NationStates Jolt Archive

Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal? When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.

Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.
no it hasnt

no it hasnt

No hijacking please.

Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal? When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.

Because generally speaking Christians lost their zeal a long time ago. If somebody flushed a Bible or burnt one we might be somewhat offended but the idea of killing them and destroying their country for it would not even cross our minds. It is a "meh" thing to the vast majority of us. Religious wars are so 13th century.

i suppose it reflects a different attitude toward books. what would a christain care if someone flushed a bible? he's supposed to turn the other cheek anyway.

Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal? When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.
how many people died last time a bible was flushed down the toilet?

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.
Because it's unexpected. Being bigoted, hateful bastards is expected of the Saudis, but not of Americans.

No hijacking please.
Thats not hijacking, that claim is part of what your post is built on and it is faulty.

i suppose it reflects a different attitude toward books. what would a christain care if someone flushed a bible? he's supposed to turn the other cheek anyway.

Not to mention that since the invention of the printing press the bible itself hasn't really been considered holy. The information in it is, but the book is just a place to go to find the information. To revere the book that it's written in makes no more sense to a Christian that to kneel in prayer at a computer that you use to look up biblegateway.com.

Devout Moslims on the other hand practice reciting passages from the Koran even if they don't speak Arabic. Christians did the same up until the protestant reformation, and even then there was a lot of blood spilled before people started feeling free to read the bible in their own language and look at it as actual information instead of a religous artifact.

Thats not hijacking, that claim is part of what your post is built on and it is faulty.

To a conservative, pointing out that their position is bullshit is morally repulsive. They never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.

Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal? When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.

Maybe it's because they pay attention to the news.

How come The Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) didn't cause any scandal here? The rest of the world knows how to pay attention and get upset when we so much as insult their religion, but we don't give a rat's ass when our government hijacks our country to commit mass murder in our name.

Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal? When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.

The interesting thing to me, is how you will attack Islam on any available premise.... and then bitch about people even discussing Christianity.

The media is liberal and anti-American. As simple as that.

How come The Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) didn't cause any scandal here?
Spot on. Not in the UK either.

Why the disproportionate attention? How many people in the US/UK seriously give a damn about what Saudis are doing to Bibles? This is the nature of the beast. And it's not a matter of left and right.

The media is liberal and anti-American. As simple as that.
Congrats. You win this thread's 'First Person To Post Something Stupid' award.

Congrats. You win this thread's 'First Person To Post Something Stupid' award.
No, I believe the award goes to you.

Need I list the BBC, who was so biased that a British battleship refused to watch it?

Or the fact that 89% of American newspaper editors voted for John Kerry?

Or the Dan Rather flap?

No, I believe the award goes to you.

Need I list the BBC, who was so biased that a British battleship refused to watch it?

Or the fact that 89% of American newspaper editors voted for John Kerry?

Or the Dan Rather flap?
I will make this very clear: you. are. wrong. about. the. BBC. There.

Perhaps the US media does overall portray a liberal bias - I'm not going to dispute this as I don't have the facts at hand. However, your statement specifically declared it be as simple as you portrayed, which is, clearly, stupid.

The media is liberal and anti-American. As simple as that.
wow. Thats so definitely right its a wonder nobody has ever tried to discredit it

Congrats. You win this thread's 'First Person To Post Something Stupid' award.

"As simple as that" is actually Cheese's signature. Whenever he says something and the reader asks himself "how simple could he possibly be?" the answer is right there.

I will make this very clear: you. are. wrong. about. the. BBC. There.

Perhaps the US media does overall portray a liberal bias - I'm not going to dispute this as I don't have the facts at hand. However, your statement specifically declared it be as simple as you portrayed, which is, clearly, stupid.

No actually the US media doesn't have a liberal bias. Want some evidence of that? How about the fact that all the claims of a liberal US media are in fact carried on the supposedly liberal US media.

How about the fact that polls that ask about support for the Iraq war broke down as something like:
38% opposed to the war.
27% opposed and don't want rednecks to throw bricks through their windows.
35% in favor of the war.

Then the media say "well it looks like 62% are pro war and only 38% is anti war." The media is biased in favor of the interests of the corporations that own them, and those interests are conservative.

No, I believe the award goes to you.

Need I list the BBC, who was so biased that a British battleship refused to watch it?

Or the fact that 89% of American newspaper editors voted for John Kerry?

Or the Dan Rather flap?

So, you are arguing that the BBC is anti-American? What, really? A non-American media outlet might not worship the Great God America? Well, they MUST be liberal and Anti-Americn, then, I guess...?

How does 89% of anything, voting for Kerry, have ANYTHING to do with being Anti-American? Kerry is an American, you know.

And, you are sadly living in a world of illusion if you TRULY think that Kerry plays a 'liberal' political role. American politics is far to the Right of most of the Western World's political spectrum.

What you call extremely liberal - the rest of the world terms 'centrist'.

Let's not even approach what the rest of the world calls what YOU might call 'Conservative'.

I suppose, in a political spectrum as Right Wing as that of the USA, ANYTHING that approaches a fair sense of balance must be 'liberal', by comparison.

Anyway, my fault for getting personal. I apologise, especially as the thread's getting derailed.

Or the fact that 89% of American newspaper editors voted for John Kerry?

Or the Dan Rather flap?


I'm not running with it as a theory but perhaps a just a thought. Maybe that is because most journalist and people involved with gathering the news are what they call informed. Large, I mean large amounts of the average Joe citizen in the U.S. doesn't know what the hell is going on half the time. Not everyone is like us. A lot of people don't even care about current events. They hear a sound bite that say "Kerry is a flip flopper" and totally over look that our own president took the US to war based on lies and he knew it. Perhaps the answer lays some where in that. As said, it's just a thought.

So, is anyone going to actually compare media coverage or is everyone just going to volley 'common sense' talking points and desparage anyone who disagrees? You know, like picking a story and comparing coverage, something substantial? Anyone? Anything?

Being White (caucasian), Christian or Male is BAD.

Being Non-White, Non-Christian or Female is SUPERCOOL.

Thus, the BIBLE (about white Christian males) is BAD.

The Koran (about non-white, non-christian males) is SUPERCOOL, but it would be even groovier if it just told the story of Fatima and left out all that bollocks about Mohammed!

As you know, a major principle of Leftist Education is that the USA has gotten wealthy on the backs on non-white, non-Christian women and children because we are patriarchal imperialist abusers who steal from the poor and downtrodden for our own coffers. We've been abusing everybody ever since the Shot Heard 'Round the World and we are the 800lb. Gorilla and so on.

Liberalism hate America, hates whites, hates Christians and especially hates males.

We are supposed to grow "enlightened" by adopting nanny-government euro-socialism, trendy pseudo-religions that have no objective moral standards and promote peaceful negotiations (followed by UNSELFISH COMPROMISE) with our most sadistic and vile enemies. Remember the mantra they are teaching our kids in school:

VIOLENCE IS ALWAYS WRONG, IT IS NEVER AN OPTION.

See, the Muslim clerics who build suicide belts for their teenage followers are downtrodden minorities who must be forgiven their trespasses, but the U.S. Soldiers are despicable corporate nazis and hateful Christian invaders on a New Crusade for Bush. We clearly should be embracing the suicide-belt wearing maniacs in a great show of selflessness and send them some of our ill-gotten money, because the billions in oil revenue just aren't enough for these third-world "developing nations".

I know I feel a deepening sense of guilt every time I look in the mirror and see my white skin. In Asia, white is the color of death, something every college student is taught FOR A REASON. I always try to act like I am part of a different race, but no minority group seems to want me. Why does Eminem have it so easy?

I tried disavowing Jesus, hating him and even avoiding him, but he just keeps forgiving me. No matter how ammoral or unChristian I am, everybody just realizes that all white U.S. Citizens are rabid Christians (or Zionist Jews) who want a global Crusade, so I guess they are right and I am wrong... I suck. Besides, they already crucified Jesus once and it didn't help, so I don't see how I'll ever escape being Christian.

I sent some money to the PLO, but then Yasser Arafat died and I realized that my ragged twenty dollar bill was coated in McDonald's fry grease. Everybody knows the American Diet is killing us, now it has killed a global leader for peace! The evil Corporations USED ME to kill Arafat! I'm sure the media was just lying when they mentioned his homosexual affairs with his private guards, that this has nothing to with HIV. But if it does involve HIV, then I'm sure that HIV was a Reagan-era plot to kill homosexuals. We Americans are so freaking evil I just can't stand us.

I burned another U.S. Flag today, but I still feel "jingoistic". My professor told me jingoism is when you love your own country. I try to hate myself, my parents, my nation and my God, but it is hard to hate your way to peace and love... Maybe I'll move to Europe or just Canada and my hatred of everything the U.S. stands for will be stronger- then I will be peaceful and loving like everbody outside the U.S.

Anyway, I know I shouldn't write all these thoughts down, it is self-indulgent and leads to deep thinking. I know that thinking is wrong and that I should FEEL things more, like my professors are telling me to. They always say that I should respect how other people FEEL, but I just keep on thinking first. There was this philosopher who said that humans only THINK they think, which is like so true. I'm going to stop thinking and start feeling more now, so later...

Thus, the BIBLE (about white Christian males) is BAD.

no i didnt read past this
but
isnt the bible mostly about non-white jews?

no i didnt read past this
but
isnt the bible mostly about non-white jews?

I believe you're correct. Give the lady a prize! :)

(Guess that sort of wrecked his theory huh)..LOL

Being White (caucasian), Christian or Male is BAD.

Being Non-White, Non-Christian or Female is SUPERCOOL.

Thus, the BIBLE (about white Christian males) is BAD.

The Koran (about non-white, non-christian males) is SUPERCOOL, but it would be even groovier if it just told the story of Fatima and left out all that bollocks about Mohammed!

As you know, a major principle of Leftist Education is that the USA has gotten wealthy on the backs on non-white, non-Christian women and children because we are patriarchal imperialist abusers who steal from the poor and downtrodden for our own coffers. We've been abusing everybody ever since the Shot Heard 'Round the World and we are the 800lb. Gorilla and so on.

Liberalism hate America, hates whites, hates Christians and especially hates males.

We are supposed to grow "enlightened" by adopting nanny-government euro-socialism, trendy pseudo-religions that have no objective moral standards and promote peaceful negotiations (followed by UNSELFISH COMPROMISE) with our most sadistic and vile enemies. Remember the mantra they are teaching our kids in school:

VIOLENCE IS ALWAYS WRONG, IT IS NEVER AN OPTION.

See, the Muslim clerics who build suicide belts for their teenage followers are downtrodden minorities who must be forgiven their trespasses, but the U.S. Soldiers are despicable corporate nazis and hateful Christian invaders on a New Crusade for Bush. We clearly should be embracing the suicide-belt wearing maniacs in a great show of selflessness and send them some of our ill-gotten money, because the billions in oil revenue just aren't enough for these third-world "developing nations".

I know I feel a deepening sense of guilt every time I look in the mirror and see my white skin. In Asia, white is the color of death, something every college student is taught FOR A REASON. I always try to act like I am part of a different race, but no minority group seems to want me. Why does Eminem have it so easy?

I tried disavowing Jesus, hating him and even avoiding him, but he just keeps forgiving me. No matter how ammoral or unChristian I am, everybody just realizes that all white U.S. Citizens are rabid Christians (or Zionist Jews) who want a global Crusade, so I guess they are right and I am wrong... I suck. Besides, they already crucified Jesus once and it didn't help, so I don't see how I'll ever escape being Christian.

I sent some money to the PLO, but then Yasser Arafat died and I realized that my ragged twenty dollar bill was coated in McDonald's fry grease. Everybody knows the American Diet is killing us, now it has killed a global leader for peace! The evil Corporations USED ME to kill Arafat! I'm sure the media was just lying when they mentioned his homosexual affairs with his private guards, that this has nothing to with HIV. But if it does involve HIV, then I'm sure that HIV was a Reagan-era plot to kill homosexuals. We Americans are so freaking evil I just can't stand us.

I burned another U.S. Flag today, but I still feel "jingoistic". My professor told me jingoism is when you love your own country. I try to hate myself, my parents, my nation and my God, but it is hard to hate your way to peace and love... Maybe I'll move to Europe or just Canada and my hatred of everything the U.S. stands for will be stronger- then I will be peaceful and loving like everbody outside the U.S.

Anyway, I know I shouldn't write all these thoughts down, it is self-indulgent and leads to deep thinking. I know that thinking is wrong and that I should FEEL things more, like my professors are telling me to. They always say that I should respect how other people FEEL, but I just keep on thinking first. There was this philosopher who said that humans only THINK they think, which is like so true. I'm going to stop thinking and start feeling more now, so later...

So you hate people of any other race to your own, any other nation to your own, any other religion to your own, any other gender to your own AND any other political affiliation than your own.

Well done.

I believe you're correct. Give the lady a prize! :)

(Guess that sort of wrecked his theory huh)..LOL

oooooo is it a cookie???

it may have wrecked his theory, i cant really say i didnt get through the whole thing.

oooooo is it a cookie???

it may have wrecked his theory, i cant really say i didnt get through the whole thing.

You didn't miss much.... from what I can tell it was an attempt at parody... using the 'evils' of 'liberalism' (and what a relative term THAT is...) as justification for hatred against just about any minority you care to name...

i didnt get through the whole thing.

With every post you show yourself to be smarter and smarter.. :)

Ashmoria
no i didnt read past this
but
isnt the bible mostly about non-white jews?

I believe you're correct. Give the lady a prize! :)

(Guess that sort of wrecked his theory huh)..LOL

You're derailing his thread.

Not to mention, the Bible does indeed have a lot to say about White Males (the Romans.) i.e. that they're bad.

Or the fact that 89% of American newspaper editors voted for John Kerry?

Wait, voting for one of the presidential candidates is unAmerican?

Wow, who knew?

Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal?

It's been a slow news month.

When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

For the hundred and fiftieth time: Proof please. Just one tiny bit of evidence that Saudi Arabia does this. Is it really all that much to ask? Come on, Neo. I've been very patient with you and tried to explain things as best as I could, but it's getting out of hand. Every thread you have ever made states that the Saudi government doesn't allow Bibles and imprisons people for being Christian, but you've shown not one iota of proof. Not one.

Do it just this once ... for me?

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.

It hasn't been discovered that the former never happened. Recheck the story on Newsweek's recant. They recanted all but the Qur'an incident.

No actually the US media doesn't have a liberal bias. Want some evidence of that? How about the fact that all the claims of a liberal US media are in fact carried on the supposedly liberal US media.

How about the fact that polls that ask about support for the Iraq war broke down as something like:
38% opposed to the war.
27% opposed and don't want rednecks to throw bricks through their windows.
35% in favor of the war.

Then the media say "well it looks like 62% are pro war and only 38% is anti war." The media is biased in favor of the interests of the corporations that own them, and those interests are conservative.
Oh really? Never heard of that poll before...

You're derailing his thread.

Not to mention, the Bible does indeed have a lot to say about White Males (the Romans.) i.e. that they're bad.
oh come now, the romans, while utterly evil, are a very tiny part of the bible.

Wait, voting for one of the presidential candidates is unAmerican?

Wow, who knew?
No, I was using the Kerry thing to prove the "liberal" segment of my remarks.

It's been a slow news month.



For the hundred and fiftieth time: Proof please. Just one tiny bit of evidence that Saudi Arabia does this. Is it really all that much to ask? Come on, Neo. I've been very patient with you and tried to explain things as best as I could, but it's getting out of hand. Every thread you have ever made states that the Saudi government doesn't allow Bibles and imprisons people for being Christian, but you've shown not one iota of proof. Not one.

Do it just this once ... for me?



It hasn't been discovered that the former never happened. Recheck the story on Newsweek's recant. They recanted all but the Qur'an incident.
I was in Saudi Arabia. I've been several times to support both the US Marine Corps and to work on civilian projects. As a Marine, I was allowed to bring in religious material. As a civilian, passing through customs, I was not. Anecdotal evidence? Nah, everyone I know has been asked the same questions at Saudi customs.

I will make this very clear: you. are. wrong. about. the. BBC. There.

Perhaps the US media does overall portray a liberal bias - I'm not going to dispute this as I don't have the facts at hand. However, your statement specifically declared it be as simple as you portrayed, which is, clearly, stupid.
Please. The BBC is distinctly biased. It attacks Tony Blair's foreign policy viciously, treats terrorists with more trust than the US (there was a guy saying there are no Americans in Baghdad at the same time the US was pulling down Saddam's statue...), etc.

Please. The BBC is distinctly biased. It attacks Tony Blair's foreign policy viciously,
the BBC attacks everyone, its part of being unbiased

treats terrorists with more trust than the US (there was a guy saying there are no Americans in Baghdad at the same time the US was pulling down Saddam's statue...), etc.
yes, that was the Iraqi information minister, but what does he have to do with the BBC being biased or not?

I was in Saudi Arabia. I've been several times to support both the US Marine Corps and to work on civilian projects. As a Marine, I was allowed to bring in religious material. As a civilian, passing through customs, I was not. Anecdotal evidence? Nah, everyone I know has been asked the same questions at Saudi customs.

Yes, I know. I am fully aware that it happens. I, however, just once, want Neo Cannen to present *proof* so that we can get on with discussing why it happens, etc etc. You are correct, though, that Saudi customs do not allow non-Muslim religious material to pass through in civilian hands. There is a reason, and a very good reason for this, but without Neo meeting me in the middle, I will not enlighten him as to why.

That particular topic has hit a stalemate point.

Maybe it's because they pay attention to the news.

How come The Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/) didn't cause any scandal here? The rest of the world knows how to pay attention and get upset when we so much as insult their religion, but we don't give a rat's ass when our government hijacks our country to commit mass murder in our name.

Awww Shucks!! You beat me to it. I've got good news for you though. The memo in it's entirety is being published in the New York Review of Books June edition. Source. (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=7867)

the BBC attacks everyone, its part of being unbiased


yes, that was the Iraqi information minister, but what does he have to do with the BBC being biased or not?

The BBC practically had a Crusade against Blair. The man was their main target, alongside Bush.

And the guy I'm referring to was a BBC reporter, not the Information Minister. Baghdad Bob was long gone at that point.

Hahaha! Finally, an opportunity to use Franken-granted knowledge!

In regards to the "liberal bias in the media", after the 2000 presidential race, the Pew Charitable Trust Foundation did a study of 1,149 stories from 17 leading new services. They analyzed these stories for the tone of coverage toward the candidates. There findings were as follows:

Gore Type of Coverage Bush

13% Positive 24%

31% Neutral 27%

56% Negative 49%

Kinda looks like a conservative bias to me.

The BBC practically had a Crusade against Blair. The man was their main target, alongside Bush.

And the guy I'm referring to was a BBC reporter, not the Information Minister. Baghdad Bob was long gone at that point.[/QUOTE]
now i know you have no idea what youre talking about

Hahaha! Finally, an opportunity to use Franken-granted knowledge!

In regards to the "liberal bias in the media", after the 2000 presidential race, the Pew Charitable Trust Foundation did a study of 1,149 stories from 17 leading new services. They analyzed these stories for the tone of coverage toward the candidates. There findings were as follows:

Gore Type of Coverage Bush

13% Positive 24%

31% Neutral 27%

56% Negative 49%

Kinda looks like a conservative bias to me.
Alright, because I agree with you in principle I'm going to do this here in the interest of actually clearing something up rather that the parroting back and forth.

Keep in mind, I do not believe in the myth of the liberal media.

However, we can't start measuring this by how many nice things they say of one versus the other. It is not a good measure as it insists that everyone does as much good and bad as the other side does. It's just not an honest way to measure bias. We shouldn't dip to that (I've seen conservatives use a similar set of stats to prove liberal bias-it's just not a good way to do it.) It does not measure bias, really.

You didn't miss much.... from what I can tell it was an attempt at parody... using the 'evils' of 'liberalism' (and what a relative term THAT is...) as justification for hatred against just about any minority you care to name...

Ah yes, my hatred knows no bounds. I'm just a hate-filled guy, as you can read right there in my post! :)

Seeing as I am mixed-race,
not a Christian,
don't approve of the war in Iraq,
and don't like Bush very much.

I'm just ribbing you ultra-liberals because you aren't my political bedfellows.

You can rip my post, but only because it cuts a little too close to home. The anti-Americanism inherent in European/United Nations/U.S. Liberalism is all the same nowadays.

It has gotten to where I cannot tell a New York Democrat from a Londoner. Used to be different flavours of disdain for America.

I'd imagine the only thing we agree on is that the US should stop all foreign military presence... Which I truly do believe.

If it makes you feel any better, you guys are winning the cultural war. America cannot stand together when we disagree on so many fundamental issues... And the self-annihilation of liberalism has gotten so deep into the U.S. culture that I don't think we can do anything to reverse it.

You can rip my post, but only because it cuts a little too close to home. The anti-Americanism inherent in European/United Nations/U.S. Liberalism is all the same nowadays.

It has gotten to where I cannot tell a New York Democrat from a Londoner. Used to be different flavours of disdain for America.

I'm really curious about something. Could you please define
"anti-Americanism" for us?

The phrase 'anti-American' makes my skin crawl. It really does. And the idea that you can 'hate' America. How can you 'hate' a landmass?

I think part of the reason the term is so awful is that it does exaclty what it says on the tin. When American politics, media portrayal, or whatever are criticised from elsewhere - or within - it's often for simplifying complex issues that need patient debate and mutual understanding of opposing points of view. Not a reduction of every single polarising topic to meaningless soundbites. Such as 'anti' American.

Ok, roll up roll up! Who's going to say I'm 'anti American' first?

The interesting thing to me, is how you will attack Islam on any available premise.... and then bitch about people even discussing Christianity.

Notice how I didnt even mention the word Islam in my first post would you Grave. Kindly refrain from Hijacking.

For the hundred and fiftieth time: Proof please. Just one tiny bit of evidence that Saudi Arabia does this. Is it really all that much to ask? Come on, Neo. I've been very patient with you and tried to explain things as best as I could, but it's getting out of hand. Every thread you have ever made states that the Saudi government doesn't allow Bibles and imprisons people for being Christian, but you've shown not one iota of proof. Not one.


One word: "Mutawwa'in"

One word: "Mutawwa'in"

That's not proof. Show me proof. The US has police, too. So what? You have a problem with a nation that has police?

Show me in the Mutawwa'in's mandate where it says to arrest Christians and burn Bibles. It doesn't. Their job is to ensure Muslims are acting in a proper Muslim manner while in public, not to regulate non-Muslims.

Wrong branch of the police. But try again. You got nothin'.

The Government requires the Mutawwa'in to follow established procedures and to offer instruction in a polite manner, but occasionally there will be some goniff who goes off and acts on his own. This happens in every country's police force.

Or do you think since it's an Islamic police force that it must never make a mistake and if it does, it means all of Islam is bad. I suspect you do.

Oh ... and here ... the US State Department's report on Saudi Arabia:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm

I think you'll find just how wrong you are. You're going to try to paint the Mutawwa'in as some jack-booted secret police, but they're not. Hell, they can't even hold someone for more than 24 hours in most cases!

That's not proof. Show me proof. The US has police, too. So what? You have a problem with a nation that has police?

Show me in the Mutawwa'in's mandate where it says to arrest Christians and burn Bibles. It doesn't. Their job is to ensure Muslims are acting in a proper Muslim manner while in public, not to regulate non-Muslims.

Wrong branch of the police. But try again. You got nothin'.

The Government requires the Mutawwa'in to follow established procedures and to offer instruction in a polite manner, but occasionally there will be some goniff who goes off and acts on his own. This happens in every country's police force.

Or do you think since it's an Islamic police force that it must never make a mistake and if it does, it means all of Islam is bad. I suspect you do.

Oh ... and here ... the US State Department's report on Saudi Arabia:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm

I think you'll find just how wrong you are. You're going to try to paint the Mutawwa'in as some jack-booted secret police, but they're not. Hell, they can't even hold someone for more than 24 hours in most cases!
Hey, I got chased and nearly beat up by those guys. I was out for a jog around the base, t-shirt, shorts, shoes, pistol, and gas mask, and this car full of crazies starts chasing me. The guys that weren't driving were waving sticks at me. Finally I stopped and pulled out the .45. Didn't point it at anyone, just drew it out. They calmed down and went away. Never thought my first self-defense use of a weapon would be on "friendlies".

*gets camera, waits at American embassy to see protesters*

Damn .. I'm few days late.

-------------

But seriously, Muslims all over the world are making a big stupid fuss over the Koran flushing. My main worry would be, wouldn't it clog up the toilet? Will be hard to fix it ya know.

The BBC is possibly the least biased media around. They are state sponsored but are utterly unafraid to go head-to-head with that government whereas what I've seen of Fox (with no govt sponsorsip) is pretty much the government line.

<<Hey, I got chased and nearly beat up by those guys. I was out for a jog around the base, t-shirt, shorts, shoes, pistol, and gas mask, and this car full of crazies starts chasing me. The guys that weren't driving were waving sticks at me. Finally I stopped and pulled out the .45. Didn't point it at anyone, just drew it out. They calmed down and went away. Never thought my first self-defense use of a weapon would be on "friendlies".>>

Y'know, in most Muslim countries it is illegal to wear shorts/t-shirt without some extra covering. My parents went to Senegal and had to comply with those laws, simply being US military does not exempt you from the laws of whatever country you are in. Try respecting local culture, it really will get you in a lot less trouble.

...
Y'know, in most Muslim countries it is illegal to wear shorts/t-shirt without some extra covering. My parents went to Senegal and had to comply with those laws, simply being US military does not exempt you from the laws of whatever country you are in. Try respecting local culture, it really will get you in a lot less trouble.
That's rich.

How so? If I go to another country I try to comply with local customs and mores, also, I make an attempt to use the language it makes them feel better about dealing with me and it makes me feel that I have been to the country rather than just gone to a hotel, done some place 'touristy' and shopped.

Need I list the BBC, who was so biased that a British battleship refused to watch it?

Perhaps the Royal Navy blocked the BBC because it was not good enough at providing its sailors with pro-war propaganda?

Being White (caucasian), Christian or Male is BAD.

-snip-

http://sfj.abstractdynamics.org/archives/102104strawmanclimbing.JPG

Oh noes! Quick, kill the straw man!!!

Perhaps the Royal Navy blocked the BBC because it was not good enough at providing its sailors with pro-war propaganda?

OK, and how does voting for Kerry make someone anti-American?

RElax, Swimmingpool, it doesn't.

It may be an indicator of American Leftism, but it does not indicate anti-Americanism.

(there are, after all, fundamentally different flavours of American Leftist, not all of whom hate and mistrust other, non-Leftist, Americans.)

Back on the main topic (the original main topic) the reason it gets no coverage, is that the Saud family is a monarchy specifically charged with maintaining the Islamic Holy Land, this means that Islam (in the accepted flavour) is top-dog. Christianity is pretty well isolated to secular states where there is at least a nominal separation of church-and-state. Not so in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Incidentally, yes, the religious police in Saudi can and will pop foreigners if they feel the foreigner is being insufficiently sensitive to Islamic cultural imperatives. This is "Business as Usual" there, welcome to the wonderful world of Wahhabism and Sharia law.

The other reason it gets so much airplay (the Qu'ran flushing incident) is that since Vietnam, there has been a feeling that any and all American Military Actions are somehow tainted, like every guy in uniform is just itching to pull a My-Lai if he can.

We saw this in Grenada, and Lebanon before that, we also saw it in the Panamanian situation (the Arrest of Noriega). Oddly enough, we didn't see it in any of the operations mounted by the Clinton Administration (Serbia, Bosnia, Kosovo), but that's because the Left wanted those operations mounted.
Wes Clark issued some bad orders that got people killed in the balkans, this was barely acknowledged, much less covered, in the U.S.
(Lighting up refugees is generally considered "bad".)

The American Media has been slavering for another Vietnam since...well, since Vietnam ended. We saw speculations in GW-1, and again in Afghanistan, that did not come true. If you contrast how most of those islamic countries treat their prisoners (including who gets to become a prisoner in most of those countries), what happened at Abu Ghraib was comparatively gentle and respectful treatment, same with the "Revelations" about Gitmo.

But it's no fun to write "Dog Bites Man" stories. It's not going to get you a pulitzer prize or sell additional newscopy, it won't get your publisher invited to the really cool parties in Paris, London, or Berlin, either.

Playing up "American Abuses" and printing every negative, stereotyped, rumour you can obtain will.

"dog bites man" doesn't win attention, but "Man bites Dog" does.

The American Media has been slavering for another Vietnam since...well, since Vietnam ended. We saw speculations in GW-1, and again in Afghanistan, that did not come true. If you contrast how most of those islamic countries treat their prisoners (including who gets to become a prisoner in most of those countries), what happened at Abu Ghraib was comparatively gentle and respectful treatment, same with the "Revelations" about Gitmo
You don't get it. It's not a great leftist conspiracy that causes people to blow US abuses out of proportion. It's a reaction to the constant US self-descriptions as guardians of human rights and becaons of liberty.

That's the difference. Almost every Middle East countries routinely practices worse torture than America does, but none of the make them proclamations about themselves that America does. This doesn't make their torture acceptable, but it does tell you why it is not given so much media coverage.

You are correct, though, that Saudi customs do not allow non-Muslim religious material to pass through in civilian hands. There is a reason, and a very good reason for this,
What could possibly be a good reason for this? Please don't tell me that you're an apologist for the Saudi regime.

Hey, I got chased and nearly beat up by those guys. I was out for a jog around the base, t-shirt, shorts, shoes, pistol, and gas mask, and this car full of crazies starts chasing me. The guys that weren't driving were waving sticks at me. Finally I stopped and pulled out the .45. Didn't point it at anyone, just drew it out. They calmed down and went away. Never thought my first self-defense use of a weapon would be on "friendlies".

You sure they were Mutawwa'in and not just some local bubbas? They have those in all countries, you know, not just the US. :D

What could possibly be a good reason for this? Please don't tell me that you're an apologist for the Saudi regime.

Apologist? No, but I do understand their reasons for doing what they do. A little understanding goes a long, long way.

To put it in a nutshell, they don't want Christian Evangelicals coming into the holiest cities of Islam and preaching on the street in an attempt to convert people who may be there on Hajj. Since there is no way to differentiate between an Evangelical and any other kind of Christian, then it was deemed that all Christian materials be banned.

It was the same way when the Christians controlled Jerusalem. They wouldn't let Jews pray anywhere but the kotel (Western Wall). However, Mecca and Medina aren't holy to anyone but Muslims, so there is no reason to allow Christians and/or Jews to pray there.

Personally, I agree with them. I wouldn't want to be on Hajj and have some American Idiot screaming at me about how I'm going to Hell or worshipping a Moon God or whatever. Would you?

Mecca is to be a safe haven for all Muslims. It was never meant to be a globally "free place". A non-Muslim can't even enter Mecca at all. Saudi, yes, but not Mecca. Then again, I am not under the delusion that I should be allowed to go anywhere I please and do whatever I please once I get there.

You sure they were Mutawwa'in and not just some local bubbas? They have those in all countries, you know, not just the US. :D
I don't really know. When I told the XO about the incident, he muttered something about religous police. It was on a secure base, so I figured they had some connection to the government. It was also the only incident that I'd encountered or heard about. I think the word was passed to them to lay off.

To be fair, I wouldn't have dressed like that in downtown Riyad. As a former soldier(?), you know that PT is one of those things that helps the time pass on long deployments.

How so? If I go to another country I try to comply with local customs and mores, also, I make an attempt to use the language it makes them feel better about dealing with me and it makes me feel that I have been to the country rather than just gone to a hotel, done some place 'touristy' and shopped.
I guess I didn't make it clear enough. I was on a military base with at least 10,000 other Marines that dressed exactly the same from time to time. We were in the process of saving their sorry butts from Iraq at the time and PT is a good way to pass the time on a long boring deployment.

We had women driving trucks. Some of them even wore t-shirts on base. We weren't going to upset our whole force structure so a couple mullahs in a jeep would be happy.

I'm not saying a damn thing about women so why you bring that in I don't know. What I'm saying is that it really isn't hard to wear trousers and a long-sleeved shirt, it certainly won't mess up your force structure.

I'm not saying a damn thing about women so why you bring that in I don't know. What I'm saying is that it really isn't hard to wear trousers and a long-sleeved shirt, it certainly won't mess up your force structure.
But running in the desert really sucks when you wear all that.

Well it's what you'd have to fight in.

It's true though, running in the heat sucks.

We had women driving trucks. Some of them even wore t-shirts on base. We weren't going to upset our whole force structure so a couple mullahs in a jeep would be happy.

Nod. And nor should you have to, especially on base. The Saudi government has always been very accomodating to the US Military. Although sometimes an asshole pops up with a personal vendetta.

Kinda obnoxious, but you know how it goes. Like I said, dumb bubbas in every country. The only time I ever had a problem was when I was out running early one morning through a village in Kuwait. I have tattoos on my forearms and I was in a T and apparently I offended some women. I apologized and simply chose a different route to run the next morning that didn't take me near the market where women were.

A lot of people seem to think we're just the Jolly Green Giant, tramping around the planet, doing whatever we please willy nilly. Most of the soldiers I know would go out of their way to make sure not to offend the locals. They were, after all, our hosts.

Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal? When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.
This is nothing new. Apparently, people the world over have so few problems of their own to resolve that they feel free to riot, rape, pillage and kill because some damned rag of a "News" magazine couldn't be bothered to get their damned facts straight.

Idiocy. Total idiocy!

Ah yes, my hatred knows no bounds. I'm just a hate-filled guy, as you can read right there in my post! :)

Seeing as I am mixed-race,
not a Christian,
don't approve of the war in Iraq,
and don't like Bush very much.

I'm just ribbing you ultra-liberals because you aren't my political bedfellows.

You can rip my post, but only because it cuts a little too close to home. The anti-Americanism inherent in European/United Nations/U.S. Liberalism is all the same nowadays.

It has gotten to where I cannot tell a New York Democrat from a Londoner. Used to be different flavours of disdain for America.

I'd imagine the only thing we agree on is that the US should stop all foreign military presence... Which I truly do believe.

If it makes you feel any better, you guys are winning the cultural war. America cannot stand together when we disagree on so many fundamental issues... And the self-annihilation of liberalism has gotten so deep into the U.S. culture that I don't think we can do anything to reverse it.

How does it cut too close to home?

"you guys are winning the cultural war"... which 'guys' would those be exactly... and why am I one of them?

Your prior post seems to disrespect pretty much every minority you can think of (you MAY have left black lesbian crippled midgets out...), and yet you seem to be trying to explain that away now, as responding to a flaw in 'liberal' thinking?

What are these 'fundamental' issues that are destroying America?

Where is the material to support your rhetoric?

And, while we are at it... what is an 'ultra-liberal'? It sounds like anything that actually promotes equality or fairness is being immediately rubbished by you, as being 'ultra-liberal'.... (as though 'liberal' is a bad thing).

Isn't it more likely that, since US politics are so far to the Right of most of the 'civilised' world... America is actually being torn apart by near-Fascist intolerance?

The Wall Street Journal had a very good opinion (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006700) article on the matter. The whole thing is worth a read, but the conclusion is a must read. There is a double standard that exists in some media and it probably dates back to the antipathy that developed during the war in Vietnam. Anyhow here is the quote. It stands on its own.

We aren't saying that reporters shouldn't be skeptical, and they certainly have a duty to report when a war is going badly. Where the press corps goes wrong is in always assuming the worst about military and government motives. Thus U.S. intelligence wasn't merely wrong about Saddam Hussein's WMD, it intentionally "lied" about it to sell an illegitimate war. Thus, too, an antiwar partisan named Joe Wilson with a basically unimportant story about uranium and Niger is hailed as a truth-telling whistle-blower. And reports from Seymour Hersh in late 2001 that the U.S was losing in Afghanistan set off a "quagmire" theme only days before the fall of the Taliban. The readiness of Newsweek to believe a thinly sourced allegation about the Koran at Guantanamo is part of the same mindset.

We have all been reading a great deal lately about both the decline of media credibility, and the decline of both TV news viewership and newspaper circulation. Any other industry looking at such trends would conclude that perhaps there is a connection. Certainly a press corps that wants readers to forgive its own mistakes might start by showing a little more respect and understanding for the men and women who risk their lives to defend the country.

Notice how I didnt even mention the word Islam in my first post would you Grave. Kindly refrain from Hijacking.

Try harder, Neo... responding about your subject matter is not 'hijacking'.

It's just unpleasant for you, because it reveals you in your true colours:

"Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal? When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place".

Note: I edited in the bold... I admit it, but the words are your own.

You complain about the unfairness of Christian holy books being (allegedly) destroyed with little fuss; while Moslem holy books being destroyed is big news.

Okay - you didn't SAY Islam... but you did say "Muslim".. perhaps you know that the two are somehow related?

You are making a fuss about the press frenzy surrounding desecration of the Koran... which IS a holy book.

One would have thought that: since Christianity are both children of the same mother-religion, and since they both have special holy books.... one would have thought you would be making a fuss about the desecration ITSELF...

But no, your worry is how Islam is getting preferential treatment....

Y'know, in most Muslim countries it is illegal to wear shorts/t-shirt without some extra covering. My parents went to Senegal and had to comply with those laws, simply being US military does not exempt you from the laws of whatever country you are in. Try respecting local culture, it really will get you in a lot less trouble.exactamente

You are making a fuss about the press frenzy surrounding desecration of the Koran... which IS a holy book.


No, I made a fuss about the double standard. I dont think its bad that they reported on the Quran being descerated. I think its bad if it was is innacurate, but thats something else for another time. I am angry that this is reported with such detail and focus when other issues which are very simmilar if not the same are ignored.

Interesting...

international law exempts diplomats from the laws of the land.

IMO the bottom line is:

does military personel gets the same exemption?

should military personel be judged by laws of the land?...by their judges?

is a military base exempt from the Laws of the land? (like an embassy)

Apologist? No, but I do understand their reasons for doing what they do. A little understanding goes a long, long way.

To put it in a nutshell, they don't want Christian Evangelicals coming into the holiest cities of Islam and preaching on the street in an attempt to convert people who may be there on Hajj. Since there is no way to differentiate between an Evangelical and any other kind of Christian, then it was deemed that all Christian materials be banned.

It was the same way when the Christians controlled Jerusalem. They wouldn't let Jews pray anywhere but the kotel (Western Wall). However, Mecca and Medina aren't holy to anyone but Muslims, so there is no reason to allow Christians and/or Jews to pray there.

Personally, I agree with them. I wouldn't want to be on Hajj and have some American Idiot screaming at me about how I'm going to Hell or worshipping a Moon God or whatever. Would you?

Mecca is to be a safe haven for all Muslims. It was never meant to be a globally "free place". A non-Muslim can't even enter Mecca at all. Saudi, yes, but not Mecca. Then again, I am not under the delusion that I should be allowed to go anywhere I please and do whatever I please once I get there.
well now they dont let you bring in pork or booze either. even if its for your own personal non moslem consumption.

Apologist? No, but I do understand their reasons for doing what they do. A little understanding goes a long, long way.

To put it in a nutshell, they don't want Christian Evangelicals coming into the holiest cities of Islam and preaching on the street in an attempt to convert people who may be there on Hajj. Since there is no way to differentiate between an Evangelical and any other kind of Christian, then it was deemed that all Christian materials be banned.

It was the same way when the Christians controlled Jerusalem. They wouldn't let Jews pray anywhere but the kotel (Western Wall). However, Mecca and Medina aren't holy to anyone but Muslims, so there is no reason to allow Christians and/or Jews to pray there.

Personally, I agree with them. I wouldn't want to be on Hajj and have some American Idiot screaming at me about how I'm going to Hell or worshipping a Moon God or whatever. Would you?

Mecca is to be a safe haven for all Muslims. It was never meant to be a globally "free place". A non-Muslim can't even enter Mecca at all. Saudi, yes, but not Mecca. Then again, I am not under the delusion that I should be allowed to go anywhere I please and do whatever I please once I get there.
Visiting monuments is a pastime that a lot of us enjoy. It's too bad the Muslims aren't as open as the Sikhs. When I was in India, I went to the Sikh Golden Temple. There were plenty English speaking Sikhs around so I could find out just what I was allowed to do. The only requirement to enter that temple was that one had to cover their head and wash their feet. There were plenty of Sikhs selling "Golden Temple" bandanas for those of us that left our turbans at home. Pretty impressive place. I'm sure there are some mosques that are just as impressive, but off limits.

No, I made a fuss about the double standard. I dont think its bad that they reported on the Quran being descerated. I think its bad if it was is innacurate, but thats something else for another time. I am angry that this is reported with such detail and focus when other issues which are very simmilar if not the same are ignored.

There is no reason to believe that it was inaccurate.

The story was withdrawn because the source claimed not to be able to verify it any longer.

However, the story was shown to the FBI PRIOR to publication - who did not point out any 'errors'.

Thus - the LOGICAL assumption is that the allegations are TRUE, but the source has been pressured to revoke his/her support for them.


But - on the topic... always with the Muslims. You never complain about double standards with OTHER religious groups, do you? It seems you trawl the news articles for Islamic material to attack. (Usually without doing any verification of your own).

There is no reason to believe that it was inaccurate.

The story was withdrawn because the source claimed not to be able to verify it any longer.

However, the story was shown to the FBI PRIOR to publication - who did not point out any 'errors'.

Thus - the LOGICAL assumption is that the allegations are TRUE, but the source has been pressured to revoke his/her support for them.


But - on the topic... always with the Muslims. You never complain about double standards with OTHER religious groups, do you? It seems you trawl the news articles for Islamic material to attack. (Usually without doing any verification of your own).
Let's say the magazine had wrongly reported the race of a criminal and produced a lynching, they'd feel much worse--which is why they generally don't report such things, a degree of sensitivity they don't extend to reporting on, you know, minor topics like wars. . . . People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because--let's be clear here--Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad.

Let's say the magazine had wrongly reported the race of a criminal and produced a lynching, they'd feel much worse--which is why they generally don't report such things, a degree of sensitivity they don't extend to reporting on, you know, minor topics like wars. . . . People died, and U.S. military and diplomatic efforts were damaged, because--let's be clear here--Newsweek was too anxious to get out a story that would make the Bush Administration and the military look bad.

I disagree.

I think that we have had enough prisoner abuses to know that international relations, as conducted by the smiling-faces of the US Armed Forces, leaves a LOT to be desired.

Remember, the whole prisoner abuse scandal only broke because of 'anonymous sources'... and this is just more of the same.

Only, this time - no pictures... so pressure CAN be applied to hush the story up.

It's a sad state of affairs if people take the withdrawal of the story as 'evidence' that no abuse took place.

I disagree.

I think that we have had enough prisoner abuses to know that international relations, as conducted by the smiling-faces of the US Armed Forces, leaves a LOT to be desired.

Remember, the whole prisoner abuse scandal only broke because of 'anonymous sources'... and this is just more of the same.

Only, this time - no pictures... so pressure CAN be applied to hush the story up.

It's a sad state of affairs if people take the withdrawal of the story as 'evidence' that no abuse took place.
Photos were leaked anonymously, but the story wasn't. The prison abuse scandal was first exposed by the Army itself, through the Taguba investigation that was commissioned months before the photos were leaked.

Photos were leaked anonymously, but the story wasn't. The prison abuse scandal was first exposed by the Army itself, through the Taguba investigation that was commissioned months before the photos were leaked.

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean...

The prison abuse scandal WAS the photographs, and the story that surfaced around them.

An Army investigation isn't the same as front-page journalism... the story wasn't 'exposed' until the pictures hit.

The interesting thing to me, is how you will attack Islam on any available premise.... and then bitch about people even discussing Christianity.
It's really quite annoying at times. I don't know why he persists in this behaviour.

I'm sure there are some mosques that are just as impressive, but off limits.

Mosques are not off limits, only the one which contains the Kabbah in Mecca. Any other mosque in the world is a free and open place to all people of all nations and religions.

I'm not sure why closing off that one to Muslims only is such a big deal.

It's really quite annoying at times. I don't know why he persists in this behaviour.

Likes the attention?

Or just really hates Islam?

Likes the attention?

Or just really hates Islam?
I think the answer is (B)

It's really quite annoying at times. I don't know why he persists in this behaviour.

I havent mentioned Islam. I am talking about the Saudi Arabian government and media coverage of what they do as opposed to what a few American soldiers may or may not have done (there is an increasing ammount of uncertianty about the whole thing). I would imagine you could seperate the things.

Likes the attention?

Or just really hates Islam?
I would say both, plus a smattering of pointing out the flaws of islam in his twisted sense of things, makes christianity look good.

I havent mentioned Islam. I am talking about the Saudi Arabian government and media coverage of what they do as opposed to what a few American soldiers may or may not have done (there is an increasing ammount of uncertianty about the whole thing). I would imagine you could seperate the things.
I would also imagine that you would be capable of separating what the Saudi government does from what every other muslim in the world does. You seem to take little things about islam, extrapolate them to every muslim and claim it's true, even if it's one fanatic or one fanatical government. Hell, if that's what this thread is about, then who the hell cares? Do you live in Saudi Arabia? Do you plan on going there any time soon? Then why do you give a shit?

I would also imagine that you would be capable of separating what the Saudi government does from what every other muslim in the world does. You seem to take little things about islam, extrapolate them to every muslim and claim it's true, even if it's one fanatic or one fanatical government. Hell, if that's what this thread is about, then who the hell cares? Do you live in Saudi Arabia? Do you plan on going there any time soon? Then why do you give a shit?

Funny, I havent done that before. Who are you thinking of. I have asked questions about doctrines, and clarifications have been made and I have been thankful for them. Keraluvia has been extremely helpful to me in this regard, as he explained about the Shari'a and the Hadiths etc. In any case, I have not, as you claimed in this thread, extrapolated this to cover every Muslim in the world. I am curious why it is though, that two strikingly simmilar things are completely imballanced in terms of their reported nature. As for me not living in Saudi Arabia, did the Americans live in Vietnam? Was it going to affect them in any way what government they had? I very much doubt it.

Let's not bring Vietnam into this. And never underestimate the power of "The Red Scare". Ironically is was far more powerful than Soviet Socialism.

I'm really curious about something. Could you please define
"anti-Americanism" for us?

Per www.dictionary.com it is defined as:

an·ti-A·mer·i·can
adj.

Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.


Most Europeans, US Democrats and UN Globablists and the Media are openly against the current U.S. Presidential Administration, ESPECIALLY its official policies regarding foreign affairs and the War on Terror. There is a strong dislike of the American people who are percieved to be in support of the current administration and especially those who voted for and defend Pres. Bush. This is in addition to the general consensus that Americans are cocky/egotistical/whatever else.

However, I personally define Anti-American a little more closely. By the above definition, I hold "anti-american" beliefs. Yet, I am a Patriot, so we'll get into a more detailed definition as follows:

Anti-Americanism-

A leftist socio-political movement whose intention is to radically alter the face of the USA in favour of the following principles:

1) Adoption of a Globalist policy whereby the US is not longer soveriegn but is a client state to the UN and subject to "overview" or external apparatus of control, in other words the extermination of a true Republic.

2) The destruction or severe reduction of US military forces and nuclear stockpile and most especially the disarming of the private US Citizenry, who are by Federal law the Unorganized Militia of our nation.

3) The socialization of our economy via Marxist economic principles, including strong controls on corporations and heavy support for unions. This also involves much higher taxes, more and larger government and intrusion on the business sector.

4) The Balkanization of traditional U.S. culture via promoting the false "African-American" culture as well as encouraging social dissidence and racial separation in other cultural/racial/national groups. Also includes the homosexual agenda. A major point in this offensive is the destruction of the nuclear family and traditional values in favor of split families dependant upon government. For a in-depth example of this plan in action, witness HARLEM or DETROIT. Political Correctness and Affirmative Action are the two most onerous examples of this Cultural Balkanist Fascism.

5) The descrediting of Christianity in specific and all forms secular morality in particular; in favor of "social conscience" ethics. The goal of this plank is to offer subjective morality under an athiest system instead of the objective morality of classic religion. Favours Strict Liability in US Law, rather than classic Common Law.

6) The complete control over public education in America, the destruction of meaning in our language and a lowering of educational standards. In short, to prevent the US children from comprehending the engines of society, thus taking control away from future generations and creating "dependants-by-design". To create a people too uneducated to escape from their chains of subjugation under Leftist lies regarding history, language, politics and economic theory.

7) The championing of FEELINGS over LOGIC. The worship of emotion instead of fact. The goal is to create hysterical responses that are false and demean both the nature of emotions and cause distrust between people no longer able to have conversations about objective truths, only subjective opinions.

8) The dilution of the Constitution by means of the "Living Document" falsehood and Supreme Court gerrymandering. Judicial Legislation, especially the despicable actions of the 9th Circuit Appeals Court is a major aspect. Any attempt to alter or lie about the true history of the USA, whether it is intentional or wishful. The best example is the 2nd Amendment, but lesser known examples include the Commerce Clause misinterpretation, the legality of taxation (ESPECIALLY the "progressive" tax scales) and so on.


I could go on and on, but I would imagine I've lost most readers by now.

The ultimate goal is a USA which is socialized, weakened and heavily "europeanized"; the end of the USA as a global Superpower.

I have many Liberal friends both here and in other nations. They feel that the USA is unjust and out-of-control. They promote public policy which they openly acknowledge would harm our Nation, but claim that social considerations are a higher priority...

Basically, if you think the USA is the bad guy who deserves a comeuppance and this is betrayed in your thoughts, ideals, politics or outright statements, you are Anti-American.

I think the USA is the greatest nation ever built, the most free. But it is being destroyed by Liberals and Conservatives who do not remember the lessons of our forefathers:

Live and let live, no entangling alliances, freedom for all. Free and strong markets monitered by a small, effective Federal Government that gives careful observance to the Rights of the People. An armed nation of free men, highly educated and without prejudice. A nation that respects religion without legislating morality that isn't common to all, a nation that loves immigrants but demands that they immigrate in spirit and mind, not just body.

I am no Bush Conservative. But I'm also no Marxist/Balkanist/Globalist Anti-American. IMHO, you guys are all crazy on both sides of the Left/Right Political fence. As long as that insanity stays across the pond or across the borders, we'll be fine. Where it concerns my fellow Americans, beware what you attempt to press on me. If it violates my Constitutional Rights, I will fight you tooth and nail, whether you come to me as a government inspector, a protester or a candidate for elected office.

If I've said anything that interests you, go immediately and read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged...

Basically, if you think the USA is the bad guy who deserves a comeuppance and this is betrayed in your thoughts, ideals, politics or outright statements, you are Anti-American.

Only if you think by changing the way USA acts, it is bad for USA. Many people belive that to be "Pro-American" at the current time is against the long term interest of USA. Think about the fate of Roman Empire.

Per www.dictionary.com it is defined as:

an·ti-A·mer·i·can
adj.

Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States....that makes me Anti-American...

I could go on and on, but I would imagine I've lost most readers by now..nah you can keep going...

I would imagine that most people have thier own definitions for everything...

thats why I only consider the official definition.

I havent mentioned Islam. I am talking about the Saudi Arabian government and media coverage of what they do as opposed to what a few American soldiers may or may not have done (there is an increasing ammount of uncertianty about the whole thing). I would imagine you could seperate the things.

You DID mention Muslims, though.

Some supsicious (obviously) minds MIGHT say that there was a connection between 'Islam' and 'Muslim'.

Isn't interesting how the reporting of some supposed descecrations of the Muslim holy book in one or two isolated incidents by a group of people whose actions were not sanctioned by the American government and not reflective of the policy of that government in general has been reported on with such zeal? When you must also remember that actual no-doubt-about it destruction of the Christian holy book by the Saudi Arabian government goes on every day, at an government instutional level, is fully sanctioned by the government and is an institutional policy of that government.

The question here being, why does the former cause so much more outrage than the latter? Espically since it has now been discovered the former never happened in the first place.

Culture. Respect for other cultures. Respect for other.....or a lack thereof

You DID mention Muslims, though.

Some supsicious (obviously) minds MIGHT say that there was a connection between 'Islam' and 'Muslim'.

No, I mentioned the Muslim holy book. Not Muslims the people

No, I mentioned the Muslim holy book. Not Muslims the people

Muslims the people? It's not a racial grouping, Neo.

Muslims are the religious persons of the faith we call Islam. The Koran is the Muslim holy book, if you will.

Thus - which people follow the Koran, Neo?

Quit messing around over semantics.

You have been caught in your own mouth-trap.

that makes me Anti-American...
:eek: I'm shocked! I had no idea you were anti-American, you, you anti-American! :rolleyes:

Muslims the people? It's not a racial grouping, Neo.

I didnt say it was. Muslims are people are they not. As are Christians, Hindus and Monster raving loony party voters. We are all people Grave.


Muslims are the religious persons of the faith we call Islam. The Koran is the Muslim holy book, if you will.

Thus - which people follow the Koran, Neo?

Quit messing around over semantics.

You have been caught in your own mouth-trap.

Rearly Grave, grow up. You are so determined to prove that I am some kind of Islam hating thug that you have missed the entire point of the thread. If you will look at the first post, you will see that there are, in the world today two activities going on that are remarkably similar. Desceration of holy books. The thing is though, that when one happend there was mass uproar despite only happening on a small isolated ocasion, once or twice, while the other is an institutionalised policy of a government. So I asked, why is it that the one got so much more attention than the other. I havent mentioned the Islamic faith or the Christian one in any terms except so far that both are victims here of acts against there respective holy texts.

Rearly Grave, grow up. You are so determined to prove that I am some kind of Islam hating thug that you have missed the entire point of the thread. If you will look at the first post, you will see that there are, in the world today two activities going on that are remarkably similar. Desceration of holy books. The thing is though, that when one happend there was mass uproar despite only happening on a small isolated ocasion, once or twice, while the other is an institutionalised policy of a government. So I asked, why is it that the one got so much more attention than the other. I havent mentioned the Islamic faith or the Christian one in any terms except so far that both are victims here of acts against there respective holy texts.

I don't need to prove you an Islam-hating-thug, Neo. Nor would I want to.

All I need to do is leave it a few days, and see what else you manage to dig up.

I think the 'big uproar' you are talking about, can be easily explained. The US has invaded other countries, and abducted their people. These people have been taken on little or no evidence, to containment facilites, where they have been tortured.

And yes, I mean, tortured.

Add to these ignobilities... not ONLY is the flesh broken, but these invaders have ALSO desecrated the holy books of these foreigners, in their faces... they have invaded, abducted and tortured... and THEN heaped religious persecution on top.

And they ahve done this all to OTHER nations... not even within their own borders.

Think about that, Neo.

Imagine if China invaded the UK and abducted random individuals that THEY CLAIMED might be mischief makers?

Imagine if they then proceeded to torture them for a few years?

Imagine if it then came to light that these invaders were wiping their asses on the pages of the bible - right in front of the abductees?

Do you think there MIGHT be an uproar?


You need perspective, Neo.

:eek: I'm shocked! I had no idea you were anti-American, you, you anti-American! :rolleyes:Ohhh... in an Anti-American and an American were to touch... would they explode?

Ohhh... in an Anti-American and an American were to touch... would they explode?
No, they would engage in very noisy, very wet, very slippery sex.

Baby seems we never ever agree
You like the movies
And I like T.V.
I take things serious
And you take 'em light
I go to bed early
And I party all night
Our friends are sayin'
We ain't gonna last
Cuz I move slowly
And baby I'm fast
I like it quiet
And I love to shout
But when we get together
It just all work out

I take-2 steps forward
I take-2 steps back
We come together
Cuz opposites attract
And you know-it ain't fiction
Just a natural fact
We come together
Cuz opposites attract

Who'd a thought we could be lovers
She makes the bed
And steals the covers
She likes it neat
And he makes a mess
I take it easy
Baby I get obsessed
She's got the money
And he's always broke
I don't like cigarettes
And I like to smoke
Things in common
Just ain't a one
But when we get together
We have nothin' but fun

I take-2 steps forward
I take-2 steps back
We come together
Cuz opposites attract
And you know-it ain't fiction
Just a natural fact
We come together
Cuz opposites attract

Baby ain't it somethin'
How we lasted this long
You and me
Provin' everyone wrong
Don't think we'll ever
Get our differences patched
Don't really matter
Cuz we're perfectly matched

I don't need to prove you an Islam-hating-thug, Neo. Nor would I want to.

All I need to do is leave it a few days, and see what else you manage to dig up.

I think the 'big uproar' you are talking about, can be easily explained. The US has invaded other countries, and abducted their people. These people have been taken on little or no evidence, to containment facilites, where they have been tortured.

And yes, I mean, tortured.

Add to these ignobilities... not ONLY is the flesh broken, but these invaders have ALSO desecrated the holy books of these foreigners, in their faces... they have invaded, abducted and tortured... and THEN heaped religious persecution on top.

And they ahve done this all to OTHER nations... not even within their own borders.

Think about that, Neo.

Imagine if China invaded the UK and abducted random individuals that THEY CLAIMED might be mischief makers?

Imagine if they then proceeded to torture them for a few years?

Imagine if it then came to light that these invaders were wiping their asses on the pages of the bible - right in front of the abductees?

Do you think there MIGHT be an uproar?


You need perspective, Neo.

Ok, you have explained why there IS uproar over this paritcualr issue. Thats not what I was questioning. I know why there is uproar over this particular issue, but my point was that this issue is very simmilar to another one which is totaly ignored. My question is, why is that issue totally ignored and this one focused on when they are both so simmilar and the one thats ignored is even more prevealnt and obvious.

Ok, you have explained why there IS uproar over this paritcualr issue. Thats not what I was questioning. I know why there is uproar over this particular issue, but my point was that this issue is very simmilar to another one which is totaly ignored. My question is, why is that issue totally ignored and this one focused on when they are both so simmilar and the one thats ignored is even more prevealnt and obvious.

I disagree - the 'other' issue... the alleged problems in some parts of the middle east, are internal issues.

Saudi Arabia is not sending elite torture squads into Belgium looking for people to shoot, people to abduct, people to torture.... and then copies of their holy books, to desecrate before their eyes.

If these IS an issue, it is internal.

And, let us not forget, for a moment, that Christians have a long, distinguished, and bloody history in the supression of other faiths and destruction of 'ungodly' material.

The reason why one is noticed, is that it is vivid, explosive and important. The reason why the other issue is ignored, is because it is not news.

News Flash: "Cat STILL Stuck in Tree: Fourth Week Begins"

I think the 'big uproar' you are talking about, can be easily explained. The US has invaded other countries, and abducted their people. These people have been taken on little or no evidence, to containment facilites, where they have been tortured.

And yes, I mean, tortured.

Add to these ignobilities... not ONLY is the flesh broken, but these invaders have ALSO desecrated the holy books of these foreigners, in their faces... they have invaded, abducted and tortured... and THEN heaped religious persecution on top.

Do you think there MIGHT be an uproar?

You need perspective, Neo.


Neo needs perspective? Hmmm... Al-Qaida invaded our country, abducted our people and killed them en masse. Why? Well, if you can believe Osama bin Laden, it is because the USA supports Israel and stations troops near Mecca and Medina (the holy cities).

Nevermind the fact that our troops do not in any way interfere with the religion of Islam. Nevermind the fact that we SUPPRESS Israel's obvious intention of overtaking all of the Middle East and creating millions of new Muslim refugees. Nevermind the fact that every President for decades has tried to broker peace between Israel and Palestine. Nevermind the fact that these Muslims were ALLIES WITH THE FREAKING NAZIS DURING THE LAST WORLD WAR AND THAT IS WHY JEWS HAVE A HOMELAND AGAIN- BECAUSE THE MUSLIMS LOST AND HAD PART- ONLY PART- OF THEIR LAND TAKEN AWAY, COMPLETELY IN ACCORD WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

So, in response to 9/11/01 and knowing the above facts, we invaded Afghanistan justly, but failed to completely redress our grievance against radical Islamic terrorists, since they are fairly spread out over there and have no formal structure. Thus, we continued:

In Iraq, we invaded mostly as a show of power to the Middle East and to stabilize the oil market by preventing the Euro from becoming the standard for oil purchases. Here was a country that was anti-wahabbi and anti-terrorist (yes, ANTI-terrorist), just poking along, ignoring only about 19 major UN resolutions, but had a history of bad blood with the USA. Really, truly, Saddam got knocked out of power just for spite. And it was a good thing. The (probable) WMD that now (probably) lies in Syria awaiting deployment against Israel was just an excuse, truly.

But sure enough, even in one of the few Middle Eastern nations that WASN'T brimming-over with terrorists, we find HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TERRORISTS. So many, that we soon realize that Al-Qaida is just attacking us in the Middle East instead of at home, which is bonus points for us during this little brush war.

During this war, we have mostly killed these people, but you are correct that we have captured and tortured (FOR INFO/INTEL) the "important" little bastards we've discovered. After the CIA is done with them, we stupidly dump them into Camp X-Ray awaiting EVENTUAL TRIAL OR JUST RELEASE, instead of just dumping their corpses in a pig wallow (my preferred treatment of them).

And during this little brush war, these Islamofascists have captured numerous, random people, often civilians from MANY DIFFERENT NATIONS, and have tortured them and then beheaded them FOR FUN. Not for information/intel, not to save lives, not even because the individual tore up a Koran (gee, how terrible..), but just because Islamofascists like to do gruesome shit to people FOR FUN.

Islam is a fucked-up religion AS IT IS PRACTICED IN MOST OF THE WORLD. And before you start throwing fireballs at me for admitting the above truth, I have Muslim friends who wholly agree with me. They point out that Islam does not condone female circumcisions, beheadings, terrorism or suicide. But like it or not, these things are common to the religion of Islam today like wine and communion wafers are common to modern Catholics.

Like it or not, Islam is the evil religion of our generation, much as the Catholic Church was the evil religion of the middle ages. Instead of killing astrologists and suppressing human knowledge, the Islamofascists are trying to kill the GLOBAL ECONOMY. Speaking of the Middle Ages, what do you think Osama Bin Laden seeks to recreate?

Unless it is bombs or fancy cars, these people are ANTI-TECHNOLOGY, ANTI-PROGRESS. They are neo-Luddites. They want to convert you or kill you, put Burkhas on your women, suppress intellectual freedoms and free speech, create an Authoritarian Theocracy and probably commit further genocide on the Jews just because they are the true religion of "peace".

The worst Nazi is better than the best Islamofascist. I'd take Hitler in charge of all of Western Europe over these Terrorists in charge of the Middle East any day- At least Hitler wasn't trying to burn the world down to ashes and recreate 1472!

Frankly, the U.S. response to 9/11/01 has been measured, minor and small in scope. Pearl Harbor was not nearly as damaging as the WTC attack was to our nation's economy and mindset, yet it resulted in the incineration of two cities by nuke, the incarceration of ALL JAPANESE-AMERICANS IN INTERNMENT CAMPS and the leveling of the Nazi war machine. By comparison to WWII, we're just getting started on these Islamofascists.

If you don't like it, good. But get used to it. I'll be damned if I ever submit to a crazed psychotic and evil faith like modern Islam.

BUT! For those quiet believers who do not abuse women, oppose human progress, seek to destroy America and so on, I have nothing but respect. Like any good American, I believe in freedom of religion. A Muslim who prays in his mosque and harms no one is not my enemy. Unfortunately, that Muslim is rare, especially in the Middle East, where anti-Semitic fervor has led to the Neo-Nazi-like religion you see today.

I frequently discuss my beliefs and my theories with my good Egyptian-immigrant friend. He is a practicing American Muslim who follows the Prophet and yet is still somehow able to tolerate Jews, little ole Infidel Me, other Americans and even, *gasp* the notion that Americans don't like Islamofascists!

If you put him in a room with Osama bin Laden or most terrorists, he would probably say a prayer for Allah's mercy on them and then shoot them in the head. He correctly percieves Islamofascism to be bad for TRUE ISLAM, bad for Muslims and bad for the WORLD IN GENERAL.

Now Leftists, feel free to question my friend's existance, tell me how I am hateful and evil, otherwise attack my character, or even better- attempt to rewrite history. I've heard it all before.

In an ideal world, the USA wouldn't be involved in other nation's business, it is a WRONG THING TO DO, I agree. But in reality, we are the world's police and the military power behind the UN. This tail wags the dog, so to speak, and right now the dog needs to be enforcing on the worst people in our world today- Islamofascists.

My guess is, barring major money struggles in funding the WoT, we will invade either Iran or Syria within two years...

Neo needs perspective? Hmmm... Al-Qaida invaded our country, abducted our people and killed them en masse. Why? Well, if you can believe Osama bin Laden, it is because the USA supports Israel and stations troops near Mecca and Medina (the holy cities).


It was years before Bin Laden mentioned Israel or the Palestinian problem.

He was only concerned with US forces in Saudi Arabia prior to and up until after 9-11.

Simple. No Israel motive involved to get the whole thing started.

And, let us not forget, for a moment, that Christians have a long, distinguished, and bloody history in the supression of other faiths and destruction of 'ungodly' material.


Im not entirely sure how this is relevent. Im talking about modern issues. Both Islam and Christianity did this. Whats your point.

It was years before Bin Laden mentioned Israel or the Palestinian problem.

He was only concerned with US forces in Saudi Arabia prior to and up until after 9-11.

Simple. No Israel motive involved to get the whole thing started.


I am basing my commentary on bin Laden's publicly stated reasons for the 09/11/01 attack, per his videos. I feel I need to mention that there were complete transcripts of his words available in the Muslim/Arab media, which I availed myself. He most certainly mentioned Israel in his line of reasoning, which was ignored or unknown to mainstream media, I guess.

Im not entirely sure how this is relevent. Im talking about modern issues. Both Islam and Christianity did this. Whats your point.

Our present is a picture painted by our past.

The things we see today, are informed by our prior actions. Do you not think today's Jews view the world through a slightly different perspective, after World War 2?

Do you not see that Christianity cannot just 'divorce' itself from it's own past?

You 'modern' issues, are the results of a millenium and a half of interaction between Christianity and Islam. To ignore that is folly.

And to bleat about how it is 'unfair' is to ignore a history unfortunately papered in the flesh of other people's holy words.

You 'modern' issues, are the results of a millenium and a half of interaction between Christianity and Islam. To ignore that is folly.

And to bleat about how it is 'unfair' is to ignore a history unfortunately papered in the flesh of other people's holy words.

Well Christianity has managed to ignore that, as in no Christian majority countries is the Quran supressed or driven underground in the same way the Bible is in Saudi Arabia. I still fail to see your point.

Well Christianity has managed to ignore that, as in no Christian majority countries is the Quran supressed or driven underground in the same way the Bible is in Saudi Arabia. I still fail to see your point.

Apart from anything else, Neo - Islam as an organised religion is about 600 years younger than Christianity.

Try examining what Christianity was doing 600 years ago, before you get too judgemental. In comparison, even the most extreme Islamic fundamentalists are paragons of virtue.

Also - You might want to look at the legacy of Christianity... remember, Islam viewing Christianity is viewing ALL of Christian history... and the Middle East has good reason to be wary of those claiming to represent the Christian faith.

I suspect that you fail to see my point, because you want to.

Apart from anything else, Neo - Islam as an organised religion is about 600 years younger than Christianity.

Try examining what Christianity was doing 600 years ago, before you get too judgemental. In comparison, even the most extreme Islamic fundamentalists are paragons of virtue.

Also - You might want to look at the legacy of Christianity... remember, Islam viewing Christianity is viewing ALL of Christian history... and the Middle East has good reason to be wary of those claiming to represent the Christian faith.

I suspect that you fail to see my point, because you want to.

To be fair, if modern Christian nations (of which none that I can think of are authorian theocracys like Iran or Saudi Arabia) were to judge Islam by ALL Islamic history then they too would be extremely warey of Islam. But they aren't and dont. They let Muslims live in their countries, they build their mosques. In the UK there is even government sponsorship of some community centres and mosques.

To be fair, if modern Christian nations (of which none that I can think of are authorian theocracys like Iran or Saudi Arabia) were to judge Islam by ALL Islamic history then they too would be extremely warey of Islam. But they aren't and dont. They let Muslims live in their countries, they build their mosques. In the UK there is even government sponsorship of some community centres and mosques.

Oh well, if the Council of Bradford helps finance mosques, I guess the Crusades must have just been a picnic with slightly raised voices....

Which part of Islamic history do you mean? The bit where the Christians attacked them on their own land? Or the bit where they attacked them on their own land again, a bit later? Or the bit where the Muslims got pissed with people attacking them and took over some enemy strongholds....... and then Christians attacked them on someone else's land?

Or maybe the bit where the Christians stole part of their land and gave it to someone else?

Which 'evil' chapter of their history did you mean?

Oh well, if the Council of Bradford helps finance mosques, I guess the Crusades must have just been a picnic with slightly raised voices....

Which part of Islamic history do you mean? The bit where the Christians attacked them on their own land? Or the bit where they attacked them on their own land again, a bit later? Or the bit where the Muslims got pissed with people attacking them and took over some enemy strongholds....... and then Christians attacked them on someone else's land?

Or maybe the bit where the Christians stole part of their land and gave it to someone else?

Which 'evil' chapter of their history did you mean?

Don't forget the part where Christians drove them out of Spain.

Don't forget the part where Christians drove them out of Spain.

Sorry, forgot that one... those Christians have had a terrible time....

Which part of Islamic history do you mean? The bit where the Christians attacked them on their own land? Or the bit where they attacked them on their own land again, a bit later? Or the bit where the Muslims got pissed with people attacking them and took over some enemy strongholds....... and then Christians attacked them on someone else's land?


The part where they invaded and occupied Spain

The part where they attacked the Church in Asia minor

Both sides did horrible things, that doesnt mean that either side should continue to hold grudges. In Britain we dont blame the modern nation of Germany for the evils of WW2.

The part where they invaded and occupied Spain

The part where they attacked the Church in Asia minor

Both sides did horrible things, that doesnt mean that either side should continue to hold grudges. In Britain we dont blame the modern nation of Germany for the evils of WW2.

Yes we do, Neo. I am a Brit, remember. Talk about Preaching to the Perverted...

Yes we do, Neo. I am a Brit, remember. Talk about Preaching to the Perverted...

Rearly? Well I certianly dont and I suspect neither do most of the population. That media proprioter (can't remember who) got showered down as being and idiot when he goose stepped around the deal between those German bussinessmen and the daily mail saying "all Germans are Nazis". Most of the population are aware of the diffrence between a German and a Nazi. And even if the country does blame modern Germany for WW2, that doesnt make it right.

The part where they invaded and occupied Spain.

The Moors conquered the Visigoths, who were adherents of Arianism - few were Catholics.

It's not as if the Moors conquered a Christian nation when they invaded Spain.

The Moors conquered the Visigoths, who were adherents of Arianism - few were Catholics.

It's not as if the Moors conquered a Christian nation when they invaded Spain.

I didnt say they did. My point was that Islamic history in the past can be equally compared to Christianity as having its barbaric tones. I didnt say it was specificly barbaric to Christianity, just that it has been. Basicly if in todays world, Christians and Muslims were to judge each other on the way that both civilisations have acted in the past then they would each have cause to fear the other. But the fact is that we shouldn't do that and we dont have cause to fear one another. So the fact that Saudi Arabia (which is a Muslim nation, though of course is not synonimous with Muslim beliefs) still refuses to allow Christians to practise in its country and conviscates and destroys Bibles is a suggestion that they are judging Christians on their past actions. The question remains of course, why when other parts of the world have managed to get over this.

Saudi Arabia (which is a Muslim nation, though of course is not synonimous with Muslim beliefs)

In 4,574 posts, that's the first time I've seen you say that.

Thank you.

In 4,574 posts, that's the first time I've seen you say that.

Thank you.

Its you I have to thank. I got very confused previously with the constitution being the Quran and other things. But youv'e explained a lot of things and I am grateful. Im sorry if I ever came across as being offensive.

I didnt say they did. My point was that Islamic history in the past can be equally compared to Christianity as having its barbaric tones. I didnt say it was specificly barbaric to Christianity, just that it has been. Basicly if in todays world, Christians and Muslims were to judge each other on the way that both civilisations have acted in the past then they would each have cause to fear the other. But the fact is that we shouldn't do that and we dont have cause to fear one another. So the fact that Saudi Arabia (which is a Muslim nation, though of course is not synonimous with Muslim beliefs) still refuses to allow Christians to practise in its country and conviscates and destroys Bibles is a suggestion that they are judging Christians on their past actions. The question remains of course, why when other parts of the world have managed to get over this.

The point is, though, Neo... the world of Islam has good reason to fear the Christian god. He has watered the deserts with their blood.

On the other hand, Christians have never suffered the same degree of 'cause' at the hands of the children of Allah.

You just have to bear that in mind when you look at how the two factions relate to each other.

Let me just imagine two men. Richard and Sal.

Richard is a lying bastard, a territorial maniac, a bloodthirsty backstabber, who repeatedly betrays Sal.

Okay - he's been okay for the last few weeks...

Sal, on the other hand has had a few loud words for Richard, but in general, he's kept the peace.

Look at it objectively... can you see why, even though Richard claims reform, Sal still eyes him warily... and hides the knives each time Richard comes over?

Rearly? Well I certianly dont and I suspect neither do most of the population. That media proprioter (can't remember who) got showered down as being and idiot when he goose stepped around the deal between those German bussinessmen and the daily mail saying "all Germans are Nazis". Most of the population are aware of the diffrence between a German and a Nazi. And even if the country does blame modern Germany for WW2, that doesnt make it right.

I, personally, do not blame Germany for the sins of the Third Reich, either.

But, you and I both know that our tabloid classes still do.

The point is, though, Neo... the world of Islam has good reason to fear the Christian god. He has watered the deserts with their blood.

On the other hand, Christians have never suffered the same degree of 'cause' at the hands of the children of Allah.

You just have to bear that in mind when you look at how the two factions relate to each other.

Let me just imagine two men. Richard and Sal.

Richard is a lying bastard, a territorial maniac, a bloodthirsty backstabber, who repeatedly betrays Sal.

Okay - he's been okay for the last few weeks...

Sal, on the other hand has had a few loud words for Richard, but in general, he's kept the peace.

Look at it objectively... can you see why, even though Richard claims reform, Sal still eyes him warily... and hides the knives each time Richard comes over?

I can see where your comming from, but dont you think that you would agree with me that Saudi Arabia's response today (baning Christian religious material, arresting/deporting Christians etc) is still a little over reacting to something that did happen over 800 years ago (the Crusades). Espically since the Crusades were started by an Islamic nation invading another nation. It would be slightly diffrent, I agree if the Europeans had been the agressors.

I can see where your comming from, but dont you think that you would agree with me that Saudi Arabia's response today (baning Christian religious material, arresting/deporting Christians etc) is still a little over reacting to something that did happen over 800 years ago (the Crusades). Espically since the Crusades were started by an Islamic nation invading another nation. It would be slightly diffrent, I agree if the Europeans had been the agressors.

The Europeans were the aggressors, Neo.

Crusaders went there to reclaim the holy land, and to return richer than they left.

Anything else is propoganda.

They didn't 'care' about Muslim on Muslim troubles... they cared about claiming territory in the name of 'God'.

I do agree that Saudi Arabia is not a model society in respect to their approach to religion... but they do have reason, if you think about it... and that does NOT justify Christian desecration of Islamic texts.

The Europeans were the aggressors, Neo.

Crusaders went there to reclaim the holy land, and to return richer than they left.

Anything else is propoganda.

While that might be true of some of the latter crusades, it certianly wasnt true of the first few. The Islamic nations invaded Spain and besieged Jerusluem. Some of the latter crusaders were excommunicated for their actions so its not as if the Church was blind to what they were doing. And to be fair, the point "reclaim" suggests it was originally theirs, which it was.


I do agree that Saudi Arabia is not a model society in respect to their approach to religion... but they do have reason, if you think about it... and that does NOT justify Christian desecration of Islamic texts.

Then it would seem on that issue we agree. This is happening more often.

While that might be true of some of the latter crusades, it certianly wasnt true of the first few. The Islamic nations invaded Spain and besieged Jerusluem. Some of the latter crusaders were excommunicated for their actions so its not as if the Church was blind to what they were doing. And to be fair, the point "reclaim" suggests it was originally theirs, which it was.


It wasn't originally theirs, Neo... only a few hundred years earlier, it had belonged to a very different people... who, like the Muslims, believed that the Christians had no claim on the land.

And, of course, THAT group stole it from someone else....

If we're going to discuss land by virtue of earliest inhabitants... ANYONE who isn't a Canaanite should be getting the hell out of Jerusalem.

It wasn't originally theirs, Neo... only a few hundred years earlier, it had belonged to a very different people... who, like the Muslims, believed that the Christians had no claim on the land.

And, of course, THAT group stole it from someone else....

If we're going to discuss land by virtue of earliest inhabitants... ANYONE who isn't a Canaanite should be getting the hell out of Jerusalem.

Then I think we can agree that both sides were as bad as the other?

I hate to say it sometimes but Muslims sometimes seem much more devout than a lot of 'christians' though I think most true Christians just don't get enough 'press' (nor do they seek it). The women cover their heads for fear of distracting men at prayer - some of the outfits I've seen in church would scandalize (or arouse) a saint. Regardless of the truth of the statement, too much has happened to muslims (the sexualized torture by women guards for example and their use of fake menstrual emissions to make their prisoners 'unclean', the frequent references to the war being a 'crusade') to make this statement believable - if it is true it's only the latest in a series of very inflammatory actions.

Read a bit of history - the crusades weren't as peachy as Robin Hood and Richard the Lionheart would have us believe. Those religious disasters spawned an undying hatred between the muslim and christian world (I think Scott's KINGDOM OF HEAVEN was spot on in his portrayal of the period). Certainly Saladin behaved with more honour than most Christians.

His Grace, etc. etc., the Supreme Lord Chancellor of Cathenia

Then I think we can agree that both sides were as bad as the other?

Not really, no.

On the grounds that those native to the area moving into the country is one thing, while another group of people, claiming a dubious 'spritual' link to someone who might once have been there, sailing a third of the way round the globe to spear the natives.... seems like a different matter to me.

Not really, no.

On the grounds that those native to the area moving into the country is one thing, while another group of people, claiming a dubious 'spritual' link to someone who might once have been there, sailing a third of the way round the globe to spear the natives.... seems like a different matter to me.

Unless - of course, you mean the whole Saudi versus desecrated Korans, thing...

In which case, yes... any religious intolerance is unacceptable.

See, just because I'm an Atheist, doesn't mean I object to people being tolerant of each other and their religions.