All Comments (18)

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

california condor: You ask 'why are WE supposed to be responsible for the moving catastrophe in Iraq'. The answer is simple, really

The USA invaded and is occupying Iraq. Those who orchestrated the invasion were elected and, sadly, reelected.

Unfortunately, in a democracy, WE are responsible, including those of us who were called traitors for questioning the policy.

Why are "we" supposed to be responsible for the moving catastrophe in Iraq? "We" didn't do it. Most of us now admit it was a terrible blunder. Many said so at the outset.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans and millions world wide were in the streets in early 2003 telling Bush, "Don't do it". According to Seymour Hersh's reporting, the whole mess was cooked up by a mere eight or nine people -- Bush and his inner neocon entourage. All the rest was showbiz and execution. The PNAC script, dating from years before, has been followed to the letter, even the "Pearl Harbor event" (9/11) that the neocons felt would be necessary to move Americans to support an invasion of Iraq.

A "moral response" to 9/11 would have been to honestly and completely investigate why it happened and who bears most responsibility. A "moral response" would have been to track down the actual perpetrators and make them stand trial before the world. They were not warriors or combatants but criminals. But Osama and his deputy remain free. Why is that?

Bush went illegally into toothless, decaying Iraq where no terrorist threat existed. So any "moral response" now should be to IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST LEST HE BOMB IRAN AND MAKE THINGS EVEN WORSE. Popular Indictment of Bush and the neocons should follow, because only by insisting on accountability, responsibility and transparency will we be able to repair the ruin they have caused in the wake of criminal terrorism they should have anticipated, detected and forestalled.

Truth will out, as will the ammoral duplicity of posturing Bush who says he prayed and prayed before his Iraq "war" and told Bob Woodward he believes he is "the messenger of God's will". Such hypocrisy is rarely encountered in this world or any other. If such a repugnant figure is indeed "God's messenger", such a deity should be ashamed of himself or herself.

With all do respect a desire to do something does not mean that it will be done or Clinton who also spoke with some frequencey about regime change in Iraq would have done so before Bush ever took Office.

Don't forget that all the top Dems were saying Saddam had WMD - some before Bush even announced his candidacy for president.

It isn't like Saddam hadn't been a major pain in the US tail for some time.

Oh and for what it is worth there is a fair chance that had Saddam not attacked Kuwait Osama would have remained only a threat to stray goats, women and underage girls in Afghanistan.

Garyd - you say "Bush gave no hint that he was going to do any more than his predecessors had vis a vis Saddam."

But what about his key advisors? In a letter to President Clinton dated 26 January 1998 for example:

"We urge you to ..... enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power."

The signatories included John Bolton, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Zoellick and the text is available here:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Their aims were no secret. And it should be no surprise that when they found themselves in government they pressed ahead with the agenda they had previously set out.

Frank: it doesn't matter what any of these "scriptures" say -- the fact that the Muslim world is ever more united against us derives from our totally one-sided and utterly stupid MidEast policy. They wouldn't be pairing these particular ideas of Mohammad with IEDs if we didn't interfere with dsamaging results in their affairs. Some examples:

Last year the US backed and supplied the pointless bombing of Lebanon, which was just getting back on its feet as a carefully balanced democratic state. Schoolmistress Rice referred to that atrocity as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." I'll bet others in the area can't wait to experience our next transformational idea.

During the Iraq-Iran war, we supported Saddam against Iran, prolonging the stuggle and increasing the casualties.

The current Iranian theocratic regime is a reaction to our interference in Iran's internal affairs, when we and the Iranian armed forces removed its elected leadership in a coup.Do you think Americans would ever support a similar government imposed by, say, Germany?

No, Frank, the fault isn't in ancient scribblings or long-dead prophets. As Pogo observed, it's us.

frank
you really have a gal. saddam did what he did with the very help of the us of a. now you are on your high horse praising your bankrupt moral upstanding. the only thing you hate to loose is shame.

Bush was arrogant and believed he could get away with lying about the rationale in invading Iraq because he really thought Iraq was going to be easy. And when everything was supposed to hunky-dory, the people will forgive him for his lies. Iraq turned out to be a failure, just like all of Bush's endeavors.

GaryD

Oh Contraire, There is plenty of evidence of Bush's intent to remove Saddam by force according to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Niel who says of the pre 911 tone within the administration, "It was all about finding a way to do it...The President saying go find me a way to do this" Also, the administration's efforts to create a false relationship between 911 and Saddam to build public support is the virtual smoking gun of a preordained desire.

"As for all the quotes from the Koran: I can find equally outrageous examples from the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The fact is that we and our misguided policies are the main reason for the upswelling of Islamic movements."

Exactly! Want to read some passages on racial superiority and killing of "unchosen" peoples....read the Jewish TALMUD...

TO: Frank Collins: so many problems with your posting! Yes we invaded Iraq to depose Saddam, but lied about our reasons. I think Israel has ignored many UN reolutions, and killed many of its neighbors (last summer's de-stabilizing Lebanon bombing, for example) but we're not about to depose its government.

In deposing Saddam, we removed a major obstacle to Iran, possibly one of the stupidest moves in all our generally mis-directed Mideast policy.

Of course our puppet government, elected only by the Shias, wants us to stay, otherwise they'll neeed to repair to wherever thev've stashed their money.Unless, as is to be wished, the Iranians, Saudis and Syrians arrive at some sort of relatively peacable division of the country after we leave (moving to Kurdistan to prevent a Turkish invasion would be useful, and few would attack our forces). If you like analogies, think of post WWII German occupation zones.

Nobody in their right mind wants to send American forces into Sudan or Darfur. The UN is paralyzed because China will stop any effective measures. Will France send forces? I doubt it. Let's face the fact that there's almost nothing we can do about it.

As for all the quotes from the Koran: I can find equally outrageous examples from the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The fact is that we and our misguided policies are the main reason for the upswelling of Islamic movements.

It could also be argued that Religion got us there,and Religion is why we can't get out.
I believe Bush,when he says he talked to God
before invading Iraq. He believed the BIG GUY
approved his decision.He still buys into the Grand Illusion,every bit as strongly as Iraqis believe Allah is on their side.
Many Middle Eastern Muslims are dying to get into Paradise,and blow themselves up happily for the one way ticket to Paradise.
If there was a way to show that God is a delusion, suicide bombers would stop killing themselves,and Bush would realise what a fool he has been.
I agree that Bush wanted to better his dad.
But Freud is as dead as Jesus.

Anonymous, Thou Knoweth Not More Than Thy Own Name

I checked with brother William, who taught psychology at Harvard when he was alive,

and he confirmed that Norrie's diagnosis is correct on the validity of psychoanalysis.

To deny the father-son competition dimension of human nature goes not only against Freud, but all of human literature and wisdom.

But Anonymous, we shouldn't expect you to make these moderately subtle distinctions when you are still so confused about your own identity.

Anonymous,

Psychoanalysis has been shown to not be helpful in treating mental illness. However, as a description of the phases of early life, including the Oedipus Complex, it has been shown to frequently have validity, as tested by objective observers. Most parents of boys, if they are careful observers, will detect the O.C. in their sons.

Would you like to hear the psychoanalytic theory of why you don't use your name in your posts?

GaryD,

If you read some of the just-published accounts of the 2000 campaign and the first days of the Bush Administration, you will encounter Bush insiders who say that Bush was determined to overthrow Saddam even before he was sworn in as President.

Wrong Norrie on almost every count prior to those murderous swine flying those airplanes into those buildings Bush gave no hint that he was going to do any more than his predecessors had vis a vis Saddam.

Were there plans for taking him out if it became necessary? Of course, to not have had such plans would have been a gross direliction of duty on the part of any c-i-c.

Bush's first goal was to change how we did things domestically in this country and heaven only knows they needed changing. 9/11 saw to it that that didn't really happen in the way Bush or anyone else on the right really wanted it.

Of course you would use discredited psychoanalysis to try to explain away the true causes, Norrie.

We did not attack Iraq out of concerns for our self-defense.

We attacked because of George Bush's Oedipus Complex. He knew before he became President that he would attack Iraq if he got the chance.

That way he would show that he was bigger and stronger than his northeastern, effete dad who had let Saddam get away in the Gulf War.

Think of the price we've paid for this momentary and illusory satisfaction of a childish fantasy.

"We do not, and we have caused immense
distrust of the west, of western values, and of the US and the UK in particular- and we should apologize to the Iraqi people for that."

We should only apologize for the mistrust we have created?? That mistrust is very well placed with neo cons having major influence STILL in washington.

How about apologizing for the hundreds of thousands dead and maimed? Or the thousands of grunt soldiers physically and mentally disabled from the war?

This was not a "moral" decision, it was a geo political one to support Israel in the region.

Israeli interests/concerns are NOT American concerns and the traitors who think that they are one in the same such as AIPAC and those who planned the policy - neo cons Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz, Libby...should be tried as traitors!

PS - two AIPAC employees are going on trial for exactly that - spying and exposing classified information on Iran. Time for America to kick AIPAC and Israel to the curb and put the OBJECTIVE foreign policy with our national interests first!