"Frank Olson" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:MvOkd.190531$nl.144194@pd7tw3no...
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>> This is truly scary... I find myself actually agreeing with you.
>>>
>>> Would you say there was a large difference between, say, a "cult"
>>> (headed by a "savvy Christian"), and a Muslim Terrorist cell (which is
>>> usually "headed" by a very savvy "Mullah")? If David Koresh (who was
>>> stockpiling large numbers of firearms and ammunition) had decided to
>>> send his adherents out on "missions" that involved suicide bombings,
>>> ambush, and attacks on local law enforcement, how would these have
>>> differed from the attacks we've all read about in Iraq and Israel?
>>
>> The difference here that you are failing to recognize is that ALL
>> Christians would immediately have condemned him and spoken out against
>> him. The Muslims do not do that with respect to the Muslim terrorists.
>> They are making a huge mistake by not doing so. There is still steel in
>> the West and we are not to be trifled with, most especially not America.
>> The Muslim SILENCE on Muslim terrorism is DEAFENING!
>
> Hmmm... What you're failing to recognize is that in a lot of Muslim
> countries there is no "freedom of the Press" and often no direct
> communication links with the "outside world". The "silence" you hear
> isn't because they "condone" Terrorism. Most have a major problem putting
> food on the table on a daily basis and that happens to be where most of
> their concerns center. Remember the "spin" the Iraqi government put on
> war. Until American tanks actually entered Baghdad, a lot of Iraqis didn't
> dare hope that Saddam's regime would actually fall for fear of reprisals.
>
> Most of the Iraqi's didn't like Saddam. His suppression of the Shia is
> very well known. The "Bath Party" represented a very small cross-section
> of the population in Iraq (compared to the number of Shia Muslims in
> Iraq). That one man and a small minority could so totally control a
> country is further evidence of the political and media controls that were
> in place. I seem to recall the Taliban Government condemned the "cowardly
> acts" of 9/11 and tried to distance themselves (unsuccessfully mind you)
> from UBL and EQ. All the Palistinians openly rejoicing in the streets
> after the towers fell was a disturbing sight to many (myself included),
> and even when you take into account what they themselves have been through
> (in their struggle for a homeland) I was still totally disgusted.
Frank, we are not too far apart on any of this. But the Arabs are the way
they are because they are saddled with a very primitive religion which
disposes them to be subjects rather than free men. The Protestant
Reformation changed the West most profoundly and made it possible for men to
become free men and not just subjects.
>> You've indicated that Christianity is a "more
>>> sophisticated" religion than Islam. I simply don't see that. Both
>>> faiths (if not all) can be "twisted" to suit whatever nefarious
>>> practices a single "magnetic" individual can envision. I'm not
>>> apologizing for Islam as you seem bent on accusing me of. I'm merely
>>> pointing out that *all* faiths have their kooks and zealots. It's
>>> unfortunate that these same kooks keep making the headlines.
>>
>> Islam is not on the same level as Christianity. It is still a very
>> primitive religion. Christianity was incorporated into the Greek and
>> Roman world and has been reformed over and over again. Islam is the same
>> now as it was at it's founding. It is intolerant in the extreme and you
>> cannot live in a Muslim society unless you are a Muslim yourself.
>
> The Greeks and Romans were Pagans. No matter how you slice it Christ's
> message *is* a simple one. Man has only managed to complicat the whole
> thing with "pomp and circumstance". The Catholic Church is rich beyond
> measure and yet the majority of the people it "serves" are living far
> below the poverty line. I don't see this as being part of Christ's
> message (or philosphy).
The pagan Roman world was nonetheless civilized by the standards that
prevailed elsewhere at that time. At the time of the Renaissance scholars
and other learned men took up the entire question of religion and it's
relation to civil society. Christianity is highly evolved and is the only
religion that is capable of becoming a universal religion for all mankind.
The Muslim religion is a dead end as are most of the other religions in the
world.
You must not conflate religious beliefs with social justice in a civil
society. They are two separate things, most especially in the Muslim
religion.
>>> PS: If you *must* know, I voted for Bush. That makes me some "Liberal
>>> Conservative girly man", eh?? 
)
>>
>> Damnation! I would never have thought it in a million years. I am in a
>> state of shock at this revelation! You have just ascended into the
>> stratosphere in my estimation of you for having voted for Bush. I have
>> the feeling you may have voted for Bush for different reasons than I did,
>> but it doesn't matter. It was the right vote for whatever reason.
>> Congratulations!
>
>
> I do not, quite frankly, care what you think. I make no apologies for the
> opinions I've expressed, and I do not support his actions in Iraq. Nelson
> Mandela said (on the eve of the invasion of Iraq): "One power, with a
> President who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting
> to plunge the world into a holocaust." I sincerely hope that those words
> don't come back to haunt us and I pray our troops over there come back
> safely.
Rather than telling this newsgroup that you do not give a **** what I think
of you and how you voted, you ought to have said why you voted for Bush.
That is what we are all waiting to hear, since you are a liberal pacifist
and a socialist to boot. So, just why did you vote for Bush? Mr. Sherman do
doubt wants to know even more than me.
--
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
