Ambassador: Bush didn't know there were two sects of Islam

How is that spin? Is the history of Muslims or Christendom not much longer than al qaeda?

Sixteen points in a game is nice. Sixteen points in the fourth quarter is hellacious.

 

It's so frustrating debating with you when you continuously show complete lack of reading comprehension. You made a sensationalistic, paranoid hyberbole that the world was "held in the grip of Muslim terror," suggesting that any acts of terror (noun: panic: an overwhelming feeling of fear and anxiety) were committed by Muslims. Contrary to what you hear Laura Ingraham tell you every day on your drive home from work, that is not true. I could be wrong, but I doubt you have an occupying military walking the streets in your town or have had your neighborhood bulldozed by the IDF.

What I conceded, knowing full well this board's obsession with semantics, is that Muslims hold a monopoly in worldwide terrorism, ie: most targeting of innocent civilians by non-state entities is committed by Muslims. I admitted that point.

That however, is strictly due to semantic definitions and your main premise that the "world was held in the grip of Muslim terror" is absolutely ridiculous and eurocentric in nature. I know gas prices are a pain in the ass as are the new security restrictions in airports, but I have to laugh at you if you're telling me you live in more fear and chaos than people in some parts of the world due to the actions of the West.

I'm glad you've now mastered the search function but I'm not sure what this has to do with anything...?

1. I've already explained this ad nauseum to you in a prior encounter, but when you're talking about a religion being inherently vile, or one religion being inherently superior as you continuously assert, you can't just disregard the entire history like you keep doing. We're talking about what different actors interpreted of these religions and how they used them throughout their respective histories. You can't just apply it to modern day in a vacuum and say "well look, noone has manipulated Christianity." Things work in cycles.

2. The Christian Right is directly responsible for the war in Iraq, is possibly the only demographic that still supports George W. Bush, and firmly backs Zionist agression. Just because they're privileged enough to not have to take up arms themselves, but can influence political agenda doesn't make them any less war-mongering than "Muslim terrorists." One group straps bombs to themselves. The other has Apaches and F-16's to drop those same bombs.

How convenient. Again, you insinuated that Christians do not fight amongst themselves or others like Muslims do. Whether your point was historical or current is irrelevent. You can't just make a statement and then come back and qualify it. They either have or they haven't.

Dude, you're joking, right? I'm trying to stay civil with you, but I'm having a real difficult time taking you seriously. Did you not read my explanation?

Let me try and dumb it down a bit more for you. Muhammad was not just a religious figure. He was a political figure. He was the head of state in Arabia. When he died, the conflict began over who would be his successor as head of state. In a conspiracy, the Caliph was assasinated and further discord broke out over the decision to not bring justice. Another political/military disagreement. The conflict in no way reflected any differences in belief or practice.

 

Well when you debate somebody a lot you're bound to pick up some of their habits.

Keep D&D Civil.

 

LOL!



Keep D&D Sishir.

 

what if "bush" and "terror" gets more hits than that?

or "iraq" "war" "oil"

"bush" "failure"

 

NBA > religion

 

Cabbage,
when in the history of potato salad was the Middle East NOT in havok?
When Trex was running around? That area has NEVER been stable, the Middle East is basically putting Menthos into a liter of Coke.

Dont mean insult the entire region, but when did everyone hold hands and sing Kumbaya or We are the world?

 

HINT:
Peace will NEVER EXIST if your countries are based on Religion.

 

Along those lines we can say that Bush may not have known the levees could break in New Orleans but that doesn't mean EVERYONE else didn't know anything about it. Still, the levees broke on Bush's watch because there was poor contingency planning and that's where arrogance and stupidity come into play. He's arrogant about the people he puts in place, Rumseld keeping his job despite sheer ineptitude is a great example of this, and then he makes poor decisions based on the data because, I would say, he lacks the ability to interpret the data critically. He's a poor leader.

 

Whose country is based on religion? The three entities in recent history which are making the headlines are Iraq, the Palestinians, and Lebanon.

Iraq was under the secular Baathist regime. Lebanon is/was also secular and was a democracy. As far as the Palestinians, they don't even have a country! I could easily turn your question around back on you in regards to Israel. Why are they exempt from your premise of "not basing a country on religion"? They won't ever accept a single state solution because there won't be a Jewish majority and they equate right of return with the destruction of Israel (again due to no longer having majority). So where's your criticism of that? We're not even talking about basing a state on religion like you said - we're talking about have a state ONLY for a certain religion. Why do you not condemn this?

 

Man, giddy, I thought you were joking at first about there being no history of violence within Christianity. Forget external things such as the Inquisition and the Crusades but how can you not have known about Protestant/Catholic conflict that has lasted for hundreds of years and continues to this day? For fun look up stuff like the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre (most likely tens of thousands of protestants were killed), Wars of Religion, and various Irish massacres (like Scullabogue).

Also look ahead to the oncoming "North-South" Christian conflict that is brewing due to the mixing of "third world" Christianity with the Western tradition. Some experts are saying it will dwarf any current Christian/Muslim conflict.

 

You're telling me they brought it upon themselves? That the Middle East wasn't colonized? That the British mandate did not unfairly award Palestinian land to the Jews? All of this just happened because Arabs love killing each other?

 

Many self-described Christians gloat that "we don't blow each other up."

Our country's military kills more efficiently -- and that makes us more civilized? We spare ourselves the sight -- and that makes Christians more peaceful?

 

I think it's a little unfair to single out Christians. Many non- or not-so-religious Americans hold the similar view. It's more of self-assurance than self-righteousness.

 

what about saudi arabia? what about iran? can't bust out your 'What would Jesus do' shirts there.

 

what about the iran iraq war? what about the ottoman empire vs the saudis? what about pakistan vs india?

you dont see canada vs the usa?
or mexico vs panama ?

 

not killing yourself is a good thing. blowing yourself up is not.
you don't have to be Christian to figure that out.
in fact, you just have to be a smart human or a squirrel or a bird or an ant.
you dont see squirrels strapping explosives and blowing up other squirrels.

 

How do you get that "any acts of terror are commited by Muslims" from the world is "held in the grip of Muslim terror?"

"Any" is completely exhaustive. Work on your own reading comprehension.

Well, isn't it obvious? What is the US, Britain, Ausralia, France, Germany et al currently doing to protect themselves from the Tamil Tigers or even the IRA (Britain excepted perhaps)?

The "grips" statement was just an observation that concern with AQ was a much more complete and worldwide concern than any other potential source of terrorism. Surely there are local conflicts.

I never said that I live in fear and chaos, so quit "interpreting" my words for your own purposes. A better measure than my personal fear level would be governmental attention and planning preparedness... or even web hits, I got 32 Million hits on the AQ/terrorism search and only 337,000 on the Tamil Tigers/terrorism search. That is not an authoritative "study" but it is indicative.

See above.

Where did I say that any religion was inherently vile? I'm not disregarding history, but I am much more concerned about the here-and-now. I didn't say that no one has manipulated Christianity. I made the comment that if we had to go back 600 or so years to see a similiar problem in Christianity, then my point was being made for me.

My primary concern about this is not as a historian, it is as a father of four children who have their whole lives in front of them. There is a large and organized and motivated band of Muslims who seek to kill Americans and are willing, even eager, to die in the process.

I can see that the Christian Right got GWB elected, but the Senate gave Bush the authority to use force-- not the Christian Right.

I had to qualify it when you completely took it the historical route and ran with it. As I explained above, a historical perspective is fine but I have more practical concerns than fitting things into a historical perspective. What especially matters is NOW not the past.

No. Not joking. I read your explanation and wonder how you can decide that we are talking about Muhammed the Uncle instead of Muhammed the Prophet. Surely there is a continuum with politics at one end and religion at the other. Everything exists somewhere along that continuum and may, in fact, occupy places near both ends because both factors are at play.

Muhammed's historical person is dually head of state and prophet. What would you do with the comparison to Jesus as itinerant, homeless preacher who sustained his life on the kindness of strangers?

The two religions come from vastly different places.