The Energon Pub

Now, interestingly enough, there's a demographer who points to the suppression of sexual urges to the increased inclination for violence in the Middle East, especially suicide bombing. I'll try and find him online, because I can personally see his point.

Professor Smooth wrote:Why do they want a war with The West? Well, it probably has something to do with The West being (at least in part) responsible for a LOT of their problems. You can only lose so many friends, family members, and limbs to Western guns and so many children to poverty supported by Western sanctions before you start thinking that stuff needs to change. Then there's the whole Israel thing. You know that thing where The West felt so bad about (letting Hitler get away with) The Holocaust that they gave the Jews the most sacred piece of Muslim land...and enough guns, bombs, tanks, and atomic know-how to defend it.

Who do you know that wouldn't be ready to go to war with the powers who caused me to live in such terrible circumstances?

As for "knowing who they are dealing with," I assume that you mean The United States. This would be the same country that hasn't won a decisive victory in war for over 50 years despite spending billions of dollars every year on the military. The only thing that the United States knows how to do in war is bomb the hell out of people (mostly civillians, it seems), leave an unbelievably large (and expensive) mess, completely decimate the economy, and leave when the people living in the country FINALLY get wise to what an utter travesty it has become.

Maybe they fear the superior intelligence of the United States. I know I would be absolutely terrified of a country that, after terrorist attacks, go to war and kill 600,000 people in a country that had nothing to do with said attacks.

Maybe they want a war with The West because they know they can win. Nothing, short of the extermination of damn near everyone in the middle east, could win the "war" for The West. The war would be ongoing. It would probably stop only after a few WESTERN cities lay in ruins, most likely as the result of some manner of atomic weapon. And perhaps, after reflecting on it for 60 years, the general consensus would be detonating an atomic bomb in a US city was necessary to end the war.

They wouldn't want a war with The West if The West didn't have their guns pointed at them every minute of every day.

Hate to take issue, but, if Dessert Storm was not a decisive victory, what the hell is?

Also we had a mission when we invaded Iraq, cut of the head of the government, Saddam. We did that, which was/is a victory.

Our "rebuilding", on the other hand, is another matter altogether...

General Magnus wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:Why do they want a war with The West? Well, it probably has something to do with The West being (at least in part) responsible for a LOT of their problems. You can only lose so many friends, family members, and limbs to Western guns and so many children to poverty supported by Western sanctions before you start thinking that stuff needs to change. Then there's the whole Israel thing. You know that thing where The West felt so bad about (letting Hitler get away with) The Holocaust that they gave the Jews the most sacred piece of Muslim land...and enough guns, bombs, tanks, and atomic know-how to defend it.

Who do you know that wouldn't be ready to go to war with the powers who caused me to live in such terrible circumstances?

As for "knowing who they are dealing with," I assume that you mean The United States. This would be the same country that hasn't won a decisive victory in war for over 50 years despite spending billions of dollars every year on the military. The only thing that the United States knows how to do in war is bomb the hell out of people (mostly civillians, it seems), leave an unbelievably large (and expensive) mess, completely decimate the economy, and leave when the people living in the country FINALLY get wise to what an utter travesty it has become.

Maybe they fear the superior intelligence of the United States. I know I would be absolutely terrified of a country that, after terrorist attacks, go to war and kill 600,000 people in a country that had nothing to do with said attacks.

Maybe they want a war with The West because they know they can win. Nothing, short of the extermination of damn near everyone in the middle east, could win the "war" for The West. The war would be ongoing. It would probably stop only after a few WESTERN cities lay in ruins, most likely as the result of some manner of atomic weapon. And perhaps, after reflecting on it for 60 years, the general consensus would be detonating an atomic bomb in a US city was necessary to end the war.

They wouldn't want a war with The West if The West didn't have their guns pointed at them every minute of every day.

You realize that most weapon manufatcers are western and we have the most nukes, do you? And if they ever try to nuke a western city, well retaliation would be devastating and would reslut in alot of arab nation nuked. We have city to loose, they have entire nation to loose, think about that They can´t win, the only problem here is that they don´t realize that.

I feel a line from Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country would suit this discussion well...

"We would clean their cronometers!!!"

-A senior Starfleet officer talking about a war with Starfleet vs. the Klingons

Our military is strained for a ground battle, certainly. But the USAF can always send care packages from home and press buttons to show those "few" radical nutcases that we really care.

Their relegion won't pry BACON from me, damnit!

Only from my cold, dead, fork... lol

Mmmmmm....bacon. Argghhhhhh

That grudge actually goes way back to Medieval times: Back then, Islamic culture was at its high point: Education, science, trade and tolerance for other beliefs were far higher than what Europe had to offer. However, with the Enlightenment movement become stronger, facilitating cultural and ultimately economic development in Western societies, the Orient was pushed back. They never got past that an "inferior" society surpassed their own and that their own regressed. End of story.

YouFearGalvatron wrote:Also we had a mission when we invaded Iraq, cut of the head of the government, Saddam. We did that, which was/is a victory.

I thought we were supposed to be removing the threat his regime posed with weapons of mass destructions?

And seeing as we found none there was either no threat in the first place, meaning the war was under false pretense, or the weapons were moved on to another regime, meaning we failed miserably.

Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but it wasn't the justification for war.

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but it wasn't the justification for war.

Of course the reason for the war was to get rid of Saddam (or more aptly to get a man like him away from a major center dependency of world commerce), but the whole "there's no WMD's so the war is pointless" is some **** story used by the Democrats in order to bash the other side like it was the only cause. There were many causes, and WMD's were a big one of them, but not the end all sum total. I'm a fairly liberal person, but I don't trust the politics of either of our represenative parties for ****, including the Democrats.

As well, what matters the motive when the sum total is a dictator is dead and people are free from brutal oppression by their own non-represenative government? I'd like everything to be done for sheer goodness of it, but, with the way things are today, I'm happy just when something gets done.

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but it wasn't the justification for war.

Of course the reason for the war was to get rid of Saddam (or more aptly to get a man like him away from a major center dependency of world commerce), but the whole "there's no WMD's so the war is pointless" is some **** story used by the Democrats in order to bash the other side like it was the only cause. There were many causes, and WMD's were a big one of them, but not the end all sum total. I'm a fairly liberal person, but I don't trust the politics of either of our represenative parties for ****, including the Democrats.

As well, what matters the motive when the sum total is a dictator is dead and people are free from brutal oppression by their own non-represenative government? I'd like everything to be done for sheer goodness of it, but, with the way things are today, I'm happy just when something gets done.

Let me be blunt. You are poorly informed. The reason the United States justified the war in Iraq was by saying that Saddam was defying sanctions against him by creating and storing "weapons of mass destruction." The wording of that alone should give you a hint that something was up. They did not say that he was trying to develop nuclear weaponry or specific kinds of chemical weaponry. This meant that all they had to do was find SOMETHING big and the US could say that they were right. Unfortunately, they found NOTHING. Nothing that could possibly be considered a weapon of mass destruction was found, and that is after YEARS of searching.

Now Saddam is dead. People seem pretty happy about that. What about the other deaths in Iraq? Three 3,000+ US soldiers have died. In addition, more than half a MILLION Iraqi citizens have died, and more die EVERY DAY.

It makes me sick. It makes me angry just thinking about it. Yes, Saddam ordered the deaths of his own people. These were people who were doing things that Saddam declared illegal. They broke the law. Does the United States not execute lawbreakers in the US? Did the US president NOT do an interview where he MOCKED a woman on death row who BEGGED him not to kill her? Thanks to the actions of the President and his administration 650,000 Iraqi civillians have died. 3,000 plus US soldiers have died. The number of WOUNDED Iraqis and US soldiers has not been calculated.

So when people tell you that the war in Iraq IS justified because it got Saddam out of power, I strongly suggest that you explain to them, with as much contempt as possible, the truth of the situation. Replublicans, Democrats, Liberals, and Conservatives are too busy towing the party lines that they can't see what is blindingly obvious. The current US administration is guilty of war crimes that defy description.

THIS is why the Islamic world hates the West. The West has all the money, power, and resources in the world, and they allow idiots and criminals to control it at the cost of their security, safety, and lives.

Professor Smooth wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but it wasn't the justification for war.

Of course the reason for the war was to get rid of Saddam (or more aptly to get a man like him away from a major center dependency of world commerce), but the whole "there's no WMD's so the war is pointless" is some **** story used by the Democrats in order to bash the other side like it was the only cause. There were many causes, and WMD's were a big one of them, but not the end all sum total. I'm a fairly liberal person, but I don't trust the politics of either of our represenative parties for ****, including the Democrats.

As well, what matters the motive when the sum total is a dictator is dead and people are free from brutal oppression by their own non-represenative government? I'd like everything to be done for sheer goodness of it, but, with the way things are today, I'm happy just when something gets done.

Let me be blunt. You are poorly informed. The reason the United States justified the war in Iraq was by saying that Saddam was defying sanctions against him by creating and storing "weapons of mass destruction." The wording of that alone should give you a hint that something was up. They did not say that he was trying to develop nuclear weaponry or specific kinds of chemical weaponry. This meant that all they had to do was find SOMETHING big and the US could say that they were right. Unfortunately, they found NOTHING. Nothing that could possibly be considered a weapon of mass destruction was found, and that is after YEARS of searching.

Now Saddam is dead. People seem pretty happy about that. What about the other deaths in Iraq? Three 3,000+ US soldiers have died. In addition, more than half a MILLION Iraqi citizens have died, and more die EVERY DAY.

It makes me sick. It makes me angry just thinking about it. Yes, Saddam ordered the deaths of his own people. These were people who were doing things that Saddam declared illegal. They broke the law. Does the United States not execute lawbreakers in the US? Did the US president NOT do an interview where he MOCKED a woman on death row who BEGGED him not to kill her? Thanks to the actions of the President and his administration 650,000 Iraqi civillians have died. 3,000 plus US soldiers have died. The number of WOUNDED Iraqis and US soldiers has not been calculated.

So when people tell you that the war in Iraq IS justified because it got Saddam out of power, I strongly suggest that you explain to them, with as much contempt as possible, the truth of the situation. Replublicans, Democrats, Liberals, and Conservatives are too busy towing the party lines that they can't see what is blindingly obvious. The current US administration is guilty of war crimes that defy description.

THIS is why the Islamic world hates the West. The West has all the money, power, and resources in the world, and they allow idiots and criminals to control it at the cost of their security, safety, and lives.

Professor, do you have a link to Bush mocking that woman on death row.

Just curious. I know she was executed, but still.

The war was not justified, but we did at least accomplish the overthrow of Saddam. That was one of the missions, and his capture was yet another.

For those two things at least, it was mission accomplished.

Professor Smooth wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing, but it wasn't the justification for war.

Of course the reason for the war was to get rid of Saddam (or more aptly to get a man like him away from a major center dependency of world commerce), but the whole "there's no WMD's so the war is pointless" is some **** story used by the Democrats in order to bash the other side like it was the only cause. There were many causes, and WMD's were a big oneof them, but not the end all sum total. I'm a fairly liberal person, but I don't trust the politics of either of our represenative parties for ****, including the Democrats.

As well, what matters the motive when the sum total is a dictator is dead and people are free from brutal oppression by their own non-represenative government? I'd like everything to be done for sheer goodness of it, but, with the way things are today, I'm happy just when something gets done.

Let me be blunt. You are poorly informed. The reason the United States justified the war in Iraq was by saying that Saddam was defying sanctions against him by creating and storing "weapons of mass destruction." The wording of that alone should give you a hint that something was up. They did not say that he was trying to develop nuclear weaponry or specific kinds of chemical weaponry. This meant that all they had to do was find SOMETHING big and the US could say that they were right. Unfortunately, they found NOTHING. Nothing that could possibly be considered a weapon of mass destruction was found, and that is after YEARS of searching.

Now Saddam is dead. People seem pretty happy about that. What about the other deaths in Iraq? Three 3,000+ US soldiers have died. In addition, more than half a MILLION Iraqi citizens have died, and more die EVERY DAY.

It makes me sick. It makes me angry just thinking about it. Yes, Saddam ordered the deaths of his own people. These were people who were doing things that Saddam declared illegal. They broke the law. Does the United States not execute lawbreakers in the US? Did the US president NOT do an interview where he MOCKED a woman on death row who BEGGED him not to kill her? Thanks to the actions of the President and his administration 650,000 Iraqi civillians have died. 3,000 plus US soldiers have died. The number of WOUNDED Iraqis and US soldiers has not been calculated.

So when people tell you that the war in Iraq IS justified because it got Saddam out of power, I strongly suggest that you explain to them, with as much contempt as possible, the truth of the situation. Replublicans, Democrats, Liberals, and Conservatives are too busy towing the party lines that they can't see what is blindingly obvious. The current US administration is guilty of war crimes that defy description.

THIS is why the Islamic world hates the West. The West has all the money, power, and resources in the world, and they allow idiots and criminals to control it at the cost of their security, safety, and lives.

I could say the same for you-- per argument, it seems you see mainly the evidence you want to see, as I assume we could say for everyone.

You're getting your words mixed up, namely reason and justify. Namely, the actual motive and the stated motive. Both cite the upheaval of Saddam's regime as a primary goal. But, as I said in the first sentence, the desired purpose was to "to get a man like him [Saddam] away from a major center dependency of world commerce," ie. secure oil. Now, for justification, the same is stated, but cites WMD's as one of the official justifications, along with freedom, liberation, yadda, yadda, yadda...

As usual, that which speaks loudest is that not said, but oh well.

And we have found SOMETHING in terms of 'WMD's-- just pitiful and outdated enough to be just something he forgot about a decade back.

As well, I'm a bit disturbed with your drawing similarities between executions for crimes against the public, as with convicted murder in a court of law, and mass genocide/crimes against a single tyrant's interests. I don't really approve giving a system of government the ability to do either, but there's a major difference when comparing whether the executed's death is actually serving the greater good or is part of supression of the public for no reason other than the will of a single individual above the masses.

And the Iraqi Minister of Health cited the death toll at about 150,000 at most late 2006, though you seem to be getting your info from the Lancet Survey, which is highly controversial. Many of these are from suicide bombings sponsored by groups outside the country (and many quite probably leading up t neighboring governments themselves) and from civil war in the nation itself. Not really a pretty number, but it's not a direct effect of us going in and pillaging towns or burning cities. I admit handling of the war has kinda sucked, but overt barbarism isn't part of the strategy.

Furthermore, I draw line between 'legal' and 'right.' I personally don't trust the rest of the world's politicians any more than I trust the ones we have here, so what point does it prove to label something a 'crime' or 'illegal'? I personally prefer to appeal to general human values, or the common good, that lies beyond such snares.

Another point to discuss-- the Indians (the real Indians) and Tibetan Buddhists have been shafted by imperial governments for centuries, but I still don't see major bloodshed on the side of Hindus or Buddhists. It stems beyond just social policy; culture is a big determinant as well.

Well, mildly disjointed, but I don't care.^

The Avatar of Man wrote:As well, what matters the motive when the sum total is a dictator is dead and people are free from brutal oppression by their own non-represenative government?

Sorry, but the end justifies the means is not acceptable.

If I murder someone and it turns out he was a rapist or something that makes it okay?

No, it doesn't change the fact I'm a murderer who killed for other reasons.

And this isn't an ordinary man, it's a man in charge of the world's biggest military aresenal.
He should be under a thousand times more scrutiny.

The Avatar of Man wrote:but the whole "there's no WMD's so the war is pointless" is some **** story used by the Democrats in order to bash the other side like it was the only cause.

That's funny 'cos I'm English and the Conservative party (our Republicans) seemed to think it was an issue too.
In fact, the world over the weapons issue was something that knew no political boundaries.

As for why it's so important.

The Avatar of Man wrote:But, as I said in the first sentence, the desired purpose was to "to get a man like him [Saddam] away from a major center dependency of world commerce," ie. secure oil.

The US has repeatedly denied this.
The UK and EVERY other country would not have gone to war alongside the US if this were the reason.

If you're right, and there's many who would agree this was either about oil or revenge for a man trying to kill daddy, then Bush decieved his own electorate and the rest of the world and people are dying every day for US profit.

If you're right, they're going to have to replace the old regime with one that's in the US' pocket.

If you're right, the reasons that Islamic militants claim they fight you, their justifications are true.

If you're right, you're not liberators or freedom fighters, you're imperialists, you're oppressors, you're everything your constitution is supposed to be against.

Wars have to be legal, they have to be justified and they have to be neccessary.
Waging war on an incapacitated government (via sanctions) with financial motives is NONE of those.

Lycanthropictendencies wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:As well, what matters the motive when the sum total is a dictator is dead and people are free from brutal oppression by their own non-represenative government?

Sorry, but the end justifies the means is not acceptable.

If I murder someone and it turns out he was a rapist or something that makes it okay?

No, it doesn't change the fact I'm a murderer who killed for other reasons.

And this isn't an ordinary man, it's a man in charge of the world's biggest military aresenal.
He should be under a thousand times more scrutiny.

The Avatar of Man wrote:but the whole "there's no WMD's so the war is pointless" is some **** story used by the Democrats in order to bash the other side like it was the only cause.

That's funny 'cos I'm English and the Conservative party (our Republicans) seemed to think it was an issue too.
In fact, the world over the weapons issue was something that knew no political boundaries.

As for why it's so important.

The Avatar of Man wrote:But, as I said in the first sentence, the desired purpose was to "to get a man like him [Saddam] away from a major center dependency of world commerce," ie. secure oil.

The US has repeatedly denied this.
The UK and EVERY other country would not have gone to war alongside the US if this were the reason.

If you're right, and there's many who would agree this was either about oil or revenge for a man trying to kill daddy, then Bush decieved his own electorate and the rest of the world and people are dying every day for US profit.

If you're right, they're going to have to replace the old regime with one that's in the US' pocket.

If you're right, the reasons that Islamic militants claim they fight you, their justifications are true.

If you're right, you're not liberators or freedom fighters, you're imperialists, you're oppressors, you're everything your constitution is supposed to be against.

Wars have to be legal, they have to be justified and they have to be neccessary.
Waging war on an incapacitated government (via sanctions) with financial motives is NONE of those.

You are still a murderer, but it is better you murdered a rapist than, say, a girl scout.

You are still a murderer, but it is better you murdered a rapist than, say, a girl scout.

It doesn't matter. Rapist or Girl Scout if you kill someone for personal game it's the same

Hot_Rod wrote:If you look at Indonesia you will see there are some rationally sain muslims. The people in Indonesia right now are trying to sort this very issue at hand out amongst them selves.

You can even look at Turkey and find an Islamic nation that whose population would prefer their government to be secular, rather than be run by religious zealots. Hell, even the Turkish military feels that way.

Let me if I have this argument correctly. The aim of the war in Iraq was to get a person like Saddam out of a position of power over a major center of world commerce.

So the United States invaded a country, deposed, captured and eventually killed its leader, plunged the country into a civil war, sacrificed 3,000 American soldiers and AT LEAST 150,000 Iraqi civillians...because of money.

Does anyone else think that this justification is MANY times worse than "we thought he had WMDs?" At least with the "WMD excuse" the American President could, potentially, say "we were wrong, it was a mistake, but we will do everything we can to make Iraq better than it was before." I mean, I still think it's an insulting to the intelligence of Americans, but it's at least a nice spin on it. "We went there, messed up, and are trying to fix it," yeah, everyone is pissed off about the administration being filled with a bunch of blithering idiots who either did not do their homework or flat out lied to the American people, but it's still a nice spin.

Saying that you sent troops into a country and COMPLETELY screwed it up so that you and your allies could make more control, power, and money (keeping in mind that those people who would profit are ALREADY more wealthy and powerful than you will EVER be), well that's MANY times worse.

Can you even IMAGINE the President going on television and admitting that? There would be riots in the streets! It would make the French Revolution look like a schoolyard brawl!

Unfortunately, it seems that this is exactly the reason for the invasion of Iraq. Money. And suddenly, I am even sicker thinking about it.

Let me ask you this. If the situation were reversed and a foreign army decimated your country, destroyed the economy, and caused (directly or indirectly) the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people either FOR MONEY, would you perhaps feel a bit of resentment towards them?

To the OP I have a single word: Israel

It really is that simple. As for "why do they want to tangle with the baddest and most powerful military history has ever produced," well, they're religious fanatics. Plus they're probably pissed that we meddle in the affairs of their nations every chance we get.

Same reason Catholics used boil people in pots of turpentine for heresy; that heresy being nothing more than owning a bible in any language other than latin.

It makes no sense. They're irrational. We're rational. We can't ever possibly hope to understand them. What's sad is that a thousand years ago Christians were the religious nuts while Muslims were the civilized and tolerant religion.

I don't really know what went wrong with them to be honest. But meh, I certainly don't have any faith in western civilization growing a pair to actually deal with these savages. We're culture of pussies and we get more pussified every second.

Interesting opinion. How, exactly, would the US go about "dealing" with these people? Assuming, of course, they were not restricted by a lack of a "pair?"

Professor Smooth wrote:Interesting opinion. How, exactly, would the US go about "dealing" with these people? Assuming, of course, they were not restricted by a lack of a "pair?"

Complete and appropriate subjugation with an escalation of violence to keep the populace in line. The same way we've subjugated every other nation in the wars we've actually won.

But like I said, we're pussies and it's high time to admit it. To compare us to Ancient Rome we hit 200 A.D. in 1945 and are currently on a very quick decline. If I had to put us in a Roman year I'd say we're sitting somewhere around 250 A.D. We have a few good years left so enjoy'em while ya can. Our political and military triumphs are tales of the past and there won't be any new ones. Ever.

How do I know we're pussies? Here's an awesome quick fact:

Volume 1 of the Census of 1900 says the population was estimated to be 76,212,168. According to the History Channel special on the Spanish American War 1,000,000 men volunteered the day the government put the call to raise expeditionary force with which to invade Cuba.

That means 7.6% of our entire population showed up to fight that war. According to the 2000 census our population was 281,421,906. 7.6% of the 2000 census estimate is 21,388,065.

I didn't see twenty one million people lining up to join the military after 9/11, did you?

And 9/11 was a much more barbaric attack as well as much larger in scale. Like I said, we're a nation filled with and controlled by pussies and folks, we ain't going to find our balls anytime soon.

Pretty sad considering America is basically the last, best hope out there. Europe is even worse then we are (by quite a margin actually).

Western civilization is ****.

I just want to point out that if 1,000,000 people signed up when the population was 76,212,168, that is 1.3 percent of the population. That would mean that a country of 281,421,906 would need to have a military force of 3,658,484 to equal the same percentage. Unfortunately, I haven't found any recent statistics, but I am reasonably sure that the American military includes somewhere around that same area.

lkavadas wrote:

Professor Smooth wrote:Interesting opinion. How, exactly, would the US go about "dealing" with these people? Assuming, of course, they were not restricted by a lack of a "pair?"

Complete and appropriate subjugation with an escalation of violence to keep the populace in line. The same way we've subjugated every other nation in the wars we've actually won.

Isn't that kind of what Saddam did. Technically, when he was in office, his country was in a fear induced state of equilibrium. Bush kind of did the same thing, but without the equilibrium part.

Rally Racer wrote:

GetterDragun wrote:While I think the original post in this topic is poorly written (sounds like the historical aspects are based on movies) and sounds like a "Don't mess with Texas" bumper sticker, I am intrigued to why Muslims are such a violent religion. The problem I have is that while peole say that these people are just the extremists, how come the "regular' Muslims don't protest the extremists; they seem to except the violence and actually promote it? Then when they are the targets of what they consider "racism" they make excuses and say that you can't judge them by extremists...well maybe if they started demonstrating against violence (especially in other countries), they wouldn't feel so singled out. But then again, maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree with a culture where a woman is executed for being a whore if she is raped.

Oh and another reason:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/11/fortdi ... index.html

You don't hear about it because no one really cares to hear about it. It's around, and it happens, especially with Muslim youth setting up awareness weeks, seminars, etc. Truth be told, and whether you want to believe me or not, but the actual word "Islam" describes 'peace', or an invitation for peace. Why don't we start up angry protests? Wouldn't that be just facilitating the whole "Muslims are just an angry bunch"? It takes one person to do something stupid, or say something terrible because something or someone drove them to that end, and suddenly it reflects on the whole culture. It seems that the general mass has accepted this extremist quality of Muslims, and despite efforts to challenge this notion, it's hard to fight it without becoming the very thing that we want to denounce.

I tried to stay away from this topic because the whole thing pisses me off, but this needed to be said. Sadly enough everything comes full circle that Muslims are enraged activists, in one perspective or another. I could tell you that it is actually a very peaceful culture for the millions other of non extremists out there, and fighting really isn't in their teachings. Chances are you won't believe me.

Then why is it ok in this culture to kill a teenage girl by stoning because she had relations with a person of a different religion?

I think "adultery" being punished by stoning is ass backwards. I don't see how any culture can accept this.

lkavadas wrote:To the OP I have a single word: Israel

It really is that simple. As for "why do they want to tangle with the baddest and most powerful military history has ever produced," well, they're religious fanatics. Plus they're probably pissed that we meddle in the affairs of their nations every chance we get.

Same reason Catholics used boil people in pots of turpentine for heresy; that heresy being nothing more than owning a bible in any language other than latin.

It makes no sense. They're irrational. We're rational. We can't ever possibly hope to understand them. What's sad is that a thousand years ago Christians were the religious nuts while Muslims were the civilized and tolerant religion.

I don't really know what went wrong with them to be honest. But meh, I certainly don't have any faith in western civilization growing a pair to actually deal with these savages. We're culture of pussies and we get more pussified every second.

Or owning a Bible at all. This meant that you were trying to find the truth of God yourself, instead of paying some power-hungry tyrant in Rome so that he can allow you a shot with God.

What arrogance. As if any man has such power granted to him, to allow or deter one of God's creations from coming unto him.

I will leave this one alone, as a person recovering from Catholicism.

And you are right. We will never face them directly, as we, work at Innitech, and are p******.

Anyone know the movie that quote is from?

YouFearGalvatron wrote:And you are right. We will never face them directly, as we, work at Innitech, and are p******.

Anyone know the movie that quote is from?

Office Space.

Please don't get started on the "Our God is better than their God" thing. Islam doesn't look any worse on paper than Christianity or Judaism.

GetterDragun wrote:

Rally Racer wrote:

GetterDragun wrote:While I think the original post in this topic is poorly written (sounds like the historical aspects are based on movies) and sounds like a "Don't mess with Texas" bumper sticker, I am intrigued to why Muslims are such a violent religion. The problem I have is that while peole say that these people are just the extremists, how come the "regular' Muslims don't protest the extremists; they seem to except the violence and actually promote it? Then when they are the targets of what they consider "racism" they make excuses and say that you can't judge them by extremists...well maybe if they started demonstrating against violence (especially in other countries), they wouldn't feel so singled out. But then again, maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree with a culture where a woman is executed for being a whore if she is raped.

Oh and another reason:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/11/fortdi ... index.html

You don't hear about it because no one really cares to hear about it. It's around, and it happens, especially with Muslim youth setting up awareness weeks, seminars, etc. Truth be told, and whether you want to believe me or not, but the actual word "Islam" describes 'peace', or an invitation for peace. Why don't we start up angry protests? Wouldn't that be just facilitating the whole "Muslims are just an angry bunch"? It takes one person to do something stupid, or say something terrible because something or someone drove them to that end, and suddenly it reflects on the whole culture. It seems that the general mass has accepted this extremist quality of Muslims, and despite efforts to challenge this notion, it's hard to fight it without becoming the very thing that we want to denounce.

I tried to stay away from this topic because the whole thing pisses me off, but this needed to be said. Sadly enough everything comes full circle that Muslims are enraged activists, in one perspective or another. I could tell you that it is actually a very peaceful culture for the millions other of non extremists out there, and fighting really isn't in their teachings. Chances are you won't believe me.

Then why is it ok in this culture to kill a teenage girl by stoning because she had relations with a person of a different religion?

I think "adultery" being punished by stoning is ass backwards. I don't see how any culture can accept this.

That wasn't the point I was making. What I'm saying is that it's INHERENTLY not part of the religion to stone/kill young girls for adultery, nor to condone any similar kind of violence. People make up what they want to believe their religion is saying... by translating what is described in the good book and taking things into their own hands. It's the same with any religion! Christian faith as I recall, once upon a time, had a grim history as well. Someone brought up an example where people were tortured for not reading the Bible in latin.

Things get lost in translation, and people get lost along with it. One interpreter would say this is what our religion is teaching, and the locals might believe it. And extremist interpreter will say stone the women who commit adultery, for that is what the Qu'ran teaches us, and people will probably believe it, especially when your surrounded with fervent followers who can't think for themselves. Back in the old days, maybe priests told the people that you must burn infidels that don't read the Bible in latin. The same people, are probably responsible for instilling the laws that led to the stoning of Virgin Mary when she conceived a child without a father.

Further explanation? Here's one piece of the Qu'ran that follows this up. It says to treat your wife as though she was your land... and this was the translation to the English language. UPROAR! VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN! EQUALITY!!

No. Read on. What the description further dwells into is that the more love, nourishment, and care that you give your wife, the more she will prosper and live with sound health. See how things meanings can easily get lost? Mind you, it's not just across languages, but within that very same language as well.

Another example, a normal English high school class where your assignment is to describe the meaning of a song. Take any song with adequately deep lyrics, and generally a few students may have their own interpretations of the same song. The Qu'ran is written in poetry, and is chock full of meanings waiting to be interpreted by the reader, especially when one needs to call on its guidance for today's turmoil and uncertainties.

Does it still make it right to stone a girl for getting raped? Of course not. And it likely never will. It's archaic in our views, almost criminal, but we aren't surrounded by such a mindset.

Professor Smooth wrote:

YouFearGalvatron wrote:And you are right. We will never face them directly, as we, work at Innitech, and are p******.

Anyone know the movie that quote is from?

Office Space.

Please don't get started on the "Our God is better than their God" thing. Islam doesn't look any worse on paper than Christianity or Judaism.

Dude, God has nothing to do with this.

Kudos for knowing the reference, and knowing Office Space.