Afghanistan - Why are we there? - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**echocassidyde** · 07-23-2007, 04:43 PM

The official line is we are bringing "democracy" and development to Afghanistan, supporting the government of President Hamid Karzai in its attempts to establish order in the country, fighting the Taliban and preventing the further spread of radical Islam into Pakistan.

Oh, I nearly forgot, we're also trying to capture Osama Bin Laden & his organisation, who had been installed and financed there by the CIA to fight the Soviets from 1979-1989.

Like Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is "unwinnable", even the British Empire at the height of its supremacy could not tame the country. It was not winnable by Darius or Alexander, by Shah, Tsar or Great Moghul. It could not be subdued by 240,000 Soviet troops.

But what, precisely, are we trying to "win"?

In six years, the occupation has wrought one massive transformation in Afghanistan, a development so huge that it has increased Afghan GDP by 66% and consitutes 40% of the entire economy. That is a startling achievement by any standards. Yet we are not trumpeting it. Why not?

The answer is this. The achievement is the highest harvests of opium the world has ever seen.

The Taliban had reduced the opium crop to precisely nil, although their measures were harsh, i.e., lopping off bits, often vital bits, of people. The Taliban were a bunch of mad and deeply unpleasant religious fanatics but one of the things they were vehemently against was opium. They stamped out the opium trade, and impoverished and drove out the drug warlords, that is about the only good thing you can say about them.

Now we are occupying the country things have changed. According to the United Nations, 2006 was the biggest opium harvest in history, smashing the previous record by 60%. This year will be even bigger.

Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyound the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what out international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and "value-added" operations.

It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops.

How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government - the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect.

The fact that one of these is General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is head of the Afghan armed forces and Deputy Minster of Defence is in itself a symbol of the bankruptcy of our policy. Dostum is known for tying opponents to tank tracks and running them over. He recently crammed prisoners into metal containers in the searing sun, causing the many to die of heat & thirst. Since we bought "democracy" to Afghanistan, Dostum ordered a Member of Parliament to be tied to the ground whilst he beat him with a hammer and stamped on his body. The sad fact is that Dostum isn't even the worst or biggest drug smuggler in the government!

Why then are US, UK & other forces still dying in Afghanistan?

As the great diplomat, soldier and adventurer Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Alexander Burnes pointed out before his death in the First Afghnistan War in 1841, there is no point in a military campaign in Afghanistan as every time you beat them, you just swell their numbers.

Our only real achievement to date is falling street prices for heroin in London & New York - what an achievement, what a war!

(with acknowledgements to Craig Murray, British Ambassador to neighbouring Uzbekistan 2002-2004)

**allemnendup** · 07-23-2007, 04:49 PM

One thing we must change about our occupational diplomacy abroad.

"Changing" a country does not mean altering its entire political and social makeup. We have to stop thinking we can force democracy on some of these people.

What we have to do is try to bring about a slow change. maybe with the introduction of schools that would not require, but still allow religious practice. A weaning of the youth off of religious dogma that they get in some of these institutions now that does very little to fit them with anyone but one of their own in the future.

We need to study a country first on more than a military and economic level before invading and try to find a way to get under their skin.

Not burn it off and try and replace it with another.

**FrassyLap** · 07-23-2007, 06:22 PM

Why are we in Afghanistan? The question should be: Why isn't enough being done in Afghanistan.

**HonjUopu** · 07-23-2007, 06:24 PM

Why are we in Afghanistan? The question should be: Why isn't enough being done in Afghanistan.

Right on the money, thats is the only palces are troops should be, not Iraq or Iran, there hunting al Queda

**Rinkeliacasse** · 07-23-2007, 07:23 PM

Why are we in Afghanistan? The question should be: Why isn't enough being done in Afghanistan.

Define "enough". And enough for what? To support the world's biggest heroin production facility that is actually owned and controlled by members of the corrupt Afghan government! I'm sure the parents of kids in NYC & London will thank you for that! The economy is thriving because of the drug trade, what a indictment on our "achievements" to date.

Anyway history shows that no matter who you are, you are not going to be triumphant in Afghanistan. Our troops are dying defending a corrupt regime that cannot be cleansed because the warlords are part of the problem and (a big) part of the government.

**orapope** · 07-23-2007, 07:36 PM

^^ Enough as is catching this guy:

I don't give a damn about Afghanistan, or it's government. I don't give a damn it's the world's largest heroin producing nation in the world. I don't give a crap about any of that. I want this guy dead. Period. Sadly, our sorry excuse of a President, doesn't quite feel that way.

**laperuzdfhami** · 07-23-2007, 09:44 PM

^^ Enough as is catching this guy:

I don't give a damn about Afghanistan, or it's government. I don't give a damn it's the world's largest heroin producing nation in the world. I don't give a crap about any of that. I want this guy dead. Period. Sadly, our sorry excuse of a President, doesn't quite feel that way.

It's been six long years and yet Bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind created by the CIA, hasn't been cuaght, in fact the odds of catching him have grown longer. Is he in Afghanistan at all? Many believe if he is in the region at all he's in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

And here's an interesting thought ...

http://www.watchblog.com/republicans...es/000853.html

**FreeOEMcheapestPHOTOSHOP** · 07-24-2007, 01:58 PM

Yeh. Whatever. Tinfoil hat all round.

I don't know what the West (tm) is doing in, Kandahar. Let them be Taliban savages if they want. Napalm poppy fields from the air. Establish safe bases/haven in northern (non-pasthun) territory, arm the locals, make it an enclave of relative civilization (shower it with money). Only women and small children can move in from other areas. Use said bases to raid / bomb to smithereens anything potentially linked to Al Qaeda, includign most of Waziristan. Deport / do not alow into the West (tm) anyone potnetially linekd to Al Qaeda.

Do something very simialr with Kurdistan. Ply the Turks witrh aid, an a solid promise that their Eastern border will not be changed.

This should take about 6 months to do right.

**katetomson** · 07-24-2007, 03:14 PM

Ply the Turks witrh aid, an a solid promise that their Eastern border will not be changed.

The Turks have just elected an Islamic government. Still want to ply them with aid?

**Kausilwf** · 07-25-2007, 10:45 AM

The Turks have just elected an Islamic government. Still want to ply them with aid?

You need to do your research a bit deeper. They are more islamicist in name than deed.

**celddiskend** · 07-25-2007, 12:23 PM

You need to do your research a bit deeper. They are more islamicist in name than deed.

Watch this space. Why do you think the EU turned down their proposed membership? Remember the Trojan horse story from Greek mythology?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wturkey02.xml

**Infellgedq** · 07-25-2007, 01:37 PM

Remember the Trojan horse

Indeed.

"Hitler is just kidding." --Chamberlain paraphrased.

**xyupi** · 07-25-2007, 07:35 PM

You need to do your research a bit deeper. They are more islamicist in name than deed.

Turkey is a true democracy and the currently re-elected government did more for reform and secularism than you may imagine. The people voted for them for a reason. Turkey has a large secular society and they are not going anywhere. If EU is tryly multi-cultural and multi-religious they will admit Turkey which will bring Turkey closer to the west and give the world a great example of tolerant Islam and how it can coexist with western values.

**ErnestTU** · 07-25-2007, 09:56 PM

Turkey is a true democracy and the currently re-elected government did more for reform and secularism than you may imagine. The people voted for them for a reason. Turkey has a large secular society and they are not going anywhere. If EU is tryly multi-cultural and multi-religious they will admit Turkey which will bring Turkey closer to the west and give the world a great example of tolerant Islam and how it can coexist with western values.

It's not the government you need to worry about; it's the people. The people are susceptible to the message of militant Islam, and they'll put pressure on the government:

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

**ayWCZ7VT** · 07-26-2007, 12:16 PM

Worth a read Eugenious:

http://www.islam-watch.org/Mac/Turke...-Rise-West.htm

**Sotmoigma** · 07-26-2007, 01:44 PM

Read the Koran.

http://www.islam-watch.org/AmilImani...m-No-Islam.htm

**Xqjfxmfk** · 07-26-2007, 02:48 PM

A very interesting piece Ablarc ...

**Kingerix** · 07-26-2007, 04:24 PM

A very interesting piece Ablarc ...

It amazes me constantly that more folks in the West haven't read the Koran, since it's so central to what's happening to us in history. If you choose a talented translation you'll find it's a jolly good read --full of blood and thunder.

I'm sure the President hasn't read it; if he had, he'd stop referring to Islam as a "religion of peace" and recognize --as the Muslim author of the piece points out-- that it's the so-called "moderate" Muslims who are the deviant fringe. The message is the same as Salman Rushdie's: to be both a good Muslim and a moderate is impossible; you are either one or the other.

Islam is inherently political and commanded to violence; "My kingdom is not of this world" is inimical to its nature. Islamofascism has exactly the same short and long term goals as National Socialism. I wonder how many folks in the free world made excuses for Nazism in 1938. "Wait, let's not judge this philosophy until all the facts are in; it's just another way of seeing things, and we need to treat it with understanding."

Indeed we do need to understand it. The key to that is to read the Koran and to read it without denial. It reveals the entire scenario of what devout Islam has in store for us --just as the complete plan was laid out in "Mein Kampf."

Some folks thought he was kidding.

**Orefsmisits** · 07-26-2007, 05:11 PM

^^ Ok, so I have not read the Koran which makes me less than qualified to opine, but the one thing that strikes me when people point out the extreme text, is that it is probably no different in tone than the Old Testament. Read that one lately?? Talk about a 'good read...' God sure did undergo a change in perspective when his son was born...

Not withstanding the tone of the Old Testament, we do not make the same assumptions about Judeo-Christian beliefs as we do about Islam. I mean I understand the history and all but somehow we are able to rationalize western religous doctrine in peacefull terms despite the Old Testament while we refer to Islam in violent terms because of the Koran.

Seems a bit contradictory to me.

**zzbust** · 07-26-2007, 05:57 PM

one thing that strikes me when people point out the extreme text, is that it is probably no different in tone than the Old Testament.

This is true. The operative word is "Old Testament." Christ says he brought his gospel of peace to mark a new era. There is not a single exhortation to violence in the New Testament. In fact, a devout Christian must eschew violence altogether. Faced with aggression, only pacifism and resignation squares with true Christianity. Turn the other cheek. Put the ear back on the high priest's servant, Peter.

Read that one lately?? Talk about a 'good read...' Yup. For a Christian, the Old Testament is a historical document whose specific ethical dictates apply to the pre-Christian world --specifically the chosen people, the Children of Israel. With the coming of Christ, everyone got chosen and the rules changed; there is no longer a home team.

God sure did undergo a change in perspective when his son was born... Absolutely true. That's why it's a mistake to lump together the New and Old Testaments. "Old" means old and "New" means new. New comes after old and supersedes it.

Not withstanding the tone of the Old Testament, we do not make the same assumptions about Judeo-Christian beliefs as we do about Islam. There you are lumping together. "Judeo-Christian" is a historian's term. "Judeo" and "Christian" are different. Judaism is a tribal religion like Shinto, in which God roots for his favorite team, and everyone else is out in the cold --in fact, the enemy. The Old Testament is a guide to being a good Jew. It's OK to kill Philistines; they're at it in Gaza as we speak.

Christianity represents a sea-change: evil itself is now the enemy, and all are called upon to obey Jesus' message of peace and love. Evil is to be fought spiritually only --through prayer and good example. The fact that almost no Christian is actually capable of doing this (how many of us wouldn't fight an attacker?) doesn't alter the substance of the message. Now read the Koran and see what's called for there.

I mean I understand the history and all but somehow we are able to rationalize western religous doctrine... Lumping again. If you mean Christian doctrine, anyone who accepts a draft call or joins the army is rationalizing doctrine --New Testament doctrine. Old Testament doctrine doesn't apply as specific commands ("exterminate the Philistines of Jericho"), but only as useful lessons in human behavior; Christians eat pork and shellfish.

...in peacefull terms despite the Old Testament while we refer to Islam in violent terms because of the Koran. Feel free to see the Old Testament as exhorting to violence (it does), but be aware that Christ's coming was supposed to end all that. If it didn't it's because people can't live up to it as a group (no surprise there), but they sure can as individuals.

Seems a bit contradictory to me. Not at all. You resolved it yourself when you parsed the Old Testament from the New.

I think we all know which the Koran resembles.

07-23-2007, 04:43 PM	#1
echocassidyde Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 407 Senior Member	Afghanistan - Why are we there? The official line is we are bringing "democracy" and development to Afghanistan, supporting the government of President Hamid Karzai in its attempts to establish order in the country, fighting the Taliban and preventing the further spread of radical Islam into Pakistan. Oh, I nearly forgot, we're also trying to capture Osama Bin Laden & his organisation, who had been installed and financed there by the CIA to fight the Soviets from 1979-1989. Like Iraq, the war in Afghanistan is "unwinnable", even the British Empire at the height of its supremacy could not tame the country. It was not winnable by Darius or Alexander, by Shah, Tsar or Great Moghul. It could not be subdued by 240,000 Soviet troops. But what, precisely, are we trying to "win"? In six years, the occupation has wrought one massive transformation in Afghanistan, a development so huge that it has increased Afghan GDP by 66% and consitutes 40% of the entire economy. That is a startling achievement by any standards. Yet we are not trumpeting it. Why not? The answer is this. The achievement is the highest harvests of opium the world has ever seen. The Taliban had reduced the opium crop to precisely nil, although their measures were harsh, i.e., lopping off bits, often vital bits, of people. The Taliban were a bunch of mad and deeply unpleasant religious fanatics but one of the things they were vehemently against was opium. They stamped out the opium trade, and impoverished and drove out the drug warlords, that is about the only good thing you can say about them. Now we are occupying the country things have changed. According to the United Nations, 2006 was the biggest opium harvest in history, smashing the previous record by 60%. This year will be even bigger. Our economic achievement in Afghanistan goes well beyound the simple production of raw opium. In fact Afghanistan no longer exports much raw opium at all. It has succeeded in what out international aid efforts urge every developing country to do. Afghanistan has gone into manufacturing and "value-added" operations. It now exports not opium, but heroin. Opium is converted into heroin on an industrial scale, not in kitchens but in factories. Millions of gallons of the chemicals needed for this process are shipped into Afghanistan by tanker. The tankers and bulk opium lorries on the way to the factories share the roads, improved by American aid, with Nato troops. How can this have happened, and on this scale? The answer is simple. The four largest players in the heroin business are all senior members of the Afghan government - the government that our soldiers are fighting and dying to protect. The fact that one of these is General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who is head of the Afghan armed forces and Deputy Minster of Defence is in itself a symbol of the bankruptcy of our policy. Dostum is known for tying opponents to tank tracks and running them over. He recently crammed prisoners into metal containers in the searing sun, causing the many to die of heat & thirst. Since we bought "democracy" to Afghanistan, Dostum ordered a Member of Parliament to be tied to the ground whilst he beat him with a hammer and stamped on his body. The sad fact is that Dostum isn't even the worst or biggest drug smuggler in the government! Why then are US, UK & other forces still dying in Afghanistan? As the great diplomat, soldier and adventurer Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Alexander Burnes pointed out before his death in the First Afghnistan War in 1841, there is no point in a military campaign in Afghanistan as every time you beat them, you just swell their numbers. Our only real achievement to date is falling street prices for heroin in London & New York - what an achievement, what a war! (with acknowledgements to Craig Murray, British Ambassador to neighbouring Uzbekistan 2002-2004) Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-23-2007, 04:49 PM	#2
allemnendup Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 485 Senior Member	One thing we must change about our occupational diplomacy abroad. "Changing" a country does not mean altering its entire political and social makeup. We have to stop thinking we can force democracy on some of these people. What we have to do is try to bring about a slow change. maybe with the introduction of schools that would not require, but still allow religious practice. A weaning of the youth off of religious dogma that they get in some of these institutions now that does very little to fit them with anyone but one of their own in the future. We need to study a country first on more than a military and economic level before invading and try to find a way to get under their skin. Not burn it off and try and replace it with another. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-23-2007, 06:22 PM	#3
FrassyLap Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 417 Senior Member	Why are we in Afghanistan? The question should be: Why isn't enough being done in Afghanistan. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-23-2007, 06:24 PM	#4
HonjUopu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 498 Senior Member	Why are we in Afghanistan? The question should be: Why isn't enough being done in Afghanistan. Right on the money, thats is the only palces are troops should be, not Iraq or Iran, there hunting al Queda Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-23-2007, 07:23 PM	#5
Rinkeliacasse Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 563 Senior Member	Why are we in Afghanistan? The question should be: Why isn't enough being done in Afghanistan. Define "enough". And enough for what? To support the world's biggest heroin production facility that is actually owned and controlled by members of the corrupt Afghan government! I'm sure the parents of kids in NYC & London will thank you for that! The economy is thriving because of the drug trade, what a indictment on our "achievements" to date. Anyway history shows that no matter who you are, you are not going to be triumphant in Afghanistan. Our troops are dying defending a corrupt regime that cannot be cleansed because the warlords are part of the problem and (a big) part of the government. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-23-2007, 07:36 PM	#6
orapope Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 523 Senior Member	^^ Enough as is catching this guy: I don't give a damn about Afghanistan, or it's government. I don't give a damn it's the world's largest heroin producing nation in the world. I don't give a crap about any of that. I want this guy dead. Period. Sadly, our sorry excuse of a President, doesn't quite feel that way. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-23-2007, 09:44 PM	#7
laperuzdfhami Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 465 Senior Member	^^ Enough as is catching this guy: I don't give a damn about Afghanistan, or it's government. I don't give a damn it's the world's largest heroin producing nation in the world. I don't give a crap about any of that. I want this guy dead. Period. Sadly, our sorry excuse of a President, doesn't quite feel that way. It's been six long years and yet Bin Laden, the terrorist mastermind created by the CIA, hasn't been cuaght, in fact the odds of catching him have grown longer. Is he in Afghanistan at all? Many believe if he is in the region at all he's in the tribal areas of Pakistan. And here's an interesting thought ... http://www.watchblog.com/republicans...es/000853.html Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-24-2007, 01:58 PM	#8
FreeOEMcheapestPHOTOSHOP Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 412 Senior Member	Yeh. Whatever. Tinfoil hat all round. I don't know what the West (tm) is doing in, Kandahar. Let them be Taliban savages if they want. Napalm poppy fields from the air. Establish safe bases/haven in northern (non-pasthun) territory, arm the locals, make it an enclave of relative civilization (shower it with money). Only women and small children can move in from other areas. Use said bases to raid / bomb to smithereens anything potentially linked to Al Qaeda, includign most of Waziristan. Deport / do not alow into the West (tm) anyone potnetially linekd to Al Qaeda. Do something very simialr with Kurdistan. Ply the Turks witrh aid, an a solid promise that their Eastern border will not be changed. This should take about 6 months to do right. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-24-2007, 03:14 PM	#9
katetomson Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 519 Senior Member	Ply the Turks witrh aid, an a solid promise that their Eastern border will not be changed. The Turks have just elected an Islamic government. Still want to ply them with aid? Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-25-2007, 10:45 AM	#10
Kausilwf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 438 Senior Member	The Turks have just elected an Islamic government. Still want to ply them with aid? You need to do your research a bit deeper. They are more islamicist in name than deed. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-25-2007, 12:23 PM	#11
celddiskend Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 460 Senior Member	You need to do your research a bit deeper. They are more islamicist in name than deed. Watch this space. Why do you think the EU turned down their proposed membership? Remember the Trojan horse story from Greek mythology? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wturkey02.xml Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-25-2007, 01:37 PM	#12
Infellgedq Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 478 Senior Member	Remember the Trojan horse Indeed. "Hitler is just kidding." --Chamberlain paraphrased. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-25-2007, 07:35 PM	#13
xyupi Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 541 Senior Member	You need to do your research a bit deeper. They are more islamicist in name than deed. Turkey is a true democracy and the currently re-elected government did more for reform and secularism than you may imagine. The people voted for them for a reason. Turkey has a large secular society and they are not going anywhere. If EU is tryly multi-cultural and multi-religious they will admit Turkey which will bring Turkey closer to the west and give the world a great example of tolerant Islam and how it can coexist with western values. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-25-2007, 09:56 PM	#14
ErnestTU Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 543 Senior Member	Turkey is a true democracy and the currently re-elected government did more for reform and secularism than you may imagine. The people voted for them for a reason. Turkey has a large secular society and they are not going anywhere. If EU is tryly multi-cultural and multi-religious they will admit Turkey which will bring Turkey closer to the west and give the world a great example of tolerant Islam and how it can coexist with western values. It's not the government you need to worry about; it's the people. The people are susceptible to the message of militant Islam, and they'll put pressure on the government: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-26-2007, 12:16 PM	#15
ayWCZ7VT Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 411 Senior Member	Worth a read Eugenious: http://www.islam-watch.org/Mac/Turke...-Rise-West.htm Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)

07-26-2007, 01:44 PM	#16
Sotmoigma Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 403 Senior Member	Read the Koran. http://www.islam-watch.org/AmilImani...m-No-Islam.htm Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-26-2007, 02:48 PM	#17
Xqjfxmfk Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 459 Senior Member	A very interesting piece Ablarc ... Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-26-2007, 04:24 PM	#18
Kingerix Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 391 Senior Member	A very interesting piece Ablarc ... It amazes me constantly that more folks in the West haven't read the Koran, since it's so central to what's happening to us in history. If you choose a talented translation you'll find it's a jolly good read --full of blood and thunder. I'm sure the President hasn't read it; if he had, he'd stop referring to Islam as a "religion of peace" and recognize --as the Muslim author of the piece points out-- that it's the so-called "moderate" Muslims who are the deviant fringe. The message is the same as Salman Rushdie's: to be both a good Muslim and a moderate is impossible; you are either one or the other. Islam is inherently political and commanded to violence; "My kingdom is not of this world" is inimical to its nature. Islamofascism has exactly the same short and long term goals as National Socialism. I wonder how many folks in the free world made excuses for Nazism in 1938. "Wait, let's not judge this philosophy until all the facts are in; it's just another way of seeing things, and we need to treat it with understanding." Indeed we do need to understand it. The key to that is to read the Koran and to read it without denial. It reveals the entire scenario of what devout Islam has in store for us --just as the complete plan was laid out in "Mein Kampf." Some folks thought he was kidding. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-26-2007, 05:11 PM	#19
Orefsmisits Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 442 Senior Member	^^ Ok, so I have not read the Koran which makes me less than qualified to opine, but the one thing that strikes me when people point out the extreme text, is that it is probably no different in tone than the Old Testament. Read that one lately?? Talk about a 'good read...' God sure did undergo a change in perspective when his son was born... Not withstanding the tone of the Old Testament, we do not make the same assumptions about Judeo-Christian beliefs as we do about Islam. I mean I understand the history and all but somehow we are able to rationalize western religous doctrine in peacefull terms despite the Old Testament while we refer to Islam in violent terms because of the Koran. Seems a bit contradictory to me. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

07-26-2007, 05:57 PM	#20
zzbust Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 563 Senior Member	one thing that strikes me when people point out the extreme text, is that it is probably no different in tone than the Old Testament. This is true. The operative word is "Old Testament." Christ says he brought his gospel of peace to mark a new era. There is not a single exhortation to violence in the New Testament. In fact, a devout Christian must eschew violence altogether. Faced with aggression, only pacifism and resignation squares with true Christianity. Turn the other cheek. Put the ear back on the high priest's servant, Peter. Read that one lately?? Talk about a 'good read...' Yup. For a Christian, the Old Testament is a historical document whose specific ethical dictates apply to the pre-Christian world --specifically the chosen people, the Children of Israel. With the coming of Christ, everyone got chosen and the rules changed; there is no longer a home team. God sure did undergo a change in perspective when his son was born... Absolutely true. That's why it's a mistake to lump together the New and Old Testaments. "Old" means old and "New" means new. New comes after old and supersedes it. Not withstanding the tone of the Old Testament, we do not make the same assumptions about Judeo-Christian beliefs as we do about Islam. There you are lumping together. "Judeo-Christian" is a historian's term. "Judeo" and "Christian" are different. Judaism is a tribal religion like Shinto, in which God roots for his favorite team, and everyone else is out in the cold --in fact, the enemy. The Old Testament is a guide to being a good Jew. It's OK to kill Philistines; they're at it in Gaza as we speak. Christianity represents a sea-change: evil itself is now the enemy, and all are called upon to obey Jesus' message of peace and love. Evil is to be fought spiritually only --through prayer and good example. The fact that almost no Christian is actually capable of doing this (how many of us wouldn't fight an attacker?) doesn't alter the substance of the message. Now read the Koran and see what's called for there. I mean I understand the history and all but somehow we are able to rationalize western religous doctrine... Lumping again. If you mean Christian doctrine, anyone who accepts a draft call or joins the army is rationalizing doctrine --New Testament doctrine. Old Testament doctrine doesn't apply as specific commands ("exterminate the Philistines of Jericho"), but only as useful lessons in human behavior; Christians eat pork and shellfish. ...in peacefull terms despite the Old Testament while we refer to Islam in violent terms because of the Koran. Feel free to see the Old Testament as exhorting to violence (it does), but be aware that Christ's coming was supposed to end all that. If it didn't it's because people can't live up to it as a group (no surprise there), but they sure can as individuals. Seems a bit contradictory to me. Not at all. You resolved it yourself when you parsed the Old Testament from the New. I think we all know which the Koran resembles. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote