Thai Muslims Protest At Danish Embassy

[usatrader]

If those Americans would vacate that sandpit, more than a bit of their anger would dissolve.

Frist off, who are Americans anyway?

Second, So Who would you suggest should have vacated that sandpit before there were these so called Americans (slang for Citizens of the United States I assume).

History shows unquestionably there was a bit more anger even then than now wouldn't you say old chap? Who would you blame for it then?

"All blame is a waste of time. No matter how much fault you find with another, and regardless of how much you blame him, it will not change you.

The only thing blame does is to keep the focus off you when you are looking for external reasons to explain your unhappiness or frustration. You may succeed in making another feel guilty about something by blaming him, but you won't succeed in changing whatever it is about you that is making you unhappy."-Wayne Dyer

“The trouble with this world is that there are too many people going about saying, “The trouble with this world is…

[ColPyat]

it would be interesting to find out in what country you are residing in now to have such views,

as paradise is where we would all like to live, and as i see it the tolerant nations of this planet that will accomodate all and sundry all seem to have one common denominator, problems with the islamists.

even the islamists have problems with the islamists, so pray tell in this age of tollerance and respect for others, where exactly do the islamist followers fit.

please name one islamist state or non islamist state that has peace with islamists living there.

oh and by the by i am niether bigot or racist. just a realist that can see the inherant danger these people carry with them.

I can easily satisfy your curiosity - i reside in Bangkok. Hence i post on a board dealing with things Thai.

And yes, i do have naturally a huge problem with Islamic fundamentalists having been first directly exposed to them nearly 20 years ago. I i had a problem with them already while huge US funds still have been flowing to them, while most likely you lot were all teary eyed over the antics of those brave mudjaheddin that fought on your side against the big evil empire, not realising that the land of freedom, democracy and the almighly Big Mac has funded the worst scum from all Islamic countries to fight for its grandiose world domination games and pure profit.

Difference between you and me in this issue, i do not use conjecture, revisionist arguments and pure bigotry in order to satisfy a simplistic bloodlust out of complete ignorance in understanding that this world we are living in is rather complex.

And yes, i am aware that Islam is in a crisis, and in desperate need of some sort of reformation. This reformation though will definately not come through the American sword, not through the Irak war that only strenghtens fundamentalist terrorism.

The US has already done far too much damage, especially in the last 30 odd years by building up the most rabid brand of Islamic terrorism, and still does by going to war Irak.

If you have a look at the NeoCon declarations you might find out that an invasion into Irak was already planned long before 9/11.And it had nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalism. Would have been rather difficult as well, because Saddham was everything else than fundamentalist - the Baat ideology was socialist/secular. And you are too stupid to see that all the Irak war has achieved, other than making vast profits for the usual suspects on the cost of far too many dead, is to help spreading Islamic fundamentalism.

What was it the US went into Irak for?

Finding Bin laden? Sorry, learn geography.

Those weapons of mass destruction? So, where are they?

Bring freedom and Democracy? outch, didn't really work that well.

'Coz Saddham tried to kill Dubya's daddy?

'Coz Saddham is evil? Well he ain't the only one, and especially the only one The US has put into power and supported while he was useful. Don't really see that Irak is that much better off without him now, years after the war finished...

And not just in Irak US soldiers are presently fighting, where the ones who give them orders are######ing things up rather well. The Central Asian Republics, Pakisthan, Somalia, Phillippines, Nepal and many other places.

If you guys would start using your brains, you might realise that the side you are supporting has not only built up Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, it still is allied with the most fundamentalist countries in the Islamic world - Saudi Arabia and Phakisthan. All that your side of "freedom and democracy" (and a healthy profit) has achieved is making Islamic fundamentalism a much bigger thread. And obviously most suffer from it in developing countries. Not in the ones who started the problem in the first place. And don't give me the constant whine of the 3000 dead in N.Y., the 50 odd in London. American and Saudi money side channeled through ISI to Jihadis in Kashmir has long before 9/11 caused tenthousands of dead, and hundred thousands in other countries.

But no, you guys brains don't go that far, you just parrot the lies you were told, don't even see how conflicting they are.

Yet, some of you go even further, advocating to wipe out the whole of the Islamic population, straight out of a lousy SciFi novel, as if this would be a clash between the worlds. You are wanking over your fantasies of war, violence and outright genocide. You are exactly the same brainwashed fanatics as those Islamic fundamentalists you hate so much that you can't even see anymore the humanity in ordinary Muslims.

You are <deleted> beyond believe. Get your medication. Have some sex. Whatever. Just please stop blathering about things you obviously understand very little about.

Frist off, who are Americans anyway?

Second, So Who would you suggest should have vacated that sandpit before there were these so called Americans (slang for Citizens of the United States I assume).

History shows unquestionably there was a bit more anger even then than now wouldn't you say old chap? Who would you blame for it then?

Yes, and history shows us that the brits were vacated by the leadership of "the citicens of the US", who then went to bed with the royal house of Saud. To the profit of both, to the disadvantage of many Islamic countries in which the money went that the royal house of Saud had to pay their own fanatic mullahs off in order to keep enriching themselves, the Bush family and the rest of the corrupt ######s.

[mai_ow]

I agree mostly with your analysis. However we have also to remember that one of the most important issues for Muslims is Palestine. In my opinion, as long as the Plalestians don't get their land back, it is always going to be the main recruiting reason for the fundamentalists.

At the end, I'm glad you have posted this insightful view for all the silent and serious readers of this thread, and advise you to not waste you time with the others, as their knowledge and level of intelligence are so limited.

[ColPyat]

I agree mostly with your analysis. However we have also to remember that one of the most important issues for Muslims is Palestine. In my opinion, as long as the Plalestians don't get their land back, it is always going to be the main recruiting reason for the fundamentalists.

At the end, I'm glad you have posted this insightful view for all the silent and serious readers of this thread, and advise you to not waste you time with the others, as their knowledge and level of intelligence are so limited.

Well, thanks a lot.

The Palestinian issue has to be resolved. Hopefully one day Palestinians and Israel can work out a compromise with the help of an experienced crises management organisation, and without other vested interstests interfering from all sides. That though can only happen on the negotiation table, and not by war.

Present wars do not exactly contribute to a peaceful solution.

[mogoso]

Perhaps before using your favorite word,"racist" you should look up its meaning as your usage is tiring and incorrect. The use of the word racist is meant only to promote sympathy for your remarks. that it doesn't deserve. Actually your bias does a diservice to many of your fellow Islamists, those of eastern euro descent as well as Indonesians, subsaharans, the vast majority of those of the Islamic faith, by not including them within the scope of Islam, you show your own bigotry toward your own religion. So please look up racist, before you use it.

As for traveling to Islamic countries, been there, done that and just have no desire to return to any of them.

Theres always been trouble in Islamic countries, that why instead of nations made up of laws binding people together, you have systems of warlords vying for power within geographic boundaries. Hatred among Muslims, hatred of infidels, it doesn't matter, hatred is a driving force of Islam. Power gained by force is always the norm, its a tribalist society. Rule by warlords.

Counties that have progressed economically no longer have tribalist societies, but have banded together for a common goal regardless of what immigration has taken place into them. Islamic countries where the populace are mostly muslim tend to be back water cesspools unless they have oil money, and then that doesn't always trickle back into their population ie Iran, Iraq

Nothing keeps Muslims from suceeding in this world more than their religion and its "ideals"

Oh, my apologies for the incorrect term i used. Is calling you bigots more suitable?

And as to your speculation on my religion, i believe that i have to dissappoint you, i have been born a protestant, never was confirmed though as even at that age i did not trust any organised religion.

As to hate, start cleaning your own houses first. The posts here from you rednecks are some of the most hateful things i have come across, including the one that advocates to "wipe them all out", on a par with the "Islamic terrorists" you hate so much.

The rest of you pseudo anthropoligist babble does not even warrant any answer other than that you are in dire need of a few good books. Maybe start first with "Winnie the Poo" and work your way up.

And yes, i have been in many Islamic countries, some i liked less, some more, and of some i have very fond memories. Especially one where i would have died for lack of food and money would it not have been for the very gracious Islamic hospitality that i was given.

[mogoso]

Perhaps before using your favorite word,"racist" you should look up its meaning as your usage is tiring and incorrect. The use of the word racist is meant only to promote sympathy for your remarks. that it doesn't deserve. Actually your bias does a diservice to many of your fellow Islamists, those of eastern euro descent as well as Indonesians, subsaharans, the vast majority of those of the Islamic faith, by not including them within the scope of Islam, you show your own bigotry toward your own religion. So please look up racist, before you use it.

As for traveling to Islamic countries, been there, done that and just have no desire to return to any of them.

Theres always been trouble in Islamic countries, that why instead of nations made up of laws binding people together, you have systems of warlords vying for power within geographic boundaries. Hatred among Muslims, hatred of infidels, it doesn't matter, hatred is a driving force of Islam. Power gained by force is always the norm, its a tribalist society. Rule by warlords.

Counties that have progressed economically no longer have tribalist societies, but have banded together for a common goal regardless of what immigration has taken place into them. Islamic countries where the populace are mostly muslim tend to be back water cesspools unless they have oil money, and then that doesn't always trickle back into their population ie Iran, Iraq

Nothing keeps Muslims from suceeding in this world more than their religion and its "ideals"

Oh, my apologies for the incorrect term i used. Is calling you bigots more suitable?

And as to your speculation on my religion, i believe that i have to dissappoint you, i have been born a protestant, never was confirmed though as even at that age i did not trust any organised religion.

As to hate, start cleaning your own houses first. The posts here from you rednecks are some of the most hateful things i have come across, including the one that advocates to "wipe them all out", on a par with the "Islamic terrorists" you hate so much.

The rest of you pseudo anthropoligist babble does not even warrant any answer other than that you are in dire need of a few good books. Maybe start first with "Winnie the Poo" and work your way up.

And yes, i have been in many Islamic countries, some i liked less, some more, and of some i have very fond memories. Especially one where i would have died for lack of food and money would it not have been for the very gracious Islamic hospitality that i was given.

Calling the majority of posters on the subject "realists" would certainly be closer to accurate rather than bigoted. Truth is always difficult for those with an agenda to accept. Your story of a compassionate Muslim doen't surprise me, but it does show a lack of judgement on your part for allowing yourself to be in a position in a foriegn country to possibly die from an obvious bad decision on your part. So I understand somewhat your protective attitute.

I can renounce the religion, I can denounce the purveyors of violence associated with that religion, I can assail the Imans who preach intolerance and violence and not be bigoted. I've not said kill one innocent soul anywhere. I have said Islam as a religion condones all that has happened, takes offense at the slightest slur but sees absolutely nothing really wrong in the actions that adherents do in the name of Allah. And what I say will only be a truthful observation, not a bigoted attack. I will be showing a bias, but we're all biased in many things.

Next month I'll have three Maylay Muslims over to my home for dinner as their here for a conference. we get along or they wouldn't be a guest in my home, as I've nothing but a social interaction with these folk

. One will drink copious amounts of alcohol, ( the others won't) while telling me I haven't given Islam a fair shake. while I'll ask him what has he said or done at the Mosque to denounce whats occurring in Islam as a whole and particulary the south of Thailand. His sister and her husband, will be quiet on this subject.

The Islamic talk will die out, and we'll talk about Ipoh (a mainly chinese city) when our we coming to visit them in KL, hows so and so. They'll depart the next day and we'll see each other in a year or two. Nothing will change, they'll still hate a people (Jewish) they don't really interact with or know, for a spurious cause.

Isreal as a people have inhabited their land for three thousand years, twice as long as theres been a religion of Islam. Islam never totally removed Jews from living there, only reduced the number. So who has the better historical claim? Militarily the Jews kicked butt and only UN intervention stopped them from taking the whole region in the small series of wars. Gotta hurt to have the numbers but not the ability to use them.

I've read Winnie the Pooh, tigger rocks.

[TokyoT]

I agree mostly with your analysis. However we have also to remember that one of the most important issues for Muslims is Palestine. In my opinion, as long as the Plalestians don't get their land back, it is always going to be the main recruiting reason for the fundamentalists.

At the end, I'm glad you have posted this insightful view for all the silent and serious readers of this thread, and advise you to not waste you time with the others, as their knowledge and level of intelligence are so limited.

While I also agree with the heart of ColPyat’s analysis. I see some relevance to the arguments made by other posters to this thread as well. To me the most lacking area in regard to addressing the “fundamentalist” muslims, are the so called moderate muslims. It is the duty/responsibility of the muslim world to clean up its’ own house. If they do not succeed in doing so then the non-muslim world will surly take care of this for them in due time – assuming the continued need for their sources of oil and therefore the relevance of their part of the world to the western world.

IMHO the muslim world is far too fragmented and too many have sympathies for the fundamentalists groups for them to ever end up cleaning up their own house.

In regard to the Palestinian issue some fundamentalist groups have used the Palestinian issue as a battle/recruitment cry. But IMHO the Palestinians are pretty much equally ignored by both the western world as well as the muslim world. There has been what might be called sporadic showing of support from some of the muslim world over the years (such as in the various military conflicts with Israel) – but no consistent major support. The other predominately muslum countries in the region are not exactly bending over backwards to offer places of refuge or significant forms of aid to the Palestinians now are they?

While I do view the Palestinian issue as an important issue to be addresses I feel that it can hardly be classified as the main recruiting reason for the fundamentalists. Lets face it many of the young men being recruited into these fundamentalists groups are not well educated and therefore know/understand very little about the Palestinian issue.

PS – An additional clarification in regard to the above: When I refer to the Palestinian issue, I am referring to the need to have/provide the Palestinian people with a Palestinian state to which they have 100% control. While this does involve Israel (as most if not all of the geographic area that would become this Palestinian state is currently under Israeli control), I view the Palestinian issue as a separate issue from the existence of the state of Israel or the presence of Infidels (the Israeli’s) in the Middle East.

A little bit more back on topic – and fitting in with the muslim world needing to keep it’s own house in order: Many of these demonstrations were allowed to get out of hand by the governments of these muslim countries. Most of these countries have very tight control over their people, and if these demonstrations had been in front of their own government offices sufficient force would have been used to prevent things from as going as far as they did at the western embassies. The muslim nations allowed these protests too go as far as they did do to the sympathies they have with the protesters and the beliefs of the protesters. This is similar to support or lack of attempts to control, these same governments (and muslim clerics) give to the fundamentalists groups.

[Steely Dan]

I agree mostly with your analysis. However we have also to remember that one of the most important issues for Muslims is Palestine. In my opinion, as long as the Plalestians don't get their land back, it is always going to be the main recruiting reason for the fundamentalists.

At the end, I'm glad you have posted this insightful view for all the silent and serious readers of this thread, and advise you to not waste you time with the others, as their knowledge and level of intelligence are so limited.

While I also agree with the heart of ColPyat’s analysis. I see some relevance to the arguments made by other posters to this thread as well. To me the most lacking area in regard to addressing the “fundamentalist” muslims, are the so called moderate muslims. It is the duty/responsibility of the muslim world to clean up its’ own house. If they do not succeed in doing so then the non-muslim world will surly take care of this for them in due time – assuming the continued need for their sources of oil and therefore the relevance of their part of the world to the western world.

IMHO the muslim world is far too fragmented and too many have sympathies for the fundamentalists groups for them to ever end up cleaning up their own house.

In regard to the Palestinian issue some fundamentalist groups have used the Palestinian issue as a battle/recruitment cry. But IMHO the Palestinians are pretty much equally ignored by both the western world as well as the muslim world. There has been what might be called sporadic showing of support from some of the muslim world over the years (such as in the various military conflicts with Israel) – but no consistent major support. The other predominately muslum countries in the region are not exactly bending over backwards to offer places of refuge or significant forms of aid to the Palestinians now are they?

While I do view the Palestinian issue as an important issue to be addresses I feel that it can hardly be classified as the main recruiting reason for the fundamentalists. Lets face it many of the young men being recruited into these fundamentalists groups are not well educated and therefore know/understand very little about the Palestinian issue.

PS – An additional clarification in regard to the above: When I refer to the Palestinian issue, I am referring to the need to have/provide the Palestinian people with a Palestinian state to which they have 100% control. While this does involve Israel (as most if not all of the geographic area that would become this Palestinian state is currently under Israeli control), I view the Palestinian issue as a separate issue from the existence of the state of Israel or the presence of Infidels (the Israeli’s) in the Middle East.

A little bit more back on topic – and fitting in with the muslim world needing to keep it’s own house in order: Many of these demonstrations were allowed to get out of hand by the governments of these muslim countries. Most of these countries have very tight control over their people, and if these demonstrations had been in front of their own government offices sufficient force would have been used to prevent things from as going as far as they did at the western embassies. The muslim nations allowed these protests too go as far as they did do to the sympathies they have with the protesters and the beliefs of the protesters. This is similar to support or lack of attempts to control, these same governments (and muslim clerics) give to the fundamentalists groups.

Very good post TokyoT, I suspect as you allude to that the Muslim nations don't care a ###### about the Palestinians, and use them as a convenient cudgel with which to beat up Israel (This is racism, if Colypat needs an example of it). The less than generous response by Muslim states to the Tsunami betray how much of a dog eat dog world the leaders of Islam live in. With resepct to humanitarian aid it is ironic how the same western nations who helped the aid effort after the Pakistan earthquake were vilified by cartoons printed by one independent press publication. This selective memory is again hypocritical if not racist too.

Finally to Collypat, if you suggest others read a few books I would suggest you reflect on the recent appeal by dozens of writers for no appeasement to Islamic totalitarianism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4763520.stm

To quote from their manifesto

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism.

[Johpa]

I agree mostly with your analysis. However we have also to remember that one of the most important issues for Muslims is Palestine. In my opinion, as long as the Plalestians don't get their land back, it is always going to be the main recruiting reason for the fundamentalists.

At the end, I'm glad you have posted this insightful view for all the silent and serious readers of this thread, and advise you to not waste you time with the others, as their knowledge and level of intelligence are so limited.

Palestine is a sideshow. Not that I condone the Israeli occupation of Arab majority lands, but it is not the main event. But it does serve as a politically correct scapegoat for radical Islamic fundamentalists. But even if they could turn the clock back and eradicate Israel, which is not going to happen, the radical forces would still not be appeased.

The Arabs who lost land in 1948 are not going to get their land back. It is a moot point unless you are willing to contemplate a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East and I don't think many Arab governments, none of whom ever gave much of a rat's derriere about the displaced Arabs from the Palestine region, are too keen on that happening.

[ColPyat]

Very good post TokyoT, I suspect as you allude to that the Muslim nations don't care a ###### about the Palestinians, and use them as a convenient cudgel with which to beat up Israel (This is racism, if Colypat needs an example of it). The less than generous response by Muslim states to the Tsunami betray how much of a dog eat dog world the leaders of Islam live in. With resepct to humanitarian aid it is ironic how the same western nations who helped the aid effort after the Pakistan earthquake were vilified by cartoons printed by one independent press publication. This selective memory is again hypocritical if not racist too.

Finally to Collypat, if you suggest others read a few books I would suggest you reflect on the recent appeal by dozens of writers for no appeasement to Islamic totalitarianism

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4763520.stm

To quote from their manifesto

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism.

Regarding the Islamic response to the Tsunami you are absolutely wrong. May i advise you to travel to Aceh and have a look yourself. You might find that Islamic NGOs, especially Turkish ones, are massively represented in the whole region.

And if you talk about the massive financial contributions of the west, well, those have been largely wasted, disappeared in corruption, or sit unused in bank accounts earning interest.

And yes, nobody in his right mind denies that Islamic countries have used the Palestinians to further their own interests. That is a well known fact, even when i was a child there were articles about this.

Other than whinging about the failings of Islam you guys can't come up with anything, especially not analysing the manyfold root causes of the problem, which to a large part are in the training, financing and equipping of those jihadis by the US, and the (ongoing) alliance of the US with the most fundamentalist nations in the Islamic world.

The only solution you can think of is further hate, killing and war.

You are even so uneducated that you don't understand the workings of modern warfare, and how the basics of successful modern warfare and crisis management have been completely discarded by neocon political interference on all levels.

Intelligence slanted by political agenda, discarded when not in line with political agenda. And completely falsified to further polical agenda.

Mathematical feasability studies not performed due to political agenda. There are actually very complex calculations to be performed before any military invention.

No exit strategies.

Clean your own houses before you go preaching how others should live, and they might have a chance to clean their houses.

[zzap]

Btw, one doesn't need to buy books to inform oneself, for the lazy ones and those with only a marginal interest, like myself, there is plenty of concise background info on the net.

Unfortunately, this is one of the topics which brings out the worst in posters whose comments I enjoy reading elsewhere - but I think most readers can destinguish easily between those posts which spout propaganda, reassert prejudices, take cheap shots at others' assumed religion and generally don't follow any rational reasoning, and the comments where an opinion is expressed, based on facts and research.

[usatrader]

Yes, and history shows us that the brits were vacated by the leadership of "the citicens of the US", who then went to bed with the royal house of Saud. To the profit of both, to the disadvantage of many Islamic countries in which the money went that the royal house of Saud had to pay their own fanatic mullahs off in order to keep enriching themselves, the Bush family and the rest of the corrupt ######s.

Hmm! So in your estimation and opine, all of histories ills exampled in the form of anger and death were exclusively begot by the Brits and then United States hey?

First by the Brits in an incestuous profiteering relationship with the House of Saud to deprive and enslave all of Islam. A dastardly deed done by immoral people who were, in your estimate and understanding of history, but followed by the Citizens of the United States, who, likewise bed down with the house of Saudi to profiteer and enslave Islam as did the Brits.

Both I assume, by your knowledge of history, where seeking in ill intent to create in all of Islam this propensity for and near continuous violent pedigree of affairs for the last 230 plus years to merely profit in some incestuous relationship a kin to a whore and a john with the House of Saud.

In your history, it was just these mainly Anglo Saxons within the UK and US, that, at different points in History and maybe now, in collusion with the House of Saudi, are the root of all the world ills. Is that right?

In your history, the rest of humanity is but pure as the driven snow. Full of naivety and innocents and are but mere victims of these mainly Anglo-Saxon Islamic hate mongers who seek to profit from the rests purity of spirit, naïve demeanor and innocent intent. Does that just about cover your visions and wisdoms of history and its realities?

It is bit confusing. In the United States, we have the Nation of Islam saying it is the House of Judea that is the master of it’s puppets the US and the UK. In the Middle East,we hear this said but as well that the US and the UK’s master is also the House of Saud and at the same time the House of Judea.

Man now they sure changed our history books a lot. I never knew the Brits were but slaves to the House of Judea and the House of Saud. Of course we yanks are but slaves to begin with. Hey?

1744

The Holy Alliance

Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, founder of "Wahhabism," an austere form of Islam, arrives in the central Arabian state of Najd in 1744 preaching a return to "pure" Islam. He seeks protection from the local emir, Muhammad ibn Saud, head of the Al Saud tribal family, and they cut a deal. The Al Saud will endorse al-Wahhab's austere form of Islam and in return, the Al Saud will get political legitimacy and regular tithes from al-Wahhab's followers. The religious-political alliance that al-Wahhab and Saud forge endures to this day in Saudi Arabia.

By the 19th century, the Al Saud has spread its influence across the Arabian Peninsula, stretching from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf and including the Two Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. But in 1818, forces of the Ottoman Empire sack the capital, Riyadh, and execute many of the religious and political leaders. Over the next eighty years the Al Saud attempt to reestablish their rule on the Arabian Peninsula without success.

It is confusing you see. These diatribes of the US being lead by the nose by the people of Israel and at the same time of House of Saud in Saudi Arabia and their ideological ally Wahhabism. An ally which most agree is the very seed that breeds all of radical Islam. A Radical Islam that is founded in the core of Wahhabism and whose central tenants are founded in a belief in ar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام literally house of submission) a term used to refer to those lands under Muslim government(s). In the conservative tradition of Islam the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of submission and dar al-Harb, the house of war.

Tenants sworn to in vows to the death on the backs of some 72 worn out virgins to destroy both Israel and the US and then, one must assume, the other infidels, the EU and Russia later hey?

It also oddly confusing as well that the American Jewish population is very very progressive voting since after 1930's in a 85 to 95 % range for Democrats and advocating strongly and vocally, in purality, for peace and social justice for all men.

Indeed confusing as to who leads and who follows. Who is to blame for all ills and who is not?

Pray tell, my brother,

Why do men kill

and make war?

Is it for glory; for things,

for beliefs, for hatred,

for power?

Yes, but more,

because they can and will

unless stopped

by someone with courage

willing to pay the ultimate price.

BUY DANISH!!!

[Indo-Siam]

The blog that has a collection of the very best essays I have EVER seen on the Internet is at: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

In one essay, the author sums it up nicely:

"And here are two final thoughts on this issue:

First, Islam philosophically divides the world into two camps -– these are Islam’s definitions, not mine -- Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Dar al-Islam is the House of Submission. Dar Al-Harb is not the House of Infidels. It is the House of War.

I, and others who see a terrible threat in the growth of Radical Islam, did not invent this term. It is considerably older than my humble self; besides, I do not speak Arabic. It is their term. And unlike people determined to hide until this problem goes away, I am determined to take Islam at its word.

Finally, consider this: Muslims are angrily at war with Buddhists in East Asia. Muslims are enraged with Animists in Africa. Of course, none of this approaches the sheer hatred that Muslims bear towards Hindus in the South Asia peninsula. And this foaming hatred blanches compared to the white-hot fury Muslims feel for the Christian American Crusaders. And this fury is but a candle to the incandescent, boiling, supernova of murder they feel toward the Jews.

Does anyone beside me detect a pattern here? You know, my Dad told me once, “Bill, if more than three people in your life are utter, total <deleted>, then maybe it’s you.” "

I cannot grasp how the Thai government can stand by while two to ten of its hardworking citizens get executed EVERY SINGLE DAY down south - on the streets, in broad daylight. All they do is tally the body counts. Meanwhile, unemployed Muslim thugs are playing "Who can kill the most Thais".

As another blogger writes at http://officersclub.blogspot.com/:

“we’re tired of sorting out the good Muslims from the bad Muslims and the good Arabs from the bad. From now on, we’re treating ‘em all as potential threats."

Amen.

Indo-Siam

[Steely Dan]

Regarding the Islamic response to the Tsunami you are absolutely wrong. May i advise you to travel to Aceh and have a look yourself. You might find that Islamic NGOs, especially Turkish ones, are massively represented in the whole region.

And if you talk about the massive financial contributions of the west, well, those have been largely wasted, disappeared in corruption, or sit unused in bank accounts earning interest.

And yes, nobody in his right mind denies that Islamic countries have used the Palestinians to further their own interests. That is a well known fact, even when i was a child there were articles about this.

Other than whinging about the failings of Islam you guys can't come up with anything, especially not analysing the manyfold root causes of the problem, which to a large part are in the training, financing and equipping of those jihadis by the US, and the (ongoing) alliance of the US with the most fundamentalist nations in the Islamic world.

The only solution you can think of is further hate, killing and war.

You are even so uneducated that you don't understand the workings of modern warfare, and how the basics of successful modern warfare and crisis management have been completely discarded by neocon political interference on all levels.

Intelligence slanted by political agenda, discarded when not in line with political agenda. And completely falsified to further polical agenda.

Mathematical feasability studies not performed due to political agenda. There are actually very complex calculations to be performed before any military invention.

No exit strategies.

Clean your own houses before you go preaching how others should live, and they might have a chance to clean their houses.

ColPyat,

You just can't stop throwing out generalisations can you? Anybody who sees a worrying sociological phenomena emerging in modern day Islam is either racist, warmongering or illiterate. Well I know full well about the mistakes made by American foreign policy since they became a super power, I know too about the mistakes of the Anglo/French carve up of the spoils after WWI and the earlier mistakes made by the British empire. Of course throughout that time the world of Islam has been ruled by corrupt despots and tyrants who are in my oppinion as much if not more to blame for the current situation as are any external influences, though an exogenous scapegoat is convenient for maintaining the status quo. As for uneducated I've read extensively on this subject and so take exception to your pigeonholing attitude.

As for charitable giving the BBC covered this shortly after the Tsunami and the oil rich nations hardly covered themselves in glory with respect to their giving (probably the wrong sort of Muslim got deluged). Incidentally Denmark comes out very well in the charitable giving stakes.

As for hate and warmongering I suggest you take a close look at the facts. The hatred of all things western in the Muslim world is almost visceral and lest one forgets the world trade center was first bombed prior to 9/11 and the recent invasion of Iraq. This hatred does not stop amongst those who live within Western democracies and honour (sic) killings and other intolerant archaic behavour is seen as a right to those who presume to curtail the rights of the rest in the name of their own religous freedom. Try a google search on the phrase 'Clash of civilisations' and count the number of hits if you want to see whats going down. How we got to this point is slightly moot, undeniable though is the dangerous monster that has been created.

[zzap]

As for charitable giving the BBC covered this shortly after the Tsunami and the oil rich nations hardly covered themselves in glory with respect to their giving (probably the wrong sort of Muslim got deluged). Incidentally Denmark comes out very well in the charitable giving stakes.

I could post some statistics, comparing GNP and size of donations, but this would lead even further off-topic and to further arguments. Let's just say you haven't got the full picture.

As for hate and warmongering I suggest you take a close look at the facts. The hatred of all things western in the Muslim world is almost visceral and lest one forgets the world trade center was first bombed prior to 9/11 and the recent invasion of Iraq.

Are these 'facts'? What are your sources saying Muslims hate "all things Western"? I really don't think so.

As for hate- and warmongering, for examples read back the comments posted in this thread and look on other webboards.

Yes, 9/11 was before the invasion of Iraq, this is a fact. What are you insinuating, please express yourself clearly.

This hatred does not stop amongst those who live within Western democracies and honour (sic) killings and other intolerant archaic behavour is seen as a right to those who presume to curtail the rights of the rest in the name of their own religous freedom. Try a google search on the phrase 'Clash of civilisations' and count the number of hits if you want to see whats going down. How we got to this point is slightly moot, undeniable though is the dangerous monster that has been created.

I think nobody here disagrees about condemning fundamentalist Islam and the terrorist activities associated with this. However, 'clash of cultures' is a different issue, what you descibe is, for example, also widespread in Catholic South-Italy.

What is more difficult to accept for some posters, is how the prejudiced hate-speech bordering on racism against "Arabs", "Pakis", "Muslims" etc., which has become prominent in Western countries, contributes to the polarisation and is equally condemnable and part of the problem.

[zzap]

Yes, and history shows us that the brits were vacated by the leadership of "the citicens of the US", who then went to bed with the royal house of Saud. To the profit of both, to the disadvantage of many Islamic countries in which the money went that the royal house of Saud had to pay their own fanatic mullahs off in order to keep enriching themselves, the Bush family and the rest of the corrupt ######s.

Hmm! So in your estimation and opine, all of histories ills exampled in the form of anger and death were exclusively begot by the Brits and then United States hey?

...[rant snipped for brevity]

Is this what he said?

I suggest you put on your reading glasses and thinking cap (if you have one) and try again.

He merely presented a selective summary of recent history to make a (valid) point.

Edited March 4, 2006 by zzap

[Steely Dan]

I could post some statistics, comparing GNP and size of donations, but this would lead even further off-topic and to further arguments. Let's just say you haven't got the full picture.

Agreed, this is getting off topic, but the juxtaposition of seeing U.S helicopters flying in aid to Pakistan and the recent burning of perceived western targets is hard to ignore.

Are these 'facts'? What are your sources saying Muslims hate "all things Western"? I really don't think so.

As for hate- and warmongering, for examples read back the comments posted in this thread and look on other webboards.

Yes, 9/11 was before the invasion of Iraq, this is a fact. What are you insinuating, please express yourself clearly.

I was actually alluding to the first attack on the World trade centers pre-9/11 to show the emnity goes back a long way. Obviously all Muslims don't hate the west, but if you saw the scenes of celebration in the middle east just after 9/11 then if that was not hate I don't know what is.

I think nobody here disagrees about condemning fundamentalist Islam and the terrorist activities associated with this. However, 'clash of cultures' is a different issue, what you descibe is, for example, also widespread in Catholic South-Italy.

What is more difficult to accept for some posters, is how the prejudiced hate-speech bordering on racism against "Arabs", "Pakis", "Muslims" etc., which has become prominent in Western countries, contributes to the polarisation and is equally condemnable and part of the problem.

On this we are in agreement, I believe the world goes through periods of progressive and regressive behaviour, we are unfortunately entering an age of protectionism, Xenophobia and racism. If you remember how this thread started it was imho discussion of the premise that exogenous pressure should be allowed to curtail the workings of secular democracies. I know the answer I have (Check out Voltaire), but to give an inch would be the opposite side of the coin to Guantanamo bay.

[TAWP]

One side-note: Photaged celebration [on 9/11] by a local cameraman in Palestine, and hosted by Reuters, was staged. You could clearly, even in the edited short segment, see the cheering old woman and the kids eat some bunns and cakes [the journalist was handing out], before she was asked to make a 'joodle of joy'. It has already been discredited as propaganda, but the images and the damage in peoples mind in the west still stands.

Edited March 4, 2006 by TAWP

[britmaveric]

One side-note: Photaged celebration [on 9/11] by a local cameraman in Palestine, and hosted by Reuters, was staged. You could clearly, even in the edited short segment, see the cheering old woman and the kids eat some bunns and cakes [the journalist was handing out], before she was asked to make a 'joodle of joy'. It has already been discredited as propaganda, but the images and the damage in peoples mind in the west still stands.

Maybe so, however I can guaranteed I wasnt imagining the cheering on Cowley Rd by Pakistani immigrants in Oxford when the WTC buildings came down.

[dantilley]

One side-note: Photaged celebration [on 9/11] by a local cameraman in Palestine, and hosted by Reuters, was staged. You could clearly, even in the edited short segment, see the cheering old woman and the kids eat some bunns and cakes [the journalist was handing out], before she was asked to make a 'joodle of joy'. It has already been discredited as propaganda, but the images and the damage in peoples mind in the west still stands.

Maybe so, however I can guaranteed I wasnt imagining the cheering on Cowley Rd by Pakistani immigrants in Oxford when the WTC buildings came down.

Yeah, well I know the the kind of people who would likely be doing that on Cowley Road, and they aren't your typical muslims, they're the kind of people who would jump on any bandwagon to stir up trouble and cause friction. Just like the muslim extremists who cause problems in these arabic countries aren't typical of muslims in the Arab world in general, the thugs who were likely to be cheering on Cowley Road aren't typical of muslims in Oxford, or indeed in the rest of the UK.

[CMCool]

Maybe so, however I can guaranteed I wasnt imagining the cheering on Cowley Rd by Pakistani immigrants in Oxford when the WTC buildings came down.

Is that a fact? Never heard about it as I was in the UK at that time.

[thai3]

Never seen any proof that it was 'all about oil' certainly not in the price of it since invasion. If that is the depth of USA policy where was the oil in Afghanistan, Angola, Grenada, vietnam, korea, Europe and all the other places the USA has stood and fought for freedom, while the rest pissed themselves or stuck their heads in the sand?

Well, then you should start reading books about the conflicts you mentioned.

In Afganisthan a lot has to do with access to the Central Asian gas fields and the pipeline through Afghanisthan. Europe would most like not have needed the Americans fighting "for freedom" if American companies in the first place would not have financed and supported the nazis. Even until 1944 Standard Oil supplied nazi Germany with oil through Spain, IBM was instrumental in supplying the technology that enabled the holocaust, etc...

But i guess you guys here don't read books much.

[Steely Dan]

One side-note: Photaged celebration [on 9/11] by a local cameraman in Palestine, and hosted by Reuters, was staged. You could clearly, even in the edited short segment, see the cheering old woman and the kids eat some bunns and cakes [the journalist was handing out], before she was asked to make a 'joodle of joy'. It has already been discredited as propaganda, but the images and the damage in peoples mind in the west still stands.

Now you've told me something I didn't know - I find such cynical manipulation abhorrent. There are of course two sides to the press coin as well and much of the antisemitism found in the middle east is probably down in large part to propaganda.

[thai3]

Never seen any proof that it was 'all about oil' certainly not in the price of it since invasion. If that is the depth of USA policy where was the oil in Afghanistan, Angola, Grenada, vietnam, korea, Europe and all the other places the USA has stood and fought for freedom, while the rest pissed themselves or stuck their heads in the sand?

Well, then you should start reading books about the conflicts you mentioned.

In Afganisthan a lot has to do with access to the Central Asian gas fields and the pipeline through Afghanisthan. Europe would most like not have needed the Americans fighting "for freedom" if American companies in the first place would not have financed and supported the nazis. Even until 1944 Standard Oil supplied nazi Germany with oil through Spain, IBM was instrumental in supplying the technology that enabled the holocaust, etc...

But i guess you guys here don't read books much.

What laughable books you must be refering to, who wrote them David Irving? If thats the best 'proof' you can come up with better not to post a reply. All countries have some sort of oil pipe or installation but you could not come up with anything other than a very tenuuious link in Afgahnistan. Standard oil fulled WW2 did they, strange the Nazi's managed without them for so many years. I suppose you would argue then that the USA entered the war not due to the Japanese attack, but rather to restore the oil market in Nazi Germany, very amusing.-peter

Edited March 4, 2006 by thai3

[ColPyat]

What laughable books you must be refering to, who wrote them David Irving?

David Irving denied the holocaust. Nobody in his right mind does.

Just go and google a bit the collaboration between US companies and Nazi Germany, go to amazon.com, there is more research available than you can imagine, especially since the last few years when previously secret files have been opened to the public. But i gues you won't want to do that as it might disturb your carefully built up fantasies about your world devided by "good" and "evil".

Now you've told me something I didn't know - I find such cynical manipulation abhorrent. There are of course two sides to the press coin as well and much of the antisemitism found in the middle east is probably down in large part to propaganda.

Not just antisemitism in the middle east (and elsewhere) is to a large part down to propaganda, also present anti-islamism is to a large part down to the same things: propaganda, fabrication of facts, conjecture and exageration, all in order to built up paranoia under the gullible.

If you start educating yourself about the other sides of that coin as well, you would be far more abhorred than by one little press manipulation. Don't think that our political leaders are not beyong far worse manipulation than this little event.

[usatrader]

My good friend Zzap seems to have left the door slightly ajar in a mist and fog of visual breadth causing his misunderstanding as to the actual sequence of the discourses and answers between the good and honorable gentleman or lady, as it may be, Colpyat and I.

Colpyat’s initial use of a selective opine (noting no facts of substantiation were provided):

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=663627

Usatrader respones to Colpyat’s opined unsubstantiated idiom via a query that implied a refute of that selective historical memory born in and of a fallacious colloquial of opine about the cause of anger in the sands.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=664145

Colpyat then replied CLEARLY in the affirmative that was exactly what he meant and said and even added the Brits equally in answer to the question I posses to him. Which was Before there were Americans who would you blame for it then?(implied as to causing this anger in the sands)

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=664158

Zzap reply:

Is this what he said?

Why YES he or she initially said it then he or she later affirmed saying it in the following post.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=664158

I suggest you put on your reading glasses and thinking cap (if you have one) and try again.

He merely presented a selective summary of recent history to make a (valid) point.

...[rant snipped for brevity]

Rant- a pompous or pretentious word used by some to not provide substantiated facts and veracity as to others suppositions and substantiations presented with some merit of fact not merely opines.

Brevity- an attribute, combined with the use of the word rant, for finding an excuse or reason to avoid presenting facts rather than opine suppositions ill supported but in a demeanor of being brief or fleeting of fact and reality.

Oddly NO and YES would be the answer to your query to try again.

NO! What you responded to was not in sequence or in context with the entirety of what HE or SHE and I were communicating.

Yes, he or she did selectively use an invalid idiom as the why of this long standing anger in the sand has some level of exclusivity as to some parties, events, circumstances and philosphies and not others as being a cause or reason why there is so much anger in these sand and it has been there for so long.

Yes, he did SELECTIVELY SUPPOSE A SUMMARY OF RECENT HISTORY as if it were EXCLUSIVELY THE ONLY REASON for all this anger in the sands.

Instead, I supposed, as history and facts show us, his suppositions are but part if even at all a part of a greater reason for all this long-standing anger in the sand much of which has absolutely nothing to do with the UK and or the USA at all.

Specifically, as to the points that are the under currents of philosophy and the dissolate apathetic politics of blame used as if no other components, events and or peoples were at play in these sands of long standing anger. Points I laid out that are well known subterranean reasons for a lot of that anger in these sands.

I would ask this right and honorable person Zaap what part of my response in the following post did you find that are not valid queries as to the suppositions at play between the House of Judea, House of Saud and tenants of anger born in these sands?

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...ndpost&p=665723

BUY DANISH

P.S In anticipation of the obliglatory ITS OIL STUPID retort.

The central question one must ask, if so, why was this anger so pervasive, so frequenty exhibited in these sands before oil was even a need.

More importantly, if so, once there is no addiction to oil which will come some day, why would one assume there will not be equally if not more anger in these very sands as was evident for centuries before oil was even important to anyone.

[ColPyat]

Rant- a pompous or pretentious word used by some to not provide substantiated facts and veracity as to others suppositions and substantiations presented with some merit of fact not merely opines.

Brevity- an attribute, combined with the use of the word rant, for finding an excuse or reason to avoid presenting facts rather than opine suppositions ill supported but in a demeanor of being brief or fleeting of fact and reality.

Oddly NO and YES would be the answer to your query to try again.

NO! What you responded to was not in sequence or in context with the entirety of what HE or SHE and I were communicating.

Are we finished pontificating semantics?

Anyhow, what do you make of Blair's latest revelations, being now inspired by god to go to war as well? Funny, innit, in the age of reason not just the evil terrorists follow the calling of god, but also our modern western leaders.

Which brings us now to the central question one must ask, are there several gods, or, if not, has there been a slight miscommunication happened between god and the leaders of the ones claiming to follow gods word in terms of going to war?

More importantly, might it even be that Blair followed Bush, believing him to be god? Is Bush god, or not?

Very confusing, innit?

Care to enlighten me?

[Steely Dan]

What laughable books you must be refering to, who wrote them David Irving?

David Irving denied the holocaust. Nobody in his right mind does.

Just go and google a bit the collaboration between US companies and Nazi Germany, go to amazon.com, there is more research available than you can imagine, especially since the last few years when previously secret files have been opened to the public. But i gues you won't want to do that as it might disturb your carefully built up fantasies about your world devided by "good" and "evil".

Now you've told me something I didn't know - I find such cynical manipulation abhorrent. There are of course two sides to the press coin as well and much of the antisemitism found in the middle east is probably down in large part to propaganda.

Not just antisemitism in the middle east (and elsewhere) is to a large part down to propaganda, also present anti-islamism is to a large part down to the same things: propaganda, fabrication of facts, conjecture and exageration, all in order to built up paranoia under the gullible.

If you start educating yourself about the other sides of that coin as well, you would be far more abhorred than by one little press manipulation. Don't think that our political leaders are not beyong far worse manipulation than this little event.

Colpyat,

In the many books you read did you learn how many Palestinians were killed in Jordan when they kicked out the PLO, or the 20,000 Islamists killed in Hama by the late President Assad senior in Syria? Incidentally it's amazing how few column inches this gets compared to the Israeli's turning a blind eye and allowing the massacres in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps. But then again thats not surprising as Israeli journalists blew the whistle on the latter whilst Syria excluded all journalists from Hama for months after the Hama massacre. Then again one was Arab killing Arab and the other at a stretch Jew killing Arab by proxy. You have the luxury of a western free press to formulate your world view whereas imprisonment or death would greet investigative journalism in much of the middle east. Again let's return to the beggining of this thread andd contrast the fortunes of the Danish newspaper who printed the cartoons and the Egyptian one who printed them months earlier. In respect of the current state of the world anyone would conclude mistakes have been made, but we are where we are and I'm afraid pandering to a bunch of fanatics would only result in more demands further down the line.

[usatrader]

Are we finished pontificating semantics?

Hmmm! It seems we must deal with the reality of who among us was THE pontificator in talking in a dogmatic and pompous manner of supposition as to who was to blame for this “anger in the sands” and how that semanticallypertained to an implied meaning of who was to blame for this noted anger in the sand.

As opposed to who merely clarified, with facts, these pontificated semantics by presenting some decorum of reality and factual clarity as to other dimension of culture, events, circumstances, philosophy and peoples who carry as much if not more of this meaningless blame game as do those you pontificated in clear semantics and intent. hey!

Anyhow, what do you make of Blair's latest revelations, being now inspired by god to go to war as well? Funny, innit, in the age of reason not just the evil terrorists follow the calling of god, but also our modern western leaders.

Which brings us now to the central question one must ask, are there several gods, or, if not, has there been a slight miscommunication happened between god and the leaders of the ones claiming to follow gods word in terms of going to war?

More importantly, might it even be that Blair followed Bush, believing him to be god? Is Bush god, or not?

Very confusing, innit?

Care to enlighten me?

I am sorry for a moment or two I was fixated on comprehending the meaning of this apparent British, or Asian, or Indian and or Pakistani Urban slang term innit. I finally figured it was, isn’t it. Correct?

I do not exclaim in approval nor do I reproach another’s right to believe in some form of God or the sanctum of tenants in some form of religion they hold to be true in their beliefs.

Having been in actual combat in Vietnam myself and been a pone of these blame gamers who sit snugly in safety, rationalizing and pontificating, in some assumed suppositions of intellectual masturbation about the righteousness of it all. I understand the down and dirty aspects of this anger in the sand and the underlying adversarial concepts contained in it. The issue we face is this angers cause. This is the core divergance among those who take an interest in it.

As to Blair, I would hope anyone in a position of deciding if his people are to go to war. Would, having decided it, and, thusly taking the ultimate responsibility for the consequences and the lives of those people he would send in harms way, would do so, using ALL measures of earthly and non-terrestrial, if any, wisdoms available.

I would also hope they would do all this in a sincere conviction it is the right thing to do for the people which must go in harms way and for those they are dutifully protecting in doing that.

I think Blair, in godly visions and or hoped for godly visions, saw in a human rationale of what was to come and decided to be a defender of it in some preventive vision of what may have been or may yet to be.

Possibly he foresaw events and hopefully forestalled and or prevented that which may be or may have been as big and or maybe more extensive, in outcome, than where those at Madrid and or in London on 7/7 and before Iraq, on 9/11.

I recall, in days of Hitler’s beginnings, the plurality in the UK was that Churchill was a mad man in his seer like foresight of what was to come and that the good Sir Chamberlain was really the seer of reality and truth in his appeasement idiomatic pontifications of “peace in our Time.”

History, time, and outcomes tells who is the insightful seer or the demented illusionary does it not?

History and time and outcome will as well concluded one day equally about Bush, Blair and Bin Laden’s idiomatic covenants of dar al Islam and dar al Harb.

One should not take lightly the idea that these deadly events merely came as result of Iraq as it did continue what had already begun years before. However, they should at least consider, the viability that they were and continues to be a clash of culture inevitability.

Be it supposed in someway as a creation of what has happened in Iraq or not. The core of this inevitable clash of cultures and its course is not so easily laid, just at the feet of a people, a religion, a culture, and or the acts and deeds of anyone alone.

They are cumulative and are born in this counter balance of cultures. Where one, the west, stands with one foot in the present and the other in the future. The other, this ideology founded in dar al Islam and dar al Harb, stands with one foot in the present and the other in an ancient past of ideologies long outdated as to human evolution far removed from this clear Taliban vision of how the world should be.

Does it matter what cause that initiates a adversarial beginning to blood letting? Once it has begun, the only real issue is what are the viable realities of alternatives that ensure it stops and ceases so that it will be never more.

Does leaving Iraq ensure with absolution that a 7/7, 9/11 and Madrid type of bloodletting will not happen and that all this violence in the Middle East will stop?

It is in these differences of idiomatic pontifications as to what is a viable alternative to stopping it that is this very adversarial delimmia that assures it continuance unless and until there is a consensus in belief that there is a reason to stop it.

I think the issues we discuss are like religion. Each devotee accepting most sincerity that singularly the tenants and covenants of their cultured religion are true and correct and all others are thereby false.

It is like the three levels of truth. They’re Truth, our truth, and the truth. The divergence of which leads men to either posture themselves as either a defender or offender of what they hold as true.

This is the divergence of the defender and offender and is the very core of the all of man’s propensities for violence against one another.

This is a war of ideology and future dominance. Not a war of specific acts or deeds either righteous or with fault by those that stand against one another.

As did the Nazis, Soviets and Maoist Chinese Communist, of their day and era, suppose a foresight faithfully as to the righteousness of their destiny, so do the western cultures and those that hold to these covenants of dar al-Islam ( house of submission) and dar al-Harb, (the house of war), do today.

One shall prevail and the other shall not. In this, you assume the UK and USA are the offenders of those so angered in sands who you impy, in silence, are the defenders.

I see this in opposition to that expression entirely. I see the west as the defenders, not without fault and cause for some of the anger in the sands as they have some.

But instead, until the devoted defenders of dar al Islam and dar al Harb stop seeking those ends, the fight will never end, be we in the Middle East or not. Better fight there than in Paris, London and or NY I say.

We must agree to disagree like I think one day must the west and these conflicting concepts of dar al Islam and dar al Harb. The destiny of it all is but a clash in adversity, disagreement, and blame, while all sightlessly fail to seek a viable solution and or resolution to it all.

BUY DANISH!!!

[opothai]

usatrader

that was one hel_l of a post

Edited March 6, 2006 by opothai