Add to that the fact of the creation of Israel among arabs, which is used as a control-platform in the middleeast, which drove out millions of palestinians from their own land, and which opresses and kills them even in the areas they took refuge in.
The bolded part is in discrepancy, I believe. The part latter to that is way oversimplified and could be applied to Israelis and Palestinians equally.
Israel describes the history of its foundation like this:
1. Jews around the world bought most of the land from land-owners who live in Syria, Iraq or in turkey, who have never seen their own land, and who aren't interested in using it.
2. The arabs who really lived on that land and worked on it prefered to leave that land when they saw who the new owner was.
I just have to wonder how public opinion would have been in the UK if this had succeeded. The War on Terror has gone global, indeed- US, Israel, Spain, Japan, Africa, now the UK.
I am sure that someone is going to make this Blair's fault for standing with the United States. (pfflam- are you there? )
People who want to do things like this must be eliminated or imprisoned. How can anyone bargain with people who would do such a thing?
I wonder if you might be forming your opinions in order to contrast them against a fictitious image of what I might think, where' pfflam' has become some sort of abstract idea of 'Liberal-wrong-headedness'
It sure seems that you choose to think about that more so than to actually think through the issue:
What do I think:
England would have felt the Terrorists eventually no matter what.
Al Queda says that the enemy is the US, but in the long run it does not differentiate between Western countries . . . much: for them it is a fight against the infidel that keeps them from forming a larger "Islamistan" the size of the Mongol Empire. . . . if not the entire globe.
The reason that it has happened at this early date IS because England is the 2nd biggest fighting force in our "Coalition Of The Willing".
We must destroy Al Quaida!!!
But
We must also destroy the feeling that it is JUST and is the right thing to do among the Arab and/or non-arab street
The War in Iraq was the single worst thing that we could have done with regard to the latter method of combatting terrorism: we bought it hook-line-and-sinker. OBL said that we would invade Muslim countries and try to destroy Islam, and we Invaded a Muslim country, under what appears to all eyes but those of Neo-Cons to have been lies, and are continuing to battle Muslims and kill 'innocents' and 'heroic martyrs' . . . we practically joined hands with the Al Queda PR campaign.
So, we killed the whole second prong of the War On Terror (the Psychological aspect) . .. we took whatever good-will the world gave us after 911, which was the best point of departure for tackling the 2nd prong war-effort, and ground it into the dust by doing something that many people knew was foolhardy
The WOT was an excuse for some large 'Vision' of humongous "social-Engineering" the likes of which no contemporary 'Socialista' would ever concieve of, and still, regular style Conservatives can't see it for what it is . . . these Neo-Cons are not your frineds!!!
So the answer to what I would think is not so idiotically single minded as your 'our fault-their fault' scenario . . . it is difficult but you might want to admit that the world is a complex place.
BTW: a mere 36 days before we invaded Iraq, Osama Bin Laden called Saddam Hussain a "socialist infidel"
Next time, try to quote what the Quran says, when you're trying to say what the Quran says.
Thou shalt not paraphrase?
Only fundamentalists think that their reading of holy scripture is without interpretation on their part (though of course it is), so why not make the interpretation explicit?
Only fundamentalists think that their reading of holy scripture is without interpretation on their part (though of course it is), so why not make the interpretation explicit?
Fundamentalists also go to church with the Bible under their arms so they can check if the speaker is really teaching from scripture in context or not.
I wasn't criticizing his interpretations, just asking to see the sources from which he derived them.
Fundamentalists also go to church with the Bible under their arms so they can check if the speaker is really teaching from scripture in context or not.
I wasn't criticizing his interpretations, just asking to see the sources from which he derived them.
Translation
Literalists = They wouldn't feel the spirit if it didn't say something already spelled out word for word: meaning if it didn't just repeat endlessly what could be read.
Taken to its logical extremes, they wouldn't be able to understand anything besides the words as written and would not be able to apply understanding taken from the book because understanding itself could not happen. Because to understand is to 'take from the book', and literalism, in its logical extension, does not leave the book
Literal interpretation never progresses beyond A=A, any elaboration is beyond literalness . . . and since understanding is a process of taking 'A' and bringing it into relationship to the rest of the world, meaning out of A=A, then literalness can not impart wisdom or insight or even provide understanding.
If you compare your preacher's sermon to the Bible in hand, then that is a form of comparing interpretations, where both interpretation is beyond literalism, and, would end up being about the natures of language, translation, historical context of original AND of the contemporary menings of words, and of your own context, and etc . . .
But all that demands intense reflection on the world and the nature of the 'self' and culture, history , language and meaning and more . . .
. . but who wants their Religion to have to ask such Big Questions?!
I still don't get the objection. You guys seem to put religion in an entirely different category when you discuss things here at AI.
I asked him for the quotes from the Quran that corresponded to his ideas on what the Quran has to say about warfare.
How's that any different from asking for a news link when a thread is started, or a source document link when any other kind of claim is made in a thread?
I did not - repeat - did not, challenge his interpretation of the Quran.
I simply wanted to see if the Quran said that for myself.
I could do what you ask me to do, but I have my Quran here in the arabic language, and so I would have to translate it to you, but I think in the world-wide-web, there are english translations of the Quran, so you can search for it, and then let that site do the search for you for words like: "war", "fight", "retaliation" or similar words, and you should find what you want.
I could do what you ask me to do, but I have my Quran here in the arabic language, and so I would have to translate it to you, but I think in the world-wide-web, there are english translations of the Quran, so you can search for it, and then let that site do the search for you for words like: "war", "fight", "retaliation" or similar words, and you should find what you want.
Nightcrawler
I have an English Quran in the house. I can look it up, but was interested in which passages you were drawing upon. No problem.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
blow up isreal?
Hmmmmm... let me think that over.
I'm going to say "no." Final Answer.
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Add to that the fact of the creation of Israel among arabs, which is used as a control-platform in the middleeast, which drove out millions of palestinians from their own land, and which opresses and kills them even in the areas they took refuge in.
The bolded part is in discrepancy, I believe. The part latter to that is way oversimplified and could be applied to Israelis and Palestinians equally.
Israel describes the history of its foundation like this:
1. Jews around the world bought most of the land from land-owners who live in Syria, Iraq or in turkey, who have never seen their own land, and who aren't interested in using it.
2. The arabs who really lived on that land and worked on it prefered to leave that land when they saw who the new owner was.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by Jubelum
Link
I just have to wonder how public opinion would have been in the UK if this had succeeded. The War on Terror has gone global, indeed- US, Israel, Spain, Japan, Africa, now the UK.
I am sure that someone is going to make this Blair's fault for standing with the United States. (pfflam- are you there?
People who want to do things like this must be eliminated or imprisoned. How can anyone bargain with people who would do such a thing?
I wonder if you might be forming your opinions in order to contrast them against a fictitious image of what I might think, where' pfflam' has become some sort of abstract idea of 'Liberal-wrong-headedness'
It sure seems that you choose to think about that more so than to actually think through the issue:
What do I think:
England would have felt the Terrorists eventually no matter what.
Al Queda says that the enemy is the US, but in the long run it does not differentiate between Western countries . . . much: for them it is a fight against the infidel that keeps them from forming a larger "Islamistan" the size of the Mongol Empire. . . . if not the entire globe.
The reason that it has happened at this early date IS because England is the 2nd biggest fighting force in our "Coalition Of The Willing".
We must destroy Al Quaida!!!
But
We must also destroy the feeling that it is JUST and is the right thing to do among the Arab and/or non-arab street
The War in Iraq was the single worst thing that we could have done with regard to the latter method of combatting terrorism: we bought it hook-line-and-sinker. OBL said that we would invade Muslim countries and try to destroy Islam, and we Invaded a Muslim country, under what appears to all eyes but those of Neo-Cons to have been lies, and are continuing to battle Muslims and kill 'innocents' and 'heroic martyrs' . . . we practically joined hands with the Al Queda PR campaign.
So, we killed the whole second prong of the War On Terror (the Psychological aspect) . .. we took whatever good-will the world gave us after 911, which was the best point of departure for tackling the 2nd prong war-effort, and ground it into the dust by doing something that many people knew was foolhardy
The WOT was an excuse for some large 'Vision' of humongous "social-Engineering" the likes of which no contemporary 'Socialista' would ever concieve of, and still, regular style Conservatives can't see it for what it is . . . these Neo-Cons are not your frineds!!!
So the answer to what I would think is not so idiotically single minded as your 'our fault-their fault' scenario . . . it is difficult but you might want to admit that the world is a complex place.
BTW: a mere 36 days before we invaded Iraq, Osama Bin Laden called Saddam Hussain a "socialist infidel"
Originally posted by Frank777
Next time, try to quote what the Quran says, when you're trying to say what the Quran says.
Thou shalt not paraphrase?
Only fundamentalists think that their reading of holy scripture is without interpretation on their part (though of course it is), so why not make the interpretation explicit?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Thou shalt not paraphrase?
Only fundamentalists think that their reading of holy scripture is without interpretation on their part (though of course it is), so why not make the interpretation explicit?
Fundamentalists also go to church with the Bible under their arms so they can check if the speaker is really teaching from scripture in context or not.
I wasn't criticizing his interpretations, just asking to see the sources from which he derived them.
Originally posted by Frank777
Fundamentalists also go to church with the Bible under their arms so they can check if the speaker is really teaching from scripture in context or not.
I wasn't criticizing his interpretations, just asking to see the sources from which he derived them.
Translation
Literalists = They wouldn't feel the spirit if it didn't say something already spelled out word for word: meaning if it didn't just repeat endlessly what could be read.
Taken to its logical extremes, they wouldn't be able to understand anything besides the words as written and would not be able to apply understanding taken from the book because understanding itself could not happen. Because to understand is to 'take from the book', and literalism, in its logical extension, does not leave the book
Literal interpretation never progresses beyond A=A, any elaboration is beyond literalness . . . and since understanding is a process of taking 'A' and bringing it into relationship to the rest of the world, meaning out of A=A, then literalness can not impart wisdom or insight or even provide understanding.
If you compare your preacher's sermon to the Bible in hand, then that is a form of comparing interpretations, where both interpretation is beyond literalism, and, would end up being about the natures of language, translation, historical context of original AND of the contemporary menings of words, and of your own context, and etc . . .
But all that demands intense reflection on the world and the nature of the 'self' and culture, history , language and meaning and more . . .
. . but who wants their Religion to have to ask such Big Questions?!
Literalism is a thin illusion
I asked him for the quotes from the Quran that corresponded to his ideas on what the Quran has to say about warfare.
How's that any different from asking for a news link when a thread is started, or a source document link when any other kind of claim is made in a thread?
I did not - repeat - did not, challenge his interpretation of the Quran.
I simply wanted to see if the Quran said that for myself.
I could do what you ask me to do, but I have my Quran here in the arabic language, and so I would have to translate it to you, but I think in the world-wide-web, there are english translations of the Quran, so you can search for it, and then let that site do the search for you for words like: "war", "fight", "retaliation" or similar words, and you should find what you want.
Nightcrawler
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Frank777,
I could do what you ask me to do, but I have my Quran here in the arabic language, and so I would have to translate it to you, but I think in the world-wide-web, there are english translations of the Quran, so you can search for it, and then let that site do the search for you for words like: "war", "fight", "retaliation" or similar words, and you should find what you want.
Nightcrawler
I have an English Quran in the house. I can look it up, but was interested in which passages you were drawing upon. No problem.