A Democratic Iraq?

[PsyOps]

Would the Former President of the Southern Baptist Convention, which has, according to its website, “16 million members who worship in more than 42,000 churches in the United States.” be Christian enough for ya?

Yeah just more peacefull, non-Fanatics for ya

You obviously don't see a difference between wishing (or praying) someone to die and actually commiting acts of violence on innocent people in order to kill them.

I do not condone what these people feel or believe. And I agree these folks are fanatics. But there is no law against being a fanatic; there is no law against wishing someone to die. But they do not fall under the definition of a terrorist organization. You have failed to prove that there are Christians going around the globe setting off bombs on innocent people (particularly women and children), even in the most radical sects of the religion.

 

[PsyOps]

Well if you would make an argument without moving the goalposts, like you did earlier, then maybe we could have a conversation about Christian fanatics.

When you are shown examples of Christian fanatics you claim they arent Christian.
Whats to stop a Muslim, when shown a Muslim fanatic, from claiming the same thing? (and they do).

I was challenging this claim by you:

The exact same verse can be used against Christians, with their history of violence and attrocities (and we are not talking the Crusades), now condeming an ENTIRE religion because of a small faction of Radicals.
Before you can condemn the ENTIRE religion because of what Radicals who bastardize the belief, make sure you (Christians) dont also have a problem yourself with Radicals.

I simply asked you to provide examples of attrocities (aside from the Crusades by your own omission) that Christians have committed as compared to what Radical Islam is doing and were unable to do so. I would agree that those Radical Muslims are not true Muslims just as I would have to say Christians aimed at harming innocent people are not Christians (although that is ultimately not for me to decide). But they do what they do in the name of that religion and that is the context in which this discussion was going. There is no Christian comparison to what these fundamentalist Islamists are doing.

The reason I would condemn the entire Islamic religion is because they are enablers. They do not, as an entire community come out and condemn these murderers. They, as a whole, are silent. They provide havens in their Mosques. They stand in the way of nearly every effort this country tries to make in combatting the terrorist problem through lawsuits.

It seems you are too ready to condemn Christian fanatics whenever the topic of radical Islam comes up. I don't think anyone is condoning the actions of radical "Christians", but there is no comparison to that of radical Islam.

 

[PsyOps]

And you believe this because you are a Christian. As an outsider the examples that i sited, of Christian fanatics, arent any different.

There is a difference between what they DO within their radical beliefs and what they believe. It’s one thing to believe something harmful, but when you act on those beliefs it move into a different realm.

Just as there were Catholics that supported the IRA, through Sinn Fein, (and Nazi's in both the US and England ) yes there may be those that condone the actions of the Terrorists.
But all i had to type was Muslims condemn Terrorist, into Google and the first page was this

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

Wasnt really hard to find, that is if you werent interested in pushing an agenda of condeming a belief.

The very first group on the list was CAIR (just one example of this deceptive group). This group has been condemned for supporting terrorism. They are the largest and most influential Islamic group in America. Most of what you provided are condemnations from the 911 attacks, they have since largely been silent since

I'm not sinularly (sp?) condemning Christian fanatics, and thats probably the "issue" with the fundamentalists on the board.
But what I am doing is stating that there are Radicals in all religions, and as i've said many times on here, you cant condemn a whole religion, because of the actions of their Radicals, unless your willing to also condemn your own religion, because it too has its Radicals (who have committed like attrocities)

There are no doubt fanatics in every aspect of our culture. I don’t condemn the entire Muslim community for the actions of the fundamentalists; I condemn them for their silence and inaction against them. But in reality, what can really be done about it except combat it with military force (sorry to say).

 

[Starman3000m]

The very first group on the list was CAIR (just one example of this deceptive group). This group has been condemned for supporting terrorism. They are the largest and most influential Islamic group in America. Most of what you provided are condemnations from the 911 attacks, they have since largely been silent since

What if the "condemnations" were really just a public-relations gimmick to deceive Americans about the real intentions that such Muslim groups have.

In other words, let's not conquer through terror - let's conquer through taking advantage of the American system of education and politics.

And now these words from CAIR:

Ibrahim Hooper
AP - 6/11/2004
CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) Spokesperson
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like
the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in
the future. ...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
--------------------------------------
Omar Ahmad
5/16/2004
Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6473

----------------------------------------

Meanwhile on the fundamental/fanatic side of Islam: these words by a Muslim cleric:

Muslim cleric values life???
Reuters 4/18/2004

"It's inevitable. Because several (attacks) are being prepared by several groups," Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad told Lisbon's Publica magazine from London where he is based.
He added: "We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers! And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity!."

 

[PsyOps]

And once again, do you want examples from Leaders of Christianity that state the EXACT same thing (read the Not Peace a Sword thread)?

If its so terrible that a Muslim would say it, then it should be just as terrible if a Christian states it (if your not a hypocrite).

And I will maintain that talk is worthless. Doing has real meaning. Radical Muslims act on their hatred in the most horrible kind of way.

 

[PsyOps]

And you will not recieve any kind of disagreement from me about RADICAL Muslims, and their actions.

But we werent talking about actions, remember? we were talking about the "worthless talk" coming from Cair and quoted by Starman.

Actually I have been talking about that throughout this thread. I have maintained that, for this very reason, this is the distinguishing difference between the radical sects of Christians and Muslims. You seem to see no difference.

He was making a case that what came from CAIR was terrible, if so, then Like words coming from a Christian are equally terrible, unless your a hypocrite.

Yes, however, we hear the talk from Christians with no action behind it. The actions resulting from the talk from CAIR are carried out, cooperatively, by the terrorists. Again if the words of Christians were carried out in a like manner then I would put them on the same plane. This is not the case.

Starman wasnt taking an issue with the Terrorists, he had an issue with a Muslim group stating a position. But its excused when a Christian group takes the same position.

Actually, I think his issue was that terrorists are using these words as a means to justify their agenda and CAIR is a catalyst for promoting it.

Like is Like, if its terrible for one Religion to make a stance that theirs is correct, should be the one followed, or the dominant faith, then its just as terrible for your religion to have the same stance.

If I tell you I hate you, do you care? Probably not. If I tell you I hate you then follow up with breaking your nose, do you care now? I bet you do. That’s the definitive difference.

 

[PsyOps]

You right, I see no difference between a Radical Muslim that commits a terrible act and a Radical Christian that commits a terrible act.

and thats the problem, when a Radical Christian commits a heinous act (many examples were cited), you excuse them, or deny they are Christian. Even if the Radical Christian feels he is Christian.

Once again, since you seem to have comprehension issues.

If a Muslim states (in one way or another) that America should become Muslim, Fundamentalist Christians get in a tither and use that as an example of how terrible Islam is.

If a Christian STATES THE EXACT SAME THING. nothing from the Fundamentalists. That is hypocrisy.





So you explain how those are any different?

I on the other hand, find both EQUALLY OFFENSIVE, which is why 2ndA gets his panties in a twist.

The scary part, out of the 4 (CAIR, Robertson, Dobson and Falwell) 3 of them have the direct ear of our President.

Want to explain how none of that results in action?

Hmm ok, so if a Radical Christian uses the words of Falwell, Dobson, Robertsons as an excuse to justify killing a Homosexual we can expect condemnation? Because all we've seen is hypocrisy.

We'll look past your comparison of Apples and Oranges.

If 2 people say the EXACT SAME THING, but you only go after one of the people, because the other person belongs to the same Video Club as you, that is Hypocrisy. There is no way to explain the difference other than that.

Hypocrisy is exactly what the Fundamentalists on here exhibit, when they complain about something a Muslim says, a line in their bible, etc. Yet ignore or excuse the EXACT SAME THINGS in their own belief.

First of all I have excused nothing. I have gone on often about how I condemn violent acts resulting from radical ideology from any religion. Don’t accuse me of comprehension problems when you have blatantly ignored this time and time again. Secondly, you seem to be stuck with just wanting to discuss what each religion TALKS about while ignoring their actions. There’s no point in discussing this at the level of just rhetoric. The radical Muslims have taken their ideology WAY beyond rhetoric. On a global scale they murder innocent people by the dozens. You just aren’t seeing this happening within the radical Christian sects and you have yet to provide any examples of it.

I will say that hatred is hatred and I condemn this, especially from Christians. You seem to think I am making excuses for Christian, when I do not. I have very expectation from Muslims that they will like me as who I am. My expectations are different from a Christian and I stand more disappointed when they behave in a hateful manner. Having spent time in a Muslim country I can tell you first hand what is feels like to be hated and treated with disdain because of who I am. So I have come to expect this from some people; and they don't disappoint.

I’m not seeing where the Dobson quote fits any sort of definition of radical. He is simply stating a fact based on a quote from the bible. This quote doesn’t promote any sort of violence. He’s simply saying if you don’t adhere to this, these are the consequences. Sort of like if you have unprotected sex you may get AIDS. What he doesn't mean is, if you don't adhere to this, Christian will hunt you down and butcher you. I’ve felt for a long time that Falwell has become increasingly distant from promoting a sensible message of God. In short I think he has lost his mind. I don’t take what he says all that seriously. As far as either being offensive, I’m not offended by what people say, I am offended by what they do. And they may have a direct ear to the president but Bush has been in office for 6+ years now and I’m not seeing any policy resulting from (what you would call) a radical Christian agenda. Lastly on this I would ask you… are you seeing Christians going around the globe, with masks on their faces, gathering up gays and sawing their heads off with rusty swords? Are you seeing them set off bombs at places that they gather? Are you seeing them hunted down, on a global scale, and shot execution style? I will get my “panties in a twist” when this happens.

Lastly, if I hear two people tell me they hate me and wish I were dead, but only one punches me in the face, who do think I will want to go after? But if both go on and on about how they hate me and wish I were dead, what do I care, regardless of what group they come from?

 

[PsyOps]

Talks? There were many many examples of Christian Fanatics that did alot more than Talk.

On a global scale? I mean if we are going to compare the actions of radical Islam to Radical Christianity I have to have examples of how Christians are launching attacks on innocent people in busses, street corners, buildings, pizza parlors, and weddings.

And your expectation towards Muslims is realized in this country. But you did make excuses, Purported Self described Christians were cited. You excused them by stating they werent Christian.

I will rescind this as I am not in a position to decide the heart of someone else. I can make that judgment by what they say and do, but in all reality it’s up to God.

A Muslim can and does make the same claim, yet you (proverbial you) will claim its in their holy book thats why they did it. Ignoring the fact that in your Holy Book the same types of passages can be used to explain Christian Fanatics.

I don’t claim this is in any book. I think they are using distorted contexts of their religion to justify their evil, just like I have already admitted that Christians do the same thing. I’m just not seeing the scale here.

Until you (proverbial you) are willing to come to grips that yes Muslims have their fanatics, but so do Christians, Jews, Hindus (i think), Buddhists (i assume), and Rock worshippers, that is not a reason to dismiss the belief and or treat their followers as having any less right to follow their beliefs as you do. Your (proverbial) reasonings for dismissing them is where your (proverbial) hypocrisy comes to light.

I have already admitted Christians have their fanatics. I see no need to say it again. I don’t dismiss anything. I am simply (ONCE AGAIN) trying to point out that you aren’t seeing Christians going around the globe launching attacks; especially targeting innocent people.

The Muslim country you spent time in, i would assume, didnt have seperation of church and state. Your not making an argument against Muslims you are making an argument for the Seperation clause (do you notice the distinction?). Can you honestly say that it would be different in ANY country that didnt have such a seperation between a government and a sponsored religion? if you remember a few Crazy guys in wigs started a country because of it?

The separation clause didn’t even enter my mind. The “crazy guys in wigs” started a country that was defined by freedom of religion, not freedom of the Christian religion.

Dobson's quote was pertaining to the 9/11 attacks i think (its an old quote).
But it doesnt matter, it was an example of a figurehead (Dobson) stating our country is in the crapper for not following the Christian Bible. Which is no different than Starmans quotes from Muslims, who stated (basically) the same thing.
But you were ok with Dobsons, and Starman saw a problem with the Muslims.

He is entitled to that belief? And millions in this country happen to believe he’s right that this country is in the crapper because it has become morally debased. I don’t recall seeing anything about Muslims in his quote. I think he was talking more about Americans and the dying of our morality. But he is a Christian and a minister, so he is certainly going to put things in that context.

You may not take what he says all that seriously, but just as with Muslims and their radical clerics, there are those that can and do construe what Falwell said and use it to fit their agenda's. Eric Rudolph was the example of that.

Agreed.

And lastly, if starman uses a quote of a Muslim saying America should be an Islamic country, and i post a Dobson stating the exact same thing, then i'd expect for you to comment on both of them, not just the one you percieve as being anti-Christian. Which its not, it just pointing out that Christians have said or done the same thing, pointing out hypocrisy doesnt make you Anti-Anything.

I don’t read Dobson’s quote as saying he desires a Christian state. I’m not saying he isn’t. I’m not going to guess what’s in his heart. I don’t condone any sort of religious state. Just don’t start lighting off bombs to demand your agenda.

 

[PsyOps]

We agree that Radicals of a faith are the ones commiting these actions. And just as you submit that Christian Radicals arent "really" Christian (i am paraphrasing not trying to pick a fight), Muslims can and do say that the Terrorists arent "really" Muslim.

Actually, if you recall back (I don’t remember if it was this thread or another) I have since rescinded that statement. I admit that I don’t have the first clue what’s in someone’s heart. But I think you can make certain judgments about a person’s character based on what they say or do.

But others on here, will ignore the fact that all faiths have the radicals, and will use the Radicals of one faith as the figurehead for the Entire religion. Which all things being equal, means we should do the same for their faith.

I’m only trying to point out the distinguishing difference is the Radical Muslims are inflicting random acts of violence, targeting innocent people on a global scale. This is, in my opinion, much more harmful and more condemnable than just a bunch of rhetoric.

The seperation clause was brought up, because usually Muslim countries do not have a seperation of church and state. But you used those countries as an example of how you, a non-state religion follower felt. that is an example of WHY there should be a seperation of Church and state.

And religious freedom also means free to practice a religion other than Christianity.

I agree with the separation clause. I agree that you can observe whatever religion you chose. I agree that there are Christians out there that would love nothing more than to establish a Christian state. I don’t want to adhere to being forced to attend a certain Christian church (or any Christian church if I so chose) any more than I want to be forced to attend a Muslim place of worship. In our current day, however, I am seeing a much more dangerous movement within the radical sects of Islam to that end than I am Christian. Aren’t you?

We wont agree on Dobson's intentions, unless one of us actually asks him we will probably never know. You take it as one thing, i take it as him espousing for more Christianity in our laws/government/rulings.

No Dobson wasnt saying anything about Muslims, (wasnt saying he was) but he was stating that the reason our Country was attacked was because we've become less of a Christian country, and (Christian) God's teachings.

Why wouldn’t you want more people in our government that represents your ideals and views? It’s kind of a natural thing isn’t it? But it’s also a double-edged sword.

It's my take that Dobson was trying to tell us that God's will is being fulfilled. The Bible predicts that man, by our nature, will sink deeper and deeper into depraved behavior. Our own deisre for things on this earth will be our own demise. Christians understand that is you want to escape this (not here on this earth, but in eternity; a concept I gather you don't believe) is to turn to God. I'm trying to look at Dobson's comments are a larger scale of God's overall purpose rather than speaking to a specific event. The 911 attack is just a single symptom of our global demise. But we (Christians) believe in the hope God offers. But, the larger reality is the human race is spiraling out of control and wont will not stop. It's just our nature to destroy ourselves this way.

As to the country going down the crapper. I wouldnt say its because of getting away from Christian Principles, because alot of the "In God we Trust" came about as a response to the Communists in the 50's. Was the country in the crapper, pre-1950's?
A majority of the social problems of our country, comes from almost 70 years of Liberal (socialistic) policies that have been enacted.

I couldn't agree with you more on the progressive/social/liberal movement that is happening in this country.

I’m not willing to say it’s about getting away from Christian principles. I would remain more neutral and say it’s because we are losing our morality. But as I said above, Christians believe the only way to esape this is to turn to God. I don't think the message is being properly sent as for why Christian tend to get the message wrong. I obviously don't have all the right words to say to exemplify this meaning. From that angle you have to seek it out for yourself or you just wont understand, on a spiritual level.

 

[Starman3000m]

Back to "A Democratic Iraq?"


Just this week on the news, a U.S. Intel report stated that Iraq may require another form of government "less Democratic" than what we had hoped for in order to become stabilized. This also comes on the wake of a Pentagon report from last week that stated how our military was neither really prepared nor expectant of the insurgent resistance that they have met up with.

The old proverbial saying of "Know Thy Enemy" was not coined just to be disregarded by any military leader prior to and when going into battle. The fact is, the indoctrination of the Islamic ideology and culture with its internal sectarian power struggles turned out to be more complex theologically, socially and politically than what the military strategists originally thought.

Will it ever be stabilized? Honestly, I believe we are now in the prophetic unfolding of the Biblical warning where the world is crying for "peace and safety" (1Thessalonians:5:3) and where people are ready to accept any peace plan that will stop terrorism and usher in any leadership that can stabilize the chaos that is going on in the world.

There will be peace alright, but it will be short-term, as prophesied. I believe that the upcoming period of "false peace" will enable the Third Temple of God to be constructed on the Temple Mount by the Jewish people and without the Muslim Mosque of Omar needing to be destroyed. As many know by reading Biblical Prophecy, the peace-pact will be broken and the world will experience the Great Tribulation:

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (Matthew 24:21)

Friends, these things must come to pass prior to the return of Y'shua HaMashiach at which time the world will finally have God's True Peace On Earth during His Millennial Reign from Jerusalem.