Understanding ISLAM

[Rensai]

Bill Warner, PhD: Winning with Precise Words: A guide to understanding Islam

[Baysimove]

To have a good relationship with people around we should understand their culture especially their relation in what they believe in.The most common is Islam.

[brianj]

To have a good relationship with people around we should understand their culture especially their relation in what they believe in.The most common is Islam.

Talk with someone who has spent time in Afghanistan. Learn about Islamic culture from people who have been surrounded by it, and you might learn why almost nobody who served in Operation Enduring Freedom has a positive or neutral opinion of Islam.

[Ezra]

To have a good relationship with people around we should understand their culture especially their relation in what they believe in.The most common is Islam.

Talk with someone who has spent time in Afghanistan. Learn about Islamic culture from people who have been surrounded by it, and you might learn why almost nobody who served in Operation Enduring Freedom has a positive or neutral opinion of Islam.

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

[Silver]

To have a good relationship with people around we should understand their culture especially their relation in what they believe in.The most common is Islam.

Talk with someone who has spent time in Afghanistan. Learn about Islamic culture from people who have been surrounded by it, and you might learn why almost nobody who served in Operation Enduring Freedom has a positive or neutral opinion of Islam.

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

Exactly right, Ezra.

I've heard the warmongers who try to justify our military blunders in the Middle East by claiming that Islam is at war with the West, and they actually claim something as ridiculous as: Hey, you don't see any Buddhists blowing themselves up when they attack us!!!

Well, no, and you might not have noticed, but the US is not currently droning Buddhist wedding parties either, is it?

It's extremely sad to me that the children of the covenant have ignored the very words of the Savior and allow themselves to get caught up in the vicious cycle of hate for their fellow man.

[Silver]

OK, I could only stomach about two minutes of the video in the original post. First, let me remind everyone to never trust a man wearing a bow-tie. So this man, all by himself, is pretending to have a debate about the particulars of Islam by defining language and practices. What he didn't admit before my nonsense meter went to maximum level is that not all Muslims are extremists. He tries to paint them as such because, says he, Islam makes no distinction.

Might I suggest, once again, that we clean the inner vessel first before we go and accuse 1.8 billion mostly innocent people of some sort of sin?

When Jesus said love everyone, did he really mean everyone except 1.8 billion Muslims?

[Rensai]

To have a good relationship with people around we should understand their culture especially their relation in what they believe in.The most common is Islam.

Talk with someone who has spent time in Afghanistan. Learn about Islamic culture from people who have been surrounded by it, and you might learn why almost nobody who served in Operation Enduring Freedom has a positive or neutral opinion of Islam.

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

That argument keeps coming up. Unfortunately, that doesn't explain the muslim terrorist attacks in sweden, philippines, hungary, etc. There are many countries that have never attacked muslims, have weclomed them in, and still suffer terrorist attacks, hate crimes like rape and acid attacks, etc.

Here's another example. A young country, newly formed that was attacked by muslims with zero provocation.

In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

At one time, most of the middle east was non muslim. Muslims conquered them and gave them the choice to convert, die, or become dhimmi (second class citizens). This stuff has gone on the entire 1400 year history of ISLAM, history does not support this idea that the muslims are peaceful and only trying to defend themselves or that they are only retaliating to provocation.

[Silver]

To have a good relationship with people around we should understand their culture especially their relation in what they believe in.The most common is Islam.

Talk with someone who has spent time in Afghanistan. Learn about Islamic culture from people who have been surrounded by it, and you might learn why almost nobody who served in Operation Enduring Freedom has a positive or neutral opinion of Islam.

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

That argument keeps coming up. Unfortunately, that doesn't explain the muslim terrorist attacks in sweden, philippines, hungary, etc. There are many countries that have never attacked muslims, have weclomed them in, and still suffer terrorist attacks, hate crimes like rape and acid attacks, etc.

Here's another example. A young country, newly formed that was attacked by muslims with zero provocation.

In 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson met with Arab diplomats from Tunisia, who were conducting terror raids and piracy against American ships (Barbary Pirates). Writing to John Jay, Thomas Jefferson described what he saw as the main issue and the reason why they were attacking Americans who had done them no harm. The following quote is from Thomas Jefferson....

“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. THE AMBASSADOR ANSWERED US THAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON THE LAWS OF THEIR PROPHET, THAT IT WAS WRITTEN IN THEIR KORAN, THAT ALL NATIONS WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THEIR AUTHORITY WERE SINNERS, THAT IT WAS THEIR RIGHT AND DUTY TO MAKE WAR UPON THEM WHEREVER THEY COULD BE FOUND, AND TO MAKE SLAVES OF ALL THEY COULD TAKE AS PRISONERS, AND THAT EVERY MUSSELMAN (MUSLIM) WHO SHOULD BE SLAIN IN BATTLE WAS SURE TO GO TO PARADISE"

At one time, most of the middle east was non muslim. Muslims conquered them and gave them the choice to convert, die, or become dhimmi (second class citizens). This stuff has gone on the entire 1400 year history of ISLAM, history does not support this idea that the muslims are peaceful and only trying to defend themselves or that they are only retaliating to provocation.

For 2000 years (wow, did you see that? i just trumped your 1400 years) Christians have been attacking other countries and making slaves of their victims. Perhaps it's not so much about the religion and more about the natural man being an enemy to God.

It's also quite deliciously ironic that you would use a T. Jefferson quote about Muslim slaves when it is a well-documented fact that Jefferson himself owned slaves.

[Fiannan]

For 2000 years (wow, did you see that? i just trumped your 1400 years) Christians have been attacking other countries and making slaves of their victims. Perhaps it's not so much about the religion and more about the natural man being an enemy to God.

It's also quite deliciously ironic that you would use a T. Jefferson quote about Muslim slaves when it is a well-documented fact that Jefferson himself owned slaves.

You remind me of a guy who swims in a river full of alligators, and when someone questions him, he says that people eat alligators so if he gets eaten he deserves it.

[Serragon]

To have a good relationship with people around we should understand their culture especially their relation in what they believe in.The most common is Islam.

Talk with someone who has spent time in Afghanistan. Learn about Islamic culture from people who have been surrounded by it, and you might learn why almost nobody who served in Operation Enduring Freedom has a positive or neutral opinion of Islam.

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

I believe that intuitively this makes a lot of sense. The reality however appears to be quite the opposite.

The vast majority of Xerxes army consisted of conquered peoples. A few took the war against Greece as opportunity to revolt, but almost all of them remained loyal even when given opportunities to revolt.

Japan is a more modern example of a country that not only does not dislike their conquerors, but has emulated them.

This same story is repeated over and over throughout history. The reality is that how you go about conquering people makes a lot of difference about how they think and behave.

As distasteful as it may be, if you decide to go to war with a people with no history of democratic or republican forms of government, you had better be prepared to bring the hammer down as that is what they know and respect. Conversely, using this tactic against a people used to freedom will have the opposite affect and bring never ending revolt and strife; but give them some freedom of governance under your control and they will be loyal as can be.

The Islamic world understands power and control. Although I am against force as a general principle, if and when we do use force we should use it correctly. Most of our problems in the middle east are due to us being perceived as weak, not that we are invaders. History has shown that Islamic governments have been expansionist. Islam is most often implemented through force and control, not kindness and persuasion. Fighting a half-war with constraint in these areas has been a recipe for disaster.

If Bush Sr. has finished off Sadam immediately instead of pulling back after he left Kuwait the middle east would view us in a much more positive light as that is what they understand and respect. Every decision we have made since then has been more of the same type of constraint which is seen as weakness and held in contempt.

[Silver]

To have a good relationship with people around we should understand their culture especially their relation in what they believe in.The most common is Islam.

Talk with someone who has spent time in Afghanistan. Learn about Islamic culture from people who have been surrounded by it, and you might learn why almost nobody who served in Operation Enduring Freedom has a positive or neutral opinion of Islam.

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

Japan is a more modern example of a country that not only does not dislike their conquerors, but has emulated them.

The Islamic world understands power and control. Although I am against force as a general principle, if and when we do use force we should use it correctly. Most of our problems in the middle east are due to us being perceived as weak, not that we are invaders. History has shown that Islamic governments have been expansionist. Islam is most often implemented through force and control, not kindness and persuasion. Fighting a half-war with constraint in these areas has been a recipe for disaster.

You're generalizing a bit too much here. A call to serve a mission in Japan and then living there post-mission for several years, and working for Japanese companies for over 30 years has given me a bit of perspective you may not have. Yes, the average Japanese parent wants their children to learn English and wants to take them to Hawaii or the US mainland along with a trip to Disneyland. Yes, Hollywood movies are extremely popular in Japan. Every adult in Japan knows the name of Tom Cruise while most Americans could barely name one Japanese actor. However, the Japanese are very proud of their culture and still think it is superior to the West's.

As for Islamic military aggression, Abrahamic aggression would be more correct. Arabs and Jews both exhibit territory-expanding tendencies while over 700 million Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria show little. Of course, there are domestic disturbances that involve Muslims. However, they are mainly internal and these countries don't have their special forces in over 100 countries like the good Christian Americans are.

The world is still littered with the remnants of European colonialism. Europeans took over much of Asia and Africa and stole the resources there. Are you saying the Europeans are closet Muslims?

[Serragon]

Talk with someone who has spent time in Afghanistan. Learn about Islamic culture from people who have been surrounded by it, and you might learn why almost nobody who served in Operation Enduring Freedom has a positive or neutral opinion of Islam.

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

Japan is a more modern example of a country that not only does not dislike their conquerors, but has emulated them.

The Islamic world understands power and control. Although I am against force as a general principle, if and when we do use force we should use it correctly. Most of our problems in the middle east are due to us being perceived as weak, not that we are invaders. History has shown that Islamic governments have been expansionist. Islam is most often implemented through force and control, not kindness and persuasion. Fighting a half-war with constraint in these areas has been a recipe for disaster.

You're generalizing a bit too much here. A call to serve a mission in Japan and then living there post-mission for several years, and working for Japanese companies for over 30 years has given me a bit of perspective you may not have. Yes, the average Japanese parent wants their children to learn English and wants to take them to Hawaii or the US mainland along with a trip to Disneyland. Yes, Hollywood movies are extremely popular in Japan. Every adult in Japan knows the name of Tom Cruise while most Americans could barely name one Japanese actor. However, the Japanese are very proud of their culture and still think it is superior to the West's.

As for Islamic military aggression, Abrahamic aggression would be more correct. Arabs and Jews both exhibit territory-expanding tendencies while over 700 million Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria show little. Of course, there are domestic disturbances that involve Muslims. However, they are mainly internal and these countries don't have their special forces in over 100 countries like the good Christian Americans are.

The world is still littered with the remnants of European colonialism. Europeans took over much of Asia and Africa and stole the resources there. Are you saying the Europeans are closet Muslims?

I appreciate your observations on Japan. My main points stand. They were conquered, they do not hate us, and they emulate us in many ways. I'm not sure the why you wrote the rest of the paragraph as it has no relation to my statement.

You bring up a good point about many Muslims not being expansionist. I believe that culture plays a large role here, so Islamism in Arab hands manifests itself as being more aggressive than SE Asian hands. However, Indonesia and Malaysia are becoming less secular all the time and as this happens persecution of Hindus has been increasing. Not a good sign. Pakistan would expand into India tomorrow if given the chance.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with Abrahamic aggression. There is no historical scale of comparison between Jews and muslims when it comes to trying to conquer other peoples. It is an epic stretch to even attempt such a thing. The Jews are quite possibly the most persecuted peoples throughout history. Modern Israel has been in defense mode since inception. This statement is either extremely ignorant or anti-semitic.

Your last paragraph ignores Arab imperialism. It also ignores the history of the world. The history of the world is conquer or be conquered. The spoils of war were the people and resources you took over. No one in history would consider this "stealing", as nearly everyone had done the same to someone else. It is only considered "stealing" by modern folks like you who are judge everything by a very small modern prism. And this gets back to my original point. They don't hate us because of colonialism. They hate us because we did colonialism with constraint and weakness. They hold us in contempt because we fight wars without real intent and with constraint.

[Silver]

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

Japan is a more modern example of a country that not only does not dislike their conquerors, but has emulated them.

The Islamic world understands power and control. Although I am against force as a general principle, if and when we do use force we should use it correctly. Most of our problems in the middle east are due to us being perceived as weak, not that we are invaders. History has shown that Islamic governments have been expansionist. Islam is most often implemented through force and control, not kindness and persuasion. Fighting a half-war with constraint in these areas has been a recipe for disaster.

You're generalizing a bit too much here. A call to serve a mission in Japan and then living there post-mission for several years, and working for Japanese companies for over 30 years has given me a bit of perspective you may not have. Yes, the average Japanese parent wants their children to learn English and wants to take them to Hawaii or the US mainland along with a trip to Disneyland. Yes, Hollywood movies are extremely popular in Japan. Every adult in Japan knows the name of Tom Cruise while most Americans could barely name one Japanese actor. However, the Japanese are very proud of their culture and still think it is superior to the West's.

As for Islamic military aggression, Abrahamic aggression would be more correct. Arabs and Jews both exhibit territory-expanding tendencies while over 700 million Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria show little. Of course, there are domestic disturbances that involve Muslims. However, they are mainly internal and these countries don't have their special forces in over 100 countries like the good Christian Americans are.

The world is still littered with the remnants of European colonialism. Europeans took over much of Asia and Africa and stole the resources there. Are you saying the Europeans are closet Muslims?

I appreciate your observations on Japan. My main points stand. They were conquered, they do not hate us, and they emulate us in many ways. I'm not sure the why you wrote the rest of the paragraph as it has no relation to my statement.

You bring up a good point about many Muslims not being expansionist. I believe that culture plays a large role here, so Islamism in Arab hands manifests itself as being more aggressive than SE Asian hands. However, Indonesia and Malaysia are becoming less secular all the time and as this happens persecution of Hindus has been increasing. Not a good sign. Pakistan would expand into India tomorrow if given the chance.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with Abrahamic aggression. There is no historical scale of comparison between Jews and muslims when it comes to trying to conquer other peoples. It is an epic stretch to even attempt such a thing. The Jews are quite possibly the most persecuted peoples throughout history. Modern Israel has been in defense mode since inception. This statement is either extremely ignorant or anti-semitic.

Your last paragraph ignores Arab imperialism. It also ignores the history of the world. The history of the world is conquer or be conquered. The spoils of war were the people and resources you took over. No one in history would consider this "stealing", as nearly everyone had done the same to someone else. It is only considered "stealing" by modern folks like you who are judge everything by a very small modern prism. And this gets back to my original point. They don't hate us because of colonialism. They hate us because we did colonialism with constraint and weakness. They hold us in contempt because we fight wars without real intent and with constraint.

Since we're not going to agree, I realize that my comments are in vain, but here goes:
1. Do the Jews in Israel now possess more or less territory than when their nation was carved out just for them?
2. Since you recognize that the history of the world is just one continuous saga of conquering and being conquering, why make it about religion?

[Ezra]

I would imagine it wouldn't matter what religion is in place of the county that another is invading. People in general don't like and are unkind to the invaders. The invaders views and experiences are not the best to go on neither are the invadeds.

If the tables were turned could you imagine everyone in the USA treating another country's invasion force kindly no matter what their religion in the USA or what the religion of the invaders is.

Japan is a more modern example of a country that not only does not dislike their conquerors, but has emulated them.

The Islamic world understands power and control. Although I am against force as a general principle, if and when we do use force we should use it correctly. Most of our problems in the middle east are due to us being perceived as weak, not that we are invaders. History has shown that Islamic governments have been expansionist. Islam is most often implemented through force and control, not kindness and persuasion. Fighting a half-war with constraint in these areas has been a recipe for disaster.

You're generalizing a bit too much here. A call to serve a mission in Japan and then living there post-mission for several years, and working for Japanese companies for over 30 years has given me a bit of perspective you may not have. Yes, the average Japanese parent wants their children to learn English and wants to take them to Hawaii or the US mainland along with a trip to Disneyland. Yes, Hollywood movies are extremely popular in Japan. Every adult in Japan knows the name of Tom Cruise while most Americans could barely name one Japanese actor. However, the Japanese are very proud of their culture and still think it is superior to the West's.

As for Islamic military aggression, Abrahamic aggression would be more correct. Arabs and Jews both exhibit territory-expanding tendencies while over 700 million Muslims in Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria show little. Of course, there are domestic disturbances that involve Muslims. However, they are mainly internal and these countries don't have their special forces in over 100 countries like the good Christian Americans are.

The world is still littered with the remnants of European colonialism. Europeans took over much of Asia and Africa and stole the resources there. Are you saying the Europeans are closet Muslims?

I appreciate your observations on Japan. My main points stand. They were conquered, they do not hate us, and they emulate us in many ways. I'm not sure the why you wrote the rest of the paragraph as it has no relation to my statement.

You bring up a good point about many Muslims not being expansionist. I believe that culture plays a large role here, so Islamism in Arab hands manifests itself as being more aggressive than SE Asian hands. However, Indonesia and Malaysia are becoming less secular all the time and as this happens persecution of Hindus has been increasing. Not a good sign. Pakistan would expand into India tomorrow if given the chance.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with Abrahamic aggression. There is no historical scale of comparison between Jews and muslims when it comes to trying to conquer other peoples. It is an epic stretch to even attempt such a thing. The Jews are quite possibly the most persecuted peoples throughout history. Modern Israel has been in defense mode since inception. This statement is either extremely ignorant or anti-semitic.

Your last paragraph ignores Arab imperialism. It also ignores the history of the world. The history of the world is conquer or be conquered. The spoils of war were the people and resources you took over. No one in history would consider this "stealing", as nearly everyone had done the same to someone else. It is only considered "stealing" by modern folks like you who are judge everything by a very small modern prism. And this gets back to my original point. They don't hate us because of colonialism. They hate us because we did colonialism with constraint and weakness. They hold us in contempt because we fight wars without real intent and with constraint.

Eye for an eye. Vs doing what God has asked us.

Yes the world has done lots of horrible things and justified their actions. Pat themselfs on the back and call it good when it's not.

That's not what we should do. Not what we have been asked to do. Not what the scriptures say to do.

Why are so many called and so few chosen?

Because it's the nature of almost all mankind to practice unrighteous dominion.

Are you really advocating that??? Or have you just not given it any thought.

[Serragon]

Since we're not going to agree, I realize that my comments are in vain, but here goes:
1. Do the Jews in Israel now possess more or less territory than when their nation was carved out just for them?
2. Since you recognize that the history of the world is just one continuous saga of conquering and being conquering, why make it about religion?

Your comments are not in vain. They just are not persuasive.

1. Israel possesses more land. What you failed to ask is why. Were they on the offensive or defensive? If Israel had not been attacked, no land would have been aquired. Israel showed amazing constraint in not punishing the invaders further. They simply kept enough to ensure a defensible position. They could be masters of Egypt and Jordan if they had wanted.

2. Because in todays world, Islamism is the main force advocating for expansion and conquest. They are open about it. Western countries do not. They may engage in conflict, but not with an eye to colonialism or expansion.

[Serragon]

Eye for an eye. Vs doing what God has asked us.

Yes the world has done lots of horrible things and justified their actions. Pat themselfs on the back and call it good when it's not.

That's not what we should do. Not what we have been asked to do. Not what the scriptures say to do.

Why are so many called and so few chosen?

Because it's the nature of almost all mankind to practice unrighteous dominion.

Are you really advocating that??? Or have you just not given it any thought.

I advocated for no such thing. Please show me where I have.

I am simply explaining about history and why the arab muslims dislike us. Apparantly this point was not able to be comprehended by you. I thought I was clear, but perhaps not.

[Silver]

Since we're not going to agree, I realize that my comments are in vain, but here goes:
1. Do the Jews in Israel now possess more or less territory than when their nation was carved out just for them?
2. Since you recognize that the history of the world is just one continuous saga of conquering and being conquering, why make it about religion?

Your comments are not in vain. They just are not persuasive.

1. Israel possesses more land. What you failed to ask is why. Were they on the offensive or defensive? If Israel had not been attacked, no land would have been aquired. Israel showed amazing constraint in not punishing the invaders further. They simply kept enough to ensure a defensible position. They could be masters of Egypt and Jordan if they had wanted.

2. Because in todays world, Islamism is the main force advocating for expansion and conquest. They are open about it. Western countries do not. They may engage in conflict, but not with an eye to colonialism or expansion.

With America spending more on military than the next 6-7 countries combined, and using it, it is a ridiculous thing to say that western countries do not engage in imperialism. And when are the several countries around the world going to take the Queen off their coins? I'd say we're too far apart to ever come to an agreement on this topic.

[Silver]

Here, I'll make a deal with all the Muslim haters here. When America returns Hawaii to the descendants of the people who inhabited those islands before the United States unilaterally stole them away, I promise to allow you to attack 1.8 billion mostly innocent people without any interference from me. Deal?

[Silver]

Oops...more Israel influence in the US...

http://original.antiwar.com/Aniqa_Raiha ... tt-israel/

Nearly 50 Senators Want To Make It a Felony To Boycott Israel
The goal is to frighten people from engaging in the completely legal act of living out their values

by Aniqa Raihan Posted on August 05, 2017
In 1966, the NAACP of Claiborne County, Mississippi launched a boycott of several white-owned local businesses on the basis of racial discrimination.

It was so impactful that the local hardware store filed a lawsuit against the individuals and organizations who coordinated the boycott. After 10 long years of litigation, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white businesses and ordered the NAACP to pay for all their lost earnings.

Years later, in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 to overturn the lower court’s decision on the basis that nonviolent boycotts are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment. In announcing the unanimous decision, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “One of the foundations of our society is the right of individuals to combine with other persons in pursuit of a common goal by lawful means.”

That should have been the end of it. But now, Americans’ right to boycott is under attack once again – thanks to a vicious anti-boycott bill making its way through the Senate.

In particular, it appears to target the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. BDS is an international movement calling on individuals, institutions, and governments to boycott Israeli products until it ends its occupation of Palestinian lands. The boycott is explicitly nonviolent and is supported by activists, celebrities, faith-based groups, and political and social justice organizations around the world.

The proposed Israel Anti-Boycott Act would make it a felony for Americans to support BDS, with a penalty of up to $1 million and 20 years in prison.

Unfortunately, the bill enjoys bipartisan support: 32 Republicans and 15 Democrats are currently signed on as cosponsors, including party leaders like Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Ted Cruz (R-TX). In response, the ACLU issued a letter urging members of the Senate to oppose the bill based on its “direct violation of the First Amendment.” (Following the publication of the ACLU’s letter, several members of Congress have agreed to review their sponsorship, but so far none have removed their names.)

The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would function by amending an earlier law from 1979, which prohibits American citizens and corporations from complying with boycotts called for by foreign nations against US allies. The new law would include boycotts “fostered and imposed by international governmental organizations” like the United Nations. In this, it’s a direct response to the 2016 UN Human Rights Council resolution discouraging businesses from operating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

In one way, it’s genius. By claiming a connection between BDS and the UN – a connection the UN has never embraced, in that resolution or any other – the bill attempts to work around NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

But the BDS movement is not a product of the UN – it has nothing to do with it at all, except to the degree that it’s based on international law. The BDS call to action was issued in 2005 by a coalition of 170 Palestinian political parties, professional associations, refugee networks, and civil society organizations. BDS is a tactic, not an organization, and the boycott has always been grassroots and decentralized, meaning anyone anywhere can partake in BDS by making the simple decision to do so.

Whether the congressional supporters of the Israel Anti-Boycott Act misunderstand or are intentionally misrepresenting BDS is uncertain, but the Supreme Court decision of 1982 is clear as crystal: Americans’ right to peaceful boycott with the aim to “bring about political, social, and economic change” is protected by the First Amendment. That means this bill is more than egregiously immoral – it’s unconstitutional.

The bill’s language also lumps Israel’s settlements in with the country’s internationally recognized borders.

Significantly, it declares the UN Human Rights Council’s 2016 position on Israeli settlements an “action to boycott, divest from, or sanction Israel.” Yet that resolution took no position on the boycotting of goods produced in Israel proper – it only took aim at Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, which are illegal under international law.

US policy since 1979 has recognized that the Israeli settlements are “inconsistent with international law.” By contrast, the new bill effectively erases any distinction between Israel and its settlements in the West Bank. If it’s passed, anyone who chooses not to do business with or buy items manufactured in illegal Israeli settlements can be convicted, fined, and even jailed.

Efforts to curb this kind of activism are often touted as efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Yet polls show that only 17 percent of American Jews support the continued construction of settlements. The bill is so controversial, in fact, that the liberal pro-Israel organization J Street, which has long opposed BDS, recently announced its opposition to the proposed law on the basis that it “divides [opponents of the global BDS movement] by making the issue about the settlements.”

It’s difficult to know exactly how broadly the law, if passed, will be enforced. Its intentionally vague language leaves a lot to the imagination, and perhaps that’s exactly what’s intended. The real goal may be to frighten people from engaging in the completely legal act of living out their values in their economic choices.

But we can’t let fear prevent us from exercising our rights and fulfilling our moral obligations. The silver lining is that every effort to quell the BDS movement has served to strengthen it. Each attempt at criminalizing the boycott, whether on the state or federal level, has been met with a spike in Google searches for BDS and related terms.

And with the uproar caused by this new bill, the right-wing pro-Israel lobby just may prove to be the BDS movement’s best ally.

[Silver]

Mean ol' bad ol' Muslims with their hundreds of bases in the US and Europe...

http://original.antiwar.com/thomas-knap ... t-defense/

US Foreign Military Bases Aren’t ‘Defense’
by Thomas Knapp Posted on August 03, 2017

“U.S. foreign military bases are the principal instruments of imperial global domination and environmental damage through wars of aggression and occupation.” That’s the unifying claim of the Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases (noforeignbases.org), and it’s true as far as it goes. But as a signer of the Coalition’s endorsement form, I think it’s worth taking the argument a bit further. The maintenance of nearly 1,000 US military bases on foreign soil isn’t just a nightmare for peaceniks. It’s also also an objective threat to US national security.

A reasonable definition of “national defense,” it seems to me, is the maintenance of sufficient weaponry and trained military personnel to protect a country from, and effectively retaliate against, foreign attacks. The existence of US bases abroad runs counter to the defensive element of that mission and only very poorly supports the retaliatory part.

Defensively, scattering US military might piecemeal around the world – especially in countries where the populace resents that military presence – multiplies the number of vulnerable American targets. Each base must have its own separate security apparatus for immediate defense, and must maintain (or at least hope for) an ability to reinforce and resupply from elsewhere in the event of sustained attack. That makes the scattered US forces more, not less, vulnerable.

[Silver]

Uh-oh, America's still trying to effect regime change where it oughtner.

https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/sc ... ent-syria/

7/27/17 Elijah Magnier on the U.S. abusing the Sykes-Picot Agreement in Syria
By Damon Hatheway - July 29, 2017

Veteran war correspondent Elijah Magnier joins Scott to discuss his recent article, “First ‘Islamic State’ and then the US breaches Sykes-Picot with one objective: the Partition of Syria and Iraq.” Magnier explains how the U.S. is aiming to partition Syria and Iraq by placing permanent bases in northeast Syria and why, despite a potential ally in the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds, the U.S. is unlikely to be able to cut off Bashar al-Assad from the rest of Mesopotamia for long. Magnier says that America’s policy towards an independent Kurdish state has changed as the Kurds have come to represent an expedient ally in both Iraq and Syria. But an independent Kurdish state will, even with American support, have massive problems, which Magnier details. With Iraq in disarray, particularly in the majority Sunni areas, the longstanding Sykes-Picot agreement may be on its last legs. With the fight for Raqqa against ISIS nearing its conclusion, the question of what comes next looms.

Mangier also explains the origins of al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch, Jabhat al-Nusra, its close ties to ISIS, and its growing tension with the other jihadist groups in the country. Thanks to a constant stream of support from the international community, including funding and weapons from the United States, al-Aqaeda will be difficult to eradicate. The eventual battle for Idlib could be as brutal the battle for Mosul. Like Mosul, Idlib is full of citizens, and currently controlled by al-Qaeda. Finally, Magnier describes how the Americans have tried to control al Qaeda in Syria, which started as a small and has steadily grown with direct and indirect U.S. support and explains why you can’t just pull the plug from al-Qaeda and expect al-Qaeda to go away.

[Fiannan]

Mangier also explains the origins of al-Qaeda’s Syrian branch, Jabhat al-Nusra, its close ties to ISIS, and its growing tension with the other jihadist groups in the country. Thanks to a constant stream of support from the international community, including funding and weapons from the United States, al-Aqaeda will be difficult to eradicate. The eventual battle for Idlib could be as brutal the battle for Mosul. Like Mosul, Idlib is full of citizens, and currently controlled by al-Qaeda. Finally, Magnier describes how the Americans have tried to control al Qaeda in Syria, which started as a small and has steadily grown with direct and indirect U.S. support and explains why you can’t just pull the plug from al-Qaeda and expect al-Qaeda to go away.

I was speaking with a Syrian refugee a while back. She said that the ISIS fighters don't speak Syrian Arabic. They are foreigners, often Arabs and others from places as far away as Chechnya and Sweden and China, who basically come to Syria to fight and to rape Syrian women. The USA has tried to co-opt its new buddy, Al-Qaeda and its bad boy brother ISIS but thankfully Russia and the Syrian military have pounded them into the sand. I wonder how many families in the USA got notices from the US government saying, "We are sorry to inform you than your son, husband, etc. was killed in a training accident" without informing them that said individual was training people to fight the Syrian military.

[Ezra]

Eye for an eye. Vs doing what God has asked us.

Yes the world has done lots of horrible things and justified their actions. Pat themselfs on the back and call it good when it's not.

That's not what we should do. Not what we have been asked to do. Not what the scriptures say to do.

Why are so many called and so few chosen?

Because it's the nature of almost all mankind to practice unrighteous dominion.

Are you really advocating that??? Or have you just not given it any thought.

I advocated for no such thing. Please show me where I have.

I am simply explaining about history and why the arab muslims dislike us. Apparantly this point was not able to be comprehended by you. I thought I was clear, but perhaps not.

If you don't advocate for such things why are you not condoning those actions???

Muslims are often guilty of the same. They won't condone the actions of the radical groups inside the region Which makes them equally guilty as all it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing.

It's either right or wrong. War or aggression without gods commandment is evil. Invading others countries is evil without gods commandment. Do you support the war on terror? Or do you condone unjust wars? Which side do you choose?

[Silver]

As the descendant of a man who was killed by native Americans in Texas in 1838, I can see how ill feelings towards another group of people can develop and grow.

There have been years of constant propaganda which demonize Muslims so badly that they have become the new Indians, even, unfortunately, among the children of the covenant. Read the words of Elder Quentin L. Cook:

In Missouri in 1833, our Latter-day Saint values were in direct conflict with the Missouri settlers not of our faith. Many Missourians considered American Indians a relentless enemy and wanted them removed from the land. In addition, many of the Missouri settlers were slave owners and felt threatened by those who were opposed to slavery. Many were in search of land, wealth, and even power.

In contrast, our doctrine respected the American Indians and our desire was to teach them the gospel of Jesus Christ. With respect to slavery our scriptures are clear that no man should be in bondage to another. Our relatively few early black members worshipped together with white members.

His entire speech:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/t ... university

[skmo]

With America spending more on military than the next 6-7 countries combined

It's actually more than the next 10 countries combined.

Budget.jpg (75.46 KiB) Viewed 988 times