Thai Muslims Protest At Danish Embassy

[ColPyat]

usatrader

that was one hel_l of a post

That is how opinions differ.

I think it was a lot of waffle telling me that because he was down in the dirt (as if he's the only one) he doesn't like any sort of liberal smelling opinions. Furthermore that asking god for advice to go to war against the Muslims is perfectly alright, coz everybody is allowed to believe in a higher being (i guess as long as it's not Allah ), and that we are in a clash of civilisations that only one can survive. Which somehow brings us back to the point of reading too many lousy Science Fiction Novels.

Edited March 6, 2006 by ColPyat

[usatrader]

That is how opinions differ.

See we agree. I would add as well that this central thesis we agree on, is why we kill and war as differing peoples look at the same reality and see it with differing shades of tints. Tints held stubborn in the righteousness that their tinted truth is THE TRUTH and tints of others are but False Truths. When in history, as we know, there is always some truth and falsity in all adversaries visions of the reality before them ( Init )

I think it was a lot of waffle telling me that because he was down in the dirt (as if he's the only one) he doesn't like any sort of liberal smelling opinions.

My good sir or madam, I do not recall nor did I even hint at your self-created exclaim that I as was “down in the dirt” and as such was a martyr.

Nor likewise, did I, scribe your self-created illusion that I exclaimed myself as being exclusively the only one “in the dirt”. Truthfully my activity in those ancient times were more a tune to being Death from Above in fact.

As to being alone, beyond the absurdity of such a statement, thus is yet a hang up of revisionist illusions that is not mine but yours.

I do recall sadly having to pick up the remains of seven very fine SOG type of “diggers” whom I proudly knew as men of honor and gallantry who died for something I stand proud of and not in the slightest bit ashamed of.

My only shame in this ancient conflict of containment of adversaries, just like today, is that the American people back home lack the courage and will to envision that it would later be a part of many such containments that lead to the demise of Maoist and Soviet ambitions.

They, the American people, instead disserted us who fought there even we came home. But even more elitist and selfish was how they instantly, when we left, as if struck with dementia, deleted from their memories, as irrelevant and inconsequential, the Vietnamese who fought heroically and gallantly for their cause. The Vietnamese whose numbers lost can only be estimated which even as such they report a minimum of 500,000 soldiers just missing.

I merely pointed out one uses his or hers experiences to advance who they are and who they will become. I know of a few people in my era and my war, whom were extremely conservative in their youth who now are the opposite.

I personally went to Vietnam extremely liberal and returned more moderate with some tendencies of conservative as well as liberalism depending on the issues. In other words, I learned to think for myself not in some cloned idiomatic dogma some would pontificate in fact and fiction.

If one is adaptively realistic and equalitarian about whom they are as a human being, they would not just carry the bags of one ideological dominion in a one size fit all dogma about ever changing events and circumstances that are, have and will occur over their life time.

That is, if they were so well adapted and confident in themselves to actually see that differing issues at differing times requires an open mind seeking fact and truth rather a mind predisposed and closed as if it is wrapped in a sightless noiseless enigma of dogmatic punditries. (Init so?)

Furthermore that asking god for advice to go to war against the Muslims is perfectly alright, coz everybody is allowed to believe in a higher being (i guess as long as it's not Allah), and that we are in a clash of civilisations that only one can survive. Which somehow brings us back to the point of reading too many lousy Science Fiction Novels.

First of all, again you self create scribes of expression I never made. You created an idea that I subscribe to some sort of Islam-a-phobia. I do not!

In fact one of my dearest sisters, actually one of my wife’s 5 Chinese Thai sisters) has been married to an Indian Muslim for 30 years. I adore that family and would fight to the death against anyone who would attempt them harm. Similarly, my neighbor in the states, is a dear and kindly Iranian Lady whom I sought out after 9/11 to assure, that if she should encounter any problems, given the events and emotions of that day, she should not hesitate to call upon me and my wife.

I do subscribe to being against, to deadly extreme, those radical few, less than 1 %, who have stolen all of Islam with this demented fixation on these ideals of dar al Islam and dar al Harb. Demented ideals used in an intent and ambitioned attempt to draw the remaining majority of 99% into a real clash of cultures with the west.

A clash, as we have already seen, that will be most apostolic. Especially if they, the majority, joined, instead of as now, merely sitting on the side lines so confused and disjointedly apathetic, awaiting an outcome of either victory or defeat by and or of this less than 1% of adulterators that would use these Islamic idiom’s of dar al Islam and dar al Harb to bring forth this chiasmic clash.

If I had to choice, this is the fight I would have preferred to be in. Though I do not demure in any way from my pride in being in the fight I was in.

Do you have some hang up on others having the free will to have a religion or not as they may choice. Likewise, if they choice to have one do you see fault in their freely, without your permission or concurrence, seeking guidance in making a difficult and arduous decision effecting peoples lives no matter their religion.

Are you so idiomatic and naive to suppose these brothers of Lucifer that follow Zircowardly and Bin Laden do not pray to god for wisdom and victory? (INIT) for sure.

You assume much in this idiomatic supposition that the chicken came before the egg or vis vis, as to whom is warring on whom as if it were but a one sided affair and or even existed at all, but in minor discourses such as UN mandated events, prior to 9/11. A wise man uses facts. A fool knows not what is fact. Hey!

It is strange how you continue to suppose the numerous things you do like the novel reading habits of someone else. I assume this arena of reading and adhering to the clearly pre-stated untruth contained in a science fiction novel is a dominion you purvey for I do not as I prefer reality and factual non-fiction instead.

When blithe to argument I come, Though armed with facts, and merry, May Providence protect me from The fool as adversary, Whose mind to him a kingdom is Where reason lacks dominion, Who calls conviction prejudice And prejudice opinion.

-Phyllis McGinley

BUY DANISH!!!

[ColPyat]

And here we go again - another sermon. You ain't a preacher, by chance?

As to your "pride" in taking part in the Vietnam war concerning the "containment", whatever, i don't wanna comment on it other that you should watch "the fog of war", in which McNamara has more or less clearly stated that the domino threory was a huge mistake.

Funny that you state that you only have a problem with the maybe 1% Islamic fundamentalists, and a bit of a problem with the large majority of the Islamic population standing on the sidelines not being decisive enough for you. If you would take the time reading my posts instead of going on and on, you might find out that i have stated in my first posts in this thread that i have a rather similar stand. I wonder though why you do not take exception to the poster that advocated here openly to wipe out all Muslims. Which would mean your dear friends as well.

Neither do you take exception to the posters here fishing for any evidence that Islam itself is an evil religion, ergo must also be all it's followers, including your Islamic friends. Isn't that somewhat contrary to your self-professed religious tolerance?

Where we differ to the extreme is appearantly in the issue of war. But am not that surprised about that, given that you still, contrary to all evidence and statements of key leaders of that time, believe that the domino theory was a valid reason to cause the death of millions.

I am therefore also not very surprised that the lack of logic in fighting a territorial war against the international jihad appearantly completely passes you by, especially when, according to your statement and following your own logic, only 1% of Muslims are fundamentalist and the rest on the sidelines. Surely you don't believe that especially the Iraq war helps persuading those Muslims on the sidelines to join the coalition.

What i am surprised though is, that you, as ex-military, appearantly accept that your present leadership, apart from making war in the wrong country, has ignored all accepted rules of engagement in modern warfare for the sake of political agenda (that has very little to do with fighting fundamentalist terrorism anyhow). And i am surprised as well that you, so anti fundamentalist, do not question your government's more than close partnership with the two most fundamentalist nations in the Islamic world, the two countries that apart from the US are most responsible for the spread of modern Islamic terrorism: Saudi Arabia and Pakisthan.

I somewhat get the impression that your little theories on the clash of civilisations, your pride in your nation going to war, blinds you to all logic and evidence contary to your own slightly dramatic and onesided view on world events.

And no, I am not hung up on others religions, i have serious problems though when ones religion takes precedent over clear facts, when available intelligence is distorted, witheld and faked in order to persuade the gullible to join an agenda.

"Brothers of Luzifer", "apostolic" ... LOL! You do come up with funny shit.

[thedude]

just thought i'd reproduce a rather insightful article published at Yale Global last month and writen by a well-regarded voice in the UN community. the writer looks at the issues from a more impartial asian perspective.

The Opportunity of the Cartoon Crisis

Despite the dangers it presents, the outrage shows what needs to be done

Kishore Mahbubani

YaleGlobal, 9 February 2006

SINGAPORE: The Chinese word for “crisis” is brilliant: It combines two characters: danger and opportunity. The crisis over the Danish cartoons on Islam presents many dangers, but also offers some opportunities.

The first opportunity the crisis provides is to educate us on how much the world has changed. Before this crisis, the 5.4 million Danes could retain the illusion that they sailed on a different boat from the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. Now they, like most Europeans, are aware that those Muslims share the same boat. None of us would board a boat and deliberately rile a large group of fellow passengers. If one group rocks the boat, we would all sink together. The Danish cartoon crisis has demonstrated that the 5.4 million Danes, and 400 million fellow EU citizens, share a common political and emotional space with 1.2 billion Muslims. These Muslims are experiencing a deep existential angst, an angst aggravated by the Danish cartoons. Their anger can rock our boat. The widespread riots and loss of life that followed should now spur us to understand the deep roots of this anger.

The Danes are familiar with the proverbial expression of the straw that broke the camel’s back. The cartoons, perhaps only a straw, reinforce the deep sense of injustice that many Muslims feel. Muslims are convinced that the world, especially the West, shows no moral concern over their plight. The loss of innocent Muslim lives, whether in Iraq and Palestine, Afghanistan or Pakistan, does not stir the world. Nor has the West shown any real interest in supporting the development of Muslim societies. In short, the cartoons hurt the Muslims badly because they add real insult to real injuries.

The second opportunity this crisis provides is for the 1.2 billion Muslims to engage in some deep reflection. If they were strong and powerful, no small European country could afford to anger and alienate them. The ability of a Danish newspaper to publish the cartoons and the subsequent decision of several European papers to republish them demonstrated the weakness of the Muslim world. The Europeans knew that Muslims could not retaliate and hurt Europe. Hence, Muslim sensitivities could be ignored. Mass demonstrations, including assaults on the Danish embassies in Damascus and Beirut, are not an expression of strength. As Tariq Ramadan said, “The Muslim reaction is far too excessive and not the way forward.” The Muslim world has neither hard power nor soft power and lags behind Europe in social and educational indices. As such, the Muslim world needs to understand why it has become so weak relative to Europe.

A thousand years ago, when the Muslim caliphates were shining brightly, while preserving the rich fruits of Greek and Roman civilizations, Europe was emerging from the Dark Ages. In the contest between civilizations, the Muslims had clearly surpassed the Christians by the year 1000. Today, despite its many problems, Europe is far ahead. Why do so few Muslims ask the obvious question: How did the Muslim world, like much of Asia, lose a thousand years? China too lost many centuries in catching up with the West. So did India. But both civilizations are finally waking up, absorbing the best practices of the West, including a careful delineation of the roles of religion and state in the development of modern societies. If the Muslim world cannot emulate the West, can it emulate China and India? The Prophet Muhammad once said: “Seek knowledge, even into China. That is the duty for every Muslim.” If Muslims heeded such advice, Europe may not have drawn offensive cartoons.

The third opportunity from the crisis is for the world to reflect on the vices and virtues of freedom of expression. The Danish prime minister’s defense is that his government could not stop the publication of the cartoons because freedom of expression is an absolute value. Technically, he is right. No Danish law would allow him to stop the cartoons. But societies do have sensitivities. The Danish insensitivity to the Muslim world has clearly come through. As Jonathan Eyal noted in the Singapore Straits Times, “No self-respecting European newspaper would dare to publish a cartoon making fun of the Holocaust, the systematic murder of Jews during World War II.” Every society has its taboos. Today every society has to respect its own taboos and those of its neighbors. There is one simple reason why a few Danish cartoons could rock the world. The world is no longer a world. We live in the same neighborhood. Every human is our neighbor. The Muslims are our neighbors, too. We must respect their sentiments.

And yet it would be a great loss for mankind if the virtue of freedom of expression were sacrificed or diminished as a result of this cartoon crisis. Even the Muslim world would suffer. The sad reason for the struggle of many Muslim societies is that they have some dysfunctional aspects. Some of their elites feather their own nests, not that of their populations. The lack of a free press in many parts of the Muslim world prevents critics from exposing the inequities. Hence, the Muslim world should welcome rather than reject a free press. Look, for example, at the brave work done by Tempo, Indonesia’s leading weekly newsmagazine. Only it has the courage to point out both the weaknesses of the Indonesian government and the Muslim extremists who try to stifle debate in Indonesia. The Muslim world needs more Tempos, not fewer.

But the virtues of freedom of expression would be better appreciated in the rest of the world if the Western media, which dominate the world’s airwaves, encouraged a two-way street of ideas instead of the current one-way street. The open bewilderment of the Danes and Europeans at the global Muslim reaction to the Danish cartoons only reflects the widespread ignorance of the existential conditions of the Muslim world. It is no great secret that the Muslim world feels trampled upon by the West. They resent the double standards of the Western media on human rights, protesting strongly when non-Muslims are killed, as in East Timor, and protesting mildly when Muslims are killed, as in Palestine and Iraq. The Western media has convinced Western publics that they are paragons of virtue on human rights issues. But the Muslims, together with most of the five billion people who live outside the West, are acutely aware of the double standards.

The Danish cartoon crisis therefore provides the Western media an opportunity for self-reflection: How could they have failed to explain the viewpoint of five-sixths of humanity to their own populations? How can a free press be so irresponsible?

In short, despite the strongly held beliefs by both sides, there are no saints and sinners in this crisis. Both sides should engage in deep reflection on what they have done to allow the emergence of this crisis. When the dust has settled and the demonstrators have gone home, we should begin to work out the long-term future of mankind. Is it tenable for us to live in the same neighborhood and ignore the sentiments and wisdom of large segments of humanity? Is it wise for us to temper the open debate that the virtues of freedom of expression allow? Is it reasonable to allow the continuation of a one-way street in the passage of ideas from West to East? These are hard questions. The Danish cartoon crisis has provided us an opportunity to address them head on.

[ColPyat]

Good article!

[dog412]

sorry to the u.n. man, but satire and criticism are a necessity in a free thinking and secular society.

[greg.d]

Quite simply I for one will still buy Danish products. It was a paper, not the WHOLE country that published these cartoons. Let's not descriminate please!!

[thai3]

[quote Every human is our neighbor. The Muslims are our neighbors, too. We must respect their sentiments.

Why the hel_l should we respect something so obviously divisive, backward and unjust as islam any more than we should respect the sentiments of despots, totalitarian political regimes, the mafia, drug barrons or child abusers? This is typical liberal wank that just plays into the hands of Islamic militants and ends up in the obscenity of attacks like 9/11. Perhaps we should respect these sentiments?:

O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah (8:39)

When the sacred months have passed away, THEN SLAY THE IDOLATERS WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM, AND TAKE THEM CAPTIVES AND BESIEGE THEM AND LIE IN WAIT FOR THEM IN EVERY AMBUSH, then if they repent and keep up prayer [become believers] and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them (9:5)

And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but He GAVE YOU MASTERY OVER THEM (8:71)

FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)

FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hel_l, and evil is the destination. (9:73)

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (9:123)

I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ACTED ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER; AND WHOEVER ACTS ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER - THEN SURELY ALLAH IS SEVERE IN REQUITING (EVIL). THIS - TASTE IT, AND (KNOW) THAT FOR THE UNBELIEVERS IS THE PUNISHMENT OF FIRE. O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day - unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company - then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hel_l; and an evil destination shall it be. So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy) but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; (8:12-17)

[ColPyat]

This is typical liberal wank that just plays into the hands of Islamic militants and ends up in the obscenity of attacks like 9/11. Perhaps we should respect these sentiments?:

Actually, far more reason for 9/11 was that those Islamic militants were trained, paid and equipped by the US and their two most important partners in the Islamic world, Saudi Arabia and Pakisthan. Especially those fractions in the US who hate that sort "liberal wank" were the ones most engaged in arming those Islamic militants in Afghanisthan.

Also, it is pure conjecture to pick and choose some of the most radical passages in the Koran to conclude that not just the whole of Islam is "so obviously divisive, backward and unjust", but also not needing to respect the sentiments of the vast majority of Muslims who have no more love for the international Jihad and what it tries to achieve than you.

That would be the same to pick and choose some of the juicier elements of the Bible, and to judge the whole Christendom by the most radical born again Christians. Which, incidently, some of the key members of the present US administration are, including George Bush.

Here some more liberal wank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaida

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1670089.stm

[greg.d]

It doesn't matter who quotes what from where, religion is just a belief in something.... and i will definately BY DANISH, more so now than before, in fact i will go out of my way to eat DANISH.

PLEASE EVERYONE BY DANISH, it's the quality that counts not the sentiment.

[dog412]

fascinating to me how the" so-called" one percent of a estimated 1.2 billion can orchestrate worldwide protests, call for islamic states "violently" in various geographic diverse regions, create a cult of suicide bombers and international terroists, all of this and more, "without" the tacit or other "approval" of a whopping "99" percent of their co-religionists or political agendists. particularly when they offer absolutely no endearing qualities for the future of humanity.

[ColPyat]

It doesn't matter who quotes what from where, religion is just a belief in something.... and i will definately BY DANISH, more so now than before, in fact i will go out of my way to eat DANISH.

PLEASE EVERYONE BY DANISH, it's the quality that counts not the sentiment.

Well, yes, we know that already.

And yes, i will also keep buying Danish. And i will keep eating great Arab curries, smoke shisha and drink mint tea.

[opothai]

fascinating to me how the" so-called" one percent of a estimated 1.2 billion can orchestrate worldwide protests, call for islamic states "violently" in various geographic diverse regions, create a cult of suicide bombers and international terroists, all of this and more, "without" the tacit or other "approval" of a whopping "99" percent of their co-religionists or political agendists. particularly when they offer absolutely no endearing qualities for the future of humanity.

yep, and do any of these have work because they seem to winge cry and make noises for days on end, over a poxy cartoon or anything that takes thier fancy.

i'm waiting for the 99% of the moderate islamists to rally together to protest over the shame the so called minority fundamentalists bring to thier beloved religion,

come to think of it even 0.1% would be a start. but we see no public condemnation in any numbers, just the odd statement from an individual, whoopee doo.

Edited March 7, 2006 by opothai

[ColPyat]

i'm waiting for the 99% of the moderate islamists to rally together to protest over the shame the fundamentalists bring to thier beloved religion,

come to think of it even 0.1% would be a start. but we see no public condemnation in any numbers, just the odd statement from an individual, whoopee doo.

Well, true. The moderate part of the Islamic World doesn't do enough to distance themselves from the fundamentalist terrorists. The posted article though has given several very convincing explanations.

Anyhow, googling a bit i have found following links regarding reactions of prominent Islamic scholars and leaders on 9/11:

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

http://www.crescentlife.com/heal%20the%20w..._to_sept_11.htm

http://www.unc.edu/~kurzman/terror.htm

But on the other hand i don't see enough rallying together to push Bush and Blair off their positions, even though it has been clearly proven that all the intelligence presented by the that led to the Iraq has war has been fake. Both Bush and Blair have been re-elected even though the facts by that time were already widely known.

Even here in this thread literate people from wealthy western countries with access to free flow of information continue to ignore convincing proof of faked evidence by their own leaders in order to keep being comfortable with their message of hate.

Which brings me back to my first post: people should first clean up their own houses before throwing dirt at others. That counts for the fanatics, war mongers and spreaders of hate of BOTH sides.

[dog412]

first bush, then blair,then holland, france, now denmark. does anyone really believe the "west" is the demon it is being accused of? especially compared to it's accuser's agenda? the benevolent west- you either get it or you don't. religion is dangerous enough, anywhere in the world, but having "religious leaders" expounding theocratic acceptance of violence, seemingly without contradiction, is abhorrent,and if not denounced and or annihilated by said leaders followers, then may have to be done by others. moderates take heed, the time to act was a long time ago. with cartoons and iran maybe impossible. best of luck to us all.

[dog412]

colpyat, and these influential islamists held their anti-violence protests where exactly? how many of these "condemnations" were published in the muslim media in the middle east? which presses in which countries? these are muslims, so i'm sure they wanted their opinions posted in the "muslim world". i'm sure you agree,they, as scholars, with a opinion as serious as this, would want their view disseminated to the masses. forgive me for being a bit skeptical as to their true intent.

[usatrader]

And here we go again - another sermon. You ain't a preacher, by chance?

A sermon and a preacher hey! Now that is funny 555! If you only knew how far off center, you are LOL!

Suum Cuique, Hey!

Using “a movie” as evidentiary proof of some intellectual merit that is funny for sure. A movie that uses typical dramatic licenses, vision and intent of the “artist” to prove yet another failed ideological point.” The movie was not even a true adaptation of that book dewatered from a Moveon PAC political pundit, who made “switch ad” shorts advocating why Republicans should vote for Kerry.

As to your "pride" in taking part in the Vietnam war concerning the "containment", whatever, i don't wanna comment on it other that you should watch "the fog of war", in which McNamara has more or less clearly stated that the domino threory was a huge mistake.

Where we differ to the extreme is appearantly in the issue of war. But am not that surprised about that, given that you still, contrary to all evidence and statements of key leaders of that time, believe that the domino theory was a valid reason to cause the death of millions.

Well, let me see, Hmm! Death of millions hey? Again, laid as if factual at the feet of one party as if it was all encompassing responsible for that. Why I am shocked!

You should educate yourself as to the facts of history I think. These millions died not because of our stopping the so-called Domino theory. They died because of the acts and deeds of those that initiated the wars, proxy wars and confrontations that were executed to achieve their ambitioned paradigm of expansion.

McNamara! Cheeze, now that is a winner hey! In my day, we called it McNamara’s bean counter follies of how to lose a war and not operate a military.

First, He was “the head” body counting bean counter as such he was, as well, THE VERY ARCHITECT of the war and escalation. It was McNamara and his team of Ivy League academics MBA types who conducted the war even deciding daily its missions and objectives from Washington in a day and age, which was far from today’s capabilities of real time communications.

From the days of McNamara's “cannot do something teacher it” academic folly’s, we saw a need for a new paradigm on how to conduct military operations and wars. The Pentagon used the McNamara paradigm of folly as the very mold of HOW NOT TO CONDUCT A WAR and military operations.

It will be forever his legacy as it exampled a system of ideals that fell well short of the mark in adapting and overcoming in a war and military operational war setting.

The outcomes of that change from the failed McNamara Paradigm was learned effectively in that it let the commanders in the field run the wars. Ever since and especially in both the 1st and 2nd Gulf wars in Iraq, this Anti-McNamara lesson was used very successfully.

Second, in any strategic paradigm its core legitimacy is founded eternally and is forever coupled to its historical outcome. Which is unquestionably the ultimate proof as to whether it was a success and or failure and thereof an exampled prototype of a legitimate model with a likely successful outcome.

I bring to the good sir or madams attention two undeniable facts. The western alliance that fought these wars of containment against the Maoist and Soviets are STILL HERE AND THRIVING and THEY, the Maoist and Soviet paradigm of expansion, ARE NOT! Why because of this paradigm of containment, once successfully contained, they simply eat themselves up from within, as was their destiny?

The rest is Bulls h I t as we accomplished EXACTLY what we set out to do. Which was to end the expansion ambitions of both Maoist and Soviets right were they began.

Just like our current paradigm of containment cemented in our being right in the very Heart and Soul of that 1% of Islamic fanatics in Iraq and Afghanistan. As they have foretold for centuries, so goes Iraq, so goes the Middle East.

Funny that you state that you only have a problem with the maybe 1% Islamic fundamentalists, and a bit of a problem with the large majority of the Islamic population standing on the sidelines not being decisive enough for you.

If you would take the time reading my posts instead of going on and on, you might find out that i have stated in my first posts in this thread that i have a rather similar stand.

I wonder though why you do not take exception to the poster that advocated here openly to wipe out all Muslims. Which would mean your dear friends as well.

Neither do you take exception to the posters here fishing for any evidence that Islam itself is an evil religion, ergo must also be all it's followers, including your Islamic friends. Isn't that somewhat contrary to your self-professed religious tolerance?

I am therefore also not very surprised that the lack of logic in fighting a territorial war against the international jihad appearantly completely passes you by, especially when, according to your statement and following your own logic, only 1% of Muslims are fundamentalist and the rest on the sidelines. Surely you don't believe that especially the Iraq war helps persuading those Muslims on the sidelines to join the coalition.

Consistency is the foundation of merit and validity without it one has neither. In answer to your rhetoric as to a self- professed religious tolerance. I do not assume what I do not know.

Given your propensity to inject commentary and ideals that are not said as if they were said, I start with that measure of your incredulity as to what other meant by what they said.

I do not assume nor have I read any purposeful intent by any poster or posters on this thread saying in intent they want to kill ALL Muslims. For if they do and that is their intent I would stand against them for they are wrong.

One does not blame a race, a religion, or country, or a people for acts they did not commit or for acts that but a few of their number would commit.

That is unlike many do, like you, who consistently blame the United States, UK and or west for ever ill or bad that occurs. Most of which were events self created mostly by others unrelated to either the west, the US or the UK.

In what I read was an assumed meaning by some to seek an end to those who have likeminded ambitions as to that 1 % we speak. It is that group they, like myself, seek out with extreme prejudice of intent seeking their demise or surrender so as to absolutely ensure they can not and will not succeed in their ambitions or continue in their desire to breed more of this ill intent.

I do not know nor do I really care who will join the terrorist or the collation. I know the collation is well capable and is dealing deadly consequence to those that stand in this ill intent every day.

They are increasingly becoming insignificant, as they are being diluted in war and in not being well accepted by their fellow Muslims mainly for their efforts at self-genocide of their fellow Muslims. A Muslim upon Muslim Genocide that is at level and number that makes what they have done to westerners insignificant in comparison.

If they would willfully kill that number of their fellow Muslims, can one not imagine what they would do against ALL other Non-Muslim? Most especially those weak and fearful who are so delusional in non-existent utopian ideals and would not stand against them seeking to contain and diminish them with deadly force?

Despite all the media and bloggiest-sphere hyperbole to the contrary, I see no viable credible evidence of giant leaps being attained within the ranks of the terrorist after three years in Iraq. In fact I see much pointing to the contrary of that.

I do see most Muslims remaining on the sidelines through mainly an astonishment of how many of their fellow Muslim these Jihadist have killed in the name of defending Islam against the west.

No matter, joining or not, on one side or no side, it is a matter of free choice they must make. I know Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly were we should be fighting that 1%. If the rest do not understand that joining the other side will only bring them harder and more deadly times then that will be their choice and the consequences they must face.

Once committed to an accomplishment we all must face our failures and success based on the outcomes of our endeavors. Outcomes, which cannot be truly judged as a success and or a failure until the efforts are concluded.

Like Vietnam, perceptions are it was a failure. Yet, eventual outcomes, that it was a big part of and to which was the ultimate objective to begin with were a resounding success. In that the Maoist and Soviet ambitions where contained and eventually destroyed from within.

What I am surprised though is, that you, as ex-military, appearantly accept that your present leadership, apart from making war in the wrong country, has ignored all accepted rules of engagement in modern warfare for the sake of political agenda (that has very little to do with fighting fundamentalist terrorism anyhow). And i am surprised as well that you, so anti fundamentalist, do not question your government's more than close partnership with the two most fundamentalist nations in the Islamic world, the two countries that apart from the US are most responsible for the spread of modern Islamic terrorism: Saudi Arabia and Pakisthan.

I somewhat get the impression that your little theories on the clash of civilisations, your pride in your nation going to war, blinds you to all logic and evidence contary to your own slightly dramatic and onesided view on world events.

A few short points as to your naivety. In history, nations would often fight in alliance with their enemy against their enemy's enemy, doing so, knowing, full well, that their friends today are not necessary going to be their friends tomorrow. Maybe a History book or two would give you some factual perspective on that ?

Point in question. We helped our enemy Iraq against both our enemies Iran. Before that, we helped our enemies Iran against the Soviet expanders supporting Iraq.

We helped our enemies in Afghanistan to fight our enemies the Soviets. We helped our former enemies Germany and Japan stand against Maoist and Soviet Expansion. We helped India against China and even Vietnam after we left against China. Some have turned on us. While some, who were against us, have turned with us.

The histories of all great nations are full of this fickle of back and forward idiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy" conspiracies that are weaved with ever changing sides like, fine Danish embroidery.

As I recall, Churchill said there are no alliances of national interest there are only national interests. This is the nature of survival among nation states.

There is no simple one fit’s all way to deal with the affairs of state whose main aim is self- interest and survival ultimately. That idiom is present in all states without except throughout history and likely forever more.

I really do not care about the politics of all this crap. I back anyone who would take it to our enemies decisively with resolute resolve and determination and intent of victory.

If it is war and indeed blood has begun to flow, there are no acceptable rules of engagement in war. It is live or die. It is better you and yours are dead, than me and or mine. In war, winning is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE.

It not all that complicated. It really does not require that much intellectual masturbation. A guy over there wants to kill you and yours. You can rationalize all you want but when he pulls that trigger before you do. Your arguments, rationale and intellectual masturbation is, like you, dead and no more. He moves on to what is next in his line of destiny and you lay a rotting your grave.

And no, I am not hung up on others religions, i have serious problems though when ones religion takes precedent over clear facts, when available intelligence is distorted, witheld and faked in order to persuade the gullible to join an agenda.

"Brothers of Luzifer", "apostolic" ... LOL! You do come up with funny shit.

He who would laugh at the potential of his own fate does not understand how little impact he really has in effecting his own fate. They win, these brothers of Lucifer and your fate will be apostolic beyond ever grin you ever had unless you are they that win that is.

BUY DANISH!

We will remember not the words, acts and deeds of our enemies, but the same in and of the silence of our friends.

[gurkle]

O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred... (8:65)

Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve (8:55)

And if they intend to act unfaithfully towards you, so indeed they acted unfaithfully towards Allah before, but He GAVE YOU MASTERY OVER THEM (8:71)

FIGHT THEM: ALLAH WILL PUNISH THEM BY YOUR HANDS AND BRING THEM TO DISGRACE, AND ASSIST YOU AGAINST THEM. (9:14)

FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, NOR FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, OUT OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE BOOK [Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and THEY ARE IN A STATE OF SUBJECTION. (9:29)

O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hel_l, and evil is the destination. (9:73)

O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). (9:123)

I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ACTED ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER; AND WHOEVER ACTS ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER - THEN SURELY ALLAH IS SEVERE IN REQUITING (EVIL). THIS - TASTE IT, AND (KNOW) THAT FOR THE UNBELIEVERS IS THE PUNISHMENT OF FIRE. O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day - unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company - then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah's wrath, and his abode is hel_l; and an evil destination shall it be. So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy) but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; (8:12-17)

Great post! I had no idea. These are truly scary beliefs.

Edited March 8, 2006 by gurkle

[ColPyat]

Using “a movie” as evidentiary proof of some intellectual merit that is funny for sure. A movie that uses typical dramatic licenses, vision and intent of the “artist” to prove yet another failed ideological point.” The movie was not even a true adaptation of that book dewatered from a Moveon PAC political pundit, who made “switch ad” shorts advocating why Republicans should vote for Kerry.

As to the movie, i am not even sure you know what i am talking about. 'The fog of war' is a documentary movie in which McNamara personally explains himself and his actions. Which "artistic license" are you waffling on about? Where was there anything about Kerry or Bush?

I believe you must have confused something there.

And this seems not to be the only thing you are confused about. Your post contains such an enormous amount of selective history, conjecture and simplistic conclusions that i have neither the time nor the inclination to answer again, just to reveive more painfully boring pompous blather from you.

You can rob me... ...you can starve me, you can beat me, and you can kill me... ...just don't bore me. ...

Clint Eastwood, Heartbreak Ridge

[thai3]

And here we go again - another sermon. You ain't a preacher, by chance?

A sermon and a preacher hey! Now that is funny 555! If you only knew how far off center, you are LOL!

Suum Cuique, Hey!

Using “a movie” as evidentiary proof of some intellectual merit that is funny for sure. A movie that uses typical dramatic licenses, vision and intent of the “artist” to prove yet another failed ideological point.” The movie was not even a true adaptation of that book dewatered from a Moveon PAC political pundit, who made “switch ad” shorts advocating why Republicans should vote for Kerry.

As to your "pride" in taking part in the Vietnam war concerning the "containment", whatever, i don't wanna comment on it other that you should watch "the fog of war", in which McNamara has more or less clearly stated that the domino threory was a huge mistake.

Where we differ to the extreme is appearantly in the issue of war. But am not that surprised about that, given that you still, contrary to all evidence and statements of key leaders of that time, believe that the domino theory was a valid reason to cause the death of millions.

Well, let me see, Hmm! Death of millions hey? Again, laid as if factual at the feet of one party as if it was all encompassing responsible for that. Why I am shocked!

You should educate yourself as to the facts of history I think. These millions died not because of our stopping the so-called Domino theory. They died because of the acts and deeds of those that initiated the wars, proxy wars and confrontations that were executed to achieve their ambitioned paradigm of expansion.

McNamara! Cheeze, now that is a winner hey! In my day, we called it McNamara’s bean counter follies of how to lose a war and not operate a military.

First, He was “the head” body counting bean counter as such he was, as well, THE VERY ARCHITECT of the war and escalation. It was McNamara and his team of Ivy League academics MBA types who conducted the war even deciding daily its missions and objectives from Washington in a day and age, which was far from today’s capabilities of real time communications.

From the days of McNamara's “cannot do something teacher it” academic folly’s, we saw a need for a new paradigm on how to conduct military operations and wars. The Pentagon used the McNamara paradigm of folly as the very mold of HOW NOT TO CONDUCT A WAR and military operations.

It will be forever his legacy as it exampled a system of ideals that fell well short of the mark in adapting and overcoming in a war and military operational war setting.

The outcomes of that change from the failed McNamara Paradigm was learned effectively in that it let the commanders in the field run the wars. Ever since and especially in both the 1st and 2nd Gulf wars in Iraq, this Anti-McNamara lesson was used very successfully.

Second, in any strategic paradigm its core legitimacy is founded eternally and is forever coupled to its historical outcome. Which is unquestionably the ultimate proof as to whether it was a success and or failure and thereof an exampled prototype of a legitimate model with a likely successful outcome.

I bring to the good sir or madams attention two undeniable facts. The western alliance that fought these wars of containment against the Maoist and Soviets are STILL HERE AND THRIVING and THEY, the Maoist and Soviet paradigm of expansion, ARE NOT! Why because of this paradigm of containment, once successfully contained, they simply eat themselves up from within, as was their destiny?

The rest is Bulls h I t as we accomplished EXACTLY what we set out to do. Which was to end the expansion ambitions of both Maoist and Soviets right were they began.

Just like our current paradigm of containment cemented in our being right in the very Heart and Soul of that 1% of Islamic fanatics in Iraq and Afghanistan. As they have foretold for centuries, so goes Iraq, so goes the Middle East.

Funny that you state that you only have a problem with the maybe 1% Islamic fundamentalists, and a bit of a problem with the large majority of the Islamic population standing on the sidelines not being decisive enough for you.

If you would take the time reading my posts instead of going on and on, you might find out that i have stated in my first posts in this thread that i have a rather similar stand.

I wonder though why you do not take exception to the poster that advocated here openly to wipe out all Muslims. Which would mean your dear friends as well.

Neither do you take exception to the posters here fishing for any evidence that Islam itself is an evil religion, ergo must also be all it's followers, including your Islamic friends. Isn't that somewhat contrary to your self-professed religious tolerance?

I am therefore also not very surprised that the lack of logic in fighting a territorial war against the international jihad appearantly completely passes you by, especially when, according to your statement and following your own logic, only 1% of Muslims are fundamentalist and the rest on the sidelines. Surely you don't believe that especially the Iraq war helps persuading those Muslims on the sidelines to join the coalition.

Consistency is the foundation of merit and validity without it one has neither. In answer to your rhetoric as to a self- professed religious tolerance. I do not assume what I do not know.

Given your propensity to inject commentary and ideals that are not said as if they were said, I start with that measure of your incredulity as to what other meant by what they said.

I do not assume nor have I read any purposeful intent by any poster or posters on this thread saying in intent they want to kill ALL Muslims. For if they do and that is their intent I would stand against them for they are wrong.

One does not blame a race, a religion, or country, or a people for acts they did not commit or for acts that but a few of their number would commit.

That is unlike many do, like you, who consistently blame the United States, UK and or west for ever ill or bad that occurs. Most of which were events self created mostly by others unrelated to either the west, the US or the UK.

In what I read was an assumed meaning by some to seek an end to those who have likeminded ambitions as to that 1 % we speak. It is that group they, like myself, seek out with extreme prejudice of intent seeking their demise or surrender so as to absolutely ensure they can not and will not succeed in their ambitions or continue in their desire to breed more of this ill intent.

I do not know nor do I really care who will join the terrorist or the collation. I know the collation is well capable and is dealing deadly consequence to those that stand in this ill intent every day.

They are increasingly becoming insignificant, as they are being diluted in war and in not being well accepted by their fellow Muslims mainly for their efforts at self-genocide of their fellow Muslims. A Muslim upon Muslim Genocide that is at level and number that makes what they have done to westerners insignificant in comparison.

If they would willfully kill that number of their fellow Muslims, can one not imagine what they would do against ALL other Non-Muslim? Most especially those weak and fearful who are so delusional in non-existent utopian ideals and would not stand against them seeking to contain and diminish them with deadly force?

Despite all the media and bloggiest-sphere hyperbole to the contrary, I see no viable credible evidence of giant leaps being attained within the ranks of the terrorist after three years in Iraq. In fact I see much pointing to the contrary of that.

I do see most Muslims remaining on the sidelines through mainly an astonishment of how many of their fellow Muslim these Jihadist have killed in the name of defending Islam against the west.

No matter, joining or not, on one side or no side, it is a matter of free choice they must make. I know Iraq and Afghanistan is exactly were we should be fighting that 1%. If the rest do not understand that joining the other side will only bring them harder and more deadly times then that will be their choice and the consequences they must face.

Once committed to an accomplishment we all must face our failures and success based on the outcomes of our endeavors. Outcomes, which cannot be truly judged as a success and or a failure until the efforts are concluded.

Like Vietnam, perceptions are it was a failure. Yet, eventual outcomes, that it was a big part of and to which was the ultimate objective to begin with were a resounding success. In that the Maoist and Soviet ambitions where contained and eventually destroyed from within.

What I am surprised though is, that you, as ex-military, appearantly accept that your present leadership, apart from making war in the wrong country, has ignored all accepted rules of engagement in modern warfare for the sake of political agenda (that has very little to do with fighting fundamentalist terrorism anyhow). And i am surprised as well that you, so anti fundamentalist, do not question your government's more than close partnership with the two most fundamentalist nations in the Islamic world, the two countries that apart from the US are most responsible for the spread of modern Islamic terrorism: Saudi Arabia and Pakisthan.

I somewhat get the impression that your little theories on the clash of civilisations, your pride in your nation going to war, blinds you to all logic and evidence contary to your own slightly dramatic and onesided view on world events.

A few short points as to your naivety. In history, nations would often fight in alliance with their enemy against their enemy's enemy, doing so, knowing, full well, that their friends today are not necessary going to be their friends tomorrow. Maybe a History book or two would give you some factual perspective on that ?

Point in question. We helped our enemy Iraq against both our enemies Iran. Before that, we helped our enemies Iran against the Soviet expanders supporting Iraq.

We helped our enemies in Afghanistan to fight our enemies the Soviets. We helped our former enemies Germany and Japan stand against Maoist and Soviet Expansion. We helped India against China and even Vietnam after we left against China. Some have turned on us. While some, who were against us, have turned with us.

The histories of all great nations are full of this fickle of back and forward idiom of "the enemy of my enemy is my enemy" conspiracies that are weaved with ever changing sides like, fine Danish embroidery.

As I recall, Churchill said there are no alliances of national interest there are only national interests. This is the nature of survival among nation states.

There is no simple one fit’s all way to deal with the affairs of state whose main aim is self- interest and survival ultimately. That idiom is present in all states without except throughout history and likely forever more.

I really do not care about the politics of all this crap. I back anyone who would take it to our enemies decisively with resolute resolve and determination and intent of victory.

If it is war and indeed blood has begun to flow, there are no acceptable rules of engagement in war. It is live or die. It is better you and yours are dead, than me and or mine. In war, winning is the ONLY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE.

It not all that complicated. It really does not require that much intellectual masturbation. A guy over there wants to kill you and yours. You can rationalize all you want but when he pulls that trigger before you do. Your arguments, rationale and intellectual masturbation is, like you, dead and no more. He moves on to what is next in his line of destiny and you lay a rotting your grave.

And no, I am not hung up on others religions, i have serious problems though when ones religion takes precedent over clear facts, when available intelligence is distorted, witheld and faked in order to persuade the gullible to join an agenda.

"Brothers of Luzifer", "apostolic" ... LOL! You do come up with funny shit.

He who would laugh at the potential of his own fate does not understand how little impact he really has in effecting his own fate. They win, these brothers of Lucifer and your fate will be apostolic beyond ever grin you ever had unless you are they that win that is.

BUY DANISH!

We will remember not the words, acts and deeds of our enemies, but the same in and of the silence of our friends.

The most brilliant, informative and intelligent post I have ever seen on the subject, well said.

Edited March 8, 2006 by thai3

[mogoso]

[quote name='thai3' date='2006-03-08 16:5

"Brothers of Luzifer", "apostolic" ... LOL! You do come up with funny shit.[/size]

He who would laugh at the potential of his own fate does not understand how little impact he really has in effecting his own fate. They win, these brothers of Lucifer and your fate will be apostolic beyond ever grin you ever had unless you are they that win that is.

BUY DANISH!

We will remember not the words, acts and deeds of our enemies, but the same in and of the silence of our friends.

The most brilliant, informative and intelligent post I have ever seen on the subject, well said.

Its been a pleasure to read these posts, intelligent and well researched. I want a daily column in my newspaper.

[ColPyat]

He who would laugh at the potential of his own fate does not understand how little impact he really has in effecting his own fate. They win, these brothers of Lucifer and your fate will be apostolic beyond ever grin you ever had unless you are they that win that is.

Religious nutters and paranoid fanatics ...

Yes, i can't do anything than laugh about you <deleted>... "Brothers of Luzifer" ... you guys are completely insane if you actually believe the crap you post.

[Johpa]

The Opportunity of the Cartoon Crisis

Despite the dangers it presents, the outrage shows what needs to be done

Kishore Mahbubani

YaleGlobal, 9 February 2006

SINGAPORE: .......

The second opportunity this crisis provides is for the 1.2 billion Muslims to engage in some deep reflection. If they were strong and powerful, no small European country could afford to anger and alienate them. The ability of a Danish newspaper to publish the cartoons and the subsequent decision of several European papers to republish them demonstrated the weakness of the Muslim world. The Europeans knew that Muslims could not retaliate and hurt Europe. Hence, Muslim sensitivities could be ignored....

A rather scary sentiment here. The author seems to indicate he would prefer a world that is afraid to confront militant Islamic extremists via political satire by being able to "retaliate and hurt Europe" over such perceived affronts.

[ColPyat]

A rather scary sentiment here. The author seems to indicate he would prefer a world that is afraid to confront militant Islamic extremists via political satire by being able to "retaliate and hurt Europe" over such perceived affronts.

Are you so stuck in your fantasies of violence that you don't even understand that he meant "retaliate and hurt" in a metaphorical way, the same way that the cartoon hurt? That should be more than clear if you see the context of the whole article instead of just picking and choosing the part that feeds your paranoia.

[usatrader]

As to the movie, i am not even sure you know what i am talking about. 'The fog of war' is a documentary movie in which McNamara personally explains himself and his actions. Which "artistic license" are you waffling on about? Where was there anything about Kerry or Bush?

I believe you must have confused something there.

And this seems not to be the only thing you are confused about. Your post contains such an enormous amount of selective history, conjecture and simplistic conclusions that i have neither the time nor the inclination to answer again, just to reveive more painfully boring pompous blather from you.

Check and Checkmate.

LOL You again use yet another fantasy movie derived from a reality based event that was factually diluted in a movie about a real life military intervention but presented with extreme differences using dramatic licenses, vision and the intent of the “artist” much afar from what actually happened in Grenada.

Do you wisely think that by somehow using movies as a rational of creditable debate gives you some level of credulity beyond merely laying out a childish swath at opposing facts you do not want hear while offering no viable counter points and or alternatives? Noting in my post were numerous facts unaddressed.

I regret you are so ill informed and lazy as to not understand that the words Movie and Documentary are interchangeably equivalent as a form of conveyances in the either media entertainment form be it film or TV.

For example, Michael Moore presented documentaries filled with fallacious half truths and distortions as to facts. Likewise, The Swift Boat Veterans did much the in the same fashion. So you see a Movie of fantasy and documentary are equally subject to the dramatic licenses, visions and intents of the “artist” and his agenda to begin with.

Documentary: Defined as

· relating to or consisting of or derived from documents

· a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event

· objective: emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art"

Movie : Defined as

a form of entertainment that enacts a story based on either fact or fiction presented by a sequence of stories based on interpretation through images giving the illusion of continuous movement and derived from a concept and or perspective as in story telling with images .

Religious nutters and paranoid fanatics ...

Yes, i can't do anything than laugh about you <deleted>... "Brothers of Luzifer" ... you guys are completely insane if you actually believe the crap you post.

Understanding Iran’s President Ahmadinejad and the Mulaha who rule Iran.

His openly stated desires to “wipe Israel off the map” and “pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam within the next two years” (The 2nd coming and end of time in Islam) open the possibility that, with the power of nuclear weaponry at hand, he could unthinkably forsake the well-being of his own nation. In order to serve a ‘greater purpose’, he may be capable of creating a situation so cataclysmic that it would usher in the 12th Imam, thereby, potentially in his mind, saving the world and restoring Islam.

President Ahmadinejad believes in the Al-Mahdi state, but they differ in the way they look at it. One part remained faithful to the old myth that someday the 12th Imam who disappeared mysteriously, will appear and start to lead the Shea’at to victory over all their enemies, starting with the hypocrite mullahs and ending with the Jews, and that all they have to do is sit and wait for his appearance.

This part is represented by Sistani and his followers in Iraq. These are the people who refused to revolt against Saddam.

The other part represented by the late Sadir and before that by Khomaini, saw that this ideology will put the Shea’at out of the political struggle, which led Khomaini to come up with the theory of (wilayat Al-faqiuh) which means that an honest and highly educated cleric can serve as a deputy for the Mahdi and lead the Shea’at to fight and find their way between the lines and prepare for the appearance of the Mahdi.

http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/u...ng-ahmadinejad/

The Telegraph:

Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader

By Anton La Guardia

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...14/ixworld.html

IRAN, ISRAEL & THE 12th IMAM

http://www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk/docs/..._12th_imam.html

President leads the faithful awaiting return of 12th imam

Ahmadinejad uses saviour of Shia Islam as powerful tool in political arena

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1714431,00.html

Iran's Martyr Recruitment Website

http://www.esteshhad.com/index.php

As of now, the above site is now blocked by Iran from outside access.

The Iranian reformist Internet daily Rooz reported on March 2, 2006 that "the Iranian martyrdom-seeking [i.e. suicide] forces have launched a website, , called 'To Die as a Martyr,' and have declared an alert among the Iranian martyrdom-seeking forces."

Here

The following are excerpts from the Rooz report:

Here

Iran's would-be suicide bombers line up for duty

We have registered more than 52,000 people who willingly are ready to defend their country," he said. "If they strike, we have a lot of volunteers. Their (US and British) sensitive places are quite close to Iranian borders," Mr Samadi said after a gathering of about 200 students for a seminar on suicide-bombing tactics at Tehran's Khajeh Nasir University.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/irans-...0283950595.html

Iran threatens US with 'pain' if sanctions begin

A senior Iranian UN official warned: "The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll."

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle...ticle350101.ece

Al-Mahdi, Muhammad ibn Abdullah & A Caliphate That Follows the Guidance of the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam

http://www.islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=227

Even a paranoid has some real enemies.Henry A. Kissinger

BUY DANISH!!

http://danelink.com/locations/intprod.html

[ColPyat]

IRAN, ISRAEL & THE 12th IMAM

http://www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk/docs/..._12th_imam.html

From 'about us' in that website:

Light for the Last Days began in 1988 when Tony Pearce was working as a school teacher in north London and wrote a few articles about Bible prophecy which he circulated to his friends. It has now become a regular magazine appearing four times a year and distributed world wide. The website contains past and present articles from the magazine.

Sounds like avery credible source, well for the ones here inclined to follow the "science" of 'bible study' ...

[usatrader]

From 'about us' in that website:

Light for the Last Days began in 1988 when Tony Pearce was working as a school teacher in north London and wrote a few articles about Bible prophecy which he circulated to his friends. It has now become a regular magazine appearing four times a year and distributed world wide. The website contains past and present articles from the magazine.

Sounds like avery credible source, well for the ones here inclined to follow the "science" of 'bible study'

The apothegm topic we discuss is WHAT is behind this fringe element of radical Islam’s overreaction to the Danish cartoons.

The previous post shows numerous sources of discourse as to the core elements principled in the concepts of dar al Islam and dar al Harb. Which are but the tools for achieving an end results and aims of the eventual appearance of the Mahdi, as in the return of a fabled apostolic Iman who disappeared, called the 12th Iman, which will, according Islamic beliefs, bringing on the end of time.

A concept commonly and publicly accepted, devotedly shared with anticipation as occurring within the next two years among Iran’s ruling elite Iman’s and current president. It is likewise shared by Bin Laden in like mannered ambition and aims of an apostolic belief as in all of these fanatics who commonly are devoted to, share and desire the coming appearance of the 12th Iman, who these Mullahs in Iranian and the fanatics believe is here now. Thereby, meaning to them, the end of time is here and or will occur within the next two years. That is their aim and goal and that is why they are so dangerous.

Oh my! Oh My, it seems my good and honorable person, lacks the understanding that a PART IS NOT THE SUM OF THE WHOLE but is but a part as is grain of sand but a part of the desert but alone it is not a desert.

Try again.

The prejudices of ignorance are more easily removed than the prejudices of interest; the first are all blindly adopted, the second willfully preferred.-George Bancroft

BUY DANISH!!

http://danelink.com/locations/intprod.html

[ColPyat]

The previous post shows numerous sources of discourse as to the core elements principled in the concepts of dar al Islam and dar al Harb. Which are but the tools for achieving an end results and aims of the eventual appearance of the Mahdi, as in the return of a fabled apostolic Iman who disappeared, called the 12th Iman, which will, according Islamic beliefs, bringing on the end of time.

You so conveniently seem to forget that Bush and most of his key staff are born again Christians, who believe in the second coming and Armageddon. True descendents of Matthys, Jan van Leyden and the plague of extreme fringe Anabaptists.

Not difference to Islamic fundamentalists - they are equally dangerous.

Clean your own house of the religious nutters.

[usatrader]

You so conveniently seem to forget that Bush and most of his key staff are born again Christians, who believe in the second coming and Armageddon. True descendents of Matthys, Jan van Leyden and the plague of extreme fringe Anabaptists.

Not difference to Islamic fundamentalists - they are equally dangerous.

Clean your own house of the religious nutters.

Oh yes there is. One giant big difference between those Anabaptist you compare to Islamic fundamentalist indeed.

The former, Anabaptists, existed as a minority within a minority yet within another minority some 472 years ago. Their ideology has long been extinct with no evidence of any predominance of the slightest among Christians today. Even as it died out in numbers in but a few hundred some 200 years ago which was barely less than when it was bred by that Teutonic genome of Jan Matthy around 1500.

Do you know of any such groups even existing today if they do, it is likely to be in Europe and not the US?

While the latter, Islamic fundamentalist are even today, in fact, diversely discoursing in violent conflicts with EVERY major non-Islamic religion existing today.

Why do suppose those few Islamist have violent problems WITH EVERY MAJOR RELIGION in the world including even atheist in Russia and China, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and of course their mortal enemy the Jews hey?

Now that is relevant to the discussion. It’s religions comparison in rebuttal makes the Taliban ideology look main stream and Anabaptist predominat in al,of Christianity and especially the US. Except for a sight but significant variant. There are no facts that support either of the suppositions you repose.

You heard the story about the employee who over a short time repeatedly, for one reason or another, keeps having conflicts with his fellow employees.

Now it could be they ALL are just against him and are the cause of all the trouble . It could be he is against ALL of them and the cause of all the troubles. Then again, it could be just a coincident all together and no one is to blame but the coincidence. hey?

One fact is for certain, HE IS CENTRAL TO EVERY PROBLEM EXCLUSIVELY ALONE. I wonder why?

Your rebuttal reminds me of that tale about Winston Churchill during the period when he became unpopular and was about to be thrown out of office by the very people he was so instrumental in saving.

At a stuffy social gathering he was required reluctantly to attend, he was approached by a rather stuffy righteous lady, who exclaimed, rather loudly and rudely, so ALL could hear. Sir you are drunk! Without missing a beat, Sir Winston retorted. Indeed Madam, but you are ugly and I shall be sober tomorrow.

BUY DANISH!!

http://danelink.com/locations/intprod.html

[ColPyat]

Oh yes there is. One giant big difference between those Anabaptist you compare to Islamic fundamentalist indeed.

The former, Anabaptists, existed as a minority within a minority yet within another minority some 472 years ago. Their ideology has long been extinct with no evidence of any predominance of the slightest among Christians today. Even as it died out in numbers in but a few hundred some 200 years ago which was barely less than when it was bred by that Teutonic genome of Jan Matthy around 1500.

Do you know of any such groups even existing today if they do, it is likely to be in Europe and not the US?

That statement basically shows your depth of theological research.

First, Matthys was not "Teutonic" - he was Dutch, a baker in Amsterdam.

Second, yes, i do know of more than a few groups of Anabaptist ideology. And no, they are not most likely found in Europe in numbers, but in the US. Most "born again" Christians are Anabaptist, as they are baptised again ('ana' from the old greek - again).

Anabaptists were almost instinct in Europe due to the progroms apart from a few groups in far off areas. The survivors emigrated to America.

Mennonites are Anabaptist, just look at their own website. There are Anabaptist groups who are against the war, such as the Mennonites, such as there were many Anabaptists who rejected Matthys, Leyden and the Musteraner radicals, but had to suffer terribly because of the actions of their more fanatic bethren.

In the US you have more than 50 million people who are followers of Anabaptist philosophies, members of Churches which are direct descendents of 16th century European Anabaptism, or which have been founded in the European Anabaptist movement. So is Bush.

If you are too lazy to read books on Anabaptism and the theological history of your own country, you should at least google it. There is loads of information on that subject to be found.

from wikipedia:

A fanatic is a person filled with excessive, uncritical zeal, particularly for an extreme religious or political cause, or with an obsessive enthusiasm for a pastime or hobby.

That describes you perfectly, you devilise Islamic fundamentalism, and you are blind to the very same extreme religious orientations of your own leadership. You pick and choose at will from different social theories, distort them, such as the "clash of civilisations", without properly understanding them, as long as it might suit your ideology.

You are just another zealot.