Thanks, Tanveer. Very bhalo.

"The purpose of the invasion of Iraq, regardless of the inadequacies of its political justification, was not to kill innocent civilians. The Americans do make an attempt to show regret for civilian deaths."

Many would argue that this is the result of better propaganda on the part of the British and the Americans. Every single thing that Blair or Bush says is broadcast, and then interpreted by media pundits who, while often critical of the two leaders, essentially hold the view that, despite the mistakes that have made, the West is essentially good, and the enemies of the West are essentially bad. How often have you seen a speech by a member of al-Quaeda on mainstream television, and then heard their "political justification" seriously debated? The fact that western leaders are able to repeat, unchalleneged, the patently ridiculous line that terrorists 'hate us for our freedom' is proof enough that the mainstream media are not doing their job.

In my opinion the problem is not "the inability of many Muslims to see the moral difference between the attacks in London and the invasion of Iraq", it is the inability of western leaders to see the moral similarities. They were both heinous crimes, for which all perpetrators should be arrested and brought to trial. The right person to decide which crime was worse, and therefore deserving of a longer sentence, is a judge.

Dave.

Dave, if you start with 'all war is unjustice and immoral' you will end where you just posted. (and somehow feel WW2 was 'Immoral' because we fought on many fronts for the freedom which allows YOU to express the view you just did without fear)

Do you understand why the Hutu slaughtered the Tutzi ? Before I read up on it, but you have to go back a long way, at least a 1000 yrs.
Lookup 'Twa' people.

I felt so sorry for the Tutzi as a race, now I just feel sorry for the individuals who lost their lives and I have a much greater understanding of, and sympathy for, the Hutu's who I formerly regarded as 'genocidal animals'and now who I regard as desperate survivors.
Do some searches and you might have a new understanding of 'life' and human nature.

On topic: (and if anyone gives me the 'hate' speech, I'll be offended, if this is hard to take, respond with something about the Lord Jesus Christ (if they can find anything like it, which is impossible) , I wont mind)

When Muslims can condemn their own prophet for his torture, willful murder of individuals and mass murder of tribes, and recognize that when a 60+ yr old man calling himself a prophet of God has a sexual relationship with a 9 yr old girl, without rationalizations about 'culture', then the would be a chance of 'moral clarity' in fundamental Islam.
The 'culture' argument falls in a heap when you consider that the Quran and Mohammed were meant to be the 'final word from Allah' to man, hence, in cultural terms there was no legitimate reason for anything to change from how it was in those days till now, and that includes Surah 23.5-6 about captive slave girls.

This is one of the reasons the Wahabi's regard less 'obedient' Muslims as borderline Kafirs.

Sheikh Omran said a day or 2 ago that 'I, the Muslims are winning'
His wording was such that it is clear he regards less radicals like Hilali as 'non muslims'

Tanveer you say that suicide is illegal in islam - that is not what many,toooooo many, of your leaders say!.That it is quite proper for moslems to lie to what you call unbelievers, even for islamic governments to repudiate pacts and treaties, I forget the term used but YOU WOULD KNOW IT VERY WELL! There is no way I can believe those whom I consider death loving pagans or heathens - no way at all. That is so sad as I do not hate those of other beliefs but I am very wary of moslems I'm afraid. Tanveer do your fellow believers realise the whirlwind that will descend on them. We civilised westerners will take just so much lies and deceit, just so much death and destruction. It is so sad that moslems are so bad. numbat

"Dave, if you start with 'all war is unjustice and immoral'"

I suggested no such thing.

"On topic: (and if anyone gives me the 'hate' speech, I'll be offended, if this is hard to take, respond with something about the Lord Jesus Christ (if they can find anything like it, which is impossible) , I wont mind)"

I make no defense of muslims who do not condemn the things that you mentioned.

I'm afraid to get into this, because relgion vs religion conversations are always so pointless, however lacking the motivation to do any work today, I'll bite. The Old Testament explicitly condones slavery in a number of different books. Slavery is mentioned in passing a number of times in the New Testament, but not condemned, and it was certainly never explicitly condemned by Jesus himself. If Jesus did not approve of slavery, it would be strange for him to not say so, considering how common the practise was at the time. One could therefore conclude that Jesus supported the practise of slavery. Do you agree?

Dave

Dave
well made points. Don’t worry about the R/R discussion, I will just give some perspectives and leave it at that.
On Slavery, the Old Testament picture is not straightforward, the most critical point is to know which type of slavery is being referred to. “Debt” slavery (I can testify about that :) me to the CBA) and ‘captive in war’ slavery. Yes, it does teach about it. But it also gives guidelines for their humane treatment.
The New Testament is more sympathetic to the slave. It was a social reality of the day, and in principle, Jesus taught “Do for others as you would have them do for you” so I hardly think in saying this he is expressing support for Slavery. If you look at all these passages, you can see that while slavery (being a huge industry and social reality of that time) was acknowledged, the ‘sting’ of slavery was removed by Masters and Slaves both working for the glory of God, and Masters are urged to be fair.
My own experience with how the gospel impacted a tribal culture which did have slavery, is that the slaves were freed, and given land and buffalo. I have a nice photo of my wifes granny with 2 former slaves. They are like family. (and regard themselves as such).
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm <== This link is not a Christian one, but I think it treats the issue fairly so I give it for your perusal.

The emphasis in the bible really, both old and new testaments, is on our own relationship with God, and obedience to Him. But only in Christ can we experience that fullness. Once rightly related and reconciled to God, our horizontal (social) relationships fall into place.

I feel thoroughly awful sometimes when I speak as a ‘social’ creature with Irfan and other Muslims, because I attack the foundation of their own faith. I don’t do that with a ‘mean spirited’ intention, but as much as I can its ‘speaking the truth in love’. Being ‘not yet perfect’ I do err at times :)