War in Iran?

[Osnabrueck]

for sure i agree with you..
and i guess you got me wrong.. i ment that christianity has alot of violance in its history.. and by no means am i saying that christianity is pro violence..
far from it actually..
but the point i was trying to make is that the 3 monoteistic religons are not extremely anti violence like perhaps hindu and buddhism..

Open up any history book to any time and location in history and you'll see humans kicking the living crap out of each other. Since the dawn of time one society or another has been on the warpath with another, so all this jazz about which religion is peaceful or isn't is pure BS.

Are hindus really as docile as we all make them out to be?
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C05%5C05%5Cstory_5-5-2006_pg1_8

For the most part, religions swing in and out of agressive states depending upon the political/socioeconoic tides of the moment.

 

[LaArtist]

man im taking a doctor degree in theology so you dont need to tell me that..
i know that all the religons arent all peacefull..
but you gotta understand my point..someone here asked why muslims doesent condemn terrorists and such..
and my explanation is that the menatality of persons ( ofcourse not all) belonging to the 3 monoteistic religons isnt as anti violence as other religons in GENERAL ( note this word)

And then ofcourse like you say all religons have done gr8 things for humanity..and at the same time very bad things.. im not judging any religon.. you gotta understand that..

 

[Osnabrueck]

None of this is about religion. It's a clash of societies.

The reason Muslims don't forcefully denounce terrorism is because, by and large, the ideas they espouse are relatively popular in the Arab world. In essence - "Let's fight Isreal and the US."

There's diverging opinions about the details, but it's silly to think that Muslims will get upset when terrorists are the only ones fighting their fight.

 

[LaArtist]

well there you have it my friend..i wasted 10 posts and alot of words..and you said what i wanted to say.. lol.. thnx..

i need to learn to express myself in the english language better

 

[SDNR]

Here is an interesting article ....I urge all they conspiracy theorists to read this before they just blurt out more utter crap about September 11.

9/11: Debunking The Myths

 

[Michael]

Here is an interesting article ....I urge all they conspiracy theorists to read this before they just blurt out more utter crap about September 11.

9/11: Debunking The Myths

Roberto I am sorry, but I do not see where any of this plays into what this discussion is about?

In addition to the aforementioned, I am thinking of closing this thread just because I think we are "spent" and are beginning to move into a different topic altogether. However, it will remain open so that Roberto can write in a comment in response to what I posted, and I will see how things go, because despite the fact that this topic may deviate, it has not gone down the drain yet.

 

[Snake Vargas]

Yeah, it does seem that we're kinda done talking about war in Iran. I'm glad that the thread didn't turn nasty. We might have different views about things, but it's good to see that we can discuss them civilly.

 

[Michael]

Yeah, it does seem that we're kinda done talking about war in Iran. I'm glad that the thread didn't turn nasty. We might have different views about things, but it's good to see that we can discuss them civilly.

Truly you could not have said it any better.

This has been a good thread, and I give my thumbs up to all that participated. I do have a comment to make, however, on the poseter. I haven't not checked recently, but, it seems to me that he only posted once, which was his initial post. Rather odd, as he should have been the main poster here.

 

[Snake Vargas]

True, that - I just went and checked all the pages. With such a vehement and impassioned initial post, I would have thought he would continue to argue his case. Or did we get trolled?

 

[Osnabrueck]

I think he was just dumping off some blood in the shark tank.

Speaking of which...

Ahmadinejad wrote a nice love letter to Pres. Bush:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/09/iran.letter.ap/index.html

 

[Giannis]

Hey here i am. i have read almost every post on this topic. I know i have not replyed. But i am planning to reply soon. I'll make a nice writeup, these days. I just have been very busy lately. Too much work. Sorry

 

[SDNR]

well the thing kleemann says is true.. a person killing or doing wrong in gods name is not a muslim.. technically..
but then again who can stop him from sayin that he is..
its a real problem for muslims living in foreign countrys today.. and dont expect it to get any easier..

OK -- I understand that, but the reality of the situation is you have got a number of radical individuals running around wanting to start a war against the west in the name of Allah.

Also, what about London's Finsbury Park mosque and the rantings of -Sheikh Abu Hamza -- if real Muslims have a problem with these radical people, then why don't we hear much more condemnation of them from Muslim leaders? -- surely it is understandable why so many non-Muslims are suspicious of Islam?

 

[LaArtist]

well there are always bad examples.. but far from all muslim leaders support radicalism.. but ofcourse your right that we in the west doesent get any reports through our media that muslim groups protest against radicalism..

but that doesent mean it doesent happen..

 

[Snake Vargas]

Well, I don't mean to offend anyone, but IMHO there could be a couple of reasons why we don't hear condemnation, apart from the probably false but entirely logical one that they all actually do support the radical views in some way.

Firstly, if the radical views have some currency amongst the population, then any leader, democratically elected or otherwise, would be foolish to speak out against the thoughts of his (or her, though not very likely in Muslim leadership) people.

Secondly, I reckon that popularity has got to do with a continually reinforced us-vs.-them mentality. Any type of Islam, radical or liberal, is made out to be better than being overrun or being contaminated by the West's philosophies. The propaganda coming out of various Muslim leadership sources, and also not being helped by some propaganda coming out of the West, makes it like that.

There have been a few instances of people speaking out, here, but that really only happens when the media builds up pressure after a disaster like September 11th or, once, after an Australian worker of some sort was taken hostage. Or maybe that's just because the media only reports the contrary views of the leaders in those instances. Who knows.

--

As for Iran, well, Islam doesn't have to have anything to do with it, really. The bottom line is, why on earth would you want to let someone who professes a desire to wipe out another country to get anywhere near nuclear capabilities? Whether it's for weapons or for energy, then the less they have to do with it, the better. Never mind about 'rights', if they have a 'right' to possess what they want, then you have as much 'right' to try and stop it.

However, it's always good to remember that, though you can choose your actions, you can't choose the consequences or the reactions of others.

 

[Michael]

I was going to start a new thread, but I guess I will go ahead and report this here since it seems to be covering the same subject matter.



Today, May 23, 2006, President Bush met with Israel's new Prime Minister. Bush stated:

"I told the prime minister what I've stated publicly before: Israel is a close friend and ally of the United States. And in the event of any attack on Israel, the United States will come to Israel's aid,"


Source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/23/us.mideast/index.html

 

[LaArtist]

Tell us something we dont know bush

PS
Congrats on your 1000th post Bmwfreak

 

[Michael]

Tell us something we dont know bush

PS
Congrats on your 1000th post Bmwfreak

Wow I didn't even notice. Thank you!