Constructive engagement

[ACPlayer]

Oil deal Haliburton and Iran (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GA14Ak01.html)

[ QUOTE ]
The latest instance of the "engage Iran" school is a US advocacy group dominated by prominent figures of the Republican Party, the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), which, in a paper titled "Iran: A New Approach" calls for the re-opening of diplomatic relations with Tehran, bringing to an end the 25-year estrangement in US-Iran relations following the hostage crisis in the American embassy in Tehran in 1979, shortly after the Islamic revolution of that year. CPD is co-chaired by the former US secretary of state George Schultz and former director of the Central Intelligence Agency James Woolsey. Indeed, the Bush administration has all but piped down its rhetoric over Iran lately.

But Iran seems to be seeking some transparency over the Bush administration's intentions. Certainly, the deal over South Pars will be profitable for Texas-based Halliburton. But Iranians do not want to be treated as a one-night stand by the Bush administration either. They would seek a more predictable, enduring, mutually beneficial relationship with the US - indeed, they always wanted it.

Washington's reaction to the media "leak" in Tehran two days back will be keenly watched. The (multi) million-dollar question is whether the Halliburton deal constitutes the first meaningful step of a concerted American diplomatic effort to engage Iran constructively. The initial reaction among the American strategic community is that there's some kind of a "dance" going on here.



[/ QUOTE ]

Far better that stupid axis of evil rhetoric.

[Cpt Spaulding]

Ok...Name a few other companies that can do the work.....Not very many are there...I do not support this war or administration don't get me wrong. I just think there are far more important issues out there to deal with. This is no worse than Clinton pardoning Mark Rich for the contributions to his library. Dishonesty owns our government no matter who is in office.. Pointing it out is getting old...We need to do something about it...

[ACPlayer]

Do you like the idea of us getting engaged commercially with Iran? I do, I think it is a positive step and want much more. See title: constructive engagement.

Cant figure out what you mean by this strange post.

[Cpt Spaulding]

Sorry misread your post, had several things going on when I read it....Maybe I should turn off the TV next time and actually read the post instead of assuming what it says...

I think we should be more worried about Iran's Nuclear program rather than putting up a couple strip malls and a taco bell. Sure it would be a good step in the right direction. I think it is just a premature step at this point.

[ACPlayer]

It is called a "dance". Give a little, get a little then a little more. Baby steps with the eye on the big picture.

Call them the axis of evil they will do everything they can to defend themselves from the underlying threat of attack. A little smile, a little kiss, a glass of wine, a nice meal and then a nice healthy marriage.

[MMMMMM]

Trying to engage Iran while the mullahs are in power is like trying to have sex while wearing a full suit of armor.

First get rid of the mullahs; then engage the Iranian people who want to be engaged.

The people of Iran are pretty young, educated, and progressive (at least for the Middle East); and most of them hate the mullahs' rule but are powerless against it. The mullahs beat them down whenever they try to demonstrate. The iron-fisted ruling mullahs of Iran are Dark Age morons (who are also corrupt and who steal billions from the country). Take them out; they, not the Iranian people, are a significant part of the axis of evil.

Regime change is a good thing in some cases. Drop a few bombs on the mullah's next grand assembly. This approach will also take out the mullah's nuclear program. Free the Iranian people from their Dark Age tyrants. Then you can have all the "constructive engagement" you want--with the people of Iran, not with some Dark Age madmen.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Trying to engage Iran while the mullahs are in power is like trying to have sex while wearing a full suit of armor.

First get rid of the mullahs; then engage the Iranian people who want to be engaged.

The people of Iran are pretty young, educated, and progressive (at least for the Middle East); and most of them hate the mullahs' rule but are powerless against it. The mullahs beat them down whenever they try to demonstrate. The iron-fisted ruling mullahs of Iran are Dark Age morons (who are also corrupt and who steal billions from the country).

[/ QUOTE ]

All too true.

[ QUOTE ]
Take them out; they, not the Iranian people, are a significant part of the axis of evil.

Regime change is a good thing in some cases. Drop a few bombs on the mullah's next grand assembly. This approach will also take out the mullah's nuclear program. Free the Iranian people from their Dark Age tyrants. Then you can have all the "constructive engagement" you want--with the people of Iran, not with some Dark Age madmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I've read is that while the young, pro-America base in Iran would love to see the mullahs leave power, they don't want it to be America who takes them out. Iranians, like most Arabs, have a lot of pride. They still feel like they can change from within, rather than have a massive world power with its own agenda invading their country. It will be interesting to see how this administration and future ones balance the perceived threat to American security with the Iranian people's desire to keep their struggle internal.

[zaxx19]

Iranians, like most Arabs,


Hmm....I didnt know most Iranians were Arabs, I was under the impression they were Persian and Turkoman.

[MMMMMM]

You raise some good points.

With Iran's Parliament shouting "Death To America" as they approved a bill to enrich uranium, I don't think it would be too bad a thing to see Iran's entire Parliament flattened in a pre-emptive strike, however. Maybe the young Iranians who are pro-democracy would understand, and put their pride aside. At any rate I view the Iranian Parliament's outburst and obvious intent as grounds for the pre-emptive deposing of a backwards and dangerous regime.

"COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
Iran's threats discredit Kerry nuke policy
Parliament shouts 'Death to America' in vote to enrich unranium
Posted: November 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

On the eve of the U.S. presidential election, Sen. John Kerry's campaign continues to advocate normalizing relations and providing nuclear fuel to Tehran's radical mullah-led regime despite the Iranian parliament's defiant, anti-American vote to proceed with uranium enrichment, a key process in development of atomic weapons.

Shouting "Death to America," and "Death to Israel," Iranian lawmakers decided unanimously Sunday to back the outline of a bill that would require the Islamic government to resume uranium enrichment.

An activist in the Iranian democracy movement believes the American mainstream media is ignoring the impact the parliament's message has on today's U.S. presidential election.

"The actions of those calling themselves representatives of the Iranian people are the best proof that John Kerry is totally disconnected from real politics," said Aryo Pirouznia, leader of the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran.

SPONSORED LINKS

$150,000 Mortgage for Under $690/Month
Mortgage rates are at record lows. Save $1000s on your mortgage payment. Free quotes.
www.lowermybills.com (http://www.lowermybills.com)

Long Lasting Chest Congestion Relief
Order Mucinex Expectorants online through the official site. Learn how Mucinex tablets provide fast acting relief. Visit the site for local flu conditions.
www.mucinex.com (http://www.mucinex.com)

Kerry has been insisting that as president he would provide Tehran with nuclear fuel as long as it is used only for peaceful purposes -- a position similar to Britain, France and Germany's offer to provide nuclear technology in exchange for assurances Iran would stop enriching uranium indefinitely.

After the defiant parliamentary vote, the Associated Press reported Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Hossein Mousavian, said a compromise could still be reached with European negotiators to avert the risk of U.N. sanctions. But during discussion of the bill in the Iranian parliament, Mousavian said any agreement would not include indefinite suspension of unranium enrichment.

Pirouznia warned that Tehran's posturing "is a perfect game" played by a "masterful" regime that is only trying to buy time in pursuit of its ultimate aim, "bringing the Islamic republic to the four corners of the world at the expense of the Iranian people."

"And now the European Union is a witness to how it's been lured," Pirouznia said. "While Tehran negotiates abroad, inside they gather their zealots, their security forces and their so-called parliament to make it appear that the West is the bad guys."

Iran, he points out, is allied with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, through Tehran's sponsored terrorist group, Hezbollah.

The Kerry campaign did not respond to WorldNetDaily's request for comment.

WND has previously reported that Tehran already is engaged in an ambitious program to develop nuclear weapons to compliment its recently attained ballistic missile program, capable of reaching Israel. According to the latest intelligence reports, Iran has decided at the highest levels of government to produce a bomb within the next few months.

A senior Iranian official recently said the country was nearing completion of a uranium-conversion facility in Isfahan. Tehran said it intends to convert 37 tons of uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride, sufficient to produce five nuclear bombs. Last month, the IAEA said it believed the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan was operating on an experimental basis.

Iran insists in its communication with the West that the uranium enrichment is only for the purpose of producing electricity.

'Same blind alley'

Responding to the report on the Iranian parliament's defiance, Jerome Corsi, a consultant to Pirouznia, contended the mainstream press is "hiding the issue that Senator Kerry seems perfectly willing to go along with [Tehran's] plan and be led down the same blind alley that President Clinton followed when he gave nuclear fuel to North Korea."

North Korea has admitted it developed nuclear weapons despite agreements in the early 1990s.

"How can Kerry have on his website a position favorable to this Iranian theocracy when its legislators vote to enrich uranium as they scream "Death to America and Death to Israel," asked Corsi, who also has challenged Kerry's Vietnam record as co-author of the best-seller "Unfit for Command."

Corsi believes mainstream media outlets favorable to Kerry are attempting to whitewash the senator's policy.

"It's clear that Tehran is going to push for nuclear weapons regardless of how they couch the story," he said. "Anybody who doesn't see that is painfully naive."

Referring to the U.S. vote, Corsi said the story "certainly would be frightening to all supporters of Israel, Christian as well as Jewish, and to those who believe Israeli democracy is critical to U.S. national security interests."

The Bush administration is pushing for Tehran to give up its uranium enrichment prior to a Nov. 25 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, warning the U.S. will refer the case to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions if Iran does not comply.

Tehran, said Corsi, "would like to go into that meeting with a John Kerry victory in their back pocket."

"They know they could bully the IAEA and other nations with this below-the-surface communication that Iran intends to have full recognition as a legitimate regime, and as such, intends to pursue their decision to develop nuclear weapons as a matter of international right," Corsi said.

Also ignored, he contended, is the extent to which the "pro-mullah lobby" in the U.S. is influencing the Kerry campaign's policy positions.

Under oath last month, Kerry's chief Iranian-American fund-raiser repudiated the presidential candidate's stance of accommodation toward Tehran, declaring the Islamic regime should not be trusted with nuclear materials.

Hassan Nemazee, a former board member of a pro-Tehran lobby, said if the Democratic nominee had asked him his view of the Iranian regime, he would have said it should be trusted with no other intention than to build nuclear weapons.

The deposition was delivered in a $10 million defamation lawsuit against Pirouznia, charging the activist with defamation of character for accusing him of being an Iranian government agent. In a countersuit, Pirouznia contends that supporters of the cleric-led regime are funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Kerry campaign. "

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41229

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
It is called a "dance". Give a little, get a little then a little more. Baby steps with the eye on the big picture.

Call them the axis of evil they will do everything they can to defend themselves from the underlying threat of attack. A little smile, a little kiss, a glass of wine, a nice meal and then a nice healthy marriage.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the catch more bees with honey theory. One flaw with that though...The bee might sting you when you least expect it. We have helped people in the past only for them to turn on us. We are forcing way of life on these people and no matter how nicely we dance our system will not take. Think about how you would feel if some country invaded us and tried to install a monarchy. We would not lay down and take it up the ass. I agree these people need help, but we should feed them with a stick for awhile....

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm....I didnt know most Iranians were Arabs, I was under the impression they were Persian and Turkoman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this. You interpreted my wording incorrectly. What I meant to say was Iranians, like Arabs, are very prideful. However, some Arabs don't have much pride, like the ones who kill innocent citizens waiting in line to become police officers. So I said most Arabs. I'm sorry this disturbed you so much.

[andyfox]

"Trying to engage Iran while the mullahs are in power is like trying to have sex while wearing a full suit of armor."

I know. Take my wife.

Please.

[ACPlayer]

Doing to Iran what we have done to Iraq will not win us any friends even amongst the young western oriented liberal minded. The lessons of Iraq should be obvious to anyone who is watching.

It is sort of like dating a girl (to continue that analogy) who's father and you would rather have duel with pistols. Having a duel just risks getting killed, there are other ways to get the girl.

[ACPlayer]

The concept of Mutual Assured Destruction as the way to avoid nuclear war can and should be extend to Mutual Active Dependence.

Your misunderstanding of Fundamentalism (you unfortunately apply this only to Islam for your own reasons)- its roots and reasons for spreading are causing you to take a view that will risk our society.

[ACPlayer]

If you read my posts you will see that I am the last person to force our way of life on them, in fact quite the contrary. The neo-con notion (specially as extended by the likes of MMMMMM) call for us to spread democracy by dropping Nukes, taking out leaders etc. I think this is wrong. The way forward is to work towards letting them build their society while having cooperative and constructive relationships with them. In particular I consider the economic embargo of Iran to be wrong (as well as that of Cuba etc). If we trade with them, encourage their investment in us and our companies get to invest in them, the resulting creation of ties brings prosperity to the region (and us) and creates interdependence.

As I have pointed out before, China is a good example. When Nixon went to China it was considered an enemy, communist state. Today, China can no longer be considered an active military enemy (all posturing aside) as the economic stake of the Chinese in maintaining relations is way too high and vice-versa. If we make Iran and Cuba and Islam our enemy then, of course, they will take steps to counter this threat. Just as we would.

Along with active commerce in the country will come the forces that shape the body politic of that country. China, still a highly repressive, regime is now a bit more open and I would hazard a guess will continue to be a more open society. It is not for us to force that change, their people will make that happen in a durable lasting way.

Moving all-in with military forces is not good poker when viewed in the long run. Even MMMMMM recognized that the Iraq strategy mirrored the short term thinking of the tournament player rather than the long term thinking of the cash player.

[MMMMMM]

They chant, "Death To America!"--we should be saying, "Death to the Fanatic Idiots!"

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Moving all-in with military forces is not good poker when viewed in the long run. Even MMMMMM recognized that the Iraq strategy mirrored the short term thinking of the tournament player rather than the long term thinking of the cash player.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is, we didn't move all-in. Not even close to it.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Your misunderstanding of Fundamentalism (you unfortunately apply this only to Islam for your own reasons)- its roots and reasons for spreading are causing you to take a view that will risk our society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Islamic Fundamentalism is FAR more dangerous than Christian Fundamentalism. They are not the same thing AT ALL. That's why I focus on it.

Islamic Fundamentalism is not only a danger to our society, but it is a danger to every other society on the face of the Earth. Anyone who thinks this is not so is simply ignorant.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your misunderstanding of Fundamentalism (you unfortunately apply this only to Islam for your own reasons)- its roots and reasons for spreading are causing you to take a view that will risk our society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Islamic Fundamentalism is FAR more dangerous than Christian Fundamentalism. They are not the same thing AT ALL. That's why I focus on it.

Islamic Fundamentalism is not only a danger to our society, but it is a danger to every other society on the face of the Earth. Anyone who thinks this is not so is simply ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a huge proponent of religous tolerance and even I will admit this.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
You raise some good points.

With Iran's Parliament shouting "Death To America" as they approved a bill to enrich uranium, I don't think it would be too bad a thing to see Iran's entire Parliament flattened in a pre-emptive strike, however. Maybe the young Iranians who are pro-democracy would understand, and put their pride aside. At any rate I view the Iranian Parliament's outburst and obvious intent as grounds for the pre-emptive deposing of a backwards and dangerous regime.


[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMMM, you're a badass mutha fucka.

EDIT: [censored] [censored] Odd, it didn't catch it.

[wacki]

On second thought MMMMMM, how do we know it's really Islamic fundamentalism? The 9/11 suicide bombers went to strip clubs. Isn't that a no no according to Islam? Then again, it is sin according to the Bible as well, and porn is still a multi billion dollar industry. So who knows....

[MMMMMM]

I'm a huge fan of religious tolerance, too. The one intolerable thing is applied intolerance. And Islamists (Islamic "fundamentalists") are the most reliously intolerant people on Earth--and they want to force everyone else to conform to their narrow vision, through political and/or violent means. This is why Islamism is so dangerous, and in a class by itself.

[wacki]

I'm not sure you got my point. I was simply wondering if the terrorists on 9/11 were truly Islamic (Muslim?). A lot of those guys don't seem to be religious. Hence the reference to the strip club. I just see a lot of flaws in the more violent extremists that makes me wonder if they ever really picked up the book. It also makes me wonder what really is the primary problem.

I agree with you that the Koran has some very questionable and dangerous sections in it.

[MMMMMM]

Hi Wacki,

I was responding to this: "I'm a huge proponent of religous tolerance and even I will admit this."--not to your post about the 9/11 hijackers. Do you view posts in Descending Date Threaded Mode Condensed Threads like I do?

[MMMMMM]

I'm not necessarily saying we should DO that at this point...but the point at which we should do it may not be all that far off, given the Iranian Parliament's determination to acquire nukes and their hatred of us.

[ACPlayer]

Both are equally bad. Ask the Jews killed by the Nazi's.

Islamic fundamentalism is very bad. However, it is the nature of fundamentalism and the environments in which it prospers and is promoted that should be studied carefully. Islamic fundamentalism in today's world is a reacion to poverty and perceived or real injustices and attacks on people. Without those, the fundamentalist message falls flat and is no real danger to us. This is what you and others need to understand.

In any event, Iran in particular has not been a threat to the USA as far as I can tell. I know that you can see behind simple rhetorical (you have already demonstrated the ability to do that when it pleases your preconceived notions). The Iranian chants should be viewed the same way as the "axis of evil" speech. Rhetoric aimed primarily at internal politcal goals.

If American economy suffers a great deal, look for an accelaration of the fundamentalist trends already underway.

[ACPlayer]

We were assured that the best minds had created the best plans to win the war and the peace by the administration. So, in their mind they moved all-in.

Of course in hindsight it is now obvious that the "peace-niks" were right and the administration was wrong in the decision to move all in and totally in competent in playing the hand they initiated.

Compare, GWB's poker skills to Nixon (who's move was a long term good bet).

[MMMMMM]

If you call our involvement in Iraq, "moving all-in", I wonder what you would have called the U.S. involvement in WWII. "Moving all-in for real", maybe?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Both are equally bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Christian fundamentalism is willing to co-exist with secularism and a secular government. Islamic fundamentalism is not willing to co-exist; it holds that the laws of man cannot trump the laws of God, even in government. Thus Islamic fundamentalism is far more dangerous.

Additionally, some of its leading modern-day practitioners are terrorists like bin-Laden or Zarqawi, as compared to the likes of Falwell and Robertson (who limit their form of "terrorizing" to things like instilling congregations with fears of hellfire). bin-Laden however practices actual terrorism.

You are comparing the fruit of deadly nightshade with the fruit of the lemon tree, and saying they are the same. But deadly nightshade will kill you, whereas a lemon only leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

[ QUOTE ]
Islamic fundamentalism is very bad. However, it is the nature of fundamentalism and the environments in which it prospers and is promoted that should be studied carefully. Islamic fundamentalism in today's world is a reacion to poverty and perceived or real injustices and attacks on people. Without those, the fundamentalist message falls flat and is no real danger to us. This is what you and others need to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It simply isn't true that "Islamic terrrism in today's world is a reacion to poverty and perceived or real injustices and attacks on people." THAT IS A MYTH.

(excerpt)"1: Terrorism and poverty: What are the links?
Since September 11, a number of politicians, including President Bush, have linked poverty with terrorism. At the March 2002 World Development Summit in Mexico, world leaders declared that the fight against poverty was intrinsically linked to the fight against terrorism. Common sense would dictate that there is a direct correlation between poverty and terrorism, yet the evidence gathered thus far does not lend credence to this proposition, and if anything, supports the opposite.

A recent Princeton study of Israeli and Arab terrorism in the Middle East demonstrated that not only were most terrorists likely to enjoy a living standard above the poverty line, but they normally had at least a secondary education.(1)

(1) 'Education, Poverty, Political Violence and Terrorism: Is There a Causal Connection?' Alan B. Krueger, Princeton University and NBER and Jitka Maleckova, Charles University, Working Papers, Research Program in Development Studies, Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, May 2002. (end excerpt)

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/wsg/sept11/papers/root2.html

(excerpt)
It is not too difficult to examine whether there is such a correlation between poverty and terrorism, and all the investigations have shown that this is not the case. The experts have maintained for a long time that poverty does not cause terrorism and prosperity does not cure it.

In the world’s 50 poorest countries there is little or no terrorism.

A study by scholars Alan Krueger and Jitka Maleckova reached the conclusion that the terrorists are not poor people and do not come from poor societies.

A Harvard economist has shown that economic growth is closely related to a society’s ability to manage conflicts.

More recently, a study of India has demonstrated that terrorism in the subcontinent has occurred in the most prosperous (Punjab) and most egalitarian (Kashmir, with a poverty ratio of 3.5 compared with the national average of 26 percent) regions and that, on the other hand, the poorest regions such as North Bihar have been free of terrorism.

In the Arab countries (such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also in North Africa), the terrorists originated not in the poorest and most neglected districts but hailed from places with concentrations of radical preachers. The backwardness, if any, was intellectual and cultural — not economic and social. (end excerpt)

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/7250.html

[ACPlayer]

It is not I who said that the war was carefully thought out planned and that we had deployed all needed resources to manage the war and the aftermath.

In the minds of the people doing all the chip moving they were making a full commitment. Unfortunately, they are bad poker players and made a bad bet. Hopefully the result will be better than their play.

[ACPlayer]

Islamic fundamentalism in today's world is a reacion to poverty and perceived or real injustices and attacks on people.

The above is what I offered. I should have used the word(s) ".... poverty or perceived ...."

The cases of Punjab were from the injustices meted out to the Sikh community. Kashmir is Pakistan(s) govt sponsored terrorism to try and regain territory. Arab terrorism is from a combination of economic conditions and the injustices of the Israeli occupation and our support of oppressive regimes such as Saudi/Egypt. It is these injustices that allows fundamentalism to prosper. There is always fundamentalists in every society and they are all dangerous to that and/or other societies. When conditions are right they, like good politicians, use the conditions to exploit the people.

Thus Islamic fundamentalism is far more dangerous.

Tell that to the six million jews. That form of terrorism's causes can be traced to the economic difficulties brought by the versailles treaty. Christian fundamentalists in various forms have exploited the fears of people in the Yugoslavian countries. For much of our lifetimes most Christian societies have enjoyed prosperity. Were the roles reversed, there would likely have been Christian fundamentalist fervor. I would not be too sanguine.

Your studies trace the actual commitments of crime. The fundamentalist trend, which is what I was talking about flourishes in the climates that I have indicated.

[MMMMMM]

Your equating Nazi genocide of Jews with Christian fundamentalism is distasteful and wrong. Just because Hitler claimed Christian philosophy as a foundation for his despicable acts, does not imply that he had any basis to do so, nor is there any reason to think that Hitler was a genuine spokesman for Christian doctrine. Nazism, a racist totalitarian ideology, killed the Jews--not Christianity.

Also, in the New Testament there are no instructions by Jesus for Christians to kill Jews. So Christian fundamentalism is not the killer you are making it out to be, although certain people may use any pretext, including Christianity, to murder.

Islamic fundamentalism however draws support for killing non-Muslims directly from over 100 passages in the Koran which specifically instruct Muslims to fight, torture, subjugate and humiliate non-Muslims.

Your attempt at equivalizing Christian fundamentalism with Islamic fundamentalism is also absurd. You coveniently ignore that Christian fundamentalism today is quite happy to co-exist with secular government, whereas Islamism is most assuredly not willing to do so (and Islamists themselves are quite proud and adamant on this point).

In short you are simply wrong and, no doubt, will conveniently ignore all evidence to the contrary. Your responses thus far are a good indication of why arguing on the Internet is "retarded." Thertefore I must be an idiot to argue with someone who is incapable of assimilating presented evidence and altering his view.

So, in arguing with those who use idiotic arguments, I become an idiot too. But even there, there is a substantial difference of degree--a concept you and most of your "progressive" brethren are apparently somehow incapable of conceptualizing.

You may have the last word. I am finally done arguing with idiots forever--on this forum, and in real life too. Thanks so much for the invaluable lesson. I guess I just had to be kicked in the head with idiocy a great many times. before it finally sunk in as to what I am really up against.

Well thank God I am no longer an idiot. May you someday be able to say the same.

[ACPlayer]

It may be distasteful, but he used it to work up the fervor needed to further his goals. This is exactly what the fundamentalists in Islam are doing.

It is true that fascists like you are incapable of changing their views. Finally we agree on something. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Carl Jung made the same observation in psychological terms:

"To know where the other person makes a mistake is of little value. It only becomes interesting when you know where you make the mistake, for then you can do something about it. What we can improve in others is of doubtful utility as a rule, if, indeed, it has any effect at all."


[/ QUOTE ]

[Cyrus]

"In the New Testament there are no instructions by Jesus for Christians to kill Jews."

I told you many times over already but your thick skull just can't take in the stone cold facts of life : A Christian believes in both the Old and the New Testament. These are not some kind of "two versions" of Christianity; rather, they are like two halves of a whole. If you're supposed to know anything about your Christian religion, you're supposed to know that.

Now, moving on, I will let others elaborate on the commands meted out in the Old Testament to the faithful, about how to treat those infidels (Jews or gentiles) who are resisting Christianity.

...Have fun debating issues with maximum IQers. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

1. Old Testament = Judaism, New Testament = Christianity.

Christianity represents a new covenant with God.

2. Old Testament does not instruct believers to slaughter non-believers. Also, the bloody parts of the Old Testament are given in the general historical sense, not the present-command sense.

3. The Koran however directly instructs Muslims to fight, kill, torture, and subjugate infidels--and the Koran is considered to contain the instructions of God speaking to believers for all time--including the present.

An imperfect parallel might be Moses' Ten Commandments. If those Commandments also included a Commandment to kill, convert or subjugate non-believers, then it would be more like Islam. But it doesn't and it isn't. The Koran however contains many such direct injunctions to believers. The Old and New Testaments don't (and especially the New Testament instructs forgiveness, pacifism, turning the other cheek--NOT fighting and killing).

Hope this helps (though I doubt it will, because I suspect your ignorance is willfully self-imposed).

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Old Testament = Judaism, New Testament = Christianity

[/ QUOTE ]

Your two equations are inexact.

I'll let Mathers e (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/eminem/weasamericans.html)laborate.

[MMMMMM]

Irrelevant to the main point. Furthermore you cannot produce even Old Testament verses enjoining Jews to slaughter, torture, humiliate and subjugate non-Jews, on anything close to a par with the over 100 such injunctions in the Koran for Muslims to commit slaughter, torture, etc. of non-Muslims. Heck I'll bet you can't even produce one such verse in the Old Testament.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant to the main point.

[/ QUOTE ] You must be referring to your butting in with an irrelevant remark.


[ QUOTE ]
I'll bet you can't even produce one such verse in the Old Testament.

[/ QUOTE ] Of course I can. And you know it.

But I'll leave it for someone whose IQ is worthy of debating with you. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

Rereading these exchanges, Cyrus, it should be obvious why it is so often pointless to debate anything with you--as it would be obvious to you, too, if you would only look at it from an outside perspective.

Bruce Z was right long ago--your overriding interest is in "winning" your side of a discussion, not in deriving the truth.

[nicky g]

See here (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html) for countless examples of intolerance and cruelty urged in the Old Testament.

For example, on how to treat anyone in the land the Israelites conquer: "And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them"

[MMMMMM]

Thank you, Nicky.

So: fundamentalist Judaism is indeed brutal in some ways. But the argument was originally about fundamentalist Christianity versus fundamentalist Islam.

Cyrus deflected the point by claiming the Old Testament is part of Christianity too. But the Old Testament is essentially Judaism, whereas the New Testament reflects a new covenant with God through Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is the historical antecedent to the New Testament, but for Christians, the New Testament takes precedence.

Example: the Two Great Commandments of Jesus Christ are to supersede even the Ten Commandments of Moses (the Two Great Commandments of Jesus are: to love God with all one's heart, soul and mind; and to love one's neighbor as one's self). Example: the Judaic practice of animal sacrifice is no longer necessary, as full remission of sins is obtainable through belief in Jesus Christs' loving sacrifice for all humankind.

So, Nicky, thanks for doing the legwork Cyrus wouldn't do. But it actually does not impact the initial argument which is whether fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are equally bad, or not. It was a deflection thrown up by Cyrus, nothing more, which I saw fit to challenge him on. I also told him it was irrelevant to the central point: the instructions of Christianity are found in the New Testament, and more specifically, in the words of Jesus, in the Gospels (such as in The Sermon On The Mount).

The fact remains: fundamentally, the Koran repeatedly enjoins Muslims to kill, torture and subjugate non-Muslims, whereas fundamentalist Christianity (as in the New Testament) does not; rather, Christianity instructs its followers to forgive, turn the other cheek, love one's neighbor as one's self, and resist not evil. So it should be glaringly obvious to anyone who has read the Gospels and the essential parts of the Koran, which fundamentalism is worse, and which is more dangerous---and which is worse and more dangerous by many many degrees.

[nicky g]

"So: fundamentalist Judaism is indeed brutal in some ways. But the argument was originally about fundamentalist Christianity versus fundamentalist Islam. Cyrus deflected the point by claiming the Old Testament is part of Christianity too. But the Old Testament is essentially Judaism, whereas the New Testament reflects a new covenant with God through Jesus Christ. The Old Testament is the historical antecedent to the New Testament, but for Christians, The New Testament takes precedence. Example: the Two Great Commandments of Jesus Christ are to supersede even the Ten Commandments of Moses (the Two Great Commandments of Jesus are: to love God with all one's heart, soul and mind; and to love one's neighbor as one's self). Example: the Judaic practice of animal sacrifice is no longer necessary, as full remission of sins is obtainable through belief in Jesus Christs' loving sacrifice for all humankind.

So, Nicky, thanks for doing the legwork Cyrus wouldn't do. But it actually does not impact the initial argument which is whether fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are equally bad, or not. It was a deflection thrown up by Cyrus, nothing more, which I saw fit to challenge him on. I also told him it was irrelevant to the central point: The instructions of Christianity are found in the New Testament, and more specifically, in the words of Jesus, in the Gospels (such as in The Sermon On The Mount). "

Cyrus's point that both testaments form Christianity's Holy Book is correct, however. In CHurch, you get plenty of readings from both. Some strains of Christianity seem to rely a lot more on the former than the latter. Maybe you should establish a Christian faction that repudiates thr Old Testament entirely.

"The fact remains: fundamentally, the Koran repeatedly enjoins Muslims to kill, torture and subjugate non-Muslims"

It also says things such as "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. "

"There is no compulsion in religion."

and

"Say: O disbelievers! Let each person be free to believe (or disbelieve) whatever he or she wishes.
2 I worship not that which ye worship;
3 Nor worship ye that which I worship.
4 And I shall not worship that which ye worship.
5 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
6 Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. "


"So it should be glaringly obvious to anyone who has read the Gospels and the essential parts of the Koran, which fundamentalism is worse, and which is more dangerous---and that is worse and more dangerous by many many degrees. "

I don;t agree. Fundamentalism has little to do with Holy Books. It has to do with intolerant, cruel people wanting to impose their will on others and cherry-picking passages to justify it. Even if your claims about the Bible vs the Quran were true, we still ended up with the Crusades, witch burning, teh expulsion of the Jews, official anti-semitism, etc etc. Also, what you deem to be the "essential" parts of the Quran are I assume those that fit in with your agenda.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Rereading these exchanges, it should be obvious why it is so often pointless to debate anything with you.

[/ QUOTE ] You don't mean that. You haven't really re-read the thread. Otherwise, you'd have realised what a bunch of crap those claims about Islam or Christianity are.

[ QUOTE ]
Your overriding interest is in "winning" your side of a discussion, not in deriving the truth.

[/ QUOTE ] Personal attack noted. Always a sign of intellectual emptiness and ideological capitulation that.

[ QUOTE ]
Bruce Z was right.

[/ QUOTE ] Agree. Extremely so.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The initial argument is whether fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam are equally bad, or not. It was a deflection thrown up by Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ] The deflections happen only on your synapses. I categorically claim that "A Christian believes in both the Old and the New Testament. These are not some kind of "two versions" of Christianity; rather, they are like two halves of a whole." That you still dispute it only shows how ignorant you are about the very religion you follow.

And here are more brilliant theological arguments from ya. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The Two Great Commandments of Jesus Christ are to supersede even the Ten Commandments of Moses

[/ QUOTE ]
The two great what of Jesus?! The Ten Commandments of whom??

You realize you are posting up crap, right? /images/graemlins/cool.gif



[ QUOTE ]
...fundamentalist Christianity, as in the New Testament...

[/ QUOTE ] And you are making up stuff as you go along. It's embarassing.

[MMMMMM]

Nicky,

The later parts of the Koran are generally considered by scholars to supersede the earlier parts. The New Testament builds on and supersedes the Old Testament, for Christians.

The disturbing passages in the Koran, which I have repeatedly referenced, are extremely numerous indeed, and many of them come later than the earlier passages which are more peaceful.

The whole POINT of Christianity is a new covenant with God, and the teachings of Jesus. True fundamentalism is nothing more nor less than taking such teachings literally and attempting to put them into practice. Since in Christianity there are not found the numerous evil injunctions to kill non-believers--and such injunctions are plentiful in Islam--it should be OBVIOUS which fundamentalist approach is the worse. Now add in the present-day practitioners, and we see that the extent of Falwell's "terrorism" is words alone, whereas Islamists routinely slaughter innocents in the name of their religion. Does Falwell do that? Does he put fatwas on the heads of sheikhs he thinks have committed blasphemy? They do it to him--and to Salman Rushdie--and to many others.

You ought to get over the "all things are equal" nonsense and take a real hard look at what ISN'T equal. What is the point of having gray areas (as opposed to purely black and white) if you are unable or unwilling to differentiate between various shades of gray?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The deflections happen only on your synapses. I categorically claim that "A Christian believes in both the Old and the New Testament. These are not some kind of "two versions" of Christianity; rather, they are like two halves of a whole." That you still dispute it only shows how ignorant you are about the very religion you follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly, Christians believe in the Old Testament. But for Christians, the teachings of Jesus supersede what has gone before. That is the point; that, and the new covenant with God.

[ QUOTE ]
And here are more brilliant theological arguments from ya.

Quote:
The Two Great Commandments of Jesus Christ are to supersede even the Ten Commandments of Moses


The two great what of Jesus?! The Ten Commandments of whom??

You realize you are posting up crap, right?

[/ QUOTE ]



THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF MOSES:

(excerpt)"The Ten Commandments were written on Tablets of Stone supposedly by the hand of God.

This event occurred at Mount Sinai when God entered a special and unique covenant relationship with the nation of Israel.

The Ten Commandments were the specific terms, or 'words of the covenant' that were written on the Tables of Stone at My Sinai: "He wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments."

The Ten Commandments, or covenant, was made only with the nation of Israel: "I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel."

According to the Bible, it was in approximately 1300 BC that Moses received a list of ten laws directly from God. These laws were known as the Ten Commandments and were transcribed as part of the Book of Moses, which later became part of the Bible. Many of the Ten Commandments continue in the form of modern laws such as "thou shalt not kill" (modern society severely punishes the crime of murder), "thou shalt not commit adultery" (modern society allows a divorce on this grounds) and "thou shalt not steal" (modern society punishes theft as a crime).

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's."


THE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS OF JESUS:

Matthew 22:

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

[Cyrus]

OK, so you write accurately this time that the Ten Commandments were written by God and were not "the Ten Commandments of Moses" as you originally wrote.

BTW, I happen to believe that they were in fact carved secretly in stone by the wily ol' Moses and that he then tried to pass them on to his people as God's own verse! So, you were right the first time!

[ QUOTE ]
THE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS OF JESUS:

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't, please quote Matthew on me. Your piece of crap was the first time I have ever seen anyone write about the "Two Commandments Of Jesus"! As if they are something concrete, standing on its own, separately from the main corpus of Jesus' teachings.

But enough of your hodge podge invocations, here's the beef:

You contest that "for Christians, the teachings of Jesus supersede what has gone before." Fair enough. (You are belaboring that point only to "prove" that Christianity's teachings have been, "from the start", way more benevolent than Islam's. A truly stupid notion. But no matter.)

If that's the case with the two Testaments, then a Christian is supposed to ignore (or disobey) anything that is in the Old Testament whenever he thinks it runs against the New Testament. This means that

A. Christians believe in a holy text that is split in half but only one half is fully correct; the other one is, well, a little rusty. ...So much for holy texts.

B. Christians don't really believe in the Old Testament - but only "put up with it" because it's of historical value to their religion. Which kinda begs the question - how much of the Old Testament, and I mean the parts that are not "contradicted" by the New one, are really "true" and which are not? (Let's start with noah's Ark! /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

...It's quite refreshing to get religious with you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Especially when you get medieval. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

The last bit comes towards the end of the Quran. Funnily Ironically, your argument is exactly the same of that of the fundamentalists themselves. The superceding argument is just one among many. May argue that the violent verses are specific to certain situations such as defending territory, while the tolerant ones, whci are very general, are the default action. Several of the verses you quoted were out of context (eg one had lopped off a previous verse specifying that it applied to when Muslims were attacked). I'm not saying that's always the case, I don't know. But even if it isn;t there still is a clear conflict between different parts of the book that individual muslims resolve differently.

"True fundamentalism is nothing more nor less than taking such teachings literally and attempting to put them into practice."

That's quite a narrow view of fundamentalism. Many so-called Islamic fundamentalists insist on things that have no basis in teh Quran - eg the wearing of the Burqa. I would say fundamentalism has more to do with taking things to an extreme, and not always things that are obviously specified in their Holy books.

"The whole POINT of Christianity is a new covenant with God, and the teachings of Jesus. True fundamentalism is nothing more nor less than taking such teachings literally and attempting to put them into practice. Since in Christianity there are not found the numerous evil injunctions to kill non-believers--and such injunctions are plentiful in Islam--it should be OBVIOUS which fundamentalist approach is the worse. Now add in the present-day practitioners, and we see that the extent of Falwell's "terrorism" is words alone, whereas Islamists routinely slaughter innocents in the name of their religion. Does Falwell do that? Does he put fatwas on the heads of sheikhs he thinks have committed blasphemy? They do it to him--and to Salman Rushdie--and to many others."

I've never put the likes of Falwell on anything like the same level as al-Qaeda (although I would say that their political allies who claim to be devout Christians have been happy to commit massive atrocities and collueded in the deaths of vast numbers of people). But throughout history there have been numerous Christian extremists who have been equally deluded, intolerant and violent as the worst of Muslim fundamentalists.

I'll come back to this when I've read the Quran (in English, I'm afraid).

[MMMMMM]

Not a bad post, Nicky.

When you eventually do read the Koran, you might try counting the number of times Muslims are directly instructed to do evil things to non-believers--and contrast it to the number of times Christians are instructed to do evil things to non-believers (note: this must be the New Testament part of the Bible only, since Christians did not exist prior to Jesus). By doing this, you will see that the two religions--and their respective fundamental philosophical outlooks--are poles apart.

Islam also is bent on forcing the world to conform to God's will--whereas Christianity is satisfied with viewing God's kingdom as being not of this world. Jesus advocated his disciples to lay up (spiritual) treasures in heaven rather than on Earth, and to forgive, and to not resist evil; Muhammad exhorted his followers into battle and conquest, by promising them booty in this world and sensual rewards in the hereafter.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

"The Two Great Commandments" are actually fairly well known, though certainly not as well known as "The Ten Commandments".

For Christians, the New Testament both builds upon, and supersedes, the Old Testament.

Christianity's teachings are indeed far more benevolent than the teachings of Islam.

The New Testament does not contain over 100 injunctions to slay or otherwise harm unbelievers. I would also seriously doubt the Old Testament contains anywhere near that many. The Koran does, however.

The teachings of Jesus do not call for forcing the world to conform to God's will. The Koran does.

Jesus called for Christians to not resist evil, to turn the other cheek, to love one's neighbor as one's self. Jesus did not even resist his own execution. Muhammad however led his followers in violent conquest after violent conquest, by promising them booty in this world and sensual rewards in the hereafter.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
"The Two Great Commandments" are actually fairly well known, though certainly not as well known as "The Ten Commandments".

[/ QUOTE ] So they're sort of cult, right? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

This is a first. Christians obeying "not well known" commands by the Almighty. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
New Testament ... Islam ... Old Testament ... Koran ... Jesus ... Koran ... Christians ... Jesus ... Muhammad

[/ QUOTE ]Why have you derailed this into comparative study of religions?

You originally claimed that Christianity does not command its faithful to do "bad things" against the "infidels" - but, as I pointed out (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1552693&page=145&view =expanded&sb=6&o=&vc=1), the Old Testament most certainly does! And that the Old Testament is as part of Christian dogma as is the New Testament.

You choose to dispute all this and to put up chaff, such as New vs Old, "The Jesus Commandments (The Not Well Known Ones!)", etc. Far too pathetic to be taken seriously.

So, tell us another one.

[MMMMMM]

Sorry Cyrus, but you either seem to be missing the point or else you just don't believe it. I doubt if I can help you further with this.

[ACPlayer]

I consider it my civic duty, so here goes ..


Dear Cyrus, you lovable dolt, dont you know that by picking the appropriate parts of the writings and then interpreting the christian writings the way they should be (as defined by the high IQ MMMMMM with appropriate links from like minded high IQers) and then interpreting the Quran the way they should be (again as defined by ....) one can conclude that Christianity is the way and the light and Islam is an ignorant backward religion that is best extinguished, preferably by force so we can all enjoy the spectacle on TV.

It is also utter nonsense that something as wonderful as Christianity can be misused by politicians or church leaders to advocate killings or conversions of non-believers or slavery or the role of women. The evidence of history not withstanding as those were simply distasteful distortions of an otherwise great religion.

Now please genuflect to the great mind!

If you still dont get it, we are done with you, sir!
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Thank you, ACPlayer. Most of that is actually not too far off.

It can be strongly argued that true fundamental Christianity requires pacifism--and, the early Christians were pacifists. Indeed it is hard to see how Jesus' words as reported in the Gospels can be construed any other way.

Muhammad's words, however, frequently call for violence and fighting--especially against non-believers.

It should be starkly obvious to anyone familiar with the texts of both religions, which religion derives from a higher spiritual plane, and which from a lower. As too of course Jesus' actions throughout his life show a more spiritually advanced being than Mohammed's actions and continual exhortations to war, conquest and subjugation of non-believers.

One religion is clearly more in keeping with higher spiritual values such as love and forgiveness. The other frequently appeals to baser motives such as gain from conquest, and domination or subjugation of outsiders.

Why are these basic differences so hard to fathopm or accept? It is clear to me, and I am not even a Christian (at least not in the typical sense).

It is of course true that many so-called "fundamentalist" Christians, have, throughout the ages, convoluted and perverted the teachings of Jesus to fit their own agendas of greed and hatred. However they cannot truly be called "fundamentalist"--definitely not in the sense of following Jesus' fundamental teachings and instructions. It is these base characters who have given Christianity a bad name.

All you really have to do is look at the fundamental teachings of both religions and compare them side by side.

And speaking of comparative religion, it should be noted that Buddhism is probably the most intellectually viable religion of all--especially the original or "Theravada" Buddhism, which was just what the Buddha taught (an excellent summary of which can be found in the book, What The Buddha Taught, by Walpola Rahula). By "most intellectually viable religion", I mean the least subject to potential logical contradictions or other analytical criticisms, which can more often and easily be applied to other religions, including Christianity.

[ACPlayer]

The path to great thinking per MMMMMM: form a conclusion then go looking for the clues to prove the conclusion, ignore all else.

Well done sir!!

[MMMMMM]

The majority of clues support the conclusion, and the conclusion was formed from clues and logic--not in reverse.

Also, a critical look at the philosophical foundations of the religions supports what I am saying.