Conflict in the Middle East

[James]

[quote]Fair enough, but let's not act like US had widespread support for their decision to invade.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I didn't. I just said a number of countries supported their efforts, as did the people of Iraq.[/font]

[quote]The US had no reason or obligation to take the invasion of Iraq [almost entirely] upon its own back, and that's probably the biggest qualm I have with the entire debacle.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Whether or not it had an obligation is one thing - no I don't think it had an obligation.

But it certainly had [i]numerous[/i] reasons to commit to the war. And those have been stated in this thread - although there's so much more detail to be had, I'm sure.

As for it being a debacle, well...war is never easy. Ever. But again, I don't think that the end result is a debacle (even though aspects of the process certainly were).[/font]

[quote]Sure, but with the exception of the UK and KDP/PUK, there were negligible troop contributions. So yes, it was a "multilateral" invasion, but in name only. By and large, the burden was shouldered primarily by the US, in terms of troops, money, and responsibility. It was wrong of our administration to act in such a manner.
[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Negligible troop contributions? Ouch. I'm sure the families of UK or Australian troops who have passed away wouldn't think of their contributions as negligible.

But seriously, you've got to understand what went into that war in the first place. Did you know that Australian SAS forces were among the first on the ground? They went behind enemy lines, assigned targets and conducted a number of major operations before the invasion began in full. These contributions are not negligible.

And it was wrong for the U.S. to primarily bear the troop/financial burden? Why "wrong"?

The U.S. was the country that led the coalition - so by its own actions it has taken that responsibility upon itself. You can't lead a coalition and say "Oh but, by the way, we're sending in the least amount of troops. Sorry, allies!"[/font]

[quote]Not even a tenth of the total violent deaths are insurgents. The vast majority of those deaths are civilians killed in the crossfire that would have never materialized had there been no invasion.

Furthermore, the numbers I gave are probably pitifully low at this point, as those were taken from a survey in mid-2007.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't believe that. I'd need to see accurate sources on those figures.

But even so, that still doesn't mean the invasion was wrong. Let's also remember that during the invasion, the Iraqi military openly attacked its own citizens (there is quite a well-known occasion where an Iraqi rocket exploded in a Baghdad marketplace, just as the invasion commenced).

You will also find that Hussein deliberately used civilian structures as military outposts (there are examples of mosques and hospitals being used for this purpose).

So I would say that these figures are pretty muddy in terms of their break down. But at the same time, I absolutely believe and accept that large numbers of civilians have died as a result of fighting between Iraqi and Allied forces.

This is highly unfortunate and no loss of life is ever a positive thing. But as I said earlier, war is [i]never[/i] easy or simple. Most Iraqis seem to accept that the struggle for independence is a long and tough road, requiring much sacrifice.

All you have to do is look at the massive lines of Iraqis lining up to join their local police forces, even when Iraqi police were being regularly blown to smithereens by foreign insurgents.[/font]

[quote]Easy to say, when your government isn't the one wasting your tax money.

It's great that they're now free, but at what cost? Sure, 50 million people are no longer under a dictator, but their lives, and the region, have newer and perhaps more intense instability ahead.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Again... "wasting" tax money. Is it really a waste to free 50 million people? I would tend to think carefully about that.

As for newer and perhaps more intense instability...that's something you're making up as you're going along. There's no need to do that. All current indications are that Iraq is settling down dramatically. Another round of elections are planned and the Iraqi government is currently implementing significant reforms to stimulate the economy.[/font]

[quote]According to Bush, the reasons for the invasion were: "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." [/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah, exactly. How is this any different from what I've stated? He mentions [i]disarmament[/i] (which includes [b]the removal of a country's capacity for further production[/b]) and he also mentioned support for terrorism and freeing the Iraqi people.

So no actual WMD stockpiles were found, but how does that suggest that the war was wrongly sold? Your own quotes answers your complaint![/font]

[quote]Call that a "non-issue," but when the entire reason for war is laid out in terms like that, I have a tough time dismissing it as a "non-issue." Do note there is absolutely no mention of Saddam's violation of international law. So yes, legally there was grounds for the invasion. However it's like being indicted for theft when you were instead a murderer -- you're still going to jail, but the justification is vastly different.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I said that the [i]discovery[/i] of WMD stock piles was largely a non-issue, because it deals with the symptom of the problem (not to mention one small aspect of Resolution 1441).

No mention of Saddam's violation of international law? Are we reading the same statement? lol

Saddam's failure on weapons disarmament [i]is a direct violation of international law[/i]. How much more explicit can Bush be?

Your analogy is totally ridiculous. Your attempt to pick at Bush's statement because it does not expressly mention the relevant resolution is absurd.

As I have repeatedly said, "disarmament" is [i]not[/i] just about destroying stockpiles. The resolutions clearly state this. UNMOVIC clearly states it.

So there's nothing about Bush's comments that imply the sole justification for war is an attempt to destroy WMD stockpiles. I don't know how you even get that from what Bush said, in all honesty.[/font]

[quote]It wasn't really until it set in that, surprise, the war wasn't going to be a few months long.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Surprise to whom? The actual "deposition" of the Iraqi regime took something in the order of three weeks. What has lasted for months is the occupation of Iraq.

I don't know anyone who thought that it would be a matter of just diving in and leaving within days. In any case, I don't see what that has to do with someone agreeing that the invasion was the right course of action.[/font]

[quote]I find it disappointed that not only the media, but by and large even the government failed to use that as a justification for war. At the very least, it would've been more salient[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Well you just quoted Bush talking about disarmament, terrorism and liberation.

As I said, disarmament includes far more than just destroying existing stockpiles. This may not be evident to everybody, but then you have to question exactly how specific Bush must be in his explanation.

After all, there were very detailed sessions about this within the U.N. and within the Congress. The bigger question is whether people bothered to look for this more detailed info. Most didn't.[/font]

[quote]No, the Congress made a decision based on their constituents desires and wishes -- they simply represented the voices of Americans. It was the common citizen who was heavily in support of the invasion. You are correct when you say most people are horribly uninformed, because to them, there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Sorry, that's just totally incorrect. Decisions about going to war with another country aren't made through public polling or anything of the sort.

This is like some idiot jumping up and down and saying "OMG ATTACK RUSSIA" and their Congressman actually trying to pass such a resolution. It doesn't work that way.

You're completely ignoring the intelligence and national security committees and their vital role within the Congress. You're also completely ignoring the thousands of pages of evidence and intelligence that Congressmen and women had to pour over (especially those in relevant committees).[/font]

[quote]And yes, it was sold as such by the administration -- that there was some global network of terror through which Saddam and bin Laden collaborated in a dark basement somewhere to blow people up. 9/11 was a selling point for the war, and that was a really sad thing, to justify the invasion based on something totally unrelated.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yet another issue. I'll give you my point of view on this, although again, this has [i]nothing[/i] to do with your original question to me.

It's true that the impact of 9/11 largely led to America's action against Iraq. But nobody suggested that Saddam Hussein was involved with those attacks. It was always clear that this was an al-Qaeda operation.

However, there was a legitimate fear that the Iraqi government may partner with terrorist groups by way of passing weapons material or know-how to them.

There was significant evidence that al-Qaeda was seeking nuclear weapons, in fact. And moreover, it is known that some members of the group had been harbored within Baghdad.

Now, for me personally, I think the link between Iraq and al-Qaeda - while reasonable - is still tenuous. But the war was never sold principally on this idea; this was simply a major concern that took on a new meaning post-9/11.

You yourself just finished telling me that the primary selling point for the war was related to WMD destruction. And I clarified that by saying it was about disarmament.

I think that the 9/11 link was mentioned, but it wasn't a major platform to justify the invasion. There were certainly intelligence reports that commented on links between Hussein and a number of terrorist groups within the Middle East and so, there was a very legitimate concern about where this could go. As I said earlier, Iraq had already shown that it was prepared to attack its neighbours and its own people. The only reason it couldn't attack America was because it lacked the physical ability to do so. The fear was that terrorist groups may provide one vehicle for Iraq to achieve this. I don't see that as an illegitimate question.[/font]

[quote](And I mean for god's sake, people were calling them "Freedom Fries!" here in opposition to the French over the entire thing)[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That's just people being dumb. I don't think that has anything to do with what we're discussing though.[/font]

[quote]Sure, but they also claimed they "knew" there were WMDs. That's why when Hans Blix adamantly denied that, we gave him the finger and invaded anyway, claiming that he was wrong. Turns out Blix had the right information, and the US/President/Congress had the wrong information. So their deliberations were full of sound and fury, and based on ridiculous pigheadedness.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Hans Blix didn't deny that there were weapons initially. His point was that Iraq had failed to verify what had happened to known stockpiles.

It's worth pointing out to you that Hanx Blix [i]also[/i] declared that Iraq was in material breach of Resolution 1441, which promised military action in such an event.

So you just can't have it both ways.[/font]

[quote]Excusing the fact I was in 8th grade when we were invading...
I read the major news outlets, and there was much talk of WMDs, and almost no mention of 1991 and the previous UN Resolutions. Seriously James, 2003 was a big failure in substantive media coverage for places like NYT, LAT, and WashPost.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah you were in eight grade during that time, yet you're trying to tell me all about your knowledge of media coverage at the time as well.

As I said before, you can't have it both ways.

If you think there was almost no talk of the prior resolutions, then you simply weren't watching/listening/reading. There was plenty of coverage about this issue.[/font]

[quote]Not in those words, but he (and those in support of the invasion) said it would be a relatively quick thing. If you had told anyone back then that we'd be there in 2008, they would've laughed at you[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I wouldn't have laughed, because I know my history. I know that occupations are not quick things.

I think Bush did say that the actual "war" would be over relatively quickly and it was. The conquest of Iraq took a very short time. But, obviously, occupation is another story.

Although once again...I'm not really sure what that even has to do with anything. I mean, you asked me why I supported the invasion and I told you. I also said there were numerous things I disagreed with.

Perhaps you should just accept that I agreed with the invasion and still do, based on the reasons I mentioned. We may not agree, but we don't have to.[/font]

[quote]I know -- and we still have military presence in both countries.

The thing is, it wasn't originally intended to be an occupation, or if it was, it was meant to be abbreviated. I'm also bitter at the administration's disingenuousness when it came to the duration of our occupation. They definitely said it would be a quick thing.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I really think you should just get over your bitterness, in all honesty. It's just pointless right now.

As I've mentioned exhaustively, we can make the best plans in the world - but the reality is that quite often unexpected things will happen. Nobody can plan for everything. Expecting such is highly unrealistic.[/font]

[quote]I never said useless, I said unfair, disingenuous, poorly planned, shortsighted, and incompetent. Perhaps something good will come of it now that we're already there, but if given a chance I would have voted against the decision to invade. I just feel it did little to benefit anyone, and did a great deal of damage to all parties involved.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not really sure what else to say, except, read everything I've said so far.[/font]

[quote]The US has generally operated based on its own rational self-interest, and to fight against Hitler in its early stages made little sense from this philosophy's perspective. That's how all countries generally operate.

Also, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison to make. By your logic, we should always act immediately because there could be something terrible going on unbeknownst to us. Fast action is not always best action.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Every country has always operated in self-interest. And quite often, self-interest intertwines with the interests of others. Iraq definitely fits within that category.

My comparison was reasonable. Are you aware that there were quite a lot of commentators who were against going to war with Hitler in the early stages? This was despite his massive incursions within Europe.

There are issues in the world that simply get worse if allowed to fester. The situation with Iraq went on for far too long - it shouldn't have taken 16 resolutions to finally bring about action.

I agree with you that fast action is not always best action. And I do not advocate the idea that fast is "always" best. But certainly, fast is [i]sometimes[/i] best. And there are quite a few instances in history where many people have suffered as a result of inaction - far more than those who suffered as a result of action, at least (I only need to talk about Rwanda, the Balkans and Indonesia to illustrate this point).

Before you reply to all of this though, I should just reinforce one point.

Earlier you asked me a simple question. You asked me if I supported the invasion and why. And you asked me if I still do. And I think I've answered those questions pretty clearly.

I'm happy to debate about the war for a while, but really, I don't want to start covering all of the million related aspects to this. I am best to leave that to someone else who has more energy for it. That's especially true when some of my core points aren't even being acknowledged, or when they are simply glossed over despite their vital relevance.[/font]

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Since you seem to be quite eager for an argument, [COLOR=DarkRed]Reri[/COLOR], despite the situation, how about you give [COLOR=DarkRed]James[/COLOR] a rest and poke at me for a while? I've certainly got some points I want to talk about that I didn't have time to discuss over my break.

[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']If you are calling me "Jesus-ophobic," I would object.[/font][/quote]
Good. You're supposed to. By the same token, I object to being called an "Islamophobe", because the label is inaccurate. However, just as my actions in this thread seem to you to be those of an anti-Muslim prophet of doom, so your actions to me in various other threads along with this one seem to be those of one who cannot but spy the barest mention of Christianity without feeling an overwhelming need to discredit it.

[QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"]I'm more taking issue with the broadly negative picture being painted of Islam here. I personally find these views to be intellectually dishonest.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
Considering I am merely presenting information that I have received and personally evaluated the degree of bias versus truth, I find this insinuation to be an large affront. Yes, the statements I have made about Islam so far have not been favorable. But would you have me speak of the Third Reich alongside fields of flowers and prancing unicorns?

To deny the truth, [I]any truth[/I], is intellectually dishonest. And in this context, the truth is that Islam as a religion [I]and[/I] a culture is very warlike, and has been for millennia. It's not hatred or fear or loathing I speak from. Merely observation.

[QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"]I assumed you were painting Islam as a violent religion (and generally speaking there's a lot of that language in your former posts, intended or not). So I wanted to knock that argument down by bringing up [i]your[/i] religion. You know, it's the argument of "pick the plank out of your own eye before taking the splinter out of your brother's."[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
Yes, you assumed. And you were right, because truthfully I have been giving a rather bleak picture. But then you want to counter not by promoting the peaceful nature of Islam that you might have seen, but the violence of another? What did you hope to accomplish? A change of topic? Me to reflexively defend my faith as pure and honorable, despite a clear history of power abuse? To do so would have been intellectually dishonest as well.

As for the mote/plank parable, I implore you: if you wish to use my own texts against me, then please learn them so you may use them effectively.

First, as I'm sure you're aware, the point of that parable is that one should deal with one's own faults before one points out those of another. The flaw with its use in this context is that the violence and power abuse of the Judeo-Christian sect is a part of [I]history[/I], and as of the last few centuries there has been no violence as I have been painting, and as you wished to point out. Yes, we still have our flaws and weaknesses and hypocrisies to deal with, but they are not relevant to the [I]current[/I] mindset of the Middle Eastern culture, which has been what I have been driving at since my first post.

Second, I think the mantra you really wanted was "judge not, lest ye also be judged", which came right before the mote/plank analogy. And really, the two are meant not only to be used in conjunction, but also with the bit between them:
[INDENT]"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the same measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"[/INDENT]
Matthew 7: 1-3, NIV, if anyone cares.

But here again you passed judgment on me just as you claimed I was doing to Islam, and yet I acknowledged your cries and even fueled their accuracy with support of my own? Did you miss the mentions of the Crusades, the Inquisitions? Would you like me to bring up Cortéz, and the Spanish conquest of the New World in the name of God, and the [U]countless[/U] [U]atrocities[/U] committed by the conquistadors?

My point with my information about Islam was to point out the degree that religious justification can be used to do ill. You are proving alongside me that such misuse of religion is common. And yet you still cry foul against me?

I turn the parable back to you. You seem to feel compelled to speak ill of my faith as often as you can, and yet you criticise me when I present negative information about a religion other than Christianity? Are you the only one allowed to make such judgments, and of a faith of which you have but elementary knowledge?

Until I may speak freely of my faith here on these boards without immediately losing all my credibility and without immediately being attacked by those who feel themselves above such 'crutch-leaning', do not presume?no, do not [U]dare[/U] to tell me I cannot speak of another faith, no matter how negative.

Do not [U]dare[/U].

[QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"]I'm not really sure what you mean in creating a unified/diverse dichotomy of thinking. I'm not even sure that it's valid to call Islam "culturally unified" insofar as there are different sects with wildly varying doctrines. These divisions are in large part responsible for the current civil unrest in Iraq. If anything, I'd call Christianity more unified.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
First of all, I said nothing about creating [I]any[/I] dichotomy of thinking. My words were that I wished to bring an [I]understanding of Islam to the playing field[/I]. Whether people agree or disagree does not bother me, so long as they understand.

However, I would question what you know about the "wildly varying" doctrines of Islam. Given the shallow understanding of the Christian community which you have displayed thus far, I think perhaps that you might be relying a little much on what the media has told you about Islam, and not searched for yourself. The only item that comes to mind immediately for me is that there are indeed different sects of Islam, and some of the Islamic doctrines quite conflict with each other (again, the same has been claimed for Christianity, so please do not waste your breath bringing [I]that[/I] tired subject up), but aside from that....

My comments about 'diverse' and 'unified' were spoken directly to the mindset of the West versus the mindset of the Middle East respectively. I even explicitly stated so. If you did not understand, then perhaps....

Very well. The point I was driving at [I]there[/I] was that, as I said in several previous instances, no matter where you go Islam is Islam. And while that sounds initially to be a vast, blatantly sweeping over-generalisation, bear in mind that I am recognising the distinct differences in culture from even Jordan to Turkey, and surely the Western European countries. Despite those differences, as I illustrated with the single student example (though I have others), the thinking [I]inside the Islamic faith[/I] is the same?and at the same time as they are stabbing tables demanding a death sentence they are claiming that there is no violence in Islam.

That is a [I]unified[/I] mindset.

Also as illustration, notice how it is far more comfortable to pursue a pastime you happen to enjoy when you are in the presence of others who share the same enjoyment. It is easier to talk philosophy among fellow philosophy acolytes than it is to talk among those who neither know of such pursuits nor care. Likewise, it is far easier to be vocal about your faith when you are surrounded by a large group of people who share your beliefs. Have you never been to a Christian rally, where forty-thousand young adults are singing praise songs at the top of their lungs? Would it surprise you to know that perhaps one percent of those students sing that passionately in their own churches, if that many? So while I claim that Islam is a unified community, that unification is forged even stronger in their homeland, where they have the support of thousands like themselves.

Contrariwise, here stateside we value diversity and the freedom to think as you will. (And love as thou wilt, but that's both a fictional D'Angeline reference and irrelevant.) As a direct result, it is [I]required[/I] that we first as a whole [I]agree [/I]to take action before we can take action and hope to be effective. Remember the Articles of Confederation? How badly they failed? That failure was due to a heavy balance of power to the states, and little to the central Federal government; as a direct result, a financial crisis in Massachusetts escalated to armed conflict (granted, one shot was fired), while the Federal government was impotent to act or authorise anything. Our lack of unity paralysed us, and the Articles were immediately repealed.

And yet again, the Civil War was caused as a direct result of diverse thinking. However, the variables for this war are so numerous that I feel it a waste of both our times to explore them, at least for now.

Certainly diversity has led us to great progress as a nation and a culture, but at the same time it causes a certain hiccup in our actions should we want to move to do anything; think of how long a case spends in litigation before the Supreme Court finally decides to even see it, let alone rewrite national policy for it.

And then when our leaders [I]do[/I] act decisively, the uproar is enormous . . . as you yourself have demonstrated with your views on the current occupation.

Finally, I wonder at the relevance of pointing out the 'unity' of Christianity at all. We are [I]certainly[/I] not a completely Christian nation (else I think you'd be having an eternal aneurysm), while the Middle East is [I]decidedly[/I] Muslim. Which returns me to my initial point: in order to successfully interact with that culture, we [I]must[/I] at least partially abandon our own 'superior' way of thinking, and come to at least partially understand theirs?which they believe to be superior to ours.

[QUOTE][I][FONT="Arial"]In any event, I think we should also bring a distinction between the truth of the religion (i.e. the actual teachings and honest interpretations) and what the religion is purported to be by its mouthpieces.[/FONT][/I][/QUOTE]
And that is what I have been attempting to do with every post I've submitted. Yet you still cry [I]j'accuse![/I] Should we then ignore any negative slants on a religion or a culture? Or should we delve to the truth, no matter the ugliness that emerges?

Or is that negativity reserved exclusively for the Christians?

[CENTER]-----------------[/CENTER]
[COLOR=DarkRed]Nathan[/COLOR]: Aha, I see. The intercessory, yes. No, I was fine. But thank you, I appreciate the thought.

[quote name='Rachmaninoff']This I already know. You can hunt up examples if you wish, but I don't think it's necessary. That's a point you don't need to prove.[/quote]
Oh, good. To be honest, I felt a little like a jerk while writing that bit, but it wanted to be said if I was to be fair.

And thank you for understanding what I was driving at. It's not that I [I]want[/I] to portray them as 'evil'. It's that before we can do anything with them, we have to understand how they think, even if it seems unattractive to us.

[quote name='James][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"']Instead, people are indoctrinated with extremist points of view at a young age. Religious texts are used as a basis to justify these points of view, but this is just a way of legitimizing violent and unacceptable behavior.[/FONT][/quote]
Yes, yes, [I]yes[/I]. That is another strength the Middle East has over the West: they educate their children in their beliefs early and thoroughly. With our appreciation for diversity and finding one's own way, we cannot hope to match that strength of unity.

Call it indoctrination if you will. But all parents who wish to instill a set of values in their children do the very same. Good point, sir.[/FONT]

[Retribution]

[quote name='Allamorph']Since you seem to be quite eager for an argument, [COLOR=DarkRed]Reri[/COLOR], despite the situation, how about you give [COLOR=DarkRed]James[/COLOR] a rest and poke at me for a while? I've certainly got some points I want to talk about that I didn't have time to discuss over my break.[/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]Sounds good... but I didn't even get my T thrown in my name? :( :( :(

[QUOTE]To deny the truth, [I]any truth[/I], is intellectually dishonest. And in this context, the truth is that Islam as a religion [I]and[/I] a culture is very warlike, and has been for millennia. It's not hatred or fear or loathing I speak from. Merely observation.[/QUOTE]
I object to calling Islam as a religion "warlike" just as I object to calling Christianity as a religion "warlike." As I mentioned earlier, there is a difference between the religion and the religion as it is practiced. Islam is not the religion of warmongering, it's simply been used to justify such conquests. Likewise, Christianity is a very pacifistic religion, but it's been used to justify conquests. Simply because the mouthpieces of the religion are violent does not make the religion (interpreted with fidelity to the spirit of the words) violent. So if someone wanted to use Paul to justify slavery, that'd be ridiculous... it would be ignoring ALL of Jesus' teachings where he tells us to love our fellow man. Similarly, it would be ridiculous to take a passage out of the Quran and say it constitutes a warlike religion.

[QUOTE]But then you want to counter not by promoting the peaceful nature of Islam that you might have seen, but the violence of another? What did you hope to accomplish? A change of topic? Me to reflexively defend my faith as pure and honorable, despite a clear history of power abuse? To do so would have been intellectually dishonest as well.[/QUOTE]
I brought up Christianity as a reminding note to you that Christians (or at least those who call themselves so), too, have been "warlike." However that does not make the religion itself warlike.

[QUOTE]My point with my information about Islam was to point out the degree that religious justification can be used to do ill. You are proving alongside me that such misuse of religion is common. And yet you still cry foul against me?[/QUOTE]
I cry foul when you call the religion "warlike" based off the actions of the followers. That is a misuse of the religion. That is a misinterpretation of the religion.

[QUOTE]Until I may speak freely of my faith here on these boards without immediately losing all my credibility and without immediately being attacked by those who feel themselves above such 'crutch-leaning', do not presume—no, do not [U]dare[/U] to tell me I cannot speak of another faith, no matter how negative.[/QUOTE]
No one's censoring your posts, and your arguments show that you're not "crutch-leaning" -- you speak for yourself. Further, I didn't disparage your religion, I simply pointed out its past. I didn't call your religion warlike, either. I pointed out the violent history associated with Christianity, but at the same time, I acknowledge that is not "real" Christianity.

[QUOTE]First of all, I said nothing about creating [I]any[/I] dichotomy of thinking. My words were that I wished to bring an [I]understanding of Islam to the playing field[/I]. Whether people agree or disagree does not bother me, so long as they understand.[/QUOTE]
The creation was implicit in your Islam/Christian or East/West divide in your previous post. I don't know why you're really taking issue with that, either... I didn't [i]criticize[/i] you for doing it, haha.

[QUOTE]However, I would question what you know about the "wildly varying" doctrines of Islam.[/QUOTE]
They perceive themselves as varying... or at least I would assume as much so long as there is Shi'a-Sunni violence (Iraq a few months ago, anyone?). Do you see Episcopalians and Methodists attacking one another? Do you see animosity between Baptists and Catholics? Not really, or at least not to the same degree you see in the modern Middle East. This is why I call modern Christianity more unified than Islam.

[QUOTE]Given the shallow understanding of the Christian community which you have displayed thus far, I think perhaps that you might be relying a little much on what the media has told you about Islam, and not searched for yourself.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I misinterpret one passage and now I don't understand the Christian community? After being a Christian the vast majority of my life?

[QUOTE]The only item that comes to mind immediately for me is that there are indeed different sects of Islam, and some of the Islamic doctrines quite conflict with each other (again, the same has been claimed for Christianity, so please do not waste your breath bringing [I]that[/I] tired subject up), but aside from that....[/QUOTE]
That's exactly what I was referring to originally. Christianity [i]was divided in the past[/i] but by and large is no longer. At least not to the point where there is violence between different sects.

[QUOTE]My comments about 'diverse' and 'unified' were spoken directly to the mindset of the West versus the mindset of the Middle East respectively. I even explicitly stated so. If you did not understand, then perhaps...[/QUOTE]
I don't know why you assume I didn't understand... but whatever.

[QUOTE]The point I was driving at [I]there[/I] was that, as I said in several previous instances, no matter where you go Islam is Islam. And while that sounds initially to be a vast, blatantly sweeping over-generalisation, bear in mind that I am recognising the distinct differences in culture from even Jordan to Turkey, and surely the Western European countries. Despite those differences, as I illustrated with the single student example (though I have others), the thinking [I]inside the Islamic faith[/I] is the same—and at the same time as they are stabbing tables demanding a death sentence they are claiming that there is no violence in Islam.[/QUOTE]
First of all, I took issue with the anecdotal evidence of Islam being "warlike" when the vast majority of American Muslims are not nearly as radical as your aforementioned student. If they were, we'd have a serious problem on our hands.

Secondly, that ridiculous student does not represent Islam anymore than a Christian who wants to "kill towelheads." Both are missing the larger point of their religions, which is human unity. So I really didn't appreciate such a radical example, especially when I could turn to a member of your faith who exhibits radical views and claim them to be a poster boy of Christianity.

[QUOTE]That is a [I]unified[/I] mindset.[/QUOTE]
In some respect, yes. But I would still say Christianity is much less polarized than Islam is at this juncture.

[QUOTE]Have you never been to a Christian rally, where forty-thousand young adults are singing praise songs at the top of their lungs? Would it surprise you to know that perhaps one percent of those students sing that passionately in their own churches, if that many? So while I claim that Islam is a unified community, that unification is forged even stronger in their homeland, where they have the support of thousands like themselves.[/QUOTE]
The funny thing is, I have attended those types of Christian rallies. I would say that unity within sects is strong, but between sects (and still under the same faith) there is much less unity than there is in Christianity between sects.

[QUOTE]Contrariwise, here stateside we value diversity and the freedom to think as you will. (And love as thou wilt, but that's both a fictional D'Angeline reference and irrelevant.) As a direct result, it is [I]required[/I] that we first as a whole [I]agree [/I]to take action before we can take action and hope to be effective. Remember the Articles of Confederation? How badly they failed? That failure was due to a heavy balance of power to the states, and little to the central Federal government; as a direct result, a financial crisis in Massachusetts escalated to armed conflict (granted, one shot was fired), while the Federal government was impotent to act or authorise anything. Our lack of unity paralysed us, and the Articles were immediately repealed.[/QUOTE]
Then perhaps we aren't talking of Christian unity, but um... harmony? I think we might be getting caught up in misunderstood terms. Or maybe I assumed unity was equal to harmony.

[QUOTE]Certainly diversity has led us to great progress as a nation and a culture, but at the same time it causes a certain hiccup in our actions should we want to move to do anything; think of how long a case spends in litigation before the Supreme Court finally decides to even see it, let alone rewrite national policy for it.

And then when our leaders [I]do[/I] act decisively, the uproar is enormous . . . as you yourself have demonstrated with your views on the current occupation.[/QUOTE]
I don't think diversity means disunity, but maybe that's another point we'll have to agree to disagree on.

[QUOTE]Finally, I wonder at the relevance of pointing out the 'unity' of Christianity at all. We are [I]certainly[/I] not a completely Christian nation (else I think you'd be having an eternal aneurysm), while the Middle East is [I]decidedly[/I] Muslim. Which returns me to my initial point: in order to successfully interact with that culture, we [I]must[/I] at least partially abandon our own 'superior' way of thinking, and come to at least partially understand theirs—which they believe to be superior to ours.[/QUOTE]
I didn't meant unified in a national sense, but a theological sense.

[QUOTE]And that is what I have been attempting to do with every post I've submitted. Yet you still cry [I]j'accuse![/I] Should we then ignore any negative slants on a religion or a culture? Or should we delve to the truth, no matter the ugliness that emerges?[/QUOTE]
Let's not ignore negativity that arises, but let's not paint the entire faith as "warlike" as a result of fundamentalist followers. Christianity was fundamentalist not so long ago, but that's a phase the religion outgrew. The religion endured, the radicalism did not. This is why I conclude that religions are generally not warlike, but the followers can be.

[QUOTE]Yes, yes, [I]yes[/I]. That is another strength the Middle East has over the West: they educate their children in their beliefs early and thoroughly. With our appreciation for diversity and finding one's own way, we cannot hope to match that strength of unity.[/QUOTE]
I don't know how this is a strength -- if anything, I'd call it a weakness. The refusal to entertain opposing points of view because one is set in personal ideology gets us nowhere. Progress is built upon people willing to at least walk in another's shoes for a mile. So if everyone is simply indoctrinated and homogenized, how will things move forward?

PS: Cheers, James, on the rigorous debate.[/font]

[James]

[quote]PS: Cheers, James, on the rigorous debate.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Thank you. You too. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote]That is another strength the Middle East has over the West: they educate their children in their beliefs early and thoroughly. With our appreciation for diversity and finding one's own way, we cannot hope to match that strength of unity.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I would suggest that rather than there being unity, there's actually great division within the Middle East.

Much of the turbulence within the region is often broadly attributed to involvement by the West, but I think that this fails to recognize the massive internal oppositions within the many socities in the Middle East. In fact, I would almost say that the Middle East is far more varied than the West - there are many different individual cultures, traditions and ethnicities across the Middle East.

I think people in the Western world tend to think of the Middle East as this one regional block, when in reality, it's a massive geographical space with many different countries and backgrounds.

Anyway, I do think that in Western countries we try to each our children the core values of our society at a young age - i.e. respect for others, assisting people in need, avoiding violence, etc etc...

One of the big problems is, of course, the medrasas that exist in various parts of the Middle East. Some of these religious schools are not simply teaching core religious values, but instead are teaching hatred of the West. There is an attempt to blame the woes of poorer societies on the West, rather than to examine the internal disputes and failings that cause poverty and inequality in the Middle East.

Unfortunately if you learn extremism and hate at a young age, I think it can be hard to change your view. This is one of the principle sources of terrorism, too.

I guess the lesson for us in the West is that what we're doing is largely correct - while we must teach our children the core values of respect, dignity and so on, we must really ensure that we continue to teach our children to be tolerant of others - especially those who are different from themselves.

This ability to empathize with people of different backgrounds is something that terrorists generally don't seem to posess. This is why very few can ever be negotiated with, because there are no circumstances under which they could accept any kind of agreement or compromise with the West.

It's amazing how much influence we have on our children in their early years. We should do what we can to promote critical thinking and tolerance, as well as an adherence to the core values of our society.[/font]