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

I never said there was no history. I asked him (the historian) to name what he was concerned with so it could be discussed. I'm somewhat aware of a history of conflict but I'm not going to try and compete with someone who is a professional or an ardent amateur.

If someone is wanting to bust my chops over something, I want to know where they are aiming.

 

I guess it depends on exactly what you mean when you say "separate" but I'm tempted to say, "Of course you can if you want to!"

I'm not in that part of the world. Do you expect me (us) to have a Western outlook or an Arab one? Both won't work. In the end you have to choose.

All I said was this, ~"My assertion was not a historical one."

That doesn't mean that there is not a historical context. It is an observation of the absence of a Christian killing Christians conflict which is dominating global concern like the Arab conflicts are. Mixed into their own brewing conflict is a significantly widespread jihad to kill infidels... and Americans are especially prized.

I never said that it was. Have you ever made on observation that wasn't a historical one? Isn't that allowed?

Good. You are a slave to history. Wake up. There are other ways of thinking about things than from a historical perspective. Surely it has it's place, but if the world is going to move forward maybe we should practice a little bit of that "forgive and forget" advice.

 

OK, I confused myself I suppose. As I said, I couldn't imagine you not knowing about anything in the past. Good to hear.

 

Are The Crusades and The Inquisition really an active part of my past. Oh yes, they are there historically but I would assert that they are not an active part of my past.

I would think that the one where I live would certainly trump the other. Is the war on terrorism a continuation of The Crusades or not? Some say yes; some say no. You're not trying to force us to say "yes" are you? You can't behold both.

Look, this is a casual conversational place. Should I have known that a historian/history buff like thacabbage would take a red pen to my dashed off thought. I can't compete with historians, professional or amateur. I don't know which you are, but rather than use your profession or passion to educate, you seem to just want to rub it in people's faces.

Are those conflicts in Africa and Asia between dedicated Christian groups or involving a Christian group?

My original remark was that if two Christian groups were as arduously killing one another as these Muslims were, we would be more familiar with them.

We used to have the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland but that stayed fairly well-contained and now has cooled off.

Ah, isolationism!!

Well, of course. I made a wry observation about the relative lack of Christian violence in the world today and I have had the history of Islam forced upon me when it was not necessary. I made a cheeky remark about Christians and I get slandered as being anit-Muslim... and it has followed this path.

I wasn't making a historical observation, yet this has been turned into a historical drill-down.

My observation was that there was an absence of Christian violence on the world stage at present time. Not everything must be viewed through the prism of history.

 

I know something. I'm sure I don't know as much as you or tigermission1 or thacabbage.

I find a distressing pattern of those with a depth of knowledge about something to hold it against those who don't.

It really smells of Ivory Tower to me...

 

since you believe in google,

christians killing each other - 33,100,000 hits

muslims killing each other - 17,500,000 hits

 

What is your explanation of the reasoning? None as usual? cool.

 

Pray tell what it means then Giddy.

What has Iraq, Lebanon, Afghan peasants, South America, and Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza been able to do to protect themselves from U.S. sponsored terror?

Um no. We weren't even discussing Al-Qaeda and you are the one who has brought in this qualifier on your own. Your statement is what it is and its becoming amusingly characteristic of you to backpedal from your original assertions. It's fairly obvious that what you meant by your statement was that Muslim terrorism is the biggest threat to the world. I'm glad to see you've backed off that stance.

I seriously can't tell if you're joking with this web hits schtick. How old are you? Secondly, what exactly is your point? Was I not the one who said that Muslim terrorism was dominant to other forms? Did you even know who the Tamil Tigers were before I mentioned them?

Oh look! I just did a search on the search string 'George Bush is a douche bag' and got 323,000 results. I got 162,000 results for the search 'Bill Clinton is a douche bag.' That settles it! Applying the impeccable giddyup google search test, we now have tangible evidence that Bill Clinton was a superior president!

The reason why people like yourself hold the beliefs that they do is because they disregard history or any root causes. You see them discussing terrorism on FOX and you immediately assume that Arabs just want to kill Americans out of some genuine hatred for the latter. You're worried about the present yet you don't even care to understand why things are happening the way they are. To you it all exists in a vacuum, giddy. Prior to the Iran hostage situation in '79, Islam and Muslims weren't even a blip on the radar of the American national conscience. But guess what? Islam still existed, Muslims still existed, and extremism still existed. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 and was still going strong. Abdul Wahab began his movement in 1744. So what changed? All of a sudden Muslims decided they hated America? The United States did not begin its attempts to hegemonize the Middle East? This isn't just happening in a vacuum.

That's why you can't just disregard historical perspective if you are making the claim that Islam is a violent religion. In places in its history, people used Christianity for violence too.

How is this at all relevant? My point is these same people are just as war-mongering as their Muslim counterparts, yet you seem to cling to the naive belief that they're passive just because they have the luxury to provide their support in the form of votes and political pressure rather than doing the killing themselves.

Then you're just not very practical. I guess when Amare Stoudemire is struggling this year, but still making max dollars, you will wonder why his game has declined so much and remain dumbfounded. The fact that he had microfracture surgery in the past is irrelevant to you because its not NOW. Your attention span is too short and doesn't satisfy your immediate need for gratification.

Umm, I wouldn't do anything with the comparison to Jesus.
The two were vastly different. Here you go again trying to compare the two religions to prove that Christianity is superior.

I fail to see how Jesus is relevant at all to this discussion. Noone claimed they were analagous. Jesus was simply a religious figure. Muhammad was the chief politician, commander of the 'army', and also head of religious affairs. I don't see why this is so hard for you to comprehend. Shi'ites and Sunnis didn't split over the belief that one sect was superior or over worship or any religious concept. They split over the reason I gave - political succession. It's as simple as that but it appears you've stubbornly convinced yourself to the contrary, irregardless of the fact that you're vastly ignorant on the issue, due to some strange obsession to fulfill your agenda, so its your prerogative whatever you want to believe.

 

You mean defensive response...? Of course.

 

Don't think you can just make baseless comments with impunity and then plead ignorance when you're called out on them. It doesn't work that way. You did this last time too - noone's bullying you, so grow up. Make a new statement and stick by it but don't try to backpedal and qualify your original statement and then whine when it is rebuked.

 

No I didn't say that. Why do you take everything I say to the negative extreme? You are way too harsh in your judgements about people-- at least me-- based on the history grade that you would give me. Isn't that kind of shallow?

We are both somewhere along the continuum between IGNORANCE and EXPERTISE on the matter of history and/or Islam; you are certainly much closer to EXPERT than I am; but that doesn't mean that I (or the vast majority of people out there who, like me, are not experts) have nothing of value to say about the matter.

 

I think I described my and all the google searches as something akin to contributory but nothing absolutely meaningful.

 

I will not. I made a quip about the absence of Christian violence on the worldwide stage relative to Muslim. You went off on a historical tear.

I stick by my statement. I don't feel you have rebuked it. You have changed the parameters of the discussion by going back in time.

The US is not killing anyone in the name of Christianity. Remember we have a separation of church and state. You must mean John Hagee's army.

 

It means, let's count the number of world governments who are preparing for terrorist attacks from AQ or its confederates.... IT'S A LOT.

A "lot" does not mean any and every as you purport.

The US military is not a Christian fighting force. Last I heard there were even Muslims in it....

I was referring to it when you barged into the conversation (which you are welcome to do) and hijacked it into a time warp so that we go back in history.

It's not a schtick; it's a sample. You are the one who imported my level of "fear" into the conversation. I live in rural NC and don't even think about terror in my life. I do worry about the future for my children, though.

I just suggested the google search because I wanted to see how dominant a topic AQ/terror was on the internet.

It was a simple little counter to your little personal attack on my fear level-- which is non-existent.

In some post I described it as contributory to the discussion but nothing of absolute and impeachable value.

I don't disregard history. I am not a historian nor do I have the time to delve into it as I should. This could be a learning place, but you are so dead-set on slamming everybody you consider ignorant that there is little time or place for learning. It's a shame, really.

This all started when I made an observation about the current world theatre-- an observation which I think is still valid to this moment.

You are equating US with Christian and I think that is erroneous.

I don't think Islam is patently violent but it sure does lend itself to usurpation and there is no effective means for the religion to police itself.

How is it relevant? You brought it up. Tell me.

I'm just not as cynical about people as you are. I don't believe that there is any large element of our population who eagerly send people out to die.

On the other hand, the other side has an eternal reward for their sacrifice.

Don't be silly. That's absurd.

No, I was just pointing out the complete mix of religion and politics in Islam. If we did that, George Washington would be our prophet. He's not. The messiah in Christianity was a man totally without worldly power.

 

Yes giddy, I would hold it against you if you didn't know that there had been fighting between Protestants and Catholics for the past 500 or so years. I don't care if you know specifics, but if you were to claim that there were never problems then I would hold your ignorance against you. If that is "ivory tower" then so be it.

That being said, I seem to have misunderstood you so none of the above applies.

 

i dont get why intelligence and general knowledge should be a qualification of the president. do i see that in the constitution? no. i hate liberal activists who want to rewrite the constitution like you.

 

No, "the world is held in the grip of Muslim terror" means what it is intended to mean. That the entire world or majority of it is victim to Muslim terror. No matter how much you try to qualify it, that's just not true. More lives worldwide are effected by the policies of the United States and its allies than they are by Muslim terrorism. I'll use the analogy again. Having your country bombed into the ground or economically opressed does not compare to the inconvenience you feel at the airport. I'm sorry but you're sensationalizing a threat that really doesn't exist to a huge degree, especially worldwide.

It's actions are certainly representing Christianity when you have a President saying he talks to God whose support is primarily derived from Christians.

Again, you're qualifying your argument. Your statement stands. "The world is held in the grips of Muslim terror." So now you're saying the future of your children is more important than that of children in the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon? If you had originally intended to restrict your statement to your own perspective and your own worries, you would have said "Muslim terror is the biggest threat to American security" but you didn't. You tried to expand it to fit globally and it doesn't hold unless you're that self-centered and egocentric to think that this threat you face of terrorism is even comparable to other threats people in the rest of the world do. I would hope you're not that naive. I'm glad to see you're backtracking off your original statement though (as has become pretty characteristic of you).

Again, I can't believe you're defending this. It might be the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet. I just did a search on 'alcohol related deaths' and got 10,700,00 results. My search for 'Al Qaeda terrorism" returned 27,200,000 results. Using your logic, Al Qaeda terrorism must then cause more deaths in the U.S. and worldwide yet we know for a fact that alcohol and drunk driving cause more deaths. Please let go of this silly argument.

I'm dead-set on slamming everybody I consider ignorant? I'm sure if you conduct a poll, the overwhelming majority would tell you I've been pretty respectful during my time on this board. There's only 3 people I can think of who I'm disrespectful to and that would be you, Sir Jackie Chiles, and bigtexxx. The latter is an outright racist while Jackie seems to get kicks out of provoking people. You on the other hand I have a problem with every time I see you post a snide remark taking a backhanded shot at Islam in your incessant obsession to prove Christianity's superiority and every time I call you out on it, you backpedal, qualify your statements, and whine that you're being bullied. You're very insincere and I would respect you alot more if you would just come out and stand by your statements.

What?? Are you kidding me? Christianity hasn't 'lended itself to usurpation'? Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't believe in history or the past.

What are you talking about I brought it up? You brought up the Senate needing to approve which has what relevance to this, I have no idea. Your eyes must be completely closed if you're telling me there isn't a large portion of Christians who support unecessary bloodshed. You simply believe what you want to believe so it's no use even trying to argue with you. Did you not even read the article on the Christian Zionists? In fact I would even say there is almost as much or possibly more support for Israeli terrorism from Christians than there is from Jews. A good portion of Jews denounce the actions of their state.

Why? You don't believe in the past.

LOL. It's no use even arguing with you giddy. First you say the shi'ite/sunni split was due to religious reasons. I then prove to you how it wasn't. You then bring up Christ and say he's superior. Whatever man, trying to use any reason with you is a complete exercise is futility.

 

I'm guessing that might not be a universal sentiment anymore than keeping it civil.