And Bush speaketh!!!

[woppy71]

I havn't been following the situation closely in Iraq, but if the coallitian has achieved what it set out to do, isn't it about time we got out?

[telaquapacky]

woppy71 wrote: I havn't been following the situation closely in Iraq, but if the coallitian has achieved what it set out to do, isn't it about time we got out?The big objection some of us had to going into Iraq to begin with was that once we were in and got rid of Sadaam, we would create a power vacuum that would require us to stay until it could be filled by forces to our liking. The catch-22 is that the longer we stay, the more hated we become, and the less likely the vacuum will be filled by forces to our liking, yet if we got out too quick, there would be no time for forces to our liking to develop and take full control.

There is no easy solution to the Iraq mess, get out or stay. We probably have a bit more control if we stay than leave. I was opposed to the war in the beginning, but now, for the same reasons, I don't think skedaddling out is the answer.

[Crème brûlée]

:-3 And Bush said



and they applauded...................

[Bronwen]

Scrat wrote: Muslims were Muslims when Europeans lived on the door steps of caves.

Respect that.And this guy is calling other people idiots?

Islam dates to the 7th century AD.

Christianity was well-established in urban Europe hundreds of years earlier.

Maybe he's confusing European civilization with the caves Osama and his a**hole buddies live in.

[Lulu2]

Bronwen, I'd hardly call Scrat "an idiot"....but I'll say he's incorrect about the age of Islam and the condition of Europeans when it arose. Granted, there was a brief period when Islam contributed enormously to science and arts...however, that "light" dimmed centuries ago.

[telaquapacky]

Genesis 16:11,12

The angel of the LORD also said to her: "You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery. 12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

Ishmael is the son of Abraham by Sarah's maidservant, Hagar. Ishmael is the father of the Arab Muslims.

[telaquapacky]

Scrat wrote: Doesn't that belong in another thread? Another section?I don't think so. The point I was trying to make is that there is a background of conflict that goes back to the Book of Genesis, to a time before Islam, Judaism or Christianity, before the Western nations arose, or the white man killed off the buffalo, or before you could get a cup of joe for a nickel. You know- way back when!

[Bronwen]

Scrat wrote: 1. I was not referring to the Islamic religion you weiner eating nazi.

2. I was referring to the Muslim people or more accurately, the people of the Middle East.

3. The region called the Mid East today parts of Turkey and Greece were the cradles of civilization as we know it.

4. Make no mistake though, it was Muslim culture and Islam that somehow convinced Europeans that eating meals 3 times a day with a variety of foods was healthy for you and (gasp!!!) TAKING A BATH WOULD NOT KILL YOU!!!

5. Go and educate yourself. 1. Of course you were! There is no such thing as a non-Islamic Muslim.

2. Nonsense. 'Muslim' means 'one who surrenders (to the will of God)'. It is purely a catch-phrase of the Islamic religion. Members of other religions may fear the Lord and attempt to lead their lives according to what they perceive to be His will, but they do not express that submission by acts of terrorism, mass murder and suicide. That is pure Muslim, don't attempt to extend it to anyone else.

3. Generally conceded. So why has civilization elsewhere advanced astronomically while Islamic civilization remains primitive?

4. Really? Then why does every Muslim that I encounter here in Germany stink to high heaven? Granted that Germans feel that cleaning out toilets is beneath them and somebody's gotta do it, couldn't they at least wash up afterward?

5. Go and do something else with YOURself.

Edited later to add:And by the way, if you are so intellectually bankrupt that you have to resort to ethnic insults, how about identifying your own ethnicity so that I can respond in kind. We might even stage a virtual pie fight.

[Bryn Mawr]

telaquapacky wrote: I don't think so. The point I was trying to make is that there is a background of conflict that goes back to the Book of Genesis, to a time before Islam, Judaism or Christianity, before the Western nations arose, or the white man killed off the buffalo, or before you could get a cup of joe for a nickel. You know- way back when!


Might I ask when the book of Genesis was written? Certainly not before Judaism.

I'd also ask for a lineage linking the current day Arabs to Ishmael if I thought I'd get an answer I could verify.

[telaquapacky]

Bryn Mawr wrote: Might I ask when the book of Genesis was written? Certainly not before Judaism.

I'd also ask for a lineage linking the current day Arabs to Ishmael if I thought I'd get an answer I could verify.My belief is that the first five books of the Bible (called the Pentateuch) were written by Moses, partly based on common knowledge, oral tradition, and much guidance by the Holy Spirit. I say "guidance" more than "inspiration," because I believe, as it is written, Moses was a man who was so close to God that he talked with Him face to face- so I'm certain Moses had way more editorial help than any other Bible writer.

The writing of the Pentateuch I believe corresponds to the emergence of Judaism, because the Jewish statutes appear first in Leviticus. But Genesis covers events which I go back roughly six thousand years ago, including creation week.

This is the only genealogy of the line of Ishmael I know of in the Bible:

Genesis 25:13-18

These are the names of the sons of Ishmael, listed in the order of their birth: Nebaioth the firstborn of Ishmael, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, 14 Mishma, Dumah, Massa, 15 Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish and Kedemah. 16 These were the sons of Ishmael, and these are the names of the twelve tribal rulers according to their settlements and camps. 17 Altogether, Ishmael lived a hundred and thirty-seven years. He breathed his last and died, and he was gathered to his people. 18 His descendants settled in the area from Havilah to Shur, near the border of Egypt, as you go toward Asshur. And they lived in hostility toward all their brothers.

Bryn, I know this is odd to you, but some sects of Christianity, like mine, regard the Bible as the most trustworthy document on earth- and nothing else comes close. We try to approach interpreting it, asking for God's help, and with humility and objectivity and agree to disagree peacably. I didn't say that was easy.

[Bronwen]

Bryn Mawr wrote: 1. Might I ask when the book of Genesis was written?

2. Certainly not before Judaism.

3. I'd also ask for a lineage linking the current day Arabs to Ishmael if I thought I'd get an answer I could verify.1. About 750BC in the form in which we now have it, pieced together from written and oral traditions going back perhaps a century or more earlier.

2. Certainly not. Assembled by Jewish scholars (along with the rest of the Pentateuch) during the Babylonian Exile from four major sources (designated D, E, J, and P), plus isolated passages from a few minor ones.

3. Very unlikely that such a person ever existed. Most contemporary Bible scholars, Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish, consider nearly ALL of Genesis to be legendary, though with some possible factual basis, especially in the later chapters. Certainly no factual basis to either of the two contradictory creation tales, Noah's ark, etc. Unfortunately, no one has yet found a way to separate the fact, if any, from the folklore.

[Lulu2]

"We are the crankiest animals to have walked this planet."

:wah:

[Bronwen]

Lulu2 wrote: "We are the crankiest animals to have walked this planet."

:wah:More bran in the diet!

[Lulu2]

KASHI for KOSHI! :wah:

[Felinessa]

Scrat, I take it you meant that Arabs, not Muslims were making certain advancements in mathematics, science, and poetry. Naturally, not every Arab is a Muslim, but that would be the only way your statement would have some value, despite the fact that Europeans stopped living in caves before the Greeks (who in turn preceded the Romans, who in turn preceded Islam). If you want to be historically accurate, the Romans were building bath-houses and aqueducts long before the Prophet was born.

However, the Islamic scholars who are most likely to have influenced Western thought, Al-Farabi (who interestingly wrote on Plato and Aristotle, Greeks to the core), Avicenna, and Averroes lived between the 9th and the 12th c. A.D. Averroes, although he was an Islamic scholar, lived in Spain, where he was judge of Cordova. That means they were writing after the pre-Socratics, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, the Greek tragedians, Herodotus, the Roman orators, poets, and dramatists, Titus Livius, Vergil, etc. Or, if you want to exclude the Classics, before or at the same time as Bede, Alcuin of York, Aelfric, Boethius, the scholars of the Benedictine Revival, King Alfred, Bernard de Clairvaux, Abelard, the early Church Fathers, etc.

This is not to say that that Islamic scholars didn't bring impressive contributions, but given the presence of the Moors in Spain, the mobility of scholars, and the medieval tradition of incorporating and glossing previous scholarship (rather than citing it rigidly), it is difficult to completely separate the two traditions.

Diuretic -

Let's face it, after the fall of Rome Europe wasn't exactly the seat of light was it?


See above. Much more than we imagine. I'll give you an example: when we think about the Anglo-Saxons, we think violence, wars, and a warrior culture. This is, methinks, because the only parts of their culture which are generally known to most of us are snippets of their epics, which, naturally, do focus on the relationship between lord and thanes and conquests of war. But Anglo-Saxon England also had a flourishing culture of Latin Christianity, which eventually edged out Celtic Christianity in England. However, since it is far more difficult to glamourize religious treatises (glosses, exegeses, translations, etc), these tend to be brushed aside. But this does prove, however, that around the year 700, Europe was not only cultivating a religion, but the scholarship of that religion as well.

Not bad for "cave-dwellers" :wah:

[Felinessa]

The Romans had central heating. So nyeah :p

[gmc]

Scrat wrote: What I said was mainly crap slung at you know who. I hear a lot about how Muslims/Arabs have contributed little if anything to the world society in general. I feel that the same can be said for western society in many ways. Both of the cultures concerned have little in an original sense our systems of government ect either being from the Greco/Roman theme or that of the tribal type setting so common in Asia.

As of now I am through with this thread and basically this subject. All of these pages and we have essentially accomplished nothing.


Just curious. What were you trying to accomplish.

I would disagree with you about western society. For instance I think you can make a good case that our ideas of the value of human life and the individual and the importance of each owes far more to western society than anything that came out of the middle east. There is a democratic seed running through our veins that goes back thousands of years, a basic desire to say who do you think you are then to those who would rule, that owes nothing to the middle east. Ancient warfare was about resources and power and the gods helped or they didn't, god damn you is not a western curse in origin.

Ancient celts, saxons, germans take your pick didn't have hereditary kings they were elected by acclamation, if the son of a king wasn't up to it they didn't get. The greeks romans all started out with the basic idea that all had a right to have their voice heard. The celts couldn't unite behind one leader because basically they weren't about to accept the unquestioned authority of anyone.

Arminius (his latin name, actually his real name seems to have been herman) who led the german tribes to victory in the teutoberger forest was assassinated by fellow tribesman who objected to him trying to take control and rule like a roman enperor.

Christianity was latched on to by roman rulers and later by others as a way to control their people, if bread and circuses no longer worked then fear of god might. If there is only one god and you have access then you have a means of control. The mysogyny of the catholic church owes more to the mysogyny of rome than anything JC reputedly said. You had celtic queens never a roman one. ancient gods became pagan ones and devil worship as the grip was tightened reading and writing became the sole preserve of the godly.

The muslims preserved a lot of the writings destroyed by the early church, and for that we owe them a debt but I think you underestimate how much interaction there was throughout the world between different cultures. In what we call roman times what are now the iranians had a level of civilisation and technology that stopped the roman empire in its tracks, they weren't muslim. Where do you think all the silk and spices came from? The middle east had their dark ages as well islam came out of darkness and had appeal for much the same reason christianity did. there is a tendency to have a very western view of history and ignore the rest of the world asif nothing was happening amd no one knew about it.

I could witter on but you also overlook the impact of the east on the world, ghengis khan ended up with the biggest land empire the world had ever seen from the south china sea to the persian gulf. Who knows if he hadn't decided euriope wasn't worth the bother christianity might have died out and remained a historical footnote.

Our ancestors were far from primitive cave dwelling knuckle draggers suddenly brought to civilisation by the romans and later christianity. People traded far and wide throughout europe and the far east long before anyone was writing about it.

Our history is not that in the bible unless, you happen to be jewish, you need to look a bit harder and get away from the idea that monotheistic religon is a natural development. In many ways it is an alien culture and belief system to western culture that we adopted at a time of trouble. Maybe we shouldn't have because accepting there is one central authority from whom all blessings flow just isn't normal. Western society is essentially egalitarian in instinct despite christianity not because of it.

[Bronwen]

Scrat wrote: 1. What I said was mainly crap slung at you know who.

2. As of now I am through with this thread and basically this subject. All of these pages and we have essentially accomplished nothing.1. You can stop after, 'What I said was mainly crap'. That pretty much tells the whole story.

2. Since you haven't been able to defend any of your various bloviations, it's not surprising that you don't wish to continue. The accomplishment, if one can call it that, is that it's been demonstrated that your posts are bankrupt, factually and intellectually. You know about as much about Islam and Muslims as my goldfish, Fat Charlie.

Of course, Bush may not know much either, but I would wager that he knows that European civilization predates Islam by hundreds if not thousands of years. That is schoolkid stuff.

[gmc]

Scrat wrote: Mediterranean Civilizations do but not the European civilizations we are concerned with. The Mid East civilizations and cultures of the Black Sea area go back much farther than any bunch of Nordic spear chuckers.

We all know that the area around the Euphrates was were the first forms of writing originated.

You're spewing crap you moron.


We only think that because they wrote about it. Archeological remains in europe go back thousands of years and show societies even in the stone age traded far and wide with each other far more than we used to credit them with. One of the more intriguing things about pre-history is working out how populations migrated around and influenced each other.

Nordic spear chuckers terrified the meditarranean civilisations when they met them. Kind of suggests they were a bit more than knuckle draggers.

[Bronwen]

Scat wrote: Mediterranean Civilizations do but not the European civilizations we are concerned with. The Mid East civilizations and cultures of the Black Sea area go back much farther than any bunch of Nordic spear chuckers.

We all know that the area around the Euphrates was were the first forms of writing originated. I do not dispute any of that. That has nothing whatever to do with the Muslim religion, which dates back only to the 7th century AD.

To paraphrase your original post, 'Muslims were not Muslims' while all that was occurring.

It's one thing to call someone a moron as an empty insult, something you're very good at. It's another thing to prove yourself one by the nonsense you continue to post here, at which you're even better. Look down the index of this particular forum. It's like walking down a Manhattan sidewalk. Just one pile of crap (your term by the way) after another.

[Quik]

You two sound like yor slinging mud at each other, debate not fight;

all I have to say is that history is the greatest teacher. The situation in Iraq can be easily compared to Vietnam, the question that I ask and I believe Nixon asked also is, "What are we doing here?" Trillions have been spent day by day on that nation, only to have it countlessly reported onto as a diaster area that houses a neverending war. ( Sorry for the amatuer poety)

I am against the war, but can't say that if the US Gov. just pulled out that it would make all the money spent thus far worth while. In my opinion from this point on if the harms out weighed the goods or even vice versa then thats where the real conlusion of Americas intrusion in this country should be based on.

[Bronwen]

Quik wrote: You two sound like yor slinging mud at each other, debate not fight;

all I have to say is that history is the greatest teacher. The situation in Iraq can be easily compared to Vietnam, the question that I ask and I believe Nixon asked also is, "What are we doing here?" Trillions have been spent day by day on that nation, only to have it countlessly reported onto as a diaster area that houses a neverending war. ( Sorry for the amatuer poety)

I am against the war, but can't say that if the US Gov. just pulled out that it would make all the money spent thus far worth while. In my opinion from this point on if the harms out weighed the goods or even vice versa then thats where the real conlusion of Americas intrusion in this country should be based on.Thank you, Quik, and by the way, I love your chocolate drink mix, been enjoying it ever since childhood, which, for me, is a long long time.

You have, however, missed the point of the latter part of the thread. Scat claimed that the Muslim religion was flourishing while Europeans were still living in caves, a claim made while he was, as usual, full of sh*t.

There are indeed some similarities, from the American point of view, between the conflicts in Vietnam and in Iraq. Also some big differences, the biggest being that American boys were conscripted to fight in Vietnam, which, in effect, ended military conscription in the USA. It ain't coming back any time soon. The Americans defending Iraq from Islamic terrrorism are all volunteers.

One of the biggest similarities is that the situation in each country just got worse and worse while the American administration kept claiming that it was getting better and better. Americans should, and in many cases do, learn from the past, yet they seem to continue electing morons to lead their country. Curious and sad.

[gmc]

posted by bronwen

One of the biggest similarities is that the situation in each country just got worse and worse while the American administration kept claiming that it was getting better and better. Americans should, and in many cases do, learn from the past, yet they seem to continue electing morons to lead their country. Curious and sad.


Good grief I agree with you:eek:

Actually TB doesn't have the excuse of being a moron. At least GW is acting in what he thinks are america's interests, god knows what TB is up to. The Labour party are 27million in debt and now they have to ask the unions to bail them out. Might be fun.

[Bronwen]

gmc wrote: Good grief I agree with you:eek: gmc, unlike some other posters here, I try never to sacrifice reality and pragmatism on the altar of rhetoric.

Bush was a weak candidate in 2000 running against the equally weak Al Gore. That's why the election was essentially a tie.

Bush was re-elected more decisively in 2004 not because the American voters saw him as a genius but because they considered his opponent weaker against terrrorism, which may or may not have been true.

The 2008 campaign will certainly be interesting.

Edited to add: By the way, I have to give Mr. Bush credit - belatedly - for finally having the balls to call this war exactly what it is: The War against Islamic Fascism. It's not against any country or group of countires, but against an ideology every bit - perhaps more - as insidious at Hitler's, and the sooner the fascists go the way Hitler and his henchmen went, the better.

[Bronwen]

Scrat wrote: My correction. Correction accepted.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

[gmc]

posted by bronwen

Edited to add: By the way, I have to give Mr. Bush credit - belatedly - for finally having the balls to call this war exactly what it is: The War against Islamic Fascism. It's not against any country or group of countires, but against an ideology every bit - perhaps more - as insidious at Hitler's, and the sooner the fascists go the way Hitler and his henchmen went, the better.


So when do you think he weill admit going in to Iraq was a big mistake and he has done more than anyone to help the fundamentalists by playing right in to their hands? There were fascists movements throughout the worldislamis fundalism is hardly in the same league. Currently he is helping keep the extremists in power in Iran-nothing like an external threat to keep an extremist group or dictator in power.

You really need to go away and study how Hitler and Mussolini came to power. But since you like to join words together christo fascists are every bit as dangerous as islamofascists, they just don't believe in suicide as a way to god and are more subtle in their methods.

[Bronwen]

Scrat wrote: 1. If this situation is so serious why are we doing a half arsed job of it?

2. Why is there not a draft?

3. Why did we depose Saddam .1. Who is 'we'? Certainly you're not an American? I never woulda thunk it.

2. If you're an American you should know why.

3. I dunno, but I know who's next. I haven't learned to spell his name yet but I think it starts with Ahmen.

Added the following day: ...or is it Ahmed...? I told you I couldn't spell it. In any case, he's the Ayatollah's top toady.

[Bronwen]

gmc wrote: 1. So when do you think he will admit going in to Iraq was a big mistake and...

2. ...he has done more than anyone to help the fundamentalists by playing right in to their hands?

3. There were fascists movements throughout the worldislamis fundalism is hardly in the same league. Currently he is helping keep the extremists in power in Iran-nothing like an external threat to keep an extremist group or dictator in power.

4. You really need to go away and study how Hitler and Mussolini came to power.

5. But since you like to join words together christo fascists are every bit as dangerous as islamofascists, they just don't believe in suicide as a way to god and are more subtle in their methods.1. If you want me to defend Bush you're pickin on the wrong chicken.

2. What crapola! How does killing and/or imprisoning as many as them as possible help them?

3. That may be true, the point is, the enemy is the filthy, blood-drenched Islamic religion, not a country or a people. One does not perceive a lot of terrorism amongst the Christians of those countries in the region in which Christianity is tolerated.

4. I know exactly how they came to power. I'm not sure you do, though. You seem to limit your study of history to propagandistic sources.

5. Why don't you give some examples of contemporary 'Christo-fascism'? And why do I know that they are going to be absolute nonsense before I even see them?

[Bryn Mawr]

Bronwen wrote: 1. If you want me to defend Bush you're pickin on the wrong chicken.

2. What crapola! How does killing and/or imprisoning as many as them as possible help them?

3. That may be true, the point is, the enemy is the filthy, blood-drenched Islamic religion, not a country or a people. One does not perceive a lot of terrorism amongst the Christians of those countries in the region in which Christianity is tolerated.

4. I know exactly how they came to power. I'm not sure you do, though. You seem to limit your study of history to propagandistic sources.

5. Why don't you give some examples of contemporary 'Christo-fascism'? And why do I know that they are going to be absolute nonsense before I even see them?


2) By making the rest of the people in the area, their families and neighbours, hate the Israelis and the West generally. By pushing more and more of them into the path of terrorism. Hate generates hate and violence begats violence.

3) When you'rew ready to rejoin the rest of the human race, let me know. You certainly are not showing any humanity.

4) And your sources are, of course, totally impartial?

5) Hows about hate filled adults shouting at and threatening children on their way to junior school because they have the misfortune to be Catholic?

Hows about putting your hate to one side for a moment and being prepared to listen to what another person has to say before condemning it as absolute nonsense?

[Bronwen]

Bryn Mawr wrote: 2) By making the rest of the people in the area, their families and neighbours, hate the Israelis and the West generally. By pushing more and more of them into the path of terrorism. Hate generates hate and violence begats violence.

3) When you'rew ready to rejoin the rest of the human race, let me know. You certainly are not showing any humanity.

4) And your sources are, of course, totally impartial?

5) Hows about hate filled adults shouting at and threatening children on their way to junior school because they have the misfortune to be Catholic?

Hows about putting your hate to one side for a moment and being prepared to listen to what another person has to say before condemning it as absolute nonsense?2. What nonsense. Why should they hate that part of humanity which is trying to liberate them from Islamic terrorism? The only reason I can think of is that they must support that terrorism.

3. Huh? How does one show humanity to bloodthirsty muderers?

4. Well, yeah, I'd say history books and encyclopediae are reasonably reliable on such matters, and of course, one is always free to consult more than one. In doing so, I have never found any major conflicts or contradictions. However, BM, and this may come as a shock to you, there exist people of a certain mental disposition who seem always inclined toward believing the outrageous, the conspiratorial, and the propagandistic while regarding all of history generally regarded as accurate to be part of an enormous conspiracy to keep the 'truth' from us. Some of those nutcases inhabit this very forum. They are not difficult to spot.

5. You will have to talk to the Orangemen about that. I don't see them, despicable as they are, threatening the world with nuclear weapons any time soon, and by the way, being Catholic is hardly a misfortune.

Why not just say that the children in question are Irishmen having the misfortune to be living in a part of Ireland occupied by non-Irish louts?

[nvalleyvee]

Bryn Mawr.............

YOu corrupted the name of an excellent college with your go back to the middle east attitudes.

Get out of this country..............I do not want you here.................

You have slammed my beliefs in MY COUNTRY...........go HOME wherever your home is ...........GO...............DO NOT COME BACK