Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been killed.

Mott1 said:

I disagree, as of yet I have not met one person that claims all Muslims are terrorists. In fact most people concur that a vast majority of Muslims are moderate. Whether a moderate Muslim majority exists depends on how you define "moderate Muslim". Is a moderate Muslim one who will never engage in terrorist acts? That would make moderates an overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide. Or is a moderate one who sincerely disapproves of terrorist acts? that would reduce the number of moderates. Or is a moderate Muslim one who actively speaks out and works against jihadists? That would lower the number yet again. Or finally, is a moderate Muslim one who actively engages the jihadists on theological grounds, trying to convince Muslims that jihad terrorism is unIslamic? that would leave us with a tiny handful.

Click to expand...

Let's turn this around:

I disagree, as of yet I have not met one person that claims all Westerners are militaristic. In fact most people concur that a vast majority of Westerners are moderate. Whether a moderate Westerner majority exists depends on how you define "moderate Westerner". Is a moderate Westerner one who will never engage in military acts? That would make moderates an overwhelming majority of Westerners worldwide. Or is a moderate one who sincerely disapproves of military acts? that would reduce the number of moderates. Or is a moderate Westerner one who actively speaks out and works against militarists? That would lower the number yet again. Or finally, is a moderate Westerner one who actively engages the militarists on political grounds, trying to convince Westerner that Western militarism is unWestern? that would leave us with a tiny handful.

Mott1 said:

Regardless, the Western media has gone to great lengths by sending the dishonest message that Islam is a "religion of peace".

Click to expand...

Are you referring to Islam as "religion of war" then?
We should maybe then start calling Christianity and Judaism as "religions of war" too, I guess.

Terror exists on both sides and I would claim that the handful of direct terror acts that muslim terrorists have done is drop in the ocean compared to the western maybe more indirect acts of terror towards muslims.

I knew this was coming from you after all.
You just continue spew out propaganda against Islam.
Some people just don't get it that the terrorism isn't really big problem but one day could be mainly because we cannot seem to find good middle ground to meet many muslims in halfway. Your message of Islam being root of terror, isn't helping.

The goal is to live side by side in peace.
Whole "war on terror" has blown out of all proportions and some people have actually started to believe the radical view of "clash of civilizations" in which some side wins when it's about that in this fight both sides ultimately lose, so we have to find the methods before it's too late.
Until this far, western world has failed doing that. Only I can see same kind of hate and propaganda as in the words of Jihadists.
Extremists are on the verge bringing everyone else down.

A'AbarachAmadan said:

I disagree that the US exaggerated the size and power of Al Qaida. I considered them quite powerful as they conducted the single largest attack by a foreign power on US soil in history. The first truely international terrorist organization with an extremely decentralized organization structure for survival and an increadible astute use of modern communications to avoid detection.

Click to expand...

I don't consider them as powerful as claimed by US officials.
Of course it depends into what you are comparing it.
I guess it's matter of opinion.

Sahkuhnder said:

Why do the police arrest any individual criminal? It's not like its going to stop criminal activity.

But it may just slow it down a bit in both instances if people realize there are consequences to these types of behaviors.

Click to expand...

But a criminal has lots to lose.

The Iraqis have nothing to lose.

In its current form, Islam is more miltant than Christianity or Judaism. The phrase "The Koran in one hand and the sword in the other" is a term thats been around for alot longer than this pathetic and misguided "war on terror".

However, I believe the real reason that Christianity is less militant is because the Christian nations are richer and more advanced than the Muslim ones as of right now. Poorer countries tend to be more violent, regardless of the religion. Christianity has also been through periods of war and persecution such as the Crusades and the inquisition but it just so happens that the Christian countries are not as fanatical as the muslim ones. The Christian countires are highly secularized where the church does not hold absolute dominating power.

If Pat Robertson were somehow to take over the country, then Holy crap, we'd be in trouble.

Ellipsis Jones said:

Thanks. Some interesting stuff there.


Come on. We're not living in an Orwell novel. There are plenty of good-faith arguments that can be made for and against the war without resorting to this.

Click to expand...

This was a good post and some excellent points but I have to fly out to China now That's one way off the ropes! Not that I was on the ropes of course .

I'd just like to say that I've made all of the other arguments against the war before!

Good luck everyone, let's hope no one mistakes me for an American over there. If they don't kill me they'll burn my ear about how bad Bush is.

Fallen Angel Lord said:

In its current form, Islam is more miltant than Christianity or Judaism. The phrase "The Koran in one hand and the sword in the other" is a term thats been around for alot longer than this pathetic and misguided "war on terror".

However, I believe the real reason that Christianity is less militant is because the Christian nations are richer and more advanced than the Muslim ones as of right now. Poorer countries tend to be more violent, regardless of the religion. Christianity has also been through periods of war and persecution such as the Crusades and the inquisition but it just so happens that the Christian countries are not as fanatical as the muslim ones. The Christian countires are highly secularized where the church does not hold absolute dominating power.

If Pat Robertson were somehow to take over the country, then Holy crap, we'd be in trouble.

Click to expand...

The real reason that Chrisytianity and Judaism are less militant than ISlam is because apparently bombing poeple from 20,000 feet up is a lot more acceptable than killing people by strapping bombs to yourself.

Ellipses spotted that I was actually using propaganda to counter the oppostition's propaganda. I'm pretty sure everyone else did too!

There's a lot of fascinating stuff about propaganda on the net:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

I was using this technique:

Simplification (Stereotyping):

Simplification is extremely similar to pinpointing the enemy, in that it often reduces a complex situation to a clear-cut choice involving good and evil. This technique is often useful in swaying uneducated audiences. When faced with simplification, it is often useful to examine other factors and pieces of the proposal or idea, and, as with all other forms of propaganda, it is essential to get more information.

Click to expand...

Everytime someone tells a simple story, you know it's not exactly true because the World is always very complex.

It is constructive to read this piece on propaganda, just to immunise yourself!

C~G said:

Let's turn this around:

I disagree, as of yet I have not met one person that claims all Westerners are militaristic. In fact most people concur that a vast majority of Westerners are moderate. Whether a moderate Westerner majority exists depends on how you define "moderate Westerner". Is a moderate Westerner one who will never engage in military acts? That would make moderates an overwhelming majority of Westerners worldwide. Or is a moderate one who sincerely disapproves of military acts? that would reduce the number of moderates. Or is a moderate Westerner one who actively speaks out and works against militarists? That would lower the number yet again. Or finally, is a moderate Westerner one who actively engages the militarists on political grounds, trying to convince Westerner that Western militarism is unWestern? that would leave us with a tiny handful.

Click to expand...

The above was my reply to xenocrates claim that many people equate Muslims to terrorists, which is simply not true.
I really do not understand the point of your reverse analogy, If you are implying that most Westerners are not pacifists then perhaps you should start a thread on that topic. But I do not see how that invalidates my position on how to define a moderate Muslim, and whether a Muslim can be defined as a moderate if he supports Islamic terrorism.

Are you referring to Islam as "religion of war" then?

Click to expand...

Yes, I do not see how you can refute this claim if you are not atleast familiar with the Islamic doctrine or the history of Islam.

We should maybe then start calling Christianity and Judaism as "religions of war" too, I guess.

Click to expand...

I've explained in another thread concerning the misconception of your above statement. I'll restate it here:

It is a widespread notion that religious tradition are equally capable of giving rise to violence. This would have a lot of credibiltiy if fundamentalists like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were writing articles defending the stoning of adulterers, or calling for the execution of blasphemers (blasphemey is a capital offense in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world), or flying planes into buildings of those they considered enemies.
That fundamental Christians do not commit these acts is one clear indication that not all fundamentalism are equivalent. Contrary to the deconstructionist views that are heard on college campuses today(especially mine), religions are not simply raw material that can be made into absolutely anything by believers. There are overlaps in the behavior of religioious people in all traditions. For example, they pray, meet together, and perform certain rituals. Sometimes they even commit violence in the name of their religion. But the frequency and commonality of such acts of violence, and how close they are to each religions mainstream, is determined to a great degree by actual teachings of each religion.
People like to point out Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph as examples of christian terrorists, but there are three reasons why these criminals are not equivalent to OBL and Zarqawi:

-They did not attempt to justify their actions by reference to Chrsitian scriptures.
-They were not acting on mainstream Christian teachings.
-There are not large Christian groups around the world dedicated to implementing the same teachings.

Religious terrorist acts are more likely to come in greater numbers and frequency when they are encouraged and perpetuated by religious texts and those who teach from them.

Terror exists on both sides and I would claim that the handful of direct terror acts that muslim terrorists have done is drop in the ocean compared to the western maybe more indirect acts of terror towards muslims.

Click to expand...

Only a handfull? are you not aware of all the Islamic terrorism going on in India, Russia, Sudan, Iraq and basically every nation that borders Islamic lands?
Are you suggesting that the West practices terroristic acts toward Muslims?
You believe the West deliberately targets innocent Muslim civilians to further a political/ideological agenda?
If this is true then I condemn all Western ideologies including democracy, but before I do so please link some valid sources. Somehow I doubt you can.

I knew this was coming from you after all.
You just continue spew out propaganda against Islam.

Click to expand...

I have made it no secret on my position of Islamic terrorism, I have claimed all along that Islam, not Western foriegn policy, creates Islamic terrorists.
propaganda? who am I propagating too? These are my views based on my knowledge of Islam. My knowledge of Islam is extensive I can assure you.
If you disagree with my assertions then please logically refute them instead of simply denying without doing any objective research.

Some people just don't get it that the terrorism isn't really big problem but one day could be mainly because we cannot seem to find good middle ground to meet many muslims in halfway. Your message of Islam being root of terror, isn't helping.

Click to expand...

Islamic terrorism is a huge problem if we wish to have peace in this world, we will not find any middle ground until we identify the true problem.
You claim that my "message" on the true nature of Islamic terrorism is not helping, how can the truth not help? If we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the true nature of the beast this problem will never go away.

The goal is to live side by side in peace.

Click to expand...

We disagree on practically everything yet our goal is ultimately the same.

nonconformist said:

The real reason that Chrisytianity and Judaism are less militant than ISlam is because apparently bombing poeple from 20,000 feet up is a lot more acceptable than killing people by strapping bombs to yourself.

Click to expand...

Such a dishonest analogy, the people "bombing" from 20,000 feet are not yelling praise be to God. Unlike Islamic terrorists, they are not attributing violence and war to their God.

I would point out that during World Wars I and II, German soldiers had Gott mit uns (God is with us) embossed on their belt buckles.

Mott1 said:

But I do not see how that invalidates my position on how to define a moderate Muslim, and whether a Muslim can be defined as a moderate if he supports Islamic terrorism.

Click to expand...

It depends from the viewpoint. But you missed the irony and the point I was trying to make.

Mott1 said:

Yes, I do not see how you can refute this claim if you are not atleast familiar with the Islamic doctrine or the history of Islam.

Click to expand...

How can you refute the claim that westerners are militaristic and it might based into christian values if you are not at least familiar with the doctriners of the west and it's history?

Mott1 said:

That fundamental Christians do not commit these acts is one clear indication that not all fundamentalism are equivalent.

But the frequency and commonality of such acts of violence, and how close they are to each religions mainstream, is determined to a great degree by actual teachings of each religion.

Click to expand...

And my claim is that the fundamental Christians/ militaristic westerners do commit these acts but in different methods. Just look who is in the power in US and see that they are bombing a country with numerous civilians killed.

Mott1 said:

-They did not attempt to justify their actions by reference to Chrsitian scriptures.
-They were not acting on mainstream Christian teachings.
-There are not large Christian groups around the world dedicated to implementing the same teachings.

Click to expand...

Your comparison to McVeigh and alike is wrong.
I'm not comparing Islamic terrorists into few Christian fundies blowing up buildings.
I'm comparing them to militaristic westerners.
Westerners don't need to fly commercial airplanes or tie explosives into their body. All they need are cruise missiles and airplanes.

- They did attempt justify their actions by reference to western values (read old Christian values)
- They were acting on mainstream western policies
- There are large western nations in the world dedicated to implenting the same teachings

Mott1 said:

Religious terrorist acts are more likely to come in greater numbers and frequency when they are encouraged and perpetuated by religious texts and those who teach from them.

Click to expand...

Go back and see the history of 20th century. Religious terrorist acts are more likely than western militaristic actions?

I don't think so.

Mott1 said:

Only a handfull? are you not aware of all the Islamic terrorism going on in India, Russia, Sudan, Iraq and basically every nation that borders Islamic lands?

Click to expand...

I do know about them. Compared to the western nations it's only handfull.

Mott1 said:

Are you suggesting that the West practices terroristic acts toward Muslims?
You believe the West deliberately targets innocent Muslim civilians to further a political/ideological agenda?

Click to expand...

Does it matter to innocent victims whether they are deliberately targeted or not?
The word what I would use here is that west doesn't care about civilians victims. Sure, there's the mourning part and then everybody continues the same actions.
And I can see that you are closing your eyes of it, just like all those people in many other threads. Usually it starts with denial that such victims exists, then it moves into the claim that they must be inspected, then comes the short and sorry part and everything ends into conclusion that crap happens, what can you do about it, until the next event.

Mott1 said:

If this is true then I condemn all Western ideologies including democracy, but before I do so please link some valid sources. Somehow I doubt you can.

Click to expand...

Well, you can check the total body count for Iraqi civilians and then think again. But let me see, for you those don't count because they aren't directly targeted westerners.
You will probably call them collateral damage or with other fancy "military" term.

Mott1 said:

I have made it no secret on my position of Islamic terrorism, I have claimed all along that Islam, not Western foriegn policy, creates Islamic terrorists. propaganda? who am I propagating too? These are my views based on my knowledge of Islam. My knowledge of Islam is extensive I can assure you. If you disagree with my assertions then please logically refute them instead of simply denying without doing any objective research.

Click to expand...

Your "objective" research is based into actions of few crazy muslims and then reading whatever reference you find from islamic tradition to support their actions. In a way you probably read Islam in same way as those Jihadists. It doesn't mean the rest of us might see it as same even when we read the same sources.

There's some truth to it that Islam world has to walk away from the way of extremist views, but it won't be helped with simple "acknowledgement" of such thing. Second acknowledgement should be then that peaceful way of Islam exists too.
Otherwise we are in dead-end situation.

Mott1 said:

Islamic terrorism is a huge problem if we wish to have peace in this world, we will not find any middle ground until we identify the true problem.You claim that my "message" on the true nature of Islamic terrorism is not helping, how can the truth not help? If we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the true nature of the beast this problem will never go away.

Click to expand...

My main concern really is those "moderate muslims". Mainly because I happen to live in Europe and I'm pretty sure they will play quite big part in the future of this continent. So unlike some who wants to Islam be the scapegoat for the western militarism. Folks in Europe most likely would like to find a way for peaceful solution because otherwise this problem assimilating muslims into society and living in modern world won't succeed. The result isn't necessarily terrorism but day-to-day racist violence in the streets of Europe.

So after all this nonsense about "US" have to take care of someones sorry asses as some people like to say who work as poser-boys for such ideals, it's probably europeans that eventually have to clean out the mess that was created in this conflict that is coming from both extremes and their views about each other. So those moderates of all around the world have to suffer the most. The little west end girls and eastern boys.

The third extreme is really those people that really so PC that cannot see the problem that we might be facing. It doesn't mean we should only accept the view of the militaristic extreme. I think they all lead into doom. We need moderation. How to find such solution is different thing and as Xenocrates mentioned the issue is far more complex than some people claim it to be.

Mott1 said:

We disagree on practically everything yet our goal is ultimately the same.

Click to expand...

May I ask you know how you thought of achieving this goal after the acknowledgement that Islam is the real and only root of terrorism?

Mott1 said:

Such a dishonest analogy, the people "bombing" from 20,000 feet are not yelling praise be to God. Unlike Islamic terrorists, they are not attributing violence and war to their God.

Click to expand...

But they are yelling praise for the western militarism and democracy, aren't they? In some cases it might have to do with Christian God too.

There's nothing dishonest about it.
In fact it's so honest that it hurts.

C~G said:

Let's turn this around:

I disagree, as of yet I have not met one person that claims all Westerners are militaristic. In fact most people concur that a vast majority of Westerners are moderate. Whether a moderate Westerner majority exists depends on how you define "moderate Westerner". Is a moderate Westerner one who will never engage in military acts? That would make moderates an overwhelming majority of Westerners worldwide. Or is a moderate one who sincerely disapproves of military acts? that would reduce the number of moderates. Or is a moderate Westerner one who actively speaks out and works against militarists? That would lower the number yet again. Or finally, is a moderate Westerner one who actively engages the militarists on political grounds, trying to convince Westerner that Western militarism is unWestern? that would leave us with a tiny handful.

Click to expand...

What? Um, yea same thing.

C~G said:

Are you referring to Islam as "religion of war" then?
We should maybe then start calling Christianity and Judaism as "religions of war" too, I guess.

Click to expand...

Obvious difference. . . Islam is of war. . right now

C~G said:

Terror exists on both sides and I would claim that the handful of direct terror acts that muslim terrorists have done is drop in the ocean compared to the western maybe more indirect acts of terror towards muslims.

Click to expand...

Well this all depends on a few things, doesn't it. You define a direct intentional assault of inncoent humans for a shock effect as being equal to the accidental killling of innocents and using 500lbs. bombs instead 1000lbs. The idea is that killing is killing and their is no difference is a bit foreign to me.

C~G said:

The goal is to live side by side in peace.
Whole "war on terror" has blown out of all proportions and some people have actually started to believe the radical view of "clash of civilizations" in which some side wins when it's about that in this fight both sides ultimately lose, so we have to find the methods before it's too late.
Until this far, western world has failed doing that. Only I can see same kind of hate and propaganda as in the words of Jihadists.
Extremists are on the verge bringing everyone else down.

Click to expand...

You know this was one of my few real worries when all this startd with 9/11. It seems though, that there is no unified muslim terrorist group. They were unable to unify even when we are in their faces. Whats "the west" to do when bombed by these people? Especially if they know a state is behind it.

Tulkas12 said:

Obvious difference. . . Islam is of war. . right now.

Click to expand...

Based into what?
Didn't christian president of US start a war with another country?

I find that all religions can be used for war-effort.
It depends from the historical, economical, sociological, political, technological etc. background how they can cause wars or used as tools to support one's agendas.

Tulkas12 said:

The idea is that killing is killing and their is no difference is a bit foreign to me.

Click to expand...

If the victims are innocent children it's the same how they end up killed.
In long run there's no difference.
If you would lose loved one like that, you might know that there's no real difference. Living sheltered life in the west or at least family in safe place will mean that people usually don't understand the effects of the killings.
Victims like these are seen only as "necessary evil", something that doesn't have any value other than being dead corpres in somewhere far away rather than something that would cause regret and reconsideration of ones methods.

Tulkas12 said:

Whats "the west" to do when bombed by these people?

Click to expand...

What "these people" to do when bombed by "the west"?
Get angry and retalitate?

Tulkas12 said:

It seems though, that there is no unified muslim terrorist group. They were unable to unify even when we are in their faces.

Click to expand...

I believe so too but some people who think about other things like you do, don't think the same.
They believe there's massive conspiracy towards the west in Islamic world and that the terrorist organizations are working side by side.
This view seems to be fueled by some western politicians in order to prove their point how "war on terror" should be fought.

Tulkas12 said:

Especially if they know a state is behind it.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to start argue with your view about certain nations (Iraq) being behind terrorism and 9/11.
Reading your posts has made me realize we won't ever find anything that we might agree on from that issue.

nonconformist said:

But a criminal has lots to lose.

The Iraqis have nothing to lose.

Click to expand...

A criminal that decides to break the law has his freedom (usually only temporarily) to lose.

An Iraqi that decides to resist by becoming a (terrorist/freedom fighter based on your beliefs) has his life to lose.

Considering doing things that result in 500 pound bombs landing on you, well, I could see what happened to AZ acting as a deterrent to others who may be contemplating choosing the same path.

Xenocrates said:

The point I made in my first post (or maybe second) is that US used propaganda to give the appearance that Zarqawi's group was the main part of the insurgency. This was supported by the BBC link that I posted, but it doesn't constitute absolutely solid proof. They did this because the public will immediately recognise the name Al Quaeda and be sympathetic to the cause to fight them (and in the process forget that the war was about WMD's).

I also said that propaganda is not about lies, but airtime and impressions.

The enemy aren't people that kill kids, another thread a couple of weeks back made it clear that the insurgeny was more than rabid Islamists, but that fact seems to be lost on many people. Zarqawi's group is not representative of the insurgency.

Click to expand...

So they're using propaganda, but they aren't lying to us. How is this wrong? If they were deliberately lying to us, then that's one thing. But focusing on one guy, to make him seem more important to focus the publics mind doesn't strike me as immoral. How is this wrong, exactly, and how is it different from how every politican in human history has acted?

Oh, they don't kill kids? I beg to differ. Here's a link where 35 kids were killed. And here's another. Your proposition, that the insurgents in Iraq have not, and do not kill children as well as everyone else is patently absurd, and is contradicted by well known facts. Maybe people would listen to what you said if you backed it up with correct information, instead of making broad statements that have no basis in reality.

Sahkuhnder said:

A criminal that decides to break the law has his freedom (usually only temporarily) to lose.

An Iraqi that decides to resist by becoming a (terrorist/freedom fighter based on your beliefs) has his life to lose.

Considering doing things that result in 500 pound bombs landing on you, well, I could see what happened to AZ acting as a deterrent to others who may be contemplating choosing the same path.

Click to expand...

Iraqis will never stand for an Iraq not creatred by Iraqis.
Mulims will not stand for an Iraq created by Christians.

As far as they're concerned, it's all or nothing.

nonconformist said:

Iraqis will never stand for an Iraq not creatred by Iraqis.
Mulims will not stand for an Iraq created by Christians.

As far as they're concerned, it's all or nothing.

Click to expand...

Does your statement apply to all Iraqis? If so then it seems to me to be a bit of an oversimplification.

Certainly there are some Iraqis that are just as you say above.

I also wager that there are some that would never fight anyone, ever (every society has a few pacifists and victim-types that won't defend themselves), and those that just prefer to go on with their daily lives, etc. and do the best they can without getting involved.

Just like the swing voters in the middle that decide elections in Western nations, there will be the middle group of undecided. This is the segment that can be influenced to move in either direction. Some will see that choosing violence may very likely result in a couple personally addressed 500 pound bombs, and thus decide to stay out of the fight.

Sahkuhnder said:

Does your statement apply to all Iraqis? If so then it seems to me to be a bit of an oversimplification.

Certainly there are some Iraqis that are just as you say above.

I also wager that there are some that would never fight anyone, ever (every society has a few pacifists and victim-types that won't defend themselves), and those that just prefer to go on with their daily lives, etc. and do the best they can without getting involved.

Just like the swing voters in the middle that decide elections in Western nations, there will be the middle group of undecided. This is the segment that can be influenced to move in either direction. Some will see that choosing violence may very likely result in a couple personally addressed 500 pound bombs, and thus decide to stay out of the fight.

Click to expand...

Of cours emy statemenbt doesn't.
As I showed in my last thread, the Insurgency comprise so many groups, from the Communists, to the Ba'athists, to the Islamists, all withthe general objective of defeating the US and UK, and they have the means, and the will, to do it.

Tulkas12 said:

Remember the BBC and reuters are very socialistic favoring nations. I've heard some of their editorials and they border on communistic.

Click to expand...

Oh, go on, post a couple of links to illustrate this.

Neither the BBC nor Reuters actually publish (as far as I'm aware) anything they describe as "editorials". The BBC does differentiate between its analysis and commentary programmes and its purer news programmes - it'd be reasonable to find fault with the former, as they tend to try to reflect a wide range of views. On the other hand, these are not "editorials", and they're nowhere near communistic. I certainly have issues with some of the BBC's news on account of bias, but its main failing is being far too pro-UK in the widest sense. Communistic it certainly isn't.

Reuters publishes very little analysis and commentary at all, and what it does is clearly designated as such. Its role (in this respect, as it does lots of other stuff in the financial markets) is as a news agency, not as a broadcaster or provider of analysis.

Frankly, your comment looks glib and made with a very limited understanding of the two organisations you are so quick to disparage. Post some links and some justification - presuming you can find any.

nonconformist said:

Of cours emy statemenbt doesn't.
As I showed in my last thread, the Insurgency comprise so many groups, from the Communists, to the Ba'athists, to the Islamists, all withthe general objective of defeating the US and UK, and they have the means, and the will, to do it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. (It was an illustrative question, not really a literal one)

Just as we have our divisions of opinion and belief, so does Iraq.

C~G said:

It depends from the viewpoint. But you missed the irony and the point I was trying to make.

Click to expand...

Ookay...but you have established no point, so how did I miss the irony of your "point"?

How can you refute the claim that westerners are militaristic and it might based into christian values if you are not at least familiar with the doctriners of the west and it's history?

Click to expand...

You have just now made that claim, how could I have possibly refuted that basless accusation in my prior posts?
So you are now stating that Westerners are militaristic and that our Christian values might promote militancy?
Do you actually want me to refute your claim or is this just a horrible attempt at sarcasim?

And my claim is that the fundamental Christians/ militaristic westerners do commit these acts but in different methods. Just look who is in the power in US and see that they are bombing a country with numerous civilians killed.

Click to expand...

Let me get this straight. It seems that you are claiming that fundamental Christian militants are running Western governments who promote war through Chrisitian scripture. You then point out the American war on Iraq as evidence to this ridiculous claim.
Again, I will not attempt to refute this unless you, in all seriousness, confirm that this is your position.

Your comparison to McVeigh and alike is wrong.
I'm not comparing Islamic terrorists into few Christian fundies blowing up buildings.

Click to expand...

My comparison is not wrong. You stated that Christianity and Judaism should also be considered religions of war as shown below:

C~G said:

We should maybe then start calling Christianity and Judaism as "religions of war" too, I guess.

Click to expand...

And I clearly demonstrated that to be incorrect.

I'm comparing them to militaristic westerners.

Click to expand...

You are now comparing Islamic terrorists to "militaristic Westerners"?
Honestly your views are quite possibly the oddest I have encountered.
I have no idea what your political inclinations are, are you opposed to democracy? are you opposed to everything that is Western?
Your hate blinders are on so tight that you refuse to see the point I am making.

I do know about them. Compared to the western nations it's only handfull.
Does it matter to innocent victims whether they are deliberately targeted or not?

Click to expand...

Yes it does!. It certainly does matter if innocents are deliberately targeted, these are moral implications that must be considered in order to identify why this cause must be fought.
Do you think I would be supporting the U.S. if their rules of engagement consisted of targeting all innocent civilians?.
The U.S. is fighting this war on terror to destroy all those who are deliberately causing the death of innocents.
This is what sets us apart from Islamic terrorists. How can you fail to see the logic in this?

The word what I would use here is that west doesn't care about civilians victims. Sure, there's the mourning part and then everybody continues the same actions.
And I can see that you are closing your eyes of it, just like all those people in many other threads. Usually it starts with denial that such victims exists, then it moves into the claim that they must be inspected, then comes the short and sorry part and everything ends into conclusion that crap happens, what can you do about it, until the next event.

Click to expand...

You live in the West, do you care about the civilian deaths? I certainly do.
I don't know anyone that dosen't feel sorrow or sympathy for the death of innocents and I also live in the West.
Everytime I hear about civilian deaths caused by terrorism it only strengthens my resolve that we must put an end to this wanton murder by the Islamic terroristic insurgents in Iraq.

Well, you can check the total body count for Iraqi civilians and then think again. But let me see, for you those don't count because they aren't directly targeted westerners. You will probably call them collateral damage or with other fancy "military" term.

Click to expand...

No I don't count them because they are not targeted by Western forces at all, they are targeted by foriegn Muslim terrorists and insurgents.
How can you possibly blame the deaths caused by Islamic terrorist on the U.S./coalition forces? They are only there to fight these terrorists, if there were no terrorists the U.S. military would not be there.

Your "objective" research is based into actions of few crazy muslims and then reading whatever reference you find from islamic tradition to support their actions. In a way you probably read Islam in same way as those Jihadists. It doesn't mean the rest of us might see it as same even when we read the same sources.

Click to expand...

MY knowledge of Islam allows me to see the truth of Islamic terrorism. Osama Bin Laden and all Islamic terrorists are not just a few "crazy Muslims" who are misinterpreting or "hijacking" Islam. These Muslim extremists are following what is mandated by the Quran and a large portion of the "moderate" Muslim world fully support their actions.
I know many Muslims who openly support terrorism but do not actively engage in terroristic acts. Are they considered "crazy Muslims"? They view themselves as true Muslims.

My main concern really is those "moderate muslims". Mainly because I happen to live in Europe and I'm pretty sure they will play quite big part in the future of this continent.

Click to expand...

Very true, experts estimate that the Muslim population will be the majority in Europe at the turn of the century.
Many Europeans have expressed concerns about this fact. Ali Sina, a leading critic of Islam and also an ex-Muslim states:

"Europe is threading a very dangerous path. Two things can happen in Europe:

Islam is left alone to grow unchecked, which means Europe will succumb to Islamism before the end of this century. Or

The Europeans sense the danger too late, panic, and give birth to Eurofascism to counter Islamofascism.

In either case Europe will be destroyed.

Curtailing freedom of speech, specially banning criticism of a doctrine of hate is foolishly dangerous. Europe is playing with fire. The path that Europe has taken today will lead to its fall before the end of this century, possibly it will auto disintegrate in a civil war in the next two or three decades."

Folks in Europe most likely would like to find a way for peaceful solution because otherwise this problem assimilating muslims into society and living in modern world won't succeed. The result isn't necessarily terrorism but day-to-day racist violence in the streets of Europe.

Click to expand...

The assimilation of orthodox Islam into a democratic society is not possible unless Islam somehow reforms.