Scuba Forum / General / October 2006
There -is- a God.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 06 Oct 2006 01:28 GMT Muslims are waging civil war against us, claims police union
By David Rennie, Europe Correspondent (Filed: 05/10/2006)
Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day.
Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy was warned of an 'intifada'
As the interior ministry said that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates which are heavily populated by unemployed youths of north African origin.
It said the situation was so grave that it had asked the government to provide police with armoured cars to protect officers in the estates, which are becoming no-go zones.
The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.
Instead, officers - especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups - faced attacks as soon as they tried to arrest locals.
Senior officers insisted that the problem was essentially criminal in nature, with crime bosses on the estates fighting back against tough tactics.
The interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is also the leading centre-Right candidate for the presidency, has sent heavily equipped units into areas with orders to regain control from drug smuggling gangs and other organised crime rings. Such aggressive raids were "disrupting the underground economy in the estates", one senior official told Le Figaro.
However, not all officers on the ground accept that essentially secular interpretation. Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the hardline Action Police trade union, has written to Mr Sarkozy warning of an "intifada" on the estates and demanding that officers be given armoured cars in the most dangerous areas.
He said yesterday: "We are in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists. This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with stones and Molotov cocktails. You no longer see two or three youths confronting police, you see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."
He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. They are the only things that can disperse crowds of hundreds of people who are trying to kill police and burn their vehicles."
However, Gerard Demarcq, of the largest police unions, Alliance, dismissed talk of an "intifada" as representing the views of only a minority.
Mr Demarcq said that the increased attacks on officers were proof that the policy of "retaking territory" from criminal gangs was working.
Mayors in the worst affected suburbs, which saw weeks of riots and car-burning a year ago, have expressed fears of a vicious circle, as attacks by locals lead the police to harden their tactics, further increasing resentment.
As if to prove that point, there were angry reactions in the western Paris suburb of Les Mureaux following dawn raids in search of youths who attacked a police unit on Sunday. The raids led to one arrest. They followed clashes on Sunday night when scores of youths attacked seven officers who had tried to arrest a man for not wearing his seat belt while driving. That driver refused to stop, and later rammed a police car trying to block his path.
The mayor of Les Mureaux, Francois Garay, criticised aggressive police tactics that afterwards left "the people on the ground to pick up the pieces".
 Signature Popeye People with courage and character always seem sinister to the rest. -Hesse www.finalprotectivefire.com
Lee Bell - 06 Oct 2006 02:24 GMT > Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared > "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of > 14 officers each day.
> This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, with > stones and Molotov cocktails.
> He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon. Yeah, that'll work. They throw a bottle full of gasoline, killing, in the most horrible manner, anyone close to where it lands and the police attack with big squirt guns. Works for me.
Let me guess, they don't allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in france, do they?
Dennis (Icarus) - 06 Oct 2006 02:31 GMT > > Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared > > "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Let me guess, they don't allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in france, > do they? Course not - folks might get hurt.
Dennis
Dillon Pyron - 09 Oct 2006 23:12 GMT Thus spake "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> :
>> > Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared >> > "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Dennis Carrying guns would be illegal. Can't have criminals running the streets and threatening cops, can we?
 Signature dillon
If you can't figure out how to unmunge my address, email me and I'll explain it.
dechucka - 07 Oct 2006 06:10 GMT >> Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared >> "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Let me guess, they don't allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in > france, do they? but they do in Pennsylvania
John R. Macdonald - 08 Oct 2006 01:03 GMT >> Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared >> "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Let me guess, they don't allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in france, >do they? Well if it is the radical muslims who are attacking cops where do the 'law abiding citizens' fit in? Your last sentence is totally meaningless unless you consider radical muslims as law abiding citizens...
BTW what the police union officials forget to mention is the heavy handed way the cops do their job now that Sarkozy put an end to community policing.
John They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety Benjamin Franklin
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 08 Oct 2006 16:49 GMT >>> Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared >>> "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Well if it is the radical muslims who are attacking cops where do the > 'law abiding citizens' fit in? Whoooooooooossshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..............
> Your last sentence is totally meaningless unless you consider radical > muslims as law abiding citizens... > > BTW what the police union officials forget to mention is the heavy > handed way the cops do their job now that Sarkozy put an end to > community policing. How can -French- cops be heavy handed?
> John > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > safety deserve neither liberty nor safety > Benjamin Franklin John R. Macdonald - 08 Oct 2006 19:20 GMT On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:49:51 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
snip
>> BTW what the police union officials forget to mention is the heavy >> handed way the cops do their job now that Sarkozy put an end to >> community policing. > > How can -French- cops be heavy handed? It could be those exchange programs with American cops :-)
>> John >> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary >> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety >> Benjamin Franklin Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 08 Oct 2006 21:57 GMT > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:49:51 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It could be those exchange programs with American cops :-) Nice that we could contribute. :-)
>>> John >>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary >>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety >>> Benjamin Franklin janusz_w@hotmail.com - 09 Oct 2006 22:21 GMT > > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:49:51 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Nice that we could contribute. :-) http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/241/3707/1024/FatFrenchWomen1.jpg
;-((
> >>> John > >>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > >>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety > >>> Benjamin Franklin Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 10 Oct 2006 04:37 GMT >> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:49:51 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" >> > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > ;-(( I'd do 'er.
>> >>> John >> >>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary >> >>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety >> >>> Benjamin Franklin Grumman-581 - 10 Oct 2006 06:45 GMT > I'd do 'er. Awh, 'ell Doug... You'd f.ck a female Marine -- it's not like you're *picky*... <grin>
Or as we used to say, "As long as she's female, walks on two legs, and doesn't drag her knuckles too often"... We had to put that last part in for the the female Marines...
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 10 Oct 2006 14:56 GMT > >> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:49:51 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > >> > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I'd do 'er. whale sex?
> >> >>> John > >> >>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary > >> >>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety > >> >>> Benjamin Franklin Alan Street - 11 Oct 2006 14:32 GMT > > >> >> How can -French- cops be heavy handed? > > >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > whale sex? Riding a moped.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 11 Oct 2006 14:54 GMT > ? Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote: > ? > <janusz_w@hotmail.com> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Riding a moped. <cough>
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 11 Oct 2006 15:28 GMT > > > >> >> How can -French- cops be heavy handed? > > > >> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Riding a moped. Do you think that she would be so desperate?
Joe English - 09 Oct 2006 03:14 GMT > On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:49:51 -0400, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It could be those exchange programs with American cops :-) I sincerely doubt that
>>>John >>>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary >>>safety deserve neither liberty nor safety >>>Benjamin Franklin Lee Bell - 10 Oct 2006 03:29 GMT > Well if it is the radical muslims who are attacking cops where do the > 'law abiding citizens' fit in? > Your last sentence is totally meaningless unless you consider radical > muslims as law abiding citizens... Ever hear the saying "support your local police?" No? Why am I not surprised. My statement is only meaningless to those that choose not to understand. We call them sheep.
Lee
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 10 Oct 2006 04:38 GMT >> Well if it is the radical muslims who are attacking cops where do the >> 'law abiding citizens' fit in? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > surprised. My statement is only meaningless to those that choose not to > understand. We call them sheep. Apparently in Canada, "sheep" means you carry a firearm with the intent to defend yourself and those around you.
 Signature Popeye It was when Lucifer first congratulated himself upon his angelic behavior that he became the tool of evil. -Hammarskjöld www.finalprotectivefire.com
Froggy - 09 Oct 2006 15:20 GMT Lee Bell a écrit :
> > Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared > > "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yeah, that'll work. They throw a bottle full of gasoline, killing, in the > most horrible manner, anyone close to where it lands Well, I want to learn how you make these, because here they do not have nearly the same effect (not that I would volunteer being thrown Molotov cocktails at, but given the extensive use they see in street riots it is a miracle nobody was killed by one over the past decades).
> and the police attack with big squirt guns. And I am sure you call firing rubber bullets "throwing plastic balls".
> Let me guess, they don't allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in france, > do they? Actually the police is probably quite happy that we do not have (yet) the same gun culture as the US. Not that there are no legal or illegal firearms in France (IIRC we have the largest number of guns and handguns of all European countries) but at least shooting people is still considered rude. Though it seems that unfortunately the idea that shooting a policeman is "taboo" seems to be gradually eroding.
Cheers,
Froggy
Lee Bell - 10 Oct 2006 03:34 GMT > > Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared > > "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average > > of > > 14 officers each day.
> > This is not a question of urban violence any more, it is an intifada, > > with > > stones and Molotov cocktails.
> > He added: "We need armoured vehicles and water cannon.
> Yeah, that'll work. They throw a bottle full of gasoline, killing, in > the > most horrible manner, anyone close to where it lands Well, I want to learn how you make these, because here they do not have nearly the same effect (not that I would volunteer being thrown Molotov cocktails at, but given the extensive use they see in street riots it is a miracle nobody was killed by one over the past decades).
Perhaps your police run faster than I thought. Still, 14 officers injured each day seems like a bit much to tolerate.
Guess it's different there.
> and the police attack with big squirt guns. And I am sure you call firing rubber bullets "throwing plastic balls".
Compared to molitov cocktails? You bet.
> Let me guess, they don't allow law abiding citizens to carry guns in > france, > do they? Actually the police is probably quite happy that we do not have (yet) the same gun culture as the US. Not that there are no legal or illegal firearms in France (IIRC we have the largest number of guns and handguns of all European countries) but at least shooting people is still considered rude. Though it seems that unfortunately the idea that shooting a policeman is "taboo" seems to be gradually eroding.
Apparently, they're rather flame broil them. Gives new meaning to French Cuisine.
Lee
Grumman-581 - 10 Oct 2006 04:41 GMT > Apparently, they're rather flame broil them. Gives new meaning to French > Cuisine. Fuckin' French... Can't even do BBQ right... As every Texan would tell you, *real* BBQ is beef brisket, not ...
should I say it? ...
it's too tempting ...
ok ...
I can't resist ...
PIG !!!
<sick-grin>
Froggy - 10 Oct 2006 13:02 GMT Lee Bell a écrit :
> Perhaps your police run faster than I thought. Though they're not part of the army?
> Still, 14 officers injured > each day seems like a bit much to tolerate. Nobody advocates "tolerating" this.
> Guess it's different there. Yes. In the US a police officer has a 5% chance per annum of being victim of a "non fatal violent crime", there is about 800,000 police LEOs in the US so this means about 110 such cases a day (data source: U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs . Bureau of Justice Statistics.) Considerin that the US population is about 5 times that of France, this is actually a 50% higher per capita rate than here. To me this "seems like a bit much to tolerate"....
> Actually the police is probably quite happy that we do not have (yet) > the same gun culture as the US. Not that there are no legal or illegal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Apparently, they're rather flame broil them. Please let me know when was the last time a French policeman was burned alive...
Cheers,
Froggy
Lee Bell - 10 Oct 2006 13:20 GMT > Perhaps your police run faster than I thought. Though they're not part of the army?
> Still, 14 officers injured > each day seems like a bit much to tolerate. Nobody advocates "tolerating" this.
Nobody said they did. What I said, in other words, was that water cannons are not the answer to attacks with deadly weapons.
> Guess it's different there. Yes. In the US a police officer has a 5% chance per annum of being victim of a "non fatal violent crime", there is about 800,000 police LEOs in the US so this means about 110 such cases a day (data source: U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs . Bureau of Justice Statistics.) Considerin that the US population is about 5 times that of France, this is actually a 50% higher per capita rate than here. To me this "seems like a bit much to tolerate"....
Our police don't run as fast.
> Please let me know when was the last time a French policeman was burned > alive... Like I said, perhaps they run faster that I thought.
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 10 Oct 2006 14:58 GMT Lee Bell napisal(a):
> > Perhaps your police run faster than I thought. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Like I said, perhaps they run faster that I thought. No doubt http://www.sxc.hu/browse.phtml?f=download&id=33415
Froggy - 10 Oct 2006 17:04 GMT Lee Bell a écrit :
> Nobody said they did. What I said, in other words, was that water cannons > are not the answer to attacks with deadly weapons. Actually I believe that when you have a bunch of morons that have watched too much TV and decide that they, too, need their own little "intifada" in their backyard the last thing you need is to add armoured vehicles to make it even more realistic. This will only reinforce them (and unfortunately others) in their views, and will turn as excellent propaganda tools for the islamists that are trying to recruit followers in our suburbs.
This is not to say that there may not be some cases where such equipment may be needed, but the police actually has them, and uses them. But using them everyday? It will only make matters worse (and frankly what would a patrol of policement sitting in a APC achieve? How do they expect to run after drug dealers in staircases? Does the plan also include blowing up any building where the bad guys may hide?)
I am quite happy that most policemen are not half as stupid as the one who made these remarks.
Cheers,
Froggy
> > Guess it's different there. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Like I said, perhaps they run faster that I thought. Scott - 10 Oct 2006 17:17 GMT Lee Bell a écrit :
> Nobody said they did. What I said, in other words, was that water cannons > are not the answer to attacks with deadly weapons. I am quite happy that most policemen are not half as stupid as the one who made these remarks.
*************************************
You do what you French seem to do best, and stick to kissing a.ses and see how far that gets you with the Islamic nutcases.
They live to expose and exploit weakness in others.
The only way they will ever respect your laws and rights is if you hammer them flat.
Sorry if that seems harsh to you, but those are the rules as they have called them.
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 10 Oct 2006 20:21 GMT > Lee Bell a écrit : > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sorry if that seems harsh to you, but those are the rules as they have > called them. My poor friend it looks that you have good personal experience with " Islamic nutcases". IMO you are a real expert in 50% of the problem.
Froggy - 11 Oct 2006 09:09 GMT Scott a écrit :
> The only way they will ever respect your laws and rights is if you hammer > them flat. Actually the people who make most trouble in the suburbs are not of the Islamist variety. Quite the contrary, as Islamists seek to gain acceptance by being seen as having some kind of "pacifying" influence, which is both a smart and very perverse approach.
And regarding how to deal with Islamism ... so far the US actions have provided a great boost to Islamism worldwide, have already established an Islamic regime in Irak (Charia being given a pivotal role in the constitution) with good chances that it will eventually become an Islamist one...
Cheers,
Froggy
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 11 Oct 2006 12:31 GMT Scott a écrit :
> The only way they will ever respect your laws and rights is if you hammer > them flat. Actually the people who make most trouble in the suburbs are not of the Islamist variety.
"Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada" against the police, with violent clashes injuring an average of 14 officers each day."
That seems rather clear to me.
Quite the contrary, as Islamists seek to gain acceptance by being seen as having some kind of "pacifying" influence, which is both a smart and very perverse approach.
And regarding how to deal with Islamism ... so far the US actions have provided a great boost to Islamism worldwide, have already established an Islamic regime in Irak (Charia being given a pivotal role in the constitution) with good chances that it will eventually become an Islamist one...
Rather it was U.S. in-action, for over 30 years.
 Signature Popeye It was when Lucifer first congratulated himself upon his angelic behavior that he became the tool of evil. -Hammarskjöld www.finalprotectivefire.com
Lee Bell - 10 Oct 2006 18:45 GMT > Nobody said they did. What I said, in other words, was that water cannons > are not the answer to attacks with deadly weapons. Actually I believe that when you have a bunch of morons that have watched too much TV and decide that they, too, need their own little "intifada" in their backyard the last thing you need is to add armoured vehicles to make it even more realistic. This will only reinforce them (and unfortunately others) in their views, and will turn as excellent propaganda tools for the islamists that are trying to recruit followers in our suburbs.
Your police apparently don't agree. Then again, they're the ones the molitov cocktails are being thrown at. It's understandable that they might like something more protective than . . . well, nothing.
This is not to say that there may not be some cases where such equipment may be needed, but the police actually has them, and uses them. But using them everyday? It will only make matters worse (and frankly what would a patrol of policement sitting in a APC achieve? How do they expect to run after drug dealers in staircases? Does the plan also include blowing up any building where the bad guys may hide?)
I think you should rush right over and have a word with those criminal types. You are obviously on the right track. I'm sure they'd listen, understand and comply with your wish that they would cease hostilities.
Lee
Scott - 11 Oct 2006 02:26 GMT > I think you should rush right over and have a word with those criminal > types. You are obviously on the right track. I'm sure they'd listen, > understand and comply with your wish that they would cease hostilities. Why bother, it is easier to sling cheap shots here.
Froggy - 11 Oct 2006 09:02 GMT Lee Bell a écrit :
> Your police apparently don't agree. Then again, they're the ones the > molitov cocktails are being thrown at. It's understandable that they might > like something more protective than . . . well, nothing. Correct, except that actually it is not "the police", it is some but not all of the police unions (typically the most extreme-right one).
If they need more equipment then so be it, but I still believe that calling it an "intifada" is about as smart as calling military intervention in Muslim countries a "crusade".
Cheers,
Froggy
Lee Bell - 11 Oct 2006 12:21 GMT > I still believe that calling it an "intifada" is about as smart as calling > military intervention in Muslim countries a "crusade". I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a religious war?
Lee
Froggy - 11 Oct 2006 13:00 GMT Lee Bell a écrit :
> > I still believe that calling it an "intifada" is about as smart as calling > > military intervention in Muslim countries a "crusade". > > I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a religious > war? Crusade is the right word?
>From an Islamist perpective probably as it describes wars of aggression waged by Christianity against Islam ("...any of the more or less continuous military expeditions in the 11th to 13th centuries when Christian powers of Europe tried to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims.")
If that is how you want to perceived, fine. You are the aggressors, they are the victims and have the moral high end. Please start re-labelling Islamic terrorists "freedom fighters", WTC casualties "collateral damage" etc...
Words matter. And unfortunately these guys have a better way with words that your President.
Cheers,
Froggy
Lee Bell - 11 Oct 2006 14:59 GMT > I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a > religious > war? You didn't answer the question. What would you call a religious war?
>From an Islamist perpective probably as it describes wars of aggression >waged by Christianity against Islam. I'm not an Islamist and don't speak from their perspective. How about you?
From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and some of its allies. We are reacting. While our reaction is agressive, that' not he same as being the aggressors, now is it? Somebody else started the fight. We may finish it . . . I hope. Our recent track record of finishing things we start isn't very good. Too many liberals and, in this instance, French government officials, getting in the way of getting on with getting it over.
Be careful what you wish for relative to the conflict with Islamic. I'll remind you that this thread is about conflicts in your country, not mine.
Lee
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 11 Oct 2006 15:58 GMT > > I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a > > religious [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and > some of its allies. REALLY? WHEN?
> We are reacting. While our reaction is agressive, > that' not he same as being the aggressors, now is it? Somebody else started [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Lee Matthias Voss - 11 Oct 2006 17:08 GMT >>>I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a >>>religious [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > REALLY? WHEN? 150 Years after the death of the prophet Muhammad, when the Koran went into "print".
Matthias
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 11 Oct 2006 20:26 GMT > >>>I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a > >>>religious [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 150 Years after the death of the prophet Muhammad, when the > Koran went into "print". So it means approx. 682 AD, Charlemagne in power, area of Berlin still in Slavic hands etc. Don't you think that it was at least too early to declare any war against the US?
Matthias Voss - 11 Oct 2006 20:39 GMT >>>>>I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a >>>>>religious [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Don't you think that it was at least too early to declare any war > against the US? Absolutely no. Since this is a persisting declaration of war against all countries where the people do not succumb to their faith.
Remember according to Islam and Hadith religion precedes civil rights, so they disrespect all right which we regard as unalienable.
Matthias
Scott - 12 Oct 2006 01:04 GMT > Absolutely no. > Since this is a persisting declaration of war against all [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > civil rights, so they disrespect all right which we regard > as unalienable. You may as well be talking to the floor.
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 11 Oct 2006 20:29 GMT > >>>I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a > >>>religious [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 150 Years after the death of the prophet Muhammad, when the > Koran went into "print". So it means approx. 782 AD, Charlemagne in power, area of Berlin still in Slavic hands etc. Don't you think that it was at least too early to declare any war against the US?
> Matthias Lee Bell - 11 Oct 2006 18:09 GMT >> From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and >> some of its allies. > > REALLY? WHEN? When the leaders of the religion declared Jehad against us. The leaders of a nation, including a religious one, speak for that nation. It is they that declare war, and in this case, they did. While that doesn't mean that everyone in the religion agrees, but that's no different from what happened every other time war was declared.
Lee
Froggy - 11 Oct 2006 18:35 GMT > >> From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and > >> some of its allies. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When the leaders of the religion declared Jehad against us. The leaders of > a nation, including a religious one, speak for that nation. Out of curiosity, who could be the "leaders of the Islamic religion" ?
AFAIK the big problem is that there is not really any widely recognized leader who could purportedly speak in the name of all or even most Muslims.
So who are these leaders? And any cite of them "declaring war" on the US?
Cheers,
Froggy
Matthias Voss - 11 Oct 2006 19:14 GMT >>>>From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and >>>>some of its allies. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > leader who could purportedly speak in the name of all or even most > Muslims. You are pinpointing a crucial problem of Islam. There are no successors to Mohammed, noone responsable for exegesis, for a reorientation, taking account changes in society.
Matthias
Scott - 12 Oct 2006 01:02 GMT > You are pinpointing a crucial problem of Islam. There are no > successors to Mohammed, noone responsable for exegesis, for > a reorientation, taking account changes in society. Plenty of water-walkers now days though, eh?
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 11 Oct 2006 20:39 GMT > >> From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and > >> some of its allies. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lee Who do you consider leaders of Islamic religion? Do they have any right to speak for any nation? What does the word Jihad mean?
Alan Street - 11 Oct 2006 17:11 GMT > > I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a > > religious [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and > some of its allies. By that logic, you've declared war on abortion clinics and all doctors who perform abortions.
Froggy - 11 Oct 2006 17:53 GMT Lee Bell a écrit :
> > I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a > > religious > > war? > > You didn't answer the question. What would you call a religious war? Crusade does not mean "religious war". Crusade means "war of aggression waged by Christianity against Islam", so a war declared by Muslims against the US definitely does not qualify.
I am aware that in the US the word "crusade" may have acquired a broader sense sur as a crusade against drugs or whatever, but here what matter is how other people will understand and perceive it. I guess the same thing would happen if people used the word "holocaust" when speaking of Jews: history would pop up.
When the US say "we will wage a crusade" it may simply mean "a resolute fight against terrorism" but Muslim people will hear "we will wage a war of aggression and conquest against Islam as a whole"... not exactly the same thing.
> From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and > some of its allies. We are reacting. While our reaction is agressive, > that' not he same as being the aggressors, now is it? Well, if you say it is a crusade you very clearly paint yourself as the aggressor. Which is what the Islamists love to pretend. In essence you are helping them further their cause. I am afraid that Popeye will have to shoot you ;-)
> Be careful what you wish for relative to the conflict with Islamic. I do not think that I am hoping from a very different outcome than you do. But I do believe that so far many of the actions of your government are proving counterproductive to this outcome.
Cheers,
Froggy
Lee Bell - 11 Oct 2006 18:06 GMT > > I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a > > religious > > war? > > You didn't answer the question. What would you call a religious war? You still haven't answered the question.
Lee
Froggy - 11 Oct 2006 18:30 GMT > > > I'm not sure crusade isn't the right word. What would you call a > > > religious [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You still haven't answered the question. Because it is quite obvious: I would call it "a religious war".
If I wanted to find a single word appropriate to describe "a religious war waged by Muslims in the name of religion" what would spring to mind would definitely not be "crusade". Jihad, maybe.
Cheers,
Froggy
Chris Guynn - 11 Oct 2006 19:16 GMT ----------------------------------------- Crusade does not mean "religious war". Crusade means "war of aggression waged by Christianity against Islam", so a war declared by Muslims against the US definitely does not qualify. ----------------------------------------- While crusade isn't exactly a synonym for "religious war", the term seems to fit nicely into the concept of a religious war. While it generally refers to European Christians attempts to recover the Holy Land from teh Muslims in the 11th-13th century, the term itself can mean many things. I would say that Crusade (capitalized) refers to the specific wars mentioned while crudsade (not capitalized) is rather more generic. That is, unless the term is at the beginning of a sentence in which case it is not apparent which version of the word is being referenced without looking at context clues.
Oh, and this is (at least part of) what dictionary.com has to say about crusade:
Crusade: 3.) any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc
Froggy - 11 Oct 2006 23:57 GMT > ----------------------------------------- > Crusade does not mean "religious war". Crusade means "war of aggression [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Crusade: 3.) any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, > etc That's exactly the problem: as a Western native speaker, for you the word "crusade" may refer to this latest definition and could be considered as "neutral". But if you were a Muslim educated in the Middle East, it would clearly carry the idea of Christian countries waging a war of aggression against Islamic countries. And when GWB speaks nobody know (or care) if there is a capital C or not.
If the Hizbullah declared its intention to make an "holocaust" of Israeli soldiers, rather than just saying that it intends to kill as many as it can, do you think that people woul look at the proper meaning, or that there would be outrage given the historical background of that word post WWII?
Cheers,
Froggy
Chris Guynn - 12 Oct 2006 15:55 GMT > > ----------------------------------------- > > Crusade does not mean "religious war". Crusade means "war of aggression [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > waging a war of aggression against Islamic countries. And when GWB > speaks nobody know (or care) if there is a capital C or not. I'd say that, generally speaking, it does carry the idea of Christian countries waging war against Muslim countries. That does not invalidate the alternative definition of the word and, taken in context, it should be quite clear what the intention is to anyone who is not pursposely trying to read something into it that isn't there.
> If the Hizbullah declared its intention to make an "holocaust" of > Israeli soldiers, rather than just saying that it intends to kill as > many as it can, do you think that people woul look at the proper > meaning, or that there would be outrage given the historical background > of that word post WWII? Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for them to declare based on their position. What they say doesn't change who they are or what they want to do. It's obvious to me that they'd love to make a holocaust against Israeli soldiers (and the rest of the population) and saying so really doesn't change uch does it?
A wise man once said "it is what it is". Perhaps that's the case here.
Froggy - 12 Oct 2006 16:08 GMT So you do not understand how problematic it is to publicly call a fight a "crusade" while pretending that you are not fighting Islam as such but only a limited number of terrorists ?
Chris Guynn - 12 Oct 2006 21:15 GMT > So you do not understand how problematic it is to publicly call a fight > a "crusade" while pretending that you are not fighting Islam as such > but only a limited number of terrorists ? I understand that it's problematic to the people who already hate you anyway. Uninvolved parties (neutral if you will) will see it for exactly what it is. Those parties who are against you will interpret it the way that best suits their purpose, but that's true regardless of what you say. Those parties who are for you will probably not even notice you said it except for the blustering from the other side, which would happen anyway.
Lee Bell - 12 Oct 2006 21:39 GMT Froggy wrote
> So you do not understand how problematic it is to publicly call a fight > a "crusade" while pretending that you are not fighting Islam as such > but only a limited number of terrorists ? I didn't claim we're not fighting Islam. In fact, I suspect we are. What we're not fighting is all of the Islamic people. There is a difference.
Lee
Froggy - 13 Oct 2006 11:29 GMT > Froggy wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I didn't claim we're not fighting Islam. In fact, I suspect we are. What > we're not fighting is all of the Islamic people. There is a difference. OK, so if Al Quaeda tells you that they are fighting the US but not it's people everything will be fine and we can all go and hug trees together?
Lee Bell - 13 Oct 2006 14:27 GMT >> I didn't claim we're not fighting Islam. In fact, I suspect we are. >> What >> we're not fighting is all of the Islamic people. There is a difference.
> OK, so if Al Quaeda tells you that they are fighting the US but not > it's people everything will be fine and we can all go and hug trees > together? Until now, I didn't think you a fool. Are you?
Of course, that's not what happened. Even if it was, everything is not all right. It's not all right that the leaders of Islam and the religion itself clearly wish us dead. That does not, however, free us to arbitrarily attack all those who are of the Islamic faith. Not everyone is interested in becoming a martyr or in killing others simply for differences in belief.
It's just like it was during each of the World Wars. We were at war with Germany, Japan, and others, but that did not give us the right to persecute German, Japanese and other people, living in our country or elsewhere, who were not involved in the conflict. It doesn't even give us the right to deliberately kill those in the countries we were at war with. That's why they call it collateral damage. That's also why the countries we're involved in conflict with now keep emphasizing the civilian casualties that we, the Israeli, and others at war with them are inflicting.
As to whether we can all go hug trees together, you bet we can. We're doing it now. There are Islamic people all over the US that are not at war with anyone. There's a Mosque less than a mile from my home that has never caused anyone any grief at all. There are Islamic doctors, pharmacists, and professionals as well as Islamics in every convenience store, gas station and taxi cab. My heart specialist is Islamic. My optometrist's wife is Islamic. Any and all of them can, and sometimes do, go out and hug trees with us. Some even hug us.
What did you think, we were France?
Lee
Alan Street - 13 Oct 2006 14:49 GMT > >> I didn't claim we're not fighting Islam. In fact, I suspect we are. > >> What [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > What did you think, we were France? Lee - these are your words from two days ago:
> From my perspective, the Islamic religion declared war on my country and > some of its allies. They don't exactly reconcile with your statements above.
Alan
Froggy - 13 Oct 2006 15:03 GMT > I didn't claim we're not fighting Islam. In fact, I suspect we are. and then wrote
> There are Islamic people all over the US that are not at war with > anyone. All over the world, actually.
That's why I challenged your initial statement. You cannot say that you are at war with Islam as a whole and then say that you have nothing against Muslims. Especially when there is no institution or person who could legitimately claim to represent all Muslims.
Cheers,
Froggy
Lee Bell - 13 Oct 2006 15:49 GMT >> I didn't claim we're not fighting Islam. In fact, I suspect we are. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > against Muslims. Especially when there is no institution or person who > could legitimately claim to represent all Muslims. My statement is just as accurate as it was to say that we were at war with Germany in World War II, while J. Robert Oppenheimer, the son of German immigrants was working on the atomic bomb that ended the war and Wernher von Braun was engineering the surrender of 500 of his top rocket scientists, along with plans and test vehicles, to the US.
Our country is based on the principal of judging humans based on their acts, not on their labels. You seem to be having a problem with that concept. Perhaps that's part of why your country's having such terrible problems with Islamic people there and we're not having them here.
Lee
janusz_w@hotmail.com - 13 Oct 2006 22:03 GMT > >> I didn't claim we're not fighting Islam. In fact, I suspect we are. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Braun was engineering the surrender of 500 of his top rocket scientists, > along with plans and test vehicles, to the US. Wrong examples. Oppenheimer was a Jew and von Brown nazi war criminal who tried to save his a.s.
> Our country is based on the principal of judging humans based on their acts, > not on their labels. Nice piece of propaganda. As you mentioned WWII what can you say about US citizens of Japanesse origin?
> You seem to be having a problem with that concept. > Perhaps that's part of why your country's having such terrible problems with > Islamic people there and we're not having them here. > > Lee Dennis (Icarus) - 14 Oct 2006 04:46 GMT > > >> I didn't claim we're not fighting Islam. In fact, I suspect we are. > > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Wrong examples. Oppenheimer was a Jew and von Brown nazi war criminal > who tried to save his a.s. So how does Oppenheimer being Jewish change whether or not he was a son of German immigrants? There are those who claim that Von braun was a war criminal - personally I don't think that's the case.
> > Our country is based on the principal of judging humans based on their acts, > > not on their labels. > > Nice piece of propaganda. As you mentioned WWII what can you say about > US citizens of Japanesse origin? That the US was wrong to inter US citizens of Japanese origin?
> > You seem to be having a problem with that concept. > > Perhaps that's part of why your country's having such terrible problems with > > Islamic people there and we're not having them here. > > > > Lee Dennis
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 14 Oct 2006 14:02 GMT >> Nice piece of propaganda. As you mentioned WWII what can you say about >> US citizens of Japanesse origin? > > That the US was wrong to inter US citizens of Japanese origin? Was it wrong?
That would make an interesting debate.
This would be my first question:
Was it ilegal?
dazed and confuzzed - 14 Oct 2006 14:32 GMT >>>Nice piece of propaganda. As you mentioned WWII what can you say about >>>US citizens of Japanesse origin? >> >>That the US was wrong to inter US citizens of Japanese origin? IIRC the Government also held a significant number of Germans, Italians, and other nationalities that they considered to be a risk to national security. Not in numbers approaching those of Japanese immigrants, but still...
> Was it wrong? Probably, in hindsight. At least in those numbers.
> That would make an interesting debate. > > This would be my first question: > > Was it ilegal?
 Signature “TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 14 Oct 2006 15:36 GMT >>>>Nice piece of propaganda. As you mentioned WWII what can you say about >>>>US citizens of Japanesse origin? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Probably, in hindsight. At least in those numbers. How would you separate them.
Try not to use hindsight, or (not meant as a dig) societal guilt.
We had a significantly diverse belief system, and a much more significant cultural and communication barrier, and the Pearl Harbor attack was one of the greatest afronts to the then modern world of international relationans and diplomacy.
It was not necessarily an imprudent or illogical act, at the time.
>> That would make an interesting debate. >> >> This would be my first question: >> >> Was it ilegal? dazed and confuzzed - 14 Oct 2006 15:52 GMT >>>>>Nice piece of propaganda. As you mentioned WWII what can you say about >>>>>US citizens of Japanesse origin? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It was not necessarily an imprudent or illogical act, at the time. Hence my use of the word "hindsight". It's easy to look back and see that most of the spies and such were not in the population that was imprisoned. We can look back and easily (from the comfort of time and distance) look back at *MOST* decisions made and point out the flaws. The issue is more what was thought at the time than what is perceived today.
Interestingly enough, the japanese population in the west coast was imprisoned in greater numbers than that of Hawaii, as those people were more integrated into the society in Hawaii, and many whites spoke up and helped vet "their' japanese.
Not suprisingly, Hawaii had a higher percentage of young men of japanese ancestry volunteer to fight in Europe than the West coast.
But again, I have no doubt that the internment was believed to be necessary at the time.
>>> That would make an interesting debate. >>> >>> This would be my first question: >>> >>> Was it ilegal?
 Signature “TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
Lee Bell - 14 Oct 2006 16:18 GMT > But again, I have no doubt that the internment was believed to be > necessary at the time. I'll bet they said the same thing about slavery. I'll bet they said the same thing about the internment of Jews in Nazi Germany. I'll bet that's why we have to be so damned careful to preserve the rights included in the Constitution.
Lee
dazed and confuzzed - 14 Oct 2006 20:39 GMT >>But again, I have no doubt that the internment was believed to be >>necessary at the time. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee all very true.
 Signature “TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________
"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 14 Oct 2006 16:39 GMT >>>>>>Nice piece of propaganda. As you mentioned WWII what can you say >>>>>>about [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Hence my use of the word "hindsight". It's easy to look back and see that > most of the spies and such were not in the population that was imprisoned. Is it because we imprisoned them, denying opporunity or means, or access of recruitment?
First generation immigrants (at the least) had close ties and were religiously bound to their Emperor to a degree that we would come to describe as fanatical, leading to mass civilian suicides elsewhere later in the war.
Could we afford to take the risk?
Remember that for a period of time in late 41 and much of 42, -invasion- was a significant percieved threat.
What is the risk of a Japanese immigrant population among attacking, or even occupying, Japanese troops?
A lot of unknowns that are easy to comment on with historical perspecive, but were valid concerns back then.
> We can look back and easily (from the comfort of time and distance) look > back at *MOST* decisions made and point out the flaws. The issue is more [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>>> >>>> Was it ilegal? Lee Bell - 14 Oct 2006 17:27 GMT > It was not necessarily an imprudent or illogical act, at the time. I'm not sure I commented on this as I should have before. I don't think the incarceration of Japanese Americans was imprudent or illogical. In fact, it was quite prudent and quite logical. I just think is was wrong and, constitutionally illegal.
The real question is, what better options were there. I don't have an answer to that. I doubt that anyone does.
> Could we afford to take the risk? Could we afford not to?
>> But again, I have no doubt that the internment was believed to be >> necessary at the time. As I said, I'll bet they said the same thing about slavery.
Lee
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 14 Oct 2006 18:10 GMT >> It was not necessarily an imprudent or illogical act, at the time. > > I'm not sure I commented on this as I should have before. I don't think > the incarceration of Japanese Americans was imprudent or illogical. In > fact, it was quite prudent and quite logical. I just think is was wrong > and, constitutionally illegal. The constitution question should be answerable, just not by me.
> The real question is, what better options were there. I don't have an > answer to that. I doubt that anyone does. > >> Could we afford to take the risk? > > Could we afford not to? As I understand it, cases were reviewed and individuals and families released all during the confinment interval.
I'm not very familiar with the situation, though.
>>> But again, I have no doubt that the internment was believed to be >>> necessary at the time. > > As I said, I'll bet they said the same thing about slavery. At the time, slavery was a common practice world wide, and some would say, advocated by the bible.
Some could still argue that it still is.
It was, in fact, argued that slavery was an -economic- necessity.
And arguably, at the time, it was.
Lee Bell - 15 Oct 2006 03:57 GMT >> As I said, I'll bet they said the same thing about slavery. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And arguably, at the time, it was. See anything that convinces you it's not wrong?
Lee
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 15 Oct 2006 04:30 GMT >>> As I said, I'll bet they said the same thing about slavery. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > See anything that convinces you it's not wrong? Now or then?
Was slavery wrong in the 1600s?
1700s?
Didn't Jesus say to be a good slave?
I haven't gone through your other post yet.
Lee Bell - 15 Oct 2006 23:35 GMT >> See anything that convinces you it's not wrong? > Now or then? Was slavery wrong in the 1600s? > 1700s? Does your belief in what is right or wrong depend on the date or time of day?
> Didn't Jesus say to be a good slave? Not that I know of.
Lee
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 16 Oct 2006 02:09 GMT >>> See anything that convinces you it's not wrong? >> Now or then? Was slavery wrong in the 1600s? >> 1700s? > > Does your belief in what is right or wrong depend on the date or time of > day? Yes, actually, but the question isn't that simple.
As a matter of academic discussion, it's not our -individual- beliefs of right and wrong we're discussing, but out society's, and yes, the date or time of day may matter.
>> Didn't Jesus say to be a good slave? > > Not that I know of. http://www.inu.net/skeptic/slavery.html
What did Jesus have to say about slavery? Well, in the cherished Sermon of the Mount, allegedly given by him and recognized as a prescription for Christian living, the institution of slavery, so prevalent at the time, is never mentioned. However, in Matthew 8:5-13 Jesus heals the Roman centurion's slave while praising the centurion for his exemplary faithfulness. Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it? In Luke 12:47, the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, Jesus even recommends the beating of slaves. But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here Jesus not only reminds slaves that they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive to be like him.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jesus+and+slavery
Here's some interesting reading that bends the question several different ways, but, the bottom line is -always- the same.
"Be a good slave".
 Signature Popeye It was when Lucifer first congratulated himself upon his angelic behavior that he became the tool of evil. -Hammarskjöld www.finalprotectivefire.com
Lee Bell - 16 Oct 2006 12:00 GMT >> Does your belief in what is right or wrong depend on the date or time of >> day?
> Yes, actually, but the question isn't that simple.
> As a matter of academic discussion, it's not our -individual- beliefs of > right and wrong we're discussing, but out society's, and yes, the date or > time of day may matter. Then the discussion is done, for there is no right and wrong independent of individual beliefs. That's the nature of right and wrong. Anything else is a simple cop out people use to excuse the fact that they did what they knew was wrong because, at the time, it was in their best interest . . . at the expense of someone else's.
> Why didn't Jesus seize this opportunity to condemn slavery and forbid it?
> In Luke 12:47, the parable of the faithful and unfaithful slave, Jesus > even recommends the beating of slaves. First, Jesus does not mention slaves. It says servants. Second, if you look closely, you'll discover that the parable is about the relationship of people to their God. it's a parable about the relationship of people to their Lord, coached in terms that the people of the time would understand. Jesus was good at that. As he said when asked why he spoke in parables, he responded to his disciples, "Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given."
> But the most astounding pro-slavery statement in the Bible is made by > Jesus himself in Matthew 10:24-25. Here Jesus not only reminds slaves that > they are never above their master, he actually recommends that they strive > to be like him. Another discussion of man's relationship to their God.
> "Be a good slave". Cite?
The KKK, for most of its history, used passages out of the bible, taken out of context, to support that what they were doing was right, moral and consistent with the wishes of God. That does not make them right, and never did. The cites you provided, were used by those that put them forth, the same way. They are out of context and use holy words meant to describe the relationship between God and man to support relationships between men and other men. If you believe anything in the bible, you pretty much have to believe that assuming, for yourself, that which is reserved to God is one of the most direct or all roads to hell . . . in other words, wrong.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Lee
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 16 Oct 2006 14:50 GMT >>> Does your belief in what is right or wrong depend on the date or time of >>> day? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Then the discussion is done, for there is no right and wrong independent > of individual beliefs. Nothing could ever be further from the truth.
Things that you and I argue, and I mean you and me, here on Rec.scuba, may never be decided in our lifetimes.
Half of us were yanking Terry Schiavo's tube out while half were shoving it in.
The war in Iraq.
Gay Marriage.
The death penalty.
PADI Training standards.
Democrats procreating.
Some of us think it's right, some of us think it's wrong, and we can't both er,.... be right.
And what is "right" now, was not necessarily "right" then.
And may well not be "right" later...
> That's the nature of right and wrong. Anything else is a simple cop out > people use to excuse the fact that they did what they knew was wrong [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > First, Jesus does not mention slaves. It says servants. Speaking of cop out, that's a simple cop out.
Those Christian scholars making excuses made some noises about how the Israelites weren't "slaves", but "servants" without "free will" or "the right to choose". :-)
Check.
> Second, if you look closely, you'll discover that the parable is about the > relationship of people to their God. it's a parable about the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Cite? I gave you dozens.
> The KKK, for most of its history, used passages out of the bible, taken > out of context, to support that what they were doing was right, moral and > consistent with the wishes of God. That does not make them right, and > never did. The cites you provided, were used by those that put them > forth, the same way. You obviously didn't read very far, nor that I cited that very fact.
Irregardless, the words speak for themselves.
> They are out of context and use holy words meant to describe the > relationship between God and man to support relationships between men and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but > inwardly they are ravening wolves. Hillary doesn't stand a chance.
 Signature Popeye It was when Lucifer first congratulated himself upon his angelic behavior that he became the tool of evil. -Hammarskjöld www.finalprotectivefire.com
Lee Bell - 16 Oct 2006 15:44 GMT Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote
>>> As a matter of academic discussion, it's not our -individual- beliefs >>> of right and wrong we're discussing, but out society's, and yes, the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nothing could ever be further from the truth. Nothing could be more true. Perhaps your version of right and wrong varies with the opinions of others and with what is convenient for you. I doubt it, but only you can say.
Mine doesn't.
> Things that you and I argue, and I mean you and me, here on Rec.scuba, > may never be decided in our lifetimes. Things that you and I might argue on the basis of right versus wrong, were decided before the discussion started. I may change my mind about right and wrong based on things I had not previously considered, but now and always, it's my mind and my morals that determine what I believe is right and wrong.
>> First, Jesus does not mention slaves. It says servants.
> Speaking of cop out, that's a simple cop out. So, when you served in the military, you were a slave?
>>> "Be a good slave". >> >> Cite? > > I gave you dozens. You gave me none for that line. I've addressed all the issues you provided reference to.
> You obviously didn't read very far, nor that I cited that very fact. I read what you said as trying to convince me that God supports slavery. I didn't see where you said it was taken out of context and a deliberate attempt to pervert the truth. Is that what you were trying to communicate?
> Hillary doesn't stand a chance. God, I hope you're right.
Lee
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick - 16 Oct 2006 16:18 GMT > Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Nothing could be more true. Perhaps your version of right and wrong > varies with the opinions of others Sometimes it might.
>and with what is convenient for you. No moreso than anyone else around here.
> I doubt it, but only you can say. > > Mine doesn't. Well, we've certainly seen examples of that.
But the point is, I don't feel my personal version of right and wrong should bind a society of diverse cultures and beliefs.
That's why we don't have a King anymore.
>> Things that you and I argue, and I mean you and me, here on Rec.scuba, >> may never be decided in our lifetimes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > always, it's my mind and my morals that determine what I believe is right > and wrong. For our own personal beliefs, sure.
When we're discussing things like whether it was prudent for the country to engage in the internment of the Japanese in WW2, that doesn't amount to much.
Lee Bell - 16 Oct 2006 20:02 GMT >>>>> As a matter of academic discussion, it's not our -individual- beliefs >>>>> of right and wrong we're discussing, but out society's, and yes, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sometimes it might. Sorry to hear that. That's why Kerry lost the election.
>>and with what is convenient for you.
> No moreso than anyone else around here. You speak only for yourself. You certainly do not speak for me.
>> I doubt it, but only you can say.
>> Mine doesn't. Certainly not only me.
> But the point is, I don't feel my personal version of right and wrong > should bind a society of diverse cultures and beliefs. Neither do I, which is why I've said on more than one occasion, that right and wrong is not the measure applied to society. Legal and illegal is.
> That's why we don't have a King anymore. We never had a king.
>> Things that you and I might argue on the basis of right versus wrong, >> were decided before the discussion started. I may change my mind about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > For our own personal beliefs, sure. That's all right and wrong can apply to. The question is moral, ethical and personal. You can't impose your version on me any more than I can impose mine on you, at least not without serious brainwashing.
> When we're discussing things like whether it was prudent for the country > to engage in the internment of the Japanese in WW2, that doesn't amount to > much. The questions did not include prudent. The questions were "right or wrong" and "legal or illegal." You want to change the discussion, fine, but no pretending it was different from the start.
Lee
|
|