The Middle East part 2

[miles teg 1]

I agree Denoir.  

I'm just a bit disappointed that AL doesn't really understand the point of all my lengthy posts..... which basically is that violent response to a violent attack only invites more violence unless it is done so ruthlessly and brutally that your enemy never recovers.  In a sense, the wars that we see in the world today are simply extensions of violence started a loooong time ago in most cases.

If you name almost any conflict today in the world you can normally find very old roots...conflict only simmers and boils depending on agitators of those old conflicts (or the lack of those agitators).

So my last reply was basically talking about the human urge for revenge and why we can't always just give into such desires as they lead only to more violence against us.

It's not rocket science, it's just basic human psychology that is pretty simple to understand and very easy to observe in any society in the world.

So its not that there is never a place for violence, but that it must be done with tremendous care and planning with future reprecussions accounted for so that it is carried out intelligently in a focused manner and not with big clumsy military operations that oppress people not directly responsible for the violence.

Anyways to what Al said, I'm sure my history lessons are indeed biased...just as much as I'm sure yours are.  I've seen many accounts of the history of the formation of Israel and quite frankly I have no idea who's telling the truth.  

Even if you found historical evidence to support one view of history, the other side of the arguement won't believe it is the real truth.

What matters is not the truth, but understanding how people percieve the truth as being.  Understanding how your enemy perceives "truth" is half of the way to understanding your enemy and by doing so, understanding solutions to the conflict.  This is the point that many conservatives simply can not seem to grasp.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[qUiLL 0]

Quote[/b] ]What matters is not the truth, but understanding how people percieve the truth as being. Understanding how your enemy perceives "truth" is half of the way to understanding your enemy and by doing so, understanding solutions to the conflict. This is the point that many conservatives simply can not seem to grasp.

miles, i couldnt put it better myself you are my inspiration now hehe

[Guest]

Perceptions:

The palestinian perceptions of Israel as a brutal apartheid state and Israeli  perceptions of Palestinians hellbent on wiping Israel off the map are responsible for the conflict.  The truth (which IMHO will show that Israel wants security and the Palestinians want '67 borders) is irrelevant.

To better understand this concept of perceptions, study Nietzsche's "slave morality" concept... This a good starting point for Nietzsche's Geneolpgy of Morals in which he discusses this concept.

Truth, being subjective and all, leads me to believe that if Israel had good reason to shoot and kill her brother (they were armed lets say...

You are failing to realize the lessons of hindsight.  I will emphasize this point again because it relates here as well.  

*****Its about perceptions!******

What matters is not the truth, but understanding how people percieve the truth as being.  Understanding how your enemy perceives "truth" is half of the way to understanding your enemy and by doing so, understanding solutions to the conflict.  This is the point that many conservatives simply can not seem to grasp.

I couldn't agree more  

[Bernadotte 0]

I will however point out that Jews that came to Israel before the first Aliyah, in the First Aliyah and in the Second Aliyah afterwards purchased their lands from local inhabitants and at exhorbitant prices most of the time.

All of this is very relevant, since you imply that modern Israel was born in sin.

Again you need to be informed about your country:

1.  Israel did not even exist during the first and second Aliyahs (1882 - 1914)?

2.  The country was called Palestine before 1948.

3.  Land ownership does not legitimise the birth of a nation?

4.  It is not legitimate for a minority of a country's population owning just 6% to declare statehood on 50% of a country's territory?

Actually, this might be a good place to post one Israeli's opinion on the recent interview with Israeli historian, Benny Morris.

Quote[/b] ]The historian Benny Morris uncovered documents that reveal the reality of what happened in 1948 in all its ugliness and monstrousness. However, Benny Morris the person is unwilling and incapable of coping with the moral implications of what he discovered and revealed. Indeed, the State of Israel as it is today could not have arisen if Ben-Gurion had not carried out large-scale ethnic cleansing.

Is our country, whose vistas we know so well, such a wonderful creation that its very existence confers moral justification on that brutal act? I doubt it. By the way, I also doubt that the "American democracy" of our day is such a wonderful creation that it confers moral justification on the annihilation of the Indians, as Morris claims.

That doesn't mean we have to dismantle Israel or the United States. Even a child born of rape has the right to go on living once he has come into the world. It does mean that the State of Israel should recognize the terrible injustice its establishment inflicted on the Palestinian people and compensate them, and certainly that it should refrain from inflicting further injustices, as we are doing day in and day out, and as Morris recommends that we go on doing more intensively.

Adam Keller

I agree, however it's not just Benny Morris' problem.  I suspect that very few Israelis are willing and capable of coping with the moral implications of what happened in 1948.

[Acecombat 0]

@Denoir

Quote[/b] ]As for following the religion "the way its meant to be" is an impossibility due to the required interpretations because the internal inconsistencies of the religious texts.

Yep for christainity perhaps yes for th jews i wont comment (my knowledge is little on it) as for muslims , NO there are no inconsistencies in the text , they only need VALID interpretations by sound/sane and qualified people who are not racist pricks but true honest religious folks (very rare these days though).

Quote[/b] ]Your so called link of quranic contradictions

many thanks for posting that link for me but i already knew about it through the islaminfos page and saw its ridiculousness already , if you'd knew arabic along with a bit of knowledge of the Quran then more then HALF and nearly all of those so called contradictions can be de-bunked quite easily

BTW did you care to read this page before you posted that?

A response already made at islam.info on the desperately sought for contradictions of mr.katz

Let me quote a few things from there here:

Mr. Katz's purpose

Katz’s purpose in listing these claimed contradictions is to get Muslims to stop claiming that the Qur’an is superior to the Bible. In his response to Randy Desmond, Katz wrote:

"There are a number of questions in regard to the Bible for which I do not know a fully satisfactory answer. And I will admit that I don’t know, should you ask me one of these. But I hate the pretence of having answers if there are none. And I hate the often pridefully displayed and claimed superiority of the Qur’an over the Bible. If these contradictions pages help Muslims to become more humble and realistic and especially stop claiming the corruption of the Bible because they have found a few difficult passages, then the goal of this page has been reached."

So as we can see the only purpose of his website was to take one verse from someplace and one from another put them together give a false interpretation of a contradictions and voila spook the muslims in to believing the Quran contains contradictions , i mean the site was created to scare the muslims in to submitting that the qurans false so they can LESSEN the criticism on the BIBLE LOL.

What a jerk he doesnt even understand arabic (read up on islaminfo's response) many of his so called contradictions have already been dismembered yet he hasnt taken them off (a clear sign of his personal stubborness in not accepting his wrongness) even i going through them orally saw more then half as clear cut mistakes maede through his unability to understand arabic (as a language) the vastisity of its terminalogy and words used along with the context in which they were made also keeping in mind the islamic history of which he is completely devoid of which PLAY a very important part in the Qurans outcome and the chronology of the verses.

There are a few contradictions hes made which i dont know about though as i am as said previously no ISLAMIC scholar of any sorts but take it to a learned islamic scholar and i am sure he'll explain all the mistakes that guys made in his ASSUMPTIONS.

@avon

Quote[/b] ]G-d promised to continue transmission of Divine message through the prophets following Moses, such as Joshua, Samuel and the hundred of others that followed. Not for naught are the scriptures following the Torah, chronicalling the first several 100 years of Israel's dwelling in the Land Of Israel, collectively called simply "Nevi'im" - "Prophets".

This is not referring to the messiah - not ours, not yours, not anyone's.

And it certainly doesn't mention Mohamed any more than it mentions Jesus, any more than it mentions a scion of the House of David.

Oh really?

I guess this guy whos one of the most respected scholars in Quran and Bible must be wrong then ...

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) THE PROPHET OF ISLAM

Read it full it'll be an eye opener for you perhaps....

Read up on the several version(s) of the bible too along with jewish perspective on Jesus too and how they treated him or anyother prophet and the way modern christains take it i see it as a QUID PRO QUO

I would welcome all people to read Ahmed Deedats (a former christain now muslims) interesting lecture on the issue and many others the guy speaks and has learned the bible/quran in many languages such as Afrikaans etc etc .... hes one of the most outspoken people in his field.

Much better if you go here and read everything on Mr Deedat a page dedicated to him:

Mr Ahmed Deedats comparative analysis

Quote[/b] ]So, in plain simple English, those that do not believe in the validity of Mohammed and the Quran will be burned in hellfire, according to this verse, plain and simple.

Just say so next time and thank you for helping me make another point of Islam's ingrained hatred of those that do not tag along with it.

LOL you break me in to pieces with your comments absurdity you know ... thats not Islams dealing on this issue but GOD's as i said lady youhave a issue with GOD not me or anyother muslim because we didnt pen those words down , those are the labelled punishments for the unbelievers to each his own you can live in your own created dominion of whats right and whats not it hasnt got anything to do with our social everyday obligations of acting as a normal human being but you tend to disagree ..... ( and i wonder why?)

And i can only wonder as to what Judaism and christanity speak about those who dont believe in it?

Do i go to heaven if i am a nonjew avon? If so then whats with the religion(s) anyway? I mean if were all the same i'd say we should all drop our religion shouldnt we? What for we are muslims/jews/christains anyway? IF NOT out of our responsiblity to Look up to GOD as the creator of this world and to live a clean, chaste life in order to gain entrance to heaven? Do you think different ? If not then your personal vendetta against the qurans sayings about the non-believers is completely baseless.

Quote[/b] ]So when IslamCity.com states on this very verse:

Topics discussed in this Verse:[Jews:became apes and swine]

You're saying they're lying, it's baseless and you know better for sure?

Personally, I had not problem seeing the continuation of verse 59's reference to the "People of the Book" and verse 60's reference to them as "apes and swine", just as IslamCity's topic point does.

Remember, IslamCity.com has nothing but praise from all of these mostly western news orgnizations and others. Are you saying that they should trash the site because it's packed full of lies and baseless hatred

No i am not saying that they are lying as i said i am no SCHOLAR or learned person on the details of Quran far from it but from th verse you quoted only then it had no mention of the jews or israelis in it perhaps i need to read up on its background to get a better info maybe it does refer to the jews on account of some incident described in the Quran elsewhere. SO dont quote me on it i could be very well be wrong.But from the verse (in arabic) i found no word syaing it was jews.

Quote[/b] ]Judaism, per se, doesn't mention Islam in the first place. Furthermore, as a monotheistic religion, Judaism only approves of it.

Ofcourse how can it it was before Islam so it couldnt mention anything about Islam or muslims or any of their faults because they werent their

Quote[/b] ]I will refrain from giving links here showing the contrary and that cast Mohammed in a very negative light. Those who are interested can find links themselves.

LOL i have seen one of those links of yours from jewish websites , poor blokes they need a sanity check i mean going against the world on Islamic/Arabian history just out of pure enemity and hatred towards Muhammed its very ironic. I mean here i am a living right in the middle of the place and i and i am surrounded by lies only truth lies in those small obscure websites which try their very best to somehow degrade Muhammed in one way or the other. I remember the last time you posted one i had a field day writing off its mistakes.

Quote[/b] ]Thank you for brushing off the article with a "he's wrong, I'm right". It was the expected response.

hehe your welcome .

<fst fwd>

Now to come to our present time and see all this is the present tense , in relation to the ME problem.

I have to agree with miles there on nearly all of his points , miles i thank you for showing such common sense and tolerance towards all may you keep at it

Understanding how your enemy perceives "truth" is half of the way to understanding your enemy and by doing so, understanding solutions to the conflict. This is the point that many conservatives simply can not seem to grasp.

Very well put miles i agree on this , people NOW in the present need toput aside their religious differences and see through this matter with sensibility rather then digging up age old issues and throwing them back up and down ( a thing which i even can be accused of picking up the jewish treatment of Muhammed back in islams early days , a thing which cannot settle any issue instead bring more in to the fray) people need to forget these differences and for once look at this issue with a non-religious look (which many have a hard time doing) if we keep arguing on religion and hoping that we might come to a solution then we are all dreaming it wont happen there would be nuts everytime among us with racist agendas of their own.

In my opinion serious moves of peace are requried by both sides Muslims and jews people need to recognize the state of Israel many dont due to their stubborn outlook on its creation , Israel needs to make the most of those serious jesture in order to gain muslim goodwill by helping palestinians and to show true signs of wanting peace with their neighbours instead of keeping up on their militarical offensive and show of power in palestinian towns which pastes a negative image a different image needs to be created to show that they care for the plaestinian civilian as much as they do for theirs.

But sadly extremists on both sides are ruining it i wont point fingers at Israel alone the arab world has done a lot of wrong in its handling with the situation too , most people here carry moronically opinionated minds on jews which need to be purged from them they are living trapped in their past bred by the hatred preached by the racist mullah or through someother party. Islam isnt a racist religion and its up to us as muslims to prove it. I have no issue with Israelis living beside Palestinians , i dont want them thrown out to sea or anything all i want is a harmonious envoirnment conducive for people of both religions to live and prosper side by side.

[Guest]

This thread has left the realm of sanity. Who are we to judge whos religion is right or wrong? Bernadotte seems to be pulling back onto some sort of track, so...

Benny Morris is one man with one opinion. While I agree that acknowledging past wrongs is an important part of reconcilation, it is way to early to be discussing that. Only when the Palestinians can prove they can be responsible nation builders, can the "im sorry" phase begin. As for compensation, unless its monetary, its a moot point. Israel will not cede anything pre 67', thats just a straight reality. No amount of international pressure can change that.

As for the coming Palestinian state? I believe israel has a financial responsibility to help them get on their feet, but we need to be sure they won't just buy guns with the money... understand?

[denoir 0]

Yep for christainity perhaps yes for th jews i wont comment (my knowledge is little on it) as for muslims , NO there are no inconsistencies in the text , they only need VALID interpretations by sound/sane and qualified people who are not racist pricks but true honest religious folks (very rare these days though).

And this statement quoted above is a prime example of fundamentalism.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Your so called link of quranic contradictions

many thanks for posting that link for me but i already knew about it through the islaminfos page and saw its ridiculousness already , if you'd knew arabic along with a bit of knowledge of the Quran then more then HALF and nearly all of those so called contradictions can be de-bunked quite easily  

BTW did you care to read this page before you posted that?

A response already made at islam.info on the desperately sought for contradictions of mr.katz

Of course I read it, it was one of the main links from the page I gave you. The explanations given make Bush look like a hones and intelligent man.

The attempts to explain the contradictions are (as in the case of the Bible as well) so moroninc that a person with less brains than an ant's testicles would see how pathetic they are.

Quote[/b] ]So as we can see the only purpose of his website was to take one verse from someplace and one from another put them together give a false interpretation of a contradictions and voila spook the muslims in to believing the Quran contains contradictions   , i mean the site was created to scare the muslims in to submitting that the qurans false so they can LESSEN the criticism on the BIBLE LOL.

What a jerk he doesnt even understand arabic (read up on islaminfo's response) many of his so called contradictions have already been dismembered yet he hasnt taken them off (a clear sign of his personal stubborness in not accepting his wrongness) even i going through them orally saw more then half as clear cut mistakes maede through his unability to understand arabic (as a language) the vastisity of its terminalogy and words used along with the context in which they were made also keeping in mind the islamic history of which he is completely devoid of which PLAY a very important part in the Qurans outcome and the chronology of the verses.

There are a few contradictions hes made which i dont know about though as i am as  said previously no ISLAMIC scholar of any sorts but take it to a learned islamic scholar and i am sure he'll explain all the mistakes that guys made in his ASSUMPTIONS.

I truly hope that your views are not representative of the general muslib/arab population. After hearing your comments, I'm much more prone to believe Avon's arguments. Dude, this is fundamentalism. And believing in the literal meaning and perfection of old religious texts and their infailable truth is the prequisite for religious extremism. Now all you have to do is to decide to act upon it and blow up some infidels.

If your views are truly representable, then I'm worried. I'm worried to the degree that I would fully support a full Western/American occupation of the Arabic states in the Mid East and a couple of Islamic states in Asia. Then I want to see tanks in Medina, accompanied by hordes of teachers, scientists and scholars that could bring the region out of the dark ages and into enlightenment. You are on the path of making the same mistakes that christianity made 800 years ago. We have a duty to protect man from his own stupidity, and we have a right to protect ourselves. If that means by force, then so be it.

My liberalism has the condition that I'm assuming that I'm dealing with normal people thinking for themselves. Religious fundamentalists do not fall into that category. And when their interpretation of their religion is aggressive, hostile and expansive then their balls shall be kicked. You have the right to be fundamentalist in your own domain, but if you start stepping other people on the feet, then you can count on consequences.

When Christianity was as young as Islam is today, it did a lot of nasty things. Unfortunately, it was the strongest power and nobody was in the position to prevent them. Islamic states today on the other hand and both economically and especially militarily insignificant, so it would not be any effort to take them and re-school the population.

Now, before you start screaming and yelling about oppression of religion, let me ask you this: Had somebody been able to to take Germany in say '33 and to re-school the population into something else than Nazism, would you object? Same thing here.

[Bernadotte 0]

...Dude, this is fundamentalism. And believing in the literal meaning and perfection of old religious texts and their infailable truth is the prequisite for religious extremism. Now all you have to do is to decide to act upon it and blow up some infidels.

If your views are truly representable, then I'm worried. I'm worried to the degree that I would fully support a full Western/American occupation of the Arabic states in the Mid East and a couple of Islamic states in Asia. Then I want to see tanks in Medina, accompanied by hordes of teachers, scientists and scholars that could bring the region out of the dark ages and into enlightenment. You are on the path of making the same mistakes that christianity made 800 years ago. We have a duty to protect man from his own stupidity, and we have a right to protect ourselves. If that means by force, then so be it.

My liberalism has the condition that I'm assuming that I'm dealing with normal people thinking for themselves. Religious fundamentalists do not fall into that category. And when their interpretation of their religion is aggressive, hostile and expansive then their balls shall be kicked. You have the right to be fundamentalist in your own domain, but if you start stepping other people on the feet, then you can count on consequences.

When Christianity was as young as Islam is today, it did a lot of nasty things. Unfortunately, it was the strongest power and nobody was in the position to prevent them. Islamic states today on the other hand and both economically and especially militarily insignificant, so it would not be any effort to take them and re-school the population.

Now, before you start screaming and yelling about oppression of religion, let me ask you this: Had somebody been able to to take Germany in say '33 and to re-school the population into something else than Nazism, would you object? Same thing here.

First of all, I equate enlightenment with philosophical pluralism or the belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.

When has enlightenment ever been successfully enforced?  It may have occurred, but I really can't think of any example throughout the history of mankind.  In fact, I can think of plenty of examples where a populace under threat stepped away from enlightenment for the sake of homeland security.  Do you really think that teachers in tanks are the best agents for delivering philosophical pluralism?  I don't.

If you disagree then please enlighten me.  But if use offensive language or ALLCAPS in your explanation I might not pay attention.  

It's just human nature.  

P.S.  I wanted to state that your reformation methods are congruent with those the Neocons seek to implement.  However, I'm too lazy today to look up any concrete references.

[qUiLL 0]

Quote[/b] ]GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - An Israeli helicopter gunship attacked a car carrying members of the Islamic Jihad on a busy Gaza City street on Saturday, killing a 12-year-old boy and wounding 10 people, according to the military and witnesses.

now i am waiting for the next headline to read, "palestinian suicide bomber blows up on a bus killing 10 people" followed by "israel kills 12 in raid" followed by ..........................................................................................

.....................

..........................................................................................

........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

........................................................................................

[denoir 0]

When has enlightenment ever been successfully enforced?  It may have occurred, but I really can't think of any example throughout the history of mankind.  

The Roman empire, the Napoleonic campaigns, to name two.

Quote[/b] ]

In fact, I can think of plenty of examples where a populace under threat stepped away from enlightenment for the sake of homeland security.

Indeed, but one does not exclude the other.

Quote[/b] ]Do you really think that teachers in tanks are the best agents for delivering philosophical pluralism?  I don't.

No, I think it's the second-worst option possible. The worst one is to let the same mistakes happen again, in the name of being tolerant. You can see what Christianity, or better to say, the human abuse of it did to the world for centuries. Why let it all happen again with Islam?

Quote[/b] ]P.S.  I wanted to state that your reformation methods are congruent with those the Neocons seek to implement.  However, I'm too lazy today to look up any concrete references.

Yes, they are and that's why they have many supporters. Bush seems like a man who would deal with those "pesky muslims". And in principle, I'm against both such generalizations and attempts at cultural hegemony. However, reading Acecombats posts and a lot of muslim texts that I have been reading seem to show the possibility of the sterotypes being true. As I said, liberalism makes a big assumption and that is that everybody can agree on an objective reality and that the individual freedom stems from our ability to think and reason.

Religious (or otherwise) fanatics do not fall into that category, regardless if they are Christians, Jews, Buddhists or Muslims. The difference in this case is that what in today's Christianity only various sects would claim, in Islam this seems to be the mainstream (again, if what Acecombat is saying and what I've been reading is representative). And while the neocons do have fundamentalist tendencies, it's still a far cry from how Islam is practiced. So it's possible that they are the lesser of two evils.

Tolerance must go both ways. You can't have one party recieving all forms of abuse while from the other party while standing and preaching about the equality of all cultures. If the followers of a religion want to be accepted and treated with respect, they must do the same to other religions.

[Bernadotte 0]

When has enlightenment ever been successfully enforced?  It may have occurred, but I really can't think of any example throughout the history of mankind.  

The Roman empire, the Napoleonic campaigns, to name two.

I don't disagree, but can you be a bit more specific?  Which societies were forced from being closed to pluralistic by the Romans or Napoleon or any of the other conquerors you are thinking of?

Quote[/b] ]Do you really think that teachers in tanks are the best agents for delivering philosophical pluralism?  I don't.

No, I think it's the second-worst option possible.  The worst one is to let the same mistakes happen again, in the name of being tolerant. You can see what Christianity, or better to say, the human abuse of it did to the world for centuries. Why let it all happen again with Islam?

And how did changes in Christianity come about?  Not by force, but by presenting supporters with viable alternatives through separation of the state from the religious institutions.  Once again, it's all about money.  One day supporters woke up to the choice of investing in this life (paying taxes) or investing in the afterlife (paying church offerings).

Meanwhile, back in the Middle East...

The Saudi government has paid huge sums to the clergy in the hope of preserving stability.  Until now, the US has gone along with any such 'stabilising' programs for obvious petro-reasons.  Similar can be said about Indonesia.  Following 9/11, the US has moved towards ending the mutual patronage of the 2 institutions, but the divorce is proving to be messy.  Naturally.  There's a lot of money at stake and the Saudi government is not too keen on offering the people alternatives like pluralism, which could ultimately lead to democracy.

What's the best solution?

1.  Build a centerpiece of pluralism in Iraq that all Saudi citizens would yearn for.

2.  Help the Saudi government (and others) to evolve to such a condition so that their heads will not roll in the streets when the people start to demand what the Iraqis have.

3.  Perhaps most importantly, get Iraqi oil online so that the west can feel more comfortable with allowing a socio-political transition to come to Saudi Arabia, which could temporarily jeopardise continuous supplies.

If this happens, fundamentalism will lose much of its money, influence and following and the clergy will have to evolve.  ...Just like Christianity did.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - An Israeli helicopter gunship attacked a car carrying members of the Islamic Jihad on a busy Gaza City street on Saturday, killing a 12-year-old boy and wounding 10 people, according to the military and witnesses.

now i am waiting for the next headline to read, "palestinian suicide bomber blows up on a bus killing 10 people" followed by "israel kills 12 in raid" followed by .......

And why did Israel carry out this attack now?

Quote[/b] ]Israeli security sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Israel plans to step up military pressure on the Palestinians in the near future to ensure Sharon's Gaza evacuation plan is not perceived as an Israeli defeat. They did not say whether the latest attacks in Gaza were part of this strategy.

-- SF Chronicle

This means the 12 year-old bystander may have died for the sake of Ariel Sharon's political standing.

"...Prime Minister Sharon is a man of peace."  -  George W. Bush

[denoir 0]

When has enlightenment ever been successfully enforced?  It may have occurred, but I really can't think of any example throughout the history of mankind.  

The Roman empire, the Napoleonic campaigns, to name two.

I don't disagree, but can you be a bit more specific?  Which societies were forced from being closed to pluralistic by the Romans or Napoleon or any of the other conquerors you are thinking of?

Well, for examples, without doing any research, I could cite the public school introduction and the ban of slavery that was enforced in the states occupied by Napoleon. It set very deep footprints and brought pretty radical changes across Europe.

If you want more hands-on examples, how about the overthrowing of the Axis powers in WW2 and the subsequent re-organization of their society.

Or, why not, now when we are talking of the Mid East - Iraq? Of course, we don't know what the end result will be and it's not looking very good right now. In theory still, one can imagine improvements relative the old regime can be made.

The idea of using force to achieve some form of social improvement is quite a valid solution. The obvious problem is to define what "improvement" constitutes and from who's point of view.

Fortunately, in this discussion objectivity is irrelevant as the dominance of one arbitrary culture is equal in value to the dominance of another arbitrary culture.

Of course, the ultimate option is co-existance, but if neither party is willing, then there is very little left to discuss. It's then just a question of brute force.

The ultimate question is what the real situation is. Are Muslims willing to co-exist with the western world and vice-versa? The same applies to the Israel-Palestine question. If people in general and those in power aren't willing to reach some form of compromise and mutual respect, then in the end only the option of direct conflict remains. And it doesn't matter on which side you are on as the choice of values you advocate are arbitrary.

Quote[/b] ]And how did changes in Christianity come about?  Not by force, but by presenting supporters with viable alternatives through separation of the state from the religious institutions.

Christianity reformed in several stages. One of the very important ones was the hegemony of the 'official' church and the wiping out of all sects and 'heretics'. Without the religious persecutions, the burning of heretics and the brute force conversion of non-believers, we would not have democracy today. The firstmost requirement for a system ruled by consensus is that the population of the system must be fairly homogenous. And that is what the church achieved through various brutal methods.

So, what's the difference then between the Christian fundamentalism back then and the Islamic fundamentalism of today? On an absolute scale, nothing. I however, given a choice would prefer a secular democracy rather than a theocratic dictatorship. It's my culture and my preference. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' choice, just a choice.

Also, another factor is that people are unwilling to tolerate abuse just so another socially underdeveloped culture might evolve in peace.

[miles teg 1]

Denoir... I'm curious what exactly did you find erroneous about the logic employed in the response to Mr. Katz's statements on contradictions in Islam.

Unless I missed something I was quite surprised that you found Acecombat's views to be extreme and stupid.

I thought he had been doing a good job of explaining and defending his faith.

But maybe I missed something.

At any rate I read that link he posted and I thought the arguement was perfectly legit considering the issue of inheritence in the Qu'ran.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

Denoir...  I'm curious what exactly did you find erroneous about the logic employed in the response to Mr. Katz's statements on contradictions in Islam.  

Going into a detailed analysis of religious claims would be waaay offtopic plus I really have better ways to spend my time.

I won't leave you empty handed though. Check out this topic:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....;st=405

and the subsequent discussion about speed of light claims in the quoran.

Quote[/b] ]Unless I missed something I was quite surprised that you found Acecombat's views to be extreme and stupid.

I thought he had been doing a good job of explaining and defending his faith.

But maybe I missed something.

What I find extreme is to claim that a book written by man is in no way contradictory. What I find extreme is his claim that the texts of Christianity and Judaism are flawed while the Islamic texts are perfect. I'm an atheist so from where I stand they are all unsubstantiated claims.

Believing in the unsubstantiated theory X is called "belief". And that's fine.

Believing in the unsubstantiated theory X while bashing the unsubstantiated theory Y is fundamentalist. There is no room for that kind of mentality in the modern world. You'll just end up burning heretics and witches (or infidels if that is your forte).

[Acecombat 0]

Ah nice to see double standards being applied here.

Quote[/b] ]What I find extreme is to claim that a book written by man is in no way contradictory. What I find extreme is his claim that the texts of Christianity and Judaism are flawed while the Islamic texts are perfect. I'm an atheist so from where I stand they are all unsubstantiated claims.

And what we have forgotten is that , this is your perspective not everyone elses ..... plenty of people other then you also live here denoir some follow a religion too among those , those poor people might also have a view too and it doesnt necesarrily has to meet your specifications.

So getting to the point you saw muhammed write the book ?

According to islamic belief God sent down the revelations not Muhammed making them up themselves ... he was a illeterate person who couldnt even read let alone write and he was writing a book explaining about Embroyology (which no one knew at that time scientifically , with Biologists verifications too perhaps denoir knows better?) , he wrote about Universes expansion and also about the tectonic plates theory (earth constantly moving beneath) along with the scientificlly proven theory of sallt water and sweet water partition inside the ocean (once again a person 1400 years ago knew all this right denoir?)

And we are talking about unsubstaniated claims here , while denoir himself can make a comment that Muhammed wrote Quran himself , ok now show us your proof

Belief in that all previous religious texts are flawed are critical to the very revelation of Islam if they were perfect then there wasnt any need to send Islam , its the basic fundamental of Islams coming to this world , this hasnt got anything about me trying to prove other wrong or anything.

Quote[/b] ]Believing in the unsubstantiated theory X while bashing the unsubstantiated theory Y is fundamentalist. There is no room for that kind of mentality in the modern world. You'll just end up burning heretics and witches (or infidels if that is your forte).

Thats not fundamentalistic from a religious point of view i have my view and if its not in compliance with your doesnt means its fundamentalism , do you consider it fundamentalism if scientists cant come up with a unified agreement over some things (for eg the hubble constant or the universes expansion/contraction or whats inside/outside the universe?) , do you consider it fundamentalism when in politics different parties through dialog dismember each others claim ?

You dont go around killing people for their belief i have said it a NUMBER of times in this topic if you cant read then its not my problem , no religion argues for the killing of people based on their religious beliefs you can only defend yourselfs and your belief by arms if your existence is under threat and thats it , its a basic human trait nothing religious about it. only a extremist who doesnt know what his religion is about in the first place would go around burning infidels or slaying witches not a sane minded person. I dont know whats with people only seeing the extremities of one thing and believeing it to be the real valid thing.

Quote[/b] ]and the subsequent discussion about speed of light claims in the quoran

There is no such claim on the quran on speed of light , in your excitement (just like Katz) you probably missed that it was only ONE persons interpretation of a verse in to a certain theory which only he could understand.

Quote[/b] ]And believing in the literal meaning and perfection of old religious texts and their infailable truth is the prequisite for religious extremism. Now all you have to do is to decide to act upon it and blow up some infidels.

And why should i blow some one up?

Maybe you should join the AQ's brigade not me i undertsand what my religion says , i dont harbour dellusions of some fantasy world where everyone does what i do and where everyon follows a religion which i do.

Quote[/b] ]If your views are truly representable, then I'm worried.

What is so worrying about my views?

My view on peace among different religious groups ? Is it really worrying ? my view on co-existence between muslims/jews/christains is that worrying you ? What do you want then ?

Quote[/b] ]My liberalism has the condition that I'm assuming that I'm dealing with normal people thinking for themselves. Religious fundamentalists do not fall into that category. And when their interpretation of their religion is aggressive, hostile and expansive then their balls shall be kicked. You have the right to be fundamentalist in your own domain, but if you start stepping other people on the feet, then you can count on consequences.

Yes and so has mine , once again i have to ask when did my view of religion became hostile towards non-muslims? Are you drifting somewhere ?

Quote[/b] ]When Christianity was as young as Islam is today, it did a lot of nasty things. Unfortunately, it was the strongest power and nobody was in the position to prevent them. Islamic states today on the other hand and both economically and especially militarily insignificant, so it would not be any effort to take them and re-school the population.

Now, before you start screaming and yelling about oppression of religion, let me ask you this: Had somebody been able to to take Germany in say '33 and to re-school the population into something else than Nazism, would you object? Same thing here.

I completely agree with you there so whats new? How did you even came to the conclusion that i am in disagreement with all this?

Maybe you'd like to PM me this stuff since youve taken the personal route on this with me and it is cluttering up this thread so if you wanna PM me the gates open.

[Acecombat 0]

On a much lighter note read this but with a bucket of salt

Quote[/b] ]PA report: IDF using nude women soldiers

By Arieh O'Sullivan

JERUSALEM (August 15) - The Palestinian Authority daily Al-Hayat al-Jadedah reported on its front page yesterday that "the occupation is using naked women to hunt down intifada youth."

The article said that last Friday, during a clash at the Karni Junction, a woman soldier suddenly appeared on top of a tank.

"She started to take off her clothes in front of the demonstrators until she was [nearly] naked. Some of the protesters said they were disgusted by it, while others said the Zionist soldier made rude gestures at them," the Palestinian paper reported.

"When they approached to throw stones at her, the female soldier whipped out a pistol from her underwear and shot at their heads," the paper said, adding that two were killed and nine wounded.

Two Palestinians were in fact killed in clashes there Friday, after a mob hurled hand grenades at the troops and they returned fire.

The IDF spokesman initially refused to even comment on the report, but later said it was completely ridiculous.

"There is no truth to these lies, which are the product of Palestinian incitement and propaganda," the IDF said.

The claim of the pistol-toting naked woman soldier joins other Palestinian claims denied by Israeli officials that the IDF was dropping poisoned candy from airplanes and firing depleted uranium shells.

http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/...News.32360.html

*NOTE: Jerusalem post seems to have moved the original piece , so i dont even know if the pa reported it , it is clealry hogwash but worth the laugh

[denoir 0]

Ah nice to see double standards being applied here.

Quote[/b] ]What I find extreme is to claim that a book written by man is in no way contradictory. What I find extreme is his claim that the texts of Christianity and Judaism are flawed while the Islamic texts are perfect. I'm an atheist so from where I stand they are all unsubstantiated claims.

And what we have forgotten is that , this is your perspective not everyone elses ..... plenty of people other then you also live here denoir some follow a religion too among those , those poor people might also have a view too and it doesnt necesarrily has to meet your specifications.

No, no, not at all. I'm acknowledging your right to a religious view, but I'm not giving you the right to come down on those that disagree with you.

Now when you mention it, there is a significant difference between an atheist and a theist point of view. Those things that I advocate are general and universal for everybody. No faith or belief required. Religion is on a level above that, requiring for you to believe a whole bunch of stuff, without getting any evidence for it. Beliefs in religious texts for instance.

Quote[/b] ]So getting to the point you saw muhammed write the book ?

According to islamic belief God sent down the revelations not Muhammed making them up themselves ... he was a illeterate person who couldnt even read let alone write and he was writing a book explaining about Embroyology (which no one knew at that time scientifically , with Biologists verifications too perhaps denoir knows better?) , he wrote about Universes expansion and also about the tectonic plates theory (earth constantly moving beneath) along with the scientificlly proven theory of sallt water and sweet water partition inside the ocean (once again a person 1400 years ago knew all this right denoir?)

That's where the fundamentalism comes in. Nothing of that is in the Quoran, it's your bloody interpretation of it. And it has its base in that religious scholars don't have the first fucking clue about science. The quran also states that the earth is flat. You conveniently pick fuzzy parts, skew them and interpret them to fit the current general picture of the world. The "speed of light" discussion was a perfect example of such ignorance propagated through an unrational belief and no knowledge of scientific methods.

Quote[/b] ]And we are talking about unsubstaniated claims here , while denoir himself can make a comment that Muhammed wrote Quran himself , ok now show us your proof  

I never said Muhammed wrote it. I said that it was written by man. Unless you want to claim that god took a piece of paper and a pen and scribbled it down.

Quote[/b] ]Belief in that all previous religious texts are flawed are critical to the very revelation of Islam if they were perfect then there wasnt any need to send Islam , its the basic fundamental of Islams coming to this world , this hasnt got anything about me trying to prove other wrong or anything.

So, it doesn't make it flawless because it had an ambition to be it. As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as a consistent text. On the most basic level it's because language isn't consistent. If you want to go even more basic, there is a little thing called Gödel's theoreme that proves that no system, not even the ones using the most elementary logic are consistent or complete. Now try explaining that to a priest or an imam. Quite pointless as they don't have the education to understand it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Believing in the unsubstantiated theory X while bashing the unsubstantiated theory Y is fundamentalist. There is no room for that kind of mentality in the modern world. You'll just end up burning heretics and witches (or infidels if that is your forte).

Thats not fundamentalistic from a religious point of view i have my view and if its not in compliance with your doesnt means its fundamentalism , do you consider it fundamentalism if scientists cant come up with a unified agreement over some things (for eg the hubble constant or the universes expansion/contraction or whats inside/outside the universe?) ,

Ah, I'm glad you brought it up. You see, there is a BIG DIFFERENCE. If a scientific claim cannot be repeated everywhere and by anybody it is discarded as false. That is the big difference between religion and science. Religion is completely unsubstantiated while science produces repeatable empirical evidence of its finding.

Quote[/b] ]

You dont go around killing people for their belief i have said it a NUMBER of times in this topic if you cant read then its not my problem , no religion argues for the killing of people based on their religious beliefs you can only defend yourselfs and your belief by arms if your existence is under threat and thats it , its a basic human trait nothing religious about it. only a extremist who doesnt know what his religion is about in the first place would go around burning infidels or slaying witches not a sane minded person. I dont know whats with people only seeing the extremities of one thing and believeing it to be the real valid thing.

Why not? If God is absolute and he hates infidels (at least Jews judging to the quote provided by Avon), then why should you not kill infidels? I mean god is perfect, the quran is perfect, right? What stops you is common sense, culture and intelligence. Why not use them in the first place to realize that your perception of god isn't perfect and the quran and your understanding of it isn't perfect.

Quote[/b] ]There is no such claim on the quran on speed of light    , in your excitement (just like Katz) you probably missed that it was only ONE persons interpretation of a verse in to a certain theory which only he could understand.

EXACTLY! And that's what the whole bible, quran, fox news, the torah, etc is about. Skewed interpretations either by individuals or by a collective. Either ways those are very human interpretations, very far-fetched interpretations. And that's the difference between science and religion. If I give you the equation for gravitational forces, there is no interpretation required. You can repeat the expermient anywhere where the theory claims validity.

Fundamentalism is the lack of understanding that religion isn't absolute, isn't by the letter, but requires EXTENSIVE interpretation by very subjective human beings.

Quote[/b] ]Yes and so has mine , once again i have to ask when did my view of religion became hostile towards non-muslims?    Are you drifting somewhere ?

When you said that the quran is contradiction-free unlike christian and jewish texts. In that moment you displayed a complete lack of understanding of what religion is and what requirements you can put on it.

[miles teg 1]

Denoir...  I'm curious what exactly did you find erroneous about the logic employed in the response to Mr. Katz's statements on contradictions in Islam.  

Going into a detailed analysis of religious claims would be waaay offtopic plus I really have better ways to spend my time.

I won't leave you empty handed though. Check out this topic:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....;st=405

and the subsequent discussion about speed of light claims in the quoran.

Quote[/b] ]Unless I missed something I was quite surprised that you found Acecombat's views to be extreme and stupid.

I thought he had been doing a good job of explaining and defending his faith.

But maybe I missed something.

What I find extreme is to claim that a book written by man is in no way contradictory. What I find extreme is his claim that the texts of Christianity and Judaism are flawed while the Islamic texts are perfect. I'm an atheist so from where I stand they are all unsubstantiated claims.

Believing in the unsubstantiated theory X is called "belief". And that's fine.

Believing in the unsubstantiated theory X while bashing the unsubstantiated theory Y is fundamentalist. There is no room for that kind of mentality in the modern world. You'll just end up burning heretics and witches (or infidels if that is your forte).

You know Denoir I can totally relate to what you're saying.  I'm not atheist however.  I am agnostic and I do find alot of what the Qu'ran says to be really good stuff (just like the good stuff in the Bible).  

I also do not like trying to legitimize religion with science, however I do not see the harm in attempting to do this as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

That is really the bottom line.   Who cares if Acecombat and other Muslims believe that science supports Islam.  Christians do the same thing with the Bible.   If it encourages Muslims to do more scientific research then that is FANTASTIC!

However if science is used to legitimize dangerous interpretations of the Qu'ran then we have some serious problems.  

But Acecombat is not doing this and I see him as a overall a Muslim who has some common sense understanding of his religion and who is not buying into all the anti-Jewish, anti-"everybody not Muslim" hatred being spewed out by extremists because he can clearly see how such teachings are from passages in the Qu'ran taking these issues WAAAAY out of context.  He has explained the historical reasons for these passages (regarding not trusting Jews and Christians) and I have also posted supporting verses from the Qu'ran that say good things about Jews and Christians who truly follow their faith and submit to God.  

It is very frustrating you see, for moderate Muslims to try and explain these things to atheists, Jews, and Christians and then to have these things totally ignored and instead being attacked on silly issues like whether angels move at light speed or not.   It doesn't matter.  If they do they do, if they don't they don't.... if you don't believe in Angels, it don't matter because then the concept of angels in themselves is complete fantasy.  

That's more about a debate against religion in general.

It's far better I think to concentrate on the issues that really matter such as the interpretation of how Jews and Christians are perceived in the Qu'ran based on a good historical context.

Understanding these verses that are so volatile is key in understanding how to diffuse this conflict.

I thought that Acecombat had answered Avon's verses about Jews rather well. But I don't think you quite understood as you're letting your biases towards religion in general get in the way I think, or maybe you just missed it.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Guest]

I know I brought this up last time Israeli forces went into gaza, but this has to be seen to be believed...  and read the caption from the AP

Quote[/b] ]A masked Hamas militant sets up a makeshift mortar launcher against Israeli forces, unseen, as Palestinian youths try to cover him from the sight of the forces during an incursion in a Gaza city's neighborhood, Wednesday Feb. 11, 2004. Israeli troops moved into a neighborhood at the eastern edge of Gaza City early Wednesday, killing atleast 14 Palestinians and wounding at least 27 others in exchanges of fire, residents said, sparking the bloodiest fighting in Gaza in four months. (AP Photo/Adel Hana)

[miles teg 1]

I agree, that's absolutely insane what they're doing.  But you have to remember that those kids are all brainwashed into believe that if they die, they're going straight to heaven because they're dying as martyrs.  Personally I think that if there is a day of judgement, then God's going to show them how stupid they were for standing around a combat zone just begging to have a stray round.

Those types of Palistinian casualties I don't regard as innocent civilians getting killed.  I regard them as un-armed combatants getting killed.  I have little doubt that if one of those Hamas gunmen were to fall in combat, any of those kids would be quick to pick up his AK-47 and return fire on the Israeli troops.  In whatever the case they're supporting the gunmen by making them a difficult target for the IDF purposefully and I imagine they may be carrying ammo and other equipment.  

Whatever the case they're plain stupid to be standing around a Palistinian militia member like that.  They deserve the Darwin award.  If they truly wanted to fight the IDF, they'd be smarter to try and live another day until they could get ahold of an AK, M16, or an RPG rather then playing cheerleader in a fire zone.  Hell, maybe we should send Pom Poms to them and teach them some good cheeres.  

But seriously its a stunningly stupid on their part but I guess their lives don't have much meaning for them if they are that careless.   That's pretty sad.   I guess they follow the typical "if I die, its the will of Allah" mentality common in the Middle East such as concerning the way Muslims drive cars (Anyone who's been to Egypt knows what I mean).

But really such careless and reckless behavior is akin to commiting suicide in the Qu'ran.  They know that they stand a high risk of of getting killed or horribly injured but they believe it will be their ticket to heaven... and a ticket out of their miserable existence...(aka-suicide).   It would be interesting to learn in more detail what kinds of beliefs these young men have.  But I guess it's not that different then gang cultures here in America, where young men (and women) have little hope and little experience of life outside their ghettos.  So to them their miserable and violent lives are all that they know and all that they think life is about.  Without hope in a life full of violence, they have little value for their own lives or the lives of others.

The young Palistinian men (and women) I don't think are much different except that they express their emotions in a very different way and live in an even worse and more hopeless situation.

So basically what I'm saying is that if you grew up in the same enviornment, you probably would be running around cheering your hero, Mr. Hamas gunman, even as Israeli bullets were hitting all around you and killing your friends.

As you carried away the bodies of your dead or wounded friends you probably would be yelling "Allah Akabar" (God is great!) as you praised the glorious martyrdom of your friends and praying that you will get to be a martyr soon so that you may join your friends in paradise.   It sounds sick, but its really pretty easy to understand if you put yourself in their shoes and imagine being raised in the same enviornment with the same teachings.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Guest]

To a degree I agree with you as far as brainwashing goes, but I also hold a strong faith in basic human instinct. I imagine that, contrary to popular belief, this kids don't see battles on this scale that often, and want to be part of the process when it happens. Sadly, while many say it is their miserable existance that drives them to this, they fail to realize that millions (maybe even close to a billion - Africa in particular) people have similarly poor lives, and are not driven to suicide like this (although often violence). I put the majority of the blame of the PLO, and Fatah, for promoting this macabre culture of Shaheed.

To state a simple point, once Ghandi came around, India threw off the massive British occupation im less than 30 years, in South Africa, Mandela was victorious against similar odds, and in "Palestine", Arafat has left his people squandering against a country 1/12 the size of England and 1/8 the size of South Africa. Clearly, Israel is intrinsicly responsible for the occupation, and that is obvious, but what troubles me is that Arafat is as well.

[miles teg 1]

I agree...the Palistinian tactics of resistance has done nothing but cause alot of misery for everyone involved. You'd think they'd get the hint that they need to try something different.

However with that said, I wouldn't compare them to poor people in Africa. While they may not be as poor as some people in Africa, they live in an enormously stressful situation which is basically a virtual prison of sorts...but from which they can leave...and many have. However for those that stay, they do so because of attachment to the land and thus refusal to yield the land to Israel.

Also many of them do suffer from hunger and malnutrition, but not nearly as bad as in parts of Africa.

But basically what I'm saying is that they're dealing with different types of stresses over prolonged periods of time and in a very crowded area that most African nations are not having to deal with.

There is also a host of other stresses particular to the Palistinians.

However its not an excuse. They just need some type of alternative to venting their frustration, anger, and hatred in some fashion other then blowing themselves up or volunteering to be human shields for Hamas gunmen.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[denoir 0]

I also do not like trying to legitimize religion with science, however I do not see the harm in attempting to do this as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

I find it very objectionable as it lessens the meaning and the requirements that are put on something to be considered 'scientific'. But that is a completely different topic, that I'll do my best to stay clear of in this thread

Quote[/b] ]

But Acecombat is not doing this and I see him as a overall a Muslim who has some common sense understanding of his religion and who is not buying into all the anti-Jewish, anti-"everybody not Muslim" hatred being spewed out by extremists because he can clearly see how such teachings are from passages in the Qu'ran taking these issues WAAAAY out of context.  He has explained the historical reasons for these passages (regarding not trusting Jews and Christians) and I have also posted supporting verses from the Qu'ran that say good things about Jews and Christians who truly follow their faith and submit to God.  

It is very frustrating you see, for moderate Muslims to try and explain these things to atheists, Jews, and Christians and then to have these things totally ignored and instead being attacked on silly issues like whether angels move at light speed or not.   It doesn't matter.  If they do they do, if they don't they don't.... if you don't believe in Angels, it don't matter because then the concept of angels in themselves is complete fantasy.  

The problem lies in the outrageous amount of arbitrary interpretation that is required. In some cases they advocate extremely literal interpretations of the texts while in other they claim that it is not to be taken literally. When the Quran (or Bible or whatever) says something that is incompatible with today's world views, then suddenly it's not supposed to be literal while when they're trying to make something fit, they take out-of-context segments and try to asign them a literal meaning. And that's fine, as long as they know their place. When they start attacking other people over it, then the line is crossed.

Quote[/b] ]But I don't think you quite understood as you're letting your biases towards religion in general get in the way I think, or maybe you just missed it.  

Yes, I have quite a bias against religion. From my point of view, the only difference between religious people and people who believe that they were anally-probed by little green men from Mars last night, is that the religious people have a longer history. And out of respect to that, I don't advocate that all religious people should be institutionalized. I also fully understand it has a lot to do with the environment you grew up in and what dogma you were told. So I don't see religious people as stupid or insane, just as victims of a cultural/traditional/ethnic brain-washing.

However, when people who think they were probed by little green men start attacking the people who think they were probed by blue little men, then the line of what can be accepted is crossed.

I admire your universal tolerance Chris, but do not count on that your tolerance is universally reciprocated. In religion the only possibility is that your beliefs are right and that the beliefs of others are not. And since those beliefs are about the very fundamentals of our existance and they cannot be proven, they make the ideal environment for nasty long conflicts. And due to its universal claims, it can and is used to justify just about anything you can think of. People form their religion to fit their world view and then use it to justify that very world view. It's circular logic in its ugliest form.

[Akira 0]

Momentarilly getting back to the ME:

Police To Put Pig Lard On Buses