Well we have here those pacifists who ignore issues of real conflict. They like to pretend there is no injustice in the world. That we can all agree to be nice to each other without discussing conflicting differences, but this is dishonest. They would have us all accept mediocrity and be under their subtle control.

For instance: The basis of the practise of the Christian faith is the death of Jesus, while Muslims deny this very event. They cannot accept the fact of grace is expressed in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus life offered once for all as the basis of our salvation, but the strict observance of every Islamic preceipt gives salvation. They hold that the first drops of blood shed by a person fighting jihad atones for his own sins - results in an endless stream of persons offering as terrorist bombers.

However real issues of difference that have resultant actions that affect others lives must be argued out to resolution not sublimated in a pretence of agreement if we are to live together. It would appear some have no understanding of the issues of conflict or the motivation and agenda by some of control over others.

Islam is a religion of total control; it has laws on the very intimate details of our lives. It does not offer personal freedom. Muslims in the West have that opportunity unrestricted, but where the laws of Islam are in control it not only restricts Muslims it affects every single person in the State. Being in a so-called democratic Islamic State like Indonesia or Malaya is no guarantee of personal freedom from Muslim extremists

Philo,

I am not saying this because you do not have a good argument. But what I meant in my other Post, is why bring in religion all the time, when Islamic terrorism as expressed by most modern political philosophers, and incidently by the CIA, is simply called "Blowback" caused by interfering in another's territory. There is also another longer expression that should go with blowback, will we ever learn?

Regards,

George C, WA - Bushbred

Bushbred,
Can I assume you believe the West should not have supported those people in Taliban and Sunni controled countries who are persecuted and displaced by the extremes of shari'ah laws. So according to you we should allow Islamic nations to enforce their justice of beheadings infidels and stoning women to death because they happen to look at another man not her husband. So you would let the innocent die as your answer to islamic enforcement of State shari'ah laws?

I believe a modern Planet deserves better justice than that. The West according to them may be decadent but they are also compassionate to offenders of trivial laws.

Quote, "Blowback" caused by interfering in another's territory. There is also another longer expression that should go with blowback, will we ever learn?"

Dear Philo,

It was thought by your knickname, that you would be more philosophical about the problems of terrorism and religion. One important thing all us so-called students should be doing is to admit to to our Muslims that the one least bloodthirsty during the Crusades was Saladin, who was relegated to a kind of sainthood by the leader of France, for always sparing the lives of non-combatants, especially women and children. We also owe much to Muslim scholars who deliberately travelled to the West to help Christians lift themselves out of the Dark Ages with passages from Aristotle giving indication how the Light of Reason could give more understanding to what had been a kind of misguided Christian faith.

There have been many reports coming in just lately from journalists that the terrorist problem can never be solved by hi-powered bombs and bullets because the enemy is not a great power which has the capacity to use such means. While similar to the Tamil Tigers they have no other means to fight big powers than the use of suicide bombing, is well supported even by mothers who encourage their daughters to join in the attacks. It is probably the reason more thinking people from both sides should do their damndest to get together. Such was suggested by the former Pope and also by Nelson Mandela, who himself was called a terrorist by an extreme right-wing government, which unfortunately our fear of terrorism is causing democratic governments as some call our English-speaking Anglophile Alliance, the USA, Britain and Australia, to lean dangerously towards such arpathaidism.

There is also the danger that if we move too far right wing, especially if the US gets too mercenary in the Middle-East, there could be a strong shift to the far left which we do not want in a democratic state either.

Nice work bushbred. Well said.
Interesting how when Islam was in ascendancy, it provided assistance to the West in it’s Dark Age, yet when the West appears to be the world dominant ‘culture’ (used loosely) Islam is exploited, abused and considered the enemy.

Is it no wonder the Middle East produces terrorists to fight when the countries have no power in the world? I don’t condone terrorism or violence but I do understand it’s roots.

If leaders in the West weren’t so focused on greed, power and maintaining the status quo of control, the globe might have a chance to find peace and co-operation that could save this little ball of iron and mud.

Dear Reason,

can you explain to the forum how Islam came to ascendency - surely not through military conquest and forced conversion?

Unless the West peacefully concedes defeat - noting its already apparent demographic suicide - there will come a time when like Inquisitorial Spain, or the Battles of Vienna, Lepanto etc, Christianity will have to re-assert its worth & value and perhaps take to the battlefield again, but, let's hope it doesn't come to that.

However, someone is going top have to make a concession and historically, Jesus' teaching and actions appear to be better than Mohammed's re-interpretation and practice.

On the issue of vilification, one needs to distinguish between the teachings of a religion and its practice. There are peaceful Moslems and peaceful Christians, but, not many Moslems are actively persecuted by Christians per se, more like they are victims of a mercenary captilist system that ultimately doesn't distinguish between faiths and is happy to exploit all & sundry. Too bad there is so much oil in the middle east.

If oil wasn't part of the equation - ie. funding the Saudis and lining company pockets too - I wonder whether anyone would give a tinker's cuss about the ancient lands of Persia and thereabouts. So many empires have come & gone in that part of the world...