why i support getting out of the war in iraq

[pianistimo]

they have a governmental system setting up now.
there are too many infiltrators, and we can catch them in other ways (or let iraq do it).
we need to regroup and rethink what our true goals are and if they are worthy of any military action.

(i'm not in-the-know about the military, but i feel very badly for each plane that goes down or soldier that is lost - and want them home ASAP)

i think we have been somewhat misguided in our purposes and what we have told our soldiers vs. what was actually able to be a real goal. 

i hope that iraq will appreciate the good of getting rid of dictator - but i realize they need help rebuilding.  perhaps the regimes over there are very difficult to rebuild without many more countries help.  a safe iraq would mean babysitting for years.  of course, they probably don't think of us as a very good babysitter.  or, for that matter - someone they really trust.  after all, it was a war.  it is a war.  it is not something that is cut and dried for each person (to think similarly).  there are thousands of points of view on this war on the iraqi side and american side.  we didn't have a consensus going in - and certainly don't have a consensus going out.  i think it is a matter of pride.  they didn't want saddam - they don't want terror - but it is plaguing them.  they need help - but not just from one country whom they are not sure they fully trust.

i think we have to be wise and ask for help again.  to say - look = we helped get rid of possible terror threats but they will regain foothold once we leave.  if the world is interested - they might want to consider whom should be in power in iraq and fully support them to maintain this government with whatever means is necessary instead of wanting america to look like a failure.  we have failed in certain areas - but helped the iraqis in others.  the greatest help would be, of course, as a chirstian observer - to show them that we don't all harbor a desire to 'rule' them or 'dictate' to them how their government should operate - but that we wish they would consider a 'democratic ideal' so that all of the factions could live together peacefully.

[BoliverAllmon]

and by the show of responses, you can tell how much we really care.

[pianistimo]

each man lost, each man wounded, each man mentally scarred - will forever be etched in my mind.  they died for another country - to give another country the chance to be free of terror. 

i happen to know personally a person who served in the national guard and went over three times.  once, running after a plane to catch it to get out of a certain area.  i don't think that when people are over there they forget the experience.  we just havent' experienced what they have. 

i think we should get out of there also - to save money.  veterans that have lost arms and legs or need mental care now - will be needing the money.  this was a hard won war - and we need to be careful not to falter with our troops.  if they did what was asked - they should be treated fairly and allowed to return home after they accomplished what was asked of them - and not be forced to stay indefinately as babysitters.

they are not worthy of small babysitting position.  they have families here that need supporting.  that is putting pressure on the other nations to kick in and do something instead of 'standby' routine.  i see much worthiness in our troops and hope that president bush will do something SOON to bring them home SOON. not INDEFINATELY.  too many lost to the 'setting up the government' stalling.  we cannot solve the world's problems and make the veterans own families move into 3rd world poverty.

[Derek]

and by the show of responses, you can tell how much we really care.

I hope you were being facetious because that is a rather unkind thing to say. Pianistimo is a very sincere human being and her opinion is worth as much as anyone's.

Pianistimo---personally I think now that we are there we should stay there as long as neccessary that they can stand on their own. However I'm just worried the country will form another religious dictatorship, perhaps now run by the Shiites instead of the Sunnis...that would be disastrous and probably result in civil war.   The only real hope of course is if you could persuade the vast majority of the nation that secularism is the only plan for peace...hopefully propaganda is being used extensively over there because I doubt anyone there is anything other than closed off from the world and rather ignorant... to most people over there  all they know is force. Either Saddam's force or our force...and in addition they see US as an enemy of Islam because we support Israel.   Combine the basic human need for peaceful existence being suppressed with their religious zeal against Israel and...it is no wonder that there are thousands of people over there who hate our guts and our presence.   It would be difficult to just shake such people by teh shoulders and say "you must become a secular nation...you can still be muslim but for heaven's sake stop letting it run your country and your murderous zeal against jews and americans"     

I don't know...there's so little I know about all facets of the situation I often hesitate to actually state an opinion about it. If I say I support the war, liberals say I am a war mongering supporter of big oil, if I say I am against the war, conservatives say I am a traitor who hates my country and wants more 9/11's to happen.       Both accusations, of course, are total nonsense, and I wish people would just admit we don't really know what is going on over there.  I'd pretty much have to visit the place and look around for myself to come to any conclusions.

I'd RATHER give the USA government the benefit of the doubt---because what they are doing may affect my future safety and I HOPE they are doing the right thing in that regard, and they ARE my people over there. I want them to succeed.

That said however---I really wish the world didn't hate us and I often wish we could return to our isolationist past,  sort of a very very big Switzerland over here.   blah blah blah world war 2 hitler blah blah......  did you know it is possible to form an argument that our involvement in ww1  actually is partly what empowered hitler?   

[ahinton]

I hope you were being facetious because that is a rather unkind thing to say. Pianistimo is a very sincere human being and her opinion is worth as much as anyone's.

Pianistimo---personally I think now that we are there we should stay there as long as neccessary that they can stand on their own. However I'm just worried the country will form another religious dictatorship, perhaps now run by the Shiites instead of the Sunnis...that would be disastrous and probably result in civil war.   The only real hope of course is if you could persuade the vast majority of the nation that secularism is the only plan for peace...hopefully propaganda is being used extensively over there because I doubt anyone there is anything other than closed off from the world and rather ignorant... to most people over there  all they know is force. Either Saddam's force or our force...and in addition they see US as an enemy of Islam because we support Israel.   Combine the basic human need for peaceful existence being suppressed with their religious zeal against Israel and...it is no wonder that there are thousands of people over there who hate our guts and our presence.   It would be difficult to just shake such people by teh shoulders and say "you must become a secular nation...you can still be muslim but for heaven's sake stop letting it run your country and your murderous zeal against jews and americans"     

I don't know...there's so little I know about all facets of the situation I often hesitate to actually state an opinion about it. If I say I support the war, liberals say I am a war mongering supporter of big oil, if I say I am against the war, conservatives say I am a traitor who hates my country and wants more 9/11's to happen.       Both accusations, of course, are total nonsense, and I wish people would just admit we don't really know what is going on over there.  I'd pretty much have to visit the place and look around for myself to come to any conclusions.

I'd RATHER give the USA government the benefit of the doubt---because what they are doing may affect my future safety and I HOPE they are doing the right thing in that regard, and they ARE my people over there. I want them to succeed.

That said however---I really wish the world didn't hate us and I often wish we could return to our isolationist past,  sort of a very very big Switzerland over here.   blah blah blah world war 2 hitler blah blah......  did you know it is possible to form an argument that our involvement in ww1  actually is partly what empowered hitler?   

Americans are not in reality as widely hated as you claim; it's the American government and those American that support it that are hated by some. When some of the less intelligent and more belligerent non-Americans claim to hate all Americans, there is little to support their claim, profoundly unpleasant though it nevertheless is.

I'm sorry to express a more pessimistic view. It is firstly important for us all, I think, to remember (as indeed you have just reminded us) that almost certainly none of us here is a professional expert on the subject of the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan or even the quaintly termed "war on terror". What is possible to determine, even without the benefit of such expertise, however, is the damage that has been done to Iraq as a direct consequence of the presence and certain (though not all) of the actions of foreign military staff, principally from US and UK and that it is now seeming increasingly unlikely either that this damage can be undone or that these foreign military troops can get out of Iraq in the foreseeable future. What is also clear, even to the non-expert, is that Saddam himself inflicted grave damage on the country he was supposed to lead - and that he accordingly had to go. Had his own countrymen ensured his political demise by turning against that régime years ago, the result would of course have been a bloodbath and a long period of difficult reparations, but the damage inflicted would, I believe, have been less than is now the case and the future for Iraq somewhat less uncertain than it is now. I do realise, of course, that the situation as a whole is not as simple as I've just stated, but I do not believe that this fact necessarily undermines the basic veracity of what I've written here.

I wouldn't trust the present US government to do anything useful in any foreign country; that fact does not, of course, mean that I do not trust American people. I would say pretty much the same in respect of the present UK government.

The fear of "Muslim fundamentalism" is a very real one and cannot be denied or ignored; this does not, however, mean that it should be fomented in all possible ways and associated always and only with anti-Western terrorism. The sheer numbers of Muslims living and working peaceably outside the Middle East without necessarily compromising their individual lives as Muslims is surely proof positive that Muslims of any kind, per se, are no more necessarily "terrorists" than American citizens are.

The present administration in Irán claims that it wishes to see Israel "wiped off the map"; this is so contemptible that it sounds almost like George-Bush-speak except that it's far more honest an unequivocal. No such sabre-rattling from anyone is going to achieve anything of any use to anyone in the long run.

What should now happen in Iraq is very hard to say with any certainty. So much damage has already been done that, if the foreign troops all now suddenly left, it is highly unlikely that things would equally suddenly begin to improve for the citizens of Iraq.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

agreed about needing a plan.  it's just that we try to implement these plans and timetables and then there's all this infiltrating and undermining.  how to get anywhere.  but, as you say - we aren't 'in the know' as President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair.  btw, whenever i get a chance to watch Blair debate in the house of commons - i do - and find him extremely witty.  i may not always side with his views, but neither do i always with our president - but in any case - i think that they both have very good hearts and have each learned a lot in their respective times in government.  i personally think that President Bush had a naive world view to think that Iraq would want a democracy or anything like it.  but, i will be pleasantly surprised and even elated if - as u say - they become more secular and allow for sunnis and shiites to live together as well as the many other peoples that have been forced out.

i have very strong opinions about protecting israel - and yet am disappointed that compassion isn't there on either side.  why should children be hurt in all this?  why anyone hurt - for that matter.  each side won't stop at justice.  they want revenge.  that is where it goes wrong.  imo, we need God to sort it all out.  i wish that it would be an instant thing - where the starvation of the palestinians would desist (and the terrorists give way to some kind of talks that actually benefit their nation) - and that israel would turn to God fully.  i don't think God is happy when things happen in israel as they would in las vegas.  but, i am not their judge and don't proclaim to be a world politician either.  just a christian observer who firmly believes that what God says will come true.  that He (Christ) will return to the Mount of Olives (which is near or in Jerusalem).  the bible says that 'all eyes will see Him.' 

[lisztisforkids]

All I will say is leaving Iraq right now will be as big as a mistake as going in.

[pianistimo]

you might be right.  it is a very complex problem.

[ada]

i think we have been somewhat misguided in our purposes and what we have told our soldiers vs. what was actually able to be a real goal.

I am very heartened to hear you say this.

But the point is that the US shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

Whatever the situation before the invasion it was never as bad as the basket case that the US has created by defying world opinion and arrogantly and unilaterially invading a sovereign nation with absolutely no thought or foresight about the Pandora's box they were opening.

They haven't rid Iraq of terrorists (not that there were any there to begin with, another Bush administration lie) but they've turned it into a hotbed of terrorism and galvanised Muslim fundamentalists against the west.

They haven't brought peace and stability but bloodshed and destruction and the threat of spiralling civil war.

They've removed Saddam's oppulent palaces and built their own (what else is the monster billion dollar, 104 acre US embassy they plan to build in Bagdhad?)

And for anyone who thinks the US forces are helping the Iraqis, or "saved" them from death, rape and torture consider this:

Since the war began in 2003  there have been 14 cases  of soldiers convicted of offences including murdering civilians and maltreatment of prisoners and six are under investigation for murder and massacres.

And just off the wires, military officials have confirmed that  five US Army soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman and killing her and three members of her family.

And of course there's the delightful Lindy England, poster girl of the US effort in Iraq, and the recent Supreme court ruling about the illegality of the military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay.

The US has done, and is doing a terrible, terrible thing. I hope George Bush and those who support him have trouble sleeping at night and I hope history will remember him, and the travesty his administration has created, as it deserves to be remembered.

[lisztisforkids]

And for anyone who thinks the US forces are helping the Iraqis, or "saved" them from death, rape and torture consider this:

Since the war began in 2003  there have been 14 cases  of soldiers convicted of offences including murdering civilians and maltreatment of prisoners and six are under investigation for murder and massacres.

And just off the wires, military officials have confirmed that  five US Army soldiers are being investigated for allegedly raping a young woman and killing her and three members of her family.

 Your being ridiculous. 14 cases out how many helped? Your being stupid. There has been thousands of brutal murders of Terrorist's on Iraqi civialns, and your citing 14 cases of US soldiers? Jeez...  

[prometheus]

According to Nuremberg trials the US-lead coalition is responsible for all the deaths in the war since the US has been the agressor. So all civilian deaths caused by insurgents are to be blamed on the US.

At least when one follows the same reasoning as was done at Nuremberg.

[ada]

Exactly. The figures I cited are simply the ones we know about in terms of military abuses. Or to use a metaphor the tip of the iceberg.

They don't even begin to touch on the thousands of civilians who have died as a result of US attacks, and the even more thousands of lives that have been ruined.

[mephisto]

The present administration in Irán claims that it wishes to see Israel "wiped off the map"; this is so contemptible that it sounds almost like George-Bush-speak except that it's far more honest an unequivocal. No such sabre-rattling from anyone is going to achieve anything of any use to anyone in the long run.

Best,

Alistair

Why don`t you want Israel wiped off the map?

[ahinton]

Why don`t you want Israel wiped off the map?

Because I see no reason why it should be - any more than I see any reson why Palestine should not be established as a nation just as Isreal was around six decades ago.

Best,

Alistair

[counterpoint]

Why must so many people die
when all the people only want peace?

[mephisto]

Because I see no reason why it should be - any more than I see any reson why Palestine should not be established as a nation just as Isreal was around six decades ago.

Best,

Alistair

I am glad that you support the establishment of a Palestinian state.

[lisztisforkids]

Why don`t you want Israel wiped off the map?

 Please tell me im not reading this...

[BoliverAllmon]

I think the problem that I have with all of this is that I believe that there are alot of peace loving Muslims. But the problem is that I am not hearing any of them making a stand  and speaking out against the radicals.

[prometheus]

Why should they do that? And if that solves the problem then what is the problem and how does it solve it? I am not following your reasoning.

[BoliverAllmon]

Why should they do that? And if that solves the problem then what is the problem and how does it solve it? I am not following your reasoning.

If there are peace loving Muslims, where are they? I feel they should be making a stand for their religion and condeming the use of the religion to promote violence. So the question is really why shouldn't they?

[prometheus]

If there are peace loving Muslims, where are they?

Everywhere?

With globalisation we have people of all cultures and ethnicity living all over the world. Surely the same is true of religion.

Aren't people generally peace loving? I mean, which people truly enjoy war? Every war, no matter how unjust, is seen as a necessary evil.

Why do you think muslims love war? That makes no sense to me. Why would they?

I feel they should be making a stand for their religion and condeming the use of the religion to promote violence.

Because you have a prejustice? Or do you really thing that normal muslims must think that their religion, which to them is peaceful, is the same as those of suicide bombers? I mean, you cannot even consider that. Surely someone who does evil deeds motivated by their religion does not have the same religion as you have.

The crusades are still very much in the collective memory of the middle east. Should a christian feel responsible to denounce the actions of the crusades, the Canniballism of Ma'arra which was meant as a shock-and-awe tactic for example. When Bush uses the word 'shock and awe' people in the middle east thing of Ma'arra and the christian invaders attempts to shock the people by eating woman and children. Note that this wasn't about hunger. Do you really thing people should actively disassociate with things like these? Isn't it reasonable to assume one does not support acts like these unless it appears to be otherwise?

So the question is really why shouldn't they?

Because when they do they admit that it is reasonable for people to think the way you do. Actually, this has already happened. I assume you are talking about muslim minorities from the middle east living in the west.

As for muslims in the middle east itself. First of, almost all of them live in dictatorships. Most of them are supported by the US. You can't freely demonstrate there.

But in Iraq this has happened on many occasions. People regulary take the streets to protest against violence.


You actually do have a point. Muslims need a better PR in this media dominated world. But that is only for their own interest.


But it is stupid. There is a lot of christian driving violence in the world. Christians, though I really think monotheism is immoral, don't have to prove to me that they are peaceful because of the IRA, the christians in Africa, a fundamentalist blowing up a abortion clinic, etc. I don't demand from a christian to disassociate themselves from the KKK. All of this is very silly.

[lisztisforkids]

Why do you think muslims love war? That makes no sense to me. Why would they?

  Uh.... Every Friday after prayers in Iran people shout "Death to America!".  Suicde bombers regulary blow themselves up in crowded market places beleiving they will go to heaven, Insurgents decapitate foreign journalists, kill other Muslims that cooperate with US forces, try to incite civil war between Sunnis and Shites....

 Attack Israel witin hours of its founding...

 Bath party (Saddams political party) modeled directly off of Hitlers.

  Take US hostages (Iran, 1979).
 
  Extreme Anti-Semitism, many dont even beleive the Holocaust even happened.
 

The crusades are still very much in the collective memory of the middle east.

  Last I checked the Crusades happened almost a thousand years ago... Why cant they just move on like the rest of the world?

But in Iraq this has happened on many occasions. People regulary take the streets to protest against violence.

 Ironically, these protest could not happen if Saddam was in control...

[prometheus]

Uh.... Every Friday after prayers in Iran people shout "Death to America!".

That's because America is their enemy. It has nothing to do with religion.

Suicde bombers regulary blow themselves up in crowded market places beleiving they will go to heaven,

There are about 1.4 billion muslims. If muslims regularily blow themselves up on a crowded market it will only take a few days to split the world population in half. Surely this is wrong.

Furthermore, do you know where Jesus was born? He was born in Bethlehem. Do you know where his parents were from? They were from Nazareth. Both of these cities lay in occupied Palastine. Ten precent of the palestinian people are christian. There are christian palestinian nationalists and that call for suicide attacks against jewish Israeli civilians. There have been christian priests, bishops and patriachs that have been apologetical concering suicide attacks, often metioning the story of Samsom.

Fact is also that in South America we have seen christian suicide bombers.

Futhermore, a suicide attack is an attack of desperation. You don't have to commit suicide attacks when you are sitting on nukes.

There is also a difference between suicide attacks and suicide bombings. When it comes to the first it is a lot easier to find cases of non-muslims committing those.

Insurgents decapitate foreign journalists, kill other Muslims that cooperate with US forces, try to incite civil war between Sunnis and Shites....

This war was started by the US. Also, I don't see what religion has to do with it. You mention the term 'insurgents'. Maybe you should look up the definition. You mention the two ethnic groups. They share the same religion. Their conflict has nothing to do with religion.

Attack Israel witin hours of its founding...

That's because they tought that they could win a war against Israel. The war wasn't about religion. It was about land. Jews and muslims have lived in that area rather peacefully for a long time. But then a new state had to be created and land had to be bought and conquered. Why? Because of WWII and the holocaust.

Bath party (Saddams political party) modeled directly off of Hitlers.

So Hitler is a muslim too? Last time I checked he was an atheist in leage with the catholic church.

Take US hostages (Iran, 1979).

What kind of point are you making? I never claimed that the middle east doesn't have its violent incidents. Are you really trying to argue that muslims are basically more warlike? If so, I advise you to take a step back and argue for the point that while muslims aren't naturally more warlike they should publicly denounce the violence committed in their name because of the image of Islam in the west.

Extreme Anti-Semitism, many dont even beleive the Holocaust even happened.

Again, this is often found with christian extremists also. So they don't beleive the holoaust happened? Out of all things one can do... 

Last I checked the Crusades happened almost a thousand years ago... Why cant they just move on like the rest of the world?

Uuh, pardon me. Why can't you just understand that a muslim living in the UK has as little to do with what people do in Iraq as you and me have to do with what happened in the Crusades. Why can't they just move on? You just mentioned the holocaust. It seems things like that make a lot of impact. Do you think people should forget about the holocaust if enough time passes by?

But to people in the middle east the crusades are remembered like they happened just a few years ago.

I also don't think it is as much as holding grudges but rather about history repeating itself. You have got to wonder if when Bush said he was going to start a crusade right after 9/11 he did that intentional or that he is just really stupid.

So then we get to the point that the word 'crusade' carries a positive connotation. In some sense it would be the same as using the world 'holocaust' for solving a big problem.

Why this sensitivity? They probably make the same mistake as you do.

Ironically, these protest could not happen if Saddam was in control...

So? If people in Iran protest against America, of a course a rally ignited the the regime. Ironically under Saddam Hussain the people didn't have to protest against this kind of violence since he ruled Iraq with an iron fist.

It is not that it was illegal to protest for peace. I mean, Saddam would have liked protests like these since he 'brings peace'.
Back to the main point, these people live in a totally differnet culture. It is not normal for people to have an opinion. Activism isn't something naturally. These people are passive.

[anekdote]

Everywhere?

With globalisation we have people of all cultures and ethnicity living all over the world. Surely the same is true of religion.

Aren't people generally peace loving? I mean, which people truly enjoy war? Every war, no matter how unjust, is seen as a necessary evil.

Why do you think muslims love war? That makes no sense to me. Why would they?

Because you have a prejustice? Or do you really thing that normal muslims must think that their religion, which to them is peaceful, is the same as those of suicide bombers? I mean, you cannot even consider that. Surely someone who does evil deeds motivated by their religion does not have the same religion as you have.

The crusades are still very much in the collective memory of the middle east. Should a christian feel responsible to denounce the actions of the crusades, the Canniballism of Ma'arra which was meant as a shock-and-awe tactic for example. When Bush uses the word 'shock and awe' people in the middle east thing of Ma'arra and the christian invaders attempts to shock the people by eating woman and children. Note that this wasn't about hunger. Do you really thing people should actively disassociate with things like these? Isn't it reasonable to assume one does not support acts like these unless it appears to be otherwise?

Because when they do they admit that it is reasonable for people to think the way you do. Actually, this has already happened. I assume you are talking about muslim minorities from the middle east living in the west.

As for muslims in the middle east itself. First of, almost all of them live in dictatorships. Most of them are supported by the US. You can't freely demonstrate there.

But in Iraq this has happened on many occasions. People regulary take the streets to protest against violence.


You actually do have a point. Muslims need a better PR in this media dominated world. But that is only for their own interest.


But it is stupid. There is a lot of christian driving violence in the world. Christians, though I really think monotheism is immoral, don't have to prove to me that they are peaceful because of the IRA, the christians in Africa, a fundamentalist blowing up a abortion clinic, etc. I don't demand from a christian to disassociate themselves from the KKK. All of this is very silly.

I agree, Muslims are very peaceful. Before Bush came along, they used to dance in the streets wearing white robes and throwing flowers in the air!

Muslims are pretty laid back too. They can see the lighter side in making fun of Muhammed. And they have no problem with people who peacefully disagree with their religion. They are a very tolerant people -- respectful of personal differences, women, other religions, etc.!

Clearly anyone who implies that Muslims are anything but peaceful needs to have their head checked.

Remember, every time we hear the media tell of Islamist attacks, calls for Jihad, or hostilities in a country with a lot of Muslims, we must realize that these are all acts committed by a fringe group of people. Nothing to do with religion or the greater Muslim world at all. Of course not.

[lisztisforkids]

Futhermore, a suicide attack is an attack of desperation. You don't have to commit suicide attacks when you are sitting on nukes.

  Wrong... Suicide bombings are intertwined with their religon.  When you blow yourself up along with your enemy you are expected to go to heaven.  Almost all sucide bombings are directed against civialin targets, why?  What good does killing 30 civilians do for your cause? Nothing... But you get to go to heaven! Thats not how you fight a war like this. And you know it, thats just hate.

 There is a saying among Israeli's, "The conflict (with Palestine) will end when they love thier children as much as we love ours." Implying sucide bombings....


 This war is about religon... Look up the word Jihad.  Bush is an idiot, I dont think he knew what he was saying when he mentioned 'Crusade'.


 

[gilad]

Mephisto, are you being serious or joking? sick either way.

some quotes by former Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, she was Israel 4th Prime Minister i think. But what she says is still relevant today.

"I have given instructions that I be informed every time one of our soldiers is killed, even if it is in the middle of the night. When President Nasser leaves instructions that he is to be awakened in the middle of the night if an Egyptian soldier is killed, there will be peace."

'We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon - no alternative."

" Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

 "The only alternative to war is peace. The only road to peace is negotiation."

We don’t want wars, she stated, even when we win.

About peace with the arabs "You cannot shake hands with a clenched fist "

Basically it seems to me(based on what i have read from islam and islamic fundementalist groups) as though some muslims believe that god commanded them the world is theirs. They truly believe it is their religious duty, to, through any means at all, achieve this aim.
i think many people in the west are ignorant about how much some muslims truly hate them and wish ill for them, this is especially true for jews.
They obviously dont trumpet this out to loudly, as it not a good idea to let your enemy know your true intentions.
Islam confuses me, it's adherents claim it to be a religion for peace, yet many preach war.
Yasser Afarat addressed the UN General Assembly saying he came carrying an olive branch and a gun.
is that peace through war? I dont know, but i cant help but notice this glaring contradiction.

[pianistimo]

i agree that it is all about religion.

even God knows that because He prophecied it to happen.

zech. 12:2 'behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against jerusalem, it will also be against judah ( jewish peoples).  and it will come about in that day that I will make jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples (all nations will be surrounding it and making a division of the city as mentioned in zech 14);  all who lift it will be severely injured.  and all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.

in that day, declares the Lord, 'i will strike every horse with bewilderment (i believe this to mean weapons of destruction), and his rider with madness.  but i will watch over the house of judah, while i strike every horse of the peoples with blindness.  then the clans of judah will say in their hearts, 'a strong support for us are the inhabitants of jerusalem through the Lord of Hosts, their God...the Lord will save the tents of judah first in order that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem may not be magnified above judah...in that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them.  and it will come about in that day that i will set about to DESTROY all the nations that come against jerusalem.'

this tells me - that to be on the right side - the side of God - we should defend and support israel to the end.  to end of this age!  The God of truth is going to make known His ways - the ways of peace to all nations.  'now this will be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the peoples who have gone to war against jerusalem; their flesh will rot while they stand on their feet, and their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongue will rot in their mouth (sounds like God can control the actions of nuclear explosions to only hurt those that he considers His enemy).  and it will come about in that day that a great panic from the Lord will fall on them; and they will seize one another's hand, and the hand of one will be lifted against the hand of another. and judah will fight at jerusalem; and the wealth of all the surrounding nations will be gathered, gold and silver and garments in great abundance...then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts...'

if u believe the bible to be true, and the Word of God Truth - then, we have no worries about WWIII.  it's a known factor.  personally, i think we should regroup and prepare to defend israel.  ALL nations are supposed to be there anyway - so why fight it.  and, if we are not fighting God - then we will be delivered - just as he delivered israel from egypt so long ago.  it is not a nationality issue anymore - it is an issue with who is on God's side and who is on the world's side (the governments of this world - who are not considering God). 

[pianistimo]

sorry to go on.  it's just that i can't help reading the next book malachi and thinking the same things.  'who can endure the day of His coming?  says the Lord of Hosts. and who can stand when HE appears?  for He is like a refiner's fire and like a fullers' soap.  and He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver...then I will draw near to you for judgement; and i will be a swift witness against the sorcerers and against adulterers and against those who swear falsely, and against those who oppress the wage earner in his wages, the widow and the orphan, and those who turn aside the alien, and do not fear Me...also, it speaks of robbing God of tithes...'bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and test me now in this, says the Lord of hosts, 'if i will not open for you the windows of heaven,a nd pour out for you a blessing until it overflows.'

i think this world will go from misery to joy.  just as with parenting - if u just let ur children do whatever - they have no guidance.  God instructs us and then tells us the consequences if we don't do what He says.  the consequences of all the insane acts that are coming to an end (in the form of three years of tribulation - for the entire earth) will suddenly change in ONE DAY.  in that day - God will suddenly be the new ruler.  these are my personal beliefs based on the Word of God.

[mephisto]

 Please tell me im not reading this...

I wrote that as a question you moron I never said that I support the idea. I asked a question to see why he came up with that conqlusion, and he gave me a good answer.

[gilad]

I wrote that as a question you moron I never said that I support the idea. I asked a question to see why he came up with that conqlusion, and he gave me a good answer.

true he did give you a good answer.
the devils advocate, i thought so.

[prometheus]

Wrong... Suicide bombings are intertwined with their religon.

One would think they are linked with religion or at least monotheism. But what about shinto inspired kamikaze? Anyway, the history of suicide attacks go back quite some while and they seem to appear in every culture.

When you blow yourself up along with your enemy you are expected to go to heaven.

I must say I really doubt that religious people really believe what they claim to believe.

Almost all sucide bombings are directed against civialin targets, why?

Again it seems you are limiting yourself to palestinian suicide attacks. So let me limit my answer in the same way. The answer is simply because military targets are too well guarded. I recently had a discussion about terrorism were I already explained all of this.

What good does killing 30 civilians do for your cause? Nothing...

It is called terrorism. The goal is to send shockwaves through a society. In this case the civilians are just a medium to get to their target. Generally terrorism works very well. If you have the ability to execute suicide attacks killing plenty of civilians then you cannot be ignored.

There is a saying among Israeli's, "The conflict (with Palestine) will end when they love thier children as much as we love ours." Implying sucide bombings...

I guess that is a very silly saying. It's not like the Israeli's put that much priority to their children. Furthermore, almost every monotheist brainwashes their children.

This war is about religon... Look up the word Jihad.  Bush is an idiot, I dont think he knew what he was saying when he mentioned 'Crusade'.

Jihad was rhetoric used by Salahadin to unite the muslims against the invading christians. Before that jihad never had the meaning it has now. Also, since Islam is a jewish sect, I get the idea that the war is about land, about Jerusalem, and about the right of Palestinian refugees to return home.

[pianistimo]

it's also about the bible and lands given to israel originally - but that point isn't pushed anymore.  did u know they were given land by God forever.  joshua 14:9 is one place among many where it uses the word 'forever, because you have followed the Word of God fully...'  but, the israelites forgot God and his ways and israel began to shrink and then became assimilated into many countries.  only in 1947 did it come alive again.  for what purpose?  i think to cause this division so that the Word of God would be fulfilled.  that they would be regathered (as a hen gathers her chicks - so i long to gather you - as Christ said when the Romans ruled) from all the nations.  they are an 'ensign to the people' of mankind's history with God.

ezekiel 36:24-28 'for i will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands, and bring you into your own land.  then i will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; i will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.   moreover, i will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and i will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.  and i will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe by ordinances.  and you will live in the land i gave your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.'

[pianistimo]

the next chapter of ezekiel speaks of the valley of dry bones - so we know we're talking about latter days and not something historic that's already occurred.  besides - israel is a relatively new country after all these years. 

as i understand ezekiel 37 - it is speaking of the return of Christ and the ressurrection of the dead.  the bones come to life.  and, in verse 21 'behold, i will take the sons of israel from among the nations where they have gone, and i will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land.  and i will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of israel; and one king will be king for all of them (king David); adn they will no longer be divided into two kingdoms...vs. 24 and my servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd (Christ), and they will walk in my ordinances, and keep My statutes, and observe them.  and they shall live on the land that i gave to Jacob My servant, in which your forefathers lived; and they will live on it, they and their sons, and their son's sons, FOREVER; and David My servant shall be their prince FOREVER. '

[gilad]

Jihad was rhetoric used by Salahadin to unite the muslims against the invading christians. Before that jihad never had the meaning it has now. Also, since Islam is a jewish sect, I get the idea that the war is about land, about Jerusalem, and about the right of Palestinian refugees to return home.

Islam a jewish sect? Prometheus you are speaking thoughtlessly. Much of what you are saying simply is not true. He was influenced by jews when he formed islam, that in no way means islam is a jewish sect. In fact he said that the bible was a distortion of the truth. That Abraham et al were muslims that followed allah, not jehova, that jews and christians had it all wrong and had stolen islamic history as their own. I dont know exactly, it is extremely difficult for me to understand, this is apparently what Allah told him.
Muhammad tried to win over jews and christians(both he called people of the book, and respected somewhat) into Islam, he claimed to be the last prophet.
A group of jews from one region did follow and become muslims. But to Muhammads dissapoitment no others where interested in joining islam. It is that this stage he became bitter with jews, which led to him ceasing his efforts to recruite them, and violence(sanctioned by the koran) against them too. Islam is not a jewish sect at all. Nor was the concept of Jihad merely a reaction to the crusades, it predated them.
He was hostile to any nation or people that wouldnt accept islam as truth,  they were conquered, killed, or paid heavy taxes and lived as second class citizens under islam.
It does not matter where the word jihad comes from. As The reality of it is the fact  that Islam was born as an aggressive expansionistic religion which depended on conquests to grow and spread it's word. These are the facts, try learning about them before you speak so freely of them.

[thalbergmad]

I must admit I supported the war in the beginning as I was sold the "weapons of mass destruction" line.

Now, I feel it is time to pull out as I simply cannot see what can be achieved, apart from more deaths and building up a thousand years of hatred.

However, I can only invisage this happening over a long period of time as Bush & Bliar would rather send another 1,000 soldiers to their deaths, rather than admit they were wrong.

[thracozaag]

That's because America is their enemy. It has nothing to do with religion.

  Please crack open a history book and get back to me on this point.

koji

[prometheus]

  Please crack open a history book and get back to me on this point.

koji

Calling someone ignorant when someone makes another analysis isn't a very strong argument.

[mephisto]

  Please crack open a history book and get back to me on this point.

koji

Do/did you learn about history other than America history in history-class at school?

[prometheus]

Much of what you are saying simply is not true. He was influenced by jews when he formed islam, that in no way means islam is a jewish sect.

Actually, he was influenced by christians. And we all know that christianity is a jewish sect as well. Same god, same origin same stories, same prophets.

In fact he said that the bible was a distortion of the truth. That Abraham et al were muslims that followed allah, not jehova, that jews and christians had it all wrong and had stolen islamic history as their own. I dont know exactly, it is extremely difficult for me to understand, this is apparently what Allah told him.

According to the mythology God, or Allah or JHWH, send Gabriel to Mohammed. Muslims don't really reject that what jewish and christian people believe. They just see Mohammed as a later prophet, which he is, and therefore his revelations are considered to be more important; more recent and more accurate.

Same religion, but one more prophet for Christianity and two more for Islam.

Muhammad tried to win over jews and christians(both he called people of the book, and respected somewhat) into Islam, he claimed to be the last prophet.
A group of jews from one region did follow and become muslims. But to Muhammads dissapoitment no others where interested in joining islam. It is that this stage he became bitter with jews, which led to him ceasing his efforts to recruite them, and violence(sanctioned by the koran) against them too. Islam is not a jewish sect at all.

Same message different messenger and you claim it is not a sect? What is so different about Islam? It's just the Abrahamic religion developing in another direction.

Nor was the concept of Jihad merely a reaction to the crusades, it predated them.

You are right here. But that wasn't exactly what I meant. Mohammed did use the word Jihad. But during the times of Saladin the use of the word Jihad no longer had this meaning. During these times the word Jihad was revitalised and the meaning of Jihad now is a result of the crusades.

He was hostile to any nation or people that wouldnt accept islam as truth,  they were conquered, killed, or paid heavy taxes and lived as second class citizens under islam.

I never said Mohammed wasn't a warlord. He was.

It does not matter where the word jihad comes from. As The reality of it is the fact  that Islam was born as an aggressive expansionistic religion which depended on conquests to grow and spread it's word. These are the facts, try learning about them before you speak so freely of them.

So? If you look at world history you will learn that this is not really relevant since there have been periods were Islam was more tolerant than christianity. Sure, the stories of Mohammed sound nasty and surely Islam is on the barbaric side at this moment in time. But I really don't see why Islam has more potential for violence than any other form of monotheism.

Don't get me wrong, monotheism is very bad and intolerant. But we shouldn't think that the western world is generally more tolerant and peaceful because of christianity. That is just not true.

[anekdote]

So? If you look at world history you will learn that this is not really relevant since there have been periods were Islam was more tolerant than christianity. Sure, the stories of Mohammed sound nasty and surely Islam is on the barbaric side at this moment in time. But I really don't see why Islam has more potential for violence than any other form of monotheism.

Don't get me wrong, monotheism is very bad and intolerant. But we shouldn't think that the western world is generally more tolerant and peaceful because of christianity. That is just not true.

Some people say that monotheism is more violent than other religions because it sees every other god as hostile (and thus would work towards obliterating any kind of deity except their own "one"). But in practice, monotheism is no more violent than any other form of religion. For example, Christianity did not obliterate the pagan religions entirely. They just undeified the pagan gods and adapted the holidays. This is ultimately not any different from what one pagan tribe would do to another upon conquest.

...Or people point to historical violence and note how much of it was commited by monotheists. This is similar to calling the Holocaust the greatest evil in history because the death count was so high. Monotheist religions have a history of violence because historically they are found at the center of the world stage (along the borders separating the areas with the highest development). But monotheism is not inherently more violent than other forms of religion. Those who think monotheism is inherently more violent suffer from a perspective illusion.

Polytheist Iranians slaughtered and almost wiped out all the Dravidian-Elamitic peoples. The polytheist Mongols established the greatest land empire in history. The Vikings wreaked havoc on Europe both before and after their conversion from paganism. And I could go on and on...


And as far as tolerance and Christianity, I would contend that Christianity is fairly tolerant, comparatively. Take the Virgin Mary for example. She is practically deified by the Catholic church as a mediator, and is worshipped for reasons other than fertility (Catholics consider the Virgin Mary perpetually virgin and hold that aspect sacred). Jesus preached that men and women were equals. Early feminism was first begun from Christian ideals. You could say Judaism or Islam are intolerant, but Christianity is a different story.

I'm just saying... You can even read here at religious tolerance.

[prometheus]

Some people say that monotheism is more violent than other religions because it sees every other god as hostile (and thus would work towards obliterating any kind of deity except their own "one"). But in practice, monotheism is no more violent than any other form of religion.

I never said anything about pure violence in practise. I make a pure theological analysis. If you believe in one god you also believe in one truth. Monotheism leaves no room for debate, negociation, diplomacy, nuance and other kinds of tolorance. I am not saying that monotheists cannot be tolerant. But if they are this is because they are 'weak believers'. Being a progressive or liberal monotheist requires double think.

For example, Christianity did not obliterate the pagan religions entirely. They just undeified the pagan gods and adapted the holidays. This is ultimately not any different from what one pagan tribe would do to another upon conquest.

This happened because of politican reasons. It is just that the roman politicians were smart enough to do this. Religion can be a powerful tool in the hand of the 'right' politician. Again, this has nothing to do with pure theological idiology or concepts.

Or people point to historical violence and note how much of it was commited by monotheists. This is similar to calling the Holocaust the greatest evil in history because the death count was so high.

I don't understand your point. I do not see how these two statements are linked. As for the latter statement, isn't the amount of victims a good basis for trying to establish the severity of an event? I mean, one easily conclude that the holocaust was a great crime because of the great number of victims. How is this an example of flawed reasoning? Is this even what you mean?

Monotheist religions have a history of violence because historically they are found at the center of the world stage (along the borders separating the areas with the highest development).

So developed civilisations have more violence? Really, I find the 'world stage' a strange concept. I am not sure if you are trying to apply 'shakespearean logic' on the Geopolitics of the ancient world or not but if you are I don't think this is very effective. Neither do I think that there is any truth to this.
Maybe you mean the high concentration of population caused by more effective farming. If so I really don't know what to say about this. I don't know the demographic data of the ancient world. I also don't know where to find it. I am totally ignorant about the demographics of ancient times in polytheistic civilisations since most of these were found in present day India and South and middle America. Now I am not totally ignorant about these ancient civilisations but I have no idea nonetheless.
I can see that to some extent a higher concentration of people in an area could potentionally lead to more violence and war but this really requires some(or rather a lot of) data and research.

But monotheism is not inherently more violent than other forms of religion. Those who think monotheism is inherently more violent suffer from a perspective illusion.

How does this perspective illusion work? You mean that I am more aware of monotheistic violence because I am more knowledgable about these civilisations because they are more related to the western world? This may be true but again my point was not that much about actual violence but more about the ethical value I give to monotheistic ideas. Again, Christianity is the religion with the most insane theology but people from traditionally christian areas are at this point in time probably the most tolerant. And I am not saying christianity is the most intolerant, just the most strange, since the jewish version of the religion of Abraham is probably the most intolerant. Actually the jewish version is more, reasonable is the wrong word, but more I guess consistent. It is a lot more simple and elegant.

Polytheist Iranians slaughtered and almost wiped out all the Dravidian-Elamitic peoples.

I am not sure at which point in time this happened. But I think the persians at this time may have been monotheists, ie the olderst monotheistic religion known; Zoroastrianism.

The polytheist Mongols established the greatest land empire in history.

You are right. For ancient people the Mongels really were able to kill a lot of people. But the mongels did not have a homogenious culture or religion. The reason they killed so many people was because they were nomads who had to live off the booty they plundered.

And as far as tolerance and Christianity, I would contend that Christianity is fairly tolerant, comparatively. Take the Virgin Mary for example. She is practically deified by the Catholic church as a mediator, and is worshipped for reasons other than fertility (Catholics consider the Virgin Mary perpetually virgin and hold that aspect sacred).

The Immaculate Conception has only been officially accepted by the pope in 1942. The bodily ascension of the Virgin Mary into Heaven has only been accepted as a truth by the pope in 1950. Though both ideas originate somewhere in 1400 they have not been that mainstream for a long while. Plus, the catholic movement of christianity is only one of many. Surely this is not part of the main christian dogma.

Jesus preached that men and women were equals. Early feminism was first begun from Christian ideals. You could say Judaism or Islam are intolerant, but Christianity is a different story.

Even today christianity is the basis for oppressing females. People are even considering that roman christians edited the bible to make it less female friendly.
All of Jesus disciples were male. The one that was female was not considered to be a disciple. We all know the stories on which the Da Vinci cone 'et al' are based that consider the possibility that Jesus was actually female friendly but that early christians were not. I guess except from gnostic-like forms of christianity that have totally died out, of whiped out.

I really don't see a difference between Judaism, Islam and Christianity in this respect. 

I'm just saying... You can even read here at religious tolerance.

Nice web site. This is what it claims:

This website is unlike almost all other religious sites:
It promotes religious freedom, and diversity as positive cultural values.

The word "tolerance" does not occur in the Bible. At least, it does not appear in three common English translations: King James Version, New King James and American Standard Version.

There are very few Biblical passages that promote tolerance, in comparison with its many instances of religious intolerance.

I am not saying that monotheism cannot be apllied in a tolerant way.

[gilad]

for what reasons is judaism the most intolerant? im jewish and i cant think a time that i was ever told to dislike another faith. You'll have to explain that, it's a little vague.

[bflatminor24]

Prometheus...

Once again we meet in contentious fora. Once again I witness you pontificating about morals and ethics and religion and war. And yet, once again, I breath a sigh of frustration at your circumlocutory, evasive and sophistic diatribes.

You claim monotheism is intrinsically intolerant because its doctrines endorse "one truth." Then you say that if one is monotheistic AND tolerant, he is a "weak believer." Then you add a disclaimer to avoid criticism by saying that "monotheism can be applied in a tolerant way." What the hell are you talking about? You throw around witty sayings in an attempt to sound profound and well-read, but it doesn't make any *** sense. This is sophistic and perverse illogic.

If you're going to make a compelling argument (which I have yet failed to witness) you have to at least learn to separate facts and ideas. If you are talking about tolerance, stick with tolerance. If you are talking about monotheism, stick with the tenets and virtues (or vices for that matter) of monotheism. You mix everything together in some kind of sick amalgamation of circular banter.

There is nothing intrinsically intolerant about monotheism. Believing in one God is no more intolerant of other religions as believing in many Gods is...neither are inherently intolerant. You can't make this judgment. There are tolerant and intolerant PEOPLE, irrespective of their religion. If you want to discuss the merits of religious doctrines and the intolerance of SCRIPTURE, perhaps you should consult an expert on the scriptures of many religions before passing judgments of them. I am no religious expert, and I'm not defending one religion nor another...I'm pointing flaws in your line of logic because I think it's abominable how you deplore those of the faith based on your circular reasoning.

~Max~

[prometheus]

for what reasons is judaism the most intolerant? im jewish and i cant think a time that i was ever told to dislike another faith. You'll have to explain that, it's a little vague.

The jewish religion cannot disassociate themselves from the Old Testament as christians and muslims can. The bible talks about one god, one truth and gods chosen people who has been given the land promised by god which they had to conquer. Note I am not creating any link with the present day conflict. Just pure theology. Surely the average jewish person doesn't see herself as one of the people chosen by god. But this is the prime idea behind the religion.

ou claim monotheism is intrinsically intolerant because its doctrines endorse "one truth." Then you say that if one is monotheistic AND tolerant, he is a "weak believer." Then you add a disclaimer to avoid criticism by saying that "monotheism can be applied in a tolerant way." What the hell are you talking about?

Just the way I say it. By interpreting the scriptures in a symbolic way. Basically by making concessions. I mean, if yo believe the bible is the world of god then god commands you to kill specific kinds of people. Many monotheists don't do this. Why? Does that mean they do not believe the bible is the world of god? This is what I mean. There must be double think at work here. What is the origin of this?

You throw around witty sayings in an attempt to sound profound and well-read, but it doesn't make any *** sense. This is sophistic and perverse illogic.

That is just your opinion. I may or may not be as well read as you claim I sound. But I do put a lot of though in what I express here and I sincerely think I am making good points. Though people are naturally quite irrational I do think my opinions on religion are above average.

If you are talking about tolerance, stick with tolerance. If you are talking about monotheism, stick with the tenets and virtues (or vices for that matter) of monotheism. You mix everything together in some kind of sick amalgamation of circular banter.

I don't really see which things I am mixing which should not be mixed.

There is nothing intrinsically intolerant about monotheism. Believing in one God is no more intolerant of other religions as believing in many Gods is

Of course there is. If you believe there is only one god then someone else always believes in a false god. Now if you are a polytheist any god is as good a god as any other. Now these people may, and have, killed each other regardless of this fact but it remains the case that a monotheist has only one truth. If you consider this, and just this, one can only concluse that monotheism is less tolerant than polytheism.

There are tolerant and intolerant PEOPLE, irrespective of their religion.

I am not talking about the people. I am talking about the theological concepts. I claim the concept of one god is intolerant.

If you want to discuss the merits of religious doctrines and the intolerance of SCRIPTURE, perhaps you should consult an expert on the scriptures of many religions before passing judgments of them.

You mean I should discuss this with a cleric? Why should I consult an expert? I have read the texts for myself. Why can't I make my own judgement? It is not like I am going to convince an expert. So what use is it? Are you implying I have it all wrong and you want a true expert to try and convert me? It's not like I am the only person with this opinion. For every scripture expert I could find an expert in some other field of knowledge that agrees with me.

As for the merits of religious doctrine, that's a whole different basket case.

I am no religious expert, and I'm not defending one religion nor another...I'm pointing flaws in your line of logic because I think it's abominable how you deplore those of the faith based on your circular reasoning.

Circular reasonsing. That's the first case you mention this. I really don't see where I made a Petitio Principii or any closely related fallasy. Please explain.

As for deploring those of faith. What is wrong with that? Why can't this be justified? Why should anyone have any respect for the silly ideas religious people have?
I am not saying no one should respect religious people. I am just saying that religious people need to deserve the respect they may want. I am not going to respect religious people because I feel sorry for them, which seems a common reason as for why people respect religion.
If someone tells me he believes in a god that reincarnated himself through a virgin to have himself tortured to death by his own followers in an attempt to restore something called 'original sin' meaning that every person is born in sinfulness, something which he caused himself after lying to the first two people which he created out of river clay... Well, then this Jesus may have been a nice fellow but this is just totally insane and ridiculuos. Now this may just be an insignificant story but it is not. It is a very important concept to many people, a story on which they base their lives. And there is no evidence to support any of thim. Actualyl, the fact that there is no evidence at all is just the point behind it. Well, excuse me but in a case like this a rational person can only deplore this.
You would have been right with a 'don't pass judgement'-comment but people do not keep this private. Furthermore, people brainwash their children and infect them with the same meme. I am going along with famous zoologist and anti-theism Richard Dawkins in saying that religion is a virus of the mind.
More: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

[pianistimo]

i think scripture appears intolerant until one reads the new testament.  when you read that basically anyone can be 'grafted' into the vine of the church - then the word israel (or chosen people) takes on a worldwide context. 

as i see it, there is globalization and then there is 'sectionalization' (i know there's a better word).  just as with the roman empire - you had many divisions and cultures all within one great empire.  the only thing is that the intolerance came when one group of peoples were deciding for everyone else things like religion and calendar and monetary system.  this is intolerant way more than christians simply seeking to fulfill their own religious freedom quietly.  (agreed about not all things christian - ie crusades, etc - but there was relatively little done in terms of agression by the early christian church which was based upon 'turn the other cheek')  many christians died as martyrs to the roman emperors whims.

i expect when this current world system becomes operative (moreso than today) - we'll see a sudden shift in how our world monetary system goes, then religious and calendrical.  the reason i say this - is because of biblical prophecy.  the book of daniel says that this great 'beast' power is made of a final ressurrection of these world empires.  and, this one has 'ten toes' (or ten parts or states of this empire).  they come together for a brief while and cause a bunch of chaos.  i suppose that would be easier to do when the monetary system turns in favor of a group of nations rather than one nation - and power and money seem to go together.

don't know why i'm raving on - but i guess that it all started with scripture.  women, slavery, capital punishment - are all things that we don't understand the treatment of today.  i mean - how coiuld so mnay old testament guys have so many wives (take abraham - who had sarah, her handmaid, hagar, her handmaid - and jacob - with rachel, her handmaid, leah, her handmaid).  nowdays, it's much simpler to look at these things as not worry about them - but, in slavery days - it was seen as bibilical to own slaves (it was sort of like today, though, because one is still limited by income), and then capital punishment - for things we might not consider worthy today.  at least Christ came and explained a few things - that the old testament prophets and peoples were fulfilling the 'letter of the law' and now that we are 'freed' from the 'letter' - instead of casting the first stone - we go and think about our own lives and what we are to God and realize that noone is any better than anyone else.  it seems to be God's way of showing us the yin/yang of life.  that we cannot be 'good' by our own means.  we can try - but it is a faltering system.  the only system that really works is to accept the forgiveness of Christ and ask for a new heart.  a clean heart that works by the Holy Spirit and helps us to see (so we're not blind) a better way.

[thracozaag]

Do/did you learn about history other than America history in history-class at school?

  I don't think I'm even going to deign to reply to this obvious insult.

koji

[thracozaag]

Calling someone ignorant when someone makes another analysis isn't a very strong argument.

  I wasn't arguing--merely making a statement.

koji

[mephisto]

  I don't think I'm even going to deign to reply to this obvious insult.

koji

Oh, no. It was not an insult. A friend of mine who are going to america for a year said this to me. I just didn`t knwo if it was true or not. Is it?

[thracozaag]

Oh, no. It was not an insult. A friend of mine who are going to america for a year said this to me. I just didn`t knwo if it was true or not. Is it?

 
  I can't speak for your friend, but I've read texts ranging from Howard Zinn to Paul Johnson and a bunch in between (I'm a big history buff)--a recent fascinating book that I would highly recommend is "Catastrophe" by David Keys.

koji

[pianistimo]

american history is taught much differently in california than it is in pennsylvania.  i think you have to be proactive - like thracozaag, and not just read the texts you are given in college.  there are some americans that don't want america to exist.  and there are others who realize that despite the wrongs our country has done - we also have done many good things, too.  always being negative - and teaching the negatives - doesn't do much for people's national pride.  but, then - the way the world is today - there's not as much to be proud of.  we've given away a lot of our blessings for greed.  we want everything right now.  but, if we were like americans 200+ years ago - we'd sacrifice more. 

to me, in the past - wars used to be a lot 'fairer' without nucear capabilities.  now - with nukes - you can't really plan on having a country much longer than the next day.  it's real - about the idea of 'catastrophe'  and i probably would need a drink before reading the book - but we all know that it's a very fine line today between normalcy and complete chaos.  each world war proves that it takes 3-5 years at least to recover from huge uprisings.  but, in this case- if it is nuclear - it might be that we'll not see man/woman/child - and the world will go back to a quiet existence of nothing.  but, the bible says 'except that God would shorten those days...'  so - i guess He plans to intervene and shorten our brain-dead activities of trying to decimate each other.