Can the Clash Between Islam and Western Religions be Resolved?

[newbie]

Though I am not religious, I can say with confidence that that is not what G-d wants, or will allow to happen[/u][/b].

How do you know? Maybe G-d wants nothing from us.

Can you explain what's wrong with an "eye for an eye"? Sounds roughly fair to me.

We'd be a blind society.

[M.Dancer]

Please state how many suicide bombings were recorded in Iraq in the year before the US lead coalition barged in to liberate.

Please state how many people post-April 2003 leaders in Iraq have fed into woodchippers.

Normally , a good lawyer will only ask a question she or he already knows the answer to.

So here goes....where are these so called wood chippers? Why haven't they been produced?

[Who's Doing What?]

I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this question.

How can you deal with someone, who believes they will be rewarded by god for killing you?

This is what we are up against. There has never been an enemy like this in the world.

Did you know that Bin Laden has "God's approval" from a young muslim cleric to kill 10 million Americans.

Whaaaaaaaaaa??????

That's right. He has already been given permission, from god, to kill 10 million people.

Anybody who thinks diplomacy will ever work with these people might as well just turn back to their crack pipes and fade away.

[Higgly]

I'm not sure contempt is a strong enough term for someone who is comfortable equating hatred of mass murderers for the hatred espoused by mass murderers.

Well Israel slaughtered 17,000 Lebanese civilians in its 1982 bombardment of Lebanon - directed by Ariel Sharon, minister of Defense at the time. The stated objective of this action was the expulsion of the PLO whose terrorists had killed 105 Israelis between 1973 and 1978. Would you say that qualifies for mass murder?

How about stating how many executions took place? How many women and children died due to sanctions which could not be removed because Sadaam would not meet the requirements of the UN.

Well you have to be careful when you start talking about Saddam. Up until the time he invaded Kuwait, he was the darling of the western world. The US encouraged his invasion of Iran and in fact provided him with satellite pictures of Iranian troop placements which he put to good use gassing the Iranian troops. Many of the Iranians who died in that little adventure were gassed to death.

After Saddam was expelled from Kuwait, the CIA started to broadcast (through a radio station inside Kuwait called Radio Free Iraq) to the Shias and Kurds that they should rise up against Saddam and start a revolution. They did this thinking that the US military (now well inside the Iraqi border) would come to their rescue. When Saddam's generals came to US General Norman Schwartzkopf to negotiate the terms of their departure, they asked if they were still allowed to use their military helicopters. General Norm said "Sure, go ahead!" Saddam then used those helicopters to gas the kurds and slaughter the Shias who were trying to start the revolution. The US military did nothing to help them and instead turned around and went back to their bases in Saudi Arabia.

This wholesale slaughter was used as justification by the US for setting up the famous no-fly zones - of course, after the slaughter was all over. Then came the sanctions which killed millions through lack of food, medicine, medical equipment. Even medical textbooks were banned by the sanctions. As has been pointed out by another poster here, Saddam was agreeing to just about every inspection requested of him.

Saddam was a nasty customer, no doubt about it, but I am not seeing a lot of innocent faces anywhere in this sorry tale nor in fact anywhere in the Middle East.

[M.Dancer]

Well Israel slaughtered 17,000 Lebanese civilians in its 1982 bombardment of Lebanon - directed by Ariel Sharon, minister of Defense at the time. The stated objective of this action was the expulsion of the PLO whose terrorists had killed 105 Israelis between 1973 and 1978. Would you say that qualifies for mass murder?

I would say that qualifies for mass distortion. The total of near 18,000 includes PLO and other fighters. The breakdown should be: 9,797 combatants, 2, 513 civilians outside of Beirut and 5,515 combatants and civilians inside Beirut.

But what value are facts when putting together a good old fashioned anti israel lie?

[Higgly]

I would say that qualifies for mass distortion. The total of near 18,000 includes PLO and other fighters. The breakdown should be: 9,797 combatants, 2, 513 civilians outside of Beirut and 5,515 combatants and civilians inside Beirut.

But what value are facts when putting together a good old fashioned anti israel lie?

Who were those 15,000 combatants you are talking about? Enquiring minds want to know. I am interested as well in your numbers for outside of Beirut, since it is well known that the PLO were headquartered in South Beirut where the refugee camps were also located. The target of the exercise was the PLO, was it not?

The numbers were put together by the Associated Press who went around to the hospitals and collated death lists. As soon as it was published, the Israelis started a massive campaign to discredit the numbers and the people who had published them. I see that campaign still has resonance 20 years later.

I will, however, grant you that the 17,000 includes over 2,500 Palestinian refugees slaughtered by the Phalange (under the supervision of the IDF and Shin Beit). This happened after the PLO were put on ships and shipped off to Tunisia, leaving the refugees completely defenseless. No combatants there. Sharon was in line to be prosecuted by the World Court for this little bit of nastiness but luckily for him, a critical witness met with an 'accident'.

Funny how it is that anything negative said about an Arab country is taken as gospel but anything negative said about Israel is taken as an anti-Israeli lie. Speaking of lies though, it should be noted here that after it was all over, the IDF tried to let on that the civilian death toll in Lebanon was in the neighbourhood of 500 people. A real kneee-slapper, that.

There are precious few good guys in the Middle East. Mostly just psychopths and victims.

[myata]

I have little more than contempt for the intellectual bankruptcy which brought us "cultural relativism".

I'm not sure contempt is a strong enough term for someone who is comfortable equating hatred of mass murderers for the hatred espoused by mass murderers.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must be having terrible time living in this country which is 100% "morally" and "culturally" relative in its criminal code. Surely, someone who harms or kills because they

"love" or "care" should get a better treatment than the scum who do it because of hate, or money, or for the thrill? Perhaps, even exempt from punishment? Perhaps, rewarded?

Right?

[Argus]

In our criminal justice here we don't make any concessions for the "morality" of the killer.

Oh of course we do.

[Argus]

Not everything is complex. Terrorists are scum and the only thing you need to know is where they are so you can put a bullet in their brains. I would also suggest the same fate be meted out to anyone who supports terrorism.

But when terrorism is used to fight terrorism, eventually everybody winds up dead.

Not if we do it better than they do.

And let's face it, when we put our mind to it we do EVERYTHING better than they do.

[Argus]

How about stating how many executions took place? How many women and children died due to sanctions which could not be removed because Sadaam would not meet the requirements of the UN.

Well you have to be careful when you start talking about Saddam. Up until the time he invaded Kuwait, he was the darling of the western world.

This is nonsense, of course. There was never any enthusiasm for Saddam. At best, he was propped up because, as bad as he was, he was better than the Ayatolahs.

[Argus]

I have little more than contempt for the intellectual bankruptcy which brought us "cultural relativism".

I'm not sure contempt is a strong enough term for someone who is comfortable equating hatred of mass murderers for the hatred espoused by mass murderers.

Oh, I'm sorry, you must be having terrible time living in this country which is 100% "morally" and "culturally" relative in its criminal code. Surely, someone who harms or kills because they

"love" or "care" should get a better treatment than the scum who do it because of hate, or money, or for the thrill?

Yes, and they do. So what's your point?

[myata]

Fortunately (for the rest of us), only in your imagination.

[Argus]

Fortunately (for the rest of us), only in your imagination.

Motivation is always taken into consideration in Canadian law.

Have you ever been here? Where exactly are you writing in from?

[myata]

Too bad Olson and the bunch weren't advised, they'd be interested I'm sure.

[Higgly]

This is nonsense, of course. There was never any enthusiasm for Saddam. At best, he was propped up because, as bad as he was, he was better than the Ayatolahs.

Saddam fought the Iran/Iraq war using British and American armaments supplied on credit, as well as US spy satellite info. During this little episode he had a number of very friendly meetings with our old friend Donald Rumsfeld. Sounds pretty damned enthusiastic to me.

What Ayatollahs are you talking about? This is Iraq we are talking about. The territory was ruled by the Turks for some 600 years up until WWI, at which time it was taken over by the British who created the country out of nothing and installed Feisal as King (formerly a Bedouin Hashemite Prince who once ruled part of what is now Syria). Feisal was deposed by an army coup and the country was then taken over by Saddam. Where are the Ayatollahs in this history? If you are talking about Iran, "the Ayatollahs" have shown no interest in invading Iraq at any time. Iran did not invade Iraq, it was the other way around. Saddam was the aggressor and that is why the Americans were so happy with him.

Get your facts straight. At the very least you can start by learning how to spell Ayatollah.

[Argus]

Too bad Olson and the bunch weren't advised, they'd be interested I'm sure.

Do you have any point? I'm having a hard time figuring out what you might be trying to say. I mean, the subtext is pretty clear - you don't know anything about Canadian law - but how does that really fit in with the thread topic?

[Argus]

This is nonsense, of course. There was never any enthusiasm for Saddam. At best, he was propped up because, as bad as he was, he was better than the Ayatolahs.

Saddam fought the Iran/Iraq war using British and American armaments supplied on credit, as well as US spy satellite info. During this little episode he had a number of very friendly meetings with our old friend Donald Rumsfeld. Sounds pretty damned enthusiastic to me.

Then you have an extraordinarily simplistic view of international politics.

What Ayatollahs are you talking about? This is Iraq we are talking about.

Iran/Iraq war? Remember? What you were writing up above? Oh never mind.

[Higgly]

Iran/Iraq war? Remember? What you were writing up above? Oh never mind.

Not surprised you'd want to forget this little skirmish. I kicked your ass. Time to bone up on your current event facts, Argus.

[Black Dog]

Please state how many people post-April 2003 leaders in Iraq have fed into woodchippers.

Please state how many people pre 2003 were fed into wood chippers. That's a myth, like the incubator babies from 1991. Surely there's enough to indict the guy for crimes against humanity that you don't need to make shit up.

I have little more than contempt for the intellectual bankruptcy which brought us "cultural relativism".

This from one of this boards leading purveyors of moral reletavism.

[myata]

Do you have any point? I'm having a hard time figuring out what you might be trying to say. I mean, the subtext is pretty clear - you don't know anything about Canadian law - but how does that really fit in with the thread topic?

It'll take some time as I'll have to really lay it out and I've to run in 5 min so,

- paedofiles;

- sex offenders;

- Latimer's case (hate to mention it with the above but it's ony in the context of this particular question):

all involve some kind of moral justification by perpetraitors for their action; all end up locked up behind bars big time; fortunately for us, the law and the judges don't care how many times they (perpetraitors) say "love" or "care"; clearly you don't know anything about Canadian law; clearly you have no proof for your statements; no rational arguments either; position like "I'm doing it because I believe it and I can" is a postion of faith and can't be argued logically; I give up; have it your way: it's "you" against "them" and "them" against "you" allright.

Note that "you" above though, because me, for once, want nothing to do with either.

[Argus]

Do you have any point? I'm having a hard time figuring out what you might be trying to say. I mean, the subtext is pretty clear - you don't know anything about Canadian law - but how does that really fit in with the thread topic?

It'll take some time as I'll have to really lay it out and I've to run in 5 min so,

- paedofiles;

- sex offenders;

- Latimer's case (hate to mention it with the above but it's ony in the context of this particular question):

all involve some kind of moral justification by perpetraitors for their action;

I think you misunderstand - again, and on what I had sadly expected would to be so patently obvious it required no explanation. Criminals invariably can find justification for what they do. That's not what I was referring to. The law does make a distinction on both charges and sentencing based not on whether the offender can justify, to some extent, his actions to himself, but to the law itself.

I could present a litany of examples, but as I'm quite certain everyone aside from you knows this already I really don't feel the need.

[Argus]

I have little more than contempt for the intellectual bankruptcy which brought us "cultural relativism".

This from one of this boards leading purveyors of moral reletavism.

Uhm, pardon? Wherever would you get that idea? If anything I'm a proponent of situational ethics.

[myata]

The law does make a distinction on both charges and sentencing based not on whether the offender can justify, to some extent, his actions to himself, but to the law itself.

My, you're desperate.

So, the law doesn't accept offender's justifications to himself, does it? Wasn't it the only one you've presented so far? Keep trying.

And those promised examples, they'd really help to clarify your point, they're still forthcoming, I hope?

Anyways as I mentioned earlier, there isn't any point in continuing this discussion unless you come up with some rational argumentation (i.e. "we" are better than "them" because <some logical non-self-contradictory provable statement>).

[Argus]

The law does make a distinction on both charges and sentencing based not on whether the offender can justify, to some extent, his actions to himself, but to the law itself.

My, you're desperate.

No, merely literate.

And yourself?

[Argus]

Iran/Iraq war? Remember? What you were writing up above? Oh never mind.

Not surprised you'd want to forget this little skirmish. I kicked your ass. Time to bone up on your current event facts, Argus.

Oh yes, you were mightily intimidating. I was particularly struck by your bringing up the Iran/Iraq war and then not understanding a fairly obvious reference to Iran.

And the spelling flame -- devastating. Where DID you come up with that one?

I'm sure everyone is most impressed.