Does Churchills warning hold any weight in the Modern world?

tomndebb:

What rules are these (that christians fail to follow as a result of cultural things)?

Um…muslims.

Who did you think I meant? Eskimos?

It’s true that the charge to implement sharia is usually led by fundamentalist groups but the flogging punishment for adultery is not fundamentalist. It’s just normal islam.

No I’m talking about the quran. The punishment for adultery is laid out in the quran. Parts of sharia come from the quran and parts come from hadith so this particular bit comes from both the quran and the sharia.

In any case sharia is part of islam so I’m not sure what distinction you are trying to make.

Turkey is exceptional since Ataturk made it secular. Although, even there, it was a criminal offence until quite recently and women were imprisoned.

Syria uses sharia law, including criminalising adultery:

Jordan makes allowances for when honour killings happen as a result of adultery (and 25% of murders in Jordan are honour killings according to that site). I’m not saying that honour killings are part of islam just noting that when the murders involve killing an adulterous partner then different rules are used as compared to ordinary murders.

Egypt I mentioned in my previous post.

Anyway, my point is simply that the punishment for adultery in islam is flogging. It’s a hadd crime (appears in the quran). It’s not a fundamentalist thing, it’s just normal islam. Ask them, if you don’t believe me (muslims not eskimos).

Possibly but none of this has anything to do with the punishment for adultery under islam (which is flogging).

Perhaps you might define “Islamic Fundamentalism” for us seeing as you seem to have some sense of it as a distinct modern phenomenon thats been around for only 202 years.

Perhaps you know a better word to describe the segment or segments of Islam that spread that religion on the end of the sword throughout the history of that religion. I do wish to avoid the broad brush accusation.

I too would like to know what you are talking about. The only rule in Christianity that I’m aware of is to love God and your neighbour.

Can anyone? Let’s have a real debate here on Churchill’s words. If you think he’s wrong, then you have to provide a stronger retrograde force in the world today.

Well, the Neo-Con movement in U.S. politics comes to mind, with its willingness to put misguided college term papers–based on errors in understanding history together with a desire to reshape the world with no understanding of how the world is actually shaped–into political action backed by unilateral military adventurism.

It is possible that it can be more easily stopped than Islamism if enough of the US. electorate chooses to say no, but it is currently the world’s most powerful force headed in the wrong direction.

And yet, Jesus explicity prohibited divorce and demanded poverty of his disciples and the Apostles set up an early communist society, and neither the rules of Jesus nor the example of the Apostles are followed, today.

The Wahhabist movement dates to the middle or the end of the late 18th century. Prior to that time, there was nothing that could be considered an Islamic Fundametalist movement permeating Islam (although there are examples of Muslim zealots periodically through the 1300 years, just as there are Christian zealots to be found over the last 2000). Even Wahhabism is generally located only in the Middle East. The Muslims who have joined similar groups in Eastern Asia have done so more out of the expediency of finding people who will support them than actually sharing the Wahhabist belief system. As I have pointed out on a couple of occasions, the people in the southern islands of the Philipines have staged several unsuccessful rebellions over the last 110 (or so) years. First they were maniacal “Mohammedans,” then they were subversive Marxists, now they are back to being Fundametalist Muslims–and all they really want is to set up their own country without being dominated by the people in the North who have more wealth (and Christian and Capitalist traditions).

The myth of Islam being spread “on the end of the sword throughout the history of that religion” have been debunked numerous times on this board. After an initial expansion in its first hundred years (prompted as often by political goals as religious ones) that was, indeed, extraordinarily successful, Islam settled in to a period of several hundred years of the same sort of political wars, either among Muslims or with Christians or Mongols as all the other humans on the planet tend to do. When the next great outburst of proselytizing broke out after the fourteenth century toward Southeast Asia, it was nearly entirely peaceful. Wars led by Muslims against Christians or Hindus were generally simple wars of political conquest with no serious attempts to convert the conqured peoples. (The siege of Vienna was not an issue because people were afraid that they would have to give up their belief in Christ, but only that they feared becoming slaves to the Turks.)

The foaming Bush-haters on this board should really take a step back and try to gain some perspective. When you compare the Neo-Conservative movement in the U.S., as stupid and pathetic as it may be, with Islamic fundamentalism, you really show that you have simply lost all touch with reality due to your hatred of your own personal white whale of conservatism.

Your statement is really just mind boggling to me. Whatever you want to say about the number of Iraqis killed, whatever you want to say about attempts to shape the world, I just do not see how you can possibly compare calls to detonate human beings inside of a pizza parlors and other public places with the removal of someone who was a mass murderer of his own people.

I guess part of it may be the legal training and the concept of intent in determining what is a crime; civilians may die due to U.S. bombs, but so far as I am aware, no one on the U.S. side is intending to blow up civilians to get a point across. Lord knows how easily we could if we wanted to. In fact, for potentially one of the first times in history, U.S. soldiers are actually dying to spare Iraqi civilians. I have no question but that the attempts to avoid bloodshed among the Iraqi civilian population have cost the lives of coalition soldiers.

On the other hand, I have yet to hear stories of U.S. soldiers hacking up Iraqis because they will not submit to the will of Jesus.

I think you need to take a step back, yourself. First off, I am no Bush-hater, having actually defended him on these boards from several attacks by people who were Bush-haters.

Second, when we are considering threats to the world, I suspect that a few thousand individual zealots who are willing to inflict harm in periodic adventures offer a far less grave threat than a fully armed nation guided by people who will stop at little to reach some “ideal” world view.

Islamism is inherently reactionary and is being carried out by individuals and small groups around the world. Those groups are constantly in danger of alienating themselves from their respective power bases. The Saud family is notoriously corrupt, so one group of Wahhabists try to destabilize the Saudi government by terrorist acts. They have no visible plan or platform (aside from a vague yearning for some “ideal” Muslim state) and do not actually have the support of the majority of their fellow citizens (who fear their violence just as their actual targets do). When Fundamentalists were able to take control of Iran, it was only a very short time before the majority of Iranians began seeking ways to move beyond their power. So far, the people of Iran have been less than successful, but the ayatollahs cannot maintain their rule through fear forever. When Arafat accepts the “help” of suicide bombers, he does nothing to shore up his own power base. He has been in danger of a revolt among the Palestinians for several years (keeping power only because Sharon plays into his hands as the worse enemy to the Palestinian people). Muqtada al-Sadr has been discovering, in the last week, that too much terror can rebound against one as the citizens of Sadr City have actually begun cheering the national Iraqi and U.S. forces in the current siege, reacting against the indiscriminate violence that al-Sadr has provoked.

The terrorism that has emanated from the Islamists is horrific–otherwise it would not be terrorism. But it is ultimately self-defeating.

The Neo-Cons, with their insistence on proclaiming themselves as the bearers of Truth (not unlike the Islamists), so that international cooperation is simply an impediment to their goals, risk isolating the world’s most powerful nation from the rest of the world, creating enemies where we need not do so, and making future cooperation on important issues nearly impossible. Their myopic adherence to Wolfowitz’s college term paper, in which they ignore the reality of any intra-national situation on the basis that they know better than the people who live in a country what those people “really” want, increases the danger that most of our international efforts will fail. Their view that unilateral action is not merely acceptable, but preferred, could lead to a coalition of the entire world against the U.S. Their short attention span (Oh? Were we supposed to provide a budget item for helping Afghanistan after we overthrew their government?) leads them to leave missions undone while they chase after new enemies–created or imagined. Their fiscal irresponsibilty scares even they allies among the Conservatives. What happens when the world’s most powerful (and almost unchallengeable) nation decides that it needs to begin taking things to keep from imploding as its debt soars to unimaginable heights? The Neo-Cons can also be self-defeating, but they can harm far more people as they destroy themselves.

Just as carjackers are more frightening than corrupt executives on a day-to-day basis, but the CEOs that destroy corporations harm more people in the long run, destroying jobs and the life-savings of investors, so terrorists are scarier than world leaders, but are actually less of a threat to the majority of people. (And the point to which I referred involved world threats, not fear.)

Leviticus 20:10: And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:11: And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death…

Exodus 21:17: And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

Those, among others, can be found here. The same page also suggests another example of recent Christian slaughter: the Bosnian “ethnic cleansing”.

Maybe if you were Iraqi you would think differently. If you’d had relatives or friends killed in the recent war, it probably wouldn’t make a hell of a lot of difference to you to know that their deaths weren’t intended, especially when those deaths were pretty much inevitable once our respective countries declared war on Iraq. You wouldn’t take much comfort from self-serving statements from Americans that their intentions were good, would you? Its intending to “blow up citizens” vs recklessly indifferent to “blowing up citizens”. Its a fine distinction, but no doubt it helps a lot of (American) people get to sleep at night. Gets back to my first post to this thread which irked you so. The notion that citizens outside of your country might have differing perspectives on this barely occurs to you. Then when you have your nose rubbed in it, your mind boggles. And you have the temerity to claim “the average middle eastern really does not know what is going on in the world or how other people think outside of the ranting of religious leaders”. Now my mind is boggling.

Yes, please once again trot out the stereotype - “you’re one of them hick folks who doesn’t get that there are different viewpoints in the world.” Yes, everyone who does completely hate everyone of the current administrations policies is a hillbilly isolationist bumpkin.

Hell, I could understand it if it were even reckless indifference. Instead, we may be one of, if not the, first countries in the world that is so concerned about avoiding civilian casualties that we will cause the deaths of our own troops to avoid it. “Reckless indifference?” You don’t think this war could have been fought one hell of a lot differently if the U.S. military were truly indifferent?

I understand why middle easterners have a different perspective - it is because they do not know what is going on in the world. It is precisely the continuous feeds of news received that every western action is an attempt to commit genocide, with no counterbalancing viewpoint, that leads to this myopic vision. There’s nothing boggling about that. It would be the equivalent to forming your viewpoints based on only having Rush Limbaugh as a news source.

Wow, this anology is quite a reach.

Look, Islamic terrorism is here to stay and won’t go away until Israel is destroyed . There is no hope of reaching meaningful or effective peace agreements with adjacent governments when the anarchist nature of radical Islam defies any state control. Israel is fucked. American idealism in the Middle East is fucked. This could be an overstatement, but you can’t prove me wrong.
Come November however, you guys can throw out the Neo-Cons if you wish. And that is very very possible.

Well, I can prove your factual assertions wrong. Israel currently has peace agreements with two adjacent governments: Jordan and Egypt. It is possible for such things to occur.

I see in this post you are talking about radical Islam, and I don’t think you’ll find anyone here who disagrees with you that radical Islam is a threat. What has been argued is that Islam itself is not necessarily the problem, but rather current and historical socio-economic conditions have given rise to radical movements in several places in the Middle East, and that these specific movements are the threat.

I know that too. I specified “meaningful” and “effective” in order to convey the idea that regardless of achievable peace agreements with governments, these governments can not restrain their radical mosques and citizenry from waging war on Israel expecially now that a network or networks for coordination of terrorist activities operates with impunity.

Why are you dragging Israel into this? bin Laden was not particularly interested in Israel, and would have attcked the WTC regardless whether or not the state of Israel existed. bin Laden was primarily mad at the house of Saud for his perception of its corruption, then further mad that the U.S. was “desecrating” the land of Mecca and Medina with its presence defending the house of Saud from Saddam Hussein. From his rise to prominence among the mujihadeen until the WTC/Pentagon attacks, he rarely even mentioned Israel or the the Palestinian situation. Following the WTC/Pentagon attacks, he began to include pro-Palestinian rhetoric in his proclamations as a sort of afterthought to garner more support in the MENA region, but Israel was never a primary target for his hatred. The Filipino insurgents don’t care about Israel. Indian Muslims are much more interested in their own feud with the Hindus than they are with Israel (or even Palestinians). The Chechyens are much more interested in driving Russian power out of their land than they are with driving Israelis into the sea. Even the situation in Israel, itself, does not conform to your claim: the Palestinian suicide bombers have tended to be politically active, but few have been religious zealots. Several have been notably lacking in religious fervor.

Standing outside the Muslim world, it is easy, but erroneous, to paint a picture of single-minded devotion and unity of purpose. An actual examination of the reality across the world shows a loose coalition of vaguely related groups who fight (and terrorize) for a multiplicity of reasons and who band together simply because they find a general foe in what can loosely be described as “the West” (either actually or through associations with the U.S. or Europe). (That association is similar to the “democratic” U.S. maintaining associations with authoritarian governments and dictators under the general opposition to “communism” even when the groups or governments perceived as “communist” had only tenuous relationships, themselves.)

If Israel disappeared tomorrow, well over half the activities of Muslim terrorists would continue the next day.

You’ll have to clarify for me what you deem effective. Both Egypt and Jordan have cracked down on radical islamic groups, and Egypt’s crackdown has been particularly harsh. Aside from the occasional slip-through, I’m not aware of any significant radical Islamic threat emanating from either of these countries towards Israel.

The primary basis for the terrorist anger towards America is its support for the state of Israel. If it weren’t for America, there would be no Israel . That is why the presence of Americans, in Saudi Arabia is deemed to be sacrilegious. You don’t see the French or the Germans in Saudi Arabia targeted do you?

And if all Americans pulled out of Saudi Arabia tomorrow, well over half the activities of Muslim terrorists would continue the next day.

That is because they are presently working on removing the support of the United States for Israel. Syrians, Jordanians, and Egyptians all figure prominently in al Qaeda and in Iraq, a present battleground.

Of course the danger to Israel due to present day terrorist activities is not as imminent as the full scale assaults of 67 and 73, but these activities will be a lot more effective if the terrorists succeed into terrorizing the American public into withdrawing all influence in the middle east.

I trust you have a cite for this claim, right? Or perhaps you’re fluent in the languages of “middle easterners” and formed this opinion after conducting your own thorough study of every news source available to them?

Snicker.

Go to the average Arab in a street in the M.E and see what they think of us and the rest of the world. In the end you’ll see something of a victim mentality which will predominate every other thought they have.

Well, essentially, yes.

Actually, this is an example of the sort of misinformation that the neo-cons are guilty of promulgating. bin Laden was opposed to continued U.S. military in Saudi Arabia (everyone else basically went home after the first Gulf War). And the terrorists are attacking other westerners in Saudi Arabia, with more Europeans than U.S. citizens having died this year, alone.

The Iranians were much more angry that the U.S. imposed and propped up the Shah for so many years than any interest in Israel. bin Laden did not even address the issue of Israel from 1990 until the WTC/Pentagon attacks. Saudi Arabia was opposed to the state of Israel, yet the U.S. gave the Saudis military equipment. bin Laden only turned against the U.S. when the U.S. based forces inside Saudi Arabia to oppose Saddma Hussein. Israel had nothing to do with it (unless you want to pretend that the U.S. was protecting Saudi Arabia in defense of Israel instead of in defense of Saudi oil).

There is a lot of anger toward the U.S. for its support of Israel. I am not denying that point. As various groups look for other groups to provide mutual support, they have also interjected a theme of “anti-Zionism” into their rhetoric in several places.

However, your claim appears to be that all Islamist terrorism is inspired by a hatred of Israel and, as I have already noted, this ignores the terrorists who happen to be Muslim in Chechnya, the Philipines, Southeast Asia, India, Sudan, and a number of other places. It is easy (i.e., simplistic) to blame all the world’s woes on a bunch of mad Muslims who are driven by a hatred of Israel transferred to the U.S. However, that is a repetition of the simplistic “anti-communist” nonsense that caused the U.S. to make so many mistakes (and harm so many people) throughout the world over the last 60 years. Had the U.S. considered the actual indigenous freedom movements in places like Vietnam, Angola, El Salvador, (while opposing actual “communist” interference in places where the Soviets or Chinese were actually initiating the problems), the world would be a healthier and safer place, today. It makes far more sense to look at individual situations and deal with their realities, although it makes life simpler to ignore reality and simply paint the world in black and white.

Claiming that Islamist hatred is simply opposition to Israel corresponds to the claim that Islam has engaged in 1300 years of “conversion by the sword.” Neither statement is true and an unconsidered belief in those errors will cause people to make worse errors in addressing problems because they will be attacking the wrong problem.