One sign on one tank, (the sign is likely done completely in jest), and all of a sudden you have liberals claiming that this is a holy war against islam. How absurd. Uh, yeah, making a mountain out of a molehill is putting is mildly. This is making Mount Everest out of one of RMTex's dingleberries.
Let me add that I do believe what rules America is the all-mighty dollar, not the all-mighty God. Our interests override every other possible consideration, including moral or religious ones.
I don't believe this is a war of Chistianity against Islam, anymore than I believe 9/11 was an attack of Islam against the U.S. But the perception and deeds of the few who carried out that attack damaged the reputation of Islam as a whole, and caused some to believe it was that all Islam was bad and violent. Seeing soldiers invade your predominantly muslim nation with Christian references on their attack weapons does the same type of damage to Christianity, and can give others the wrong idea.
"Living is easy with eyes closed Misunderstanding all you see" --John Lennon Yep, us liberals are making a mountain out of a mole hill on this one. yet your ilk goes ape**** over the Newsweek story/retraction? Your blinders must be made out of lead.
You guys gotta understand this happened in a war, and it was done by a few soldiers. I am sure this kind of stuff happens all the time on both sides and in every other war in the history. What is different this time is we have digital cameras, emails, webs, all which gives you more access to the information wouldn't be available before. You guys act like every single one of the soldiers will be the model of impeccable behavior, while most are, it's not 100% and never will be 100%. (a couple soldiers out of 100K painted their tank, and that turned it into a war against Islam?)
You gotta be able to see the difference between a couple of soldiers painting their tank in a war and a reputable (allegedly) magazine publishing an unconfirmed story.
Apparently people at DOD think it is a good idea to post this picture on the web for all the world to see.
You gotta understand that the Department of Defense published the picture of the tank on it's website, and that's not neccessarily how I would like my tax dollars being spent!
Tell me when was the last time someone won a religious war without killing everyone of that religion?
No. We should only be at war with the way some practice it in the middle east and subcontinent, but by no means all of it. I remember prior the whole 9/11 incident even with the huge religious population in Pakistan, a fundamentalist candidate never got more than 10% of the vote in any election. The majority there don't take things to such horrible extremes as terrorism. Now if you mean a war to reform Islam and the way it is practiced in many places as far as oppressing women etc. Then we should, of course, make an effort at reform and enlightenment. We shouldn't use violence as our means to bring about that reform.
I don't think I can name a 'religious' war when one side was totally wiped out, can you? It didn't happen in the crusades and it didn't happen when Islam invaded all of N Africa and most of Europe. Notwithstanding that I don't advocate killing all Muslims, or even most of them.
That is what I mean, how do you change the religion through war without wiping out everyone in that religion? Crusaders certainly did not convert the muslims did they?
Are the fundamentalists we are opposed to Islam? Seems to me everytime someone points out something about Islam being bad the response is 'oh that's just in that area,' or 'that's just a small portion of the overall Muslim population, its not Islam as practiced by most Muslims.' That's the reason I specifically said 'as practiced' is those two particular regions, which IIRC is the pc way of identifying backwardass Muslims.
