London Bombing

[glatt]

Originally Posted by mrnoodle

Fine, I've made someone angry again. I'll stop posting on this topic.

mrnoodle, I can't count the number of times I have drafted responses to your posts and then deleted them without submitting them. Your posts always make me angry and my deleted responses reflect that. You seem to go out of your way to try to piss people off. In many of your posts, you put words and ideas into the mouths of liberals, and you always mischaracterize us. It's easy to make liberals sound wrong when you put lies in our mouths.

In the past, I have contemplated putting you on ignore, but decided against it.

I've occasionally tried debating issues with you in the past, but it's impossible because your style is to mischaracterize the other side and make shit up to support your own arguments. That's why you make people angry.

I'm like the silent majority of muslims who don't approve of the terrorists. But unlike them I am speaking up now so that the lurkers here won't think that mrnoodle speaks for all of us. I don't approve of your posts. Probably not any of them. Consider this a blanket rebuttal for every political post you have written or are going to write. I won't be making individual rebuttals of each one, because I don't have the energy.

[cowhead]

hey, Jag.. glad to hear you're alright. just my little bit though.. it seems that London would be a foolish place to attack (although, yes I can see why.. being a world famous city) however, seeing as how they (you) survived the Nazi bombings in WWII it seems that that would provide some indication of how Londoners would react to such a thing.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Oh I see; by saying "what would I wager" you admit you don't know what they think, but having "stopped and thought" what you would wager they think, you have far greater insight into the situation. Got it!

Tarring the 99%, however, is fair game. In fact it's 9% better than Noodle's "9 out of 10." Good work that.

Have I interviewed each and every Iraqi personally? Obviously, no.

Does viewing human beings in Iraq as having similar wants, needs and motivations to human beings in America seem more logical than assuming that they're all a bunch of frothing anti-American religious zealots? A bit.

Do I feel more justified believing that giving the benefit of the doubt to Joe Average in Iraq is more insightful than writing 90% off as "they want us dead"? Yes, I do, without the slightest shame. Some of my arguments as to why _not_ believing that Iraqis and Muslims in general are raving xenophobes seems logical are earlier in this thread.

Hey look, there's demonization in your playbook too.

Come on, now. Are you honestly and seriously suggesting that George W. Bush, his policies, his choices of appointees and many of his fellow Republicans _aren't_ influenced by Christian extremists to any significant degree?

Saying that Bush believes that yoyos like James Dobson know what they're talking about doesn't make me a rabid anti-Christian bigot, because I know very well that the vast majority of Christians don't buy into Dobson's agenda. Am I demonizing if I worry that Bush does?

To clarify: we have extremists (both religious and political) too. To pretend otherwise is silly. To pretend that one particular set of extremists (certain strict Christian denominations) do not have significant influence over the predominant political party over the last forty years in the most powerful and influential nation in the world is downright dangerous. I can't wish them into the cornfield any more than I can Bin Laden, and quite frankly, _our_ extremists are capable of doing more damage than Iraq's in the long run.

[warch]

That denbeste piece is good. He needs to take a gig as Whitehouse speechwriter.

The arab street's apparent strong reaction to the insurgents' murder of the Egyptian ambassador is hopeful.
and Pakistan is one major wild card.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by vsp

To clarify: we have extremists (both religious and political) too. To pretend otherwise is silly. To pretend that one particular set of extremists (certain strict Christian denominations) do not have significant influence over the predominant political party over the last forty years in the most powerful and influential nation in the world is downright dangerous. I can't wish them into the cornfield any more than I can Bin Laden, and quite frankly, _our_ extremists are capable of doing more damage than Iraq's in the long run.

The difference is that in the ME the extremists are in charge, whilst here even they must respect the rule of law which puts enormous power in the hands of the people.

Consider, for example: the #1 issue to all evangelical extremists is abortion, yet abortion remains legal. Why?

Because in order to wield that political power, it's important that it remain legal.

Weird little problem; if abortion were made illegal it would permit the opposition to wield a much larger, much more powerful group, and one that terrifies the righty extremists.

What we've done here is to construct a government that has to respect the will of the majority whilst remaining a representative republic. So in order for the evangelicals to really gain power, they would have to convince a majority of the American public that they are correct. Do you think they can do that? Because it's not going well for them, as their numbers are down.

Now contrast Iran. In Iran, the mulllahs have absolute power over the country. They decide who will go on the ballot to be their puppet President. They make the rulings that govern the country. Iran is going to have nukes soon.

So which one is more dangerous again?

Originally Posted by dar512

Go ahead and prove it then. I'm not going to accept handwaving as fact.

Here's a few fun numbers and facts about the Crusades from the same site I gave in an earlier reply on this thread http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#20worst and a second site called "Timeline of The Crusades" http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...crusades02.htm
This listing is far from being an exhaustive one. The Crusades went on for hundreds of years and were characterized by many bloody encounters. I got tired of wading through them all. If you want more, check the sites above.

(I put the source of each statistic in bold print)

Davies: Crusaders killed up to 8,000 Jews in Rhineland

Paul Johnson A History of the Jews (1987): 1,000 Jewish women in Rhineland comm. suicide to avoid the mob, 1096.

Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v.5, 6 :

Crusaders vs. Solimon of Roum: 4,000 Christians, 3,000 Moslems killed
1098, Fall of Antioch: 100,000 Moslems massacred.
1099, Fall of Jerusalem: 70,000 Moslems massacred.
Siege of Tyre: 1,000 Turks killed
Richard the Lionhearted executes 3,000 Moslem POWs.
1190: 500 Jews massacred in York.

In the First Crusade (From Timeline of the Crusades above):

Crusaders capture the city of M'arrat-an-Numan, a small city east of Antioch. According to reports, Crusaders are observed eating the flesh of both adults and children; as a consequence, the Franks would be labeled "cannibals" by Turkish historians

Crusaders breach the walls of Jerusalem at two points: Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin at St. Stephen's Gate on the north wall and Count Raymond at the Jaffa Gate on the west wall, thus allowing them to capture the city. Estimates place the number of casualties as high as 100,000. Tancred of Hauteville, a grandson of Robert Guiscard and nephew of Bohemund of Taranto, is the first Crusader through the walls. The day is Friday, Dies Veneris, the anniversary of when Christians believe that Jesus redeemed the world and is the first of two days of unprecedented slaughter.

On July 16, 1099, Crusaders herded the Jews of Jerusalem into a synagogue and set it on fire.


There's lots more, too, but I got sick of reading it all. There were plenty of atrocities to go around. The Muslims seemed to often just sell their captives as slaves. The Christians preferred slaughter as the examples above show. Why on earth would anyone defend the Crusades?????????

[dar512]

Well, Marichiko, that's a start. However in order to confirm Radar's 100 to 1 ratio we'd need better numbers on how many Christians have been killed by Muslims over the same periods.

What you need to understand is that I'm mostly jerking Radar's chain. : He stated a definite ratio when I just knew he never did any research to back it up. Also please note that I never said the statement was incorrect. I don't know from my own knowledge that it is. But if you're going to put stuff out there as fact, you ought to have something better than pulpit pounding to back it up.

In any case, I am not defending the crusades. But I'm not going to get all weepy over something my ancesters did hundreds of years ago either. And I don't think it in any way justifies current events.

There's been a lot of strong rhetoric in many directions on this issue and most of it is hogwash. Nobody here has a clue what percentage of Muslims hate America/Americans. If they did, they'd be citing sources.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by vsp

Come on, now. Are you honestly and seriously suggesting that George W. Bush, his policies, his choices of appointees and many of his fellow Republicans _aren't_ influenced by Christian extremists to any significant degree?

I will honestly and seriously suggest that.

George Bush, his policies, his choices of appointees and many of his fellow Republicans are influenced by CHRISTIANS, no doubt. But not the extremists, no. Not the abortion-clinic bombers, not the KKK.

"Extremist Muslim" = very different from average Muslim, as you have pointed out. "Extremist Christian" = the majority (or even a significant percentage) of people who are Christian? No.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by dar512

--clip--

There's been a lot of strong rhetoric in many directions on this issue and most of it is hogwash. Nobody here has a clue what percentage of Muslims hate America/Americans. If they did, they'd be citing sources.

AS IF actually having a hard number, a verifiable number to 4 decimal places would even have an effect on anything anyway. Sheesh.

A couple of important points:

These people who committed these crimes, they surely hated somebody.

Violence begets violence. Not peace. Not quiet. There are sometimes breaks between the blows. But do not be deceived--those breaks only let you distinguish the blows. The end of violence is the start of peace.

"War" waged against individuals or small groups of individuals is like using an ICBM to pound down the nail that stands up. *NOT* the right tool for the job, and doomed to fail. And we are talking about individuals here, groups here--not governments. Not nations. And not religions or dogma.

There are well over a billion muslims in the world, a quarter of all people. Don't you think if they were all angry, the streets would run red? Wrongly focusing on "Islam the Enemy" misdirects your energy at best and at worst exacerbates the problem by fertilizing the ground for new "haters".

The West has much going for it. Culturally, economically, politically, militarilily, socially. Sell it. Talk it up. Honey vs vinegar. No one I know is opposed to this. Notable exceptions center around *how* stuff gets done. Who doesn't want a chance to make a life, but not at the expense of another. My progressive world view encourages dissent in dialog. Even when I disagree with the content of the opposition's points, I highly value the variety and the freedom that permits their expression.

I worship God, but that worship does not extend to war against non-believers.

I say tomato, you say tomahto. What we share in common positively overwhelms our differences. By staying our fears and focusing one what we share, infinitely more would be accomplished.

Originally Posted by dar512

Well, Marichiko, that's a start. However in order to confirm Radar's 100 to 1 ratio we'd need better numbers on how many Christians have been killed by Muslims over the same periods.

What you need to understand is that I'm mostly jerking Radar's chain. : He stated a definite ratio when I just knew he never did any research to back it up. Also please note that I never said the statement was incorrect. I don't know from my own knowledge that it is. But if you're going to put stuff out there as fact, you ought to have something better than pulpit pounding to back it up.

I understand what you're saying, Dar. Radar and I are rather unlikely allies and he should have provided citations. As it turns out, however, his 100 to 1 ratio is probably close to the mark if you check the other stats I gave.

Originally Posted by dar512

In any case, I am not defending the crusades. But I'm not going to get all weepy over something my ancesters did hundreds of years ago either. And I don't think it in any way justifies current events.

Thank you for clarifying your stance. I agree, its pointless to shed tears over the wrongs our own people may have committed centuries ago. It is useful to be aware of them, though. Ancestral hatreds can run deep, and certainly the collision between the West and the Mid East has a long and varied history. No, I don't think London or 9/11 was justified by the crusades and I doubt that the people who committed these actions were thinking of the Crusades either. The Crusades do present a sort of backdrop for the mutual animosity of Christian versus Muslim, East versus West.

Originally Posted by dar512

There's been a lot of strong rhetoric in many directions on this issue and most of it is hogwash. Nobody here has a clue what percentage of Muslims hate America/Americans. If they did, they'd be citing sources.

Yes, people love to present rhetoric as fact. The statistic as to what percentage of Muslims hate America is an impossible one to find. As far as I know, there's been no Gallup Poll taken in Iraq and even if there were, I doubt that the respondants would give honest answers for fear of repercusions either way and from either side.

I think the biggest mistake people make is to view this as a religous conflict. It is not. The cultural tradition of the West happens to be Christian. The cultural tradition of the Mid East happens to be Muslim. Both Christ and Mohammed no doubt sit in heaven and weep to see what their followers are doing in the world today.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by marichiko

--snip--I think the biggest mistake people make is to view this as a religous conflict. It is not. The cultural tradition of the West happens to be Christian. The cultural tradition of the Mid East happens to be Muslim. Both Christ and Mohammed no doubt sit in heaven and weep to see what their followers are doing in the world today.

And I weep with them. As does every thinking person.

If you have ever played with a brother or sister, been held by your mother, encouraged by your father, you weep. If you have had friends that stood by you, helped you, known you, you weep. If you have held your own child and trembled in awe or laughed with joy or been temporarily paralyzed with worry over all that could happen to them, you weep.

If you think that every drop of blood spilled came from someone's brother or sister. A friend is now gone. The too-soon departure of a parent. Every life lost is the loss of some mother's child.

Weep. Weep as though the wellspring of compassion has been uncovered. And let that healing compassion flow over us all.

Originally Posted by BigV

And I weep with them. As does every thinking person.

If you have ever played with a brother or sister, been held by your mother, encouraged by your father, you weep. If you have had friends that stood by you, helped you, known you, you weep. If you have held your own child and trembled in awe or laughed with joy or been temporarily paralyzed with worry over all that could happen to them, you weep.

If you think that every drop of blood spilled came from someone's brother or sister. A friend is now gone. The too-soon departure of a parent. Every life lost is the loss of some mother's child.

Weep. Weep as though the wellspring of compassion has been uncovered. And let that healing compassion flow over us all.

If only !

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Radar

English people can't be hung either. They have no chins. They just slip through the noose. I was pretty shocked when I heard King's Cross was blown up. There must have been prostitute body parts all over the place.

Please consider that I work in EMS, where the humor is blacker than black ...

This is probably one of the most insensitive things that I will read or hear all year.

[CzinZumerzet]

Radar. Just dont ever ever come looking for friends here in England after that filthy bit of written excrement. That wasn't humour it was a glimpse into something disgusting masquerading as a mind. Don't waste your time trying to explain or justify yourself because foul mouthing dead, maimed and missing people never was remotely funny even among adolescents which I take you to be. I am completely disgusted.

[jaguar]

was that meant to be funny radar? It wasn't even black funny, it was just plain fucking stupid. Fuck you, you worthless piece of shit.

I spent most of this morn in the city centre, most of the tube is running, the busses are back to normal, people are a little scared but it's amazing how quickly everything has bounced back, even most of the west end is running as normal. Lots of police around, even more than normal but that was partly because the queen was opening something or other. This *is* a resiliant city, it'll take more than that to bring london to it's knees.