England is Vanishing...

[JoeEpcotRocks]

And you would be okay with someone telling you, because of real or imagined faults, you MUST change your religious belief system to accommodate their way of thinking? Or that you must reform your religion because some in it are radicals? Somehow I doubt that, Dawn. It's amazing that you and others like you who feel this way regarding Islam never seem to want to see things from the standpoint of the majority of Muslims, who are good, peace loving people and who merely want to practice their centuries old religion in peace. Try it once.

Imagined faults???

Yes, the majority are peaceloving. Who's denying that.

 

[Fitswimmer]

And this is a mild example of self loathing that inhibits many Americans from standing up and saying, we are a great country and we have done great things. If one doesn't believe in one's culture, one can't defend it.

It's a LONG way from that, but I will grow much older waiting for you and those like you to see that. It's much easier to condemn those who disagree with you as unpatriotic.

Understanding that your country CAN be and IS wrong sometimes is NOT negating anything. It is viewing your country and others in terms other than ALL GOOD or ALL EVIL.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It wasn't in everyone's interest because many countries either had sweatheart deals (or bribes) with Saddam or had too short of an attention span. They were more interested in themselves.

Exactly-they were "protecting their own national interests"

but that's only ok when the US does it...right?

 

[eclectics]

Imagined faults???

Yes, the majority are peaceloving. Who's denying that.

So everything about their entire Religion is faulty?



Who's denying that? Okay, so why should it be "reformed" by the likes of us then, if most are peace loving?

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I am sure that they might, but when we have helped to feed the world, immunized the world, helped save the world from Nazism and Japanese Imperialism, and when most European countries can have a smaller military budget that the United States because they know that we will be their to defend them at any cost, they may rethink their opinion. Particularly if threatened.

Yeah that happened ONLY after we were directly affected...

Assuming that the US is always on the side of the angels is hardly objective. There's a whole lot of history being swept under the carpet there....

Sure, including helping to create the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq many, many, many years ago.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Exactly-they were "protecting their own national interests"

but that's only ok when the US does it...right?

I expect countries to look out for themselves, but not to the detriment of their people or the world. For example, when so many turned a blind eye to Saddam (or to Hitler until it was almost too late -- well it was too late for millions).

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I expect countries to look out for themselves, but not to the detriment of their people or the world. For example, when so many turned a blind eye to Saddam (or to Hitler until it was almost too late -- well it was too late for millions).

How about helping to empower Osama Bin Laden?

 

[dcentity2000]

There is a solution here to the jingoistic, Islamophobic madness.

We should all convert to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

America helps the world more than any other country.

By invading it

[EDIT] I certainly don't deny that America does a lot of humanitarian work, I just couldn't resist dropping that tease in



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

When it comes to radical Islam, there are essentially three choices;
1. Submit to Islam
2. Destroy Islam
3. Reform Islam.

Are you trying to say:

1. Submit to Radical Islam
2. Destroy Radical Islam
3. Reform Radical Islam.

Because, as you have said, Islam is a legitimate religion that can be practiced by individuals on their own free will?



Rich::

 

[punkin]

African-American, Native-Americans and other such nonsense. What am I, Euro-American? Heck, most of us are mutts.

We're all Americans. (period no hyphen).

Somehow I resent being called a mutt. I rather like knowing what my ethnicity is even if I am just an American.

You may all go back to your xenophobic rantings.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

By invading it

[EDIT] I certainly don't deny that America does a lot of humanitarian work, I just couldn't resist dropping that tease in



Rich::

You rascal!

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Somehow I resent being called a mutt. I rather like knowing what my ethnicity is even if I am just an American.

You may all go back to your xenophobic rantings.

What xenophobic rantings??

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[dcentity2000]

You rascal!

Rich::

 

[Tyler's Dad]

There is a solution here to the jingoistic, Islamophobic madness.

We should all convert to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.



Rich::

RAmen

 

[DawnCt1]

Are you trying to say:

1. Submit to Radical Islam
2. Destroy Radical Islam
3. Reform Radical Islam.

Because, as you have said, Islam is a legitimate religion that can be practiced by individuals on their own free will?



Rich::

I think I elaborated on that in the post. How many moderate Muslims cannot practice their religion on their own free will because of the intimidation by radicalized forces? To me, that would be the only reason that they are so quiescent in the face of world wide terrorism. Can you think of another reason? The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone invited supposedly moderate muslim Mullah Yusuf al Qaradawi, to the 2004 "OUr Children Our Future" conference sponsored and funded by the Metropolitan Police and Britain's Dept for Work and Pensions' Here is what he said about the children of the future; "Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation".
How does this get overlooked? How is it that he has a platform to address a conference on the children of the future? Is his speech valid?

 

[Kath2003]

Ken Livingstone makes about the same number of "wise decisions" as George W. Bush. Also in similarity with Bush, people don't understand how he keeps getting elected...

 

[dcentity2000]

I think I elaborated on that in the post. How many moderate Muslims cannot practice their religion on their own free will because of the intimidation by radicalized forces? To me, that would be the only reason that they are so quiescent in the face of world wide terrorism. Can you think of another reason? The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone invited supposedly moderate muslim Mullah Yusuf al Qaradawi, to the 2004 "OUr Children Our Future" conference sponsored and funded by the Metropolitan Police and Britain's Dept for Work and Pensions' Here is what he said about the children of the future; "Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation".
How does this get overlooked? How is it that he has a platform to address a conference on the children of the future? Is his speech valid?

I guess his speech might be valid (I don't honestly know - it's liberty versus morality) but is certainly distasteful in this case.

Any radical group can be dangerous and radical Muslims are no exception.

But that's no reason to persecute the average Muslim or to lump them together with the nutjobs.



Rich::

 

[eclectics]

I expect countries to look out for themselves, but not to the detriment of their people or the world. For example, when so many turned a blind eye to Saddam (or to Hitler until it was almost too late -- well it was too late for millions).

And you believe God approves of you being the detriment judge, jury, and executioner, done in the name of "liberation"? Btw, I think we have finally established, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that while Saddam was despicable to his own people, he had neither WMD's nor harbored Al Qaeda (our two most important concerns), if you plan on using that as a reason for our "liberation" of Iraq.

 

[Tyler's Dad]

I think I elaborated on that in the post. How many moderate Muslims cannot practice their religion on their own free will because of the intimidation by radicalized forces? To me, that would be the only reason that they are so quiescent in the face of world wide terrorism. Can you think of another reason? The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone invited supposedly moderate muslim Mullah Yusuf al Qaradawi, to the 2004 "OUr Children Our Future" conference sponsored and funded by the Metropolitan Police and Britain's Dept for Work and Pensions' Here is what he said about the children of the future; "Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation".
How does this get overlooked? How is it that he has a platform to address a conference on the children of the future? Is his speech valid?

While I agree his remarks are not to be condoned, you have to look at the bigger picture as well. Qaradawi is also very strict in saying attacks outside of the Israel-Palestine conflict should not occur. He is an adament critic of attacks on innocent civilians and has been very outspoken about it. He is also very liberal when it comes to women's rights.

You keep lumping all Muslims together and what you forget is that a large majority of the Muslims immigrants are moving to get away from the Muslim states. Why would they then try to start one somewhere else? It's like saying Protestants are moving into an area, so everyone is going to have to be Catholic. Not all Christians are the same and the same goes for Muslims.