10 lies from the US government about Irak.

No stupider than having a political discussion on the internet Koesj.

If you have a reasonable counterpoint to what has been said, I, for one, would love to hear it. I have an open enough mind to listen to a reasonable discourse (preferably backed up with facts).

But a rant serves no purpose in furthering a discussion. If that''s all you would bring to the table, I appreciate your decision.

Seems JMJ can find fault in anybody without much effort.

And as for calling Islam backwards...well, I''ve already implied that you''re biased before; this just confirms it. By your standards, you could call Christianity backwards for keeping its core tenets over time.

*Edited by Certis*

Sorry, this isn''t in the Code of Conduct but I hate, hate, HATE this little ""poster"" people like to slap up in the middle of a debate thinking it''s witty.

Please don''t try to undermine people''s opinions and desire to have a healthy debate.

- Certis

Seems JMJ can find fault in anybody without much effort.

See Rat, why do you feel compelled to start insults?

Care to tell me what ''fault'' I found, and with who? Is it because I thanked Koesj for showing restraint, of which you seem to have none?

Are you so incapable of adding to a conversation constructively, but so desirous of being heard that you can''t help yourself?

And yes, I am biased. I am biased against anyone that calls for my death simply because I am American. I am biased against any group that thinks the answer to everything is bloodshed.

By your standards, you could call Christianity backwards for keeping its core tenets over time.

Yet again, you open your mouth with nothing to add to a conversation. Have you even read any of the posts above? Can you find, on any of your many sources, a place where the Pope has called for bloodshed or spoken in favor of killing? Even far-right American preachers, who speak out against homosexuality and abortion, don''t call for their followers to go out and stone gays. I''m not saying that it doesn''t happen, only that it is not condoned by any Christian church.

Find one place in the New Testament where it calls for followers of Christ to go out and reform the world by the sword. Find one passage where Christ ever said that you should act violently and not out of forgiveness.

Christianity is a religion of peace. Buddhism is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of violence. There are a lot of people that ignore the violent parts of Mohammed''s teachings and live very peaceful lives, and I think they are the only thing that gives me hope for the eventual reform.

It''s the truth Gnome. That, and the one EvilAvatar used to have as his sig: ""Arguing on the Internet is like wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.""

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Can you find, on any of your many sources, a place where the Pope has called for bloodshed or spoken in favor of killing?

Current or classic? I can find a bunch of stuff from the Crusade-era popes about killing Muslims. And ironically, I can find some stuff that JP2 said against recent American actions.

Islam is a religion of violence.

Proof? Quote the Koran, identify the parts from the modern texts that call for killing Christians and Jews. You seem to read it the same way the misguided followers do. Don''t tell me you believe the part about the 72 raisins...er...virigins. That alone should tell you that the book has been grossly misinterpreted by a fanatical few, the same way the Bible has been used to justify the Klan and various other Christian extremists the world over.

Edit: Added these for insight -

If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; ... Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
-- Deuteronomy, Chapter 17:2-3,5
""The best jihad [struggle] is (by) the one who strives against his own self for Allah, The Mighty and Majestic,"" Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad).
""Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."" Qur''an, Chapter 2, verse 190.

Rat,

Feel free to join the discussion, but maybe you should read the posts older than the newest two. Take your pick of passages from the Koran which declare unbelievers to be the enemy of Allah and call upon Muslims to kill them. Several are posted on the page prior to this one and more are available to anyone with a copy of the Koran.

Quote:
""Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."" Qur''an, Chapter 2, verse 190.

Nice quote. Here''s the very next verse:

""And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out"" Qur''an, Chapter 2, verse 191.

I guess Allah is ok as long as you kill them within acceptable boundaries...

Also, I will change my signature to ""Rat Boy is my God"" if you can find a documented quote in a reputable news source from the current Pope advocating violence.

Your quote from the Bible is a great one. Now it is from the Old Testament, not by any means the core of Christian belief, but I still like it. It states that breaking religious laws about hygiene, behavior, or belief warrants capital punishment. We of course don''t do this. We shouldn''t. Only a truly backwards culture would. Anyone have any examples of backwards cultures who still let their fundamentalist religious beliefs run their countries and make their laws?

Quoting unused portions of the Old Testament and bringing up the Crusades isn''t exactly a scathing remonstration of modern Christianity. Modern Christianity and its relations to Western governments simply has no equivalency with the problems caused by un-Reformed Islam. The point of the thread was never that Islam is fundamentally a bad religion. But fundamentalist Islam is certainly bad, since by literal reading of the Koran, it doesn''t allow equality, personal liberty, and democracy - and don''t forget being used to advocate murder and terrorism.

If you just oppose the idea that any culture could be backwards, I understand your anger at the opinions above. But if there is such a thing as ""better"" and ""progressive"", modern day Islam in the Middle East ain''t it...

Edit - and Rat, exactly how hard were you laughing when you were accusing someone else of being ""biased""? If you managed that one with a straight face, you have a great future in espionage and poker tournaments.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:
But the reason people rallied around these leaders is mostly due to western imperialism/meddling

Unfortunately, that isn''t true either. Yes, the Middle East was shamefully treated by the British Empire until after WWI, but the common people rally to Islam for the same reason that poor people throughout history have flocked to religions: their current life sucks and they can only endure it through the promise of a future paradise.

I know, that''s what I meant by ""When people suffer, they tend to look to religion for answers"". I was trying to say that we''ve done a lot to help mess things up over there, thus making lives miserable, which lead to the rallyting around religion. I should have made it more clear.

The West has much less to do with it than the dictatorships that rule over them. If liberals think there is a disparity between the rich and the poor in America, they must scream bloody murder over the disparities in the Middle East.

True, the dictators/royalty there have just as much to do with the current misery as the well, and I should''ve pointed that out. But there''s no denying that the west is to blame too.

You forget that today''s view of islam *is* rather modern. The current cultural backwardness of Islam is something that has only existed for a hundred years, at most.

I am not sure I understand the definition of ''modern'' as you use it. If you mean it is ''modern'' in the context that Islam as a religion has existed for over a thousand years, then I think there might be a better word.

The current cultural backwardness of Islam, as you put it, is the same as it has always been. The reason it is backwards is because it hasn''t changed over time at all. The attitudes of Islam are the same now as they have been since the Ottoman Empire. I think that is pretty much the point that Ral was making. Islam needs to go through a Reformation, and soon. And if they don''t want to do it willingly, it will be done for them. And the first step of that is providing them with a system of Government that allows them more hope than the current dictatorships they live under.

I regard development during the last hundred years in a religion that has lasted over a thousand as being quite modern. And the kind of fanaticism you see in terrorists today *is* new. And saying Islam has always been culturally backwards is just plain ignorant. You do know the only reason we can read so much of the greek philosophers today is because of the arabs, don''t you?

I don''t think that even Mother Theresa could read the passages quoted from the Koran above and find good in them. That is not judging a book by its ''most twisted followers''. That is judging the book by its contents. It''s time that someone added a New Testament to the Koran. Replace all those ''kill the heathens'' with ''love your fellow man''.

And there''s passages in the bible few people could find good in. But all that is irrelevant really, beacause I was referring to ralcydan''s statement that ever opening the Koran would be a complete waste of time, because omg, like bad things happen in countries where people say they follow the Koran. Which is clearly nonsense.
(And even if it proved to be really, really EBIL, it''d provide interesting background to the conflicts, and maybe make understanding the situation easier.)

"ralcydan" wrote:

""And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out"" Qur''an, Chapter 2, verse 191.

Bold added by me. Strikes me as its advocating the hit-when-hit strategy, kind of like how the jihad works in Medieval: Total War (and the devs consulted a Muslim scholar to make sure they got it right).

Also, I will change my signature to ""Rat Boy is my God"" if you can find a documented quote in a reputable news source from the current Pope advocating violence.

Impossible; this pope has advocated both the abolishment of abortion AND the abolishment of the death penalty. Got to give props to a guy that takes such a blanket approach to killing, something that neither pro-death penalty people (who tend to lean anti-abortion) nor the pro-choice folks (they tend to lean anti-death penalty).

Anyone have any examples of backwards cultures who still let their fundamentalist religious beliefs run their countries and make their laws?

Define ""backwards."" If you go by fundamentalism alone, one could make an argument that America is currently led by a Christian fundamentalist.

Quoting unused portions of the Old Testament and bringing up the Crusades isn''t exactly a scathing remonstration of modern Christianity. Modern Christianity and its relations to Western governments simply has no equivalency with the problems caused by un-Reformed Islam.

Ask any Islamic scholar and they''ll tell you that the jihadists and the Iranian mullahs tend to follow a medieval interpretation of the Koran. Not modern interpretations, old ones.

I''d go further into how the results and aftermath of the Crusades lie squarely at the feet of the Crusaders themselves, but that''s another debate.

Also, I will change my signature to ""Rat Boy is my God"" if you can find a documented quote in a reputable news source from the current Pope advocating violence.

Does this work?

And I think this is particulary pertinent to the discussion.

Yep.

-----------------------------
LeapingGnome is my God

Hey hey! Finally a status I deserve!

IMAGE(http://www.ngemu.com/forums/images/smilies/Funny/thewave.gif)

EDIT: Just joking with you ralcydan, glad you still have a sense of humor after this thread. BTW, where is your name from?

Define ""backwards."" If you go by fundamentalism alone, one could make an argument that America is currently led by a Christian fundamentalist.

This is an excellent point, and everyone should understand that the vast majority of people on the planet are people of faith. Having strong faith and belief in one''s God is not a problem. However, Western society has set the example for how secular society must be organized. Individual belief is both fine and encouraged, but the state must allow freedom of religion and not become an instrument of the Church or vice versa.

Since you ask, here are some examples of ""backwards"":

1. Not allowing women to vote.
2. Not allowing women to drive.
3. Requiring women to cover their faces and bodies in public.
4. Putting women to death for pre-marital sex, adultery, or having been raped.
5. Requiring all laws of the country to be approved by its religious leaders.
6. Imprisoning missionaries of different religions.
7. Murdering thousands of Christians and Jews.
8. Eight, I forget what eight was for...
9. Monarchies with no representative branches of government.
10. Arresting citizens for protesting the current tyrannical system of rule.

These things are ""backwards"". I know, bold statement. If you would like, feel free to offer a scathing review of how these mainstream elements of the modern Middle East are ""progressive"". I look forward to it.

All of the ""backwards"" elements above arise from the fact that many Middle Eastern (and don''t forget African) cultures run their societies by strict interpretations of the Koran. The main difference between Middle Age Islam and Reformed Islam is that more secular Muslims ignore large parts of the Koran, and interpret the rest in the light of ""progressive"" thought, as accepted by modern Western culture.

Rat, if we were examining Christianity at the time of the Crusades or the Inquisition, while on the other side of the globe there was a peaceful society that afforded it''s citizens equality under the law and freedom of religion, I would be calling the Europeans backwards and in need of Reform.

To be honest, I don''t really care if any society is backwards or a religious tyranny. Sure, it offends my moral sensibilities, but it isn''t my job to lose sleep over the world''s suffering. What is a problem for me is when these backwards elements and tyrants allow the terrorist and murderers to spill out on the rest of us. And personally, I will happily cheer as we bomb them into civilization, if that''s what it takes.

Edit - sorry, forgot the signature
-------------------------------
LeapingGnome is my God

PS - Gnome, of course I still have a sense of humor. I take the ideas being debated seriously, but read closely any post I''ve made - there is humor to be found... (mostly missed, of course - oh well)

You won''t get any argument from me that the burqa or however it is spelled is extremely backwards. The other things you describe are limited to nations such as Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, a couple other Gulf states, Pakistan to some extent, and portions of Northern Africa*. What''s left out is what is the most populous Muslim nation on Earth: Indonesia. Did you know women are required to remove facial scarfs when taking driver''s license photos? A lot of people say Indonesia is by far the most progressive nations with Muslims next to Western-controlled states so there''s hope yet. But it is unfair to paint a religion as ""backwards"" because some practitioners interpret it in a strict manner. By comparison, Henry VIII''s Anglican church could be seen as more ""progressive"" than the Catholic church.

* - There was a season of MTV''s Road Rules where a female cast member had rocks thrown at her in Morrocco because she was wearing short-shorts. You wonder why their tourism isn''t that high.

it is unfair to paint a religion as ""backwards"" because some practitioners interpret it in a strict manner.

I agree. That''s why I''ve been arguing that the cultures which are immersed in fundamentalist Islam are backward, not Islam itself, hence the need for a Reformation. I have offered an opinion on the relative merits of the two religions, but in terms of ethics and teachings, not in a regressive vs. progressive light.

Actually, if you read the whole thread, most general negative comments about Islam are actually referring to fundamentalist Muslim cultures, and are merely abbreviated comments - not a problem if you read the post to which they are replying. Johnny Mojo''s reference to the ""backwardness of Islam"" was a reply to Alien Love Gardener, who used the same wording in response to my statements about the need for fundamentalist Muslim countries to undergo religious Reformation.

I just thought I''d clarify, since I can''t tell if you read any post above Johnny Mojo''s. I figure you saw the words ""backwards"" and ""Islam"", and had your PC alert go off. I get that a lot. I write something like ""The black cop caught the criminal"" and get accused of calling all African-Americans crackheads...

And remember...
------------------------------
LeapingGnome is my God

Edit - oh, and I think the Road Rules chick just had rocks thrown at her because she had fat thighs. Even radical Muslims got standards...

It was more of a response to JMJ''s characterization of it, not yours. Sure, his wording was prompted by ALG''s post, but JMJ ran with it.

And the RR chick, if I remember right, was rather skinny. Maybe radicals want some meat on the bones.

ALG,

I agree with the basic point you are trying to make, but saying the historic actions of the West has anything to do with the current situation in the Middle East is a bit off target. Yes, the Middle East was handled poorly by the British Empire, but that ended 80 years ago. The amount of cultural change in the rest of the world in the last 80 years is mind-numbing. And yet the a good part of the Middle East has the exact same culture now as they did then. That is not the fault of the West. That is the fault of the governments that rule them, and the religious leaders that preach to them. I am pretty sure the West would welcome them with open arms (new markets and all). The plight of 99.99999% of the people suffering in the Middle East has not been caused by the historic actions of the West.

And saying Islam has always been culturally backwards is just plain ignorant. You do know the only reason we can read so much of the greek philosophers today is because of the arabs, don''t you?

For the record, this has nothing to do with race. You are absolutely correct: the Arab world was the birthplace of western civilization. If you took my statements as being targeted at a race, I apologize, as that was never my intention. My target is fundamentalist Islam, which is not the source of any of the advances that are attributable to the Arab world, any more than Christianity is responsible for the invention of the light bulb. To restate again, so Ratboy can have something to misquote: Arab world - lots of contributions and a fine race. Fundamentalist Islam - very bad, culturally backwards in comparison to modern society, and in dire need of reformation.

Current or classic? I can find a bunch of stuff from the Crusade-era popes about killing Muslims. And ironically, I can find some stuff that JP2 said against recent American actions.

Rat, when someone says ''the Pope'' they mean the current one. When someone says ''a Pope'', or ''any Pope'', they mean historic. And I doubt you can find any reference of any Pope (note, that means historic as well) that calls for the death of anyone where (and this is important here) they quote the New Testament as justification for the killing. We all know the Old Testament is the wrathful God part. The New Testament, aka the inspiration of Christianity, is the part that said ""Ignore the Old Testament and embrace forgiveness."" So your delightful quote from Deuteronomy (Old Testament) is irrelevant in this argument, as Ral so wonderfully pointed out. By that same token, Ral handled pointing you to Page 1 of this thread for the Koran quotes.

Ask any Islamic scholar and they''ll tell you that the jihadists and the Iranian mullahs tend to follow a medieval interpretation of the Koran. Not modern interpretations, old ones.

Was that an Islamic scholar that lives in the West? This whole conversation pertains to Muslim countries that exist under fundamentalist rule. And that is primarily the Middle East and Africa. Places where the people are poor and have little or no hope for a better life under their current government. I would hope that an Islamic scholar that has embraced Western culture would say that. And if he was the religious leader for all of Iran, I know I would breathe a lot easier at night.

Rat, if you would actually read my posts and think about them, instead of thinking you have a reason to get pissy, we wouldn''t have a problem. I told you before, I am glad you are as passionate as you are. But closing your mind and launching into the PC rhetoric is the fastest way to make sure you are marginalized in the conversation.

And Leaping Gnome, you would make a fine deity. I nominate you as the leader of the reformed Islam.

It was more of a response to JMJ''s characterization of it, not yours. Sure, his wording was prompted by ALG''s post, but JMJ ran with it.

Rat, you have repeatedly insulted me, and admit that when you see a post from me you go into attack mode. How is it possible that you agree with Ral and not with me, when I am pretty sure that he and I see eye-to-eye on this?

Maybe you should actually read my arguments before you jump into the pool. If you disgree, fine. Say so and say why. But stop acting like a whiny 14-year-old (or Sean Penn), and actually make a point without the snide comments.

Edit - oh, and I think the Road Rules chick just had rocks thrown at her because she had fat thighs. Even radical Muslims got standards...
And the RR chick, if I remember right, was rather skinny. Maybe radicals want some meat on the bones.

That''s so funny it hurts.

My point is that you made a gross generalization of the practitioners of the world''s fastest growing religion. They are not all jihadists* bent on the destruction of America. They have a very strict, backward view on the world and the Koran; just look at how they mistook the word ""raisin"" for ""virgin"" as their eternal reward, for instance. I find it funny that at one point these people you so denounced were trusted allies of the US in Afghanistan during the Cold War. My how times change. You have said that Islam is ""a religion of violence"" while the president has said that Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by these jihadists. Care to disagree with the Commander in Chief?

* = I think it is important to draw a distinction between those that commit violence in the name of Allah and those who peacefully practice it. To paint all Muslims by the terrorist actions of a minority is as unfair as painting all Catholics by the terrorist acts of the IRA.

My point is that you made a gross generalization of the practitioners of the world''s fastest growing religion.

Only in response to to the previous posts.

I think it is important to draw a distinction between those that commit violence in the name of Allah and those who peacefully practice it. To paint all Muslims by the terrorist actions of a minority is as unfair as painting all Catholics by the terrorist acts of the IRA.

I agree completely. Never once included the majority of people that disregard large portions of their holy work because they intelligently recognize that it has no relevance or bearing on life in a modern society.

The IRA is less about religion and more about opposition to the reigning government though. But I accept your analogy and the point you are trying to make.

They are not all jihadists* bent on the destruction of America.

No, but an awful lot of them are.

I find it funny that at one point these people you so denounced were trusted allies of the US in Afghanistan during the Cold War.

""Politics makes strange bedfellows""

We had a common enemy then, and in our political reality, Islamic terrorists were a much smaller threat than Communist Russia at the time. France supported us in the American Revolution, Japan and Germany waged war on the world, and the Mongols and Turks both invaded Europe. Times have changed, as you pointed out yourself.

You have said that Islam is ""a religion of violence"" while the president has said that Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by these jihadists. Care to disagree with the Commander in Chief?

As long as the source of the religion preaches violence, then my comment, however generalized, is fundamentally true. I never said that every practitioner of the religion was violent. You drew that inference because you feel compelled to attack everything I say without actually taking the time to read or understand it. I am happy that large sections of the Islamic world have been able to ignore the parts of the Prophet''s teachings that don''t have a place in the modern world. But until the source gets amended, you will always have groups that follow it literally, much to the detriment of their fellow man.

And yes, I have no problem disagreeing with the President. I don''t have to make placating gestures to the Middle East to prevent attacks on US troops or more protests from the PC police.

I guess the only thing I can think of to prove my point is to ask you this: Would you be willing to go to Tehran and walk in public wearing a ''God Bless the USA'' t-shirt?

About as much as I''d be willing to go to Harlem wearing a KKK robe and hood.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

ALG,

I agree with the basic point you are trying to make, but saying the historic actions of the West has anything to do with the current situation in the Middle East is a bit off target. Yes, the Middle East was handled poorly by the British Empire, but that ended 80 years ago. The amount of cultural change in the rest of the world in the last 80 years is mind-numbing. And yet the a good part of the Middle East has the exact same culture now as they did then. That is not the fault of the West. That is the fault of the governments that rule them, and the religious leaders that preach to them.

I''d say the nations created post-WWII did quite a fair bit to create the current political situation in the Middle East too. And there''s no denying that Iran are under the mullahs today because of western meddling.

I agree that this doesn''t absolve the leaders over there of all responsibility though. Far from it.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:

And there''s no denying that Iran are under the mullahs today because of western meddling.

The shah wasn''t that great of a person and guess who supported him? The US may not have put the ayatollahs in power, but the actions of the US government certainly made the public support the revolution.

ALG and Rat, you are both right in that the US has backed some losing horses in the past. But in many ways, is it possible that problem has been that we haven''t been active enough in the region?

There is some wisdom in what you say; whenever the US gets dealt a bloody nose (Vietnam, Somalia, etc.), we tend to back off and avoid the region all together, much to the eternal sorrow of the native people. No one should be suprised when it comes back to bite you in the ass.