If US Forces cannot protect...
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:1103829076.68d9d021d0fa05da3cb894542ff2b80d@t eranews...
Tuuk wrote:


Correct me if I am wrong please,,,

There isn't enough available bandwidth...

In Hanoi Harry's head to even begin to comprehend what was said.

Were there also many districts with a decent turnout, Chuck?

Not really.

You're dealing with a society that was secular under Hussein, but given its
druthers would rather be a Muslim theocracy than almost anything else. Many of
these people feel that measuring the popular sentiment or will with a vote is a
meaningless exercise, as all of society should be organized according to the
will of God as interpreted by the Koran and the local holymen.

*******



There's a huge difference between the Christian right and the right Christians
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/ne...41012bsh.shtml

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


That's nonsense Chuck. Democracy doesn't have to be tied to ANY
particular religion. Democracy is government by the people. Perhaps
the fact that this ideal is in direct contrast to some of the
"guiding" principles of Islam, is where the friction comes from.

Clue alert - Clue alert - Clue alert.

You have provided yourself with a clue. Press "Esc" to stop seeing the clue.

So just who is it continuously insisting that all Christians are good
and
all of Islam are bad and evil? Can you provide a cite please or is this

just your opinion in an attempt to make your point?

******
Thousands of American groups, with millions of members. Just today I
came across such an organization, www.jihadwatch.org

Ever hear the term "Islamofascist" used on right wing talk radio? If
not, you haven't been listening.

********************

wrote in message
oups.com...
So just who is it continuously insisting that all Christians are good
and
all of Islam are bad and evil? Can you provide a cite please or is this

just your opinion in an attempt to make your point?

******
Thousands of American groups, with millions of members. Just today I
came across such an organization, www.jihadwatch.org

Ever hear the term "Islamofascist" used on right wing talk radio? If
not, you haven't been listening.

********************


One small extreme group that talks about *radical* Muslims and an obscure
talk radio show? Come on Chuck, you can do better.

Still waiting for proof of your other claim that 99% of Islam is harmless to
America.
I see you conveniently left that out of your reply.

wrote in message
oups.com...
So just who is it continuously insisting that all Christians are good
and
all of Islam are bad and evil? Can you provide a cite please or is this

just your opinion in an attempt to make your point?

******
Thousands of American groups, with millions of members. Just today I
came across such an organization, www.jihadwatch.org

Ever hear the term "Islamofascist" used on right wing talk radio? If
not, you haven't been listening.

********************


Nope, but I guess you have and I won't doubt you. Who are the *right wing*
talk show hosts using the term?

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:35:25 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
So just who is it continuously insisting that all Christians are good
and
all of Islam are bad and evil? Can you provide a cite please or is this

just your opinion in an attempt to make your point?

******
Thousands of American groups, with millions of members. Just today I
came across such an organization, www.jihadwatch.org

Ever hear the term "Islamofascist" used on right wing talk radio? If
not, you haven't been listening.

One small extreme group that talks about *radical* Muslims and an obscure
talk radio show? Come on Chuck, you can do better.

Still waiting for proof of your other claim that 99% of Islam is harmless to
America.
I see you conveniently left that out of your reply.

I wouldn't say 99% - maybe 60% at the outside.

However, it is a political/theological religion and not in the least
bit secular in either concept - the two concepts are intertwined. The
fundamentalist Imans hold sway over a large portion of their folk and
that is where the danger lies.

Face it - most of Islam is living in the 6th Century in terms of
political and religious concepts.

It's hard to deal with that.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

I wouldn't say 99% - maybe 60% at the outside.

However, it is a political/theological religion and not in the least
bit secular in either concept - the two concepts are intertwined. The
fundamentalist Imans hold sway over a large portion of their folk and
that is where the danger lies.

Tom, in places like Central America, Catholic priests have long been
involved in politics, sometimes for better, sometimes not. And, I don't mean
they were just having lunch with the dictator du jour. And, they practically
ran the Phillippines before we arrived to do whatever the hell we thought we
were doing there.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 07:58:49 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Still waiting for proof of your other claim that 99% of Islam is harmless to
America.
I see you conveniently left that out of your reply.


I wouldn't say 99% - maybe 60% at the outside.

Well, hell's bells...I'd guess that no more than 40% of evangelical,
conservative Christians post a clear and present danger to America. And
they're already here.

However, it is a political/theological religion and not in the least
bit secular in either concept - the two concepts are intertwined. The
fundamentalist Imans hold sway over a large portion of their folk and
that is where the danger lies.

You could say the same thing about evangelical, conservative Christians.

True, but we're not talking about evangelical conservative Christians.

Face it - most of Islam is living in the 6th Century in terms of
political and religious concepts.

You could say the same thing about evangelical, Conservative Christians.

You are letting your talent for hyperbole over ride the common sense
you normally exhibit. :)

With the exception of some extreme survivalist sects, most evangelical
conservative Christians educate their children, don't treat their
women as chattel and generally function in our society as contributing
citizens. Last I heard, I don't think any conservative Christian blew
themselves up in a crowded restaurant protesting Clinton's Third Term
Abortion debacle.

I agree that in some fundamentalist Christian sects are extreme - I
can't deny that. However I think that in most "Christian" churches
you will find that not the case at all - it is a much more communal
setting for worship and fellowship. I must also protest at the
evangelical designation as being somehow "bad". There are evangelical
denominations (or subsets if you will) of main branch faiths that
liberal in terms of social philosophy.

The difference here is that we're talking the whole of one faith which
does not vary from country to country. What we are now facing is a
subset of Wahhabism which is gaining cultural footholds in most
countries with Islamic populations.

That's the 40% which is very dangerous.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:35:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

I wouldn't say 99% - maybe 60% at the outside.

However, it is a political/theological religion and not in the least
bit secular in either concept - the two concepts are intertwined. The
fundamentalist Imans hold sway over a large portion of their folk and
that is where the danger lies.

Tom, in places like Central America, Catholic priests have long been
involved in politics, sometimes for better, sometimes not. And, I don't mean
they were just having lunch with the dictator du jour. And, they practically
ran the Phillippines before we arrived to do whatever the hell we thought we
were doing there.

I don't deny that. Catholics were both oppressors and liberators.

However, we're not discussing US if you will. We are discussing THEM.
I am fully aware of the atrocities generated in the name of Christian
beliefs, but Christians have moved beyond that where the
fundamentalist Islamic states have not.

Just because christians in the past were responsible does not make the
atrocities of Islam now somehow correct.

Nope, but I guess you have and I won't doubt you. Who are the *right wing*
talk show hosts using the term?

Sean Hannity has specifically used the term.

Michael Savage often makes disparaging remarks about Muslims in general, making
no attempt to separate an individual person's behavior from the worst available
examples of actions committed by persons sharing the same religious belief.
That's absurd, of course. If those Texas right wingers who were convicted of
dragging black people to death behind a pickup truck, or some of them, were
regularly in attendance at the local Baptist church on a Sunday morning, would
it be fair to say that such behavior was typical of all, or even most,
Christians?

Of course not.

Adolf Hitler was a member of the Catholic Church, and was in good standing -or
at least not excommunicated- right up until his death. Only a right wing
extremist like Osama bin Ladin would ever dare suggest that Hitler's actions
represented the thoughts, wishes, or philosophies of the largest Christian
sect.

So you would rather the truth be silenced in order to paint a more
"compassionate" image? If you look at most of the recent acts of
terrorism throughout the world in the last 10 years, what religion do
they all have in common?

So you believe:

We agree. The continuous insistence that America is a "Christian" nation
(and
therefore good) and that Islamic nations
are filled with godless terrorists (and therefore evil)

is true?

Thanks a lot. That helps me in my discussion with JimH who challenged me to
produce an example of somebody who actually thought that way. :-)

This is the lesson they need to learn. For a people to be truly free,
they cannot be held to the wishes of dictators posing as religious
leaders. For democracy to work means reducing the role of religion to
a personal level.

That's outrageous. Some religions cannot be separated from secular government.
Who are we to dictate to other nations how much influence the church should
have over daily public life? Ever hear of "freedom of religion"? That applies
to religions that create a more binding social structure.

How unusual to hear you championing the separation of church and state, when it
suits your purpose. It may also seem weird that I am endorsing the right of
people to include religion in secular government--but remember that when they
do so it is by their own free choice *and* they have no
legal provision against establishing an official state religion like we do in
the US.

Yea, it was more "stable" than what's there now. But was it "better"?


You might solicit opinions at the former site of Fallujah. :-)

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I've visited several Moslem nations for short to extended periods,
including Egypt in the 1990s and Bangladesh in the 1970s.

How many have you been to since bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996?

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

Thousands of American groups, with millions of members. Just today I
came across such an organization, www.jihadwatch.org

Ever hear the term "Islamofascist" used on right wing talk radio? If
not, you haven't been listening.

********************


Nope, but I guess you have and I won't doubt you. Who are the *right
wing*
talk show hosts using the term?

Sean Hannity has specifically used the term.

My, my...how we like to generalize in order to make a point.

Still waiting for proof of your other claim that 99% of Islam is harmless to
America.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I wouldn't say 99% - maybe 60% at the outside.

And you based this figure on what, exactly?


However, it is a political/theological religion and not in the least
bit secular in either concept - the two concepts are intertwined.

You should read a bit more, really.

*ALL* religion is heavily intertwined with politics. The *only* reason
that Christian sects are not theocratic dictatorships is that that wagon
has already rolled down the hill.

Churches have *never* once in all recorded history given up political
control of an area or a populace, nor has a religious gov't ever
accorded civil liberties to it's subjects. That is a developement of
secular thought, of whatever science exists in social & economic studies.


Face it - most of Islam is living in the 6th Century in terms of
political and religious concepts.

And the U.S. is backing up in that direction.


It's hard to deal with that.

Yep.

Intolerant, violent, religious whackos... of any faith... make bad
neighbors.

DSK

Sean Hannity has specifically used the term.

My, my...how we like to generalize in order to make a point.

Wrongo. You asked for the name of a right wing talk show host that refers to
Muslims as Islamofascists. I gave you a specific answer. That is not a
generalization. Sorry.

On 05 Jan 2005 16:29:12 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

So you would rather the truth be silenced in order to paint a more
"compassionate" image? If you look at most of the recent acts of
terrorism throughout the world in the last 10 years, what religion do
they all have in common?

So you believe:

We agree. The continuous insistence that America is a "Christian" nation
(and
therefore good) and that Islamic nations
are filled with godless terrorists (and therefore evil)

is true?

Thanks a lot. That helps me in my discussion with JimH who challenged me to
produce an example of somebody who actually thought that way. :-)

I do not believe in absolutes. Christians are not "all good" and
Muslims are not "all evil". But there is no denying who is at the root
of the majority of terrorist actions over the last couple of decades.


This is the lesson they need to learn. For a people to be truly free,
they cannot be held to the wishes of dictators posing as religious
leaders. For democracy to work means reducing the role of religion to
a personal level.

That's outrageous. Some religions cannot be separated from secular government.

Sure they can. They just have to want to do it. We did it over 200
years ago.

Who are we to dictate to other nations how much influence the church should
have over daily public life? Ever hear of "freedom of religion"? That applies
to religions that create a more binding social structure.

I'm not saying we (the U.S.) should be the ones to force it. But the
citizens of the middle east need to be brought into the modern world,
and shown the fruits of democracy, so that they will bring about
change from within.

How unusual to hear you championing the separation of church and state, when it
suits your purpose.

Church and state should be separate to a degree. But that does not
preclude religious and moral influences on governmental decisions. You
need to stop thinking in an "all or nothing" binary mode. My views are
much more relative.


It may also seem weird that I am endorsing the right of
people to include religion in secular government

as long as it's not here?

--but remember that when they
do so it is by their own free choice *and* they have no
legal provision against establishing an official state religion like we do in
the US.

So we're both hypocrites? ;-)




Yea, it was more "stable" than what's there now. But was it "better"?


You might solicit opinions at the former site of Fallujah. :-)

You might get similar responses in 1939 Germany.....

Dave

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Sean Hannity has specifically used the term.

My, my...how we like to generalize in order to make a point.

Wrongo. You asked for the name of a right wing talk show host that refers
to
Muslims as Islamofascists. I gave you a specific answer. That is not a
generalization. Sorry.

Sorry Chuckster. You made generalizations to support your opinions.

1. Claiming that *right wing* radio calls the people of Islam
"Islamofascists", making it sound like a term used by most or many *right
wing* radio programs. As it ends up only Sean Hannity has used that term
according to you.

2. You claimed that Christians believe themselves to be good and see the
people of Islam to be bad. You have yet to show any evidence of this.

3. You claimed that 99% of Islamic Countries are peace loving people yet
cannot provide facts to support this claim.

Using those assumptions and generalizations you went on to use them to
support your further opinions.

Yep, you indeed generalize and paint with a broad brush. This is certainly
not the first time I have seen you do this.

Sorry.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


I've visited several Moslem nations for short to extended periods,
including Egypt in the 1990s and Bangladesh in the 1970s.


How many have you been to since bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996?



One.

Which one?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...



I've visited several Moslem nations for short to extended periods,
including Egypt in the 1990s and Bangladesh in the 1970s.


How many have you been to since bin Laden declared war on the US in
1996?



One.


Which one?

Egypt.

I just saw that Egyptian patient of mine again yesterday. She brought gifts
from Egypt to me, my receptionist, and my dental assistant...but not my
hygienist. Ever since she found out my hygienist is Jewish, she won't let
her clean her teeth. Instead, she goes down the road to the periodontist's
hygienist just for the cleanings. I didn't realize how bad it was until
yesterday. My assistant and I were with another patient, and this lady
refused to let the hygienist even take an x-ray. This is a lady who married
an American, lived in Qatar during the first Gulf War, took a picture
alongside General Schwarzkoppf, and lives 6 months here and 6 months in
Egypt. She is hardly an "extremist" by your definition, but her views and
actions sure seem pretty extreme to me.

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 10:36:11 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

I must also protest at the
evangelical designation as being somehow "bad". There are evangelical
denominations (or subsets if you will) of main branch faiths that
liberal in terms of social philosophy.

Yes, there are, but we're not talking about them, are we...

"We" weren't talking about them - You were lecturing me on a subject
that I've forgotten more about than you ever knew.

Let's just drop it and remain friendly.

Later,

Tom

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
"We" weren't talking about them - You were lecturing me on a subject
that I've forgotten more about than you ever knew.


You mean like molecular microbiology and evolutionary science? Political
and economic history of Western (or Eastern, for that matter) theocracies?

;)

DSK

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:48:45 -0500, DSK wrote:

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
"We" weren't talking about them - You were lecturing me on a subject
that I've forgotten more about than you ever knew.


You mean like molecular microbiology and evolutionary science? Political
and economic history of Western (or Eastern, for that matter) theocracies?

;)

I have never claimed to be an expert in any of those subjects - those
are my opinions based on my own ideas, concepts and beliefs.

I resent your implication.

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I have never claimed to be an expert in any of those subjects

No, you just went on and on (and on and on) about how evolution "wasn't
proved" and that "Darwinism" was losing credence among real-live
full-fledged scientists... of whom you are close with several... etc etc.


... - those
are my opinions based on my own ideas, concepts and beliefs.

I resent your implication.

What, that you claim great expertise on certain subjects, and those
claims are rendered doubtful by your own statements? I apologize for
presenting you with the facts.

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


NOYB wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...




I've visited several Moslem nations for short to extended periods,
including Egypt in the 1990s and Bangladesh in the 1970s.


How many have you been to since bin Laden declared war on the US in
1996?



One.


Which one?

Egypt.


I just saw that Egyptian patient of mine again yesterday. She brought
gifts from Egypt to me, my receptionist, and my dental assistant...but
not my hygienist. Ever since she found out my hygienist is Jewish, she
won't let her clean her teeth. Instead, she goes down the road to the
periodontist's hygienist just for the cleanings. I didn't realize how
bad it was until yesterday. My assistant and I were with another
patient, and this lady refused to let the hygienist even take an x-ray.
This is a lady who married an American, lived in Qatar during the first
Gulf War, took a picture alongside General Schwarzkoppf, and lives 6
months here and 6 months in Egypt. She is hardly an "extremist" by your
definition, but her views and actions sure seem pretty extreme to me.



Is there some requirement that your employees post their religious views
for patients to consider?


It came up in conversation. The patient asked what she was doing for
Christmas, and, well...



If she were my patient, I'd tell her to find another dentist for all of
her needs.

Probably a good idea...but I don't want a suicide bomber showing up later in
my reception area.

Jim H wrote:

1. Claiming that *right wing* radio calls the people of Islam
"Islamofascists", making it sound like a term used by most or many
*right
wing* radio programs. As it ends up only Sean Hannity has used that
term
according to you.


********

You asked for an example of any right wing radio host who calls Muslims
"Islamofascists", not a complete list. I did not say he was the only
one.


JimH also wrote:

2. You claimed that Christians believe themselves to be good and see
the
people of Islam to be bad. You have yet to show any evidence of this.


************************************************** **************

You should experiment with paying attention. In response to that
statement, one of our more
vocal right wing Christians in the group basically replied, "What's the
matter, Gould, you have a problem with the truth or something?"


****

JimH also wrote:


3. You claimed that 99% of Islamic Countries are peace loving people
yet
cannot provide facts to support this claim.


***************************

Don't be goofy. I said that 99% of Muslims are no threat to the United
States. Said nothing about "countries", and said nothing about "peace
loving." One can be warlike as all heck, throwing rocks and spears at a
neighboring tribe 24/7 in some country halfway around the world, and
not be a threat to the United States.

You have the right wing debate style down pretty well: completely
mischaracterize something said on the opposite side of the question and
then demand that the person you misquote defend the mischaracterized
position. Nice try.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Jim H wrote:

1. Claiming that *right wing* radio calls the people of Islam
"Islamofascists", making it sound like a term used by most or many
*right
wing* radio programs. As it ends up only Sean Hannity has used that
term
according to you.


********

You asked for an example of any right wing radio host who calls Muslims
"Islamofascists", not a complete list. I did not say he was the only
one.


So who are the others? You made it sound like it is a common slur used by
those whose political views differ from yours.



JimH also wrote:

2. You claimed that Christians believe themselves to be good and see
the
people of Islam to be bad. You have yet to show any evidence of this.


************************************************** **************

You should experiment with paying attention. In response to that
statement, one of our more
vocal right wing Christians in the group basically replied, "What's the
matter, Gould, you have a problem with the truth or something?"


So? Does that then mean all or most feel the same way? Or are you just
generalizing again based on the response of one or two contributors here?



****

JimH also wrote:


3. You claimed that 99% of Islamic Countries are peace loving people
yet
cannot provide facts to support this claim.


***************************

Don't be goofy. I said that 99% of Muslims are no threat to the United
States. Said nothing about "countries", and said nothing about "peace
loving." One can be warlike as all heck, throwing rocks and spears at a
neighboring tribe 24/7 in some country halfway around the world, and
not be a threat to the United States.

You have the right wing debate style down pretty well: completely
mischaracterize something said on the opposite side of the question and
then demand that the person you misquote defend the mischaracterized
position. Nice try.


Actually I do not mischaracterize anything....that is why I normally keep
the entire thread in my reply rather than only including selective parts
such as you are now doing.

Regardless, I am still waiting for some proof from you that 99% of all
Muslims pose no threat to America.

The bottom line is you make up facts and figures, present them as truth and
use them to support your debate. When asked to support your claims are go
on the attack (e.g. your last paragraph above). You also seem to want to
label folks in general categories such as "right wing". I guess you are
forced to take the low road once cornered in a debate.

Nice try Chuck.