Rosie O' Donnel

[Aeroil]

"American" viewpoint: We follow the american news Our war isn't over oil. It's about stomping out tyrany and terrorism! All Iraqi kids carry guns and shoot soldiers! All Iraqi women walk around with bombs strapped to them! Go Team USA!! and all that other junk. Honestly, I know there were some other events that happened in the 20th century that have been linked to iraqi terrorists, and for decades the UN kept saying to Iraq "We know you have these weapons so we're going to inspect you sometime" and never did. I think Iraq had enough of a warning to move all their stuff. But that's just MO. I don't think all of the reasons for the war are justified and I don't think that every Iraqi person is a terrorist. I think the prejudicing of followers of the muslim faith really shows badly of our country considering the idea that any radical group, muslim or christian, is going to pervert what their faith teaches to justify the killing of innocent people. I've got buddies fighting in this war, thankfully though wounded they're still alive, and they've been told by their commanders confusing and contradicting orders as time goes by. When raids happen lots of people die, guilty people, innocent people, friend and foe alike. It's ugly. The gov't. needs to get on the ball and decide what exactly is the reason why we're over there. If it's for oil maybe we should withdraw our troops and put the money being used to fight for oil and put it into research for alternative fuel sources for our cars, like the biodesil thing or even they're talkinga bout nitrogen now. If the goal is to destroy al quaida , it's an unrealistic goal, kinda like the neo nazi groups and the kkk they're still around, but they've been beaten down and they're more or less non-active from what I've seen. I can udnerstand the worry that if we pull out too soon that there will be more attacks. Then again, Iraq has attacked other countries trying to force us to push out. It's been 5 years, isn't it time to find a way to pull out? The UN is pretty good at drawing up cese fire agreements, why is none being issued?

The NeoCons went into Iraq to defy the UN, to establish themselves as the alpha country, if ya ask me. They think that America can change the world... they made the soviet union collapse just by defying them, after all...

Gwen Dyer, famous Canadian journalist, I heard him speak once about this, very good speaker.

 

[Netzach]

Again, political or ethical but not really religious.

How is that political but a person bombing a cafe in the west bank is religious?

Please be sensible. They're both political AND religious.

 

[Netzach]

Religious fundamentalism is not, per se, dangerous. There are plenty of Amish, Jains, Orthodox Jews, and Orthodox Muslims who don't see bombing things as part of their plan, nor do they believe that their secular societies have to be FORCED to mirror their own realities.

Religious funadmentalism, paired with the propensity to violence and crusade, is extremely dangerous. Not paying attention to the rise of fundamentalist and extreme ideology is as stupid as having a backyard full of WMD's let alone wondering if there are any in Iraq.

Just because the WTC was big, let's not ignore what happened in OK city. I still feel like my life, personally, is more likely to be ended by Christian and local whackjobs than by Saudis in the air.

 

[m wisdom]

Again, political or ethical but not really religious.

Hmmm, then why do they (not all but most) use religion as the reason for doing it?
The reason being that it's ok to kill abortion doctors according to the bible, eye for eye and tooth for tooth.

 

[O'Mac]

Hmmm, then why do they (not all but most) use religion as the reason for doing it?
The reason being that it's ok to kill abortion doctors according to the bible, eye for eye and tooth for tooth.

I gotta admit, I don't have a bible on-hand. But I can't, for the life of me, remember reading a passage that says it's okay to kill abortion doctors.

Eye for and eye, etc. That's all about old Herbrew philosopher-laws. Later you will note that Jesus advocated "judge not lest ye be judged yourself".

 

[m wisdom]

I gotta admit, I don't have a bible on-hand. But I can't, for the life of me, remember reading a passage that says it's okay to kill abortion doctors.

Eye for and eye, etc. That's all about old Herbrew philosopher-laws. Later you will note that Jesus advocated "judge not lest ye be judged yourself".

I know, and you know, that the bible don't say it's ok to kill abortion doctors. But that doesn't stop others from interpreting it that way. I actually took that example from a Christian Pro-life website:

What does the Bible say?
In the chapter in Exodus following the Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel, we read of various rights and punishments that God provided for wrongdoing. Exodus 21:22–25 provide for severe punishment to those who cause abortions. If someone harmed a pregnant woman and caused her to lose her baby, God said the punishment was to be:

life for life
eye for eye
tooth for tooth
...

The point I was trying to make is that SirFace is wrong when he says that clinic bombings isn't religious, since most people that do the bombings use religion as the reason/excuse to do it. That is the exact same reason/excuse that the Islamic groups use when they bomb or kill people. Some people will always interpret their religion in whatever way that suits their own goal.

I know it might sound like I'm blaming religion for this, I don't. The problem is that people twist and turn religion to something it was not meant to be, this is true for all religions, and that is what I want people to realise. Islam isn't more or less violent then Christianity. It's the people that use religion as a cover for violence that is dangerous, not religion in itself.


*Fixed some typos*

 

[O'Mac]

No worries, I see what you're saying now. And yeah, I'm in total agreement.

It's the people that use religion as a cover for violence that is dangerous, not religion in itself.

So true, unfortunately. And the irony is that there is a nice passage towards the end of the bible that tells us what happens to those who prevert God's message for their own benefit.

 

[Jailhouse]

Gwen Dyer, famous Canadian journalist, I heard him speak once about this, very good speaker.

Actually, it's Gwynne Dyer.

I've heard him speak in person a few times. Very brilliant. Very clear-minded. Excellent journalist, this guy. Well worth lending an ear to those who want to put aside certain political and religious slants and work more from a historical angle in order to understand world events.

 

[SirFace]

How is that political but a person bombing a cafe in the west bank is religious?

Please be sensible. They're both political AND religious.

The bombings in the west bank are strikes against JEWS and are not condemned by any of Muslims.

The bombing of abortion clinics is against the doctors who believe that life begins at birth, not at conception, a philosophy not necessarily attached to any religion. These bombings are pretty much condemned openly and vigorously prosecuted.

 

[SirFace]

I know, and you know, that the bible don't say it's ok to kill abortion doctors. But that doesn't stop others from interpreting it that way. I actually took that example from a Christian Pro-life website:


The point I was trying to make is that SirFace is wrong when he says that clinic bombings isn't religious, since most people that do the bombings use religion as the reason/excuse to do it. That is the exact same reason/excuse that the Islamic groups use when they bomb or kill people. Some people will always interpret their religion in whatever way that suits their own goal.

I know it might sound like I'm blaming religion for this, I don't. The problem is that people twist and turn religion to something it was not meant to be, this is true for all religions, and that is what I want people to realise. Islam isn't more or less violent then Christianity. It's the people that use religion as a cover for violence that is dangerous, not religion in itself.


*Fixed some typos*

I strongly disagree with your premise.

 

[m wisdom]

The bombings in the west bank are strikes against JEWS and are not condemned by any of Muslims.

The bombing of abortion clinics is against the doctors who believe that life begins at birth, not at conception, a philosophy not necessarily attached to any religion. These bombings are pretty much condemned openly and vigorously prosecuted.

Most Muslims here condemn the bombings in the west bank. The only difference is that media don't report it. I'm sure you agree that most media is biased when reporting on this matter.

While you are theoretically correct that the bombing of clinics don't need to be based on religion, I don't think you will find a single person (of the once that want the bombings to go on) that have based their belief on non-religions grounds.

I do agree with you that there is a difference on how much the leaders condemn or prosecuted the people doing these acts, but the reasons for this is political and not religious.
In this case I agree with you that the US is doing a much better job.

 

[JMohegan]

The bombing of abortion clinics is against the doctors who believe that life begins at birth, not at conception, a philosophy not necessarily attached to any religion.

In blue text, below, are excerpts from the History of the Army of God, found here:

The Army of God is an underground network of domestic terrorists who believe that the use of violence is appropriate and acceptable as a means to end abortion......

In 1984, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun received a death threat through the mail from the Army of God. Also in 1984, several abortion clinics as well as the offices of the National Abortion Federation and the American Civil Liberties Union were bombed. The name Army of God was found at one of the crime scenes. Michael Bray, Thomas Spinks, and Kenneth Shields were responsible for the crimes and spent time in prison.

In letters sent to the media, the Army of God claimed responsibility for the bombing of an abortion clinic and a gay bar in Atlanta, GA. Eric Robert Rudolph is charged with these crimes and was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List prior to his capture in May 2003.

Army of God member James Kopp, alias Atomic Dog, was convicted for the fatal shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian in 1998. Also thought to be linked to Kopp are shootings that injured Dr. Garson Romalis in Vancouver, BC, on November 8, 1994, Dr. Hugh Short in Ancaster, ON, on November 10, 1995 (Kopp is charged with this shooting), an unnamed physician in Rochester, NY, on October 28, 1997, and Dr. Jack Fainman in Winnipeg, MB, on November 11, 1997.

Clayton Waagner, the man who was convicted of sending over 550 anthrax threat letters to clinics in 2001, signed many of his threat letters with the Army of God. He also posted threats to kill 42 individuals working at abortion clinics on the Army of God website......

There are three editions of the Army of God manual, published about a year apart and each advocating escalating acts of violence. The third edition advocates the murder of abortion providers as the only way to really stop abortion.

The manual is essentially a "how to" for abortion clinic violence. It details methods for blockading entrances, butyric acid attacks, arson, bomb-making, and other illegal activities. The manual contains not only strong anti-abortion sentiments but also anti-government and anti-gay/lesbian language.

The "declaration" at the beginning of the manual states: "Beginning officially with the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act - we, the remnant of God-fearing men and women of the United States of Amerika (sic), do officially declare war on the entire child killing industry. After praying, fasting, and making continual supplication to God for your pagan, heathen, infidel souls, we then peacefully, passively presented our bodies in front of your death camps, begging you to stop the mass murdering of infants. Yet you hardened your already blackened, jaded hearts. We quietly accepted the resulting imprisonment and suffering of our passive resistance. Yet you mocked God and continued the Holocaust. No longer! All of the options have expired. Our Most Dread Sovereign Lord God requires that whosoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. Not out of hatred of you, but out of love for the persons you exterminate, we are forced to take arms against you. Our life for yours - a simple equation. Dreadful. Sad. Reality, nonetheless."

These bombings are pretty much condemned openly and vigorously prosecuted.

True.

 

[m wisdom]

I strongly disagree with your premise.

I'm interested in knowing what parts you don't agree with and why. I hope you are willing to continue this discussion, even if we don't agree with each other.

 

[SirFace]

I'm interested in knowing what parts you don't agree with and why. I hope you are willing to continue this discussion, even if we don't agree with each other.

I will, but work calls and I have to leave. I will continue this evening. I believe that each and every "group" has its nut jobs but as a rule, modern christianity does not condone their behavior. And please dont think I am a holly roller, the exact opposite is true. I am at best an agnostic leaning towards aetheism.

 

[SirFace]

Most Muslims here condemn the bombings in the west bank. The only difference is that media don't report it. I'm sure you agree that most media is biased when reporting on this matter.

Our media sure showed enough cheering muslims all over the world after 9/11. I sincerely hope that the moderate muslims take control of whats happening but I doubt they will have any more success than the German people did stopping the Nazis. (opening new can of worms but one I am more familiar with)

 

[JMohegan]

And since Germany is still US oriented, great friends and all that, and the press is as negative as it is about the US, I don't really want to imagine how it's shown in the media in other parts of the world where religion, culture, values (as in human rights, not as in traditional family values) are WAY different from the Western ones we share.

If you change your mind, and want to pay attention to what is being conveyed in the non-Western press, I recommend the MEMRI website, found here. MEMRI provides translations of documents and broadcasts from Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media.

For example, the site quotes Muhammad Al-Asi, former head of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought based in Washington, D.C. During a September 10, 2006 appearance on an Iranian Channel 2 TV special, he said: "The events of 9/11 were planned by the American administration, to be used as a pretext and justification to fight terrorism." Source: here.

Another example. Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Nassar is a preacher for the Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowment and hosts children's shows on Egypt's Al-Nas TV. His June 15, 2006 broadcast to children focused on this tale: "Let's listen to a very beautiful story to learn about the courage of a child, and how, when a child is brought up in a good home, and receives proper education in faith, he loves martyrdom, which becomes like an instinct for him. He can never give it up."

Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Sharaf Al-Din also hosted a children's program, which aired on Al-Nas TV on June 21, 2006, during which he told a story of a Jewish woman attempting to poison Muhammed, and declared: "The Jews are the people of treachery and betrayal. May Allah give you success. We want mothers who teach their sons jihad, the love of Allah and His Messenger, sacrifice for the sake of Islam, and love for the countries of the Muslims. Loving the country of the Muslims. May Allah bless you, Ruqaya. That is the most beautiful thing I have heard - that the Jews are the people of treachery, betrayal, and vileness."

Clips from both broadcasts of the Egyptian children's programs may be viewed by clicking the links found here.

 

[m wisdom]

Our media sure showed enough cheering muslims all over the world after 9/11. I sincerely hope that the moderate muslims take control of whats happening but I doubt they will have any more success than the German people did stopping the Nazis. (opening new can of worms but one I am more familiar with)

I saw those pictures as well, I also read the interview they did later with some of the people, I don't remember what it was they where actually celebrating but they didn't even know about what had happened in the US. Not saying that no Muslims cheered but media do like to twist things around.

I also hope that the moderate Muslims will take control, I don't know how big the chance is for that to happen but I'm afraid that you might be right. I do however believe that rest of the world has a much higher chance of helping this time, not working against it as I believe the current US foreign politics is doing. (I'll try to not sidetrack this thread too much)

 

[JMohegan]

The Pope made a bit of an error in a speech which included comments on Muslims.

He apologized through his staff, not in person.

Not a great idea.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5351988.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5348456.stm

Frankly, I find comments from the Vatican on the subject of birth control to be far more outrageous, not to mention dangerous (from a global health perspective) than anything Pope Benedict said in that particular speech.

As for the Muslim reaction to his quote from a Byzantine emperor, the hypocrisy is simply astounding. Nothing that Benedict has ever said even approaches the incendiary speeches delivered in many mosques all over the world - including the UK.

 

[SirFace]

If you change your mind, and want to pay attention to what is being conveyed in the non-Western press, I recommend the MEMRI website, found here. MEMRI provides translations of documents and broadcasts from Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media.

For example, the site quotes Muhammad Al-Asi, former head of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought based in Washington, D.C. During a September 10, 2006 appearance on an Iranian Channel 2 TV special, he said: "The events of 9/11 were planned by the American administration, to be used as a pretext and justification to fight terrorism." Source: here.

Another example. Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Nassar is a preacher for the Egyptian Ministry of Religious Endowment and hosts children's shows on Egypt's Al-Nas TV. His June 15, 2006 broadcast to children focused on this tale: "Let's listen to a very beautiful story to learn about the courage of a child, and how, when a child is brought up in a good home, and receives proper education in faith, he loves martyrdom, which becomes like an instinct for him. He can never give it up."

Egyptian cleric Sheikh Muhammad Sharaf Al-Din also hosted a children's program, which aired on Al-Nas TV on June 21, 2006, during which he told a story of a Jewish woman attempting to poison Muhammed, and declared: "The Jews are the people of treachery and betrayal. May Allah give you success. We want mothers who teach their sons jihad, the love of Allah and His Messenger, sacrifice for the sake of Islam, and love for the countries of the Muslims. Loving the country of the Muslims. May Allah bless you, Ruqaya. That is the most beautiful thing I have heard - that the Jews are the people of treachery, betrayal, and vileness."

Clips from both broadcasts of the Egyptian children's programs may be viewed by clicking the links found here.

Scary, scary stuff. We better use those deterent nukes we paid billions for now. Deterents dont work on those intent on murderous suicide. Sanctions, what a joke.

 

[SirFace]

Frankly, I find comments from the Vatican on the subject of birth control to be far more outrageous, not to mention dangerous (from a global health perspective) than anything Pope Benedict said in that particular speech.

As for the Muslim reaction to his quote from a Byzantine emperor, the hypocrisy is simply astounding. Nothing that Benedict has ever said even approaches the incendiary speeches delivered in many mosques all over the world - including the UK.

Totally agree. Maybe the best argument of my position that Rosie was way off base.

 

[JMohegan]

Scary, scary stuff. We better use those deterent nukes we paid billions for now. Deterents dont work on those intent on murderous suicide. Sanctions, what a joke.

Are you seriously suggesting that we launch a nuclear attack against Iran and/or Egypt?

If so, would you please provide an estimate of the number of civilian casualties resulting from such an attack, as well as your personal rationalization for the same?

 

[SirFace]

Are you seriously suggesting that we launch a nuclear attack against Iran and/or Egypt?

If so, would you please provide an estimate of the number of civilian casualties resulting from such an attack, as well as your personal rationalization for the same?

Very similar to the rational used in Japan. To reduce the loss of life. There was no doubt on our side that the war against japan was won, but we knew they would never accept it and they would fight to the last person resulting in far more civilian casualties than the bomb caused. Isnt this very similar to the mind set now? And what civilian casualties? there is no army, there are no civilians. The whole reason behind uniforms, so you know who to shoot. Otherwise, you have to shoot them all. This is why we couldnt win in Vietnam and wont win in the middle east. We want to play by the rules when they dont.

Im all ears for a logical alternative.

 

[JMohegan]

Totally agree. Maybe the best argument of my position that Rosie was way off base.

I'm not so sure she is. Calculating the greater threat can be difficult, however. A lot depends on the time, place, and scope of your focus.

The only thing one can say for sure on this topic is that, as Netzach has already pointed out: "Religious fundamentalism, paired with the propensity to violence and crusade, is extremely dangerous."

I would add that religion can be a dangerous force, even without the propensity to violence. How many people will die from AIDS because of the Vatican's attitude toward condom use? That's something we'll never know.

 

[SirFace]

I'm not so sure she is. Calculating the greater threat can be difficult, however. A lot depends on the time, place, and scope of your focus.

The only thing one can say for sure on this topic is that, as Netzach has already pointed out: "Religious fundamentalism, paired with the propensity to violence and crusade, is extremely dangerous."

I would add that religion can be a dangerous force, even without the propensity to violence. How many people will die from AIDS because of the Vatican's attitude toward condom use? That's something we'll never know.

Ok, I agree with your statements regarding religion but as far as Rosie goes, the scope of the threat is so hugely disproportionate as to make her statement rediculous.

 

[SirFace]

Crap, back to work.