The origins of the Great War of 2007

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I like this piece, not necessarily because of Ferguson's conclusions (which you could've guessed prior to reading this), but more so the issue that it tackles. It's written in past tense, which is a little too cute, but I think it asks an important question-- was Iraq the turning point in the Middle East, or was it just the beginning of a long, drawn out culture war?

I disagree with certain "historical" references made here. For example, I some how doubt that the Iranian men who were 14 in 1995 are supposedly ready and willing to fight in a world war over oil and Islam. I think they might be more inclined to eat Big Macs and listen to their iPods, but perhaps I'm off on that.


http://makeashorterlink.com/?N2105197C

The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented

By Niall Ferguson
(Filed: 15/01/2006)

Are we living through the origins of the next world war? Certainly, it is easy to imagine how a future historian might deal with the next phase of events in the Middle East:

With every passing year after the turn of the century, the instability of the Gulf region grew. By the beginning of 2006, nearly all the combustible ingredients for a conflict - far bigger in its scale and scope than the wars of 1991 or 2003 - were in place.

The first underlying cause of the war was the increase in the region's relative importance as a source of petroleum. On the one hand, the rest of the world's oil reserves were being rapidly exhausted. On the other, the breakneck growth of the Asian economies had caused a huge surge in global demand for energy. It is hard to believe today, but for most of the 1990s the price of oil had averaged less than $20 a barrel.

A second precondition of war was demographic. While European fertility had fallen below the natural replacement rate in the 1970s, the decline in the Islamic world had been much slower. By the late 1990s the fertility rate in the eight Muslim countries to the south and east of the European Union was two and half times higher than the European figure.

This tendency was especially pronounced in Iran, where the social conservatism of the 1979 Revolution - which had lowered the age of marriage and prohibited contraception - combined with the high mortality of the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent baby boom to produce, by the first decade of the new century, a quite extraordinary surplus of young men. More than two fifths of the population of Iran in 1995 had been aged 14 or younger. This was the generation that was ready to fight in 2007.

This not only gave Islamic societies a youthful energy that contrasted markedly with the slothful senescence of Europe. It also signified a profound shift in the balance of world population. In 1950, there had three times as many people in Britain as in Iran. By 1995, the population of Iran had overtaken that of Britain and was forecast to be 50 per cent higher by 2050.

Yet people in the West struggled to grasp the implications of this shift. Subliminally, they still thought of the Middle East as a region they could lord it over, as they had in the mid-20th century.

The third and perhaps most important precondition for war was cultural. Since 1979, not just Iran but the greater part of the Muslim world had been swept by a wave of religious fervour, the very opposite of the process of secularisation that was emptying Europe's churches.

Although few countries followed Iran down the road to full-blown theocracy, there was a transformation in politics everywhere. From Morocco to Pakistan, the feudal dynasties or military strongmen who had dominated Islamic politics since the 1950s came under intense pressure from religious radicals.

The ideological cocktail that produced 'Islamism' was as potent as either of the extreme ideologies the West had produced in the previous century, communism and fascism. Islamism was anti-Western, anti-capitalist and anti-Semitic. A seminal moment was the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's intemperate attack on Israel in December 2005, when he called the Holocaust a 'myth'. The state of Israel was a 'disgraceful blot', he had previously declared, to be wiped 'off the map'.

Prior to 2007, the Islamists had seen no alternative but to wage war against their enemies by means of terrorism. From the Gaza to Manhattan, the hero of 2001 was the suicide bomber. Yet Ahmadinejad, a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War, craved a more serious weapon than strapped-on explosives. His decision to accelerate Iran's nuclear weapons programme was intended to give Iran the kind of power North Korea already wielded in East Asia: the power to defy the United States; the power to obliterate America's closest regional ally.

Under different circumstances, it would not have been difficult to thwart Ahmadinejad's ambitions. The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

But the President was advised by his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to opt instead for diplomacy. Not just European opinion but American opinion was strongly opposed to an attack on Iran. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 had been discredited by the failure to find the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein had supposedly possessed and by the failure of the US-led coalition to quell a bloody insurgency.

Americans did not want to increase their military commitments overseas; they wanted to reduce them. Europeans did not want to hear that Iran was about to build its own WMD. Even if Ahmad-inejad had broadcast a nuclear test live on CNN, liberals would have said it was a CIA con-trick.

So history repeated itself. As in the 1930s, an anti-Semitic demagogue broke his country's treaty obligations and armed for war. Having first tried appeasement, offering the Iranians economic incentives to desist, the West appealed to international agencies - the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Thanks to China's veto, however, the UN produced nothing but empty resolutions and ineffectual sanctions, like the exclusion of Iran from the 2006 World Cup finals.

Only one man might have stiffened President Bush's resolve in the crisis: not Tony Blair, he had wrecked his domestic credibility over Iraq and was in any case on the point of retirement - Ariel Sharon. Yet he had been struck down by a stroke as the Iranian crisis came to a head. With Israel leaderless, Ahmadinejad had a free hand.

As in the 1930s, too, the West fell back on wishful thinking. Perhaps, some said, Ahmadinejad was only sabre-rattling because his domestic position was so weak. Perhaps his political rivals in the Iranian clergy were on the point of getting rid of him. In that case, the last thing the West should do was to take a tough line; that would only bolster Ahmadinejad by inflaming Iranian popular feeling. So in Washington and in London people crossed their fingers, hoping for the deus ex machina of a home-grown regime change in Teheran.

This gave the Iranians all the time they needed to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium at Natanz. The dream of nuclear non-proliferation, already interrupted by Israel, Pakistan and India, was definitively shattered. Now Teheran had a nuclear missile pointed at Tel-Aviv. And the new Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu had a missile pointed right back at Teheran.

The optimists argued that the Cuban Missile Crisis would replay itself in the Middle East. Both sides would threaten war - and then both sides would blink. That was Secretary Rice's hope - indeed, her prayer - as she shuttled between the capitals. But it was not to be.

The devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007 represented not only the failure of diplomacy, it marked the end of the oil age. Some even said it marked the twilight of the West. Certainly, that was one way of interpreting the subsequent spread of the conflict as Iraq's Shi'ite population overran the remaining American bases in their country and the Chinese threatened to intervene on the side of Teheran.

Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened.

• Niall Ferguson is Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University www.niallferguson.org

© Niall Ferguson, 2006

[ziggytrix]

Nice read, but the author assumes that the general Iranian populace supports the insane rantings of Ahmadinejad. He assumes the Iranian desire for nuclear energy is ultimately all about weapons, and not fuel. Alarmism based on a stack of hypotheticals is a pretty sad excuse for advocating pre-emptive military strikes.

Another thing: I think a "policy of pre-emption" is not at issue here, but rather "what are the grounds for pre-emption?". In my opinion the world's powers (led by the US) need to work ahrder on a poilcy of nuclear disarmament. Who the fuck is any nuclear nation to tell another nation that "it's ok if we got nukes, but it's not ok if you do"?

If you put a gun to a man's head, his natural reaction is to figure out a way to kill you before you decide to pull the trigger. We're not talking about a policy of pre-emption, we're talking about a policy of escalation. If the US is to lash out at every Muslim nation we can target (shall we talk about the air strike in Pakistan this weekend?) then we'd be equally responsible for this author's vision of a third world war.


also - http://makeashorterlink.com (be nice to those who aren't running at least 1280x1024)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

also - http://makeashorterlink.com (be nice to those who aren't running at least 1280x1024)

Neato.

Anyway, I get your point, although it is scary to stop and think if we are simply playing the role of the appeasers (sp?) here. I do think the Iranian prez is rattling the saber a bit to try to maintain domestic strength. I think he hopes to piss off Israel enough that it keeps his people behind him.

I dunno, perhaps we should get all 80's retro again and try to get rid of nukes, but i don't know that that would work with iran. I think in the case of N. Korea, they truly just want a cookie in exhange for disarming. I'm not so sure about this nut in Iran....

[Kulturkampf]

I say: Bring it on. We'll fucking kill them.

I hope we get a chance to destroy Islamic fundamentalism and fascism, and it would be superb to be able to get it all ovr with in a giant purge of their society.

Let the remaining non-Islamists eat McDonalds and listen to shitty pop music.

But, until their ideology and way of life is entirely defeated, they remain a threat; so let's take them out.

2007 could be a great year.

[Geggy]

Yeah, dude, we should totally wipe Iran off the map...!

If US and Israel plans to strike Iran, China, South America and Russia will back Iran. If Russia, South America and China wins the battle...they will occupy the United States....

shudders

[Abcdxxxx]

China + Israel kissing in a tree. There is also a union with India forming. (and to confuse things even more, a partnership between India and Russia. Meaning, they're all double dipping).

The proposed attack would be US, Israel and Turkey and the rumor is it wouldn't be an air strike at all. Turkey has declared Iran's activities illegal, and claimed to have been victims of Iran's nuclear program already.

When Israel took out Iraq's reaktor it caught everyone by surprise. They flew in and out (over Jordan, and back) without being detected by radars. There's little change they're going to act like Babe Ruth and call the hit to Iran.

[Pharaoh]

I say: Bring it on. We'll fucking kill them.

I hope we get a chance to destroy Islamic fundamentalism and fascism, and it would be superb to be able to get it all ovr with in a giant purge of their society.

Let the remaining non-Islamists eat McDonalds and listen to shitty pop music.

But, until their ideology and way of life is entirely defeated, they remain a threat; so let's take them out.

2007 could be a great year.

I'm looking forward to it too. Terrorism on it's own will never destroy the West but it's still very difficult to fight against. And I think the biggest danger facing the West is decades of Jihadist activity together with massive Muslim immigration into Western countries, high Muslim birth rates and declining infidel birth rates. Even the 10% of the French population that's Muslim is causing France big problems.

A regular war will be a lot easier to deal with.

[kahljorn]

I'm glad we now have two idiots posting, it will certainly spice the board up.

I'm also glad one of them has the right eye of horus in his avatar, but I'm curious as to if he knows what it means? Doubtful.

[Pharaoh]

I'm glad we now have two idiots posting, it will certainly spice the board up.

I'm also glad one of them has the right eye of horus in his avatar, but I'm curious as to if he knows what it means? Doubtful.

Actually, I do know what the right eye of Horus means. The right eye is associated with the sun and the left with the moon, and it means I can clearly see right through your irrational, idiotic, leftist lunacy.

[kahljorn]

Actually I was talking more along the lines of mystery schools and such, but good job. The right eye of horus is actually symbolical, in a way, for jesus christ.
Again, good job for your utter failure.

I support the right. I want to return the world back to the old archaic way of life. Where man roamed free through his providence, supplying peace and dignity to the lands around. An amount of sovereignty that could only be granted by the simplest, most complete way of life.

[pjalne]

At least one of those two has to be Mad Max.

[Pharaoh]

Actually I was talking more along the lines of mystery schools and such, but good job. The right eye of horus is actually symbolical, in a way, for jesus christ.
Again, good job for your utter failure.


I don't really see that it can symbolize Jesus since he hadn't even been born yet. Although you could say that the right eye was symbolic of light and good and the left of dark and evil.
Horus's father Osiris could be said to be an older version of Jesus. He represented the idea of a man who was both God and man, God made flesh, and the saviour who suffered a cruel death but rose again.
I've got a good book about the subject called The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy. I recommend it if you're interested in that subject.

[kahljorn]

I'd rather read the classical books on the subject rather than some idiot's rendition of it. Try Manly P. Hall. I bet you get your kicks from the davinci code.

Jesus is considered a "Sun God". Horus became the new "Sun God" in egypt.

Originally Horus was Osiris. Osiris came around later, but I don't expect you to have any actual knowledge of egyptology because you assimilate your information through books of stupidity.

[Pharaoh]

You sound like a petulant nine-year-old, you're pathetic mate, grow up.

[ziggytrix]

I just noticed Kuturjerk said he wanted to war against Islamic fundmentalism, NOT Islamic extremism.

Did you really mean that?

I think the problem with global society is extremism of any creed. The point at which we are willing to say, "everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" is the point at which we are no better than rabid animals.

[kahljorn]

"You sound like a petulant nine-year-old, you're pathetic mate, grow up."

I'm just fucking with you. Get over it, you whiner.

[Pharaoh]

"You sound like a petulant nine-year-old, you're pathetic mate, grow up."

I'm just fucking with you. Get over it, you whiner.

Yeah, sure you were, you were stamping your foot and sticking your bottom lip out like a big baby.

[Abcdxxxx]

The point at which we are willing to say, "everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" is the point at which we are no better than rabid animals.

Okay Ziggy, now put some weight on that and tell me... did you just describe an Islamic fundamentalist belief, or an extremist belief? There's no difference between the two when it comes to righteousness, and wishing death to non-believers. In fact, that is a very Quranic thought in itself.

[kahljorn]

Did I do that in between pimp slapping you with the truth and exposing your stupidity? Because if so, that could merely have been primitive body language that indicates I've bloodied your lip.

Really, a little knowledge of anthropology would do you some good.

[Pharaoh]

A little knowledge of anthropology? I know you talk out of your arse, that's for sure. :lol

[kahljorn]

Anthropology is the study of culture, which is why I referenced it in connection to primitive body language. Dumbass.

[ziggytrix]

sure thing ABC,


3. Can you give us an explanation of the differences between the tenets of "fundamentalist" Islam and "extremist" (or violent) Islam?

Religious studies scholars approach the term "fundamentalist" in different ways. Some argue the term is so rooted in a particular form of Protestant Christianity that it cannot easily be used in relation to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Martin Marty, a renowned scholar who co-edited a five-volume study on fundamentalism, argues that fundamentalisms are certainly very different. However, there are also striking similarities. Fundamentalists in various traditions teach that there was a perfect moment and they endeavor to recover that moment. This often involves reacting to that which is seen as a threat to realizing the ideal-even if the ideal never actually existed. In the case of selected Islamist groups (e.g. Hizbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad), the realization of their vision of an Islamic state is being thwarted by corrupt leaders in predominantly Muslim countries. The pervasive dominance of external powers, most notably the US, is also seen as both polluting Islamic culture and as a mechanism for exploitation. In recent decades, some groups have sought to work within particular political systems; some have resorted to violent extremism. To understand particular groups, it is important to do careful contextual analysis.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/1004/p25s1-wosc.html

Feel free to explain to me how Prof. Kimball and his lackeys at the Christian Science Monitor are just a bunch of politically correct leftist Islamo-fascist sympathizers. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism) has a page on it too, which led me to this funny little quote of Voltaire: "This religion," he wrote, "is called islamisme." Not only did his usage depart from Sale's, but so did his conclusion: "It was not by force of arms that islamisme established itself over more than half of our hemisphere. It was by enthusiasm and persuasion." The great nineteenth-century French dictionary by Littré quoted just this passage from Voltaire's Essai sur les mœurs when it defined islamisme as "the religion of Mahomet."
http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Terms.htm

I wonder why he thought Islam spread through enthusiam, and not through violent conversion? Typical French revisionism perhaps?

In my opinion, those who attempt to create an equality between Islamic fundmentalism and Islamic extremism are taking a very specific and narrow view of Islamic scripture and ultimately serving the cause of the extremists, that is, violent conflict between Muslims and the Western world. We can both google the Qu'ran all day and throw non-contextual scriptures back and forth at each other justifying and condeming extremist practices. You could arguably do that with any body of religious text of sufficient size.

But I'm certainly not advocating kid glove treatment of violent extremists. If someone thinks it's OK to kill countless innocents to achieve their goals, they deserve whatever they get in this life and, if there is divine justice, the next.

Anyway, I'm just glad a decade ago when I was sitting at a table at Denny's, arguing like a typical rebellious high school geek with some Islamic friend of a freind of a friend (really, I have no idea how that even got started), that he wasn't the sort of fundamentalist you'd describe, as we were able to civilly agree to disagree at the end of our argument and no one left with a steak knife in their back.

[Abcdxxxx]

Look, your description of extremism sound identical to words from the Koran about how an honorable Muslim should live. No reason to quote it, just as there's no reason for you to argue that a Fundamentalist (and you picked that term, not me) doesn't believe in these sections of the Koran. "everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" sounds like basic Muslim teachings.

For one thing, when a Muslim is sitting with you at Denny's, he's not acting as a good Muslim in the eyes of Mohhamed, now is he? He wouldn't make it very far in the eyes of most Fundamentalist Islamic Mullahs.

Prof. Kimball and the Christian Science Monitor aren't suggesting there's much of a divide if they're claiming both want a Shari'a State. Now, Shari'a itself isn't a dangerous concept. They are just religious laws....but the stonings, and woman & non-Muslims as second class citizens ARE key Shari'as which stem from Koranic verses, and again, they follow the ideals that you describe as being on par with animals.

Now I don't know what we call people like Shake Pallazzi http://www.amislam.com/ or other traditionalists who come to the table with moderate views, for modernized interpretations of the Koran, and condemn Wahhabism. "Fundamentalist" seems wrong, and their movement, while growing isn't reaching many Muslims. Even your typical Denny's eating, nice guy living in America Muslim.

[kahljorn]

"They are just religious laws....but the stonings, and woman & non-Muslims as second class citizens ARE key Shari'as which stem from Koranic verses, and again, they follow the ideals that you describe as being on par with animals. "

The christian bible has the same laws. Good day sir.

[Kulturkampf]

I'm looking forward to it too. Terrorism on it's own will never destroy the West but it's still very difficult to fight against. And I think the biggest danger facing the West is decades of Jihadist activity together with massive Muslim immigration into Western countries, high Muslim birth rates and declining infidel birth rates. Even the 10% of the French population that's Muslim is causing France big problems.

A regular war will be a lot easier to deal with.

100% true. I have written some blog entries pertinent to this topic and it should be discussed at length how the Muslim impact on Europe is notoriously bad.

Of course, the first thing you will be called is a racist and a bigot, but that is nothing new for me so let's continue to let the Left call people racists and bigots in the place of argumentation. The facts always speak for temselves, and the influence on the society is always clearcut and undeniable.

It is just a matter of time before we remove the stigmas that tey have emplaced.

[Kulturkampf]

I just noticed Kuturjerk said he wanted to war against Islamic fundmentalism, NOT Islamic extremism.

Did you really mean that?

I think the problem with global society is extremism of any creed. The point at which we are willing to say, "everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" is the point at which we are no better than rabid animals.

I'll change it to 'Islamic extremism' because people have a right to practice their religions, even on a political level, providing it does not mean someone ends up dead over it.

[Abcdxxxx]

The christian bible has the same laws. Good day sir.



Are you really just 10 years old and struggling to keep up????? It's not a matter of double standards... there's nothing in any Bible which excuses what's going on in several Muslim nations. Name the Christian nations which apply those laws, then maybe you'd have a point. Try again.

[Pharaoh]

Anthropology is the study of culture, which is why I referenced it in connection to primitive body language. Dumbass.

You're the dumbass, kahljorn.

Anthropology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology) is the study of mankind. It's a wide ranging discipline that includes physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology and archaeology.

Physical anthropology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_anthropology) studies the mechanisms of biological evolution, genetic inheritance, human adaptability and variation, primatology, primate morphology, and the fossil record of human evolution.

Like I said, you talk out of your arse.
Don't worry though, it's a common physical adaption among leftists. :lol

[ziggytrix]

"everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" sounds like basic Muslim teachings.


I disagree.

For one thing, when a Muslim is sitting with you at Denny's, he's not acting as a good Muslim in the eyes of Mohhamed, now is he? He wouldn't make it very far in the eyes of most Fundamentalist Islamic Mullahs.

Considering that he was witnessing (sorry if this is the wrong term, I've predominantly Christian background) to an unbeliever, I'd think he was being a very good Muslim.


Now, Shari'a itself isn't a dangerous concept. They are just religious laws....but the stonings, and woman & non-Muslims as second class citizens ARE key Shari'as which stem from Koranic verses, and again, they follow the ideals that you describe as being on par with animals.

I already addressed this point: we can pull verses from Islamic scriptures to argue whether or not violence is integral to Islam. I can think of a few Christian scriptures that were probably used to justify the more heinous acts of the medieval Church, but that doesn't mean Christianity is integrally violent.

I would go so far as to say fundamentalisms, in general sense, are regressive and bad for social development. But they are infinitely preferable to extremisms.

Unwillingness to see a difference between fundamentalism and extremism in a religion is a big problem for secularists and opponents of a particular religion, but if we are to acknowledge a place for religious liberty in this world, then it is a very important difference to acknowledge.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

China + Israel kissing in a tree. There is also a union with India forming. (and to confuse things even more, a partnership between India and Russia. Meaning, they're all double dipping).

Yeah, I think this is a great point. It's very attractive to throw China in there as a natural enemy to us now, but i would think 2007 is too early to assume that. I see no reason why China would enter into a war against Israel, although I could see the hypothetical if they had to choose between a partnership with Israel and a partnership with oil providing countries.


When Israel took out Iraq's reaktor it caught everyone by surprise. They flew in and out (over Jordan, and back) without being detected by radars. There's little change they're going to act like Babe Ruth and call the hit to Iran.

Well, I think the argument he was making was the Israel will be weighed down in transition, with Sharon ill, etc.

His other point seems to be that the UN and others will complicate matters, thus delaying immediate Israeli action.

[kahljorn]

"I have written some blog entries pertinent to this topic"

Yay.

"Name the Christian nations which apply those laws, then maybe you'd have a point. "

So just because you're a bad christian who doesn't follow your religion it makes muslims bad?

Pharaoh, I notice that in your lengthy speech of the difference between anthropology and anthropology you still used the word anthropology. Physical anthropology is merely a division of anthropology, just like there are various divisions within science or english. Are a few of them unscientific? No. They are just different divisions. Why do they seperate it? So you can learn things in different classes

an·thro·pol·o·gy Audio pronunciation of "anthropology" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nthr-pl-j)
n.

1. The scientific study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.

Shut the fuck up.

[Pharaoh]

Erm, yeah, kahljorn, but I've already said that physical anthropology is a division of anthropology.


Anthropology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology) is the study of mankind. It's a wide ranging discipline that includes physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology and archaeology.


Maybe you should take a bit more time in reading posts, then you won't waste so much time making invalid points.

[kahljorn]

Yea, good job making yourself look like an ass:

"You don't understand anthropology at all! What you're talking about is physical anthropology, which is a division of anthropology. You're so talking out of your ass" :rolleyes

Basically your entire insult was nothing, then. Good job, fuckface. Seems like you're the one talking out of your ass, trying so hard to find an insult...

[Ant10708]

"Name the Christian nations which apply those laws, then maybe you'd have a point. "

So just because you're a bad christian who doesn't follow your religion it makes muslims bad?
What the fuck are you talking about? He is making the point that just because there are violent verses in the Bible doesn't mean Christians and Christian nations of today are following the more barbacic verses as it seems the Muslim world in the Middle East is doing from their Koran at the present time. Islam is a factor of Islamic facism....... I don't see how you can deny that

Just like Chritianity is a factor in abortion clinics being blown up.

And why are people fighting over something that has nothing to do with this thread?

[kahljorn]

"What the fuck are you talking about? He is making the point that just"

Um, okay, how does that change the fact that they are just following their fundamental religious values? You act like they are doing it to be evil, but that would be saying the base of christianity is evil.

[ziggytrix]

I guess it all just boils down to whose propaganda you're eating today. :(

[Pharaoh]

Yea, good job making me look like an ass.

Basically your entire insult was excellent. Good job. Seems like I'm the one talking out of my ass, trying so hard to find an insult...

Thanks, kahljorn, I'm impressed that your such a good loser! :)

[Abcdxxxx]

It's not a matter of propaganda, it's a matter of being able to look at how those communities have progressed, and how serious they take certain stances. I wouldn't say bombing a Planned Parenthood is the moral equivalence to the laws in Saudi Arabia which effects anyone who is not a Male Muslim.

I would encourage you to go to Ummah forum and ask them if "everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" sounds like a basic tenant of Islam. There is no difference how Muslims view righteousness, and the fate of non-Muslims. There is a difference on how they put it into action.

[Abcdxxxx]

His other point seems to be that the UN and others will complicate matters, thus delaying immediate Israeli action.

When Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear facility it was almost in the interest of Iran at the time...who also tried the same attack earlier that year. There is a working relationship (though very hushhush, including arms dealing) between the two States, with an oil pipeline involved. Israel's action against Iraq was heavily criticised at the time. There were UN resolutions, with the US siding against Israel, and Leftists flipped out. This was a month before Israel went into Beirut....Likud were in office, with Sharon as Minister of Defense.

The China thing is interesting, because the idea is if the US pulls their funding to Israel, then Red China will step in. Russia, and China both are trying to line up their cards, with potential partnerships with India (and India has a new defense agreement with Israel, because they bookend the Muslim States). With Russia, there is interest in bypassing the Arab states and providing oil to Europe and beyond. All more complicated and speculative then i can describe, but these relationships are the real future of the region.

[kahljorn]

But look how you're applying your righteousness. "You know, muslims are obviously wrong because they don't share my philosophy". They are just going by what has been bred into their culture for MANY MANY years-- just like you are when you accuse them of wrong. Unlike us, they haven't had the 300 years or whatever of democratic development under the guise of equality. So what, they are a little 'behind'. Quit judging them because our culture is more evolved. I wonder if there's a word for that kind of discrimination ;(
You can't sit there and say someone's wrong because they don't share your philosophy then call it Righteous; that's just hypocritical. They are going by THEIR values that THEY feel are righteous. I'm not saying I believe it's right or anything, I'm just saying their civilization is behind just like ours was 300 years ago when we still adhered to the core christian values. What had to happen for us to change? Alot.
Solutions to problems like this are few and generally take a while to develop any substantial effect, they also often result in civil wars or other strifes. I'm not sure if forcing it would work either-- in fact it probably wouldn't.
ANTHROPOLOOOOGY....
i wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who live there secretely wish they had our lives, though. That might be one of the reasons why they often migrate. Who knows, maybe our influence could reach far enough to begin a change there, but with all the assholes our country manages to produce I wouldn't be surprised if we failed miserably in that attempt.
I'd like to hear your suggestions to how to fix culturization problems, though.

[ziggytrix]

I would encourage you to go to Ummah forum and ask them if "everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" sounds like a basic tenant of Islam. There is no difference how Muslims view righteousness, and the fate of non-Muslims. There is a difference on how they put it into action.

Do you have an account I can borrow? I got an error - "Sorry, registration has been disabled by the administrator."

Still, "I must kill unbelievers" does not sound like one of their 5 pillars to me, but I haven't been eating the same propaganda as you, so fill me in when ya get a chance. Maybe when I get more time I can dig thru that entire forum looking for something to support your claim. No wait, fuck that. Support your own damn claim, or let me continue to think you are simply prejudiced against all Muslims. :)

[kahljorn]

Whatever happened to that Ireland vs. whoever war? Wasn't that technically a religious war?

The only muslim I've ever really talked to in detail was actually a really cool guy, the way he explained his beliefs was probably the most awesome thing I've ever heard. He didn't sound like some crazy murderer of non-believers. Shit, I feel bad because i thought he was joking when he said he was muslim and laughed. :( To this day I still regret that.

[Abcdxxxx]

But look how you're applying your righteousness. "You know, muslims are obviously wrong because they don't share my philosophy". They are just going by what has been bred into their culture for MANY MANY years-- just like you are when you accuse them of wrong. Unlike us, they haven't had the 300 years or whatever of democratic development under the guise of equality.

What's the word for YOUR discriminaton your retard? You just said Muslims aren't evolved. The vast majority of Muslims live as fine upstanding citizens in westernized societies, you moron. I don't need to give you my theories on "culturalization", they do just fine when they want to. They also do just fine when rationalizing the climate in the Middle East, by using the Koran to justify it.

(edit: that should have said, the vast majority who live in westenrized societies are upstanding. not to say the majority live in...you get it.)


By the way, I haven't given you my phillosophies on anything, you psychopath. You say I'm "accusing" them of wrong... is Darfur an accusation? Is it an accusation to say women are second class in the land of Mecca?

[Abcdxxxx]

Ziggy - we both know I can pull up the Koranic verses. I've linked to articles which acknowledge and condemn these verses as well. If you want to turn a blind eye, it's your choice. MUSLIMS have found plenty in the Koran to justify their oppession of Jews, Christians, Homosexuals, Women....it goes on and on. The Fundamentalist Islamic community do not oppose such verses, either. It's bizarro that you think I'm prejudice towards them for believing them.

[kahljorn]

You just got done saying they stone women and homosexuals and whoever else and you find that bad. Hence my saying their culture is unevolved. Get it? They don't have civil rights. Get it? Culture. Evolution. I wasn't saying they were monkeys or anything.

"There's no difference between the two when it comes to righteousness, and wishing death to non-believers. In fact, that is a very Quranic thought in itself."

I never said you were discriminating, just that you were acting like your ideas on what's "Right" for culture were more right. How do you know that stoning women isn't a good thing? There's alot out there on the effects of feminization of culture-- from various angles.

"The vast majority of Muslims live as fine upstanding citizens in westernized societies, you moron."

Argue that with kulterkamph and pharoh, the ones who say they create a big problem in our society. Moron. I love how easy people are led into shit, I didn't even say anything to directly lead you to that assumption. How come you haven't said anything to them? Huh? They are the one's who are actually discriminatory, i never said they are a pox on society.

"You say I'm "accusing" them of wrong"

I'm saying according to their values and laws what they are doing is RIGHT and you are saying it's WRONG. If you weren't saying it's wrong, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Good day sir.

[ziggytrix]

The well-documented mistreatment of women is a fair accusation. It should be noted that the most fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity and Judaism share many Islamic attitudes toward women, gays, and in the case of fundamentalist Christianity, the equation of all unbelievers with Satanism.

This is a far cry from "they want to kill all unbelievers." You not gonna back that accusation up ABC? Did you realize how extremist is made you sound? Or are you still looking thru that fourm for actual Fundamentalists to quote?

But damn it man, I'm not even trying to say I like fundamentalist Islam or fundametalist religion of any flavor for that matter! Fundamentalist attitudes generally sicken me. I forget what comedian I'm ripping off here, but I wouldn't call it "tolerance" if I liked it.

[kahljorn]

All muslims want to kill women, except the ones who are standup citizens who live in the west. Those guys are great.

[Abcdxxxx]

Okay Lenny and Squiggy...

I think you're both a bit confused.

a) Shari'a law as it's currently applied by Muslims currently has no equal. The "how do you know stoning women is bad" argument is for 5 year olds. You both need to grow up. For the last time, the bad Rabbi doesn't justify the bad Mullah. Stop with the moral equivalency. It's dumb.

b) The term Fundamentalist applied to Islam is a misnomer. We're talking about beliefs which are standard, common, and Koranic, wether or not they await the day when these verses come to light, or take extremist actions to provoke the words of Muhhamed as their duty. A good analysis of this contradiction (which is also relevant to this threads original purpose) can be found here: http://hnn.us/articles/1805.html.

c) The marginalized Muslims are the moderate ones like Nonie Darwish http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16554, Irshad Manji http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/ , and Shayke Pallazi (linked earlier) who take a progressive approach to how their scriptures are INTERPETED, which matches modernized society, on par with other religions. Especially the religions which Islam co-opted. It also matches the upstanding and peacefull lifestyles that the majority of Muslims wish to continue.

d) Islam was founded by a conquerer. Muslims vs. Jews in Israel, Muslims vs. Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims vs. Christians in Nigeria, Muslims vs. Buddhists in Southern Thailand..... we can stop here. I'm not speaking from prejudice. There is clearly a problem. The lack of outcry against these Islam vs. everyon- who- isn't-Islam is a telling one.

e) 2:193- “Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah”

9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”

9:29- "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, (Christian and Jews) who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute (Zizziya tax) by hand, being inferior.”

[ziggytrix]

b) The term Fundamentalist applied to Islam is a misnomer. We're talking about beliefs which are standard, common, and Koranic, wether or not they await the day when these verses come to light, or take extremist actions to provoke the words of Muhhamed as their duty. A good analysis of this contradiction (which is also relevant to this threads original purpose) can be found here: http://hnn.us/articles/1805.html.


Your article contradicts your assertion that the beliefs are standard and common. "Islam is a religion with a long history and with different theological and juridical schools. The Koran is not really a coherent book able to provide Muslims with clear and unambiguous guidelines." "if we take only the Koran, which is the main source of Islam and which should be the point of convergence between Muslims, it leads us to further confusion about Islam." "Islam is too general, too elusive and too ambiguous"

I think it backs my stated opinions rather well.


It also matches the upstanding and peacefull lifestyles that the majority of Muslims wish to continue.


This remark does not seem characteristic of a religion whose fundamentals mandate the murder of nonbelievers, nor of a system which marginalizes progressives. I'd like to think you are correct in that statement. It certainly jives with my very limited experience.


Regarding your seceted reading of the Koran, as I said at the outset, you can quote scripture, and so can I.

"You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion" - (109.6).

Chapter 2, Verse 190: "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors."

"Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them" (4: 90).

"There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2: 256)

Any one of these lines can be, and is quoted by Muslims who condemn the practices of extremists, but just because their voice isn't as loud as the extremists doesn't mean they are talking. Extremists will take violent text out of context and use it as justification for atrocities, but this is a symptom of human powermadness, not of Muslim religion.

If people are intent on using religion to motivate terror or violence, they'll find an excuse there no matter what the actual text says," says David Rodier of American University in Washington, D.C., who is an expert on the world's religions. Like the Koran, he says, most holy scriptures are filled with stories of war and warriors, and these images have been used throughout history by some members of every faith to justify bloodshed. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0925_TVkoran.html

This is getting tedious.

[Big Papa Goat]

Seriously, what could be making suicide bombers intent on suicidal violence if it's not the religious ideas? What's the ulterior motive that makes them so intent on using religion for violence? Saying that anyone can interpret any religion to justify violence so no particular religion can be judged for the violence done its name seems to be a pretty unsatisfactory explanation.

And I don't really see why we can't judge the values of another culture. I mean, I don't think stoning women for showing their ankles is an affront to my Canadian beliefs, I'd call it an affront to the dignity of human life. When people talk about the inability to judge such heinous practices of other cultures because of some kind of fundamental and irreconcilble differences in values it kind of makes me wonder how such people consider other cultures to be composed of beings sufficiently similar to be worthy of moral consideration at all. If our values are based on our own cultures only, then is there any reason for people of different cultures to have any moral consideration whatsoever for one another? What I mean is if all our values are based on our cultures, rather then our humanity, then what makes people human?
But then, I didn't really read the whole thread that carefully, maybe I misunderstand your point, but thats actually kind of a serious question, not just a rhetorical one.

[Abcdxxxx]

Oh, jeez, and back to the "hey The Bible is violent too" argument.
Typical tourettes from someone who pretends we don't know who Al Qaeda is.

I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying here. When it comes to issues of self rightessnous, and the acceptance of other religions there is little ambigouty. Ask a Muslim. It's like asking a Jew if they believe in Jesus...they might give you a diplomatic answer, but Jesus means nothing to a religious Jew.

I've long argued that the Koran is mainly prose, so certainly it's a matter of interpretation. So now, how is it being interpretated by the majority of Muslims, Ziggy ? Are Wahhabist just fringe? One has to look at world politics to find out. One has to ask American Muslims, who are neither fundamentalists, nor extremists (in most cases) how they feel about it. The basics tenants of being a Muslim are not up for debate. Are they peacefull ? Yes....but in the next breath they will explain, and rationalize the reasons for the actions of those you dub as extreme. They will tell you exactly where in the Koran these ideas come from.... and there is a long history of it. This is the Islamic paradox.

[ziggytrix]

Goat, I said, "I just noticed Kuturjerk said he wanted to war against Islamic fundmentalism, NOT Islamic extremism. Did you really mean that?"

To which Kulture said he meant extremism, and things could have gotten back on track there, but then ABCD wanted to argue that there is no difference between fundamentalism and extremism in Islam.

We've pretty much been saying "is so" "is not" "is so" "is not" since that point.


So now, let us continue in that vein:

"So now, how is [the Koran] being interpretated by the majority of Muslims, Ziggy ?"

To which I say, however their religious leaders tell them to interpret it, because people love the herd mentality. :)

"I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying here. When it comes to issues of self rightessnous, and the acceptance of other religions there is little ambigouty. Ask a Muslim. It's like asking a Jew if they believe in Jesus...they might give you a diplomatic answer, but Jesus means nothing to a religious Jew."

You're absolutely right. I have no idea what the point of that paragraph was.


"Are they peacefull ? Yes....but in the next breath they will explain, and rationalize the reasons for the actions of those you dub as extreme."

Attempting to understand the conditions that create extremists and the motives behind their behavior is not an apology.

I'm not saying we should excuse their actions either. But simplifying it to "well, all them damn ragheads is just naturally violent, we gotta kill em off" doesn't solve the issue either. Not that you are saying that, but then I'm a little unclear on your exact point ABC. You've danced around it quite a bit.

Do you have a solution for the Muslim problem?

[Abcdxxxx]

That's a cop out Ziggy...both to what I've presented you with,and what Big Goat is questioning.

For one thing, my argument is that the things you say you oppose about Islam are not extremist, fringe interpretations. That's why some of the most law abiding peace loving Muslims still recognize Bin Laden's scholarly understanding of the Koran.

That you just asked me if i had a solution for the Muslim PROBLEM sounds like you're approaching this conversation with some old fashioned White Liberal Guilt. Muslims aren't a problem. This isn't a Holy war disbute. We live in modern times, with heavy documentation around things we deem historical. The first step to the Mid-east conflict is calling a spade a spade. You've never been able to do that for some reason, Ziggy.

[ziggytrix]

What's a cop-out about it? How is it that Muslims aren't a problem, if violent extremists are accurately and honestly interpreting Muslim scripture?

These seem to be two contradictory stances. Either you believe violence and anti-Westernism are integral to Islam or you believe that such is a corruption of Islam. Explain to me this doublethink that allows me to accept both premises at the same time, so that I can understand and quit arguing with you already!

But if you can't do that, feel free to elaborate on the "spade" thing, as I have no idea what you're getting at. And if you have the time, tell me more about my "White Liberal Guilt." That sounds neat, too.

[Abcdxxxx]

The doublethink IS Islam.... that's what I'm trying to explain to you. There are even theories that the Koran was written by two different Mohhameds.

I'm at the point where the problem isn't merely Islamic fanatics, but people like you who refuse to attribute holy war fever with mainstream Islam, simply because you can't wrap your head around the equation I detailed above. Meanwhile, when you argue that all Muslims are the problem, without qualifying it by saying Extremists, or Fundamentalists specifically are the problem, you're agreeing with my orginal point...which is to say that if your main issue with Islam is the notion of self righteousness, and the conversion or punishment of non-believers...there is no difference. I've given you 3 links to devout Muslims who explain to you many of the things I'm saying - I have explained that interpretation, and action is the culprit, not any Religion itself. There's no need to go in circles.

[Abcdxxxx]

If you want to truly understand what's going in the Mid-East today, you need to google:

Haj Amin El Husseini
The Farhud

Short of Arafat, Amin El Husseini (there are multiple spellings) is the most important figure of the region, and gave birth to the myth of Pan-Arabism. Iranians for example, aren't technically even Arabs. Nor are Egyptians. Nor are... you get the idea.

Here are some links, but I suggest you do the searches on your own rather then just take mine.

http://www.farhud.org/farhud.html
http://www.mideastweb.org/Iraqaxiscoup.htm
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php
http://www.dangoor.com/75002.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-ratzlav-katz082302.asp

[Kulturkampf]

But look how you're applying your righteousness. "You know, muslims are obviously wrong because they don't share my philosophy". They are just going by what has been bred into their culture for MANY MANY years-- just like you are when you accuse them of wrong. Unlike us, they haven't had the 300 years or whatever of democratic development under the guise of equality. So what, they are a little 'behind'. Quit judging them because our culture is more evolved. I wonder if there's a word for that kind of discrimination ;(

It's called:

"Not being an overly-sensitive, multicultural liberal."

You make it out as if it is excusable that they stone women and force them to wear birkahs.

If Pres. Bush made us do that, you would go insane; but if Sheikh Mullah Omar does it, it is excusable, even in its' modern context, simply because they haven't evolved yet and apparently should make no attempt to catch up.

[kahljorn]

I never said it was Okay, if you'd learn to read you'd notice I said... "I'm not saying I believe it's right or anything".

All I was attempting to point out is that most of this is an obvious moral issue, in which western culture believes they are morally superior to pretty much every other nation that doesn't follow their morals to the 'T'. The sad thing with that is most of the morals of western culture are a facade. However, I don't necessarily disagree that the morals and values apparant in some of these cultures seem horrible and inhumane. Rather, all I'm trying to discuss is proliferation of moral values within these states. Essentially, how would you actually solve the problem?
You say it's in the koran but who cares. There's plenty of shit in the bible that's exactly the same. Just because they are willing to accept that it's there doesn't mean they're all going to go kill people, just like every christian/jew isn't going to kill his wife if she's not a virgin.
You have conversations about this but what do you think it's going to do..? Considering the fact that this is a moral issue I asked you questions about that directly, but you tried to push it off as unrelated. Well, thanks for sharing your super-knowledge of islam. Maybe after we're done with that we could start discussing the real issue?

[Ant10708]

If anyone is still unclear, the Bible has violent text in it too since apparently its extremely important to keep mentioning this. :maul

[Pharaoh]

If anyone is still unclear, the Bible has violent text in it too since apparently its extremely important to keep mentioning this. :maul

Yeah, that's what these hippies tell themselves whenever they hear about women being stoned to death for being raped, or Christian schoolgirls being beheaded, it makes them feel better about it.

[Ant10708]

Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow women to attend a football match against Sweden, reversing an earlier decision.
On Monday, Saudi authorities had told the Swedish Football Association that a change of stadium meant women could not watch the match in the capital, Riyadh.

But after intervention by Swedish diplomats on Tuesday, the Saudi authorities backed down.

The ban on women spectators had caused upset in Sweden, one of the world's leading nations on gender equality.


How dare those Swedes think their culture is better than the culture of Saudia Arabia! Fucking swedish bigots. :)


I do find it odd that the people who despise the anti-gay members of the board who have problems with homosexuality and are not in favor of equal marriage and adoption rights are so keen to defend radical Islam when they(the radical members of Islam) obviously have more prejudices than just disliking gays. I'm pretty sure radical Islamics hate gays alot more than people like Pharaoh.


Seriously, how did Arafat win the Nobel Peace Prize?

[kahljorn]

"Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow women to attend a football match against Sweden, reversing an earlier decision. "

This is the type of culture proliferation I'm talking about. It seems worthless, like it wont help anything, but it at least causes people to look at things in a different way.


"If anyone is still unclear, the Bible has violent text in it too since apparently its extremely important to keep mentioning this. "

"But, until their ideology and way of life is entirely defeated, they remain a threat; so let's take them out. "
That's why I said stuff about the bible, because some people seem to think every islamist is a serial murderer just because their core religious text supports it. That's okay though right, we can somehow ignore that and focus on people bringing up the bible. That will make us look smart. Don't forget, the same people also mentioned that even the "Fine upstanding muslims" in western culture are blights on society and should also be wiped off the map.
Good job confronting that aspect of this conversation. I seriously don't know why you insert your opinion into any thread, ant, your opinion seems to be the most worthless one available.

[ziggytrix]

*sigh* Yes, I'm defending radical Islam. That's EXACTLY what I've been saying this whole time.

Why the fuck do I even bother?

FUCKIN POST A QUOTE WHERE I SAID A VIOLENT EXTREMIST DOESN'T DESERVE TO DIE, YOU FUNCTIONALLY LITERATE CHEERLEADER.

[Ant10708]

You people are doing fine with the others so theres no need for me to chime in. I just read that the bible was violent like 5 times in this thread as if this is new information.

I confronted the fact that you seem to excuse the behavior of people in the Middle East just because our culture is different and we feel superior. Is it possible that a culture that does not treat woman as second class citizens is better than one that does? I'm sure you agree our culture in America is far superior to what is was when woman didn't have equal rights.


I still don't understand my opinion being the most worthless. Oh I mocked something you said that was already said multiple times in this thread. That's why.

[ziggytrix]

Ant, quote where someone said atrocities committed Middle Eastern folks are OK cuz they're just backwards sandhicks.

Otherwise quit reading shit into this "debate" that isn't there.

[Ant10708]

"But look how you're applying your righteousness. "You know, muslims are obviously wrong because they don't share my philosophy". They are just going by what has been bred into their culture for MANY MANY years-- just like you are when you accuse them of wrong. Unlike us, they haven't had the 300 years or whatever of democratic development under the guise of equality. So what, they are a little 'behind'. Quit judging them because our culture is more evolved. I wonder if there's a word for that kind of discrimination ;( " -kahl

He didn't say they were 'okay' but it seems like he was saying its not their fault and thus excusing or defending radical(including extremists) Islam and its pratices. You are so not violently happy Ziggy. Relax. I wasn't reading shit that wasn't there but I would consider it shit.

[kahljorn]

"I'm sure you agree our culture in America is far superior to what is was when woman didn't have equal rights."

Yea, that's why I said our culture was more evolved(Get it now, fuckface?). I didn't excuse their habits or anything, if you'd learn to read with something other than your asshole you might figure that out. Moreover, i was trying to discuss this from relevant angles, rather than just ranting on and on about what they do and how they do it. Yes, we know they do things. That's why there's stories about it and controversy. I don't see how reliterating the same thing over and over fixes anything(THEIR RELIGION HAS BAD THINGS IN IT).

"I still don't understand my opinion being the most worthless."

Your idea of chiming into a conversation about gay people is, "They really aren't prejudiced that bad what about people not being allowed to smoke pot that sucks man i smoke pot and it's just not fair."
Seems pretty fucking worthless to me... And little did you know your information was flawed in the first place.

[Abcdxxxx]

I don't see how reliterating the same thing over and over fixes anything(THEIR RELIGION HAS BAD THINGS IN IT).

Weird. Then why did you find it worth your while to talk about Christians and Jews at all? Hell, why do YOU keep bringing the conversation back to this base level? You already admitted you've only met one Muslim in your entire life.

So yeah, thanks for your contribution, but if you other angles are "Maybe murder's cool, ever think about that?" then spare us.

.... And learn what Anthropology actually means while you're at it, dunce.

[kahljorn]

" Then why did you find it worth your while to talk about Christians and Jews at all?"

:lol You seriously couldn't figure it out despite what I said? Could I have been making fun of you?

"And learn what Anthropology actually means while you're at it"

I don't know why you guys think you know something I don't, but I find it hilarious. I'm guessing you're equating anthropology to simply being digging for fossils or living among foreign tribes. There's even a branch of anthropology called, "Psychological anthropology". guess what that is.

Anthropology is the study of HUMANS and their development. Some people call it the, "Science of humans". In fact the word anthropology comes from meant HUMAN. Here, why don't you read about it on wikipedia so you can know what it is, and show me exactly how I don't know what I'm talking about. Consider this a challenge since you're such a smart guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology

Let me give you a few hints or something.

Could it be...:

A) It is holistic in two senses: it is concerned with all humans at all times, and with all dimensions of humanity.

B) A primary trait that traditionally distinguished anthropology from other humanistic disciplines is an emphasis on cross-cultural comparisons. This distinction has, however, become increasingly the subject of controversy and debate, with anthropological methods now being commonly applied in single society/group studies.

C) cultural anthropology, (called social anthropology in the United Kingdom and now often known as socio-cultural anthropology). Areas studied by cultural anthropologists include social networks, diffusion, social behavior, kinship patterns, law, politics, ideology, religion, beliefs, patterns in production and consumption, exchange, socialization, gender, and other expressions of culture, with strong emphasis on the importance of fieldwork or participant-observation (i.e living among the social group being studied for an extended period of time);

D) More recently, some anthropology programs began dividing the field into two, one emphasizing the humanities and critical theory, the other emphasizing the natural sciences and empirical observation.

Regardless of how you look at it, anthropology has alot to do with the study of CULTURE and SOCIETY and the way it DEVELOPS. If you deny that it shows how fucking stupid you are, and it will bring me great pleasure. But go ahead. Do it. Give it to me. Come on, give it to me.
I seriously want to hear your smart guy talk about what anthropology really is, you blaring jackass.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'll help you out, because I feel bad for you Kahl.... I mean not that I know anything about the Middle East that you don't or anything but...

Westerners want to practice the equivalent of social anthropomorphagy. They want to look for reasons they themselves would accept to do some act. It simply no more registers to them to be shahids anymore than they would practice Japanese foot binding. So they look for plausible reasons they would understand.

Arab, and some Muslim societies says that everything that Islam has conquered is Dars Al Islam, or the House of Islam, and that it forever belongs to the followers of the prophet, and that Islamic Law shall be the only law known, and that anyone not one of the people of the book (I.E why do you think that the diverse religions of the Sassanid Empire are all but three dead today?) shall live there, and that Jews and Christians are to be treated as Dhimmis (A class roughly similar to Jim Crow Era African Americans, or Aparthied Era Africans in SA).

[kahljorn]

You still didn't tell me exactly what anthropology is and how I used it wrong, but i appreciate the fact that you actually talked about something i could read and enjoy despite the horrible typos and incoherency. Thanks, please continue.

You probably know plenty more about the middle east than I do. and I'm pretty sure you've shown it, I just know more about everything else.

P.s. the christian bible says the same thing.

"They want to look for reasons they themselves would accept to do some act."

I'm not interested in that at all, I'm for the advancement of civilization and for the understanding of it's functions(To put it short and sweet). I'm sort of in a rush, maybe I'll post later.

[Abcdxxxx]

P.s. the christian bible says the same thing.


Holyshit, Rain Man.

Since you're for the "advancement of civiliization and for the understanding of it's functions" can we count on more intelligetly formed arguments rationalizing the cultural purity of stonings ??

Not.

Bright.

[kahljorn]

Feminization of alot of outlets is culturally considered a weakness in many aspects. Look at america: I'm sure you can find a few weaknesses even economically, militaristically, socially. psychologically and even in certain evolution senses. Stoning women keeps those weaknesses from getting out of control.
Most of that's an excuse to keep treating people like shit, though. Besides all that the inbreeding of power of sorts keeps culture stagnant and puts them in a slow developmental pace. Tit for tat. Overall you'd find advancement of culture to be more beneficial to society than stagnation.
However, despite all that the old philosophies still led to the philosophies of today-- so maybe in that sense it was correct. Freemasonry indeed.

Want to share with us some more information about how the koran says it's okay to kill non-believers?

P.S. the christian bible says the same thing.

[Abcdxxxx]

Naw, go school yourself.

I'm not going to respond to your crazy "feminization" talk either.
Let us know when you have some new thoughts which are relevant to bring to the table.

[Kulturkampf]

I never said it was Okay, if you'd learn to read you'd notice I said... "I'm not saying I believe it's right or anything".

All I was attempting to point out is that most of this is an obvious moral issue, in which western culture believes they are morally superior to pretty much every other nation that doesn't follow their morals to the 'T'. The sad thing with that is most of the morals of western culture are a facade. However, I don't necessarily disagree that the morals and values apparant in some of these cultures seem horrible and inhumane. Rather, all I'm trying to discuss is proliferation of moral values within these states. Essentially, how would you actually solve the problem?

Forced liberalization and democratization of these nations, and if they drag their feet we give them incentives; if they refuse to cooperate, we destroy them and put their leads on trials, kill their culture and build schools there -- force them to learn how to read and be educated.


You say it's in the koran but who cares. There's plenty of shit in the bible that's exactly the same.

But it is not the word of Christ.

Just because they are willing to accept that it's there doesn't mean they're all going to go kill people, just like every christian/jew isn't going to kill his wife if she's not a virgin.
You have conversations about this but what do you think it's going to do..? Considering the fact that this is a moral issue I asked you questions about that directly, but you tried to push it off as unrelated. Well, thanks for sharing your super-knowledge of islam. Maybe after we're done with that we could start discussing the real issue?

What is the real issue?

They attack us in the form of terrorism. We're angry, and they're backwards barbarians so we are kicking their asses inside out.

Sounds like a good day's work.

[Abcdxxxx]

Kulture, here are some things you might not be aware of ..

*there are portions of the Bible featured in the Koran, or at least referenced. There's even a talking baby jesus pledging to allah.

*a great deal of Arabs can read, and are educated, in greater numbers then ever before. in the case of palestinians, the real palestinians (which are very few) were often fluent in english, even in the refugee camps, prior to 1967. the percentage of palestinians with higher learning degrees would shock you. many travel overseas and take advantage of our study visas. there are great schools in turkey, and qatar for example. there are plenty of saudi and iraqi women with doctorates collecting dust. the terrorists themselves aren't lacking education.... it's the inclusion of hate propaganda into those educations which is the problem. The UN, US, and EU continue to fund, and disseminate these materials into arab schools. (edit: into Arab schools in which they have taken humanitarian rolls, that is. i'm not proposing the materials originated from the western world)

* the arabic culture you want to destroy isn't just a muslim culture.

*terrorism in it's current form is advanced and subversive in it's ability to manipulate the publics concept of the arab third world. We haven't effectively "kicked their asses inside out" according to the slow drip death toll which continues to mount daily.

****

Here's an article which discusses how the Koran instills Muslims with a quest for righteousness, while rejecting co-existance.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578

[Kulturkampf]

Kulture, here are some things you might not be aware of ..

*there are portions of the Bible featured in the Koran, or at least referenced. There's even a talking baby jesus pledging to allah.

Yes, and I am also aware that it is forbidden for a Muslim to say that Jesus ever died; the great Martyr Isa (PBUH) never died on the cross because He ascended straight into heaven.

*a great deal of Arabs can read, and are educated, in greater numbers then ever before. in the case of palestinians, the real palestinians (which are very few) were often fluent in english, even in the refugee camps, prior to 1967. the percentage of palestinians with higher learning degrees would shock you. many travel overseas and take advantage of our study visas. there are great schools in turkey, and qatar for example. there are plenty of saudi and iraqi women with doctorates collecting dust. the terrorists themselves aren't lacking education.... it's the inclusion of hate propaganda into those educations which is the problem. The UN, US, and EU continue to fund, and disseminate these materials into arab schools. (edit: into Arab schools in which they have taken humanitarian rolls, that is. i'm not proposing the materials originated from the western world)

I am concerned with the ones that are bringing their kids to Hamas rallies dressed up as mini suicide bombers.

* the arabic culture you want to destroy isn't just a muslim culture.

Yeah, it is what... 5% Christian? Throw in a few Baha'i and you got yourself a party.

*terrorism in it's current form is advanced and subversive in it's ability to manipulate the publics concept of the arab third world. We haven't effectively "kicked their asses inside out" according to the slow drip death toll which continues to mount daily.

And so the third world needs an education.

Here's an article which discusses how the Koran instills Muslims with a quest for righteousness, while rejecting co-existance.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14578

Coexistence... is a goal. :)

[Abcdxxxx]

Yeah, it is what... 5% Christian? Throw in a few Baha'i and you got yourself a party.

Well, let me try this strategy.... the last remnants of all of those lost cultures which Islam conquered were resurped into Arab culture... it doesn't matter what percentile we're talking.

[ziggytrix]

resurped?

[kahljorn]

"But it is not the word of Christ. "

I could be wrong here but from what I recall the, "Kill all non-believers" thing aren't words of mohammed. Nice comparison, though.
Also, instead of being the word of Christ it's the word of God. Again, nice comparison.

"Forced liberalization and democratization of these nations, and if they drag their feet we give them incentives"

How the fuck do you propose that? Jackass. That's so democratic it makes me want to puke. You can't forcefully democratize a nation. This really isn't even worth discussing.

" kill their culture "

Do you know how hard it is to kill a culture? You can't just shoot them and they'll stop, then they start hiding it with secret angers underneath. That causes "Terrorists", terrorists cause more anger and confusion.
Plus what other people said about other nations being pissed off. I'm glad you're just an ignorant fuck. You CANNOT kill a culture, you can help it evolve.. you can do plenty of other things, but trying to destroy it will just cause it to proliferate into nearby cultures, bringing their anger and hatred with them.

"They attack us in the form of terrorism."

"They", huh? See, abc? This guy seems to think every muslim is a terrorist. Kind of embarassing to be a part of the same nation if you ask me.

Look at this jackass though, his solution to non-believers who kill non-believers is to go kill them if they won't believe him. So hypocritical it's kind of hilarious.

"I'm not going to respond to your crazy "feminization" talk either. "

A good example of feminization can be found by looking at the time before and after women entered the workplace. In the past, often families would be capable of surviving without having a woman working, now a days the woman is almost gauranteed to need to work just to be able to get by month to month. Because there are no mothers in the household this causes a general decline in morality accompanied by a steady increase in crime. Again, though, most of this is an excuse to continue treating people like shit-- most of the effects of feminization are exageratted just like any other economical malnourishing.
Another good example of the effects of feminization can be found by looking at mammalian anal complexes that cause "Alpha males". Alpha males are an evolutionary sound idea, the strongest or better gened one often wins the genetic battle thus allowing them to spread their seed to nearby females-- thus creating a more powerful generation. Genetic variation is always good, too, though. For the most part in the begining of civilization(or even prior to), though, without those genetic highpoints civilization probably wouldn't be what it is today-- if there would be a civilization at all.

*edit* Now i see this guys other post in the gay thread about modernization of their culture. Good job posting it where it's aplicable, dumbass. Maybe we should start discussing gay rights in this thread.

[Big Papa Goat]

Do you mean by Alpha males polygamous breeding studs? Because they don't neccesarily create a more powerful generation, they just create a new generation of males that are better at polygamy. That pretty much just means being more greedy, violent and possessive of women. Because the only genetic attributes a male needs to be a so called 'alpha male' would be those that facilitate polygamy. These genetic attributes aren't neccesarily better, or desirable at all.

What's this about off-topic posts? :(

[Kulturkampf]

"But it is not the word of Christ. "

I could be wrong here but from what I recall the, "Kill all non-believers" thing aren't words of mohammed. Nice comparison, though.
Also, instead of being the word of Christ it's the word of God. Again, nice comparison.

You are wrong:
Qur’an 9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Ishaq:587 “Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace.”
Bukhari:V4B53N386 “Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: ‘Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.’”

Bukhari:V5B59N512 “The Prophet had their men killed, their woman and children taken captive.”

Bukhari:V4B52N270 “Allah’s Messenger said, ‘Who is ready to kill Ashraf? He has said injurious things about Allah and His Apostle.’ Maslama got up saying, ‘Would you like me to kill him?’ The Prophet proclaimed, ‘Yes.’ Maslama said, ‘Then allow me to lie so that I will be able to deceive him.’ Muhammad said, ‘You may do so.’”

Ishaq:368 “Ka’b’s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile [cunning or deviousness]. Traveling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.”

It goes on.

"Forced liberalization and democratization of these nations, and if they drag their feet we give them incentives"

How the fuck do you propose that? Jackass. That's so democratic it makes me want to puke. You can't forcefully democratize a nation. This really isn't even worth discussing.

Yes, you can; you take power away from the people who have way too much and set up a constitutional republic which allows the minority to be guaranteed rights with majority opinion determining the rest.

" kill their culture "

Do you know how hard it is to kill a culture? You can't just shoot them and they'll stop, then they start hiding it with secret angers underneath. That causes "Terrorists", terrorists cause more anger and confusion.
Plus what other people said about other nations being pissed off. I'm glad you're just an ignorant fuck. You CANNOT kill a culture, you can help it evolve.. you can do plenty of other things, but trying to destroy it will just cause it to proliferate into nearby cultures, bringing their anger and hatred with them.

We can do anything through McDonalds & MTV; their children will shop at malls and be more concerned with vanity than the words of the Prophet, because that is the nature of man; one day, they will be just as vain as us.

Vanity will kill their culture, and it won't be a hard task to convince people to do what feels good and fulfilling to themselves instead of what a man 1,000 years dead says.

"They attack us in the form of terrorism."

"They", huh? See, abc? This guy seems to think every muslim is a terrorist. Kind of embarassing to be a part of the same nation if you ask me.

No, not every, but a significant a mount of Muslims support the terrorists.

[Pharaoh]

No, not every, but a significant a mount of Muslims support the terrorists.

True. It's about 25%, according to a recent UK poll. That's about four thousand British Muslims who support Islamic terrorism. >:

[kahljorn]

Um, just out of curiousity wasn't Ishaq a prophet himself, and isn't that book his 'word'? If I remember right Ishaq was Isaac. I don't really know though.

Also, where did you get those quotes? Because I can find just as many that say the exact opposite by looking up words like, "Dhimi". From what I understand Dhimi basically equates to muslims not hating people who "come from the same religion". like jews and christians. Wikipedia also listed these verses:

"God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Qur'an, 60:8)

I'm also going to look up what you posted and see how true it is, because i know with you you just like to copy and paste "Interesting" things off of racist sites without even reading the context.

Also, wasn't muhammed around near the times of jihad? When christian colonies were attacking muslims for little to no reason, with a text that essentially also stated, "Kill all non-believers"? If I remember right that was delivered by a cardinal or pope. Basically, that all verses you are quoting that say, "kill non-believers" were born out of a war with christian forces? Seems like we kind of deserve it, and considering we had the same text around I wouldn't really call them heathens or anything.

[kahljorn]

Um, Okay. I'm not sure if this is a "Bad translation" or if yours is, but here's the first result I got from looking up "Quran 9:5"

"5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."

I'm going to be editing this post with information on the others.

What's with these crazy numbers next to Bukhari? And is bukhari the guy who essentially went back and recompiled alot of quranic information? When I pasted in the bukhari thing all I got was a bunch of anti-muslim sites, seems strange. Give me the real number of the versus please because I have the Hadith of Bukhari open as we speak.
Never mind I figured it out:
I don't see how it's about killing non-believers, though, it seems to be more about killing one of their own ;/ Nice adherance to context, though. And it's not even verse 270, it's verse 271. I know you get your arguments from racist websites but try to make them a little more apt than about killing people in the middle of war ;/ Because that's what it seems to be about.

This is the volume four 386 one:
Umar sent the Muslims to the great countries to fight the pagans. When Al-Hurmuzan embraced Islam, 'Umar said to him. "I would like to consult you regarding these countries which I intend to invade." Al-Hurmuzan said, "Yes, the example of these countries and their inhabitants who are the enemies. of the Muslims, is like a bird with a head, two wings and two legs; If one of its wings got broken, it would get up over its two legs, with one wing and the head; and if the other wing got broken, it would get up with two legs and a head, but if its head got destroyed, then the two legs, two wings and the head would become useless. The head stands for Khosrau, and one wing stands for Caesar and the other wing stands for Faris. So, order the Muslims to go towards Khosrau." So, 'Umar sent us (to Khosrau) appointing An-Numan bin Muqrin as our commander. When we reached the land of the enemy, the representative of Khosrau came out with forty-thousand warriors, and an interpreter got up saying, "Let one of you talk to me!" Al-Mughira replied, "Ask whatever you wish." The other asked, "Who are you?" Al-Mughira replied, "We are some people from the Arabs; we led a hard, miserable, disastrous life: we used to suck the hides and the date stones from hunger; we used to wear clothes made up of fur of camels and hair of goats, and to worship trees and stones. While we were in this state, the Lord of the Heavens and the Earths, Elevated is His Remembrance and Majestic is His Highness, sent to us from among ourselves a Prophet whose father and mother are known to us. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master." (Al-Mughira, then blamed An-Numan for delaying the attack and) An-Nu' man said to Al-Mughira, "If you had participated in a similar battle, in the company of Allah's Apostle he would not have blamed you for waiting, nor would he have disgraced you. But I accompanied Allah's Apostle in many battles and it was his custom that if he did not fight early by daytime, he would wait till the wind had started blowing and the time for the prayer was due (i.e. after midday)."

Asking them to pay Jizya is essentially asking them to pay the taxes that they demanded of all non-believers within their territory that allowed them to practice their religion freely without even adheering to Muslim principles. Sounds pretty generous, considering. Haven't the western nations done the same thing to "Pagans"???
Anyway, all this shit is about the Jihad when they were in the middle of war and shit, that the christian nations were participating in. I don't know about this, but did you ever think that maybe that caused some bad relations between them and our world? Maybe, just maybe, there's reasons for them acting like assholes to us?

[Abcdxxxx]

You're joking right? You can't possibly be this retarded.

The verse numbers are different because you're both using different translations. Neither of you can read any of the Korans native languages, so why go down the road of cutting and pasting the interpretations of others, pretending you're being "scholarly" ?

You couldn't even grasp the meaning of the word Hudna, which has no direct Western-English translation... how the hell are you going to debate the intergrity of entire quotes from the Koran!? Some translations are fairly sanitized and Western friendly....some aren't.

[kahljorn]

I don't understand the hudna? The way you explained it didn't make it too hard to understand. I was reading what you were saying. That's why I understood it, buddy. Don't you consider it a compliment when people understand the things you say?

Secondly, I did understand it. The thing that threw me off was the b52 part because the place I was at didn't have it listed by books but by volume, so I simply went by the N part which showed to be completely accurate. If you don't believe me, here:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_274.htm

There it is(with the real numbers). It says the guy they're trying to kill is a Jew. My mistake.

Here's the other one, though, that initially confused me which he posted wrong..:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_273.htm

P.S. "We can do anything through McDonalds & MTV; their children will shop at malls and be more concerned with vanity than the words of the Prophet, because that is the nature of man; one day, they will be just as vain as us. "

I agree entirely with this, which is why (posted either in this thread or another) I thought the thing with sweeden being angry about them not allowing females to come, which they allowed, stood as a good example of how they can be influenced through cultural levels.
However, I think breeding people into vanity is stupid but it could certainly be a step into something better. Unity and perfection is considered vanities icon.

[Abcdxxxx]

There's something like a half dozen translations, with HUGE variations, Sherlock. So which translation did you pick, and why?

You're time would be much better spent taking a stone and hitting yourself over the head to assert your own masculinity. You seem a little "Femininized", you dumb bitch.

[kahljorn]

There's like 20 different translations of the bible, I think anybody delving into anything involving translation of anything(especially religious) into another language is going to find more than one translation and often more than one translators. I posted the translation I posted. According to that it's... "This is an extensive collection of Hadith as organized by Muhammad Ismâ'îl al-Bukhârî, one of the most respected of the Hadith redactors."

It says the translation might have been done by Muhammad Asad(according to the "manual"), but the exact translator isn't known since it's an internet file.

*edit* The reason I posted it was included in the original post. I believe I said something like, "It was the first thing that showed up when I ran a search for it on yahoo".

[Abcdxxxx]

So basically, you don't know shit, but you can cut and paste like a motherfucker. Spare us.

[kahljorn]

If i remember right he was copying and pasting verses, and I copy pasted some in return with a little bit of information on the side. Weren't we talking about reading comprehension? Man, why do you even argue with me? Are you reading what he's saying? You're the one struggling to keep up, and I've been trying to keep it somewhat civil with you.

I'm sure the war in which the Ji'had was born could have nothing to do with our current problems with eachother. None, especially considering originally they considered us all of the same God(since technically we are). You act like friction between us is based entirely on aggressive actions on their part. Please point out exactly what you think is bullshit made up crap so I can tell you how it's important.

"You're time"
That's right, I am the Lord and God of Time. Explains why I'm so intelligent, huh?

"would be much better spent taking a stone and hitting yourself over the head to assert your own masculinity. You seem a little "Femininized", you dumb bitch."

Assert my masculinity? You don't even know how funny that is. As for being a little "Feminized".. well, that just made it more funny.

Do you have books of all of the Koranic scriptures? Can you read them with any degree of fluency?

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm not the one playing scholar comparing verses....

As for trying to attribute Anti-semitism in the world tothe same source as your frusterations with me.... snore.

[kahljorn]

Anti-semitism? What are you talking about? And I don't know about Frustrations. Did you even read what I said? Do you understand anything?
You need to consider the complete picture, not just isolated times in history, namely the present and most recent history-- consider taking a history class or something. I hated history class and I seem to know more than you do. I guess that's why I'm the lord of time, huh? I can just see more into the history of events or something. I SEE WITH ME MAGICAL EYE.

---"I'm not the one playing scholar comparing verses.... "
---"There's something like a half dozen translations, with HUGE variations, Sherlock. So which translation did you pick, and why? "

:posh Well there snurly pants Watson I snuff might nose at thee.

[Abcdxxxx]

Uh, okay big man. Puff out your chest and walk into another wall.

I'm the one giving history lessons here, while you're talking about how practical stonings might be. Give up. You're lucky I'm bored today.

[kahljorn]

Practical? Let me show you something you could learn through reading comprehension:

"most of the effects of feminization are exageratted just like any other economical malnourishing. "

Yes, I'm the one who said that, in the post about feminization. Feminization doesn't mean anything other than the effects further female integration have had on society and culture. There are plenty of good things, and some bad things. Argue you it if you will, but you'll just look like a jackass.
There were REAL palpable effects that it had, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with women themselves. Also, in the past stuff like that was applicable. The times were different, you just don't understand that. Most of the argument was (quite obviously) just to bother you. I don't know why you think it's any thing other than that, but congratulations on picking up subtle details.
The whole feminization thing is actually something some people believe, and some even treat it completely as a negative thing.

P.S. Respond to some of the points/questions.

[Abcdxxxx]

You haven't made any points or asked any questions relevant to this thread, you putz. Go suck a dick so you can stop using phrases like "feminine intergration" you lunatic. Seriously, you're the conversational equivalent of belly button lint. Let's theorize about belly button lint. Say, have you ever watched paint drip before? I know, what is Art? Yeah, now we're really getting to understand the Middle East from crazy obtuse angles, maaan.

[Kulturkampf]

Um, just out of curiousity wasn't Ishaq a prophet himself, and isn't that book his 'word'? If I remember right Ishaq was Isaac. I don't really know though.

Also, where did you get those quotes? Because I can find just as many that say the exact opposite by looking up words like, "Dhimi". From what I understand Dhimi basically equates to muslims not hating people who "come from the same religion". like jews and christians. Wikipedia also listed these verses:

"God forbids you not, with regards to those who fight you not for faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them; for God loveth those who are just." (Qur'an, 60:8)

I'm also going to look up what you posted and see how true it is, because i know with you you just like to copy and paste "Interesting" things off of racist sites without even reading the context.

Also, wasn't muhammed around near the times of jihad? When christian colonies were attacking muslims for little to no reason, with a text that essentially also stated, "Kill all non-believers"? If I remember right that was delivered by a cardinal or pope. Basically, that all verses you are quoting that say, "kill non-believers" were born out of a war with christian forces? Seems like we kind of deserve it, and considering we had the same text around I wouldn't really call them heathens or anything.

I have read the first 9 or so Surahs of the Koran; I do remember reading abouta battl where at the end of it a man refused to convert and Mohammed personally executed him. I do not have the Surah off and. I merely went to a webpage and got some of the more golden quotations, and focused on the ones where it says bits like "And the prophet ordered us to kill."

Mohammed personally waged war on Jews and tribalists in his Arabian penninsula; I am unaware of no interaction with Christians, let alone entirely unaware of Christians arbitrarily attacking Mohammed.

That is where you will have to do some research.

[kahljorn]

Crusades at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusade

"The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. Originally, they were Roman Catholic endeavors to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, but some were directed against other Europeans, such as the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southern France and the Northern Crusades."

I don't have much time for anything else, I'll be back to answer questions later.

P.S. What I'm saying is most of this war, with which both nations(or religions or whathaveyou) have harbored bad feelings for the other for a while, was mostly born out of conflict for the so-called "Holy land", and the extensions thereof. I don't see how you could argue that this is historically untrue. PPS Jews were mistreated by christians too. In fact, where do you think anti-semitism in europe came from? Very much a religious war.

[Abcdxxxx]

Uh... no.

Jewish persecution does not equal a religious war.
Anyway, the pass the buck argument is great, but where Christians innovated it (down to the creation of words like Zealot), Muslims carried it on for centuries.

You have no idea how cliche your responses are Kahl. Here I'll help you. Say something about the Canaanites now.

[kahljorn]

The caananites are responsible for my thoughts on the industry of africa.

"Muslims carried it on for centuries. "

No shit, that's why I said their culture is unevolved ;/

Christians didn't inovate it; this shit has been going on for centuries with nearly every religion.

I didn't say jewish persecution made it a religious war, what made it a religious war was both religions saying to kill the other religion and they would be rewarded with money and heaven. They offered indulgences.


PS
"let alone entirely unaware of Christians arbitrarily attacking Mohammed. "

I don't think they had too many interactions back then other than fringe, but I can't remember for sure. However, there was plenty of conflict over the "Holy land" that would explain some of the jewish problems...

Maybe I just want america to lose because i hate it? BEWARE MY DASTARDLY LIBERAL WAYS.

[Abcdxxxx]

I meant to say the Romans innovated antisemitism against Jews. The concept of dual nationalities, and allegiance to Talmudic Laws, while living under Roman laws was too much for them to handle.

In terms of the middle east in more modern history, it was Christians who laid down the ground work, which reached a boiling point with the Damascus Affair, and so on. Anyway, we know Jews weren't the only ones persecuted, not by far.

Kahl said: "PPS Jews were mistreated by christians too. In fact, where do you think anti-semitism in europe came from? Very much a religious war."

Again, Jewish persecution is not the result of a religious war as that sentence would suggest. I mentioned the Romans earlier, because the persecution at the hands of Christians in Europe was an extension of the attitudes towards Jews which continues from the Cruxifictian days. Meanwhile, there was never a religious war in Europe concerning Jews, so it's a silly way to try and paint the current war as as a Holy War. There are more appropriate things you could juxtapose. Like say...the crusades. Derrrr.

[Abcdxxxx]

conflict about the Holy Land ? Not back during Mohammeds day. He wasn't that interested in Jerusalem.

[kahljorn]

the time antisemitism really started to spread is the same time the religious war, or "Holy war", with muslims and various other religions was started. In fact, I think one of the popes made an official speech about it or something. That's all I was saying. Quit reading wrong, I only drew it up to compare jewish slaughter in the koran with jewish slaughter with the holy war thing.
Mohummad talked about killing jews alot in the koran, that's what we were talking about. So yes, there were conflicts with the jews.

[Abcdxxxx]

the time antisemitism really started to spread is the same time the religious war, or "Holy war", with muslims and various other religions was started.


Where'd you get that idea?

[kahljorn]

From Pope Innocent III.

[Abcdxxxx]

Get your timeline correct.

Jews became a diaspora in 587 BCE. A lot led up to that.
The Great Revolt was in 70 CE, with a million Jewish deaths.
Jews mark the destruction of the second Temple as a the pinacle event in Biblical aged anti-semitism.
The first crusade was later, in 1096 CE, and the first christian blood libel against Jews was again later, in 1144 CE.

[kahljorn]

Again, reading comprehension. I said the crusades were when anti-semitism became particularly rampant in EUROPE.
Like there wasn't anti-semitism before that. Remember egypt?

Now I've opened the door to what lead to the holocaust. Seems like not too long ago we were still dealing with the same problems islam is currently dealing with. Women didn't even have real rights in america until this century. Have you forgotten that? Seriously though, quit being so smug. Like your shit don't stink :rolleyes

[Abcdxxxx]

Again, reading comprehension. I said the crusades were when anti-semitism became particularly rampant in EUROPE.
Like there wasn't anti-semitism before that. Remember egypt?


The Great Revolt in 70 C effected Jews in EUROPE.

Like I said, Jews became a Diaspora 517 years before that, at the hands of Anti-Semitism. The first crusade wasn't untill a thousand years later. Anti-semitism was rampant for 1000 years before. The first crusade was an important moment in Islamic history, but not for Jews. In fact, a great deal of Jews were persecuted simply because they were lumped in with Muslims, as being the same thing.

So if we're talking reading comprehension, it's a shame I had to repeat that.

I think you were trying to make some moral equivalency and use United States history to apologize for the current oppression of women in the Middle East? Why bother.

[Pharaoh]

The Crusades helped stop the jihad conquest of Europe. They were a delayed response to centuries of Muslim aggression. They were fighting to recapture Christian lands and defend Christians. And after the Crusades the Muslims resumed their efforts to conquer Europe by Jihad, as they still are today.

[Chojin]

(61) D- Harvey, it's obvious that you haven't read the material. See me after class.

[kahljorn]

I was saying your morals, politics and philosophies essentially equate to, "me me me" and you are entirely unable to understand the fact that even our country hasn't been the perfect civilization it is now until this century. Smug ass americans.
They just require some cultural changes, just like we did. Doesn't mean we need to go kill every single muslim out there; that's just hypocricy. Essentially I'm saying you're acting like a child and all the ideas you hold are selfish smug bullshit complexes builtup so you can feel superior-- when you're so obviously not.

P.S. I already conceeded to the fact that antisemitism existed before the crusades-- remember I mentioned egypt-- but the crusades didn't make it any better, did they? Huh? Want to say it did? Were they eatting lolipops every day? Because i dont even think lolipops existed then. So do you want to lie? Considering alot of the anti-semitic sentiments actually originated in/near germany, i found the connection to be interesting. I said that's when it became RAMPANT (essentially leading to CURRENT DAY ANTISEMITISM) not that it JUST THEN BEGUN. Out of the entire world, antisemitism was not prevelant until 1200 ad. Hurrah. :rolleyes Quit picking bullshit things to argue about.

PPS If you really want to get into what caused antisemitism in europe it'd be an obvious, resounding claim that the "Gospel" caused it. So regardless of whatever your claim is, mine will still come out on top. Kay thanks.

[Abcdxxxx]

"Out of the entire world, antisemitism was not prevelant until 1200 ad. "

That's factually incorrect, but if you're desperate to be right, you can pretend that 1 million deaths over multiple continenants in 70CE doesn't earn the word "prevelant".

As for America's sins? My past sins do not excuse your future fuck ups. Shari'a law stonings are not repparations for the US dragging their feet to allow the right of women to vote. We know your argument can't get past basic moral equivalency, and "so what, look at how bad the Bible and the US" are. It's not a competition. Self examination is great, but it doesn't absolve these nations from their actions.

[kahljorn]

First off, I was being so incredibly sarcastic with the 1200 ad antisemitism remark I'm surprised you responded to it.

Secondly, I'm not excusing it, I'm just making an argument why we shouldn't nuke them or go kill all of them like some people were suggesting. Rather, I'm trying to show they aren't unlike we were not too long ago, and there could possibly be a more peaceful solution. If you weren't so busy trying to flash your cock you'd pick up on the fact that none of my original argument was even directed at you.

I was also trying to show the fact that american hatred for muslims has been fucking cultivated for a long time, and isn't just a result of events like 9/11 that somehow cloud your eyes.

[Abcdxxxx]

You're so busy worrying about my cock that you can't tell I'm responding to what I think is factual incorrect or and outright ridiculous argument. Try a factual response, instead of hiding behind sarcasm, or fantastical "everybody is bad" acid logic. You keep telling us that there's more substance to your bullshit then just...bullshit.


"american hatred for muslims has been fucking cultivated for a long time, and isn't just a result of events like 9/11 "

The American published of the Koran reported sales quintuppled in the weeks after 9/11. The Koran was on the best sellers list for the first time ever. American awareness, along with hatred, is a direct response to the events of 9/11. That you're even talking about "hatred for Muslims" is a tribute to 9/11. There was hatred towards Muslims before, but 9/11 gave people an actual reason for which to base opinions. The hate crimes reported were in response to 9/11.... to credit all that anti-Islam sentiment to the tradition of The Crusades is wishfull thinking on your part.

[kahljorn]

:lol I said it ISNT JUST FROM 9/11. I didn't say it's NOT AT ALL FROM IT. Obviously some of the sentiment is from 9/11, and some of it is from before that. Why are you arguing like I said 9/11 had no effect? Are you even aware of what your point is? You're stupid.
I was saying there was a problem before 9/11 so you bring up how important 9/11 was? You're playing into exactly the type of bias I was talking about. So disillusioned. You think I brought up that point because i was unaware of the effect it had on america? Yea. :rolleyes You think 9/11 and then you think muslim, and yet you imply Osama has no connection with the muslim nations-- not even in your own mind.
I brought up the crusades to show previous problems with the muslims(and also to show how similar our cultures were not too long ago). A connection SHARED. The fact that america is heir to the christian legacy is obvious, the fact that muslims attack "non-believers" makes this a religious problem. Do the muslims have a problem with "Christians"? Do "Christians" have a problem with them? Do you want to argue any of those "Facts"? If not, then quit trying to tear apart well-established historical problems.

The thing I find funny is you actually thought I believed antisemitism didn't begin until the crusades(when a few posts before i clearly mentioned i knew they were abused by the Egyptians), obviously your mind is so cloudy it can't see into anything. The crusades are relative to america; while the attitude egypt or even muslims had towards jews has a minimal effect on us. Do you know why? I dare you to think about it-- consider doing so before your next post. If you can figure it out I'll give you a cookie.

The reason all of this is important is because it basically shows that american's are all, "Me me me" and are willing to force their philosophy/religion/ideas on another nation just as quickly as they would to us. Basically, america is as bad as the muslim nations and I see no reason they shouldn't be stamped out for their bullshit values just like the muslims should. I find that to be a worthy thing to point out.


"or fantastical "everybody is bad" acid logic."

Quit hiding behind, "All muslims are bad and I'm afraid", then.

"instead of hiding behind sarcasm"

Hiding? I put a "Hurrah" and a rollingeyes emoticon right after it. It's not my problem you fail to see obvious indicators. This just shows how good you are at reading comprehension and finding flaws in arguments at all-- for all you know I could be hiding a diamond in your eye.

"You keep telling us that there's more substance to your bullshit then just...bullshit. "

If you had any substantial argument to give on the subject you wouldn't be wasting your time arguing with me, so quit pretending like you have some secret golden nugget crammed up your nose you're just waiting to sneeze all over when I've made an appropriately powerful argument.

"but 9/11 gave people an actual reason for which to base opinions"

Great, that's not what I was saying at all. I'm glad you're capable of interpreting my arguments. Also, thanks for showing my argument in it's entirety; this muslim hatred isn't even based on anything valid, but the actions of a TERRORIST who you claim has little connection with the muslim governments. If there is no connection, then how could improved diplomatic positions and a cultural influence in the area have absolutely no effect on osama?

"to credit all that anti-Islam sentiment to the tradition of The Crusades is wishfull thinking on your part."

I was merely linking the two together by showing past influences on eachother. You seem to think this has anything to do with our current feelings on eachother. That's why you're stupid. I didn't show it for that, I showed it for the past; the events that lead to 9/11(not even really just that, just giving you an apt explaination). Why there was ill-will between us in the first place, how it wasn't some unfounded attack like people make it out to be. I find you so hilarious, you can't even follow a train of thought. People have somehow managed to go through a timewarp where nothing before ten years ago mattered.

P.S. Haven't there even been more recent affairs between america and certain muslim nations where we were being a little more aggressive? Maybe taking land from/attacking someone or something? Not iraq, but something else. I just can't recall.

[Abcdxxxx]

"yet you imply Osama has no connection with the muslim nations-- not even in your own mind. "

I said Osama holds little diplomatic weight with Islamic nations -peace with him doesn't equal peace with the Arab supremacist movement.

I didn't even read the rest of that garbage. I got to the point where you quoted my insults towards you as evidence I'm scared of Muslims. You're a debate club flunkie . Come back with facts to back up your opinions...so far you can't even get a basic timeline right.

[kahljorn]

According to the only muslim on the board, my interpretation of the Koran appears to be superior to yours. I'm more than willing to take that alone as a victory, however, if you'd like to point out how my timeline is flawed I'd be happy to point out how it's not.
I'd seriously like you to do this. Please show me how. I know you'll quote some stupid shit, but still. I want to see.
The fact is, anti-semitism in Europe comes out of the bible. It is a direct result of the bible. Whether you want to argue that it occured as soon as they crucified jesus, or that it occured during the crusades when it really began to get heated up(like when they were all kicked out of spain in the 1400's and when they started burning them at the stake), is entirely irrelevant to my argument. My argument is that america is a christian nation that was built on the Church/ideas of the church from which the previous events transpired. America is also responsible for discrimination against plenty of other races, including kicking native americans off their land and beating women. From what I've seen in other threads you talk about the mistreatment of women alot, as if America is so superior in that respect. They aren't, you're just a hypocrite.
All of this further connects with the fact that conflicts between america and the muslim nations have been going on for a very long time, and we aren't entirely innocent in the matter. What we got we deserved, because we were technically at war. Quit whining that they are criminals, you are just following propaganda.
If you want to kill them because they are another nation who fucked with you and you want their land and the world to be a safer place or whatever, fine; but quit trying to justify it by saying they are EVIL(Which just shows your religious fervor; or the following of) and that their laws are so backwards and they need to die so we keep other people from dying. "WE ARE MORALLY SUPERIOR." And yet, before this century we were practically in the same boat. Plus, there's plenty of problems in america still without you lashing out at them for no reason.
Considering KK's argument was that muslims suck because they hate jews, I consider it all quite apt.


"I said Osama holds little diplomatic weight with Islamic nations -peace with him doesn't equal peace with the Arab supremacist movement. "

:lol Who cares about that? I was more interested in diplomatic relations with the other muslim nations-- which is why I said rebuilding iraq is important in that capacity. What do you think would happen if our diplomatic relations with muslim nations increased? Think about it... especially if there's any palpable connection between their government and their terrorists. If there's not, then quit acting like there is and shut up. If there is, then quit acting like nothing would happen. Hell, even excusing all of those facts; improved diplomatic relations with muslim nations would still have a huge effect... even if it was just to start ill-feelings towards the terrorists. I can't believe I even have to explain that.

"I got to the point where you quoted my insults towards you as evidence I'm scared of Muslims."

You mean when I used your insult to insult you in a really lame way? Pussy. I didn't even think it was a good insult, and you took it seriously.

P.S. Next time I'm acting like an overly liberal asshole don't jump in like I'm being serious; then try your best to follow context of character and realize when I'm acting like an overly conservative asshole to try to tip you off to the fact. Jackass.

[Abcdxxxx]

Dude, I didn't bother with all that pscho babble. I already provided you with a timelime and rephrased it a second time, because you're a child. Your only refutation is to say you were sarcastic. So you know, there's more then one Muslim on this board, but the one you're talking about confirmed things I've said too. Meanwhile, by your standard of authority, I am Mr. Middle Eastern, after all. Nanny-nanny rahrah. Is it second period yet?

[kahljorn]

"I said that's when it became RAMPANT (essentially leading to CURRENT DAY ANTISEMITISM) not that it JUST THEN BEGUN. Out of the entire world, antisemitism was not prevelant until 1200 ad. Hurrah. :Rolleyes Quit picking bullshit things to argue about."

I'm hiding behind sarcasm nehehehehe. I love how you continued to argue about bullshit, though :lol

You see, the reason why all of this is relevant is because it led to relevant events; like it's influence on america and it's influence on current day Europe. None of that other stuff really matters because it effected america very little. Now if I had been comparing a country other than america, it may have. The fact that you can't see that simple little nugen makes you look incredibly stupid.
Your timeline would've been a little more relevant if it was in accordance with that idea... and don't pretend you didn't know I was comparing america, because I know you did. If you didn't you are more vapid than even I realized.

As far as I know the first jewish death by a christian (by what you say) falls into my timeline. I said "Pope innocent the III" and the "Crusades" which started in/around "1144" which you quoted as being one of the first jewish deaths or whatever. So um.. thanks for reminding me I can't follow timelines.

P.S. I use adjectives for a reason, maybe you should learn what their usage is in the english language.

PPS What i meant with him agreeing with my interpretation is my interpretation of the tennets of the religion, not the little historical fact or political outrages you're throwing around. Anybody can agree with those(WOMEN BEING BEATEN? OUTRAGE!), real knowledge of religion is a little more conceptual than that.
That'd be like if I thought the entire christian religion boiled down to the crusades or something. I accept it as an important part of it's history, however, I don't use it to judge people. Unlike you, dear sir. Judger of judges, prosecutor of least important matters, duck of the name Quaker.