Martyrdom is a 'thing', like status or shoes. I watched an ad on TV that said,"after all, your job is your life". It was an ad for a business system or solution or software or something. A very well known and respected company. We in the U.S. are bombarded with this type of nonsense constantly. It's all insane. One being no different than the other. Religion, business, shoes, concepts, opinions.....all things. All meaningless until meaning is assigned by the individual.
WHY MARTYRS ?
or
WAR ON TERROR, ROBOMARTYRS, and MUHAMMAD
Actions against Terrorist suicide-bombers are helpless, because totally IGNORANT, in a stupefying way, of the Islamic Roots :
There is only ONE way to fight suicide-Bombers whose weapons are the KORAN.
This only way is the KORAN itself :
I shall give one little example (among others) :
Suicide Bombers blow themselves because they (men) think that, within the next minute following their death, they will be in Paradise enjoying the most beautiful, innocent, sensual, adolescent virgins.
But Muhammad (following Pharisee-Christian Tradition) states definitely, many times, in KORAN that the Resurrection of the dead bodies will occur ONLY at the End of Times (maybe billions of years) for THE Final Judgement.
Then ONLY, God (Allah) ALONE, will REALLY judge who is condemned to jump into Hell and who is allowed to live in Paradise.
And then, ONLY, those unfortunate abused Robomartyrs, who blow mostly innocent victims, might well be condemned, at their Resurrection and at their Final Judgement, to jump into the Fire of Hell to burn in an everlasting torture.
to richard
death is not easy as the only brave can accept it.the people also commit suicide.take the number of suicide cases and bomber you will find suiide is greater than bomber.other hand tell me where is justice to kill the people by bombing their home and kiling entire family?.
I think all religions emphasize the need to be willing to die. Doesn't make it neccessary.
I think all is really needed is a firm commitment to what you believe, and a willingness to go hell if one exists. But I don't think it does. It really is just this world.
To your question. No, not really. 15 dead civilians is 15 dead civilians. While I would certainly concede the motive is better targeting 3 radicals I would seriously question whether the means justified the ends. Violence begets violence. We kill them and they kill us. They kill us and we kill them. So far, we've just killed a lot more of them then they've killed of us.
I've stated on a number of occasions I believe there are times where killing is necessary. (Sorry Quakers, but I'm not one of you) However, what this argument is about is when it's acceptable to use deadly force. In other words what set of circumstances have to exist to justify the killing of people. I just have a higher standard of what it takes to kill then you or Dave. (No Dave, I'm not an Arab. Although there's nothing wrong with being an Arab)
In no way, shape or form am I pro targeting civilians to further one's political/religous agenda. I firmly believe targeting civilians is a crime against humanity. However, that being said we love to tout what a great and noble thing we did during WWII as a proof of what a good and noble country we are and on numerous occasions targeted civilians in mass numbers. Such incidents would include the fire bombing of Toyko and the two atomic bombs in Japan and the fire bombing of German cities. Specifically, we wanted to break the will of the people and targeted civilians. I don't know the exact number of civilians we targeted and killed in WWII, but I know it's in the hundreds of thousands.
In the case of WWII we won. We also jusfified our actions as the end (winning) justified the means (targeting civilians). Since we won we got to write most of the history. Had we lost even General LeMay of the Army Aircorps in the Pacific stated on more then one occasion said he would be brought up on war crime charges for his actions if we lost. Our argument for the targeting of civilians was it would bring the war to a conclusion quicker and save American lives. It probably did, but it also put us in a position where our moral basis was forever lowered over this issue in modern times.
However, now we're screaming the fundamentalist splinter groups in the ME are targeting civilians, as well as foreign military, targets to further their cause. Their primary cause is to rid their land of occupying forces and to rid their land of Israel. Do you see the hypocracy? It's OK for us to target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians because our cause was right, but since we don't agree with their cause the targeting of civilians makes them terrorists?
Until the West comes to understand we're interferring in the ME sovreign rights and they are fighting back we'll be engaged in this ridiculous nebulous war on terror in the ME. Invading Iraq was the stupidiest thing the US could have done in the ME. Iraq had committed no act of war against the US. Nothing can change that basic fact. We invaded anyway and justified our invasion on what if's and could be's. That simply isn't a high enough standard for me to believe the killing of people is justified. Afghanistan is a different story. They were guilty of committing an act of war against the United States and deserved to be subject to our militaries wrath.
Dave,
Read the top part of this post. The Germans had plans to bomb the United States (cities) and were just unable to pull it off. Also, the Germans targeted the Merchant Marine fleet off the East Coast of the US (non-military vessels) as well as in the North Atlantic. The Germans bombed and rocketed the civilian population of London as well as other English Cities. No, Germany was more then willing to engage in targeting of civilians. The same case can be made for the Japanese. Civilian populations in Asia were conquered rather harshly by the Japanese. Remember Roosevelt was so worried about "terrorist" acts in the US he interned all Japanese Americans during WWII. The targeting of civilians is absolutely nothing new in world history. It's happened since the beginning of recorded history. The US has just been geographically blessed for the most part.
Mike,
What can I say? Islamic Armies would invade us in a heartbeat? Get real. The forces surrounding Israel, a tiny country of 6 million people, couldn't even do the job there. The forces you're talking about don't have the means to invade the US and there is no indication a world Ottoman Empire is in the works. Quite the contrary.
As far as getting out of Iraq we agree. Maybe not for the same reasons, but that doesn't matter.
The discussion, (with BobL) that I referenced, revolved around the definition of the word "terrorism" or a "terrorist act". I stated that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a "terrorist act" simply because it targeted civilians (even though it was committed to end a war in which 60 million people were killed and, it's estimated another one million would have died in an invasion of Japan-mostly Japanese).
Anytime any country or organization "targets a civilian population for political gain" that constitutes an act of terrorism, and that includes all western democracies. Most have participated in such acts like, for example, the French in Algeria. If you include the selling of weapons as a terrorist act, then you might as well throw the Geneva Convention out and build a jail cell whose borders would be the earth. In addition, if selling of weapons was outlawed, most unemployment rates would instantly double including the French.
I realize that atrocities and war go hand in hand, but the Geneva Convention was written to protect civilians against atrocities being committed during times of war. What separates terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas is that they target civilians as a POLICY.
As far the statements that I made,
"You will never convince me that it's somehow justified to commit atrocities on civilian populations as a tactic to win a war"
"No country on earth did more to free more countries and people than the US.",
they are not necessarily mutually exclusive as you have pointed out. The war ended BECAUSE of the use of nuclear weapons, and in my mind, under the circumstances, it was justified. Good point.
Terrorism is a very difficult term to define because what constitutes a terrorist act is, in part, subjective. The statement "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" has been stated about a million times on this site alone.
Appreciate your answer. As regards what was first, I would say the earth was first and humans with their brains second. God comes third, as it was an invention of the human brains.
Regarding the genes which would have some responsibility for 'religion' - I would rather say that the introduction of spirituality by the firs humans has created through the millenaries its acceptance by their descendants. Every group of humans has considered its duty to transmit to its children its beliefs and thus created an atavism which we still experience today. Religion has been considered as a source of power and manipulation by those who control it, that is why we have so many religions or chisms of these. Clever people realize that if they pretend to have a new approach to transcendence, there will always be adepts to follow and thus give the clever people the power they expect to obtain by their new religion or interpretation of one.
Finally, I agree that there are miriads of galaxies and that other humans may live in some planet, but there is no proof of it except the fact that there is no reason why if WE exist there would not be other living species elsewhere. This theory destroys automatically the creation thesis, and I would rather agree that evolution - still ignoring how it started - is the correct approach.
Tom Wonacott, you should re-read your own posts before making new ones. Try these 2:
"You will never convince me that it's somehow justified to commit atrocities on civilian populations as a tactic to win a war"
"No country on earth did more to free more countries and people than the US."
Considering Napalm, Hiroshima, bombing of Germany, supply of weapons to Israel and other military actions by the USA on helpless civilians, to (try to) win several wars, your arguments seem self-contradictory: on one side you see the greatest country on Earth for the last century, but it happens that this country has done more "unjustifiable" - according to you - actions than any other in that century.
Tom, I don't believe you're american. You must be a frenchman trying to make americans look dumb. Most of your comments correspond to the cheap clichés that people "over here" carry about the USA. It's hard to believe that a cultivated person like you have proven to be can try, over and over again, to sell the Official Propaganda.
I, along with most Pakistanis, don't believe that suicide bombing or what happened at the Red Mosque is part and parcel of martyrdom. Islam is very clear that you must die fighting for Islam, but there are many caveats to what can be considered fighting for Islam. Taking on government forces in a Muslim country is not a case for martyrdom, as the Quran is very clear that "no harm shall befall a Muslim from another Muslim, otherwise they shall face Allah's harashest punishment."
The problem in Pakistan is that most people don't have basic education, whereas Quranic education is imparted by mullahs, immans and other "religious scholars" that interpret the Quran to mean whatever the time may deem for them. Add to that, Pakistan also has some of the harshest blasphemy laws, which are un-Islamic in the Quran, and that people are not encouraged to discuss and debate what it means under fear of those same blasphemy laws. The punishment for blasphemy in Pakistan is death and it only takes 1 witness to convict.
The discussion of martyrdom is not complete without reminding people that the Prophet Muhammad tolerated all forms of abuse and cursing while He was alive. If we are to follow the life of the Prophet, it is clear that He was not the one that lifted his hand in anger or revenge to anyone; rather He taught that we should live a life that others want to emulate and they will come to Islam. Force does not make a good Muslim.
I have done a lot of writing on my blog about the mullahs and their weird belief systems. You can read it at "Behind the Chairman's Door" and you can see some of the difficult debates that I have had with these same extremists that have posted comments there. There is no way to convince them that what they believe is incorrect. I have tried both on my blog and in person, being that I live in Pakistan, as the indoctrination since childhood has firmly planted the route to heaven is martyrdom and anything related to Islam counts.
I think we discussed this issue 37 out of the possible 48 hours that comprise a weekend about a month ago. I gave up and decided you were probably a closet right winger....
You will never convince me that it's somehow justified to commit atrocities on civilian populations as a tactic to win a war, i.e. the intentional targeting of civilians for political gain. I really could care less if one side is at a disadvantage or not, its illegal under the Geneva Convention, and morally wrong. It doesn't matter whether it's the US, Canada or Hamas that commits the atrocity.
Let me throw out something. Do you believe that there is a moral equivalence between targeting and killing 15 civilians at a market and a retaliation that targets three members of a terrorist organization that also kills 15 civilians?
BOBL-VA,
In the last 100 years, among the people that we've "invaded", other than in the ME, are the Japanese, Germans, Panamanians, Vietnamese, Grenadans, Cambodians, Koreans, Cubans, Italians, the Dominican Republicans, Haitians, Phillipinos, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Mexicans, Laotians, and Kuwaitis. Aside from Poncho Villa, the response has not been to target random innocent civilians. Terrorism is not the logical next step or the only alternative (unless, it seems, you are Muslim). It is a choice to take that approach. The size of an Army does not always matter. The Americans beat the British and the Russians lost in Afghanistan. India freed itself from British rule. Our good friends, the Japanese, lost and got nuked but seem to have recovered.
"No, you can bash the Arabs and dehumanize them all you want but it will never erase the fact we invaded them and not the other way around." I don't think that everyone in the ME that has died due to the US has "deserved it" and I don't know the numbers but i am sure less Americans have died. I would argue that we would not have been in Afghanistan or Iraq were it not for 9-11 (yes i know that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 but the push to go there, IMO, was Bush's attempt to remake the ME after 9-11 and Iraq was the convenient target). I don't recall there being a huge amount of resistance to the US helping out Kuwait in the first Gulf war. Those are the three big casualty/invasion events, two of which were UN approved so to speak. Not that any of that makes up for the killing of innocent people during our involvement in the area. The point is that we didn't just wake up one day and say to ourselves "Let's go invade a ME country because we can"!
"The killing of a human being is a terrible thing. It should only be undertaken when there is no other choice and imminent personal safety issues are present." It seems that you are saying that aside from a personal self defense situation (kill or be killed), there should be no killing. I say this because except in that case, there is always a different choice. They may consider our occupation an imminent personal safety issue, but they have many other choices on how to deal with it. They are choosing martyrdom/terrorism.
I think you touched on a very interesting question. What kind of democracy do I wish for the Middle East?
The kind I wish for and what is realistic are two different questions. Turkey has a predominantly Muslim population and is a secular democracy. Unfortunately, in Turkey, the military is always standing by to take over if they disagree with the results of the elections, e.g. an Islamist is elected, so the reality is that the democracy exist at the discretion of the military.
I am not sure if minority rights are respected in Turkey, however. This is a problem all over the Middle East and into Pakistan, Turkey etc.
Turkey is one model.
Pakistan, in between military juntas, also is a model that might be used for Middle Eastern countries. They elected a woman (Bhutto) as Prime Minister , and she is waiting in the wings if Musharrif decides to step aside. This, despite Shariah law. Oddly enough, I admire Musharrif. He is under so much pressure, his head should be shaped like a pancake. Pakistan, however, is a mess today.
Pakistan is another possible model or, at least it was at one time.
Algeria is another possibility, although I don't know much about them or other governments in North Africa. It appears to be a secular democracy?
That's one state with Shariah law and two without.
Countries directly in the Middle East seem to be somewhat hopeless because the forces opposing them are very strong.
I also posed a question to you. You subscribe to a single state model for the Palestinians and the Israelis. What model do you see for that state?
I don't know why someone could or would grab a bunch of kids to shield themselves then commit matrydom as you call it.
I will say Islam is still living a culture that should have died off 1000 years ago.
These people have given nothing to modern man.
Anyone that thinks commiting suicide while killing innocent people because their belief system is different and thinks doing this will get them 80,000 wives and 72 virgins in some kind of sexy afterlife nirvana is beyond anyones help.
What is the attraction to martyrdom? I wish to address this apart from any discussion of Islam. Just a few notes as I really have no time at the moment. I regret not tackling the problem earlier...
All I wish to say is that man dies. Often that he feels is worth dying for inspires him to die young. People have beliefs, ideologies--often artists take incredible chances as well and put themselves into a position of abject poverty to just be able to have time to create. Martyrdom is noble. It means one believes in something for which one is willing to give up one's life.
The problem is what exactly is inspiring one to give up one's life--not the concept of martyrdom itself. If anyone thinks the concept of martyrdom itself is bad, just reflect on what it would be like to live in a society which cannot provide healthcare for all because people want to take it easy, indulge every weakness, and expect medicine to not only prolong their lives and make up for weakness but to somehow give immortality...
I suppose a society could indulge every weakness and give immortality (or at least prolong life) if all the people were of superior intellect--in other words had at least something to make up for their weaknesses, but if no one wants to study and just eat bad food and grow fat and sit around watching television? No wonder the health system would collapse...
Call that the opposite of martyrdom, the complete loss of meaning, which is to say certainly nothing to die for...except perhaps all the food one stuffs in one's mouth...
The question is one of dying somehow so the human race benefits and not a particular group, whether religious, ethnic, nationalistic, etc.
Just have meaning in one's life and be willing to take chances, be willing to die to bring forth something worthwhile...
That is the nobility of martyrdom, and until Western nations really think through this concept and update it for the modern age, I have difficulty condemning people for wanting to die in a red mosque.
Furhtest from my thought that the USA should like any and all democratically elected governments. My only observation is that the USA in the past 50 odd years has intentionally subverted democratically elected governments [Iran, Chile, Haiti, Grenada, etc; & Palestine lately, etc].
My contention is that if you TALK THE DEMOCRACY, then you have to WALK THE DEMOCRACY, whether you like that particular governments' policies or not. Moreover, if you TALK DEMOCRACY then you do not support dictatorships, racial discriminatory nations etc.
So my Q to Tom was -- were the democracy he so desires for ME - would it be safe from USA subversion or not. This is pertinent, for it is doubtful that any Arab state could elect a government which would be "moderate" or "friendly vis-a-vis USA.
It is further dubious that any such democracy would follow the secualr notions of Liberals in USA; nor would such democratic government underwrite the FREEDOMS in the Bill of Rights.
"There are billions of galaxies consisting of trillions of solar systems that are likely ringed with planets - many probably like our own. I have no doubt that other intelligent species exist. It would be rather interesting to know whether they developed a kind of religious beliefs."
It must depend on the # of sons that God has fathered.
BobL-VA,
"No Muslim country has ever invaded the US..."
But, historically, Islamic armies have overrun enormous parts of the West and Western countries - part of France and Germany, Austria, Spain,all of Eastern Europe, Turkey (which was the Eastern Roman Empire until the mid 1400's). Given a chance, Islamic armies would invade us in a heartbeat and subject us to the same atricities they have visited upon every other people they have conquered. Muslims, for all of the breats beating we read here, are NOT nice people and they certainly don't have Western values. For all of that, we have no business trading with nor otherwise dealing with them. We CAN achieve energy independence and simply ignore the Middle East. Pull out of Iraq and everywhere else "over there". We have no interests there that ought to involve us other than the craven interests in Bush and Cheney's oil buddies whose only interest is making money off the blood of our youth. Get out! If they persist in attacking us, take out Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons and sew the ground with salt. And target every mosque of the involved sect with a cruise missile and wipe them off the globe. If nothing else, they would understand that. The same applies to India and it's blood soaked history. Leave them to their own devices becasue if we invite them into our home, it will be like embrasing a poison viper.
You should have kept reading my post. No where did I say the US or any other country on the face of the planet has to be perfect. I only said we've put ourselves in an arguable position that we're better then they are.
Considering the US forces went through Saddam's forces like a hot knife through butter not once, but twice, how do expect a guerrilla to be fought? The Taliban, Hamas, ElQaeda, etc. etc., are realitively small loosely organized groups with limited training and limited weapons. They can not under any circumstances stand up to the US military in a WWII style battle. They would be wiped out in the first couple of days. Of course they are going to use tactics to get the biggest bang for their buck. If that includes killing civilians they have proven over and over again they will do that.
Since we are so much bigger and more powerful we don't kill civilians except by mistake, error or a few bad apples who decide to take their personal concept of justice out on civilians. To us our motives are basically pure. To the Arabs are motives are anything but pure. Here's a question for you Dave. How many Arab's have we killed and/or been responsible for killing in the last 40 years? How many Americans have been killed by Arabs in the last 40 years? I know you won't like this question because it is such a lopsided number. I also know you'll say they probably deserved it.
I'll leave you with this. The killing of a human being is a terrible thing. It should only be undertaken when there is no other choice and imminent personal safety issues are present. This never existed with Iraq in relationship to the US. That ME groups, some of which are State supported and some only supported by their citizens, engages in violence to rid their land of the evil foreign intruders (that's how they see us) shouldn't surprise anyone. They consider our occupation an imminent personal safety issue. Given the civil war we started they have a point. No, you can bash the Arabs and dehumanize them all you want but it will never erase the fact we invaded them and not the other way around.
Your statement implies the query: Which came first, God or brain?
All human experience is brain based. This includes not only scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, but also spiritual intuitions and perceptions. The human brain weighs around 1,350 g and contains approximately 100 billion neurons.
There is scientific evidence that genes contribute to religious inclination. 25 years ago scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person`s socialization. But more recently studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggests genes contribute 40% of the variability in a person`s religiousness.
Nevertheless it was unclear how that contribution changes with age. Studies on children and teenagers show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs of their parents. That suggested genes play a small role in religiousness at this age.
In 2005 a study of Laura Koenig of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis could tear apart how effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Koenig`s study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.
Religion has survival value. Our earliest ancestors gained some evolutionary advantage through their shared religious feelings.
Many anthropologists and social theorists take the view that religion emerged out of a sense of uncertainty and bewilderment - explaining misfortune or illness, for example, as a consequences of an angry God, or reassuring us that we live on after death. Perhaps religiosity emerged as a useful genetic trait because it had the effect in view of the absurdity of the universe of preventing the individual from developing insanity and in view of a dangerous environment of making social groups more unified.
Under these circumstances "God" was an extremely important "invention" of human evolution.
The universe has been in existence for up to 14 billion years. The earth formed around 4.6 billion years ago. There are billions of galaxies consisting of trillions of solar systems that are likely ringed with planets - many probably like our own. I have no doubt that other intelligent species exist. It would be rather interesting to know whether they developed a kind of religious beliefs. (Unfortunately we shall never know if this is the case.)
Your statement implies the query: Which came first, God or brain?
All human experience is brain based. This includes not only scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, but also spiritual intuitions and perceptions. The human brain weighs around 1,350 g and contains approximately 100 billion neurons.
There is scientific evidence that genes contribute to religious inclination. 25 years ago scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person`s socialization. But more recently studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggests genes contribute 40% of the variability in a person`s religiousness.
Nevertheless it was unclear how that contribution changes with age. Studies on children and teenagers show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs of their parents. That suggested genes play a small role in religiousness at this age.
In 2005 a study of Laura Koenig of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis could tear apart how effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Koenig`s study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.
Religion has survival value. Our earliest ancestors gained some evolutionary advantage through their shared religious feelings.
Many anthropologists and social theorists take the view that religion emerged out of a sense of uncertainty and bewilderment - explaining misfortune or illness, for example, as a consequences of an angry God, or reassuring us that we live on after death. Perhaps religiosity emerged as a useful genetic trait because it had the effect in view of the absurdity of the universe of preventing the individual from developing insanity and in view of a dangerous environment of making social groups more unified.
Under these circumstances "God" was an extremely important "invention" of human evolution.
The universe has been in existence for up to 14 billion years. The earth formed around 4.6 billion years ago. There are billions of galaxies consisting of trillions of solar systems that are likely ringed with planets - many probably like our own. I have no doubt that other intelligent species exist. It would be rather interesting to know whether they developed a kind of religious beliefs. (Unfortunately we shall never know if this is the case.)
"Further indicate what assurences can you give that democratically elected "new Government" in any of the above states would be acceptable to USA if, as most probable, they would be anti_USA in their politics. "
I am not answering for Tom. But i would like to chime in that there is a difference between the US endorsing the idea of democratically elected governments and the US supporting all democratically elected governments. For instance, the US likes the fact that France has a democratically elected government. The US did not find the last President of France, Chirac, to be particularly acceptable as he was quite anti USA in his politics. You seem to be under some misconception that if, anywhere in the world, there is some leader that is democratically elected, the US HAS to like them or work with them. That is simply not the case. I think that the feeling is, with a democracy, that if the people have a true say in who is elected to their government, the government will be more responsive to the peoples wishes. That does not mean that the peoples wishes and US policy always line up.
BOBL-VA,
"...What would you expect from a force that is smaller, not trained as well, has no air power and a fraction of the high tech weapons we have today? Should they stand out in open fields and be mowed down like the grass we cut each weekend... That's armed conflict if you want to prevail."
When the Americans were fighting the British, they were fighting the British military. Different tactics in a military conflict are expected. The difference is that in Islamic warfare, it appears that the targets are rarely military in nature. They are directed at innocent civilians. If Hamas were to be taking the battle to the Israeli military, that would be one thing. But they are not. They are directing it towards innocent Israelis. Would military targets be harder? Of course - but doable. Hamas just chooses to focus on civilians. And in doing so, earns the terrorist moniker. It's hard for me to hear a group on one hand complain constantly about being oppressed, wronged, abused and ask for sympathy and on the other hand be as ruthless, cold blooded and terroristic as humanly possible. I know that Israel has been cruel with regards to the settlements but the Palestinian approach to the problem leaves me with little sympathy for them.
"There is also no doubt the Americans have committed atrocies and many of them have been grave in nature. This puts us in a position where we're forced to say, "they're worse then we are.""
I'm not sure at what point it was determined that the US had to be perfect in order to have any credibility with a moral argument. Could we do things better (and more importantly should we do things better)? Absolutley. There is certainly room for improvement. But perfect we won't be - nor were we ever. Does Abu Ghraib even begin to compare to a suicide bombing? I don't think so. But how much press does a suicide bombing get vs Abu Ghraib? And why is that? It's because we know and the rest of the world knows that things like Abu Ghraib are not expected from us and that things like suicide bombings are expected from Hamas. What is our reaction to Abu Ghraib? We reflect on it and work to prevent future occurances, knowing that we can do better. What is Hamas' reaction to a suicide bombing? Celebration. If it were found that Hamas was running a prison like Abu Ghraib do you think there would be any news on that at all? Probably not. Because it's expected. It seems to me that your argument is really the "my dad drinks alcohol and smokes, its ok for me to do meth and coke" argument. All acts, just like all drugs, are not the same. Nor should they be treated the same.
Yes I remember Yalta, where your President gave East Europe to Stalin.
Yes I read various articles {WP included] on the recent fight between Hamas and the Fatah Security forces, the ones which would not submit to the elected/unity government, the one which UNCLE SAM supported with $ and modern armaments [perhaps you read in Haaretz the concern of Israel for all the modern USA made weapons abandoned by the mercanary Fatah faction in Gaza].
But these two issues you have brought up have not answered my Q to you:
a description of the democracy you wish for ME [say from Gaza to Afganistan - in Asia,and from Morroco to Somalia in Africa].
Further indicate what assurences can you give that democratically elected "new Government" in any of the above states would be acceptable to USA if, as most probable, they would be anti_USA in their politics.
If you wonder why such would occur, see the amount of "goodwill" Uncle Sam has spread all over these areas at the end of a "bayonet" - by self or by proxies.
"The Islamist way of war is all about war crimes. Hiding behind civilians, including children; hiding among civilian crowds; not wearing uniforms; using civilian vehicles for attack; hiding in protected-status places like mosques, churches, hospitals and schools; using protected-status vehicles like ambulances to transport weapons and even using them for attack; using UN bases and peacekeepers as cover; taking hostages; denying Red Cross access to POWs, torturing and executing POWs; false surrenders; killing medics who come to help their wounds; and of course targeting civilians, schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, buses, shops, restaurants, weddings, funerals, journalists and aid workers - all of these are just standard Islamist warfare, as we have seen in Palestine and Iraq..."
The whole idea behind armed conflict is to prevail by just about any means possible. Need I remind you Americans were accused by the British of being cowards and murderers in the Revolutionary War because they hid behind trees and bushwhacked the British on a number of occasions? What would you expect from a force that is smaller, not trained as well, has no air power and a fraction of the high tech weapons we have today? Should they stand out in open fields and be mowed down like the grass we cut each weekend? Come on, they are going to adjust their tactics based on their man power, weapons and strength of their enemy. That's armed conflict if you want to prevail. It's not playing by our rules, which by the way aren't anywhere near as pure as they used to be. Bush and Cheney have seen to that.
I bring up this topic as it is a continuation of a point I've been trying to make for months. Villifying the other side of a conflict unfairly is contrary to developing a meaningful understanding of the issues and events. There is no doubt atrocities have been committed by the other side. There is no doubt a great number of them have been grave in nature. There is also no doubt the Americans have committed atrocies and many of them have been grave in nature. This puts us in a position where we're forced to say, "they're worse then we are." Not an enviable position to be in. We need to assume both sides of a conflict will use propaganda which has very little useful facts and start looking at the core issues that surround a conflict. It does neither side any good to believe the rhetoric.
Neuroscientists, e.g. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada, regard God as a brain disorder. There is a connection between the temporal lobes of the brain and religious feeling. Temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy has been linked to divine encounters, artistic creation and fearful visitations from other realms. (400 B.C.E. Hippocrates wrote "On the Sacred Disease" and described epilepsy.)
History is full of charismatic religious figures, e.g. Alexander the Great, Paul the Apostle, Mohammad the Prophet of Islam. Even Adolf Hitler was such a religious personality. (Without any doubt Bin Laden is one of these figures, too.) These "temporal lobe personalities" had a huge impact on the course of world history. Some of them have been epileptics.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental systems, present also in non-religious contexts, e.g. and in particular the limbic system.
Man has been burying and preparing the dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviours, customs and beliefs are related to the activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe.
The limbic system is associated with emotion and motivation. The amygdalae are known to attach emotional significance to sensory input.
Moreover the limbic system is has a direct influence on neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behaviour mechanisms, and it also has a role in functions such as fight or flight, homeostasis, self-maintenance, appetite and sexuality.
The structures of the limbic system, "the reptile brain in us", are highly interconnected with the rest of the brain, and they likely form a gateway for communication between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus. This gateway allows for cognitive processes to modify the affect of the limbic system on hypothalamic functions.
Case studies and the evolutionary foundations postulate that the above named anatomical structures evolved to make spiritual experience possible and account for the violent and sexual aspects of religious behaviour.
I presume that in martyrs the influence of the temporal lobes over the limbic system gets so intense that a normal rational behaviour is not longer possible - a short-circuit of mind occurs and kills them!
Neuroscientists, e.g. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada, regard God as a brain disorder. There is a connection between the temporal lobes of the brain and religious feeling. Temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy has been linked to divine encounters, artistic creation and fearful visitations from other realms. (400 B.C.E. Hippocrates wrote "On the Sacred Disease" and described epilepsy.)
History is full of charismatic religious figures, e.g. Alexander the Great, Paul the Apostle, Mohammad the Prophet of Islam. Even Adolf Hitler was such a religious personality. (Without any doubt Bin Laden is one of these figures, too.) These "temporal lobe personalities" had a huge impact on the course of world history. Some of them have been epileptics.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental systems, present also in non-religious contexts, e.g. and in particular the limbic system.
Man has been burying and preparing the dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviours, customs and beliefs are related to the activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe.
The limbic system is associated with emotion and motivation. The amygdalae are known to attach emotional significance to sensory input.
Moreover the limbic system is has a direct influence on neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behaviour mechanisms, and it also has a role in functions such as fight or flight, homeostasis, self-maintenance, appetite and sexuality.
The structures of the limbic system, "the reptile brain in us", are highly interconnected with the rest of the brain, and they likely form a gateway for communication between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus. This gateway allows for cognitive processes to modify the affect of the limbic system on hypothalamic functions.
Case studies and the evolutionary foundations postulate that the above named anatomical structures evolved to make spiritual experience possible and account for the violent and sexual aspects of religious behaviour.
I presume that in martyrs the influence of the temporal lobes over the limbic system gets so intense that a normal rational behaviour is not longer possible - a short-circuit of mind occurs and kills them!
By reading your long exposé, I come to the conclusion that because of the 'mystery'of creation, since he has existed, human being has tried to find an explanation. His best answer was that there must be a force or energy which influenced the earth and its contents, and therefore it had to be respected. This is how most groups of people living on earth, even without any contact, created similar spiritual beliefs, with priests, rituals and prayers. The evolution finally created the monotheistic god, with the intent of eliminating all the different gods which existed, and giving human beings some guidance - the ten commandments - to live in harmony with each other.
Unfortunatly, the result has not been so positive, and humans continue to live in violence and selfishness, and allow the masses to be brainwashed, mostly negatively.
Before monotheism, there has never been wars of religion - each group respecting the gods of the others. Education, scientiic and technology progresses, travelling allowing to find out about the other, have not permitted human beings in the 21st century to learn anything from the past.
BobL-VA,
"No Muslim country has ever invaded the US." bin Laden received support from both Sudan and Afghanistan governments during the formulation and propagation of al-Qaeda. Without this support, there would have been no 9-11. I would further argue that attacks on US embassies (under international law, diplomatic missions enjoy an extraterritorial status and thus, although remaining part of the host country's territory, they are exempt from local law and in almost all respects treated as being part of the territory of the home country.) are, in fact, attacks on the US. Is this different than Pearl Harbor? Yes. But different does not mean that it can't be fought or labeled.
A lot of your points are interesting. But i would say that the US has not necessarily singled out the ME. We have done similar things in Asia and South America just to name a few other places where we have been, as you would say, guilty of violating the countries sovreignties at one time or another. Yet, there are few other places that have worked to attack the US or where the word martyrdom enters into the conversation. We have fairly normal relations with Viet Nam. You're telling me that the ME has anything on Cuba? Yet our actions outside the ME have not produced the same type of consequences (martyrdom/terrorism). There is more to it than just a slap in the face of Muslims and their response. We have been meddling in Central and South American affairs a lot longer than we have in the ME. Surly, we should be seeing consequences of that meddling by now, no? The point is that there are other, more important factors in what is happening than our perceived sins in the ME.
Neuroscientists, e.g. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada, regard God as a brain disorder. There is a connection between the temporal lobes of the brain and religious feeling. Temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy has been linked to divine encounters, artistic creation and fearful visitations from other realms. (400 B.C.E. Hippocrates wrote "On the Sacred Disease" and described epilepsy.)
History is full of charismatic religious figures, e.g. Alexander the Great, Paul the Apostle, Mohammad the Prophet of Islam. Even Adolf Hitler was such a religious personality. (Without any doubt Bin Laden is one of these figures, too.) These "temporal lobe personalities" had a huge impact on the course of world history. Some of them have been epileptics.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental systems, present also in non-religious contexts, e.g. and in particular the limbic system.
Man has been burying and preparing the dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviours, customs and beliefs are related to the activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe.
The limbic system is associated with emotion and motivation. The amygdalae are known to attach emotional significance to sensory input.
Moreover the limbic system is has a direct influence on neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behaviour mechanisms, and it also has a role in functions such as fight or flight, homeostasis, self-maintenance, appetite and sexuality.
The structures of the limbic system, "the reptile brain in us", are highly interconnected with the rest of the brain, and they likely form a gateway for communication between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus. This gateway allows for cognitive processes to modify the affect of the limbic system on hypothalamic functions.
Case studies and the evolutionary foundations postulate that the above named anatomical structures evolved to make spiritual experience possible and account for the violent and sexual aspects of religious behaviour.
I presume that in martyrs the influence of the temporal lobes over the limbic system gets so intense that a normal rational behaviour is not longer possible - a short-circuit of mind occurs and kills them!
Neuroscientists, e.g. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada, regard God as a brain disorder. There is a connection between the temporal lobes of the brain and religious feeling. Temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy has been linked to divine encounters, artistic creation and fearful visitations from other realms. (400 B.C.E. Hippocrates wrote "On the Sacred Disease" and described epilepsy.)
History is full of charismatic religious figures, e.g. Alexander the Great, Paul the Apostle, Mohammad the Prophet of Islam. Even Adolf Hitler was such a religious personality. (Without any doubt Bin Laden is one of these figures, too.) These "temporal lobe personalities" had a huge impact on the course of world history. Some of them have been epileptics.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental systems, present also in non-religious contexts, e.g. and in particular the limbic system.
Man has been burying and preparing the dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviours, customs and beliefs are related to the activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe.
The limbic system is associated with emotion and motivation. The amygdalae are known to attach emotional significance to sensory input.
Moreover the limbic system is has a direct influence on neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behaviour mechanisms, and it also has a role in functions such as fight or flight, homeostasis, self-maintenance, appetite and sexuality.
The structures of the limbic system, "the reptile brain in us", are highly interconnected with the rest of the brain, and they likely form a gateway for communication between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus. This gateway allows for cognitive processes to modify the affect of the limbic system on hypothalamic functions.
Case studies and the evolutionary foundations postulate that the above named anatomical structures evolved to make spiritual experience possible and account for the violent and sexual aspects of religious behaviour.
I presume that in martyrs the influence of the temporal lobes over the limbic system gets so intense that a normal rational behaviour is not longer possible - a short-circuit of mind occurs and kills them!
d.h. writes: "JRLR, Wrongs comitted by other human beings do not give any justification to anyone to kill innocent people or anyone else..."
Well, d.h., that is MY point, as it is Lieutenant Morgenstein's, considering the American Iraq Vets recent confession to "The Nation".
So we all agree: least of all do wrongs committed by other human beings give any justification to anyone to kill innocent people or anyone else in wars against them based on lies and deception!
Great! We're all together on the same side of things. As I said, thanks to you, this is "encouraging", as "there is still hope, then, for human decency, under our sun, after all."
To TOM WONACOTT
"I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on."
Wrongs comitted by other human beings do not give any justification to anyone to kill innocent people or anyone else, whilst killing himself.
Our violent world today is the product of selfishness, greed and power. This can only be corrected by human beings and short of that we shall have to live through the constant deterioration of our quality of life.
You have asked an extremely broad question that spans the twentieth century. The implosion of Europe and the rise of Japan resulted in the deaths of sixty million people in World War II (an additional 10 million died in WW I). No country on earth did more to free more countries and people than the US. No one even comes close. The military industrial complex necessary to fight a war on two fronts thousands of miles from the US is an amazing story in itself.
After the war, the rise of the Soviet Union provided a new threat to Europe and the US. Eastern Europe was dominated by the USSR and western Europe remained free, but NATO was formed to counter the Soviet threat. US policies, both good and bad, were formulated to oppose Soviet expansionism (including South America). In addition, the Cuban missile crisis, which brought the US and USSR to the brink of a nuclear war, also had an impact on US policy, in my opinion. Of course, that's not an excuse for some of our bad policies, especially in South America, but it provides some background.
These same policies resulted in the democratic states of Taiwan and South Korea, and, while you may deny that US had anything to do with it, US policy did, in fact, deter Soviet aggression and imperialism and may have prevented a third world war. Remember that when the Soviet Union collapsed, it resulted in 15 countries gaining their independence.
“…History teaches us that the USA [sometimes with help]
a.,has negated democracy in Algeria, Iran, Palestine [and South America]…”
I assume you are talking about the elections in Iran in the early 50’s. Admittedly, that was a huge mistake. No excuse (This was a UK idea). Please fill me in on Algeria as I thought that was a French colony. Withholding funding to a terrorist run government is the prerogative of the US, Canada and other countries involved. The new Islamic state in Gaza:
From the Washington Times:
“…What does a jihadist "democracy" look like? In Gaza City, a correspondent for this newspaper watched Thursday as Hamas gunmen pulled a Fatah commander out of a building and shot him in the street before bystanders spat on the body. Witnesses described Fatah security operatives being dragged out of what had been a redoubt of Abbas loyalists: the Palestinian Preventive Security Service headquarters. The Fatah men were led out in their underwear or shirtless, and executed as their wives and children watched. Elsewhere, Hamas death squads roamed through Gaza City neighborhoods looking for Fatah rivals, and they were seen parading through a refugee camp carrying the corpse of a senior Fatah operative they had just killed…
…Palestinians were shot in hospital wards, thrown off of rooftops or executed at point-blank range. Among the dead were three women and a 14-year-old boy who were killed when Hamas gunmen stormed the home of a Fatah security officer.
Then there was the sad case of a Fatah commander named Jamal Abu Jediyan, and his brother, who talked on the phone with a Palestinian radio station as Hamas laid siege to their house. "They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We're not Jews," the brother pleaded. A few minutes later, the Jediyan brothers were dragged out of the house and fatally shot…”
As I recall, Salamon, you support a single state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Maybe you can suggest a government in the Middle East that would serve as a model to such a state, outside of Israel, of course, since you want to destroy it.
“…has supported with aid, military equipment, and spin nations which are clearly undemocratic such as Israel, IRAQ, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, etc; and,…”
Just because you disagree with the existence of Israel, that doesn’t make it less of a democracy, and we should continue to support Israel, both militarily and financially. Egypt receives US aid because of the Camp David agreement. Many other Arab countries receive aid because of their oil, or their “moderate” stand toward Israel (the primary reason that you refer to them as spin nations), or maybe to counter Iran. I am certain that there are many disillusioned Arabs that wish the US would push a more democratic agenda on members of the Arab League. A significant portion of those Arabs probably would love to get elected on a fundamentalist Islamic platform, and then, eliminate elections (at least of non Islamic candidates, i.e. Iran).
Why we support the Saudis, God (or Allah) only knows. The Saudis are the largest exporter of the fundamentalist Sunni Wahhabi form of Islam, and they are certainly one of the most oppressive societies on earth. Most of the hijackers on 911, and half of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. Oh the love of oil….
Or, why do people send their children to kill and die in the name of some god? The answer is several thousand years old. Let's take a look at the Bible, Genesis 22.
1 Some years later God decided to test Abraham, so he spoke to him. Abraham answered, "Here I am, LORD."
2 The LORD said, "Go get Isaac, your only son, the one you dearly love! Take him to the land of Moriah, and I will show you a mountain where you must sacrifice him to me on the fires of an altar."
3 So Abraham got up early the next morning and chopped wood for the fire. He put a saddle on his donkey and left with Isaac and two servants for the place where God had told him to go.
4 Three days later Abraham looked off in the distance and saw the place.
5 He told his servants, "Stay here with the donkey, while my son and I go over there to worship. We will come back."
6 Abraham put the wood on Isaac's shoulder, but he carried the hot coals and the knife. As the two of them walked along,
7-8 Isaac said, "Father, we have the coals and the wood, but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?"
"My son," Abraham answered, "God will provide the lamb." The two of them walked on, and
9 when they reached the place that God had told him about, Abraham built an altar and placed the wood on it. Next, he tied up his son and put him on the wood.
10 He then took the knife and got ready to kill his son.
11 But the LORD's angel shouted from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am!" he answered.
12 "Don't hurt the boy or harm him in any way!" the angel said. "Now I know that you truly obey God, because you were willing to offer him your only son."
The answer comes from biblical times. Let's take a look at the Bible, Genesis 22.
1 Some years later God decided to test Abraham, so he spoke to him. Abraham answered, "Here I am, LORD."
2 The LORD said, "Go get Isaac, your only son, the one you dearly love! Take him to the land of Moriah, and I will show you a mountain where you must sacrifice him to me on the fires of an altar."
3 So Abraham got up early the next morning and chopped wood for the fire. He put a saddle on his donkey and left with Isaac and two servants for the place where God had told him to go.
4 Three days later Abraham looked off in the distance and saw the place.
5 He told his servants, "Stay here with the donkey, while my son and I go over there to worship. We will come back."
6 Abraham put the wood on Isaac's shoulder, but he carried the hot coals and the knife. As the two of them walked along,
7-8 Isaac said, "Father, we have the coals and the wood, but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" "My son," Abraham answered, "God will provide the lamb." The two of them walked on, and
9 when they reached the place that God had told him about, Abraham built an altar and placed the wood on it. Next, he tied up his son and put him on the wood.
10 He then took the knife and got ready to kill his son.
11 But the LORD's angel shouted from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am!" he answered.
12 "Don't hurt the boy or harm him in any way!" the angel said. "Now I know that you truly obey God, because you were willing to offer him your only son."
"...It is encouraging that at least one blogger, here, admit there is no excuse to doing what American Iraq Vets have just confessed doing in Iraq, i.e target and kill innumerable innocent civilians, acts they describe as "common", stating they “often go unreported--and almost always go unpunished”..."
I often feel for young soldiers who must make a split second decision of life and death especially when there is nothing to identify a potential terrorist. I found this quote at some time in the past that sums up Islamist warfare:
"...The Islamist way of war is all about war crimes. Hiding behind civilians, including children; hiding among civilian crowds; not wearing uniforms; using civilian vehicles for attack; hiding in protected-status places like mosques, churches, hospitals and schools; using protected-status vehicles like ambulances to transport weapons and even using them for attack; using UN bases and peacekeepers as cover; taking hostages; denying Red Cross access to POWs, torturing and executing POWs; false surrenders; killing medics who come to help their wounds; and of course targeting civilians, schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, buses, shops, restaurants, weddings, funerals, journalists and aid workers - all of these are just standard Islamist warfare, as we have seen in Palestine and Iraq..."
In addition, at the Red Mosque, radical Islamist hid behind children. Also, let me add to the list a recent incident at the Israeli border where Islamic Jihad terrorist approached the Israeli border...
"...fence in an armored jeep marked with “TV” and “PRESS” insignia, “thought they were foreign reporters, so did not shoot at them.”..."
Nothing you post surprises me. You are no ordinary left winger, you are a humdinger of a left winger.
Your last paragraph in your last note is beutifully put. Unfortunately, the Neo-cons and their supporters in AIPAC will never admit to the validity. Their aim is unattainable world domination -- where all the sacrifices are to be made by others, at whatever cost, as long as the NEOCON/ZIONIST dream can be followed.
I truly regret that an intelligent and well meaning person, such as you, came to the realization that partaking of the present government actions, is futile, and even hearing of them is depressing.
TOM:
I would like to know what is your idea of democracy -- especially as what you wish for the ME.
History teaches us that the USA [sometimes with help]
a.,has negated democracy in Algeria, Iran, Palestine [and South America]
b., denied or fought against democratic elections [or representation of major sub groups in nations] as in Lebanon; and,
has supported with aid, military equipment, and spin nations which are clearly undemocratic such as Israel, IRAQ, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, etc; and,
financed meassures with the clear objective of destabilization of governments, democratic or otherwise, such as unity government in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, most other periphery ex SSR-s, and all over Cetral/South america; and
It is debatable if the present USA government at the federal level could be called a democratic government [to a certain extent this also applies to UK and Canada, possibly also to Australia].
Well, sir, you made a lot of assertions about who I am, and what I believe. Unfortunately for you, most of them were wrong.
First of all, I am not liberal in any sense of the word today. I'm far more conservative. I'm sure we could find plenty to agree on. I do not think terrorism is necessarily a result of poverty, although poverty does tend to increase violence and civil instability (impoverished sections of large cities prove this). As far as Islamic terrorism, I see it as primarily a response to western (usually military) influence in the ME. It's not that hard to imagine. When we put sanctions on a country, killing 500,000 children, you can bet we've made some people pretty darn angry.
As far as treating butcherer's like any other prisoner, I never said any such thing. I do not buy the leftist line that punishment should focus on rehabilitation, and that if we just reform the criminal, everything will be all right. It's been a failed policy for the last 100 years. Which is why I opp
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (120)
ptqbi invtx gxwdtrkm jrbyo zkfl gkdabn krcuyt [URL]http://www.jrxg.coyr.com[/URL] ywgaiskcd cjpsrh
January 17, 2008 5:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
ptqbi invtx gxwdtrkm jrbyo zkfl gkdabn krcuyt [URL]http://www.jrxg.coyr.com[/URL] ywgaiskcd cjpsrh
January 17, 2008 5:17 AM | Report Offensive Comments
ptqbi invtx gxwdtrkm jrbyo zkfl gkdabn krcuyt [URL]http://www.jrxg.coyr.com[/URL] ywgaiskcd cjpsrh
January 17, 2008 5:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
gitwax ecnhmfyvr mhcl moruwav pfbojw oimsdrvkn tgmucdz aujlezr jkmyx
January 17, 2008 5:14 AM | Report Offensive Comments
gitwax ecnhmfyvr mhcl moruwav pfbojw oimsdrvkn tgmucdz aujlezr jkmyx
January 17, 2008 5:13 AM | Report Offensive Comments
gitwax ecnhmfyvr mhcl moruwav pfbojw oimsdrvkn tgmucdz aujlezr jkmyx
January 17, 2008 5:12 AM | Report Offensive Comments
wzivyudr mwfoh htknqp geuzy xiwnkjum snjqutl bxyn http://www.vwmd.odzvr.com
January 17, 2008 5:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
wzivyudr mwfoh htknqp geuzy xiwnkjum snjqutl bxyn http://www.vwmd.odzvr.com
January 17, 2008 5:11 AM | Report Offensive Comments
wzivyudr mwfoh htknqp geuzy xiwnkjum snjqutl bxyn http://www.vwmd.odzvr.com
January 17, 2008 5:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
wzivyudr mwfoh htknqp geuzy xiwnkjum snjqutl bxyn http://www.vwmd.odzvr.com
January 17, 2008 5:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
orlktm pnej yzscfa jmufidszr fhxrwpvb fjyomkxzs fjstouc
January 17, 2008 5:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Martyrdom is a 'thing', like status or shoes. I watched an ad on TV that said,"after all, your job is your life". It was an ad for a business system or solution or software or something. A very well known and respected company. We in the U.S. are bombarded with this type of nonsense constantly. It's all insane. One being no different than the other. Religion, business, shoes, concepts, opinions.....all things. All meaningless until meaning is assigned by the individual.
July 21, 2007 6:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
WHY MARTYRS ?
or
WAR ON TERROR, ROBOMARTYRS, and MUHAMMAD
Actions against Terrorist suicide-bombers are helpless, because totally IGNORANT, in a stupefying way, of the Islamic Roots :
There is only ONE way to fight suicide-Bombers whose weapons are the KORAN.
This only way is the KORAN itself :
I shall give one little example (among others) :
Suicide Bombers blow themselves because they (men) think that, within the next minute following their death, they will be in Paradise enjoying the most beautiful, innocent, sensual, adolescent virgins.
But Muhammad (following Pharisee-Christian Tradition) states definitely, many times, in KORAN that the Resurrection of the dead bodies will occur ONLY at the End of Times (maybe billions of years) for THE Final Judgement.
Then ONLY, God (Allah) ALONE, will REALLY judge who is condemned to jump into Hell and who is allowed to live in Paradise.
And then, ONLY, those unfortunate abused Robomartyrs, who blow mostly innocent victims, might well be condemned, at their Resurrection and at their Final Judgement, to jump into the Fire of Hell to burn in an everlasting torture.
See full KORANIC development of this first example at Natan’s Blog : NATAN PAPER
http://jerusalem-4thtemple-natan.blogspot.com
July 21, 2007 8:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
to richard
death is not easy as the only brave can accept it.the people also commit suicide.take the number of suicide cases and bomber you will find suiide is greater than bomber.other hand tell me where is justice to kill the people by bombing their home and kiling entire family?.
July 20, 2007 9:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
What is the attraction to martyrdom?
I think all religions emphasize the need to be willing to die. Doesn't make it neccessary.
I think all is really needed is a firm commitment to what you believe, and a willingness to go hell if one exists. But I don't think it does. It really is just this world.
July 18, 2007 9:54 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom,
To your question. No, not really. 15 dead civilians is 15 dead civilians. While I would certainly concede the motive is better targeting 3 radicals I would seriously question whether the means justified the ends. Violence begets violence. We kill them and they kill us. They kill us and we kill them. So far, we've just killed a lot more of them then they've killed of us.
I've stated on a number of occasions I believe there are times where killing is necessary. (Sorry Quakers, but I'm not one of you) However, what this argument is about is when it's acceptable to use deadly force. In other words what set of circumstances have to exist to justify the killing of people. I just have a higher standard of what it takes to kill then you or Dave. (No Dave, I'm not an Arab. Although there's nothing wrong with being an Arab)
In no way, shape or form am I pro targeting civilians to further one's political/religous agenda. I firmly believe targeting civilians is a crime against humanity. However, that being said we love to tout what a great and noble thing we did during WWII as a proof of what a good and noble country we are and on numerous occasions targeted civilians in mass numbers. Such incidents would include the fire bombing of Toyko and the two atomic bombs in Japan and the fire bombing of German cities. Specifically, we wanted to break the will of the people and targeted civilians. I don't know the exact number of civilians we targeted and killed in WWII, but I know it's in the hundreds of thousands.
In the case of WWII we won. We also jusfified our actions as the end (winning) justified the means (targeting civilians). Since we won we got to write most of the history. Had we lost even General LeMay of the Army Aircorps in the Pacific stated on more then one occasion said he would be brought up on war crime charges for his actions if we lost. Our argument for the targeting of civilians was it would bring the war to a conclusion quicker and save American lives. It probably did, but it also put us in a position where our moral basis was forever lowered over this issue in modern times.
However, now we're screaming the fundamentalist splinter groups in the ME are targeting civilians, as well as foreign military, targets to further their cause. Their primary cause is to rid their land of occupying forces and to rid their land of Israel. Do you see the hypocracy? It's OK for us to target and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians because our cause was right, but since we don't agree with their cause the targeting of civilians makes them terrorists?
Until the West comes to understand we're interferring in the ME sovreign rights and they are fighting back we'll be engaged in this ridiculous nebulous war on terror in the ME. Invading Iraq was the stupidiest thing the US could have done in the ME. Iraq had committed no act of war against the US. Nothing can change that basic fact. We invaded anyway and justified our invasion on what if's and could be's. That simply isn't a high enough standard for me to believe the killing of people is justified. Afghanistan is a different story. They were guilty of committing an act of war against the United States and deserved to be subject to our militaries wrath.
Dave,
Read the top part of this post. The Germans had plans to bomb the United States (cities) and were just unable to pull it off. Also, the Germans targeted the Merchant Marine fleet off the East Coast of the US (non-military vessels) as well as in the North Atlantic. The Germans bombed and rocketed the civilian population of London as well as other English Cities. No, Germany was more then willing to engage in targeting of civilians. The same case can be made for the Japanese. Civilian populations in Asia were conquered rather harshly by the Japanese. Remember Roosevelt was so worried about "terrorist" acts in the US he interned all Japanese Americans during WWII. The targeting of civilians is absolutely nothing new in world history. It's happened since the beginning of recorded history. The US has just been geographically blessed for the most part.
Mike,
What can I say? Islamic Armies would invade us in a heartbeat? Get real. The forces surrounding Israel, a tiny country of 6 million people, couldn't even do the job there. The forces you're talking about don't have the means to invade the US and there is no indication a world Ottoman Empire is in the works. Quite the contrary.
As far as getting out of Iraq we agree. Maybe not for the same reasons, but that doesn't matter.
July 18, 2007 9:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Zoltan
The discussion, (with BobL) that I referenced, revolved around the definition of the word "terrorism" or a "terrorist act". I stated that the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was a "terrorist act" simply because it targeted civilians (even though it was committed to end a war in which 60 million people were killed and, it's estimated another one million would have died in an invasion of Japan-mostly Japanese).
Anytime any country or organization "targets a civilian population for political gain" that constitutes an act of terrorism, and that includes all western democracies. Most have participated in such acts like, for example, the French in Algeria. If you include the selling of weapons as a terrorist act, then you might as well throw the Geneva Convention out and build a jail cell whose borders would be the earth. In addition, if selling of weapons was outlawed, most unemployment rates would instantly double including the French.
I realize that atrocities and war go hand in hand, but the Geneva Convention was written to protect civilians against atrocities being committed during times of war. What separates terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda and Hamas is that they target civilians as a POLICY.
As far the statements that I made,
"You will never convince me that it's somehow justified to commit atrocities on civilian populations as a tactic to win a war"
"No country on earth did more to free more countries and people than the US.",
they are not necessarily mutually exclusive as you have pointed out. The war ended BECAUSE of the use of nuclear weapons, and in my mind, under the circumstances, it was justified. Good point.
Terrorism is a very difficult term to define because what constitutes a terrorist act is, in part, subjective. The statement "One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" has been stated about a million times on this site alone.
July 18, 2007 9:05 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Albert Wittine Jr. MD
Appreciate your answer. As regards what was first, I would say the earth was first and humans with their brains second. God comes third, as it was an invention of the human brains.
Regarding the genes which would have some responsibility for 'religion' - I would rather say that the introduction of spirituality by the firs humans has created through the millenaries its acceptance by their descendants. Every group of humans has considered its duty to transmit to its children its beliefs and thus created an atavism which we still experience today. Religion has been considered as a source of power and manipulation by those who control it, that is why we have so many religions or chisms of these. Clever people realize that if they pretend to have a new approach to transcendence, there will always be adepts to follow and thus give the clever people the power they expect to obtain by their new religion or interpretation of one.
Finally, I agree that there are miriads of galaxies and that other humans may live in some planet, but there is no proof of it except the fact that there is no reason why if WE exist there would not be other living species elsewhere. This theory destroys automatically the creation thesis, and I would rather agree that evolution - still ignoring how it started - is the correct approach.
July 18, 2007 7:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom Wonacott, you should re-read your own posts before making new ones. Try these 2:
"You will never convince me that it's somehow justified to commit atrocities on civilian populations as a tactic to win a war"
"No country on earth did more to free more countries and people than the US."
Considering Napalm, Hiroshima, bombing of Germany, supply of weapons to Israel and other military actions by the USA on helpless civilians, to (try to) win several wars, your arguments seem self-contradictory: on one side you see the greatest country on Earth for the last century, but it happens that this country has done more "unjustifiable" - according to you - actions than any other in that century.
Tom, I don't believe you're american. You must be a frenchman trying to make americans look dumb. Most of your comments correspond to the cheap clichés that people "over here" carry about the USA. It's hard to believe that a cultivated person like you have proven to be can try, over and over again, to sell the Official Propaganda.
July 18, 2007 4:40 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Attraction to Martyrdom? lack of programming. No cable. no beer. nuttin'.
July 17, 2007 10:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I, along with most Pakistanis, don't believe that suicide bombing or what happened at the Red Mosque is part and parcel of martyrdom. Islam is very clear that you must die fighting for Islam, but there are many caveats to what can be considered fighting for Islam. Taking on government forces in a Muslim country is not a case for martyrdom, as the Quran is very clear that "no harm shall befall a Muslim from another Muslim, otherwise they shall face Allah's harashest punishment."
The problem in Pakistan is that most people don't have basic education, whereas Quranic education is imparted by mullahs, immans and other "religious scholars" that interpret the Quran to mean whatever the time may deem for them. Add to that, Pakistan also has some of the harshest blasphemy laws, which are un-Islamic in the Quran, and that people are not encouraged to discuss and debate what it means under fear of those same blasphemy laws. The punishment for blasphemy in Pakistan is death and it only takes 1 witness to convict.
The discussion of martyrdom is not complete without reminding people that the Prophet Muhammad tolerated all forms of abuse and cursing while He was alive. If we are to follow the life of the Prophet, it is clear that He was not the one that lifted his hand in anger or revenge to anyone; rather He taught that we should live a life that others want to emulate and they will come to Islam. Force does not make a good Muslim.
I have done a lot of writing on my blog about the mullahs and their weird belief systems. You can read it at "Behind the Chairman's Door" and you can see some of the difficult debates that I have had with these same extremists that have posted comments there. There is no way to convince them that what they believe is incorrect. I have tried both on my blog and in person, being that I live in Pakistan, as the indoctrination since childhood has firmly planted the route to heaven is martyrdom and anything related to Islam counts.
Best,
Khalid Muhammad
July 17, 2007 10:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL
I think we discussed this issue 37 out of the possible 48 hours that comprise a weekend about a month ago. I gave up and decided you were probably a closet right winger....
You will never convince me that it's somehow justified to commit atrocities on civilian populations as a tactic to win a war, i.e. the intentional targeting of civilians for political gain. I really could care less if one side is at a disadvantage or not, its illegal under the Geneva Convention, and morally wrong. It doesn't matter whether it's the US, Canada or Hamas that commits the atrocity.
Let me throw out something. Do you believe that there is a moral equivalence between targeting and killing 15 civilians at a market and a retaliation that targets three members of a terrorist organization that also kills 15 civilians?
Comments anyone?
July 17, 2007 10:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BOBL-VA,
In the last 100 years, among the people that we've "invaded", other than in the ME, are the Japanese, Germans, Panamanians, Vietnamese, Grenadans, Cambodians, Koreans, Cubans, Italians, the Dominican Republicans, Haitians, Phillipinos, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Mexicans, Laotians, and Kuwaitis. Aside from Poncho Villa, the response has not been to target random innocent civilians. Terrorism is not the logical next step or the only alternative (unless, it seems, you are Muslim). It is a choice to take that approach. The size of an Army does not always matter. The Americans beat the British and the Russians lost in Afghanistan. India freed itself from British rule. Our good friends, the Japanese, lost and got nuked but seem to have recovered.
"No, you can bash the Arabs and dehumanize them all you want but it will never erase the fact we invaded them and not the other way around." I don't think that everyone in the ME that has died due to the US has "deserved it" and I don't know the numbers but i am sure less Americans have died. I would argue that we would not have been in Afghanistan or Iraq were it not for 9-11 (yes i know that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 but the push to go there, IMO, was Bush's attempt to remake the ME after 9-11 and Iraq was the convenient target). I don't recall there being a huge amount of resistance to the US helping out Kuwait in the first Gulf war. Those are the three big casualty/invasion events, two of which were UN approved so to speak. Not that any of that makes up for the killing of innocent people during our involvement in the area. The point is that we didn't just wake up one day and say to ourselves "Let's go invade a ME country because we can"!
"The killing of a human being is a terrible thing. It should only be undertaken when there is no other choice and imminent personal safety issues are present." It seems that you are saying that aside from a personal self defense situation (kill or be killed), there should be no killing. I say this because except in that case, there is always a different choice. They may consider our occupation an imminent personal safety issue, but they have many other choices on how to deal with it. They are choosing martyrdom/terrorism.
July 17, 2007 9:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
I think you touched on a very interesting question. What kind of democracy do I wish for the Middle East?
The kind I wish for and what is realistic are two different questions. Turkey has a predominantly Muslim population and is a secular democracy. Unfortunately, in Turkey, the military is always standing by to take over if they disagree with the results of the elections, e.g. an Islamist is elected, so the reality is that the democracy exist at the discretion of the military.
I am not sure if minority rights are respected in Turkey, however. This is a problem all over the Middle East and into Pakistan, Turkey etc.
Turkey is one model.
Pakistan, in between military juntas, also is a model that might be used for Middle Eastern countries. They elected a woman (Bhutto) as Prime Minister , and she is waiting in the wings if Musharrif decides to step aside. This, despite Shariah law. Oddly enough, I admire Musharrif. He is under so much pressure, his head should be shaped like a pancake. Pakistan, however, is a mess today.
Pakistan is another possible model or, at least it was at one time.
Algeria is another possibility, although I don't know much about them or other governments in North Africa. It appears to be a secular democracy?
That's one state with Shariah law and two without.
Countries directly in the Middle East seem to be somewhat hopeless because the forces opposing them are very strong.
I also posed a question to you. You subscribe to a single state model for the Palestinians and the Israelis. What model do you see for that state?
July 17, 2007 9:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I don't know why someone could or would grab a bunch of kids to shield themselves then commit matrydom as you call it.
I will say Islam is still living a culture that should have died off 1000 years ago.
These people have given nothing to modern man.
Anyone that thinks commiting suicide while killing innocent people because their belief system is different and thinks doing this will get them 80,000 wives and 72 virgins in some kind of sexy afterlife nirvana is beyond anyones help.
July 17, 2007 8:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
What is the attraction to martyrdom? I wish to address this apart from any discussion of Islam. Just a few notes as I really have no time at the moment. I regret not tackling the problem earlier...
All I wish to say is that man dies. Often that he feels is worth dying for inspires him to die young. People have beliefs, ideologies--often artists take incredible chances as well and put themselves into a position of abject poverty to just be able to have time to create. Martyrdom is noble. It means one believes in something for which one is willing to give up one's life.
The problem is what exactly is inspiring one to give up one's life--not the concept of martyrdom itself. If anyone thinks the concept of martyrdom itself is bad, just reflect on what it would be like to live in a society which cannot provide healthcare for all because people want to take it easy, indulge every weakness, and expect medicine to not only prolong their lives and make up for weakness but to somehow give immortality...
I suppose a society could indulge every weakness and give immortality (or at least prolong life) if all the people were of superior intellect--in other words had at least something to make up for their weaknesses, but if no one wants to study and just eat bad food and grow fat and sit around watching television? No wonder the health system would collapse...
Call that the opposite of martyrdom, the complete loss of meaning, which is to say certainly nothing to die for...except perhaps all the food one stuffs in one's mouth...
The question is one of dying somehow so the human race benefits and not a particular group, whether religious, ethnic, nationalistic, etc.
Just have meaning in one's life and be willing to take chances, be willing to die to bring forth something worthwhile...
That is the nobility of martyrdom, and until Western nations really think through this concept and update it for the modern age, I have difficulty condemning people for wanting to die in a red mosque.
July 17, 2007 8:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
DAVE:
Furhtest from my thought that the USA should like any and all democratically elected governments. My only observation is that the USA in the past 50 odd years has intentionally subverted democratically elected governments [Iran, Chile, Haiti, Grenada, etc; & Palestine lately, etc].
My contention is that if you TALK THE DEMOCRACY, then you have to WALK THE DEMOCRACY, whether you like that particular governments' policies or not. Moreover, if you TALK DEMOCRACY then you do not support dictatorships, racial discriminatory nations etc.
So my Q to Tom was -- were the democracy he so desires for ME - would it be safe from USA subversion or not. This is pertinent, for it is doubtful that any Arab state could elect a government which would be "moderate" or "friendly vis-a-vis USA.
It is further dubious that any such democracy would follow the secualr notions of Liberals in USA; nor would such democratic government underwrite the FREEDOMS in the Bill of Rights.
July 17, 2007 8:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Albert Wittine, Jr. MD writes
"There are billions of galaxies consisting of trillions of solar systems that are likely ringed with planets - many probably like our own. I have no doubt that other intelligent species exist. It would be rather interesting to know whether they developed a kind of religious beliefs."
It must depend on the # of sons that God has fathered.
July 17, 2007 7:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL-VA,
"No Muslim country has ever invaded the US..."
But, historically, Islamic armies have overrun enormous parts of the West and Western countries - part of France and Germany, Austria, Spain,all of Eastern Europe, Turkey (which was the Eastern Roman Empire until the mid 1400's). Given a chance, Islamic armies would invade us in a heartbeat and subject us to the same atricities they have visited upon every other people they have conquered. Muslims, for all of the breats beating we read here, are NOT nice people and they certainly don't have Western values. For all of that, we have no business trading with nor otherwise dealing with them. We CAN achieve energy independence and simply ignore the Middle East. Pull out of Iraq and everywhere else "over there". We have no interests there that ought to involve us other than the craven interests in Bush and Cheney's oil buddies whose only interest is making money off the blood of our youth. Get out! If they persist in attacking us, take out Mecca and Medina with nuclear weapons and sew the ground with salt. And target every mosque of the involved sect with a cruise missile and wipe them off the globe. If nothing else, they would understand that. The same applies to India and it's blood soaked history. Leave them to their own devices becasue if we invite them into our home, it will be like embrasing a poison viper.
July 17, 2007 6:58 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Dave,
You should have kept reading my post. No where did I say the US or any other country on the face of the planet has to be perfect. I only said we've put ourselves in an arguable position that we're better then they are.
Considering the US forces went through Saddam's forces like a hot knife through butter not once, but twice, how do expect a guerrilla to be fought? The Taliban, Hamas, ElQaeda, etc. etc., are realitively small loosely organized groups with limited training and limited weapons. They can not under any circumstances stand up to the US military in a WWII style battle. They would be wiped out in the first couple of days. Of course they are going to use tactics to get the biggest bang for their buck. If that includes killing civilians they have proven over and over again they will do that.
Since we are so much bigger and more powerful we don't kill civilians except by mistake, error or a few bad apples who decide to take their personal concept of justice out on civilians. To us our motives are basically pure. To the Arabs are motives are anything but pure. Here's a question for you Dave. How many Arab's have we killed and/or been responsible for killing in the last 40 years? How many Americans have been killed by Arabs in the last 40 years? I know you won't like this question because it is such a lopsided number. I also know you'll say they probably deserved it.
I'll leave you with this. The killing of a human being is a terrible thing. It should only be undertaken when there is no other choice and imminent personal safety issues are present. This never existed with Iraq in relationship to the US. That ME groups, some of which are State supported and some only supported by their citizens, engages in violence to rid their land of the evil foreign intruders (that's how they see us) shouldn't surprise anyone. They consider our occupation an imminent personal safety issue. Given the civil war we started they have a point. No, you can bash the Arabs and dehumanize them all you want but it will never erase the fact we invaded them and not the other way around.
July 17, 2007 5:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
@ D. Hodara
Your statement implies the query: Which came first, God or brain?
All human experience is brain based. This includes not only scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, but also spiritual intuitions and perceptions. The human brain weighs around 1,350 g and contains approximately 100 billion neurons.
There is scientific evidence that genes contribute to religious inclination. 25 years ago scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person`s socialization. But more recently studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggests genes contribute 40% of the variability in a person`s religiousness.
Nevertheless it was unclear how that contribution changes with age. Studies on children and teenagers show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs of their parents. That suggested genes play a small role in religiousness at this age.
In 2005 a study of Laura Koenig of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis could tear apart how effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Koenig`s study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.
Religion has survival value. Our earliest ancestors gained some evolutionary advantage through their shared religious feelings.
Many anthropologists and social theorists take the view that religion emerged out of a sense of uncertainty and bewilderment - explaining misfortune or illness, for example, as a consequences of an angry God, or reassuring us that we live on after death. Perhaps religiosity emerged as a useful genetic trait because it had the effect in view of the absurdity of the universe of preventing the individual from developing insanity and in view of a dangerous environment of making social groups more unified.
Under these circumstances "God" was an extremely important "invention" of human evolution.
The universe has been in existence for up to 14 billion years. The earth formed around 4.6 billion years ago. There are billions of galaxies consisting of trillions of solar systems that are likely ringed with planets - many probably like our own. I have no doubt that other intelligent species exist. It would be rather interesting to know whether they developed a kind of religious beliefs. (Unfortunately we shall never know if this is the case.)
July 17, 2007 4:31 PM | Report Offensive Comments
@ D. Hodara
Your statement implies the query: Which came first, God or brain?
All human experience is brain based. This includes not only scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, but also spiritual intuitions and perceptions. The human brain weighs around 1,350 g and contains approximately 100 billion neurons.
There is scientific evidence that genes contribute to religious inclination. 25 years ago scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person`s socialization. But more recently studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggests genes contribute 40% of the variability in a person`s religiousness.
Nevertheless it was unclear how that contribution changes with age. Studies on children and teenagers show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs of their parents. That suggested genes play a small role in religiousness at this age.
In 2005 a study of Laura Koenig of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis could tear apart how effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Koenig`s study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.
Religion has survival value. Our earliest ancestors gained some evolutionary advantage through their shared religious feelings.
Many anthropologists and social theorists take the view that religion emerged out of a sense of uncertainty and bewilderment - explaining misfortune or illness, for example, as a consequences of an angry God, or reassuring us that we live on after death. Perhaps religiosity emerged as a useful genetic trait because it had the effect in view of the absurdity of the universe of preventing the individual from developing insanity and in view of a dangerous environment of making social groups more unified.
Under these circumstances "God" was an extremely important "invention" of human evolution.
The universe has been in existence for up to 14 billion years. The earth formed around 4.6 billion years ago. There are billions of galaxies consisting of trillions of solar systems that are likely ringed with planets - many probably like our own. I have no doubt that other intelligent species exist. It would be rather interesting to know whether they developed a kind of religious beliefs. (Unfortunately we shall never know if this is the case.)
July 17, 2007 4:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon,
"Further indicate what assurences can you give that democratically elected "new Government" in any of the above states would be acceptable to USA if, as most probable, they would be anti_USA in their politics. "
I am not answering for Tom. But i would like to chime in that there is a difference between the US endorsing the idea of democratically elected governments and the US supporting all democratically elected governments. For instance, the US likes the fact that France has a democratically elected government. The US did not find the last President of France, Chirac, to be particularly acceptable as he was quite anti USA in his politics. You seem to be under some misconception that if, anywhere in the world, there is some leader that is democratically elected, the US HAS to like them or work with them. That is simply not the case. I think that the feeling is, with a democracy, that if the people have a true say in who is elected to their government, the government will be more responsive to the peoples wishes. That does not mean that the peoples wishes and US policy always line up.
July 17, 2007 3:29 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BOBL-VA,
"...What would you expect from a force that is smaller, not trained as well, has no air power and a fraction of the high tech weapons we have today? Should they stand out in open fields and be mowed down like the grass we cut each weekend... That's armed conflict if you want to prevail."
When the Americans were fighting the British, they were fighting the British military. Different tactics in a military conflict are expected. The difference is that in Islamic warfare, it appears that the targets are rarely military in nature. They are directed at innocent civilians. If Hamas were to be taking the battle to the Israeli military, that would be one thing. But they are not. They are directing it towards innocent Israelis. Would military targets be harder? Of course - but doable. Hamas just chooses to focus on civilians. And in doing so, earns the terrorist moniker. It's hard for me to hear a group on one hand complain constantly about being oppressed, wronged, abused and ask for sympathy and on the other hand be as ruthless, cold blooded and terroristic as humanly possible. I know that Israel has been cruel with regards to the settlements but the Palestinian approach to the problem leaves me with little sympathy for them.
"There is also no doubt the Americans have committed atrocies and many of them have been grave in nature. This puts us in a position where we're forced to say, "they're worse then we are.""
I'm not sure at what point it was determined that the US had to be perfect in order to have any credibility with a moral argument. Could we do things better (and more importantly should we do things better)? Absolutley. There is certainly room for improvement. But perfect we won't be - nor were we ever. Does Abu Ghraib even begin to compare to a suicide bombing? I don't think so. But how much press does a suicide bombing get vs Abu Ghraib? And why is that? It's because we know and the rest of the world knows that things like Abu Ghraib are not expected from us and that things like suicide bombings are expected from Hamas. What is our reaction to Abu Ghraib? We reflect on it and work to prevent future occurances, knowing that we can do better. What is Hamas' reaction to a suicide bombing? Celebration. If it were found that Hamas was running a prison like Abu Ghraib do you think there would be any news on that at all? Probably not. Because it's expected. It seems to me that your argument is really the "my dad drinks alcohol and smokes, its ok for me to do meth and coke" argument. All acts, just like all drugs, are not the same. Nor should they be treated the same.
July 17, 2007 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
TOM:
Yes I remember Yalta, where your President gave East Europe to Stalin.
Yes I read various articles {WP included] on the recent fight between Hamas and the Fatah Security forces, the ones which would not submit to the elected/unity government, the one which UNCLE SAM supported with $ and modern armaments [perhaps you read in Haaretz the concern of Israel for all the modern USA made weapons abandoned by the mercanary Fatah faction in Gaza].
But these two issues you have brought up have not answered my Q to you:
a description of the democracy you wish for ME [say from Gaza to Afganistan - in Asia,and from Morroco to Somalia in Africa].
Further indicate what assurences can you give that democratically elected "new Government" in any of the above states would be acceptable to USA if, as most probable, they would be anti_USA in their politics.
If you wonder why such would occur, see the amount of "goodwill" Uncle Sam has spread all over these areas at the end of a "bayonet" - by self or by proxies.
July 17, 2007 12:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Tom,
You posted,
"The Islamist way of war is all about war crimes. Hiding behind civilians, including children; hiding among civilian crowds; not wearing uniforms; using civilian vehicles for attack; hiding in protected-status places like mosques, churches, hospitals and schools; using protected-status vehicles like ambulances to transport weapons and even using them for attack; using UN bases and peacekeepers as cover; taking hostages; denying Red Cross access to POWs, torturing and executing POWs; false surrenders; killing medics who come to help their wounds; and of course targeting civilians, schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, buses, shops, restaurants, weddings, funerals, journalists and aid workers - all of these are just standard Islamist warfare, as we have seen in Palestine and Iraq..."
The whole idea behind armed conflict is to prevail by just about any means possible. Need I remind you Americans were accused by the British of being cowards and murderers in the Revolutionary War because they hid behind trees and bushwhacked the British on a number of occasions? What would you expect from a force that is smaller, not trained as well, has no air power and a fraction of the high tech weapons we have today? Should they stand out in open fields and be mowed down like the grass we cut each weekend? Come on, they are going to adjust their tactics based on their man power, weapons and strength of their enemy. That's armed conflict if you want to prevail. It's not playing by our rules, which by the way aren't anywhere near as pure as they used to be. Bush and Cheney have seen to that.
I bring up this topic as it is a continuation of a point I've been trying to make for months. Villifying the other side of a conflict unfairly is contrary to developing a meaningful understanding of the issues and events. There is no doubt atrocities have been committed by the other side. There is no doubt a great number of them have been grave in nature. There is also no doubt the Americans have committed atrocies and many of them have been grave in nature. This puts us in a position where we're forced to say, "they're worse then we are." Not an enviable position to be in. We need to assume both sides of a conflict will use propaganda which has very little useful facts and start looking at the core issues that surround a conflict. It does neither side any good to believe the rhetoric.
July 17, 2007 12:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Neuroscientists, e.g. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada, regard God as a brain disorder. There is a connection between the temporal lobes of the brain and religious feeling. Temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy has been linked to divine encounters, artistic creation and fearful visitations from other realms. (400 B.C.E. Hippocrates wrote "On the Sacred Disease" and described epilepsy.)
History is full of charismatic religious figures, e.g. Alexander the Great, Paul the Apostle, Mohammad the Prophet of Islam. Even Adolf Hitler was such a religious personality. (Without any doubt Bin Laden is one of these figures, too.) These "temporal lobe personalities" had a huge impact on the course of world history. Some of them have been epileptics.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental systems, present also in non-religious contexts, e.g. and in particular the limbic system.
Man has been burying and preparing the dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviours, customs and beliefs are related to the activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe.
The limbic system is associated with emotion and motivation. The amygdalae are known to attach emotional significance to sensory input.
Moreover the limbic system is has a direct influence on neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behaviour mechanisms, and it also has a role in functions such as fight or flight, homeostasis, self-maintenance, appetite and sexuality.
The structures of the limbic system, "the reptile brain in us", are highly interconnected with the rest of the brain, and they likely form a gateway for communication between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus. This gateway allows for cognitive processes to modify the affect of the limbic system on hypothalamic functions.
Case studies and the evolutionary foundations postulate that the above named anatomical structures evolved to make spiritual experience possible and account for the violent and sexual aspects of religious behaviour.
I presume that in martyrs the influence of the temporal lobes over the limbic system gets so intense that a normal rational behaviour is not longer possible - a short-circuit of mind occurs and kills them!
July 17, 2007 11:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Neuroscientists, e.g. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada, regard God as a brain disorder. There is a connection between the temporal lobes of the brain and religious feeling. Temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy has been linked to divine encounters, artistic creation and fearful visitations from other realms. (400 B.C.E. Hippocrates wrote "On the Sacred Disease" and described epilepsy.)
History is full of charismatic religious figures, e.g. Alexander the Great, Paul the Apostle, Mohammad the Prophet of Islam. Even Adolf Hitler was such a religious personality. (Without any doubt Bin Laden is one of these figures, too.) These "temporal lobe personalities" had a huge impact on the course of world history. Some of them have been epileptics.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental systems, present also in non-religious contexts, e.g. and in particular the limbic system.
Man has been burying and preparing the dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviours, customs and beliefs are related to the activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe.
The limbic system is associated with emotion and motivation. The amygdalae are known to attach emotional significance to sensory input.
Moreover the limbic system is has a direct influence on neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behaviour mechanisms, and it also has a role in functions such as fight or flight, homeostasis, self-maintenance, appetite and sexuality.
The structures of the limbic system, "the reptile brain in us", are highly interconnected with the rest of the brain, and they likely form a gateway for communication between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus. This gateway allows for cognitive processes to modify the affect of the limbic system on hypothalamic functions.
Case studies and the evolutionary foundations postulate that the above named anatomical structures evolved to make spiritual experience possible and account for the violent and sexual aspects of religious behaviour.
I presume that in martyrs the influence of the temporal lobes over the limbic system gets so intense that a normal rational behaviour is not longer possible - a short-circuit of mind occurs and kills them!
July 17, 2007 11:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Albert Wittine Jr. MD
By reading your long exposé, I come to the conclusion that because of the 'mystery'of creation, since he has existed, human being has tried to find an explanation. His best answer was that there must be a force or energy which influenced the earth and its contents, and therefore it had to be respected. This is how most groups of people living on earth, even without any contact, created similar spiritual beliefs, with priests, rituals and prayers. The evolution finally created the monotheistic god, with the intent of eliminating all the different gods which existed, and giving human beings some guidance - the ten commandments - to live in harmony with each other.
Unfortunatly, the result has not been so positive, and humans continue to live in violence and selfishness, and allow the masses to be brainwashed, mostly negatively.
Before monotheism, there has never been wars of religion - each group respecting the gods of the others. Education, scientiic and technology progresses, travelling allowing to find out about the other, have not permitted human beings in the 21st century to learn anything from the past.
July 17, 2007 10:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
BobL-VA,
"No Muslim country has ever invaded the US." bin Laden received support from both Sudan and Afghanistan governments during the formulation and propagation of al-Qaeda. Without this support, there would have been no 9-11. I would further argue that attacks on US embassies (under international law, diplomatic missions enjoy an extraterritorial status and thus, although remaining part of the host country's territory, they are exempt from local law and in almost all respects treated as being part of the territory of the home country.) are, in fact, attacks on the US. Is this different than Pearl Harbor? Yes. But different does not mean that it can't be fought or labeled.
A lot of your points are interesting. But i would say that the US has not necessarily singled out the ME. We have done similar things in Asia and South America just to name a few other places where we have been, as you would say, guilty of violating the countries sovreignties at one time or another. Yet, there are few other places that have worked to attack the US or where the word martyrdom enters into the conversation. We have fairly normal relations with Viet Nam. You're telling me that the ME has anything on Cuba? Yet our actions outside the ME have not produced the same type of consequences (martyrdom/terrorism). There is more to it than just a slap in the face of Muslims and their response. We have been meddling in Central and South American affairs a lot longer than we have in the ME. Surly, we should be seeing consequences of that meddling by now, no? The point is that there are other, more important factors in what is happening than our perceived sins in the ME.
July 17, 2007 10:18 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Neuroscientists, e.g. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada, regard God as a brain disorder. There is a connection between the temporal lobes of the brain and religious feeling. Temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy has been linked to divine encounters, artistic creation and fearful visitations from other realms. (400 B.C.E. Hippocrates wrote "On the Sacred Disease" and described epilepsy.)
History is full of charismatic religious figures, e.g. Alexander the Great, Paul the Apostle, Mohammad the Prophet of Islam. Even Adolf Hitler was such a religious personality. (Without any doubt Bin Laden is one of these figures, too.) These "temporal lobe personalities" had a huge impact on the course of world history. Some of them have been epileptics.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental systems, present also in non-religious contexts, e.g. and in particular the limbic system.
Man has been burying and preparing the dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviours, customs and beliefs are related to the activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe.
The limbic system is associated with emotion and motivation. The amygdalae are known to attach emotional significance to sensory input.
Moreover the limbic system is has a direct influence on neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behaviour mechanisms, and it also has a role in functions such as fight or flight, homeostasis, self-maintenance, appetite and sexuality.
The structures of the limbic system, "the reptile brain in us", are highly interconnected with the rest of the brain, and they likely form a gateway for communication between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus. This gateway allows for cognitive processes to modify the affect of the limbic system on hypothalamic functions.
Case studies and the evolutionary foundations postulate that the above named anatomical structures evolved to make spiritual experience possible and account for the violent and sexual aspects of religious behaviour.
I presume that in martyrs the influence of the temporal lobes over the limbic system gets so intense that a normal rational behaviour is not longer possible - a short-circuit of mind occurs and kills them!
July 17, 2007 10:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Neuroscientists, e.g. Michael Persinger of Laurentian University in Canada, regard God as a brain disorder. There is a connection between the temporal lobes of the brain and religious feeling. Temporal lobe epilepsy sufferers may become increasingly obsessed with religion, the study and practice of it.
Temporal lobe epilepsy has been linked to divine encounters, artistic creation and fearful visitations from other realms. (400 B.C.E. Hippocrates wrote "On the Sacred Disease" and described epilepsy.)
History is full of charismatic religious figures, e.g. Alexander the Great, Paul the Apostle, Mohammad the Prophet of Islam. Even Adolf Hitler was such a religious personality. (Without any doubt Bin Laden is one of these figures, too.) These "temporal lobe personalities" had a huge impact on the course of world history. Some of them have been epileptics.
Religious concepts activate various functionally distinct mental systems, present also in non-religious contexts, e.g. and in particular the limbic system.
Man has been burying and preparing the dead for the "Great Beyond" for over 100,000 years. These behaviours, customs and beliefs are related to the activation of the amygdala, hippocampus, and temporal lobe.
The limbic system is associated with emotion and motivation. The amygdalae are known to attach emotional significance to sensory input.
Moreover the limbic system is has a direct influence on neuroendocrine, autonomic, and behaviour mechanisms, and it also has a role in functions such as fight or flight, homeostasis, self-maintenance, appetite and sexuality.
The structures of the limbic system, "the reptile brain in us", are highly interconnected with the rest of the brain, and they likely form a gateway for communication between the cerebral cortex and the hypothalamus. This gateway allows for cognitive processes to modify the affect of the limbic system on hypothalamic functions.
Case studies and the evolutionary foundations postulate that the above named anatomical structures evolved to make spiritual experience possible and account for the violent and sexual aspects of religious behaviour.
I presume that in martyrs the influence of the temporal lobes over the limbic system gets so intense that a normal rational behaviour is not longer possible - a short-circuit of mind occurs and kills them!
July 17, 2007 10:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
d.h. writes: "JRLR, Wrongs comitted by other human beings do not give any justification to anyone to kill innocent people or anyone else..."
Well, d.h., that is MY point, as it is Lieutenant Morgenstein's, considering the American Iraq Vets recent confession to "The Nation".
So we all agree: least of all do wrongs committed by other human beings give any justification to anyone to kill innocent people or anyone else in wars against them based on lies and deception!
Great! We're all together on the same side of things. As I said, thanks to you, this is "encouraging", as "there is still hope, then, for human decency, under our sun, after all."
To TOM WONACOTT
"I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on."
(Leonard Cohen, "Democracy")
July 17, 2007 9:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
JRLR
Wrongs comitted by other human beings do not give any justification to anyone to kill innocent people or anyone else, whilst killing himself.
Our violent world today is the product of selfishness, greed and power. This can only be corrected by human beings and short of that we shall have to live through the constant deterioration of our quality of life.
July 17, 2007 8:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Salamon
You have asked an extremely broad question that spans the twentieth century. The implosion of Europe and the rise of Japan resulted in the deaths of sixty million people in World War II (an additional 10 million died in WW I). No country on earth did more to free more countries and people than the US. No one even comes close. The military industrial complex necessary to fight a war on two fronts thousands of miles from the US is an amazing story in itself.
After the war, the rise of the Soviet Union provided a new threat to Europe and the US. Eastern Europe was dominated by the USSR and western Europe remained free, but NATO was formed to counter the Soviet threat. US policies, both good and bad, were formulated to oppose Soviet expansionism (including South America). In addition, the Cuban missile crisis, which brought the US and USSR to the brink of a nuclear war, also had an impact on US policy, in my opinion. Of course, that's not an excuse for some of our bad policies, especially in South America, but it provides some background.
These same policies resulted in the democratic states of Taiwan and South Korea, and, while you may deny that US had anything to do with it, US policy did, in fact, deter Soviet aggression and imperialism and may have prevented a third world war. Remember that when the Soviet Union collapsed, it resulted in 15 countries gaining their independence.
“…History teaches us that the USA [sometimes with help]
a.,has negated democracy in Algeria, Iran, Palestine [and South America]…”
I assume you are talking about the elections in Iran in the early 50’s. Admittedly, that was a huge mistake. No excuse (This was a UK idea). Please fill me in on Algeria as I thought that was a French colony. Withholding funding to a terrorist run government is the prerogative of the US, Canada and other countries involved. The new Islamic state in Gaza:
From the Washington Times:
“…What does a jihadist "democracy" look like? In Gaza City, a correspondent for this newspaper watched Thursday as Hamas gunmen pulled a Fatah commander out of a building and shot him in the street before bystanders spat on the body. Witnesses described Fatah security operatives being dragged out of what had been a redoubt of Abbas loyalists: the Palestinian Preventive Security Service headquarters. The Fatah men were led out in their underwear or shirtless, and executed as their wives and children watched. Elsewhere, Hamas death squads roamed through Gaza City neighborhoods looking for Fatah rivals, and they were seen parading through a refugee camp carrying the corpse of a senior Fatah operative they had just killed…
…Palestinians were shot in hospital wards, thrown off of rooftops or executed at point-blank range. Among the dead were three women and a 14-year-old boy who were killed when Hamas gunmen stormed the home of a Fatah security officer.
Then there was the sad case of a Fatah commander named Jamal Abu Jediyan, and his brother, who talked on the phone with a Palestinian radio station as Hamas laid siege to their house. "They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. We're not Jews," the brother pleaded. A few minutes later, the Jediyan brothers were dragged out of the house and fatally shot…”
As I recall, Salamon, you support a single state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Maybe you can suggest a government in the Middle East that would serve as a model to such a state, outside of Israel, of course, since you want to destroy it.
“…has supported with aid, military equipment, and spin nations which are clearly undemocratic such as Israel, IRAQ, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, etc; and,…”
Just because you disagree with the existence of Israel, that doesn’t make it less of a democracy, and we should continue to support Israel, both militarily and financially. Egypt receives US aid because of the Camp David agreement. Many other Arab countries receive aid because of their oil, or their “moderate” stand toward Israel (the primary reason that you refer to them as spin nations), or maybe to counter Iran. I am certain that there are many disillusioned Arabs that wish the US would push a more democratic agenda on members of the Arab League. A significant portion of those Arabs probably would love to get elected on a fundamentalist Islamic platform, and then, eliminate elections (at least of non Islamic candidates, i.e. Iran).
Why we support the Saudis, God (or Allah) only knows. The Saudis are the largest exporter of the fundamentalist Sunni Wahhabi form of Islam, and they are certainly one of the most oppressive societies on earth. Most of the hijackers on 911, and half of the foreign fighters in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia. Oh the love of oil….
July 17, 2007 7:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
What is the attraction to martyrdom?
Or, why do people send their children to kill and die in the name of some god? The answer is several thousand years old. Let's take a look at the Bible, Genesis 22.
1 Some years later God decided to test Abraham, so he spoke to him. Abraham answered, "Here I am, LORD."
2 The LORD said, "Go get Isaac, your only son, the one you dearly love! Take him to the land of Moriah, and I will show you a mountain where you must sacrifice him to me on the fires of an altar."
3 So Abraham got up early the next morning and chopped wood for the fire. He put a saddle on his donkey and left with Isaac and two servants for the place where God had told him to go.
4 Three days later Abraham looked off in the distance and saw the place.
5 He told his servants, "Stay here with the donkey, while my son and I go over there to worship. We will come back."
6 Abraham put the wood on Isaac's shoulder, but he carried the hot coals and the knife. As the two of them walked along,
7-8 Isaac said, "Father, we have the coals and the wood, but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?"
"My son," Abraham answered, "God will provide the lamb." The two of them walked on, and
9 when they reached the place that God had told him about, Abraham built an altar and placed the wood on it. Next, he tied up his son and put him on the wood.
10 He then took the knife and got ready to kill his son.
11 But the LORD's angel shouted from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am!" he answered.
12 "Don't hurt the boy or harm him in any way!" the angel said. "Now I know that you truly obey God, because you were willing to offer him your only son."
Clear enough !!!
July 17, 2007 1:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
What is the attraction to martyrdom?
The answer comes from biblical times. Let's take a look at the Bible, Genesis 22.
1 Some years later God decided to test Abraham, so he spoke to him. Abraham answered, "Here I am, LORD."
2 The LORD said, "Go get Isaac, your only son, the one you dearly love! Take him to the land of Moriah, and I will show you a mountain where you must sacrifice him to me on the fires of an altar."
3 So Abraham got up early the next morning and chopped wood for the fire. He put a saddle on his donkey and left with Isaac and two servants for the place where God had told him to go.
4 Three days later Abraham looked off in the distance and saw the place.
5 He told his servants, "Stay here with the donkey, while my son and I go over there to worship. We will come back."
6 Abraham put the wood on Isaac's shoulder, but he carried the hot coals and the knife. As the two of them walked along,
7-8 Isaac said, "Father, we have the coals and the wood, but where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" "My son," Abraham answered, "God will provide the lamb." The two of them walked on, and
9 when they reached the place that God had told him about, Abraham built an altar and placed the wood on it. Next, he tied up his son and put him on the wood.
10 He then took the knife and got ready to kill his son.
11 But the LORD's angel shouted from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am!" he answered.
12 "Don't hurt the boy or harm him in any way!" the angel said. "Now I know that you truly obey God, because you were willing to offer him your only son."
Clear enough!!
July 17, 2007 1:29 AM | Report Offensive Comments
JRLR
"...It is encouraging that at least one blogger, here, admit there is no excuse to doing what American Iraq Vets have just confessed doing in Iraq, i.e target and kill innumerable innocent civilians, acts they describe as "common", stating they “often go unreported--and almost always go unpunished”..."
I often feel for young soldiers who must make a split second decision of life and death especially when there is nothing to identify a potential terrorist. I found this quote at some time in the past that sums up Islamist warfare:
"...The Islamist way of war is all about war crimes. Hiding behind civilians, including children; hiding among civilian crowds; not wearing uniforms; using civilian vehicles for attack; hiding in protected-status places like mosques, churches, hospitals and schools; using protected-status vehicles like ambulances to transport weapons and even using them for attack; using UN bases and peacekeepers as cover; taking hostages; denying Red Cross access to POWs, torturing and executing POWs; false surrenders; killing medics who come to help their wounds; and of course targeting civilians, schools, churches, mosques, hospitals, ambulances, buses, shops, restaurants, weddings, funerals, journalists and aid workers - all of these are just standard Islamist warfare, as we have seen in Palestine and Iraq..."
In addition, at the Red Mosque, radical Islamist hid behind children. Also, let me add to the list a recent incident at the Israeli border where Islamic Jihad terrorist approached the Israeli border...
"...fence in an armored jeep marked with “TV” and “PRESS” insignia, “thought they were foreign reporters, so did not shoot at them.”..."
Nothing you post surprises me. You are no ordinary left winger, you are a humdinger of a left winger.
July 16, 2007 10:17 PM | Report Offensive Comments
BOBL VA
Your last paragraph in your last note is beutifully put. Unfortunately, the Neo-cons and their supporters in AIPAC will never admit to the validity. Their aim is unattainable world domination -- where all the sacrifices are to be made by others, at whatever cost, as long as the NEOCON/ZIONIST dream can be followed.
I truly regret that an intelligent and well meaning person, such as you, came to the realization that partaking of the present government actions, is futile, and even hearing of them is depressing.
July 16, 2007 6:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
TOM:
I would like to know what is your idea of democracy -- especially as what you wish for the ME.
History teaches us that the USA [sometimes with help]
a.,has negated democracy in Algeria, Iran, Palestine [and South America]
b., denied or fought against democratic elections [or representation of major sub groups in nations] as in Lebanon; and,
has supported with aid, military equipment, and spin nations which are clearly undemocratic such as Israel, IRAQ, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Quatar, etc; and,
financed meassures with the clear objective of destabilization of governments, democratic or otherwise, such as unity government in Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Ukraine, most other periphery ex SSR-s, and all over Cetral/South america; and
It is debatable if the present USA government at the federal level could be called a democratic government [to a certain extent this also applies to UK and Canada, possibly also to Australia].
July 16, 2007 5:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I think the better question is, why weren't these martyrs more attracted to life?
People can die for a cause, but they can also live for one. I think martyrdom is death in the absence of a cause to live for.
July 16, 2007 3:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
I think the better question is, why weren't these martyrs more attracted to life?
People can die for a cause, but they can also live for one. I think martyrdom is death in the absence of a cause to live for.
July 16, 2007 3:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Deb:
Well, sir, you made a lot of assertions about who I am, and what I believe. Unfortunately for you, most of them were wrong.
First of all, I am not liberal in any sense of the word today. I'm far more conservative. I'm sure we could find plenty to agree on. I do not think terrorism is necessarily a result of poverty, although poverty does tend to increase violence and civil instability (impoverished sections of large cities prove this). As far as Islamic terrorism, I see it as primarily a response to western (usually military) influence in the ME. It's not that hard to imagine. When we put sanctions on a country, killing 500,000 children, you can bet we've made some people pretty darn angry.
As far as treating butcherer's like any other prisoner, I never said any such thing. I do not buy the leftist line that punishment should focus on rehabilitation, and that if we just reform the criminal, everything will be all right. It's been a failed policy for the last 100 years. Which is why I opp