Ok, done with Homeroom. Back to responding.
The monoploy of religion will always strangle the life blood of a society.
In general I can agree to this, but that is not always the case. This only occurs when when a particular religion does not tolerate other religions, I guess that's what you are calling 'monopolising'.
If it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, then absolute religion corrupts religion absolutely. And what is the number one killer of religion? "Creativity." Creativity comes from such things like education. A restriction of what is allowed to read also allows the leader his power. Doesn't the continued use of the Qu'ran as the ultimate educational book in the region offer exactly that? And what about the women? How many women are noted in the Qu'ran as being the object of a man's failure? Where are the heroins that deny the brutal "wisdom" of the old cleric? Does a civilization that restricts the contribution of half its population have a chance to compete with the world? And what is the damage inflicted with adhering to the extended clan? We are seeing this in Iraq as Sunni kill Shi'ite and vice versa. We also see this in other places. Countries that cling to the "tribe" will always cheat themselves out of their best possibility, because their best may happen to belong to another tribe.
Here you show yourself as having superficial beliefs of the Quran. Anyone who has actually studied Islam, or is practicing Islam, knows how incompatible racism and intolerance is with the Islamic belief. Now I dont want to discount all of the things you have just wrote, but the culprit you are blaming again is not correct. And I've said this already, it's not the religion, its the one behind it, who is using religion as a tool. I know you say this as well, but you seem to think that it stems from the religion itself, which is not correct.
Again, I point out that religion itself is merely the tool. Religion is not the main culprit. But neither is the one using religion as a tool to boost it's military strenth in it's infrastructure. Religion has always been used as this kind of tool throughout all of history, anyhow. The culprit, again, I point to the ones who were enticed by the lure of the oil.
But let's look at the religions themselves. Christianity didn't come from the harshness of the Old Testament. It was a pacifist movement inspired by Mr. Jesus Christ. Despite troubles along the way, 2000 years later is Christianity a largely pacifist religion? Islam came from the Muhammed who slaughtered infidels into submission. From the non-stop historical violence (with a brief few centuries of stagnation), to today's inspired violence, does Islam reflect its roots?
Again here you show ignorance of the Islamic faith. Just as how Christianity has morphed into what it is today, so did Islam. Of course you are aware that the early Christians refused to fight, they would not even pick up a sword. But yet today, very few american protestant would be afraid of picking up a gun, in fact, as you well know, we have a law that says it's our right to have a right to bear arms.
This is no different for Islam. Muhammad may have started Islam, but it was not set in stone, neither was Christianity. Both religions change as time changes, as technologies advance, as politics wither and strenthen, as the frequently as the wind blows. When Khalid ibn al-Walik, a great general of the Prophet Muhammad, took over both Persia and the Byzantine Empire, Muhammad allowed these two to practice thier own laws, as well as thier own religions. Converting to Islam was thier choice.
We almost never here that side of the story about Islam, all we here about is Jihad this, and Jihad that. And just as another history lesson for you, Muhammad was not the first to "slaughter infidels into submission", it was the way of life in Arabia. People in that region lived that way because of the very thin resources, people fought over for food and raw materials. Arabs lived thru plundering, this was already in place before Muhammad "slaughtered infidels into submission". This was the way of life. He didn't start it, it was set before he was even born.
Is this way of living wrong or immoral? yes, but only by certain standards. If you lived at that time, it was the only thing to do if you wanted to survive. That is reality. Every culture has a different way of life, and standards should not be placed where they do not belong. So again, is this way of living wrong or immoral? No, not by the de facto standards of ancient Arabia. But yes, if you want to apply to the standards we have today, but that would be incorrect to do so.
I'm beginning to think I'm in discussion with a high schooler who hasn't yet achieved the ability to look at his world clearly. Or worse, a Campus veteran not yet hardened by life's realities. Our enemies wear civilian clothing. They subscribe to the teachings of Islam and read the Qu'ran. They believe they are good Muslims. But according to their Muslim victims, they are not good Muslims. These are criminals, but until they pick up a rifle or a bomb, they cannot be easily identified. However, we do have a working tool...
1) Terrorists swim in the sea of Radical Islam.
2) This sea is based on the teachings of Radical Islamic Clerics.
3) Clerics preach/teach at Mosques.
4) Find the Radical Mosques and you’ll find the supporters of Radical Islam.
5) Find the supporters (mosques & funding) and sooner or later you’ll find the terrorists.
Again, your conception of Islam is lacking. You seem to be unable to draw the distinction between Islam and terrorist. And that is what seems to be a huge problem in the US. People cannot separate the two; as if one is the pre-requisite of the other. This is probably why so many civilians are dead because our military cannot see a distinction either.
And what world do you live in? Are you aware of the position America took after WWII? Was it not America that tried to get away with isolationalism twice and both times we had to send our troops across the ocean to die for our needs to "stay out of it?" After the Japanese were beaten we denied them a military and assumed the position of protector in the East as all the little guys put their little worlds back together. After Germany fell, America assumed the rols of European protector as it parked an army in western Germany and commenced to chase around the Soviet threat wherever it threatened to poke its head. This was all done so that we could referree the world away from another world war. Did Europe fight us? Did Japan fight us? Did any of our allies fight us? Of course not. Because underneath their complaints and superficial cares, they would rather we do it than for them to soil their hands or simply get themselves into another genocidal world war, of which we have to come rescue them.
The reason why Europe did not fight the US, was because while they were fighting themselves out, the US was making bank. Again, like I pointed out in an earlier post, the US is well known for staying out of wars, and making profits by sellings products to both sides of the war.
But you see, by the end of WW2, the forces around the world was exhausted. Heavy losses on both sides, extinguished materials and wealth, etc. The only one left standing was the one who did the least fighting, who contributed the least, and still have a very powerful military. Was it because we protected the losers of the war? no, we were occupying them, just like how all wars end; with occupation of territories.
This would be the obvious reason, but your last sentence in this quote, again, you think that the US is so righteous and virtuous. That the US is doing everyone a favor. Stop dreaming and wake up. The US did what it did because it can, and wanted to seize the booty, the spoils of war.
You see, life isn't about what is and is not fair. It's about preservation. It's about security. Would it be fair to allow third world nations nuclear arms because we do? Of course. But would it be smart? We can trust us. We have proven to the world that they can trust us. All it would take is for an Islamic nation to "lose" a nuclear device and we only discover it after a "martyr" detonates it some where in the world for us not to trust them.
So, it's not such a "presumptious question."
lol, "we can trust us"? I beg to differ. Many Americans do not trust their own govt. Nor should we, because we should remain speculative and check the govt. The govt should be afraid of its people, the people should not be afraid of thier govt.
And what international law would this be? The law that preserves a brutal dictator behind "soveriegn" borders? If you are referring to prisoners (or criminals) of war, review your law. Our enemies do not wear uniforms nor fiught under a banner. Therefore they are not afforded the rules governing the Geneva convention. They are also not citizens of the United States. Have any of these Muslims nations tried to claim their own creations? No. We have enetered an age where our laws are not adequate enough for what we face.
So terrorists, are no longer Iraqi, Afghan, Iranian, or even American? That being terrorist, takes away thier national identity?
And your last sentence, is something Dubbya Bush would say, seeing as how he thinks he is above the law. What good is the UN if their laws are useless right?
but a better question would be, what good is the laws created by the UN, when a country does not follow them, and cannot be punished? What good is this organisation if it cannot control it's members?
Is it such a wonder then, that so many countries detest the US? Is it such a surprise?
Again, I simply ask you what world you live in. Review your history.
ditto.
Billo... You know the rules. Plz do not copy and paste entire articles.
