What's your attitude toward Islam ?

[cnredd]

"As far as marching against terrorism....does the marches in Iraq against the U.S. invasion count?"

You must be referring to the Sunni that are no longer the "favored" arabs over the majority of Iraq and refused to participate in the publicly "everyone is equal" elections. Like most on this site...if you are going to bring up some facts, bring them all up.

I got a legitamate question for GySgt, but if anyone else wants to jump in, please feel free...

It is my understanding that there are three major factions(Kurds, Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims) in Iraq that are in three mostly separate geopraphical locations. It is also my understanding that the British cut up the Middle east into sections years ago which forced these factions to live under a certain authority.

Is there a reason why the Coalition didn't "carve" Iraq into three separate countries so each group would have authority in their own region?

 

[MSgt]

I would say that interest in Iraqi oil would have been the problem.

If one was to split Iraq up into three....the Kurds are in the North and should get the northern oil fields. The Shiites are in the south and should get the southern oil fields. The Sunni are in the middle and should get nothing, because there are no oil fields in the middle. The Sunni would not stand for this and would blow up civillians everywhere in the name of "Allah", much like they do now. The Sunni have had power under Saddam for far too long and now they don't like being equal to the lowly Shiites and Kurds.

 

[teacher]

That wouldn't solve the problem. Just define the arguments with lines on a map. If the U.S. had split in the 1860's would we be better off now? No these people need to be led into the 21st century. Freedom leading to open debate, free flow of information, ideas, news, education ect. will eventually lead to peaceful coexistence. Consider only 50 years ago blacks couldn't drink from the same fountain, and look at us now.

 

[Surenderer]

[
Wasn't asking for an apology.


Fair enough. Let me say it like this. Why aren't countries were terrorists originate doing more?


True. I'm Christian but but get so fed up with the selfrightious I can't go to church.


I'm just saying that if the Muslims of the world did more that could be seen and proven it would shift this focus on religion to where it needs to be. On terrorists.

Let me rephrase the one question I care most about. Put aside history, religion, who did what to whom first. Why can't you denounce the TARGETING of CHILDREN? Just not doing that brings hatred heaped upon you by many. I've said before. Until the terrorists stop TARGETING CHILDREN I will never consider their position at all. And what ever any one does to kill them I'm behind. Beyond that all else is moot. (I love that word). I once used it 5 times in one day without trying.

I know terrorism does not only happen to me. The innocent Palestinians are much more affected by it than me. Eh?

I don't look at this religiously or nationally Surrenderer. I look at it morally.

Teacher,

As far as countries where terrorists originate I think their people are passive because they feel as if "well you kill our people then dont complain if we kill yours" kinda like how alot of people felt here after 9-11 towards Afgans civilian death tolls(even though they werent responsible towards 9-11)

True. I'm Christian but but get so fed up with the selfrightious I can't go to church

I understand.....I was raised a Christian and my father is a Baptist Preacher(great dinner conversations sometimes :lol: )

Let me rephrase the one question I care most about. Put aside history, religion, who did what to whom first. Why can't you denounce the TARGETING of CHILDREN?

Bro I have.....I dont believe that there is EVER a reason to harm a child...I have two children that I raise by myself (single Dad parent) and I am a social worker. under no circumstance should a child EVER be harmed. I actually think that is where alot of Arab hostility towards the U.S. comes from......the deaths of children and women through Sanctions and bombings

Let me rephrase the one question I care most about. Put aside history, religion, who did what to whom first.

See this is where me and you probably differ.....I think that the U.S. started this by exploiting Arab lands and resources for personal gain....propping up Dictators yet speaking of freedom etc.....

Until the terrorists stop TARGETING CHILDREN I will never consider their position at all

I agree....but outside of Russia I dont see where that has really happened.

I don't look at this religiously or nationally Surrenderer. I look at it morally.[/QUOTE

I agree.....I try to get my morals from my Religion which is something that "terrorists" seem to lose



peace

 

[teacher]

Teacher,

Bro I have.....I dont believe that there is EVER a reason to harm a child...I have two children that I raise by myself (single Dad parent) and I am a social worker. under no circumstance should a child EVER be harmed. I actually think that is where alot of Arab hostility towards the U.S. comes from......the deaths of children and women through Sanctions and bombings

Sorry, got you confused with Aleem there. My bad.

See this is where me and you probably differ.....I think that the U.S. started this by exploiting Arab lands and resources for personal gain....propping up Dictators yet speaking of freedom etc.....

We don't differ there. But it's a little different now. But what about Mubarick of Pakistan. If he looses then a theocracy gets nukes? Lesser of two evils.

I agree....but outside of Russia I dont see where that has really happened.

Missed the last couple days news in Iraq I see.

I agree.....I try to get my morals from my Religion which is something that "terrorists" seem to lose



peace

Back at ya.

 

[Surenderer]

Joke? Bait? Please clairify that statement on Muslims.

Muslims are bad because they are Muslims? Were all Christians during the crusades bad? Catholics during the Spanish Inquisition? Southerners during the Civil war? Bush may not be the brightest but I feel he honestly thinks he's doing the right thing. Where would you imply that I hate Muslims. I hate TA GETTERS OF CHILDREN. I think the Koran is being misused. Just like the bible has been. But we got by all that. Now it's their turn. Anyone that thinks all words of any religious test are directly from the mouth of their God is deluded. The contradictions alone prove texts are fallible. Much text was wrote to justify to writers behavior.

Surrenderer. Condense the Korans basic message in one sentence.

For my self and the bible: Be good.

I could come to the same conclusion if I were to condense the Koran down. Actually that makes sense to since I believe they came from the same Creator.


peace

 

[Surenderer]

We don't differ there. But it's a little different now. But what about Mubarick of Pakistan. If he looses then a theocracy gets nukes? Lesser of two evils.

But he was considered a terrorist by the U.S. untill he let the U.S. use his bases to attack Afghanistan (and it's General Pervez Musharraf .. )

Missed the last couple days news in Iraq I see.

As far as I can tell the overwhelming number of bombings in Iraq are targeting policeman and Goverment officials cooperating with the U.S. (I am assuming because the U.S. soldiers are so well protected) not purposely targeting children...I guess they see them as casualties of their war...I dont know though because I dont agree with their tatics



peace

 

[MSgt]

They are targetting Policemen, Iraqi soldiers, and civillian crowds. They target them because they are fighting a war using fear. They attack them in their sleep, while at mosques, while shopping, and while lined up in recruiting lines. They want the Kurds, Shiites, and the less violent Sunni of Iraq to dismiss their government and place the Sunni Dictatorship back in the lead. This has been going on for centuries and it was escalated after WWII. The new Iraqi government recognizes that all of this stupid feuding amonsgt religious sects is counter productivity to a peaceful existence and held a free election where all sects wouold have a voice. The Middle East will not easily allow their people to see this brighter future, so they murder them.

American soldiers and Marines are not targetted except for the occassional suicide bombing, because we are a "hard target". However, they could attack our patrols, but they often do not. They know it would also be senseless to attack us, because we do not fear attack. Killing one of us as we slaughter their entire attack would not offer them the same effect that they would get by killing 40 unsuspecting civillians in one blow. They rely on the media and the bleeding hearts to voice that America has created these dispicable acts by creating the terrorists or if America just left, the violence would stop - when in fact their own Koran justifies the "martyr" and rich Arabs use Clerics to enforce oppression and rule. They can't rely on the people of Iraq to make us leave, because the free elections was a smack in the face to rich Sauds, dictators and Clerics everywhere. These bombings are their punishment from "Allah". Their people are "soft targets" and have lived in fear from Allah's executioners for centuries. This is their tactic. This is not a war by any definition. This is mass murder under the guise of "holy war" much the like of what we see in Africa under the guise of "ethnic cleansing".

Pakistan (Personal issues with it's military) and India is where we should be heavily involved with diplomacy, before the House of Saud can fully poison them against western civilization. It's all about power over their people and power over the world through oil. Everything else is just BS, lies, copouts, and corruption. The people are oppressed and forced to live as the rich tell them, because the Clerics enforce the Koran as each ruler sees fit. To maintain control, they are taught that their lives are decadent because of Israel and their occupation of their "holy land" and America is to blame for defending them against Allah. The fact is...the House of Saud is the problem and always has been for the entire Middle East.

 

[Surenderer]

Here is another fact. The Sunni, the Shiite's and the Kurds have been murdering each other's civillians for centuries.

Umm....fiction......First of all Kurds arent a religion such as Sunni's and Shites(they are mainly Sunni also so they arent fighting Sunni's for religious reasons) 2nd their fighting is political...not religous.....In 1970, Iraq finally promised local self-rule to the Kurds, with the city of Erbil as the capital of the Kurdish area. The Kurds refused to accept the terms of the agreement, however, contending that the president of Iraq would retain real authority and demanding that Kirkuk, an important oil center, be included in the autonomous Kurdish region. In 1974 the Iraqi government sought to impose its plan for limited autonomy in Kurdistan. It was rejected by the Kurds, and THATS when heavy fighting erupted......not centuries ago

If one wants to find proof that their is hope in the Middle East for a peaceful cohabitation, one only has to look towards the Kurds. They live peacefully and without governance.

Except for their constant fighting with Turkey

Like most on this site...if you are going to bring up some facts, bring them all up.

thats funny because the Bush war spawned more anti-war protests than any other conflict in history(and before no WMD's were found also)......did you forget to bring that up? More than Muslims marched against the illegal war


peace

 

[nkgupta80]

more on pakistan. Lesser of the two evils doesn't mean ****. Pakistan is known to advocate state sponsored terrorism. (Although musharraf denies it, there have been overwhelming claims that the pakistani military allows terrorist groups into kashmiri regions and sponsors terrorism in India) Pakistan has nukes, and is highly unstable, look at how many coups there have been. I still wonder why we remain allies, considering the cold war is over and the war on terror directly applies to this country.

 

[MSgt]

I'm well aware of the Kurds history. They are a model for the rest of the Middle East if they weren't too bigotted to notice.

I didn't find it illegal. People were oppressed and now they are not. Now they are having to defend themselves from murderers that want them oppressed. I like to refer to it as cleaning up Muslim messes, because they are to slothful and weak to do it for themselves. Insulting, I know. But let's face facts. This is a centuries old feud amongst sects and it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is what they use to justify it. It is simple bigotry and prejudices. Religion is what the Muslims want the world to focus on - not criminal actions in the name of "Allah".

The only reason the "Bush war" spawned more anti war protest is because of today's media. I guarantee the next war will garner up even more. Put things into perspective. If this was a war where Hindu were blowing up buildings and killing civillians whole sale through the decades, Muslims wouldn't give it a second look, so spare me the "illegal" war stand point. Where were all the protests against Middle East governments before the war? Where are the self-appointed representation of conscience against mass murders and rapes that were legal under Saddam? Give me a break. You protest what you understand and what the media informs you of, but even that is half assed.

WMD? Who even cared about that? Only the near sighted and uneducated. What's important is that now a dangerous man doesn't have the potential to develop them. Syria could have been the recipient of some WMD material before the assault. You don't know. There were multiple reasons for Iraq anyway. President Bush chose to publicly focus on the wrong reason for Iraq, in my opinion. I would have focused on the Middle East oppression that spawns terrorism and it's despicable acts, hence the "War on Terror". Of course, it would have still been called an "illegal" war by some, because they lack the understanding needed to realize the source of terror or the courage to place PC aside and stand up to it. The Lords of Terror reside in Saudia Arabia and so far have been untouched. I and others would say that they have even been protected. We've backed the wrong players in the Middle East for the rest of the world's interests. It certainly wasn't ours. We get a low percentage of oil from the Middle East. Europe and Asia are the one's interested in the Middle East for oil, but we are their allies and we stand beside them. We can't say that for them can we? We only want peace from terrorism and the protection of Israel. Ever wonder why the whole of Europe jumped all over the Gulf War thing in Kuwait? We foolishly allow the rest of the world to use us because of our other interests as they point their fingers and appear to the ignorant as the "high and mighty", when secretly, their governments benifit from American actions. The entire Middle East is a breeding ground for terrorism and it isn't America's fault. We've simply chosen to ignore it for far too long so that the rest of the world's oil can be preserved. If we pulled within our borders and watched as Europe and Asia's oil interests began being assaulted and disrupted by the dictators and the rich Arabs of the Middle East, we would see Europe in the Middle East and then they would be the "bad guys" and the "cause of terrorism".

"I still wonder why we remain allies, considering the cold war is over and the war on terror directly applies to this country."

I agree in many ways. I have personal issue with it's military, however, they have nukes and that is a powerful brick wall. Much like North Korea diplomacy and good faith is our only option. Even without the nukes, Pakistan has a lot of promise as a Mulsim nation if we would only tap into it. Same goes for India. I'm no diplomat or politician though.

 

[cnredd]

cnredd pulls up the recliner, grabs the bucket of popcorn, sits back, and watches GySgt postulate.

"I could watch this all day...go get 'em, tiger!"

 

[Datamonkee]

"Seems like all we seem to be hearing is Bushshit prejudice. Moslems are bad because they are Moslems. someone told me that Bush and Osama Ben Ladin are cousins. Maybe Bush is a Moslem pretenting to be a Fascist Hitler loving Christian. what do ya think?"

First of all, I am really getting tired of seeing that phrase "Bush*****". Aside from being offensive, it's unnecessary. Every time someone brings up politics in here, that is the rebuttal. It's childish, inane, and doesn't prove anything.
If you can name 1, just 1, politician that hasn't lied, twisted, or spun media attention in his favor, I leave that phrase alone. There isn't one. Not a single one. Every single politician in the history of America has slung mud, twisted words, and tried to garner better media attention. Voting for politicians is not about issues anymore. It's about who has the better spin doctors. If you don't like this President, you have two choices, move the hell out of the country. I hear Canada wants people. Or work to get a better President in there the next election. But stop criticizing him for the exact same maneuvers that every single President has done since Washington had the first election.

Every time someone compares this administration or America to Hitler and the Nazi's it belittles the struggles that the Jews and other minorities suffered during the Holocaust. There is literally nothing in American history, short of the persecution of the American Indians, that even comes close to the murder and atrocities that Hitler's regime committed. It is a shock jockey media tactic, and irresponsible. Especially since the people that use it weren't even alive at the time, and have no concept of the pain and suffering those people went through.

 

[shuamort]

But stop criticizing him for the exact same maneuvers that every single President has done since Washington had the first election.

I firmly disagree with that stance. I think it behooves the populus to be critical and to think critically of the President even when they are in agreement.

I do however agree on terms like "Bushsh!t" as not lending themselves anything to the discourse. It strikes me as lazy and that that person is willing to dismiss anything the president says as opposed to take each topic/situation/quote seperately.

YMMV.

 

[MSgt]

What people generally fail to notice is that the Jews struggle hasn't ended. It has resumed under the march of the Koran instead of a Swastika. What is noticed, however, is how horrible the act of retaliation by Israel after every suicide bombing by a Paletinian.

Personally, I think President Bush should say more of what he has refrained from saying because of ties to the House of Saud, but diplomacy throughout the worlds governments is founded in partial lies and back rubs.

A completely honest politician would never be elected. The goal is to please as many voters as possible. Be angry at the "one" all you want, but in the end, the voter casts his vote! John Kerry is the perfect example of a politician trying to please too many.

 

[cnredd]

What people generally fail to notice is that the Jews struggle hasn't ended. It has resumed under the march of the Koran instead of a Swastika. What is noticed, however, is how horrible the act of retaliation by Israel after every suicide bombing by a Paletinian.

You see the hypocracy when the United Nations(which, in itself, is a contradiction in terms) is more than happy to condemn Isreal but remain eerily silent when terrorist groups unchecked by the PLO cross UN sanctioned dividing lines into Isreal and blow up innocent civilians in the middle of a cafe.

 

[Surenderer]

What people generally fail to notice is that the Jews struggle hasn't ended. It has resumed under the march of the Koran instead of a Swastika. What is noticed, however, is how horrible the act of retaliation by Israel after every suicide bombing by a Paletinian.

Personally, I think President Bush should say more of what he has refrained from saying because of ties to the House of Saud, but diplomacy throughout the worlds governments is founded in partial lies and back rubs.

A completely honest politician would never be elected. The goal is to please as many voters as possible. Be angry at the "one" all you want, but in the end, the voter casts his vote! John Kerry is the perfect example of a politician trying to please too many.

To be the best liar in other words :roll: ...sorry I would rather have someone tell me how they truly feel even if I disagree with them rather than lie to me and tell me later they did it for my own good. Oh and stop your Koran nonsence.....all Muslims arent out to kill Jews...like most Wars it's about territory not religion

 

[MSgt]

I notice it all of the time. The ignorant follow along like sheep, because they take the stance that Israel as a soverign nation should be held to a higher standard and not be so quick to defend itself. They look on the Palestinian and the rest of the Middle East as less than civilized and that everyone should just except their behavior. But whatever you do...don't try to fix it - because it's their heritage and culture, you see. If I was a Middle Easterner with education, I would be insulted by the world's liberals and the UN, but they aren't. They welcome the ignorance and misguided understandings. Much of the world condemns the wrong thing and the wrong action, because it is easier and PC to blame a nation than it is to blame an ideology based on a religion and oppression.

 

[cnredd]

I notice it all of the time. The ignorant follow along like sheep, because they take the stance that Israel as a soverign nation should be held to a higher standard and not be so quick to defend itself. They look on the Palestinian and the rest of the Middle East as less than civilized and that everyone should just except their behavior. But whatever you do...don't try to fix it - because it's their heritage and culture, you see. If I was a Middle Easterner with education, I would be insulted by the world's liberals and the UN, but they aren't. They welcome the ignorance and misguided understandings. Much of the world condemns the wrong thing and the wrong action, because it is easier and PC to blame a nation than it is to blame an ideology based on a religion and oppression.

Much like the "victim" status afforded almost every minotity and group in this country. It's much easier to "I'm down because someone else is keeping me down" than to say "I'm down because I didn't try to get up".

 

[MSgt]

I've stated before on numerous commentaries that when I refer to the Islam religion and the Koran as tools for the evil...I am referring to the corrupt in the Middle East. The world is full of Muslims, but only in the Middle East do we see such travesty and carnage.

There is a distinct difference and I understand that. I have talked with many Muslims in the Middle East in enough countries (Once I even led security for Public Affairs on a three week trip around the Middle East.) and I am aware that this mentality is not the majority. It is the mentality of the powerful and the rich and the ignorant sheep that follow it.

I continue to be very clear about this.

I could not be President, because although I would be refreshingly honest and not PC, I would not be elected. I would have too many haters, because I say what is usually not said and I would offend. I would more or less hand the election of to the rival. In the interest of votes, a politician must not offend. It is simple and it goes back to the very first politician in history.

 

[HTColeman]

To be the best liar in other words :roll: ...sorry I would rather have someone tell me how they truly feel even if I disagree with them rather than lie to me and tell me later they did it for my own good. Oh and stop your Koran nonsence.....all Muslims arent out to kill Jews...like most Wars it's about territory not religion

However, between the Muslims and the Jews, territory and religion are the same. I am summarizing this from the Bible but it is Historic fact.

Abraham had two sons (he had more but they aren't relevant right now). The first son's story: Abraham's wife, they believed, was to old to have children. So, Abraham had a child with Sara's maidservant, his name was Esau. Then he had a son with Sara, to their disbelief, named Isaac.

(This part is biblical belief) God had promised Abraham and his lineage the "promised land", modern day Israel. (End of biblical belief)

However, which son would it go to? The Jews believe it should go to them because they are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham's "true son". The Muslims believe that it should go to them because they are the descendants of Esau, Abraham's first born. There is so much discrepancy because Esau is not technically legitimate.

 

[shuamort]

I could not be President, because although I would be refreshingly honest and not PC, I would not be elected. I would have too many haters, because I say what is usually not said and I would offend. I would more or less hand the election of to the rival. In the interest of votes, a politician must not offend. It is simple and it goes back to the very first politician in history.

Depends on what you say actually. Here in Minnesota we had Jesse Ventura, a lot of people agreed with his views and he was very blunt and honest. He had photo ops with his AK-47, he fought hard to cut spending AND taxes, he spoke out for equality for gays. He never minced words and called things as he saw them. The problem didn't come from that, as he energized the voting in a three way election. The problem came with the legislature that didn't care for him being direct, both republicans and democrats banded together to fight him. The media then got labelled "jackals" as they'd rather focus on the non-issue items. If he would have ran again, he still would have won, but the State of Minnesota's legislators, well, they probably would have been even less cooperative.

 

[Surenderer]

I've stated before on numerous commentaries that when I refer to the Islam religion and the Koran as tools for the evil...I am referring to the corrupt in the Middle East. The world is full of Muslims, but only in the Middle East do we see such travesty and carnage.

Never heard you say that(I am new to the boards) Then i agree with you that the corrupt use the Koran to incite the masses by misrepresentation

 

[Surenderer]

However, between the Muslims and the Jews, territory and religion are the same. I am summarizing this from the Bible but it is Historic fact.

Abraham had two sons (he had more but they aren't relevant right now). The first son's story: Abraham's wife, they believed, was to old to have children. So, Abraham had a child with Sara's maidservant, his name was Esau. Then he had a son with Sara, to their disbelief, named Isaac.

(This part is biblical belief) God had promised Abraham and his lineage the "promised land", modern day Israel. (End of biblical belief)

However, which son would it go to? The Jews believe it should go to them because they are the descendants of Isaac, Abraham's "true son". The Muslims believe that it should go to them because they are the descendants of Esau, Abraham's first born. There is so much discrepancy because Esau is not technically legitimate.

Hello,

Jews and Muslims arent fighting today because of Ishmel and Issac. besides the Muhammad(pbuh) day when there was fighting between Jewish clans and the Muslims Jews have been treated better in Muslim territory than by anyone else.....todays conflict between the two starts with the Creation of Israel



peace

 

[MSgt]

"Depends on what you say actually. Here in Minnesota we had Jesse Ventura, a lot of people agreed with his views and he was very blunt and honest. He had photo ops with his AK-47, he fought hard to cut spending AND taxes, he spoke out for equality for gays. He never minced words and called things as he saw them. The problem didn't come from that, as he energized the voting in a three way election. The problem came with the legislature that didn't care for him being direct, both republicans and democrats banded together to fight him. The media then got labelled "jackals" as they'd rather focus on the non-issue items. If he would have ran again, he still would have won, but the State of Minnesota's legislators, well, they probably would have been even less cooperative."

This is a good point. The institution doesn't allow for such honesty anyway. It is a threat to standing politicians.


"Never heard you say that(I am new to the boards) Then i agree with you that the corrupt use the Koran to incite the masses by misrepresentation"

I thought you would. I am not anti-Muslim. Unlike other books, I do, however, believe that the Koran is very dangerous in the wrong hands.

"todays conflict between the two starts with the Creation of Israel"

Finally. A Muslim say's what I have said all along. All religious backgrounds aside, it all began in 1949 with the UN's sanctions of creating a soveriegn nation for the Jews in light of the recent Nazi sponsered genocides against them. They deserved their own country and Israel was given back to them by the UK. The very next day after the UN declared Israel a nation, holy soldiers for Allah from Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria attacked into Israel. America has backed Israel's right to exist (more so than any other nation) and has been the target of terror ever since. The Muslim fanatics of the Middle East would have everyone believe that it is all about religious persecution against Muslims. With Middle Eastern fanatics of the Sunni, Kurds, and the Shiites, killing each other's sects and people off for centuries, I would think that so many people around the world would not choose to be fooled by such Cleric rhetoric. Either that or they really do not know the history of these people or the Middle East. For them it is territorial and the power that oil provides them. Without oil, there is nothing the Middle East has to offer. The rich and powerful of the Middle East have managed to narrow there competition with the world to one front. All they have is oil and they know it.