United States Navy To Build New Training Facility In Thailand

[Bagwan]

Keep in touch and remember who liberated Europe from the Nazis /quote]

The Russians?

[Spee]

A REAL American would be supporting our esteemed commander in chief in a time of great crisis ...

Commander-in-chief is a title and responsibility that goes with the office. So much for the facts of your post.

"Esteemed" is little more than an another opinionated example of the "slobbering love affair" so aptly described by Bernard Goldberg in his latest book.

Barry is the quinessential hypocrite of our generation. In taking the oath of office, he swore "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yet all is has done during his first 4 months of office is continue to allow Congress to overstep their Constitutionally enumerated powers, and then take his own personal strides in overstepping his Constitutionally enumerated powers. That is dishonesty, deceipt and hypocrisy, plain pure and simple.

But let's get this back on topic ....

The US has a great economic interest in seeing stable governments in the ASEAN region. The US and Thailand have been allies for many decades, to the long term benefit of both countries.

IMHO, maintaining the close ties between the US military and the Thai military is beneficial is a number of ways. It helps to maintain the alliances between the two countries. Perhaps more importantly, it allows the US to maintain close ties to what may or may not be going on within the Thai military leadership. In many earlier posts, I've expressed great fears that the Thai military leadership essentially answers to no one. This is a very troubling situation.

Until the Thai military leadership becomes subservient to the central government, the Thai government and society will never be more stable than the fragile circumstances of the present day, and the recent widely publicized problems of the last few years. My greatest fear is that with the passage of time and eventual loss of stabilizing influences, Thailand may become governed by a military junta similar to Burma.

Love 'em, hate 'em, or indifferent to 'em, the simple fact is US military presence around the globe has largely been a stabilizing influence. And this being Memorial Day, I am grateful and thankful for the US military and thank all veterans past and present for their service not only to the US people, but also the world at large.

Is that REAL enough?

[Jingthing]

I was being sarcastic ... (duh).

[LooseCannon]

And yet, no matter how much I request it, in stark contrast to what I do, nobody has shown a systematic, sanctioned reason why the actions of those non-Muslims take place.

Where do you make any 'requests'? please quote post#.

Your 'reasons' consist of some links to verses in the Koran

Quotes please. I am very concise and use references to support my arguments. Kindly consider doing the same. I also suggest that references are tit-for-tat; i.e. a demonstration to the effect that they are open-ended orders to attack all non-believers. Thank you.

You have provided some links to verses from the Koran & from your interpretation you conclude that Islam is in a perpetual state of war with the non-believer & that all non-believers be put to death.

I will now provide you with some verses from the Christian Bible....

Exodus 22:20 : Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

2 Chronicles 15:13 (NIV) : All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

Deuteronomy 13:5 (NIV) ; The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death.

Deuteronomy 14:6-10 : “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God.

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 : If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

John 15:6 : "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Now, following your line of reasoning, the only conclusion we can come to is that all non-Christians need to be put to death in the on-going war against the non-believer.

[LooseCannon]

Ahh the old Crusade chestnut. Exactly how long did the Crusades last? 213 years. And what did the Pope(s) base their proclamations upon? Christian scriptures? Historical Christian actions? Or rather the apparent success of the Muslms from over-running previous peaceful areas and bastions of Christendom? And were there not retractions by the Church afterwards that those things claimed were wrong? Where is that in Islam which has been carrying along in like fashion for the last 1300 years?

**edit**

Furthermore if you consider the history of the Moros in the Iberian Penisuala (in fact all along the Mediterranian--there's theories that one reason the Dark Ages lasted as long as they did was due to the pressure being put on Europe from the Islamic States along the South and the Norse States to the North), you can kinda understand the resulting actions from those two countries.

Lets take a very brief look at what happened during this particular period in history...

- 330AD Romans - Pagans, an empire in decline.Governed the 'Holy Land' till this date.

330 - 1453 Byzantine Empire . Founded by Emperor Constantine of the Eastern Roman Empire when he moved the capital from Nicomedia to Constantinople. An empire essentially 'pagan'. Contantantine converted to Christianity on his death bed.

The 'Holy Land' was part of this empire, majority population was Jewish.

Over the next 1000 years or so the Byzantine empire expanded & contracted as it's fortune changed.

During the 6th Century the Byzantines expanded all across North Africa & the Iberian Peninsula, taking territory from the Moors & other assorted Muslims sultanates & Christian primitives.

100 years later these territories were lost back to various Muslim invaders. They also lost 'The Holy Land' during this period.

As a side note, the Iberian part of their empire was lost to the Visigoths, not Muslims, who had their own religion known as 'Arianism'(primitive Christian).

They were conflicts to the east with the Persians (Zoroastrian) where at different times they took or lost territory.

This Byzantines also expanded north & west at various times conquering Christian kingdoms as it went.

What we have here is various empires (Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian & Pagan etc.) competing for territory & control of populations. Hardly "peaceful areas & bastions of Christendom".Expansion of empires, Muslim fighting Muslim, Christian fighting Christian. Religion was a tool, a political weapon, that was used when required to control the conquered populace. The Byzantine empire & the Crusaders had no more of a rightful claim over this piece of territory than any of the different Muslim sultanates vying for control of the same land.

In particular reference to the Iberian Peninsula

Timeline over approx 1500 years - the Moors were finally defeated in 1492. The following is the sequence of control...

Romans(pagan) - Vandals(Arian Christian) - Byzantine(Christian) - Visigoths(Arian Christian) - Moors(Muslim) - Aragon/Leon/Castile(Christian)

There is no Islamic conspiracy to conquer the world & destroy all the non believers that has been going on for the 1300 years. But there have been Muslim 'empires' that have sought to control territory in various parts of the world in exactly the same way the Spanish, the Portuguese, the British etc have sought to establish their own empires.

[chuckd]

Still on the non-American thing, Jing?

You couldn't be more wrong.

Of course.

A REAL American would be supporting our esteemed commander in chief in a time of great crisis, at home and abroad.

Thanks for finally coming out of the closet , fellow comrade Spanky Yank!

When our "esteemed" CIC does something worthy of support, he will receive my support, which is something Bush haters would never do.

This guy is quite rapidly destroying the economy of the US by his massive spending of tax dollars. The national debt is set to increase tenfold should we be unfortunate enough to get this guy for 8 years. If his universal medical care gets passed by Pelosi, Reid, et al, you will see the deterioration of the best medical system in the world. His cap and trade will cause massive problems for every American with increased utility and gasoline costs. The size of government will become such a drain on the economy, it will eventually become unsupportable. Taxes will rise and the middle class and small business will be caught in the middle.

The military people I know and trust have zero confidence he will do anything should the need arise. If his attempt to close Gitmo without any plan whatsoever is any indication of his decision making skills, we are in trouble.

His quiet diplomacy has churned out no results other than Iran and North Korea testing new nuclear delivery systems and Hugo Chavez taking over more private enterprises. The silence of quiet diplomacy is deafening.

He is diligently working to expand the influence of labor unions (UAW/Chrysler-GM), card check, etc. He has already hired ACORN to assist with the upcoming census, which will be run and managed by his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

He has apologized for everything the US has done for the past 200 years and bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia (but NOT the Queen of England). His outreach to Muslims would be laughable, if it weren't so serious. Having spent nearly 30 years working in the Middle East, I can assure you Arabs and Muslims think his approach is weak and he can be taken advantage of.

As I said in an earlier post, he is merely a sleazy politician from Chicago. He has never run a company or met a payroll. He hasn't even done so much as run a Dairy Queen and he has been elected to run the most powerful country in the world. One thing he has brought to the table. He is a very gifted speaker and has hired some excellent speech writers. He tells the masses what they want to hear and they are falling for it, hook, line and sinker. He is a talented campaigner and apparantly plans to continue campaigning as long as he has the bully pulpit. He runs rough shod over his detractors and appears to be totally ruthless when dealing with opponents. That's the Chicago way.

However, I pray to God (yes, I am one of those!) that he survives at least four years and doesn't die on us. The next four in the line of succession to a vacated Presidency are, in order, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Hillary Rodham Clinton. It gets no better after that as Timothy Geithner follows these four.

When he and his administration do something worthwhile, I will support him. Until then, I have the right to voice my opposition to him and his policies and will continue to do so....and I have never been in the closet.

Edit in: Memorial Day honors our Veterans and Active Duty military members and those that have given the supreme sacrifice for our country. They should not be forgotten.

Edited May 25, 2009 by chuckd

[chuckd]

Quiet diplomacy is really working.

North Korea just announced they have set off an underground test of a nuclear device this morning.

[Ulysses G.]

There are verses in the Bible that extort the Christian to kill unbelievers etc. The Old Testament had a number of references. Jesus was apparently quite vocal on this subject.

Where are the Jesus kill quotes please? He always seems likes such a hippy peacenick.

[dave_boo]

Where do you make any 'requests'? please quote post#.

Your 'reasons' consist of some links to verses in the Koran

Here's one request. And another (although technically not a request since I simply said "As far as I know there is no similar open ended requirements..."). My reasoning not only consists of quotes from their holy book, but also the emprical data that demonstrates those 'Islamic Radicalists' using those quotes from the beginning of their expansion.

You have provided some links to verses from the Koran & from your interpretation you conclude that Islam is in a perpetual state of war with the non-believer & that all non-believers be put to death.

I will now provide you with some verses from the Christian Bible....

I noticed you, in the following did not use a single translation, why?

Exodus 22:20 : Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Mandate that this applies to non-Jew? Would surprise me that they were considering the previous chapter was about the 10 Commandments, and chapter 22 starts off with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them."

2 Chronicles 15:13 (NIV) : All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

Ummh, a historical event directed at non-true Jews. How is that a mandate to do to the rest of the world?

Deuteronomy 13:5 (NIV) ; The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death.

ALL OF THE VERSE! "You must purge the evil from among you." No mandate to do that to the rest of the world.

Deuteronomy 14:6-10 : “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is of thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God.

God this is getting old, but where's the mandate to do this to all nations? And the same question applies to your next quote (with the bolded text giving you a clue).

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 : If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.

John 15:6 : "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Where is the exhortations that Christians need to do God's dirty work for him? And it's amazing that a section, which doesn't tell anyone to commit violence (it's actually an allegory), gets culled and attempted to be twisted to suit someone's view. The rest of that section has quotes such as this: "am the vine; you are the branches" "man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit" "is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit".

Now, following your line of reasoning, the only conclusion we can come to is that all non-Christians need to be put to death in the on-going war against the non-believer.

You have not demonstrated that these excerpts are anywhere close to what the Koran stipulates is the duty of all Muslims. And I haven't even broached the Sunnahs and Hadiths yet.

While there are passages in the Torah that are very harsh for non-Jewish people, they are only applicable to Israel. There is no command to spread that brutal form of justice around the world.

If I'm wrong, I still wait to be corrected.

Edited May 25, 2009 by dave_boo

[Ulysses G.]

Don't forget about Jesus!

[bonobo]

While this has strayed far, far off topic, I must say it makes for interesting reading (I don't mean the anti-Obama stuff, which is overstated and boring, in my opinion, but the religious stuff, which at least has posters backing up their opinions with religious verses and history.)

There are some intelligent people posting here, and I find it all fascinating, even if I don't necessarily agree with every point (which would be hard to do, I guess, as some of these points are diametrically opposed to each other.)

Edited May 25, 2009 by bonobo

[dave_boo]

Lets take a very brief look at what happened during this particular period in history...

- 330AD Romans - Pagans, an empire in decline.Governed the 'Holy Land' till this date.

330 - 1453 Byzantine Empire . Founded by Emperor Constantine of the Eastern Roman Empire when he moved the capital from Nicomedia to Constantinople. An empire essentially 'pagan'. Contantantine converted to Christianity on his death bed.

The 'Holy Land' was part of this empire, majority population was Jewish.

Over the next 1000 years or so the Byzantine empire expanded & contracted as it's fortune changed.

During the 6th Century the Byzantines expanded all across North Africa & the Iberian Peninsula, taking territory from the Moors & other assorted Muslims sultanates & Christian primitives.

100 years later these territories were lost back to various Muslim invaders. They also lost 'The Holy Land' during this period.

As a side note, the Iberian part of their empire was lost to the Visigoths, not Muslims, who had their own religion known as 'Arianism'(primitive Christian).

They were conflicts to the east with the Persians (Zoroastrian) where at different times they took or lost territory.

This Byzantines also expanded north & west at various times conquering Christian kingdoms as it went.

What we have here is various empires (Christian, Muslim, Zoroastrian & Pagan etc.) competing for territory & control of populations. Hardly "peaceful areas & bastions of Christendom".Expansion of empires, Muslim fighting Muslim, Christian fighting Christian. Religion was a tool, a political weapon, that was used when required to control the conquered populace. The Byzantine empire & the Crusaders had no more of a rightful claim over this piece of territory than any of the different Muslim sultanates vying for control of the same land.

In particular reference to the Iberian Peninsula

Timeline over approx 1500 years - the Moors were finally defeated in 1492. The following is the sequence of control...

Romans(pagan) - Vandals(Arian Christian) - Byzantine(Christian) - Visigoths(Arian Christian) - Moors(Muslim) - Aragon/Leon/Castile(Christian)

There is no Islamic conspiracy to conquer the world & destroy all the non believers that has been going on for the 1300 years. But there have been Muslim 'empires' that have sought to control territory in various parts of the world in exactly the same way the Spanish, the Portuguese, the British etc have sought to establish their own empires.

A very brief look and many over-simplifications on both our parts, but we're not writing an encylopedia here are we?

I do take issue with your assertion that it wasn't until the Sixth Century that the Byzatines expanced over the North of Africa, taking territory away from Muslim and primitive Christians (totally disregarding the historical un-truth you muttered that they took it away from Mulsims in the 6th Century; their religion didn't start until the 7th). The Copts were in Egypt since at least 50 CE, and appear to have constituted the majority of the population by circa 300 CE. And there is no recorded program that these Copts followed in their conversion efforts except for peaceful evangalising. Remember that this is still the era of the unified Roman Empire. Also, while the Empire itself may have been pagan, and I can't speak authoritavely on Constatine's religious preferences, Christians did enjoy quite a few perks (plus they never, AFAIK, demanded that everyone in the Empire convert, pay a tax for not being a believer, or be put to death). Even after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, circa 480 CE, Eygpt and a decent section of North Africa was well under the domain of the Byzatine Empire.

I'm sure that those primitive Christians in Hispania (Al-Andalus) would beg to differ. That section of the Unified Roman empire was lost to the Visigoths, but control was wrested back less than 100 years after on the southern part. A scant 50 years later it was over-ran by the Moors. And it's not hard to piece together who they'd rather have lived under.

Conspiracy is a nice word, it implies that I'm nuts and seeing something that's not there. However, evidence from their scriptures, historical fact covering both quotes from conquerors and actions thereof, do not lend credence to your stance. It's interesting that they call Muslim countrys Dar al-Islam and non-Muslim countries Dar al-Harb (house of war)....but than again maybe my view of reality is so skewed that I'm just making it up as I go?

[LooseCannon]

dave_boo -

Exodus 22:20 : Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Worship another god & you must be destroyed. That is what is says.

Without going through the rest of the verses - they all advocate killing non-believers but your argument is that they have " No mandate to do that to the rest of the world".

No, they don't specifically tell Christians to go out into the world & kill non-believers, but by the same token they do not specifically tell the Christian not to go out & kill. They do tell the Christian to kill non-believers.

"God this is getting old" - yes it is absurd.

"You have not demonstrated that these excerpts are anywhere close to what the Koran stipulates is the duty of all Muslims. And I haven't even broached the Sunnahs and Hadiths yet."

There is no requirement for me to demonstrate anything to you.

I have provided some verses from the Bible that advocate killing non-believers which you have interpreted in a manner that suits your agenda.

"....although technically not a request since I simply said...." - here is a response which is not technically a response.

[dave_boo]

dave_boo -

Exodus 22:20 : Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Worship another god & you must be destroyed. That is what is says.

Wow, you want to cut out certain passages and provide no analysis of the surrounding. So can I do the same and report you to the police as threating me from the bolded section of your quote above? According to your auspicous reasoning I can.

Without going through the rest of the verses - they all advocate killing non-believers but your argument is that they have " No mandate to do that to the rest of the world".

No, they don't specifically tell Christians to go out into the world & kill non-believers, but by the same token they do not specifically tell the Christian not to go out & kill. They do tell the Christian to kill non-believers.

"God this is getting old" - yes it is absurd.

Well, does Thailand have a rule that specifically states you can't 'test' nuclear devices in down-town Bangkok? NO? Than why don't you do it? And you want to accuse me of splitting hairs in an earlier post!

"You have not demonstrated that these excerpts are anywhere close to what the Koran stipulates is the duty of all Muslims. And I haven't even broached the Sunnahs and Hadiths yet."

There is no requirement for me to demonstrate anything to you.

I have provided some verses from the Bible that advocate killing non-believers which you have interpreted in a manner that suits your agenda.

There is no requirement for you to demonstrate anything to me, that's agreed upon. But if you can not back up your claims, you are simply exposing yourself to derision as someone who says "This is what's true because I said so (you know actually that's what all religions say..but that's a different topic). If you don't believe me, even though you back your statements with facts, you're still wrong and you should just believe what I say because you have to prove me wrong." Can you not see the circular reasoning in that?

And I don't appreciate the fact that religions are so oppressive. However, the Islamic religion stands alone in its commandments to meet its justice and 'truth' on the world by any means necessary. You have NOT demonstarted the same for any other religion. Please do show me I'm wrong; I've stated a theory and am willing to modify it or discard it upon proof that the theory is untenable.

"....although technically not a request since I simply said...." - here is a response which is not technically a response.

Juvenile. I've admitted that I don't know all the answers and am more than happy to discuss the merits of my posts. If you want to split hairs (yet again), than go ahead.

[LooseCannon]

A very brief look and many over-simplifications on both our parts, but we're not writing an encylopedia here are we?

I do take issue with your assertion that it wasn't until the Sixth Century that the Byzatines expanced over the North of Africa, taking territory away from Muslim and primitive Christians (totally disregarding the historical un-truth you muttered that they took it away from Mulsims in the 6th Century; their religion didn't start until the 7th). The Copts were in Egypt since at least 50 CE, and appear to have constituted the majority of the population by circa 300 CE. And there is no recorded program that these Copts followed in their conversion efforts except for peaceful evangalising. Remember that this is still the era of the unified Roman Empire. Also, while the Empire itself may have been pagan, and I can't speak authoritavely on Constatine's religious preferences, Christians did enjoy quite a few perks (plus they never, AFAIK, demanded that everyone in the Empire convert, pay a tax for not being a believer, or be put to death). Even after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, circa 480 CE, Eygpt and a decent section of North Africa was well under the domain of the Byzatine Empire.

I'm sure that those primitive Christians in Hispania (Al-Andalus) would beg to differ. That section of the Unified Roman empire was lost to the Visigoths, but control was wrested back less than 100 years after on the southern part. A scant 50 years later it was over-ran by the Moors. And it's not hard to piece together who they'd rather have lived under.

Conspiracy is a nice word, it implies that I'm nuts and seeing something that's not there. However, evidence from their scriptures, historical fact covering both quotes from conquerors and actions thereof, do not lend credence to your stance. It's interesting that they call Muslim countrys Dar al-Islam and non-Muslim countries Dar al-Harb (house of war)....but than again maybe my view of reality is so skewed that I'm just making it up as I go?

I was wrong about the Byzantines seizing territory from the Muslims (it was actually from the Vandals) during the 6th century but they did expand across N. Africa & in to southern Spain during this time. This does not negate the fact that empires where constantly at war with each whether they be pagans, Christians or later Muslims. There was no "peaceful areas & bastions of Christendom".

A very brief look and many over-simplifications on both our parts, but we're not writing an encylopedia here are we?

Going back to your previous post you where quite happy to simplify this period in history as being a black & white conflict between the forces of Islam & those of the Christians because it suit your agenda. The Christians at this time & later were just a vicious, self serving & unrepentant as any of the Muslims.

"I do take issue with your assertion..." & "...the historical un-truth you muttered..." - I am not trying to deliberately deceive you, it was just an oversight. I think I have been very respectful in the manner in which I have laid out my point of view in all my previous posts.

[LooseCannon]

dave_boo -

Exodus 22:20 : Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Seems pretty clear cut to me. Worship another god & you must be destroyed. That is what is says.

Wow, you want to cut out certain passages and provide no analysis of the surrounding. So can I do the same and report you to the police as threating me from the bolded section of your quote above? According to your auspicous reasoning I can.

Without going through the rest of the verses - they all advocate killing non-believers but your argument is that they have " No mandate to do that to the rest of the world".

No, they don't specifically tell Christians to go out into the world & kill non-believers, but by the same token they do not specifically tell the Christian not to go out & kill. They do tell the Christian to kill non-believers.

"God this is getting old" - yes it is absurd.

Well, does Thailand have a rule that specifically states you can't 'test' nuclear devices in down-town Bangkok? NO? Than why don't you do it? And you want to accuse me of splitting hairs in an earlier post!

"You have not demonstrated that these excerpts are anywhere close to what the Koran stipulates is the duty of all Muslims. And I haven't even broached the Sunnahs and Hadiths yet."

There is no requirement for me to demonstrate anything to you.

I have provided some verses from the Bible that advocate killing non-believers which you have interpreted in a manner that suits your agenda.

There is no requirement for you to demonstrate anything to me, that's agreed upon. But if you can not back up your claims, you are simply exposing yourself to derision as someone who says "This is what's true because I said so (you know actually that's what all religions say..but that's a different topic). If you don't believe me, even though you back your statements with facts, you're still wrong and you should just believe what I say because you have to prove me wrong." Can you not see the circular reasoning in that?

And I don't appreciate the fact that religions are so oppressive. However, the Islamic religion stands alone in its commandments to meet its justice and 'truth' on the world by any means necessary. You have NOT demonstarted the same for any other religion. Please do show me I'm wrong; I've stated a theory and am willing to modify it or discard it upon proof that the theory is untenable.

"....although technically not a request since I simply said...." - here is a response which is not technically a response.

Juvenile. I've admitted that I don't know all the answers and am more than happy to discuss the merits of my posts. If you want to split hairs (yet again), than go ahead.

Exodus 22:20 : Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Your response: Mandate that this applies to non-Jew? Would surprise me that they were considering the previous chapter was about the 10 Commandments, and chapter 22 starts off with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them."

It is actually Chapter 21 verse 1 "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them."

"Mandate that this applies to non-Jew?" - no distinction is made. You are saying that it only applies to Jews, where is the argument supporting your assertion.

"Would surprise me that they were considering the previous chapter was about the 10 Commandments, and chapter 22 starts off with "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them." - what are you trying to say here. What you have written makes no sense.

Your next response to Exodus 22:20 : Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

Wow, you want to cut out certain passages and provide no analysis of the surrounding. So can I do the same and report you to the police as threating me from the bolded section of your quote above? According to your auspicous reasoning I can.

Yes they have been cut out - the previous 19 verses of Exodus 22 consist of various commandments & the following 11 verse also consist of various commandments. The previous chapter (21) consists of 36 verses which are various commandments. If you are not sure about the context, you should check & then build your argument.

Your remainder of your comment is redundant.

My comment:

Without going through the rest of the verses - they all advocate killing non-believers but your argument is that they have " No mandate to do that to the rest of the world".

No, they don't specifically tell Christians to go out into the world & kill non-believers, but by the same token they do not specifically tell the Christian not to go out & kill. They do tell the Christian to kill non-believers.

"God this is getting old" - yes it is absurd.

Your response:

Well, does Thailand have a rule that specifically states you can't 'test' nuclear devices in down-town Bangkok? NO? Than why don't you do it? And you want to accuse me of splitting hairs in an earlier post!

I can't decide if this a straw man argument or just a case of Reductio Ad Absurdum.

You are mistaken I have never accused you of splitting hairs.

Your comment:

"There is no requirement for you to demonstrate anything to me, that's agreed upon. But if you can not back up your claims, you are simply exposing yourself to derision as someone who says "This is what's true because I said so (you know actually that's what all religions say..but that's a different topic). If you don't believe me, even though you back your statements with facts, you're still wrong and you should just believe what I say because you have to prove me wrong." Can you not see the circular reasoning in that?"

You seem to be confused. You are making the claims about Islam & all you have presented is some links to verses from the Koran. I am not disputing that those verses exist. I am questioning your claim that there is some 1300 year long 'conspiracy' that Muslims want to kill all non-believers. You have made a couple of statements that have not been borne out in fact. I also put forward the argument that the Bible contains similar 'commandments' to kill the unbeliever, your replies have severely lacking in any constructive argument.

"Juvenile. I've admitted that I don't know all the answers and am more than happy to discuss the merits of my posts. "

Juvenile - yes - you posted links to two of your posts with no attempt to actually elaborate on what you wanted. Do I have to guess?

[dave_boo]

First, apologies for the accusations. I messed up Rawkus and your post. The post in question where I got the "splitting hairs" from is here.

And to keep this from being a lenghty post, let me just cut snippets from your post. Do feel free to comment on my changing of the meaning if the snippets are not in the overarching meaning of your post.

It is actually Chapter 21 verse 1 "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them."

"Mandate that this applies to non-Jew?" - no distinction is made. You are saying that it only applies to Jews, where is the argument supporting your assertion.

Chapter 20, which is the start of the commandments has this as a second verse: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery. and then verse twenty two is explicit: This is what you are to say to the Israelites. And apologies for getting the chapters mixed up. Thank you for the correction. However, as pointed out, it's perfectly clear that these rules are provided only for the Jewish people.

I can't decide if this a straw man argument or just a case of Reductio Ad Absurdum.

It's what I'd call an reductio ad absurdum in order to demonstrate the absurdity of your quaternio terminorum in asserting that there's violence in the Bible and there's no commandment NOT to commit violence, so therefore the Bible commands to commit violence. But nice observation.

Which of my claims is not borne out; if I'm seriously in the wrong I need to know so I can change my stance. You asked for links to requests for examples, claiming I didn't make the, in fact here's the post where you asked exactly what I provided: Where do you make any 'requests'? please quote post#. If the reponse to your questions, which I put directly under the relevant part of your posts is too confusing, I can simplify it, although it will drive my post count up. I am working on compiling a preponderance of evidence where military conquests were undertaken and, unlike other religions that claim they were on a religious war with no backing from their holy books nor a continous series of attempts to subjugate, annhilate, or convert the locals, can be traced back directly to the Koran.

**edit**

For those wondering, a reductio ad absurdum argument takes the original propsed argument from the person you're debating to the implied end that ends absurdly. A strawman argument misrepresents your opponent's position. Strawman arguments are often used in the sense that they're easily disproven (usually by showing another logical fallacy with the strawman) rather than demonstrating the opponent's logical fallacy.

Edited May 25, 2009 by dave_boo

[Ulysses G.]

There are verses in the Bible that extort the Christian to kill unbelievers etc. The Old Testament had a number of references. Jesus was apparently quite vocal on this subject.

Where are the Jesus kill quotes please? He always seems likes such a hippy peacenick.

You seem to be avoiding pointing out where Jesus "was quite vocal" about killing unbelievers. Could this be because it is unsubstantiated hogwash? People really want to know.

[BigSnake]

Bring a little class to the place

[Rawkus]

First, apologies for the accusations. I messed up Rawkus and your post. The post in question where I got the "splitting hairs" from is here.

Oh, and your bias is showing quite loudly. While I admit bias, I still have enough decorum to respect people's beliefs and not resort to attempts to belittle their diety or excise the importance out of their religion's name. Would I be in the wrong to assume that you're a Muslim?

I would like to apologise also, generally I try to respect people of faith (if they shut-up and don't proseletyze), even though I disagree with them intensely. I understand that many people derive great personal strength from their religious beliefs and it would be wrong of me to denigrate that, for that I am sorry.

You would be very wrong in assuming that I am a follower of the Islamic faith, I am an atheist, I have been for over 30 years and probably nothing short of Jesus 2.0 himself performing miracles* in my front room would change my mind.

*such miracles may include convincing me that SuSe is better than Slackware - especially now that Slack has a 64 bit release, but may also include convincing me why a Bible written under the direction of an English king with an agenda to push is considered the innerant word of a god, but I digress..

[LooseCannon]

It is actually Chapter 21 verse 1 "Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them."

"Mandate that this applies to non-Jew?" - no distinction is made. You are saying that it only applies to Jews, where is the argument supporting your assertion.

Chapter 20, which is the start of the commandments has this as a second verse: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the place of slavery. and then verse twenty two is explicit: This is what you are to say to the Israelites. And apologies for getting the chapters mixed up. Thank you for the correction. However, as pointed out, it's perfectly clear that these rules are provided only for the Jewish people.

Moses was an Israelite & was leading the Israelites out of Egypt so it is perfectly logical that 'God' would tell him to take these commandments to the Israelites. In no way does this imply that these commandments were solely for the benefits of the Israelites. If these commandments were for the sole use of the Israelites I would expect that 'God' would indicate that this to be so.

"it's perfectly clear that these rules are provided only for the Jewish people" - It is certainly not clear at all in the absence of any specific indication from 'God', that (s)he intended these commandments to be solely for the Israelites.The imprecision of the text precludes any definitive answer as to its true intent. This allows it to be interpreted to suit any agenda.

I am working on compiling a preponderance of evidence where military conquests were undertaken and, unlike other religions that claim they were on a religious war with no backing from their holy books nor a continous series of attempts to subjugate, annhilate, or convert the locals, can be traced back directly to the Koran.

Many Christians have taken the Bible & used it as justification to go out into the world & slaughter innocents merely because they did not hold the same faith as themselves.

Many Muslims have taken the Koran & used it as justification to go out into the world & slaughter innocents merely because they did not hold the same faith as themselves.

[LooseCannon]

You seem to be avoiding pointing out where Jesus "was quite vocal" about killing unbelievers. Could this be because it is unsubstantiated hogwash? People really want to know.

See post#184

John 15:6 - interpret it how you see fit.There will be many people that agree with you & there will be others that disagree. Each will be equally convinced that their interpretation is correct.

post#189 dave_boo's interpretation.

If you require spoon feeding I suggest you get a nurse.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't need spoon feeding. I just need a quote from Jesus calling on true believers to kill unbelievers as you claim that he made on a regular basis. However, you don't have one. No wonder you were hiding this:

John 15:6 : "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Where is the meat?

[thaihome]

3) You will never convince anyone with a brain that torture is acceptable because someone else did it first or more vigorously. I am sad to say you are probably a boy...You are someones Son & you have been programmed at a time that the military is a shadow of what it was meant to be. I imagine that you are more than likely a National Guard part time soldier.

I hope for your parents sake you get home safe.

Good Luck

I am pretty liberal in most things.  Most people are amazed that I put in a career on active duty and in the reserves and have served in combat in Iraq.  I am not a Bush fan, a fan of this particular war, nor a fan of most things conservative.

However, in this "torture" issue, I am firmly into the conservative camp.  I do not condone phsyical torture which leaves lasting harm.  I do not condone cutting out of tongues, throwing from buildings, beheadings, strapping grenades to people and then detonating them, beatings, breaking of arms--all things done by the Saddan Regime.  

But sorry, I don't have a problem with scrweing with the lights to mess up a persons persective on time, playing loud music, and yes, waterboarding.  The US waterboarded three people, one of them who helped plan 9-11 and who personally cut off the head of Daniel Pearl.  And these three men did end up revealing information which was very helpful to the US.

Waterboarding induces panic, nothing more.  It has no lasting affect on a person.  Once it is over, it is over.  I have seen victims of both Shia and Suni torture at Balad Air Base, and these poor souls will never be the same.  I was friends with a former POW of the North Vietnamese.  He will never be the same, either.  The three men who were wateboarding will be the same.  They were not physically damaged.

I know this is not PC to say this.  So what?  I think the way I do after considering the facts, not because I am in any "camp."  ANd while I lean to the left on most issues, here I am quite to the right.  Waterboarding these three men saved countless lives.

Agree completely. Here is some real torture, to compare to water boarding is ludicrous.

[inappropriate link removed]

TH

[dave_boo]

I would like to apologise also, generally I try to respect people of faith (if they shut-up and don't proseletyze), even though I disagree with them intensely. I understand that many people derive great personal strength from their religious beliefs and it would be wrong of me to denigrate that, for that I am sorry.

You would be very wrong in assuming that I am a follower of the Islamic faith, I am an atheist, I have been for over 30 years and probably nothing short of Jesus 2.0 himself performing miracles* in my front room would change my mind.

*such miracles may include convincing me that SuSe is better than Slackware - especially now that Slack has a 64 bit release, but may also include convincing me why a Bible written under the direction of an English king with an agenda to push is considered the innerant word of a god, but I digress..

hel_l yeah (pun intended) SuSE is better than Slackware; it has YaST. Plus that really cool capitalise every other character in the names. Slam64 has been around quite a while now also. As has blue/white.

Moses was an Israelite & was leading the Israelites out of Egypt so it is perfectly logical that 'God' would tell him to take these commandments to the Israelites. In no way does this imply that these commandments were solely for the benefits of the Israelites. If these commandments were for the sole use of the Israelites I would expect that 'God' would indicate that this to be so.

"it's perfectly clear that these rules are provided only for the Jewish people" - It is certainly not clear at all in the absence of any specific indication from 'God', that (s)he intended these commandments to be solely for the Israelites.The imprecision of the text precludes any definitive answer as to its true intent. This allows it to be interpreted to suit any agenda.

A fallacy of composition, with smackings of argumentum ad ignorantiam. You are suggesting that, in what I may remind you is an absolute abscence of any such instructions, that the Jewish people are suddenly going to overlook ~2500 years of religious traditions and attempt to force their world view upon other cultures. It's not as if the Jewish people are well known for their desire to ensure that everyone believes as they do; when was the last time you heard about a Jewish missionary (and those crazy Jews for Jesus don't count...by definition you're no long a Jew if you believe in that heretic)?

Many Christians have taken the Bible & used it as justification to go out into the world & slaughter innocents merely because they did not hold the same faith as themselves.

Many Muslims have taken the Koran & used it as justification to go out into the world & slaughter innocents merely because they did not hold the same faith as themselves.

As stated earlier, the Christian scripture has been used for just that purpose. And the Church has apologised for that. When is the last time that has happened? Where are the calls in the Christian churches for similar actions? Has the Christian scriptures not changed over time, which is inherently impossible with the Muslim scriptures?

I've said it over and over, I don't believe either one is right. However currently Islam is the dangerous one. If Mein Kempf is banned in various parts of the world, why is another book that promotes similar violence allowed?

It's also interesting that you want me to defend my position with quotes and links, and yet when someon challenges you to do the same you retreat under the "If you require spoon feeding I suggest you get a nurse." Nice and articulate.

[chuckd]

Just to spice up this thread about the US Navy and to piss off Bonobo.

Obama is a twirp!

Edit in: Had to add an"f".

Edited May 26, 2009 by chuckd

[Texpat]

I believe that's twerp.

He thinks the Navy is represented by the Village People's sailor.

[Jingthing]

Hands off my president. You had yours for eight years and your right wing party is dead. Your only base is old Anglo Saxon white men , a small MINORITY. You embrace angel of death Cheney and buffoon Limbag and only make it worse for yourself, a pleasure to watch you self destruct! Learn to cope, losers. If you don't love Obama, leave America! Oh, I forgot, you already have ...

Edited May 26, 2009 by Jingthing

[bonobo]

Just to spice up this thread about the US Navy and to piss off Bonobo.

Obama is a twirp!

Edit in: Had to add an"f".

Why do you assume I would be the one to get pissed off?  Just because I did not like Bush?

Obama has not been in office long enough for me to have a firm opinion of him one way or the other, although I am generally positively inclined toward him so far.

Regardless, is it fun or something to piss off somebody for no apparent reason?  I don't know, I just don't get it.

[oldsparrow]

Khun Jingthing,

Will Pres. Obama pass the anti gun laws? I am a shooter and NRA member, ststus of gun industry there may effect the supply to this country.