|
Post by Christian on May 14, 2004 2:33:23 GMT -5
no name wrote
Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Sorry no name but I think that Bertine is really a Christian - not you ...
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on May 14, 2004 8:46:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 14, 2004 9:28:40 GMT -5
Sorry no name but I think that Bertine is really a Christian - not you ... What a desperate comment --
|
|
|
Post by Christian on May 14, 2004 9:41:26 GMT -5
Psalm 59:12 For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak.
Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding.
Proverbs 12:13 The wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips: but the just shall come out of trouble.
Proverbs 16:27 An ungodly man diggeth up evil: and in his lips there is as a burning fire.
Isaiah 29: 13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: 14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.
Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 14, 2004 9:58:30 GMT -5
Psalm 59:12 For the sin of their mouth and the words of their lips let them even be taken in their pride: and for cursing and lying which they speak. Proverbs 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod is for the back of him that is void of understanding. Proverbs 12:13 The wicked is snared by the transgression of his lips: but the just shall come out of trouble. Proverbs 16:27 An ungodly man diggeth up evil: and in his lips there is as a burning fire. Isaiah 29: 13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men: 14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.Hmmm. . . You're reminding me of that Pharisee in Luke 18 . . .
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 14, 2004 10:12:24 GMT -5
You keep talking about the war on terrorism failing and have repeatedly compared it with the war on drugs. Again, what is your answer? How do you propose we deal with the problem? Should we legalize terrorism? Should we be complacent? Did that ever stop them? Nope. I am not against preventing terrorism. But the pesent "war of terrorism" is not effective. There is a terrorists loose. Bin Laden. How long will we chase him. If he were killed tomorrow would that stop terrorists? Or would his martyrdom fuel their zeal? I do not deny that 9/11 was bad thing and I hope it will not be repeated. Will it happen again? Perhaps. Will the current war on terrorism prevent it? No. The comparisn between the war on terrorsm and the war on drugs was only to point out that neither can be successful. As Inatent said, it will not end until we are either all dead or until we kill them all. Did you ever wonder what Bin Laden wanted? What his specific goal was? While I do not approve of his methods it did get attention. Have you considered that perhaps he does have a point? You do not see anything wrong with exposing your face in public. They do. You seem unable to grasp the fact that your beliefs are not catholic. I believe what they are doing is wrong. But I also believe that they can hold the belief, with as much conviction, that what I am doing is wrong. Nor do I. But the fact is that for better or worse Bush wanted this was and we are in it. Kind of reminds you of how the British must have felt in their red coats and straight lines while the enemy hid behind stone walls and wore street clothes. Or the Germans in France. Sort of how the Americans felt while fighting in Viet Nam. It is guerilla warefare. Did you think they would stand in lines and face down the tanks? Do you really think we can beat them into submision? Do you think bombing them will change their minds? Has it worked in the past? I don't see that part of the world singing our praises. We fought in Afganastan. News from there is that the warloard are back. We cannot eliminate all terrorists. As we invade and attempt to kill the bad guys we do little but encourage the creation of more terrorists. As they strike around the world they do little but encourage more violence be directed at the countries where they live. Killing is not the answer. War will solve nothing. Although the US did not have unlversal suppot following 9/11, it certainly had a lot more than it did after the invasion of Iraq. The world is becoming a smaller place. Like the sandbox in the schoolyard, we all need to play together and get along or we will all be out of the sandbox.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on May 14, 2004 15:33:55 GMT -5
I am falling behind on this discussion but I really regret that a certain some one is attacking No Name's person again, and somehow gets me into it too. I consider No Name a friend of mine, and if we - with our very much opposing views- can get along, why does that certain someone has to judge her? Altho the subject does heat me up, i think this discussion is 'fun', so please let's keep things pleasurable and focus on the arguments. And leave the judging up to the One who really knows the hearts. (the outcome for me might well be disappointing ) No Name knows i do regard her as a Christian, altho i wonder how some of her ideas can be in harmony with certain aspects of Christianity, but that is just my interpretation, I know she has a good conscience and finds justification in the bible for her ideas according to her interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on May 14, 2004 18:30:37 GMT -5
Of course in my earlier post I did just that - nice to notice ...
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 14, 2004 19:22:47 GMT -5
Of course in my earlier post I did just that - nice to notice ... Notice what? You mean -- your desperate slander of me? Yeah, I noticed -- thanks for the good laugh! ;D
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 14, 2004 21:28:17 GMT -5
Well, originally – his beef was with the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. He may have had a point, but it still doesn’t justify the killing of innocent people to prove such a "point". The U.S. military has since pulled out of Saudi Arabia – OBL has not recanted his declaration of war against us. So, obviously, his “point” shifted from the original one, to become a new goal of killing as many of us as he can. How on earth does this compare to their express intent to kill innocent people? It doesn’t! Traditions of dress, culture, religion etc., etc., is one thing – when it somehow crosses over to become acceptable or seen as okay because it’s their belief to intentionally kill innocent people (or allow a woman to die because she forgot to put on a head scarf in her haste to escape a fire), I would HOPE that rest of the civilized world would be able to make the distinction between terrorists and those who try to stop them. Or are people content to have lukewarm opinions about such atrocities? This is what helped Hitler get as far as he did . . . I’m sorry – I don’t understand the point of the above comment . . . . Sure they can hold such a belief, but they are wrong. It’s okay to take such a stand. They believe that just your being alive is wrong, for no specific reason other than they hate your religion, culture, or where you live! This IS wrong – even if they feel otherwise. Hitler thought what he did was okay too, but he was wrong, even though he had firm convictions about what he was doing . . . Yep – I know it’s guerilla warfare. What really bothers is that the coalition forces are caught in situations that have ended up making them look bad, when what really happened wasn’t how the world actually perceived it. This is much like what our soldiers faced in Vietnam. Women and children were used as tools to kill our soldiers – therefore, even women and children weren’t trusted and were unnecessarily killed at times by our troops, because they didn’t know who was truly their friend or their enemy! This did nothing but smear the image of our soldiers in the eyes of the world. I fear the same type of thing may end up happening in the war on terror. And this is a war we cannot back out of. Problem is – how can you “play” with someone who will try to kill you? You can’t. The terrorists waged war on us long before we actively fought back and declared our own “war” on them. Our battle with them is early yet, but they’ve been fighting with us for 20+ years or more. As we can see – trying to play nicely with them (by not aggressively going after them and those who help/harbor them) didn’t do the trick either. How do you suggest we play together and get along? I would venture to say that if the radical clerlics were silenced by the more moderate/level-headed Muslims, this would go a long way in making some progress. But this is a move the Muslim world needs to make themselves. They've yet to take such a stand, and so the fanatical elements of their religion will continue their killing.
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 15, 2004 4:15:24 GMT -5
Poor Berg ...
From If you mix with corn a hen may pick you up ...
|
|
|
Post by CIA agent on May 15, 2004 12:42:40 GMT -5
I don't have any problems with responsible nations having nukes; it's the leadership of some groups/nations that advocate/support the purposeful killing of innocents (suicide bombers/terrorists) that make me nervous about owning nukes. And I don't view Israel as being the "greatest threat to peace on the whole planet".TEXTTEXT
It's nice to know that you consider US & Israel as having a monopoly on "responsibilty" & "peace-loving" & "rationality"
The content of the historical record is not fully explicated by what you learnt in grade school. I encourage you to embark on a serious historical inquiry. It helps if you include on your reading list academic historians.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 15, 2004 23:25:42 GMT -5
It's nice to know that you consider US & Israel as having a monopoly on "responsibilty" & "peace-loving" & "rationality" Never used the word "monopoly", btw. But I'll also never buy into: The-U.S.-is-all-bad-everything-is-our-fault mantra. However, if my original quote wasn't clear -- I would much rather for nukes to be in the possession of the U.S. than in the hands of Al-Qaeda. Regarding Israel: The "Palestinian" Constitution: www.fateh.net/e_public/constitution.htmSpecifically, Articles 12 and 19 (which clearly indicate their true goals -- hint: it doesn't include "peace"). GoalsArticle (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. MethodArticle (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated. Additionally: " We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem....All the rich Jews who will get compensation will travel to America....We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living in the West Bank and in Jerusalem.... You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State.... I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Muslim domination!" - Yasser Arafat, January 30, 1996, (Speech) "The Impending Total Collapse of Israel"Stockholm, Sweden Palestinian Media Watchwww.pmw.org.il/new/www.middleeastfacts.com/index.htmThe above info is yet another reason that confirms why I would prefer nukes in the hands of Israel rather than in the hands of someone like Yasser Arafat.
|
|
|
Post by Too much on May 15, 2004 23:55:56 GMT -5
Thirteen pages of "did so", "did not", "did so", "did not".
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 16, 2004 3:31:51 GMT -5
The fact that Palestinians are against Zionism is very normal. Even pious Jews are against. They even consider it the worst sin everto be commited by Jews. See www.nkusa.org/
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 16, 2004 3:41:21 GMT -5
So, if I say that I support Orthodox Jews rather than Palestinian terrorists, will no-name consider that I am not a terrorist after all ? ;D
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 16, 2004 4:07:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ha on May 16, 2004 4:11:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 16, 2004 8:19:56 GMT -5
Thirteen pages of "did so", "did not", "did so", "did not". ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Hey, Too Much, WAKE UP! rattle, shake, rattle, shake Wake UP! DID SO !!!!!!! inatent (scampering off into the darkness)
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 16, 2004 21:13:12 GMT -5
The Arab “Palestinian” leadership (and many of its people) are not just against “Zionism” – they are for the total elimination of the Jewish people; this has been a very clear goal from the very beginning. You should try to open your eyes to that. I don’t know – you seem to have a very strong voice in defense of terrorist actions, even when you know that their intent is to purposefully target innocent people; contrasted with the hostile commentary you’ve made about the U.S. and Israel, and it has caused me to wonder about the true nature of your sympathies. Sorry, but it’s not all as you are trying to portray it . . . Please read the following (you'll probably be disappointed to see that it doesn't quite line up with your idea that the-U.S.-military-is-nothing-but-a-bad-apple-tree): seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001853429_gitmoboy08.htmlDetained Afghan teen got good food, few questions at Guantáánamo By Noor KhanThe Associated PressSunday, February 08, 2004 NAW ZAD, Afghanistan – A 15-year-old Afghan boy released after spending a year at the U.S. prison for terror suspects in Cuba says he underwent almost no questioning while in detention but got plenty of schooling, prayer and good food. Mohammed Ismail Agha was reunited last week with his family in Durabien, a remote southern Afghan village, after a year as one of the youngest inmates in Guantáánamo Bay, a high-security prison holding about 650 suspected al-Qaida and Taliban fighters. Agha was one of three Afghan boys freed Jan. 29. Military officials said the boys had provided useful intelligence but had no further value and were no longer a threat to the United States. Agha, who was seized about a year after a U.S.-led coalition ousted the governing Taliban, said he and a friend had left their farming community in search of work when Afghan militiamen stopped them. "They said, 'Come and join us,' but we told them we are poor people, jobless, and we don't want to join the militia, we want to earn money," Agha said. "Then they said, 'You are Taliban.' " Agha said he was handed over to U.S. soldiers, who first took him to the southern city of Kandahar and then to Bagram, where he was held in solitary confinement. He lost track of his friend, Mohammed Wali, in Kandahar and has not seen him since. He said U.S. forces interrogated him at Bagram Air Base, north of the capital, Kabul, about whether he was a Taliban supporter. Yet once he reached Cuba, there were few questions. "At first I was unhappy with the U.S. forces. They stole 14 months of my life," Agha said. "But they gave me a good time in Cuba. They were very nice to me, giving me English lessons.
"For two or three days I was confused, but later the Americans were so nice with me, they were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer." Besides teaching him to read and write English, the military provided books in his native Pashto language and a Quran, Islam's sacred book. He was housed with two other Afghans he identified as Naqibullah, 15, and Hasadullah, 13, who also were released Jan. 29 and brought home last week. He never saw the other prisoners detained at Guantáánamo, he said. Agha said his family feared he was dead or had traveled to neighboring Pakistan or Iran to find work. It was not until 10 months into his detention that family members received a letter from him, through the international Red Cross, saying he was still alive. The soldiers looking after the boys gave them a send-off dinner, taking photographs and urging them to return to school, he said. Agha said he was too poor for that, so his search for work will resume once he visits all his relatives. Pentagon Denies Report's Rumsfeld Claims NEW YORK - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the expansion of a secret program that encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners to obtain intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq, The New Yorker reported Saturday.
The Defense Department strongly denied the claims made in the report, which cited unnamed current and former intelligence officials and was published on the magazine's Web site. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita issued a statement calling the claims "outlandish, conspiratorial, and filled with error and anonymous conjecture."[/b]
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 16, 2004 23:08:48 GMT -5
The Iraq war topic is spread around on various threads, but I'm gonna post the following link on just this thread for starters. It is way too much info to post everything: What We've Accomplished"www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/051004_iraq_accomplished.pdfIt would be nice if the other mainstream media outlets would take the time to balance the Iraq news by mentioning the many positive things going on over there -- but the news business is generally negatively-oriented about life in general.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 16, 2004 23:09:29 GMT -5
Hey, Too Much, WAKE UP! rattle, shake, rattle, shake Wake UP! DID SO !!!!!!! inatent (scampering off into the darkness) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 16, 2004 23:25:23 GMT -5
A list of truths
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem - Israel became a nation in 1312 B.C.E., two thousand years before the rise of Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 B.C.E. the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years.
4. Arabs have only had control of Israel twice - from 634 until the Crusader invasion in June 1099, and from 1292 until the year 1517 when they were dispelled by the Turks in their conquest.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. There are vague references to Jerusalem in the Hadiths - stories about Mohammed - that he stopped his night journey at ''the edge'' - at the edge of the Temple mount.
7. King David established the city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Some Muslims (i.e. those between Israel and Saudi Arabia) pray with their backs toward Jerusalem.
9. Arab and Jewish Refugees - In 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli soldier.
10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same.
12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey.
13. The Arab - Israeli Conflict - The Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won.
14. The P.L.O.'s Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with weapons.
15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths.
16. The U.N. Record on Israel and the Arabs - Of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel.
18. The U.N was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians.
19. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
20. The U.N. was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall.
More Facts
1. During 20 years of Arab rule Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 42 to 44. During the next 20 years of Israeli rule Palestinian male life expectancy grew from 44 to 63.
2. During 20 years of Arab rule Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 45 to 46. During the next 20 years of Israeli rule Palestinian female life expectancy grew from 46 to 67.
3. During 20 years of Arab rule Palestinian infant mortality rate decreased from 200 per thousand to 170 per thousand. During the next 20 years of Israeli rule Palestinian infant mortality rate decreased from 170 per thousand to 60 per thousand.
4. During 20 years of Arab rule Palestinian cruse death rate decreased from 21 per thousand to 19 per thousand. During next 20 years of Israeli rule Palestinian infant mortality rate decreased from 19 per thousand to 6 per thousand.
5. Before 1967, when Israel's occupation started, only 113 hospitals had been built in the territories. By the time of 1989 Israel had helped establish more than three times that number to 387.
6. Before 1967 only 23 Mother & Child Centers had been established. After 1989 about six times as many could be found. (135)
7. Malaria, which had existed in the territories before 1967 was finally eliminated during the Israeli occupation.
8. Israel also more than tripled the number of Palestinian teachers and boosted the Palestinian educational system by establishing a number of universities. Among those universities were the College of Scientists (Abu Dis) - est. 1982, the College of Social Welfare (El Bira) - est. 1979, the College of Religion (Beit Hanina) - est. 1978 and the Islamic College in Hebron- est.1971.
9. This was not the only effect Israeli occupation had on the Palestinian education system and the Palestinian people. Before 1967 the percentage of illiterates on average had been 27.8% among men and among women even higher at 65.1%. By 1983 Israel had helped reduce illiteracy to only 13.5% among men and 38.9% among women.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 16, 2004 23:28:46 GMT -5
Would this situation have existed?
by: David Elazar, Rishon LeZion, Israel (www.geocities.com/d_elazar)
Would this situation have existed? I can understand the sympathy towards the Palestinians . However, we must be aware of why this unpleasant and dangerous situation exists. Had the Arabs accepted the 1947 UN partition plan calling for the establishment of two states, one Arab and one Jewish, would this situation have existed? Had the Arabs not attacked Israel in 1948 with the intent to annihilate her, would this situation have existed? The Jordanians annexed the West Bank and the Egyptians occupied Gaza from 1948-1967. If the Palestinians would have established a state during this period, would this situation have existed? Had the Arabs not created an atmosphere (boycotts, blockades, armed attacks, terrorism,etc) leading to the 1967 war, would this situation have existed? Had the Palestinians accepted the Clinton/Barak peace plan including very difficult Israeli concessions, would this situation have existed? Had the Palestinians not resorted to violence in the Fall of 2000, would this situation have existed? If the Palestinians would not use children in their "front lines", shoot at Israelis using their civilian population as a shield, support terrorism, teach hatred, would this situation have existed? Violence seems to be the name of the game. Rather than compromise, even when the sides were so close to peace, the Palestinians revert to violence. In fact, when one studies most of the violent situations in the world (Middle East, Bosnia, Indonesia, India, Chechnia) Moslems are involved. The moderates must take action against the radicals, otherwise the world will fall victim to a difficult and unpleasant future.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 17, 2004 10:19:40 GMT -5
Well, originally – his beef was with the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. He may have had a point, but it still doesn’t justify the killing of innocent people to prove such a "point". Let's think about it. It got people's attention. I think his original desire was to get the US out of the middle east. The rest of the civilized world? You are talking about a culture that predates western civilization by many years. Your comment ridiculing their beliefs is out of line. I am sorry you cannot understand it as well. The sentence was " You seem unable to grasp the fact that your beliefs are not catholic. " I will try again. After reading what you have written it seems that you believe that the beliefs you hold are beliefs shared by everyone. That is, they are universal or catholic beliefs. To say it another way, you think all people believe as you do and if there are some who hold beliefs that differ from yours they are not valid. You do not have to share their beliefs. You do not have to support them. So you think killing them is the solution? Your way or death? OK. It's wrong. Now what? Shall we kill them? Make them think like you? No, what happened is exactly as the world saw it. They used civilians in an attempt to win a war against very bad odds. The US looked bad because we we invaded Iraq and were killing their people and bombing their land. Well, one thing you you can say is that the US is not a quick study. It was what happened. And it is happening again. I heard the same said about Viet Nam. Of course we can back out. We made an error. No one's ego is worth going to war. Stop playing with them. Do not sell them goods and don't buy theirs. Ahh, there is the problem - we need their goods. But this war is not about oil. Right! We never stopped trading with them. In fact, we will not allow them to with hold their oil. Stop trading with them or start respecting their beliefs. You do not have to accept their beliefs, just respect them as their beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 17, 2004 12:21:32 GMT -5
Well, that’s for sure that it gets people’s attention – and normal people then realize what a madman we are dealing with. Whatever cause someone or some group is trying to promote means nothing to me when they then resort to tactics such as intentionally blowing up innocent people in the streets of Israel or ramming planes into buildings to purposefully kill as many civilians as possible. His original desire was to get the U.S. out of Saudi Arabia. After the Afghanistan war, OBL became disillusioned with Saudi Arabia when they didn’t give him the recognition he wanted for his part in helping to fight off the Soviets. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, OBL offered the Saudis an army of mujahideen to defend the kingdom. Instead, U.S. soldiers were invited on to Saudi soil (a historic betrayal in Bin Laden’s eyes). He then became a fierce opponent of the Saudi regime and began to direct his rage against the US and its allies in the Middle East. Now we are out of Saudi Arabia – but OBL is still determined to “Kill Americans everywhere”; obviously his motives have evolved. Something that’s pretty ironic to me: the “2&2" are ridiculed constantly on this board for some of their perceived hard-line opinions about dress and modesty. There comes a point where common sense has to intervene – I don’t disparage at all the Muslim customs of dress and modesty (imo, this world needs more modesty in it!). What I commented on was the fact that there are some within their religion who put more emphasis on tradition/rule/custom than on the value of human life. Sorry if you think it's "out of line" to have the realization that human life is a tad more important than some young girls forgetting to put on their scarves while they rushed away from the danger of a fire. Some Muslims are so hard-line in their beliefs about marrying outside their faith that they will murder members of their own family who break this sacred tradition. Some fanatical Sikhs have done this as well. Fanatical Christians have allowed their children to die because they think it’s wrong to go to the doctor, when there is no such commandment issued in the Bible about that! This doesn’t mean I ridicule the beliefs of various religious groups; I generally tend to draw the line of rationality when such beliefs unnecessarily place someone's life in danger. Once again – I’ve no problem with people having beliefs other than mine, but I simply don't give validity to those beliefs when they put someone in mortal danger. Some Indians (from India) would burn alive the widow of a dead man along with his body. Sure, this is the belief of some in India, but I’ve not much respect for such belief that the value of human life is less important than a custom or tradition. People can think what they want; and it may not be respected -- but when they put those thoughts of murdering innocent people into action that they become a danger and must be stopped. That’s pretty simple. I don’t think the world comprehends just what kinds of people we were fighting against. The truth of the things that happened weren’t so cut and dried. Did you know that the Fedayin were forcing innocent civilians to bear arms and if they didn’t want to, members of their family would be killed or held hostage? Did you know that they would use civilians as human shields and then intentionally mow them down while they shot at our soldiers? Did you know that the Fedayin would dress like civilians, some disguised as women? I’m not saying that the coalition forces didn’t cause the deaths of innocent people caught in the middle, but there were things that were contrived in such a manner to make it look like we were responsible for all the civilian casualties and that wasn’t the case; I remember at one point in Baghdad a big missile or bomb was launched that killed a lot of innocent people. The Arab media went on a rant about how it was something we did, and that wasn’t the case – it wasn’t even one of our own missiles. These types of events helped lead to the erroneous conclusion that we were purposefully targeting innocent civilians. Nope – it’s not about oil. And I’m not aware that Al-Queda and their fellow terrorist groups are people we can “trade” with. I don’t think terrorist groups “produce” goods and services. If by “trading” you mean to stop trading with allies in the Middle East – I don’t know if that will ever happen. What would go a long way is for the moderate/level-headed Muslims to stand up against the fanatics in their religion. Problem is, then they become the target, because the Jihadists are the modern-day Nazis. People who don’t live up to their “standard” are to be physically exterminated. Again, I’ve no “respect” for the “beliefs” of people who want to kill us because of who we are. That’s ludicrous, and undeserving of any respect.
|
|
|
Post by Reality on May 17, 2004 14:06:17 GMT -5
Quote:"How on earth does this compare to their express intent to kill innocent people? It doesn’t! Traditions of dress, culture, religion etc., etc., is one thing – when it somehow crosses over to become acceptable or seen as okay because it’s their belief to intentionally kill innocent people (or allow a woman to die because she forgot to put on a head scarf in her haste to escape a fire), I would HOPE that rest of the civilized world would be able to make the distinction between terrorists and those who try to stop them. Or are people content to have lukewarm opinions about such atrocities? This is what helped Hitler get as far as he did . . ." The rest of the civilized world? You are talking about a culture that predates western civilization by many years. Your comment ridiculing their beliefs is out of line. No name's ridicule of their beliefs is understandable and definitely not out of line. Anyone who has beliefs which include avoiding life-saving medical care or out right murder are the ones who are way out of line.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on May 17, 2004 14:28:10 GMT -5
Ironic? Is this the group you want to stand with? Those who redicule the beliefs of others? Do you think a person can pick and choose regarding anothers belief?Again, that is your belief. They, on the other hand, would not share your beliefs regarding the way you worship your God. Well, you are calling their beliefs ridiculus. They might seel irrational to you. You have contradicted yourself in a single statement. You do have a problem wit htheir beliefs and say just what that problem is. This was not just a tradition but was part of their religion. They were following the example set by Shiva's wife. Change is there - it was outlawed in the early 1800's. But what do you dissapprove of? Were the early Christian martyrs wrong to die for their beliefs? And people who would go to prison rather than take part in an activity they thought was wrong? People who unfailingly stand by their beliefs? I am not saying that you have to respect what they believe. Just that you respect their right to believe differently that you do. I have been associated with Professing people all of my life. There are many many things that they believe that I do not believe. But I respect their right to believe as they do and would never ridicule them because of what they believe. Are you sure you know what actually happened either? I know this has been reported. I know it has been reported. They are members of guerrilla groups. They are citizens. What would you think they would wear? Oh come on - you certainly realize that much of the 'news' you get has been run through the propaganda machine. If not ours then theirs. Then why are we in the Middle East? Certainly not for the climate! We have in the past. Not the same names but the same people. Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of raw opium. The Taliban get the taxes. How do you tell an ally from the enemy? Look at Sudan, for example. A perfect example of why religion and governments should be kept far apart. Then you are doomed to either getting them to change their beliefs, killing all of them, or dying for your beliefs.
|
|