, and Wii, as average Christians or Buddhists.

And it's always that small percentage of crazies that get paranoia fired up.

And like the "Outer Limits" episode where the neighbors all turn on each other, while the aliens chuckle.. provides the ever dividing nation you seek.

Again, these are not nations messing with us, they are gangs.
Small groups with big results.
And you are playing into it well.

I strongly suggest getting "Crash" on DVD and putting it in loop mode.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 01, 2007, 06:00:35 pm
mgod wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 22:32

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 13:52

Those who carried out Hitler and Stalin's orders were not doing so because of Christian philosophy or beliefs or in its name.

So they did it despite their faith which explicitly forbids them from harming another person. You're quibbling about words. There have been tens of millions slaughtered in Jesus' name. They've still got the edge over Islam when it comes to numbers.

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 13:52


When the U.S. engages in war with Iraq and in the opinion of some kills innocents wrongfully...

In the opinion of some?

I'm not interested in defending the actions of some loony Muslims in Africa- I'm more more concerned with and interested in the Western obsession with the so-called Islamic threat to our precious civilization. The threat in my own back yard is bigger - and a far greater danger to our civilization. Witness the rationales for fear, war and hate put forth here.

DS


Right,  and when I start to see Christians groups advocating and/or killing others because they do not accept Jesus as their savior, or for naming  their teddy bear Jesus, or writing an unflattering  book about Christianity., I swear to you I will be writing a thread here warning about the need to confront them. But you and I  both know  that will not happen.

Those "loony Muslims in Africa" share views about the way to treat  those with different values with hundreds of thousands of others, perhaps millions, and you are making it sound like they are a handful. They are not.

You  need not worry about  the threat in your own backyard because you are free to protest it, vote for candidates who do not  support the  actions you  do not like, etc. which in all likelihood will be happening next  November.

I can walk out in the middle of a street and say, "George Bush is a fascist" or "Catholic priests are all pedophiles" or "Jesus was an homo" and while it is possible I will offend  some individual who will be moved to throw a punch at me I will not be  imprisoned or killed by the government or police, no responsible religious group will be calling  for my execution, etc.

And indeed, that DOES make our civilization "precious."

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: i dig music on December 01, 2007, 07:23:11 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 17:00


Those "loony Muslims in Africa" share views about the way to treat  those with different values with hundreds of thousands of others, perhaps millions, and you are making it sound like they are a handful. They are not.


so asher,

what do you want to do about the "hundreds of thousands of others, perhaps millions" of muslims?

maybe....just maybe....it's a few arsehole's ruining things for everybody else in the world.

maybe....just maybe......

as mgod has has pointed out to you very clearly,

history is repeating. same game. new place. new faces. different time.

maybe....just maybe..... orders and policy are made by a few arsehole's in power for other reasons, using ideology as their excuse and justification.

it wouldn't be that much of a stretch. but what i think your saying is that we should weed out the bad ones and "deal with them"?


let's pretend like your in charge now.

how would you determine who is bad or good?

again, what would you do to the bad ones if you had the "power" to change and control what you fear?


Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 01, 2007, 08:46:27 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 15:00

I can walk out in the middle of a street and say, "George Bush is a fascist" or "Catholic priests are all pedophiles" or "Jesus was an homo" and while it is possible I will offend  some individual who will be moved to throw a punch at me I will not be  imprisoned or killed by the government or police, no responsible religious group will be calling  for my execution, etc.


And "they" can't we're told - but how is that a threat to you or to me?

Can anybody say "Piss Christ"?
i dig music wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 16:23


how would you determine who is bad or good?

Ooh! I know this one! Santa Claus!

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: maxim on December 01, 2007, 08:54:48 pm
"Stalin was enough of a military guy that he might have done a little killing, "

apparently, stalin/djugashvili was an armed robber in his youth
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 01, 2007, 10:07:41 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 00:00


And indeed, that DOES make our civilization "precious."




All civilisations are "precious" regardless

malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 12:12:00 pm
malice wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 03:07

Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 00:00


And indeed, that DOES make our civilization "precious."





All civilisations are "precious" regardless

malice


I disagree. A civilization that condones honor killing, clitoridectomy, killing as a permissible punishment to those who violate their sensibilities of offending their religion, etc.  is NOT "precious."

It is backward, medieval, inhumane, sexist, racist, reprehensible, and we should not be afraid to stand up and say so.

The idea that all civilizations are morally equal, just different, is pernicious and IMHO the biggest danger to the world.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

And for those of you who will now want to jump in with the usual "look at what your country is doing" I will point out that those who disagree with our country's actions, citizens or not, are free to protest and indeed are in large numbers and as we saw with the Vietnam War and are perhaps seeing the beginnings of now, can actually change things.

There are no such opportunities permitted in the "precious" civilizations of the Middle East.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 12:25:38 pm
i dig music wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 00:23

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 17:00


Those "loony Muslims in Africa" share views about the way to treat  those with different values with hundreds of thousands of others, perhaps millions, and you are making it sound like they are a handful. They are not.


so asher,

what do you want to do about the "hundreds of thousands of others, perhaps millions" of muslims?

maybe....just maybe....it's a few arsehole's ruining things for everybody else in the world.

maybe....just maybe......

as mgod has has pointed out to you very clearly,

history is repeating. same game. new place. new faces. different time.

maybe....just maybe..... orders and policy are made by a few arsehole's in power for other reasons, using ideology as their excuse and justification.

it wouldn't be that much of a stretch. but what i think your saying is that we should weed out the bad ones and "deal with them"?


let's pretend like your in charge now.

how would you determine who is bad or good?

again, what would you do to the bad ones if you had the "power" to change and control what you fear?





Fair questions. Here is where I am supposed to write"bombs away", right?

I do not have all the answers. Richard Clarke has some of them and I use many of his.

1. Decrease our dependence on foreign oil so we are free to work to push repressive regimes to moderate and stop treating faux friends like the Saudis as true friends, which they are not, and pressure them to move to more humane treatment of women and non-believers.

2.  Continue to work for a settlement to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. While it will not really change much in the eyes of the terrorists it perhaps will decrease support of them by the so-called moderates.

3. Spend more of our military budget on intelligence so that  we have a better chance of disrupting terrorist activities. We also need to work to secure more international funding for Interpol, which would like to play a larger role and is capable of it but simply does not have the money.

4.  Encourage Muslim groups to denounce terrorism, the treatment of women as second class citizens, and intolerance of non-believers.

5. Enlist NATO to apply pressure to Iran and Syria to stop supplying terrorist groups. I  do know if this can happen however because several of the key NATO countries are deathly afraid of  their large Muslim populations.

6. Enlist and empower people like Richard Clarke who have proven their understanding of this and unlike the Bush administration, actually LISTEN to them.

As I say,I do not have all the answers and I  would never vote for myself as president. I think however people like Joe Biden and even Hillary have a pretty good handle on this.


Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: studiojimi on December 02, 2007, 12:42:37 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 09:25



1. Decrease our dependence on foreign oil so we are free to work to push repressive regimes to moderate and stop treating faux friends like the Saudis as true friends, which they are not, and pressure them to move to more humane treatment of women and non-believers.

2.  Continue to work for a settlement to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. While it will not really change much in the eyes of the terrorists it perhaps will decrease support of them by the so-called moderates.

3. Spend more of our military budget on intelligence so that  we have a better chance of disrupting terrorist activities. We also need to work to secure more international funding for Interpol, which would like to play a larger role and is capable of it but simply does not have the money.

4.  Encourage Muslim groups to denounce terrorism, the treatment of women as second class citizens, and intolerance of non-believers.

5. Enlist NATO to apply pressure to Iran and Syria to stop supplying terrorist groups. I  do know if this can happen however because several of the key NATO countries are deathly afraid of  their large Muslim populations.

6. Enlist and empower people like Richard Clarke who have proven their understanding of this and unlike the Bush administration, actually LISTEN to them.






now THAT was a contribution.
don't know anything about thie Richard clarke but...

that all sounds positive and solution oriented.

i don't know enough about this Richard Clarke but i resonate with
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 01:01:20 pm
now THAT was a contribution.
don't know anything about thie Richard clarke but...

that all sounds positive and solution oriented.

i don't know enough about this Richard Clarke but i resonate with [/quote]

Thanks Jimi.

 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/102-0115702-5681774?url  =search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Richard+Clarke&x= 0&y=0
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Jay Kadis on December 02, 2007, 01:17:13 pm
Those ideas only nibble around the edges of the problem.  Poverty is the real underlying root of nearly all of the discord.  When there's a more equal distribution of global wealth there will be far less trouble with radicalism.  Once everyone has a reasonable standard of living you will see the other issues fade.

When you have something to lose you think twice about taking desperate actions.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 02, 2007, 02:53:02 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 18:12


I disagree. A civilization that condones honor killing, clitoridectomy, killing as a permissible punishment to those who violate their sensibilities of offending their religion, etc.  is NOT "precious."


You are mixing everything, and you seem to not understand Islam at all. Beside, you seem to forget a civilisation is in constant evolution and deciding one is not "precious" albeit worthy of survival is admiiting our own western civilisation should be extinct for the same reasons you apparently think suddan is not worthy of survival.

Quote:

It is backward, medieval, inhumane, sexist, racist, reprehensible, and we should not be afraid to stand up and say so.


May I remind you than US was considering "acceptable" to put black people at the rear of busses less than a century ago and that mariage between black people and white people was a crime less than 30 years ago in some states. Why wouldn't you grant the same opportunity of evolution to Suddan than to your own country ?


Quote:

The idea that all civilizations are morally equal, just different, is pernicious and IMHO the biggest danger to the world.


Your are not borderline to obscurantism here, you are borderline to nazism

This is the same way of thinking that justified genocides thru history of mankind, and I'm afraid I have to remind you that even  United States had its share of attrocities in a not so distand past. Learning from the mistakes is part of the process, and you should accept the fact that it is necessary for every civilisation to bear this burdden.


Quote:


There are no such opportunities permitted in the "precious" civilizations of the Middle East.



Your misconceptions about the Middle East ( and I do mean the ones from your very own administration)  has caused tremendous suffering and chaos. The same self righteous vision you seem to show here, have put the whole Middle east in a state of dangerous instability, and weakened your country dramaticaly.



malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Andy Peters on December 02, 2007, 02:57:17 pm
Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 11:17

Those ideas only nibble around the edges of the problem.  Poverty is the real underlying root of nearly all of the discord.  When there's a more equal distribution of global wealth there will be far less trouble with radicalism.  Once everyone has a reasonable standard of living you will see the other issues fade.


Exactly.

And as long as there is poverty and the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots, there will be people who will tell the have-nots that some group is to blame for all of their ills.

When your "target demographic" is poor and uneducated, they're easier to manipulate.

Of course, on the side of the "haves" there is always the active effort to maintain the status quo. Interestingly, some of the same techniques used by those who incite the rabble (if you will) are used by those who incite the upper class: fear of those "others" who would take the have's (typically God-given) property, which is not much different from the fear of those "others" would would prevent the have-nots from obtaining their (typically God-given) property.

it all gives me a headache.

-a
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Andy Peters on December 02, 2007, 03:04:02 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 14:52

I totally agree with John McCain in his unequivocal condemnation of torture.


Unfortunately, McCain's condemnations are not unequivocal.

It's one thing to make campaign stump speeches condemning this or that. The soundbites and the appearances on The Daily Show make him seem like he is on the correct side of this debate (and why is there even a debate?).

It's quite another thing to sit in the Senate and vote in lockstep with your Republican buddies AGAINST any legislation or condemnation of torture. He should be LEADING efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney for allowing the use of torture, rather than making weak statements of condemnation.

McCain is a fool who has repeatedly let the Bush administration pwn him. I am embarrassed that he allegedly represents me in the Senate. (Kyl is even worse, if one can imagine.)

Sorry, McCain, your time is up.  I, for one, cannot wait for Senator Napolitano to replace his sorry ass in the Senate.

-a
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 02, 2007, 03:19:57 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 09:12

It is backward, medieval, inhumane, sexist, racist, reprehensible, and we should not be afraid to stand up and say so.


Not so long ago the Christian west was exactly that, burning heretics and "witches", driving Jews from their homes, etc. All the while Islam was giving us modern mathematics and architecture.

Really, the Christian West is still at it, as you demonstrate - continuing to demonize the other, in this case Islam, which gives rise to terrorism against "us" and massive invasion resulting in outright theft of property and life against "them." The idea that Muslim terrorism is sui generis, its own evil thing with nothing giving rise to it, is I think the single most evil thought that is perpetrated in the West - we are absolved of all blame because their tactics are not addressable by the conventional warfare which "we" excel at. If only those evil doers would play the game! So, then the logical conclusion of everything Mr. Asher has said is that if we face an invading force of Muslims from around the world, we could not have a legitimate complaint against Islam itself. Mr. Asher - you're in a fit about tactics, and you're using your ancient and highly propagandistic ideas about the enemy you select to justify traditional barbaric thinking. Yes, this is a war and we started it. And we use religion to justify and excuse ourselves. That's what this discussion is really about. Mr. Asher is simply either distracted by, or trying to distract us by complaining about a way of life he doesn't know but of which he disapproves.

I'll go Richard Clarke one better: leave them alone, pay market prices for their oil, and I bet we go a looooooong way to peace.

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 04:09:54 pm
mgod wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 20:19

Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 09:12

It is backward, medieval, inhumane, sexist, racist, reprehensible, and we should not be afraid to stand up and say so.


Not so long ago the Christian west was exactly that, burning heretics and "witches", driving Jews from their homes, etc. All the while Islam was giving us modern mathematics and architecture.

Really, the Christian West is still at it, as you demonstrate - continuing to demonize the other, in this case Islam, which gives rise to terrorism against "us" and massive invasion resulting in outright theft of property and life against "them." The idea that Muslim terrorism is sui generis, its own evil thing with nothing giving rise to it, is I think the single most evil thought that is perpetrated in the West - we are absolved of all blame because their tactics are not addressable by the conventional warfare which "we" excel at. If only those evil doers would play the game! So, then the logical conclusion of everything Mr. Asher has said is that if we face an invading force of Muslims from around the world, we could not have a legitimate complaint against Islam itself. Mr. Asher - you're in a fit about tactics, and you're using your ancient and highly propagandistic ideas about the enemy you select to justify traditional barbaric thinking. Yes, this is a war and we started it. And we use religion to justify and excuse ourselves. That's what this discussion is really about. Mr. Asher is simply either distracted by, or trying to distract us by complaining about a way of life he doesn't know but of which he disapproves.

I'll go Richard Clarke one better: leave them alone, pay market prices for their oil, and I bet we go a looooooong way to peace.

DS



1. "Not so long ago" is three hundred years ago. Whatever Christianity's past sins, and yes they are many, it does not reflect Christianity today. And I am not Christian.

2. Islamic terrorism may not be sui generis but at this time in history it stands alone in its practices on  a large scale.

3. I  find it interesting how you avoid  even discussing the sexism of the culture. You bet I disapprove of it and you should too. Even at its worst Christianity never tolerated honor killing, clitoridectomy,  etc. But who cares, after all, you are not a woman, right?  And after all, it is just another value system, no more or less moral, right?

4. According to Osama Bin Laden, the attacks on the U.S, which started long before Iraq, were begun because we affronted him and in his mind all Islam by defiling Islam with our infidel presence on the sacred holy ground of Saudia Arabia which contains the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This also turned him against the House of Saud. BTW, in those days, he never mentioned the Palestinian issue, raising that later was strictly a  tactical choice. You really ought to read "The Looming Tower."

Your idea of going Clarke one better is is essentially how Neville Chamberlain proposed dealing with Hitler and we all saw how well that worked.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 04:13:41 pm
Andy Peters wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 19:57

Jay Kadis wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 11:17

Those ideas only nibble around the edges of the problem.  Poverty is the real underlying root of nearly all of the discord.  When there's a more equal distribution of global wealth there will be far less trouble with radicalism.  Once everyone has a reasonable standard of living you will see the other issues fade.


Exactly.

And as long as there is poverty and the world is divided into the haves and the have-nots, there will be people who will tell the have-nots that some group is to blame for all of their ills.

When your "target demographic" is poor and uneducated, they're easier to manipulate.

Of course, on the side of the "haves" there is always the active effort to maintain the status quo. Interestingly, some of the same techniques used by those who incite the rabble (if you will) are used by those who incite the upper class: fear of those "others" who would take the have's (typically God-given) property, which is not much different from the fear of those "others" would would prevent the have-nots from obtaining their (typically God-given) property.

it all gives me a headache.

-a


This is most certainly a big factor but not one with much solution in sight. It  requires a whole different discussion from dealing with the reality of what is now as opposed  to the reality we all would like to see.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Larrchild on December 02, 2007, 04:17:36 pm
Larry's Law: " All threads concerning our involvement in the Middle East will eventually invoke Neville Chamberlain.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 02, 2007, 04:57:14 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 22:09



3. I  find it interesting how you avoid  even discussing the sexism of the culture. You bet I disapprove of it and you should too. Even at its worst Christianity never tolerated honor killing, clitoridectomy,  etc. But who cares, after all, you are not a woman, right?  And after all, it is just another value system, no more or less moral, right?





I find it interesting how you mix cliteridectomy ans Islam. There is no connection whatsoever. Cliteridectomy preceeds Islam in countries like Soudan.

Rolling Eyes

malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: i dig music on December 02, 2007, 05:05:22 pm
asher, i feel your solutions on how to address the issues are in direct conflict with your argument and position. it's almost like your playing both sides of the fence.

this tells me there is something else bothering you.

what is it?


Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 02, 2007, 05:22:25 pm
i dig music wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 23:05

asher, i feel your solutions on how to address the issues are in direct conflict with your argument and position. it's almost like your playing both sides of the fence.

this tells me there is something else bothering you.

what is it?





I do agree with that statement, and I'm starting to wonder what is the point of presenting this newz in a very confrontational manner.

"Defend this..." : as if the only way of not condoning this absurdity was to condemn islam and all muslim civilisations as a whole and without restrictions.

This way of forcing minds into rejecting a cultural, ethnical, or religious group over an isolated event, as condemnable as this event might be is a very old trick of propaganda.

I think I'm done with the subject, really.

It stinks

malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: studiojimi on December 02, 2007, 05:58:30 pm
malice wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 14:22


I think I'm done with the subject, really.




promise?
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: i dig music on December 02, 2007, 06:46:16 pm
studiojimi wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 16:58

malice wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 14:22


I think I'm done with the subject, really.




promise?



i think you guys should kiss and make up.

like i said earlier, it only takes one ass-hole to ruin a party, and neither of you were remotely close to being the one.

you guys use to be friends.... but were effected by the same brand of shit politics, {different place} we are talking about here.

say hello...how are you. it's not that hard.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 07:11:37 pm
i dig music wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 23:46

studiojimi wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 16:58

malice wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 14:22


I think I'm done with the subject, really.




promise?



i think you guys should kiss and make up.

like i said earlier, it only takes one ass-hole to ruin a party, and neither of you were remotely close to being the one.

you guys use to be friends.... but were effected by the same brand of shit politics, {different place} we are talking about here.

say hello...how are you. it's not that hard.




Hey, I am not angry with anyone here. We are having an exchange of ideas and we disagree.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: maxim on December 02, 2007, 07:20:25 pm
" I find it interesting how you avoid even discussing the sexism of the culture."

koran is less sexist than the bible.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 07:25:29 pm
i dig music wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 22:05

asher, i feel your solutions on how to address the issues are in direct conflict with your argument and position. it's almost like your playing both sides of the fence.

this tells me there is something else bothering you.

what is it?





I do not see a contradiction.

I define what I see as a problem and suggest what I consider appropriate ways to deal with it. As I said, I do not claim to have all the answers.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 07:27:25 pm
maxim wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 00:20

" I find it interesting how you avoid even discussing the sexism of the culture."

koran is less sexist than the bible.



That may be, but the practitioners are not. Tell me  honestly, do you know a  Christian that believes it is OK to kill his daughter if she dishonors him?
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: i dig music on December 02, 2007, 07:28:13 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 18:11

i dig music wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 23:46

studiojimi wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 16:58

malice wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 14:22


I think I'm done with the subject, really.




promise?



i think you guys should kiss and make up.

like i said earlier, it only takes one ass-hole to ruin a party, and neither of you were remotely close to being the one.

you guys use to be friends.... but were effected by the same brand of shit politics, {different place} we are talking about here.

say hello...how are you. it's not that hard.




Hey, I am not angry with anyone here. We are having an exchange of ideas and we disagree.




i said your ideas conflict with your solutions.

sorry, can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 07:45:40 pm
[/quote]

i said your ideas conflict with your solutions.

sorry, can't have it both ways.
[/quote]

Your saying it is so does not make it so.

OK, I think Malice is right, we have done this.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Jon Hodgson on December 02, 2007, 08:41:20 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 00:27

maxim wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 00:20

" I find it interesting how you avoid even discussing the sexism of the culture."

koran is less sexist than the bible.



That may be, but the practitioners are not. Tell me  honestly, do you know a  Christian that believes it is OK to kill his daughter if she dishonors him?


Well Hassan Habash apparantly for a start...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.htm l

In 2003 the police suspected they had 12 honour killings in the UK, which were not just amongst muslims, but also Sikhs and Christians.

Until 1991 it was legal in Brazil to kill your wife if you found her in an act of adultry, similarly in Colombia until 1980, and still the case in Haiti... none of these are muslim countries.

Yes, the majority of honour killings do seem to be in muslim families, but not all by any means. It seems to be cultural, not religious.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 02, 2007, 09:07:53 pm
Jon Hodgson wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 01:41

Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 00:27

maxim wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 00:20

" I find it interesting how you avoid even discussing the sexism of the culture."

koran is less sexist than the bible.



That may be, but the practitioners are not. Tell me  honestly, do you know a  Christian that believes it is OK to kill his daughter if she dishonors him?


Well Hassan Habash apparantly for a start...

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1512394,00.htm l

In 2003 the police suspected they had 12 honour killings in the UK, which were not just amongst muslims, but also Sikhs and Christians.

Until 1991 it was legal in Brazil to kill your wife if you found her in an act of adultry, similarly in Colombia until 1980, and still the case in Haiti... none of these are muslim countries.

Yes, the majority of honour killings do seem to be in muslim families, but not all by any means. It seems to be cultural, not religious.




Interesting. Well then I must change the question to, "Do you know a Christian born and raised in a Western civilization country who  believes it is OK to kill his daughter if she dishonors him?"

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Larrchild on December 02, 2007, 09:35:44 pm
Ever see "Carrie"?

Those people like her mom  exist.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: maxim on December 02, 2007, 10:19:52 pm
"Tell me honestly, do you know a Christian that believes it is OK to kill his daughter if she dishonors him?"

a few years ago in australia, a CHRISTIAN ?macedonian father did just that

if you google it, sikhs and hindus have also done it

nothing to do with the religion, it seems
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: PP on December 03, 2007, 04:01:32 am
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: maxim on December 03, 2007, 05:30:32 am
thank goodness

lucky she was british...
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 03, 2007, 10:40:15 am
Looks like there was nothing to defend after all - except of course for non-Muslim sexism. Asher?

For months you've been trolling for condemnation of Islam here and not getting it, and when confronted with the failure of your  "propaganda presented as if it were fact" self-deception you narrow the question down to a specific small event.

Hey, here's a similar question: "Name a president worse than Bill Clinton who was a Democrat named Bill Clinton and was married to someone named Hillary?" See? There isn't one. Democrats are obviously the worst. Completely illogical.  

That kind of thinking cost us a lot of money in the 90s.

Now I guess, to be reasonable, you're going to have to defend your jumping the gun like this in your further condemnations of people you don't like, who failed to live up to your condemnation.

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 03, 2007, 10:48:31 am
Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 13:09


Your idea of going Clarke one better is is essentially how Neville Chamberlain proposed dealing with Hitler and we all saw how well that worked.
Bullshit - change of subject. Its never been tried. The Muslim nations show no sign of any expansionism and haven't for well over a thousand years. You're so immersed in  rhetoric on both sides you can't see what's right in front of you - just like Chamberlain.

"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe they will be a small people - a silly people."

This is a quote from "Lawrence of Arabia". Its still how the west views the world of Islam - with total disrespect.

There is no Muslim terrorist threat that is or can be divorced from the military threat they face from the west, specifically the US. We depose their heads of state and wonder why they fight back. Who gives them the right to try to control their own destiny? You use a few religious cranks, no more than we have here and who justify terrorism here at home in the name of Jesus, to vilify whole populations' resistance to Western manipulation. Good boy, good lap dog for the Neocons!

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 03, 2007, 12:15:53 pm
mgod wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 15:48

Ashermusic wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 13:09


Your idea of going Clarke one better is is essentially how Neville Chamberlain proposed dealing with Hitler and we all saw how well that worked.
Bullshit - change of subject. Its never been tried. The Muslim nations show no sign of any expansionism and haven't for well over a thousand years. You're so immersed in  rhetoric on both sides you can't see what's right in front of you - just like Chamberlain.

"So long as the Arabs fight tribe against tribe they will be a small people - a silly people."

This is a quote from "Lawrence of Arabia". Its still how the west views the world of Islam - with total disrespect.

There is no Muslim terrorist threat that is or can be divorced from the military threat they face from the west, specifically the US. We depose their heads of state and wonder why they fight back. Who gives them the right to try to control their own destiny? You use a few religious cranks, no more than we have here and who justify terrorism here at home in the name of Jesus, to vilify whole populations' resistance to Western manipulation. Good boy, good lap dog for the Neocons!

DS



OK, I wanted to be out of this but some things here in this emotional outpouring I have to address.

I am not a neo-con or any kind of conservative. I am a Centrist Democrat, roughly in the political spectrum of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. My views by and large are what they say. And they are not neo-cons except in the perception of one who is so far to the left that the center  looks like the right.

If it is all about their perceived military threat by the west then how do you explain the large numbers of Sunnis killing Shias, Shias killing Sunnis, either killing Kurds, etc.

Once again, not ALL Muslims, but there is simply no denying the fact that a substantial number of Muslims believe it is permissible to kill others, including other Muslims, because they do not share their specific brand of Islam.

If Israel disappeared tomorrow and every Western power left the Middle East you still would have Muslims killing Muslims.  To deny this is to prove oneself distanced from reality.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 03, 2007, 12:54:22 pm
Muslims do indeed kill Muslims. And over, what appears to us, to be truly silly shit. I wouldn't personally want to have to engage with either side in trying to understand their justification for it. When two western nations go to war, you have Christians killing Christians.

And as Tom Lehrer told us, "Everybody hates the Jews."

"Oh the white folks hate the black folks
And the black folks hate the white folks
To hate all but the right folks
It's American as apple pie."

You keep changing the subject. There are substantial numbers of every kind of person who think it OK to kill others - not just Mooslims. Witness our American 2003 slaughter from the air of an innocent populace who had nothing to do with attacking us in 2001. You seem to think that's OK - even though far greater numbers of "those types" were killed than "our types." This is simply terrorism, with a nationalist justification behind it. I understand you don't support this war - how then to support the excuse, which continue to be justified by demonizing Islam?

It might well be that if Israel was not there, but more importantly if we had no bases there, we would have no conflict with that part of the world. Currently, and for a large part of the last century, we've been literally or practically an invading and occupying force.

If we were gone then they're killing each other would be their own business, and you likely wouldn't have any more opinion to express about it than you do about Africans slaughtering Africans for ancient tribal reasons: i.e. 0.

DS

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 03, 2007, 05:10:50 pm
mgod wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 17:54


You keep changing the subject. There are substantial numbers of every kind of person who think it OK to kill others - not just Mooslims. Witness our American 2003 slaughter from the air of an innocent populace who had nothing to do with attacking us in 2001. You seem to think that's OK - even though far greater numbers of "those types" were killed than "our types." This is simply terrorism, with a nationalist justification behind it. I understand you don't support this war - how then to support the excuse, which continue to be justified by demonizing Islam?

It might well be that if Israel was not there, but more importantly if we had no bases there, we would have no conflict with that part of the world. Currently, and for a large part of the last century, we've been literally or practically an invading and occupying force.

If we were gone then they're killing each other would be their own business, and you likely wouldn't have any more opinion to express about it than you do about Africans slaughtering Africans for ancient tribal reasons: i.e. 0.

DS




First of all, we have not been discussing Africa so you have no idea what my views are or are not. Bill Clinton says his biggest regret was not intervening there and I agree with him. It is shameful.

You view on the Iraq War is IMHO as extreme and distorted as Bush's on the other side. Turn 180 degrees from wrong and you end up at wrong. I mourn the loss of any innocent, American or Muslim, but there is a huge moral difference between accidentally killing one while attacking an enemy and targeting them, a distinction you clearly do not make. To call it terrorism is absurd. To call it a huge mistake is far more reasonable.

And much as  we all hate it, the world runs on oil and we have a geo-political and economic need to have a presence in the region and it is not wrong for a country to protect those interests.

But you have the right to your point of view so vote for Kucinich, or Ron Paul, or whoever else represents your views. I  will be voting for either Hillary or Obama in all probability, neither of whom go as far left as you do, and I  say to you respectfully that I will be thanking whatever gods there be that more Americans think like me than you.

And now, I really am done.

Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: i dig music on December 03, 2007, 06:14:15 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 16:10

mgod wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 17:54


You keep changing the subject. There are substantial numbers of every kind of person who think it OK to kill others - not just Mooslims. Witness our American 2003 slaughter from the air of an innocent populace who had nothing to do with attacking us in 2001. You seem to think that's OK - even though far greater numbers of "those types" were killed than "our types." This is simply terrorism, with a nationalist justification behind it. I understand you don't support this war - how then to support the excuse, which continue to be justified by demonizing Islam?

It might well be that if Israel was not there, but more importantly if we had no bases there, we would have no conflict with that part of the world. Currently, and for a large part of the last century, we've been literally or practically an invading and occupying force.

If we were gone then they're killing each other would be their own business, and you likely wouldn't have any more opinion to express about it than you do about Africans slaughtering Africans for ancient tribal reasons: i.e. 0.

DS




First of all, we have not been discussing Africa so you have no idea what my views are or are not. Bill Clinton says his biggest regret was not intervening there and I agree with him. It is shameful.

You view on the Iraq War is IMHO as extreme and distorted as Bush's on the other side. Turn 180 degrees from wrong and you end up at wrong. I mourn the loss of any innocent, American or Muslim, but there is a huge moral difference between accidentally killing one while attacking an enemy and targeting them, a distinction you clearly do not make. To call it terrorism is absurd. To call it a huge mistake is far more reasonable.

And much as  we all hate it, the world runs on oil and we have a geo-political and economic need to have a presence in the region and it is not wrong for a country to protect those interests.

But you have the right to your point of view so vote for Kucinich, or Ron Paul, or whoever else represents your views. I  will be voting for either Hillary or Obama in all probability, neither of whom go as far left as you do, and I  say to you respectfully that I will be thanking whatever gods there be that more Americans think like me than you.

And now, I really am done.




asher, when does your gig at fox news start? Very Happy
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: John Ivan on December 03, 2007, 06:31:34 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 01 December 2007 11:10

i dig music wrote on Fri, 30 November 2007 22:41

asher, no disrespect to you, but it appears like you are trying to call some people out.

we all have different opinions and views, but i don't believe anybody here is going to to try to "defend" that.

there's all sorts of unbelievable shit going on in this world, but you can't lump in all muslims in to the same basket and tell us that they all feel the same way, or approve of the same things.

in the middle east {or everywhere else} you have radical, moderate and stoned nonconformists. it's hard to get people on the same page, but when radicals in any neighborhood are using chainsaws to sever heads and getting away with it, people that live there take notice and don't make to many waves for obvious reasons.

what we see and hear about in that part of the world is not only to terrorize us, but to terrorize the people that live there to. the point to this brand of terrorism is to keep any opposition to an ideology or government afraid and compliant.

we have seen it in history many times before. it's nothing new.

it's very hard to take a stand against. all sorts of things motivate people, but fear usually does the trick in most cases.

it should not to be taken lightly.



It was indeed meant as a call out but not a hostile one. I am just trying to shake the folks who believe that "all cultures are morally equal, it  is just a matter of your perception and you simply need to get together to talk out your differences" crowd out of their dream world and recognize what it is we are dealing with.

I guess what bothers me overall these days is the refusal of liberals ( I am a Centrist) to simply acknowledge  that fact that unlike any other religion at this point in history Islam has a large number of adherents that believe death is an acceptable punishment for any perceived disrespect for their religion and are unwilling to condemn that.

Do I believe that ALL muslims or even MOST believe this? Of course not. Do I believe that out of the app. 1 billion Muslims on the planet perhaps millions and certainly at least hundreds of thousands do? You bet I do and every kind of polling that is done supports that.

We cannot deal with the cultural differences if we do not acknowledge they exist and be willing to simply say that it is wrong to advocate putting a person to death for this kind of offense.



I'm a Liberal. I don't now, nor have I ever believed what it is you claim I believe.. My Liberal friends don't either..

How is it, exactly, that some one who calls them self a "centrist" would start such a post? You can fantasize about "calling people out" if you want but I'm thinking that very few people think what you claim they think..

Nonsense..

Ivan..................
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: maxim on December 03, 2007, 09:18:05 pm
"It might well be that if Israel was not there... we would have no conflict with that part of the world"

i blame the brits for the whole israel fiasco (what they were really saying "here you go you'd better go back where you came from before we exterminate the rest of you" is suspect, imo.. no wonder british jews are confused)

and we all know what REALLY happened to lawrence of arabia

if you calculate the amount of pain inflicted per head of population, the litlle country of england is way ahead of the rest...
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 03, 2007, 09:25:11 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 14:10


First of all, we have not been discussing Africa so you have no idea what my views are or are not. Bill Clinton says his biggest regret was not intervening there and I agree with him. It is shameful.


But, but, but...the event you're complaining about did happen in Africa, didn't it? And no, I don't know how you feel about Africans killing Africans, but we all sure know how you think about Muslims killing Muslims and apparently because they're Muslims that makes them worse - this is the logic of where you took us. Else wise, there would be nothing for you to comment on because what Sunni and Shia do is no different than what many people do. My friend, your logic is as shot full of holes as the administration's is. If Muslims do it, we attack - if someone else does it, we turn away.
Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 14:10


You view on the Iraq War is IMHO as extreme and distorted as Bush's on the other side. Turn 180 degrees from wrong and you end up at wrong.


Must be that fuzzy math... Let's see - wrong is over here, now I turn right away from it I end up facing...no...that's not it... Oh, I'll never get it!

Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 14:10

 
I mourn the loss of any innocent, American or Muslim, but there is a huge moral difference between accidentally killing one while attacking an enemy and targeting them, a distinction you clearly do not make. To call it terrorism is absurd. To call it a huge mistake is far more reasonable.


Far more reasonable to you, snug in your nice home in the Valley. Half a world away from the children and women who were bombed in their homes. Yes, far more reasonable. Just as dead, just as maimed; but reasonable, not extreme or distorted.

Now - lets think again - WHY are they the enemy? You call them that. Can you please tell us, what is it that made them the enemy, and justified our reasonable non-terrorist attack on them? Was it the WMD? No...no..it wasn't that. Was it freedom on the march? No..no..it wasn't that. Dang it! You'll just have to tell me what made these people my enemy.

Huge mistake? A hundred thousand dead from a mistake? And this doesn't explain a bit of Arab anger at the country that committed this huge mistake?  And you tell us that you mourn the loss of an innocent? How do you mourn it? By explaining it away?

Yes - it was deliberate and I call it terrorism. Just because its committed by a government, OUR government, doesn't change the facts. Only weak thinking does. We invaded a country which hadn't harmed us, killed innocent people, all based on what the people pursuing the war knew were lies to deceive the people who could stop it. Terrorism on a global scale.  Yes, unreasonable and extreme of me, you are correct, sir!

Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 14:10


And much as  we all hate it, the world runs on oil and we have a geo-political and economic need to have a presence in the region and it is not wrong for a country to protect those interests.


Ah...there it is, finally. The justification for the death of innocents. Now we know why we mourn them. How lucky for us that their faith makes them so easy to dismiss from our minds.

Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 14:10


But you have the right to your point of view so vote for Kucinich, or Ron Paul, or whoever else represents your views. I  will be voting for either Hillary or Obama in all probability, neither of whom go as far left as you do, and I  say to you respectfully that I will be thanking whatever gods there be that more Americans think like me than you.


Not likely. Thank god.

Hell, after reading you, I'm voting for Bush/Cheney! I want my oil! Lives, responsibility, decency and honor be damned!
Ashermusic wrote on Mon, 03 December 2007 14:10


And now, I really am done.


Yes, you really are. OK - lets go to lunch!

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: danickstr on December 03, 2007, 10:48:25 pm
if musicians were politicians it sure would be hard to get the bad guys killed.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Larrchild on December 03, 2007, 11:49:34 pm
Keeping Heaven stocked with fresh souls is probably not what our career counselors in high school wrote in our file.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Hank Alrich on December 04, 2007, 12:34:20 am
mgod wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 12:19



Not so long ago the Christian west was exactly that, burning heretics and "witches", driving Jews from their homes, etc. All the while Islam was giving us modern mathematics and architecture.




Just the other day I was trying to calc available disc space for a tracking session, using Roman Numerals. I found this difficult enough that if I had a religion I'd have thought of changing it.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 04, 2007, 07:47:04 am
Hank Alrich wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 06:34

mgod wrote on Sun, 02 December 2007 12:19



Not so long ago the Christian west was exactly that, burning heretics and "witches", driving Jews from their homes, etc. All the while Islam was giving us modern mathematics and architecture.




Just the other day I was trying to calc available disc space for a tracking session, using Roman Numerals. I found this difficult enough that if I had a religion I'd have thought of changing it.


As everybody tries to be a smart ass about the subject, I'm surprised no one dared to respond a previous post I made.

Lemme bring you all back to reality about some of our own worse aspects of idocy and lack of humanity.

Interracial marriages were illegal in most states of america until July 12, 1967

Is that close enough history to you now ?

Again, my point was, and I don't intend to defend this ad nauseam, that all civilisation are developping with different rythms , and that we have to respect that. We are all humans and every one of our cultures are precious.

As supposely most developped civilisations (  Rolling Eyes  ), we are entitled to patience and guidance, not crusades.

As sad as this thing might be, there is no point of stigmatizing a whole country and a fortiori an entire religion over this isolated event.

I can't be more peacefull than that, I'm at the max now Very Happy

peace to all, even asher and Jimi Very Happy

malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: kraster on December 04, 2007, 08:19:33 am
I live in Ireland.

People bombed the shit out of each other for 30 years.

Catholic vs. Protestant.

At the Holy cross school Catholic children ran the gauntlet each day. 4 year old children were subjected to daily abuse. A paramilitary group even went so far as to leave a pipe bomb at the gates of the school.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2003/0106/north1.html

Bear in mind this is 4 years ago. Less than a half a decade.

The 30 years of violence included attacks on mourners at a graveside, blowing up a church in Enniskillen that killed people attending a rememberance day celebration, a mob that took two undercover police officers and savagely killed them (all on camera), a paramilitary group that opened fire on a protestant service, a bomb in Omagh, Co. Tyrone that ripped apart the community. The list is endless. This was all done under the auspices of Christianity.

Is this indicative of Christian behaviour?

Are all Christians to be judged by the behaviour of these people?

Are all Catholics mindless murderers? Are all Protestants child abusers?

Any sane individual would deplore these acts of violence.

This is the inherant danger of using sweeping generalisations of calling religion to account for the actions of psychopaths.

As has beeen said many times on this thread. The problems are social and cultural and have very little to do with religion.

Only this year we had a million Muslims marching in Turkey demanding that the state remain secular.

Religion is a handy scapegoat for people to bash each other over the head with. Those who see religion as the cause are no better than the people that use it as an excuse to intimidate children.

It is forbidden under islamic law to harm children and women or anyone that does not bother you. But still they do it. They are pissing all over the very texts that they purportedly enables their psychotic behaviour. It's not fucking religion IT'S PEOPLE that do these things. It's the same old same old.

Asher, do you sincerely think that if religion were eliminated from the face of the earth that the killing would stop? I would truly advise you to think again if you believe that to be true.

It would serve people well to look beyond it and see that the  old timeless problems are at the bottom of this. Poverty, injustice, inherited mistrust, intolerance and greed. All our unfortunate human traits.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: PookyNMR on December 04, 2007, 11:35:32 am
Well said.

kraster wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 06:19

It's not fucking religion IT'S PEOPLE that do these things. It's the same old same old.

Asher, do you sincerely think that if religion were eliminated from the face of the earth that the killing would stop? I would truly advise you to think again if you believe that to be true.

It would serve people well to look beyond it and see that the old timeless problems are at the bottom of this. Poverty, injustice, inherited mistrust, intolerance and greed. All our unfortunate human traits.


I particularly agree with this part.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 04, 2007, 01:13:06 pm
OK, I have been giving this considerable re-thought thanks to the really  good points made by some of you here (not an easy task as they are surrounded by some simply silly arguments IMHO).

My understanding is that most Muslims consider Islam to be both a religion and a legal system. Therefore something that they interpret in the Qu'ran (maybe, indeed probably, incorrectly) not only is their religious obligation but in their mind has the force of law and this is what makes dealing with Islamic groups so difficult.

So the line between the religious flaws and cultural flaws are hard to delineate.

Here in the U.S. e.g. a Christian pro-life extremist who bombs an abortion clinic because he believes abortion is murder may in his mind have the belief that he is obeying a moral law but he knows darned well that it is not legal in the eyes of U.S. law.

So it is easy to conclude that in that case an extremist religious view, rather than an extremist culture, that is at the root of it.

In the Islamic countries the line is not so clear. People have been judged innocent who committed honor killings because they see them as equivalent to what we in the West call "justifiable homicide."

Where I differ from many of you is that I am willing to say flat out that that belief is sick and wrong as an absolute, not just different than ours.

So the fact that many Muslims believe that when dealing with non-believers the choices are:

1. Convert them.

2. Allow them to live as second class citizens (BTW, did any of you see the 60 Minutes segment about Christians living in Iraq and how much worse it is for them than under Sadaam last Sunday?

3. Kill them.

I don't know if that is because of the religion Islam or the culture of those that practice Islam, and perhaps some Christians and Hindus too.

What I do know is that for whatever reason those that subscribe to this are overwhelmingly Muslim.

I taught music about 15 years ago at an Islamic school in L.A for a year. They were lovely, gentle, people and I  cannot for a nanosecond imagine that any  of them would condone these beliefs. They are not the enemy. On the other hand I  am still awaiting the day when I see a protest by Muslims in great numbers anywhere in the Middle East condemning an attack against innocents by Al Qaeda,etc. while when an Israeli attack occurs there will be a lot of protesters in Israel and around the word as there is when the U.S. attacks. The proof of one';s moral integrity is the willingness to criticize "your own." It is abundant in Western civilization but almost non-existent in non-Western civilization. Does no one else here think that is kind of an important point?

Perhaps it is my  own fault but I think people are unclear about what I believe so let me clarify and then really, don't you agree I should move on? Is there really any new argument I can make that is going to change anyone's mind?

1. Torture is wrong, what happened frequently at Guantanamo and Abu Grab is wrong, and the Bush administration has violated many human rights.

2. While there were some good reasons for going into Iraq they were not the ones that the Bush administration used as justification and the  war has been ineptly prosecuted and as a result there have been needless deaths. Nonetheless it  is not morally equivalent to the targeting of  innocents, including  fellow Muslims, by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

3. Because they do not believe that non-believers should be allowed to peacefully co-exist and co-govern with believers, the Islamic religious and/or cultural extremists pose a significant threat to non-believers that is not even close to being matched in sheer numbers by any other religious and/or cultural group.

4. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and to a lesser degree Barak Obama largely share my views so I am not a Republican right-winger or neo-con or Fox News candidate. Nor am I a Dennis Kucinich/Bill Richardson guy. To me turning 180 degrees from wrong still brings you to wrong.

5. Richard Clarke in his book "Against All Enemies" has analyzed and come up with the best answers, and there are no easy ones, for confronting  what we face. I would encourage you all to read it as well as Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower." Both are IMHO fair-minded, balanced, and are not "hate" books.

Finally, I  am not angry with anyone here nor was I personally offended by anything anyone wrote and if I offended anyone I am sorry. I come from a Jewish-American background where these kind of discussions/disagreements are common practice among those who love and respect each other.

And DS, I would be happy to meet you for lunch.


Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: studiojimi on December 04, 2007, 01:24:52 pm
malice wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 04:47



I can't be more peacefull than that, I'm at the max now Very Happy

peace to all, even asher and Jimi Very Happy

malice



we'll be the judge of that!

why single asher and myself away from the group of the rest of this bundle of God's kids?

was it a peaceful thought that made you distinguish where you choose to spew your love?

love is all inclusive and to separate two of God's kids from the pack.... well.... is....conflictive.  and what peace is in that?

i'm not sure i believer you.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 04, 2007, 02:12:27 pm
studiojimi wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 19:24

malice wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 04:47



I can't be more peacefull than that, I'm at the max now Very Happy

peace to all, even asher and Jimi Very Happy

malice



we'll be the judge of that!


What makes you think this long and inane conflict between us interests more people than you ? (I would have said "you and me" if I gave a damn)

Quote:

why single asher and myself away from the group of the rest of this bundle of God's kids?


Because asher and I had a disagreement over the subject. You, well ... I couldn't help but noticed you expected some promisses to not discuss about the thread anymore, and in some other thread, well ... some childish, though funny,  bait uppon me.

Quote:

was it a peaceful thought that made you distinguish where you choose to spew your love?



What I spewed was peace, and I just wanted to make sure you wouldn't feel secluded from it.

Quote:

love is all inclusive and to separate two of God's kids from the pack.... well.... is....conflictive.  and what peace is in that?


read again<;

Quote:

i'm not sure i believer you.


your bad

malice
radiating love in the room
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 04, 2007, 02:33:18 pm
[/quote]

Because asher and I had a disagreement over the subject. Y

malice
radiating love in the room
[/quote]

BTW, Isabella, I don't like your politics but I LOVE your music. You are very talented.

Jay

www.jayasher.com
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: malice on December 04, 2007, 02:46:35 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 20:33




Because asher and I had a disagreement over the subject. Y

malice
radiating love in the room
[/quote]

BTW, Isabella, I don't like your politics but I LOVE your music. You are very talented.

Jay

www.jayasher.com
[/quote]

I was writing a pm to you while you were writing this.

Isabelle is my wife, although we're doing music together.

I'll pass the compliment to her, she likes that a lot (hehe).

As I was explaining in my pm, we disagree, but I respect you for the intelectual honesty you show.

Peace

malice
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 04, 2007, 04:54:35 pm
Ashermusic wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 10:13


2. While there were some good reasons for going into Iraq they were not the ones that the Bush administration used as justification and the  war has been ineptly prosecuted and as a result there have been needless deaths. Nonetheless it  is not morally equivalent to the targeting of  innocents, including  fellow Muslims, by Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

OK - this is good - so lets parse this. What are the good reasons for going into Iraq? I don't see them, so you tell me.

Further, you're suggesting that targeting innocents vs. simply killing them by being sloppy are morally different. OK - I can see how someone can come up with that but I think its placing oneself firmly on the steps to moral justification for nearly anything. Can you see how its easy to make such an interpretation of moral difference when that determination serves oneself? It appears to me that this is how you're making your decision - and putting yourself on the opposite side, given that decision making basis, you'd come to the opposite conclusion. This the classic slippery moral slope - if its justifiable in one direction, its justifiable in the other. Since no Iraqis attacked us, to find an Iraqi plane dropping bombs on NYC is now morally equivalent and acceptable.

Its simply hard for me to see how your argument of moral difference isn't based on what works for us. Our military finds "collateral damage" an acceptable price for others to pay for our strategic advantage. That military strategists and politicians make this argument doesn't in any way make it justifiable, workable or moral. Its just easy. Saying it doesn't make it right, or moral in any way. Its morally bankrupt, as much as western-defined "terrorism" is.

Ashermusic wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 10:13


Finally, I  am not angry with anyone here nor was I personally offended by anything anyone wrote and if I offended anyone I am sorry. I come from a Jewish-American background where these kind of discussions/disagreements are common practice among those who love and respect each other.


As do I - this is dinner table conversation. But isn't Jewish tradition the same - that the religious law and the legal systems are supposed to be one?

And Muhammed was pretty clear about respect for the "people of the book" - Jews and Christians. Jesus was unequivocal about loving the enemy, and Hillel was not wishy-washy about the golden rule. I don't think any of them were suggesting to do this when it was convenient. But the American rationale for war on Islam is exactly that - convenient.

Ashermusic wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 10:13


And DS, I would be happy to meet you for lunch.

I suggest Amir's Falafel, Colfax and Ventura, a bunch of crazy Israelis who make the best falafel and potato salad in town.

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Ashermusic on December 04, 2007, 05:11:04 pm
mgod wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 21:54

[
I suggest Amir's Falafel, Colfax and Ventura, a bunch of crazy Israelis who make the best falafel and potato salad in town.

DS



Great let's set it up for next week.

We can continue our discussion but I really am through here.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: Daniel Farris on December 05, 2007, 01:59:42 am
Quote:

On the other hand I am still awaiting the day when I see a protest by Muslims in great numbers anywhere in the Middle East condemning an attack against innocents by Al Qaeda,etc. while when an Israeli attack occurs there will be a lot of protesters in Israel and around the word as there is when the U.S. attacks. The proof of one';s moral integrity is the willingness to criticize "your own." It is abundant in Western civilization but almost non-existent in non-Western civilization. Does no one else here think that is kind of an important point?


This is a cultural difference. Are you familiar with the well known middle eastern saying that goes:

"Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousins; me and my brother and our cousins against the world."

They may disagree with Islamic Extremists, but they aren't going to demonstrate publicly about it. That just isn't done in their culture.

DF
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: studiojimi on December 05, 2007, 02:05:23 pm
mgod wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 13:54


I suggest Amir's Falafel, Colfax and Ventura, a bunch of crazy Israelis who make the best falafel and potato salad in town.

DS


i was at that corner lookiing for something to eat yesterday getting a repair gone

opted for andre's ribs at colfax and moorpark
one light north

and had a great chicken dinner

will have to try amir's
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: mgod on December 05, 2007, 03:08:26 pm
Daniel Farris wrote on Tue, 04 December 2007 22:59


They may disagree with Islamic Extremists, but they aren't going to demonstrate publicly about it. That just isn't done in their culture.
DF

Not just in their culture. Witness the accusations against "America-hating liberals" who protest this war and the administrations response - spying and taking names, just like SAVAK, just like Saddam. Laws have been passed here that allow president-for-life George Bush to arrest those people at his personal whim, and the public will probably not fight it for this very reason - dissent during war time tends to be labeled by the populace itself as treason - whereas actual legally-specified treason, the outing of a CIA undercover agent, goes unprotested under the guise of "we're all supporting the troops." This really has been the most perfect coup. (Why, everything worked out so perfectly for these criminals that one might almost think it was planned that way - but no, that would be a conspiracy...) Protesters are accused of "comforting the enemy". Hard to do when the enemy is in the White House. But this has always been the way that people allow dissent to be silenced.

This tendency to cluster and then not want to be seen engaging in infighting is  pretty common everywhere - especially anywhere anybody feels aggrieved. American Jews are not supposed to criticize Israel. Politicians are not supposed to criticize members of their own party. Scientologists, well they don't screw around - they take action.

DS
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: maxdimario on December 05, 2007, 08:13:05 pm
I think it was stated correctly in the post above that poverty, hunger etc. are what drive people to agression.

When poverty walks into the door, love jumps out of the window, it has been said..

yes, there are people who are weaker than others from a spiritual point of view.  There are people who are more easily led into taking part in the Dark Side.. Evil.. whatever you may wish to call it..

but the amount of responsibility that one has is directly tied to the amount of POWER that one can exhibit over his fellow man..

One definition of evil is when the ruling power is corrupt and goes against the good of all for personal satisfaction..

in today's world you need to go BEYOND the weakness of individuals in the ghettos, neighbourhoods etc. and realize that they are meaningless individuals involved in a MOVEMENT.

the movement is fueled and sustained by more powerful men who wish to seek personal gain from it and will use anything at their disposal starting from money and political influence and including religion..

when certain decisions are made by influential men they are often coordinated with and by other men of influence..

So while it is true that simple men, in their weakness succomb to their passions and their beliefs, and their anger.. in the end they are not really the cause.

If you put a group of people in a cage and only throw in food for half of the people to survive, there will be violence sooner or later.

so who's really to blame?

the people in the cage or the gatekeepers?
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: ScotcH on December 06, 2007, 11:59:23 am
Hey, that's some good shit there, Max.  Well said.  It's unfortunate that is makes sterotyping so easy, but stereotypes emerge for a reason.  Whatever the root case is (and I agree with you), there is no denying that the middle east has some major problems that need to be resolved (though not neccesarily by outside forces or influence).

I just wish they would stop jabbering about inconsequential shit like cartoons and teddy bears that do absolutely no harm.  It really makes them look like immbeciles in the eyes of other people.  Other issues (like bombing, invasions, etc.) they have every right to complain and fight against.
Title: Re: OK, defend this.
Post by: amorris on December 06, 2007, 12:20:50 pm
quote:
If you put a group of people in a cage and only throw in food for half of the people to survive, there will be violence sooner or later.


Is that what is happening? what about throwing in more food than they all could eat. i.e. oil revenue. the power over there is keeping all the money in very few hands. Its funny that our involevment is over "oil" yet theirs is not? their theocracy is about who controls the oil money, when they decide to sell it to china.