Do Yourself a Favor---Convert to Buddhism
Lisa R.
Crusader Wabbit
Buddhist.
"Lisa R." <mand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7aa8d371.03102...@posting.google.com...
> Lisa
XpatriotgamesX
>From: "Crusader Wabbit" Crus...@AtTheGates.net
>Date: 10/27/2003 7:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <TEanb.16499$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Does one also wakeup to find one is an anti-American left-wing fundamentalist?
Is this personality disorder genetic or environmental?
The Department of Defense
> Does one also wakeup to find one is an anti-American left-wing
fundamentalist?
> Is this personality disorder genetic or environmental?
I would think its enviromental... Too much Chompsky and Jimmy Carter.... :o(
A Abdou
> Lisa
The difficulty with Buddhism is that it is too much for stupid people.
Stupid people need to be told what to do even which hand they must use
to clean their butts... Islam offers such a thing, and Buddhism does
not.
Crusader Wabbit
"XpatriotgamesX" <xpatrio...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031027114205...@mb-m13.aol.com...
How is it that someone like you who consistently supports the interests of
Israel over the interest of America thinks they have the right to throw
nasty names at Americans like me who support the interests of America ?
If Israeli fascists are the friends of America, then we have no enemies.
XpatriotgamesX
>From: "Crusader Wabbit" Crus...@AtTheGates.net
>Message-id: <28Onb.19482$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>
>
>"XpatriotgamesX" <xpatrio...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20031027114205...@mb-m13.aol.com...
>> >Subject: Re: Do Yourself a Favor---Convert to Buddhism
>> >From: "Crusader Wabbit" Crus...@AtTheGates.net
>> >Date: 10/27/2003 7:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <TEanb.16499$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
>> >
>> >No one 'converts' to Buddhism - one wakes up and realizes that one is a
>> >Buddhist.
>> >
>> >"Lisa R." <mand...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >news:7aa8d371.03102...@posting.google.com...
>> >> Lisa
>> >
>>
>> Does one also wakeup to find one is an anti-American left-wing
>fundamentalist?
>> Is this personality disorder genetic or environmental?
>
>
>How is it that someone like you who consistently supports the interests of
>Israel over the interest of America
I don't see it that way at all. Prior to 911, like most Americans, I didn't pay
much attention to US foreign policy. I listened to the evening news, and read a
couple of newspapers daily, but didn't closely follow events in the middle east
otherwise. Now that has changed, and my support is firmly on the side of
Israel. Why? Because since 911, I have a new empathy for what Israelis and Jews
endure on a daily basis. I see their problems and interests closely aligned
with our own. I see a country that not only had to fend off five Arab
invasions, but also which has been literally attacked thousands of times over
the years with bombs, mortars, missiles, and sniper fire.
At this point, I have zero sympathy for Arabs and believe 99% of their misery
is self-induced. I see Islam not as a religion but as a political ideology much
like communism or Nazism, and I believe it should be fought and contained just
as vigorously.
I also see the US playing politics with Israel's security and asking them to do
things we would never do ourselves, such as allowing ourselves to be attacked
and doing nothing while the dysfunctional UN plays charades.
thinks they have the right to throw
>nasty names at Americans like me who support the interests of America ?
>
The funny thing is that when I first came to this newsgroup, I enjoyed your
posts and agreed with much of what you posted. But somewhere along the line,
you went over to the dark side. You've become a conspiracy junkie, an American
basher, a Bush hater, and possibly an anti-Semite. Allowing for the fact that
you may have good intentions, the best I can do is put you in the camp of the
seriously misguided.
>If Israeli fascists are the friends of America, then we have no enemies.
>
Israel is in survival mode, and she must do whatever is necessary to survive
and protect her citizens. I'm under no illusions that Israel is a "friend"
knowing that countries don't have friends - only interests. Currently, the US
and Israel's interests are joined at the hip. That doesn't mean it will always
be that way. One only has to look at Europe to see how short memories and
gratitude are.
Count 1
didn't pay
> much attention to US foreign policy. I listened to the evening news, and
read a
> couple of newspapers daily, but didn't closely follow events in the middle
east
> otherwise. Now that has changed, and my support is firmly on the side of
> Israel. Why? Because since 911, I have a new empathy for what Israelis and
Jews
> endure on a daily basis. I see their problems and interests closely
aligned
> with our own. I see a country that not only had to fend off five Arab
> invasions, but also which has been literally attacked thousands of times
over
> the years with bombs, mortars, missiles, and sniper fire.
> At this point, I have zero sympathy for Arabs and believe 99% of their
misery
> is self-induced. I see Islam not as a religion but as a political ideology
much
> like communism or Nazism, and I believe it should be fought and contained
just
> as vigorously.
A - *Freakin* - men.
Crusader Wabbit
I'm interested in the world and would like to see the world before I shuck
the moral coil.
But the Middle East was the last place I wanted to visit, even before the
recent difficulties. There is 1400 years of antimosity between the Muslim
and Christian worlds and it clouds our vision of each other. Between Jews
and Arabs, the hatred and antimosity run well over 2000 years.
While I hadn't followed current events all that much, I had read a goodly
amount about the history and cultures of the Middle East. I have read a lot
more about it in the last two years.
> Now that has changed, and my support is firmly on the side of
> Israel.
I haven't changed. I'm still for peace between Iraelis and Palestinians in
two independent nations. But we are 50 years down the road now. The
shuttle diplomacy and 'peace plans' of the 1970s and 1980s are 20 years
behind us. I don't know what is going to happen next.
> Why? Because since 911, I have a new empathy for what Israelis and Jews
> endure on a daily basis. I see their problems and interests closely
aligned
> with our own. I see a country that not only had to fend off five Arab
> invasions, but also which has been literally attacked thousands of times
over
> the years with bombs, mortars, missiles, and sniper fire.
> At this point, I have zero sympathy for Arabs and believe 99% of their
misery
> is self-induced. I see Islam not as a religion but as a political ideology
much
> like communism or Nazism, and I believe it should be fought and contained
just
> as vigorously.
I think that this view is absolutely totally 100% incorrect. First of all,
my views about ideology are very different from yours. Whatever communism
became, communist ideology wasn't originally the source of violence and
oppression, it is the result.
Communism took hold in Russia and China. I don't think that was an
accident. The savagery of the Chinese and Russian rulers toward their
peasants and serfs was unimaginable to our modern minds. The Russians would
punish their serfs for petty infractions of the law with the 'knout', a whip
with leaded weights that could break bones. I won't even describe what the
Chinese rulers did. We don't understand this type of barbarity. It's
convenient to disregard the misery of the people in these countries who
embraced communism, but if you don't acknowledge the social and economic
factors that gave rise to communism, you'll never understand why it gained
such a strong following and, consequently, will never understand communism.
The situation with Islam is quite different from communism. In fact,
conservative Muslims are quite up-front in saying that Islam is *not* just a
religion, it is more like a political ideology. Most religions have an
element of political ideology to them, Islam more than others. That in
itself is not significant.
What is significant is that Islam provides a common identity for very
diverse and often hostile peoples. Wide diversity characterizes Islam, not
rigid centrality. There is a pretense of ideological purity ( One Islam )
among the Islamic fundies, but I think that is a manifestation of the
struggle against the underlying diversity. The Sunnis and Shia is only one
difference, there are dozens of others. To put it another way, communist
ideology started coming apart within 20 years of the Russian Revolution.
Islamic ideology also started coming apart after 20 years, but has had 1400
years to continue the process.
So I think that diversity of belief in Islam is more remarkable that its
consistency, very unlike communism. An very much against the view of the
Islam-bashers in this group, who, paradoxically, seem to buy in so
completely to the Islamists pretense of One Islam. It just ain't so.
There are many other differences between the situation we faced with
communism and our conflict with the Islamic world today. Consider the
economics ( the "O" word ).
>
> I also see the US playing politics with Israel's security and asking them
to do
> things we would never do ourselves, such as allowing ourselves to be
attacked
> and doing nothing while the dysfunctional UN plays charades.
>
>
>
> thinks they have the right to throw
> >nasty names at Americans like me who support the interests of America ?
> >
>
> The funny thing is that when I first came to this newsgroup, I enjoyed
your
> posts and agreed with much of what you posted. But somewhere along the
line,
> you went over to the dark side. You've become a conspiracy junkie,
I report it as I see it. Can you say that the fabrication of evidence
supporting the invasion of Iraq was not a conspiracy ? It was.
> an American basher,
Americans are not inherently superior to everyone else in the world,
although we think we are. We've been fortunate and I hope our luck
continues. Clearly, it's not our knowledge or wisdom that's gotten us where
we are.
> a Bush hater,
I don't hate the guy. He's just the front man for the wolves who are
sacking our treasury.
> and possibly an anti-Semite.
Since rubbing elbows with both varieties of Semite fanatics in this
newsgroup ( Arabs and Jews ), I've come to question their basic sanity.
They seem to prefer the easy answers to the difficult, demonizing to
understanding and fighting to peace. Guess that's what 2000 years of hatred
does to you.
> Allowing for the fact that
> you may have good intentions, the best I can do is put you in the camp of
the
> seriously misguided.
>
> >If Israeli fascists are the friends of America, then we have no enemies.
> >
>
> Israel is in survival mode, and she must do whatever is necessary to
survive
> and protect her citizens.
Yup. That's why America getting pushed out of Iraq is going to be so
damaging to Israel. After they push us out, what are they going to do next
? Which, as I understand it, was Bin Ladin's plan all along. In the long
term, Israel may suffer more than anyone else from the disaster in Iraq.
> I'm under no illusions that Israel is a "friend"
> knowing that countries don't have friends - only interests. Currently, the
US
> and Israel's interests are joined at the hip.
I don't think that American and Israeli interests should be joined at the
hip, although I can't say what that would mean in practical terms.
Consistent support maybe, but not joined at the hip.
Count 1
> > endure on a daily basis. I see their problems and interests closely
> aligned
> > with our own. I see a country that not only had to fend off five Arab
> > invasions, but also which has been literally attacked thousands of times
> over
> > the years with bombs, mortars, missiles, and sniper fire.
> > At this point, I have zero sympathy for Arabs and believe 99% of their
> misery
> > is self-induced. I see Islam not as a religion but as a political
ideology
> much
> > like communism or Nazism, and I believe it should be fought and
contained
> just
> > as vigorously.
>
>
> I think that this view is absolutely totally 100% incorrect. First of
all,
> my views about ideology are very different from yours. Whatever communism
> became, communist ideology wasn't originally the source of violence and
> oppression, it is the result.
Excuse me? The 'communist ideology' is directly responsible for the
oppression and violence which racked Asia and Eastern Europe at the turn of
the 20th century. I think you meant 'Marxism' rather than 'Communist
ideology'.
> Communism took hold in Russia and China. I don't think that was an
> accident. The savagery of the Chinese and Russian rulers toward their
> peasants and serfs was unimaginable to our modern minds. The Russians
would
> punish their serfs for petty infractions of the law with the 'knout', a
whip
> with leaded weights that could break bones. I won't even describe what
the
> Chinese rulers did. We don't understand this type of barbarity. It's
> convenient to disregard the misery of the people in these countries who
> embraced communism, but if you don't acknowledge the social and economic
> factors that gave rise to communism, you'll never understand why it gained
> such a strong following and, consequently, will never understand
communism.
What does this rant have to do with wanting to end communism? Certainly
communism arose as an answer to the injustice wealth and power creates ( so
did Islam, BTW ) but that doesn't speak to why it was necessary to contain
and eventually defeat it.
> The situation with Islam is quite different from communism. In fact,
> conservative Muslims are quite up-front in saying that Islam is *not* just
a
> religion, it is more like a political ideology. Most religions have an
> element of political ideology to them, Islam more than others. That in
> itself is not significant.
>
> What is significant is that Islam provides a common identity for very
> diverse and often hostile peoples. Wide diversity characterizes Islam,
not
> rigid centrality.
*Bzzzt* ; Dead wrong.
Rigid centrality does characterize 'political Islam', in effect the
countries that hvae tried to implement Islam as a system of governance have
created highly rigid cultures with a concentration of political power on a
central authority.
There is a pretense of ideological purity ( One Islam )
> among the Islamic fundies, but I think that is a manifestation of the
> struggle against the underlying diversity. The Sunnis and Shia is only
one
> difference, there are dozens of others. To put it another way, communist
> ideology started coming apart within 20 years of the Russian Revolution.
> Islamic ideology also started coming apart after 20 years, but has had
1400
> years to continue the process.
>
> So I think that diversity of belief in Islam is more remarkable that its
> consistency, very unlike communism. An very much against the view of the
> Islam-bashers in this group, who, paradoxically, seem to buy in so
> completely to the Islamists pretense of One Islam. It just ain't so.
Ludicrous. The idea that Islam creates a political ideology, which you
admit to above, is rendered fallacious upon discovery of the various
interpretations of Islam itself. There are widely different interpretations
of political Islam. Recognizing that fact leads one to conclude that
Political Islam is really nothing more than the basis for demagogues to
usurp and focus political power on themselves.
> There are many other differences between the situation we faced with
> communism and our conflict with the Islamic world today. Consider the
> economics ( the "O" word ).
Yes there are many differences. However the statement was simply that Islam
needs to be contained like Communism and Nazism needed to be contained. And
unless you want your sisters and daughters to be denied careers or you like
the prospect of living 'with a boot in your face forever' then you should be
concerned about it too.
The Department of Defense
::::::::applause:::::::: Bravo ::::::::::::: whistles:::::::::::::::::
Crusader Wabbit
"Count 1" <omnipi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bnp2no$13r00u$1...@ID-130993.news.uni-berlin.de...
No, I mean Communist ideology. Marxism never made it out of Western Europe.
And, in case you haven't noticed, it's still alive and well in South
America. Is there a long history of savagery against the peasants in South
America ? You betcha'. Is communism, or Maoism or neo-communism or
whatever, still an active threat in regions of the world ? You betcha'.
Nepal is another example.
>
> > Communism took hold in Russia and China. I don't think that was an
> > accident. The savagery of the Chinese and Russian rulers toward their
> > peasants and serfs was unimaginable to our modern minds. The Russians
> would
> > punish their serfs for petty infractions of the law with the 'knout', a
> whip
> > with leaded weights that could break bones. I won't even describe what
> the
> > Chinese rulers did. We don't understand this type of barbarity. It's
> > convenient to disregard the misery of the people in these countries who
> > embraced communism, but if you don't acknowledge the social and economic
> > factors that gave rise to communism, you'll never understand why it
gained
> > such a strong following and, consequently, will never understand
> communism.
>
> What does this rant have to do with wanting to end communism? Certainly
> communism arose as an answer to the injustice wealth and power creates (
so
> did Islam, BTW ) but that doesn't speak to why it was necessary to contain
> and eventually defeat it.
So controlling the cause of something has nothing to do with controlling the
thing itself ? Maybe I should leave those old cans of gasoline by the
furnace after all. :-)
>
> > The situation with Islam is quite different from communism. In fact,
> > conservative Muslims are quite up-front in saying that Islam is *not*
just
> a
> > religion, it is more like a political ideology. Most religions have an
> > element of political ideology to them, Islam more than others. That in
> > itself is not significant.
> >
> > What is significant is that Islam provides a common identity for very
> > diverse and often hostile peoples. Wide diversity characterizes Islam,
> not
> > rigid centrality.
>
> *Bzzzt* ; Dead wrong.
> Rigid centrality does characterize 'political Islam', in effect the
> countries that hvae tried to implement Islam as a system of governance
have
> created highly rigid cultures with a concentration of political power on a
> central authority.
There is no central authority. If there is one, then where is it ?
BTW, I don't buy the idea that a handful of fundamentalist universities is a
central authority controlling the beliefs of 1.2 billion people.
>
> There is a pretense of ideological purity ( One Islam )
> > among the Islamic fundies, but I think that is a manifestation of the
> > struggle against the underlying diversity. The Sunnis and Shia is only
> one
> > difference, there are dozens of others. To put it another way,
communist
> > ideology started coming apart within 20 years of the Russian Revolution.
> > Islamic ideology also started coming apart after 20 years, but has had
> 1400
> > years to continue the process.
> >
> > So I think that diversity of belief in Islam is more remarkable that its
> > consistency, very unlike communism. An very much against the view of
the
> > Islam-bashers in this group, who, paradoxically, seem to buy in so
> > completely to the Islamists pretense of One Islam. It just ain't so.
>
> Ludicrous. The idea that Islam creates a political ideology, which you
> admit to above, is rendered fallacious upon discovery of the various
> interpretations of Islam itself.
What I said was a simplification. Islam is more than a political ideology.
It is something like a blueprint for building an Islamic community. The
community is self-contained and self-replicating. Anything but centralized,
to expand on the previous theme.
> There are widely different interpretations
> of political Islam. Recognizing that fact leads one to conclude that
> Political Islam is really nothing more than the basis for demagogues to
> usurp and focus political power on themselves.
Political Islam is actually quite distinct from Islam itself. It is
primarily a reaction to the *successes* of secular reforms in the Islamic
world after the colonial period. Political Islam has also been fed by the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the secular states have failed to
address. In fact, if it weren't for Israel, Political Islam probably
wouldn't exist as anything other than a neo-conservative protest to the
successful secular states.
>
> > There are many other differences between the situation we faced with
> > communism and our conflict with the Islamic world today. Consider the
> > economics ( the "O" word ).
>
> Yes there are many differences. However the statement was simply that
Islam
> needs to be contained like Communism and Nazism needed to be contained.
I'm saying that it can't be contained as Communism was contained. Military
power succeed when it meets military power. What we are facing is, whether
we like it or not, a spiritual power. We may say "no, no, no !", but this
is widely perceived around the world as a war against Islam, and not just by
Muslims.
Islam is a religion and we are trying to contain a religion of well over 1
billion people, primarily with military force. We have already failed in
the war of ideas ( at least in Iraq ), so we are now stuck with doing what
military force does so well, which is to kill people.
How many Muslims will have to kill before Islam is 'contained' ? 10 million
? 100 million ? How many ?
> And
> unless you want your sisters and daughters to be denied careers or you
like
> the prospect of living 'with a boot in your face forever' then you should
be
> concerned about it too.
Last week, I thought I saw a Muslim in the grocery store looking
suspiciously at the 'potatoes'. ;-)
Actually, this is a very real possibility in Israel, but the truth is that,
in America, it is not. The interests of America and Israel are close, but,
if push comes to shove, we may not be as "joined at the hip" as it appears.
Harsh, but true.
Count 1
Crusader Wabbit <Crus...@AtTheGates.net> wrote in message
news:gV7ob.20575$Ec1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Political Islam manifests in a variety of forms. When a more fundamentalist
one arises (Iran, SA, Afghanistan) a highly centralized government is
invariably its form. ERGO: Rigid centrality does characterize Islam, as
opposed to what you wrote.
Ludicrous. Islam is not some left wing hippie commune of equals in a self
sustainig community. It is a set of rules and judgements from the 7th
century, reflecting the barbaric nature of humanity at the time, and totally
inadequate for governing a modern and progressive nation.
>
>
> > There are widely different interpretations
> > of political Islam. Recognizing that fact leads one to conclude that
> > Political Islam is really nothing more than the basis for demagogues to
> > usurp and focus political power on themselves.
>
> Political Islam is actually quite distinct from Islam itself. It is
> primarily a reaction to the *successes* of secular reforms in the Islamic
> world after the colonial period. Political Islam has also been fed by the
> Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the secular states have failed to
> address. In fact, if it weren't for Israel, Political Islam probably
> wouldn't exist as anything other than a neo-conservative protest to the
> successful secular states.
What? Care to tell me how you come about to this conclusion? Political
Islam has been kept at bay by the efforts of the western powers after a
series of succesful military victories. A process that began several
centuries ago and ended around 1924.
> >
> > > There are many other differences between the situation we faced with
> > > communism and our conflict with the Islamic world today. Consider the
> > > economics ( the "O" word ).
> >
> > Yes there are many differences. However the statement was simply that
> Islam
> > needs to be contained like Communism and Nazism needed to be contained.
>
> I'm saying that it can't be contained as Communism was contained.
Military
> power succeed when it meets military power. What we are facing is,
whether
> we like it or not, a spiritual power. We may say "no, no, no !", but this
> is widely perceived around the world as a war against Islam, and not just
by
> Muslims.
That's what we're facing - military power. It might come in the form of
terrorism and it will be difficult to contain. But recognizing that fact
should only drive us harder. At least the communists never engaged in the
kinds of subhuman violence the Islamists do.
> Islam is a religion and we are trying to contain a religion of well over 1
> billion people, primarily with military force. We have already failed in
> the war of ideas ( at least in Iraq ), so we are now stuck with doing what
> military force does so well, which is to kill people.
>
> How many Muslims will have to kill before Islam is 'contained' ? 10
million
> ? 100 million ? How many ?
Islam is contained, both spiritualy and politically. Islam is not
threatening Europe, or America, and is not expansionary in Africa or Asia.
As far as how many muslims have to die for them to give up their rhetoric of
constant expansion, discrimination, and religous intolerance? That depends
on how many of us their willing to kill.
How many of us have to die for a Caliphate to be established in your state?
Crusader Wabbit
Iran is not a centralized government. Regions in the north have
considerable autonomy. When I read your assertion that Afghanistan had/has
a rigidly centralized government, I found difficult to believe my eyes.
About Saudi Arabia, what can I say ? A few years ago a rebellion among the
rival clans almost toppled the Saudi clan. Is that centralization in your
estimation ?
Actually, you've shifted from description to evaluation. Whether or not
Islam is adequate for governing a modern and progressive nation, it is still
highly diverse. In fact, rigid centrality, is a hallmark of modern and
progressive nations versus the regionalism of yesteryear.
> >
> >
> > > There are widely different interpretations
> > > of political Islam. Recognizing that fact leads one to conclude that
> > > Political Islam is really nothing more than the basis for demagogues
to
> > > usurp and focus political power on themselves.
> >
> > Political Islam is actually quite distinct from Islam itself. It is
> > primarily a reaction to the *successes* of secular reforms in the
Islamic
> > world after the colonial period. Political Islam has also been fed by
the
> > Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the secular states have failed to
> > address. In fact, if it weren't for Israel, Political Islam probably
> > wouldn't exist as anything other than a neo-conservative protest to the
> > successful secular states.
>
> What? Care to tell me how you come about to this conclusion? Political
> Islam has been kept at bay by the efforts of the western powers
Absolutley 1000% wrong. But maybe for good reasons.
In a sense, Political Islam began as a secular modernist movement to counter
the western powers. It has since evolved into something like an
anit-secularist, anti-modern movement. It was always anti-western.
How you can say that Poltical Islam has been "kept at bay" defies understand
and historical facts.
> after a
> series of succesful military victories. A process that began several
> centuries ago and ended around 1924.
>
>
> > >
> > > > There are many other differences between the situation we faced with
> > > > communism and our conflict with the Islamic world today. Consider
the
> > > > economics ( the "O" word ).
> > >
> > > Yes there are many differences. However the statement was simply that
> > Islam
> > > needs to be contained like Communism and Nazism needed to be
contained.
> >
> > I'm saying that it can't be contained as Communism was contained.
> Military
> > power succeed when it meets military power. What we are facing is,
> whether
> > we like it or not, a spiritual power. We may say "no, no, no !", but
this
> > is widely perceived around the world as a war against Islam, and not
just
> by
> > Muslims.
>
> That's what we're facing - military power. It might come in the form of
> terrorism
Terrorism isn't military power in any sense of the word. It is a tactic of
the powerless against the powerful. If the Islamists were cruising around
in armored vehicles, then you could say that they are a military power.
As I've noted in the past, America won every battle of the Vietnam War.
> and it will be difficult to contain. But recognizing that fact
> should only drive us harder. At least the communists never engaged in the
> kinds of subhuman violence the Islamists do.
Jaaaaay-sus.
I'll grant that much of what Americans have been told through the years
about communist artocities is disinformation, but I know many Russians who
will give personal accounts about atrocites that happened to friends and
relatives.
Ever see the movie "The Killing Fields" ? Some Cambodians say that the move
was cleaned up for the viewing public and that the truth was much worse.
Ever hear of the "Cultural Revolution" in China ?
I'll stop listing atrocities while I still can, but the list is much, much
longer.
A truly amazing assertion. You must really hate Muslims to say something
like that.
>
> > Islam is a religion and we are trying to contain a religion of well over
1
> > billion people, primarily with military force. We have already failed
in
> > the war of ideas ( at least in Iraq ), so we are now stuck with doing
what
> > military force does so well, which is to kill people.
> >
> > How many Muslims will have to kill before Islam is 'contained' ? 10
> million
> > ? 100 million ? How many ?
>
> Islam is contained, both spiritualy and politically. Islam is not
> threatening Europe, or America, and is not expansionary in Africa or Asia.
> As far as how many muslims have to die for them to give up their rhetoric
of
> constant expansion, discrimination, and religous intolerance?
How many Muslims ? Most Muslims want better living conditions, a better
future for their kids and to practice their religion in peace. Of the
several dozen Muslims I have know, not one has killed me yet, although I
confess that they might have had justification for it at certain times. :-)
> That depends
> on how many of us their willing to kill.
>
> How many of us have to die for a Caliphate to be established in your
state?
Not my state. And the 'us' you name is Muslims, not Europeans, Americans,
or whatever.
But I think you've hit a key point, in fact what might be called a
vulnerability. Effectively, Saddam was like a later-day Caliph. Can the
Caliphate unify Islam ? Based on recent experience, that's very doubtful.
Count 1
> > Political Islam manifests in a variety of forms. When a more
> fundamentalist
> > one arises (Iran, SA, Afghanistan) a highly centralized government is
> > invariably its form. ERGO: Rigid centrality does characterize Islam, as
> > opposed to what you wrote.
>
>
> Iran is not a centralized government. Regions in the north have
> considerable autonomy. When I read your assertion that Afghanistan
had/has
> a rigidly centralized government, I found difficult to believe my eyes.
> About Saudi Arabia, what can I say ? A few years ago a rebellion among
the
> rival clans almost toppled the Saudi clan. Is that centralization in your
> estimation ?
'That' has nothing to do with identifying how centralized a government is.
Why even mention it?
A centralized government is characterized by where the majority of the
decisions flow from. While in arabia I was stunned to read, everyday in a
left hand column on page 2 of the english language newspaper, a variety of
'Daily Decrees' from the Sultan. 'In 1 year all cab drivers will have to be
of Omani descent'...or some such thing.
*If* you ever get to the region, or to any Islamic country, you'll see what
I mean.
snip for brevity
> > > > Ludicrous. The idea that Islam creates a political ideology, which
> you
> > > > admit to above, is rendered fallacious upon discovery of the various
> > > > interpretations of Islam itself.
> > >
> > > What I said was a simplification. Islam is more than a political
> > ideology.
> > > It is something like a blueprint for building an Islamic community.
The
> > > community is self-contained and self-replicating. Anything but
> > centralized,
> > > to expand on the previous theme.
> >
> > Ludicrous. Islam is not some left wing hippie commune of equals in a
self
> > sustainig community. It is a set of rules and judgements from the 7th
> > century, reflecting the barbaric nature of humanity at the time, and
> totally
> > inadequate for governing a modern and progressive nation.
> >
>
> Actually, you've shifted from description to evaluation.
A little of both, but the description part isn't wrong.
Whether or not
> Islam is adequate for governing a modern and progressive nation, it is
still
> highly diverse. In fact, rigid centrality, is a hallmark of modern and
> progressive nations versus the regionalism of yesteryear.
Where do you get this from? Look at the US government...study its
constitution...take some political science courses at your local university
to see how modern nation states practicing democracy as found in the
European tradition break apart the powers of the state to limit the
influence of the people chosen to adminster the state. Compare that to the
vast majority of Arabic and "islamic countries" - discounting even the
hardcore ones already mentioned - where absolute power is still held by one
man.
> > >
> > >
> > > > There are widely different interpretations
> > > > of political Islam. Recognizing that fact leads one to conclude
that
> > > > Political Islam is really nothing more than the basis for demagogues
> to
> > > > usurp and focus political power on themselves.
> > >
> > > Political Islam is actually quite distinct from Islam itself. It is
> > > primarily a reaction to the *successes* of secular reforms in the
> Islamic
> > > world after the colonial period. Political Islam has also been fed by
> the
> > > Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which the secular states have failed to
> > > address. In fact, if it weren't for Israel, Political Islam probably
> > > wouldn't exist as anything other than a neo-conservative protest to
the
> > > successful secular states.
> >
> > What? Care to tell me how you come about to this conclusion? Political
> > Islam has been kept at bay by the efforts of the western powers
>
> Absolutley 1000% wrong. But maybe for good reasons.
>
> In a sense, Political Islam began as a secular modernist movement to
counter
> the western powers. It has since evolved into something like an
> anit-secularist, anti-modern movement. It was always anti-western.
Oh please. A 'secular' modernist movement? Where do you get this from?
Please - at this point I'm gonna have to ask you for sources. It looks like
you're just making this stuff up to be argumentative.
> How you can say that Poltical Islam has been "kept at bay" defies
understand
> and historical facts.
Uh-huh. When was the last time a theif had his hand cleaved in your court
of law?
> > > I'm saying that it can't be contained as Communism was contained.
> > Military
> > > power succeed when it meets military power. What we are facing is,
> > whether
> > > we like it or not, a spiritual power. We may say "no, no, no !", but
> this
> > > is widely perceived around the world as a war against Islam, and not
> just
> > by
> > > Muslims.
> >
> > That's what we're facing - military power. It might come in the form of
> > terrorism
>
> Terrorism isn't military power in any sense of the word. It is a tactic
of
> the powerless against the powerful. If the Islamists were cruising around
> in armored vehicles, then you could say that they are a military power.
>
> As I've noted in the past, America won every battle of the Vietnam War.
Terrorism is a military powr in one sense of the word, it threatens to bring
death. And its engaged preciscely because the perpetrators can't ride
around in the armoured vehicles, much less stage an invasion.
But make NO MISTAKE - they would if they could.
>
>
> > and it will be difficult to contain. But recognizing that fact
> > should only drive us harder. At least the communists never engaged in
the
> > kinds of subhuman violence the Islamists do.
>
> Jaaaaay-sus.
>
> I'll grant that much of what Americans have been told through the years
> about communist artocities is disinformation, but I know many Russians who
> will give personal accounts about atrocites that happened to friends and
> relatives.
>
> Ever see the movie "The Killing Fields" ? Some Cambodians say that the
move
> was cleaned up for the viewing public and that the truth was much worse.
>
> Ever hear of the "Cultural Revolution" in China ?
>
> I'll stop listing atrocities while I still can, but the list is much, much
> longer.
>
> A truly amazing assertion. You must really hate Muslims to say something
> like that.
I really hate Islamic terrorism, Muslims I don't really care about, they're
just dedicated to some myth. But I'm glad you've at least learnt what
centralized governments do to their populace. Now you just need to know that
political Islam will create exactly the kind of atrocities you describe
above if it ever gets its hands on a sizeable area.
BTW - seen the movie?? I've been to the victims memorial in Cambodia.
> >
> > > Islam is a religion and we are trying to contain a religion of well
over
> 1
> > > billion people, primarily with military force. We have already failed
> in
> > > the war of ideas ( at least in Iraq ), so we are now stuck with doing
> what
> > > military force does so well, which is to kill people.
> > >
> > > How many Muslims will have to kill before Islam is 'contained' ? 10
> > million
> > > ? 100 million ? How many ?
> >
> > Islam is contained, both spiritualy and politically. Islam is not
> > threatening Europe, or America, and is not expansionary in Africa or
Asia.
> > As far as how many muslims have to die for them to give up their
rhetoric
> of
> > constant expansion, discrimination, and religous intolerance?
>
> How many Muslims ? Most Muslims want better living conditions, a better
> future for their kids and to practice their religion in peace. Of the
> several dozen Muslims I have know, not one has killed me yet, although I
> confess that they might have had justification for it at certain times.
:-)
Good. Then it shouldn't be too many. Keep your fingers crossed.
> > That depends
> > on how many of us their willing to kill.
> >
> > How many of us have to die for a Caliphate to be established in your
> state?
>
> Not my state. And the 'us' you name is Muslims, not Europeans, Americans,
> or whatever.
?? I see you really don't what Political Islam is.
>
> But I think you've hit a key point, in fact what might be called a
> vulnerability. Effectively, Saddam was like a later-day Caliph. Can the
> Caliphate unify Islam ? Based on recent experience, that's very doubtful.
??
kuff (Isaac Adams)
> snip for brevity
>
> > > Political Islam manifests in a variety of forms. When a more
> > fundamentalist
> > > one arises (Iran, SA, Afghanistan) a highly centralized government is
> > > invariably its form. ERGO: Rigid centrality does characterize Islam, as
> > > opposed to what you wrote.
> >
> >
> > Iran is not a centralized government. Regions in the north have
> > considerable autonomy. When I read your assertion that Afghanistan
> had/has
> > a rigidly centralized government, I found difficult to believe my eyes.
> > About Saudi Arabia, what can I say ? A few years ago a rebellion among
> the
> > rival clans almost toppled the Saudi clan. Is that centralization in your
> > estimation ?
>
> 'That' has nothing to do with identifying how centralized a government is.
> Why even mention it?
>
> A centralized government is characterized by where the majority of the
> decisions flow from. While in arabia I was stunned to read, everyday in a
> left hand column on page 2 of the english language newspaper, a variety of
> 'Daily Decrees' from the Sultan. 'In 1 year all cab drivers will have to be
> of Omani descent'...or some such thing.
>
> *If* you ever get to the region, or to any Islamic country, you'll see what
> I mean.
Goodness Count, the US's Federal Register's daily output would probably exceed
the capacity of the entire newspaper.
"Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the official daily publication
for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as
well as executive orders and other presidential documents."
...
Count 1
kuff (Isaac Adams) <kuf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fa28...@127.0.0.1...
Apples to oranges Kuff. Please don't jump into a thread if you have nothing
to add. The US federal registry does not list 'decrees' from a Sultan
yielding absolute power. And volume isn't the issue, its how 'centralized'
a government is. If anything the FR proves the US government is not
controlled by one (central) authority, but in fact a large group of people
with constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
kuff (Isaac Adams)
Multiple Sultans. That's better?
> And volume isn't the issue, its how 'centralized'
> a government is.
It's the *Federal* Register. Those are the pronouncements of the *centralized*
government.
> If anything the FR proves the US government is not
> controlled by one (central) authority, but in fact a large group of people
> with constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
Mutiple centralized Sultans. Just like I said.
Count 1
No - worse actually.
>
> > And volume isn't the issue, its how 'centralized'
> > a government is.
>
> It's the *Federal* Register. Those are the pronouncements of the
*centralized*
> government.
The government of the US is much less centralized than the governments of
Arabic countries. And the output of the federal register merely confirms,
not denies, this fact.
>
> > If anything the FR proves the US government is not
> > controlled by one (central) authority, but in fact a large group of
people
> > with constitutionally mandated responsibilities.
>
> Mutiple centralized Sultans. Just like I said.
You're lost dude. Take a look at concepts like 'division of power' and how
the three different branches in your government (the US) affect the nature
of 'centralization and concentration' in it. Then compare and contrast to
that which you find in Arabia.
But you won't, preferring the convenient yet idiotic one liners born of
ignorance. 'Multiple centralized Sultans' indeed. (BTW - you were wondering
about 'moral relavance' a little while ago. Calling the US government a
collection of Sultans is a perfect example of the 'moral relavance' you
claimed to not engage in - just an fyi. )
Crusader Wabbit
> snip for brevity
>
> > > Political Islam manifests in a variety of forms. When a more
> > fundamentalist
> > > one arises (Iran, SA, Afghanistan) a highly centralized government is
> > > invariably its form. ERGO: Rigid centrality does characterize Islam,
as
> > > opposed to what you wrote.
> >
> >
> > Iran is not a centralized government. Regions in the north have
> > considerable autonomy. When I read your assertion that Afghanistan
> had/has
> > a rigidly centralized government, I found difficult to believe my eyes.
> > About Saudi Arabia, what can I say ? A few years ago a rebellion among
> the
> > rival clans almost toppled the Saudi clan. Is that centralization in
your
> > estimation ?
>
> 'That' has nothing to do with identifying how centralized a government is.
> Why even mention it?
Good point. I was looking through some the replies and I think fuzzy words
and expression are plaguing the conversation.
While the Taliban in Afghanistan were not centralist, they were
*authoritarian* without question. But I would counter that they had little
impact on the beliefs of the Afghanis, particularly the bans against music.
The Afghanis ( Pashtu, etc. ) love music and have a rich musical tradition,
and cultivate other strong divergences from Sunni Islamic orthodoxy, in
their mountain fastness, so to speak.
>
> A centralized government is characterized by where the majority of the
> decisions flow from. While in arabia I was stunned to read, everyday in a
> left hand column on page 2 of the english language newspaper, a variety of
> 'Daily Decrees' from the Sultan. 'In 1 year all cab drivers will have to
be
> of Omani descent'...or some such thing.
>
> *If* you ever get to the region, or to any Islamic country, you'll see
what
> I mean.
This is one of the confusions I help to sow in my replies. Centralized
political power and centralized religious doctrine are not the same thing.
Religious doctrine is highly centralized on the Arabian peninsula ( I was
just too stubborn to admit it outright ). Political power is often based on
religious doctrine, but they are to some degree separable, as the clan
conflicts indicate.
There are also large numbers of Shia working the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.
I know that there have been significant political tensions between the Sunni
and Shia in the north-east areas, but the religious implications are beyond
me.
In Iran the situation is very different. The Shia comes in a variety of
distinct flavors ( Seveners, Twelvers, etc. etc, ). As I understand it,
religious heterodoxy is more tolerated and less likely to less to bloody
conflicts than among the Sunnis on the Arabian peninsula, although I'm sure
there are exceptions. There are also significant numbers of non-Muslim or
un-Muslim religious groups in remote areas who seem to have been tolerated
as often as they were persecuted over the last 1000 years.
It's a complex subject. Certainly, there are powerful forces within Islam
who try to impose religious orthodoxy on other Muslims, but I think that
their efforts have had limited success. A Muslim sect in Syria ( can't
remember the name off the top of my head, but the ruling Husseins are
members ) have secret religious rites that reputedly incorporate Christian
ideas.
So, without writing a thesis paper on the subject, I think that there is
considerable variation in religious belief among Muslims. In other words,
there is no central authority telling Muslims what to believe. While SA is
mostly orthodox Sunni, I think it would be inaccurate to say that that Islam
as a whole is a centralized religion.
BTW, the Persians love wine and booze as much as any people I know, 'cepting
the Irish of course. :-)
A *form* of power is held by one man. I'm thinking of the Ottoman model,
where the Sultans decrees were posted on every lamp post in the land and
then promptly ignored. Actually, it was much the same in pre-revolutionary
France. The France of the Sun King was a hodge-podge of local laws and
authorities. In a sense, the 'absolute' power of the strong man is
necessitated by the inherently decentralized nature of the actual mechanisms
of governence.
I think that the classic Baghdad Caliphate was a prime example of the
reciprical balance between the 'absolute' central power and the 'real' power
wielded by local governors and political organizations. Saddam Hussein fit
the model very well. How else does one explain the amazing resilience of
the local Baathists organizations after the 'decapitation'.
Me making up stuff just to be argumentative ??? Kinder, gentler me who
despises argument and only wants people to get along ??? My feelings are
hurt.
But not for long. Because, in this case at least, I'm not making it up.
The major areas are Turkey, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq, Iran and somewhat later,
Pakistan. In each case, there was a secularist, modernist movement of one
sort or another, generally in the late 19th or early 20th century. In the
case of Turkey, it was distinctly nationalist ( The Young Turks ). In the
case of Egypt, it was more pan-Arab and influenced Arabs throughout the
Islamic world.
BTW, Arabs can whine and moan about the Balfour Declaration, perhaps with
some justification, but it conformed very well to the ideas of leading Arab
intellectuals in the WWI era, such as the Egyptian Ahmad Lufti al-Sayyid.
There was a whole world of progressive Arab thinkers at that time who
believed that nation states were the wave of the future, so the Europeans
were to some extent responding to what Arabs were asking for. They were
also quite consciously rewarding their allies and punishing their enemies
who has supported the Germans in WW1, a practice not unheard of among Arabs.
End of counter-harangue.
If you are seriously trying to understand the current situation, you should
read John Esposito's "Islam and Politics". I know there have been vehement
accusations that he is a communistic Islamic terrorist liberal and all that,
but he understands the political history of the Middle East in the last 100
years better than anyone else I know, certainly better than the
one-dimensional "Islam-is-evil" ideologues who haunt the scene these days.
The Islamist surge of the last 20 years is in part a reaction against the
largely successful secularist political reforms in the early 20th century.
To me, if someone doesn't understand that then they don't understand what is
going on in the Middle East today.
Even Muammar Qaddafi was part of that reform movement, specifically an as
Islamic Socialist. Saddam Hussein also started out as an Islamic Socialist.
There were significant democratic movements in Libya, Iraq and Iran before
WWII which later preempted by the Socialists, or fascists in the case of
Iran.
And, more importantly, the wave of 'Islamic' terrorism did *not* begin with
the Islamists, but with the distinctly un-Islamic secularists such as
Qaddafi.
Anyway, these historical roots are important in understanding terrorism.
Read up on the history of the area. The "Islam-is-evil" school has no
concept of history or what's happening today or what's going to happen in
the next few years. It's just a quick-and-easy, junk-food kind of thinking.
>
> > How you can say that Poltical Islam has been "kept at bay" defies
> understand
> > and historical facts.
>
> Uh-huh. When was the last time a theif had his hand cleaved in your court
> of law?
That sort of sharia barbarity is pretty much isolated to SA, at this point.
But it is spreading.
Military people by nature believe in order, stability and discipline. I
think that terrorists are a different breed altogether. They see themselves
as the heroes of a fairy tale, sort of like the Three Musketeers, a small
band of brothers bound by blood fighting the good fight and all that.
Terrorism can be used as a tactic to gain political power, but terrorists
don't build order or stability. After the need for terror is over, the
terrorists are the first to go, like the Brown Shirts.
Terrorism is terrorism. I don't recognize nuances of slaughter. During the
expansion southward in the late 19th century, the Russians exterminated
unknown tens of thousands of Muslims in death camps. A rehearsal for the
gulags ? Much of what the British learned about conquering 'native'
populations, they learned in Ireland.
Everyone has blood on their hands. But you are probably right that the
atrocities of triumphant Islamists would be just as bad as the others, if
not worse.
>
> BTW - seen the movie?? I've been to the victims memorial in Cambodia.
Wow. Good for you. As far as I'm concerned, there should be one in every
captial city of the world.
If you mean that their objective is to conquer the world by the sword and
force everyone to convert to Islam, it ain't so. Their objectives are to
unify Arab opinion under their banner, neutralize America, conquer secular
( or relatively secular ) states in the Arab world, establish a unified
Islamic state and then to destroy Israel. And maybe pick up some loot and a
few other goodies in the process.
With Bush's intemperate invasion of Iraq, they have in large part achieved
their first objective and are probably well on their way to achieving the
second objective.