Anthony, Thanks for your piece.

We need to be remined everyday of all the atrocities that are happening in the world, under the banner of "democracy" or 'Economic rationalism"

America has been involved in several wars this century....when has their conduct in them ever met with universal approval?

Does the Iron Heel hover above our heads? Seems the author thinks so.

I do hope AL is right about the world waking up to the truth of US foreign policy this year - time is running out. The speech made by Harold Pinter (http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html) when he was awarded the Nobel prize, is a great starting point. We must all educate ourselves as best we can. We can no longer rely on the 'free' press.

You sure are right about educating ourselves. What we need is a rounded picture, something these forums often provide.

Unfortunately this piece is as radical as those supporting the war effort. It does not take account of the huge changes the US and others have acheived, Lebanon (syria would not have killed hariri if not for US pressure from thier border with iraq), Libya, and all the eastern european countries etc.

I would also like to point out to the historian in the forum that this is the first major war of this century, not another in the 20th century.

One should not assume that I am a supporter of the war, just looking for someone to note the goods and the bads in a text, instead of one or the other, usually overblown to the point it is meaningless.

Yes, of course you are correct....this is the twenty first century...my, doesn't time fly when your having fun......

According to earlier reports by the CIA, terror and suicide bombing is simply blowback or payback against America for her disappointing policies since both the end of the Marshall Plan and the end of the Cold War. We could guess it is all about asking these days, what are the true motives of the US in Iraq, mainly for hegemon and contraband rather than democracy as was said by TE Lawrence after his treacherous discardment after WW1, or a really truly honest endeavour to bring decent democracy to that now ravaged country?

Maybe overblown rhetoric by neo-cons and ex-Israelies in the White House with their Project for the American 21st Century in the 1990s may have scared the daylights out of certain thinkers, but who could blame most historians and writers these days with the added knowledge of the track records in the ME of both the US and the UK over the years? Who could blame such thinkers for staying very very suspicious?

fide mae

This is the second or third war of this century involving the US, that is if you include the War on Terror and accept the rout of the Taliban in Afghanistan as major wars.

Regards

What shallow rhetoric! What would Anthony Loewenstein be saying about American participation in WW1, WWII, South Korea, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia via Nato etc? Can you say it is oil there as well or is it 'power' or 'influence' driven - those nice giveaway lines that are being repeated so often to almost sound plausible.

The problem is that the UN towards we look, is run like a club. The best it could do was to run sanctions on Iraq that with their embargo, led to more deaths per year than is occuring right now. An embargo that gave Sadam photo opportunities with emaciated children while creaming proceeds. There is a gap in the world thanks to the club, and the US is filling it, albeit selectively (and why not?).

The presence or absence of WMDs is totally irrelevant!

So long as the UN is run like a club, respecting sovereignity that allows the likes of Kim Jung Il, Robert Mugabe et al to remain in power, then the selective involvement of the US will continue.

Iraq could become a model of democracy for the Middle East and so it is being vehemently opposed by the likes of Iran. It is a dangerous play but with a worthwhile outcome.

Create a real United Nations, and the US can retreat.

Iraq is a sad expression of people that hold talkfests. Look at Timor, Rwanda, Yugoslavia etc. Four million died in the Congo recently. Where was the UN?

Stop blaming the US for filling the gap. It has made mistakes, Vietnam not excluded, but just for once, cut the rhetoric, and see the bigger picture that includes having a club for a UN. A democracy in Iraq could empower the Muslim world and that's the big play, not oil, not WMDs etc.

INVADING IRAQ WAS JUSTIFIED, BUT..

Remco and others

If countries were liberated, then occupied, on a needs basis then Rwanda and the Congo would have been at the front of the queue. Why weren't they?

Furthermore, talk of liberating a country to install democacy is "lala land". In Iraq's case democracy that has to be imposed at the point of an occupier's gun will evaporate as soon as the occupier leaves.

What made Iraq especially "needy"? As Antony says it has large oil reserves and its next to countries with large oil reserves.

Intelligencee agencies internally has a realistic appreciation that WMD, terrorism and Saddam's human rights record were NOT compelling reasons to invade Iraq.

Oil was the reason but politicians could never admit this. Politicians ordered intelligence agencies (the CIA, MI6 and our own ONA) to fill in the blanks in their speeches to justify the invasion.

Yet getting rid of Saddam to get to the oil probably was justified. It was justified for the world's major developer and consumer of oil to have greater control over its supply. Without more control the US will become increasingly dependent on the whim of Saudi Arabia Royal Family to control the world oil supply and price.

So the occupation of Iraq is for a valid reason. Its just that the US has badly mishandled the occupation in typical American (currently Christian Right) fashion.

For Australia the question is when to get out. Can we leave Iraq in a state of civil war with a clear conscience?

We make such a small contribution to the occupation (other than placing our flag alongside the US) that I think we should get out.

Whether you agree with AL on the issue of the war or not, his point about media is valid. None of our popular media go anywhere near the type of information provided in this article. The question is not so much what we think we know, but what makes us think we know anything at all given our mushroom treatment (kept in the dark and fed ....)?

Why werent other countries like Rwanda Congo and a host of other countries invaded?

Simple, no relevance to the US. That toothless club, the UN leaves a void in the world and that void is being filled by the US and leaving it open to cynical criticisms of "it's oil" or power or whatever.

There is a void and that void is being selective filled. Remove the void, ie. get the UN properly empowered (acknowledging the idealistic impracticality of getting European nations involved) and the US, the de facto and biased agent of the ideal UN, backs off. WMDs, oil, and self interest arguments, disappear.

Replace or empower the Club of Nations and the US will focus on its homefront.

Iraq is a sad case of a residual region made into a sovereign country. A patchwork of disparate groups stitched together by an imperialist country. Left alone after the removal of Sadam, might have created a more natural outcome, bits going to Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia. For now, the US is subject to unjustified criticism. Where is France, the Netherlands etc??

Commend everyone for having a good try. At least we are doing a bit of the necessary stewing the pot till something comes up. At least we are trying what Churchill surprising recommended. Jaw Jaw is far safer than war war. Looking forward to more comments. Good for the Alzheimers.

George C. WA - Bushbred

Not this anti Americanism again. C'mon this is all too easy.

Of course the US have to do it smarter. But the ‘it’ is absolutely necessary. Read Spengler for goodness sake http://www.atimes.com/atimes/others/spengler.html his thinking is 3 steps ahead of yours Mr.Loewenstein.

And Julia Gorin lol for good measure, on ‘Dumb Jews’ http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin120105.php3

In your clamoring to get on the anti-US bandwagon Mr. Loewenstein you have no notion of what the alternative to a strong US is.

The US exporting coca cola and pop music is as vicious as exporting Jihad?

Why is that leftist intellectuals attack the US when godless intellectuals would be the first to go in an Islamic state (world domination is a religious duty in Islam.)

Does anyone really think if given a chance a religiously motivated Islamic state wouldn't try and implement God's Holy Will - world domination as dictated to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel? Doesn't history (North Africa, Asia Minor, Battle at Vienna, at Lepanto, train bombings, bus bombings, beheadings, wanting a whole nation wiped out, murdering those who criticise Islam etc et tell us anything?)Leftist intellectuals don't have the will to see what is going on.

To even hint that this is provoked by the US itself is a revolting misunderstanding of Islam. And is usually spewed out by ppl who know no theology and have no clue about religion.

This anti-Americanism has to stop. Brief yourself on the geo-political situation and offer constructive help on how to do it better. Don't tear down.

Many of use woke up before the war started. To think and believe, that Iraq had the capability to deploy nuclear weapons, what a fantasy.

Martin Ibn Warriq, because Muslim countries are going to unify and run rampant around the globe, subverting 4 billion odd peoples... -_-

Well well well.. it seems in Steel we have a bit of honesty filtering through.. suggesting Muslim nations will unite and dominate 4 billion others..

Steel.. r u Muslim or was that tongue in cheek ?

The one clincher in Anthony's blog is his comment "I have long believed in a BI-STATE solution, (Palestinians and Israeli's living in ONE state together."

yet, in the preceeding breath, he has just stated that Palestinian birth rate is MUCH higher than Israeli, and quoted a Jewish Politician about the negative impact of such demographic change.

So in reality he is either a paid up member of HAMAS masquerading as a freelance Journalist, or he just needs heavy duty therapy.

The unspoken assumption in most of what he writes is quite predictable Latte Left stuff:

1/ USA= BADDDDDDD
2/ UN= GOOOOOOOD
3/ PALESTINIANS GOOOOOOOD
4/ ORTHODOX Jews very VERY BADDDDDDDDDD
5/ SOLUTIONS 'pie in the sky, they will all get along' kind of stuff.
6/ DEMOGRAPHICS .... huh ?
7/ Quotes Noam Chomsky.. isn't that enough ?
8/ Any connection between true human behavior and his article is purely co-incidental.

"AAAAH..BUT ! its REALLY all about OIL" errrrr... yep. and all it represents. But, 'we were all sucked in by the WMD scam'....errrr.. nope.. never really cared about that, cared more that Sadaam was using Oil4Food money for PALACES while Iraqi children starved, and died through lack of medicine caused by his financial priorities.

Interesting that Iran always had a supervised nuclear program.
All of a sudden they are a suspect of nuclear weapons (which was never mentioned by Iranians or others except misrepresented by the CNNNNN).
Seems in the new lingo a suspect = convicted with no need for evidence anymore.
"we have to attack Iraq before 17th March otherwise there will be a mushroom cloud"...It turned out to be a mushroom soup...

Yep Iran is now the suspect...but thats good enough..

Ibn Warriq,

Another 'copy & paste expert' on Islam...global warming is caused by Muslims (hot kebabs are direct evidence)...

my blogspot: www.musliminsight.blogspot.com

Get a life!

The author doesn’t like America, the West, or other journalists because they are not reporting his ‘truths’. We are all going to remember the ‘dreadful’ things done in 2005 by imperialist America, but nothing said about Islamist terror.

“We should take heart from the fact that the US’s global influence is waning”…. and apparently look forward to …” a world without constant US threats and bullying “, according to Loewenstein. Pretty weird stuff from a Westerner in a Western country that has never been bullied or threatened by America.

The US is not perfect, but the rest of the Western world should be grateful that it is OUR imperfect ally, and not the other side’s.

Loewenstein warns us against the “false presumptions” of the Australian media, but expects us to trust someone called Dahr Jamail, described as an “independent reporter”. Does anyone know him? Is he telling the truth?

There are a couple of quotes from Noam Chomsky, the world’s leading left crackpot, and a claim that Iran is the major beneficiary of the Iraq war. This “truth” is, of course, obscured in the West. We are not told how or by whom.

Then we have Tariq Ali (at least we’ve heard of him) reminding the author that America couldn’t have invaded Iraq without the Iranian mullahs. It’s a pity we readers weren’t let in on the secret. It would make AL more believable and not leave us as suspicious of him as he wants us to be of other journalists.

All of AL’s other support material is weak too. Soldiers’ alleged “cultural insensitivity” “… may have spurred the growth of the insurgency”. The alleged experience of an interrogator (after he has left the job, as usual) describing atrocities. Who would believe anyone who told such stories without also telling how he tried to prevent it happening? He was in the same line of work.

This author shouldn’t be criticising the mainstream media. He should concentrate on lifting his own game. We want facts, not opinions and heresay.

Memo to Mr Loewenstein.

If you are going to write propaganda, at least try to write good propaganda. The trick is to be subtle. You have to pretend that that you are honest and impartial, and that you are simply writing the truth. Your article was so full of the usual reflexive anti Americanism that readers know straight away that you are a US and Western world hating trendy lefty. That straight away destroys your credibility.

Your effort is similar to the propaganda written by the Chinese in the Korean war. The Chinese submitted a "spontaneous confession" by a shot down US pilot to the United Nations entitled, "How My Cruel Capitalist Masters Forced Me To Wage Inhuman Germ Warfare Against Peace Loving Socialist People."

I didn't work. Neither will your article. At least outside of the readership of the Green Left Weekly. People are not as dumb as you think we are.

Remember, be subtle.

Fellow human. There is no space for a treatise on the problems with Islam. Which is why I included a link.

By doing this I defer to someone who is an intellectual superior ie I point to the other person's expertise not my own.

I don't claim the kind of knowledge Spengler has.

Its monotonous in its regularity but whenever there are substantive arguments against Islam the rejoinder is "get a life","so-called expert","racist","muslim basher","nazi", or some such thing.

Thank you for the link to your blog but the questions about Islam I want answers to aren't asked there. I hope you are successful in making many moderate Muslims, I think common sense moderate Muslims are God's mercy walking and talking.

The only way Christianity and Islam will be able to live together in modern world is if there is fierce theological dialogue. Superficial 'tolerance' will end up in disaster (eg Aceh). It is the left who don't believe in objective truth who think all religions are the same who are putting us at risk.

Fellow human can you find answers to the problem of mode of revelation in Islam? Can you really equate all the horrific sayings in the Koran with the Gospels? The Hadiths are triply horrific. What is in Islam that would prevent a pious young man having the courage of his faith to follow his religion to its logical conclusions? Islam's lived example is frighteningly anti human rights. Where are your words of explanation for non-muslims in here?

Martin Ibn Warriq,

“The only way Christianity and Islam will be able to live together in modern world is if there is fierce theological dialogue”.

Agree with your statement, and II believe there could a lot more done on this front.
There is too much of the “I am right you are wrong” debates but not enough dialogue.

I grew up where there was a dialogue and harmony between the two religions. My blogspot is an attempt to gather moderates of all Abraham religions to interact about future and better world. Its failry successful (I have 80 regular visitors). Its interactive by the way so I am publishing topics as I get asked, you can ask a question anytime.

I live by 'lighting a candle is better than cursing the dark', my blogspot is my candle.

Peace,

Interesting article. Thanks to everyone for their posts - this looks like another lively discussion.

BD ("'we were all sucked in by the WMD scam'....errrr.. nope.. never really cared about that, cared more that Sadaam was using Oil4Food money for PALACES while Iraqi children starved, and died through lack of medicine caused by his financial priorities") - I am relatively certain this was as much a result of the US and others trade embargoes of Iraq since the last war?

Are you really trying to cop out behind the fact that the US-led war in Iraq was some sort of humanitarian intervention for the sake of the Iraqi people? Yeah right. Just like Vietnam was for the sake of the people of Vietnam. The war was for control of the middle-east, and hundred’s of thousands more have died. I mean, lets not forget who installed Saddam in government in the first place.

In the end, even if what has happened leads to a lift in the standard of living and democracy of the reason, we have to ask – at what cost? And we surely cannot cop out behind the fact that this was even in the mind of Bushy when he pushed the ‘GO’ button

I absolutely believe there is humanitarian reasons for iraq, and they should be taken into account in discussions of war. You should note that John Howard was the only leader (out of america and britain and aus) that said that the humanitarian cause was of equal weight with that of the weapons of mass destruction.

When calculating the success, one should include the cost of not takin action, continued sanctions with all the death adn suffering which would have lasted at least until sadaam's death, perhaps twenty-thirty years. Only then compare that against the cost of acting, this too should be counted over a twenty year period. This is why only history will be able to answer the question 'was it worth it".

Given the number of authoritarian regimes kicked out in peaceful revolutions, one wonders why all people against the war never mention this in their posts.

Latte lefty is a great description of most of the western population, out of control!

I like the way conservative contributors to the debates on this site predictably criticise left-leaning contributors for being...predictable. And what about Leigh wanting facts, not opinion (what, here?)or Redneck saying that left-wing propaganda won't work. Well, obviously, Redneck, it's right-wing propaganda that does it for you. Good luck convincing the rest of us that the US and its partners were right to invade Iraq. Hardly anyone believes that anymore.

Loewenstein's article is a ne plus ultra example of monumental bias, bigotry, and hate against the US, for whose "political sins" he condemns and casts the latter into Hades. In his ideologically choleric article against the US, he has not one word about the great threat posed against the West by global terror and its state sponsors. He is cognitively purblind and cannot see that by casting the US into "Hades", which is the only nation in the world that can defeat global terror, he is in fact casting the whole Western world into the Hades of Islamofascist fanaticism.

Incidentally, his photo pellucidly reveals the arrogance of an intellectual poseur.

Go to my blog: NEMESIS http://congeorgekotzabasis

FH,

Martin asked you specific questions - OLO courtesy is to at least attempt to acknowledge them - even if you can't or won't answer.

Instead you are directing traffic to your webblog and evading the hot potatoes you cannot handle... but then again that's been your style all along.

Martin's questions again:

Fellow human can you find answers to the problem of mode of revelation in Islam? Can you really equate all the horrific sayings in the Koran with the Gospels? The Hadiths are triply horrific. What is in Islam that would prevent a pious young man having the courage of his faith to follow his religion to its logical conclusions? Islam's lived example is frighteningly anti human rights. Where are your words of explanation for non-muslims in here

Themistocles

I think the word you were grasping for was Pellucidity, from Pellucid which has two meanings
1. transparent, allowing all or most light to pass through
2. easy to understand or clear in meaning

Which definiton did you mean?

You state He is cognitively purblind and cannot see...

Purblind an offensive term meaning partly or completely unable to see.

Bad english if he is purblind he cannot see, so why state "and cannot see"

I think it is your post that shows the arrogance of an intellectual poseur.

If you are going to use big words get them right, or else stop being a w*nker - Good old Aussie term.

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq hay,
Did I miss Something , didn’t any of you see the satellite footage of Russian Special forces moving something over to Syria, OOOps, P C again, Fairdinkum, what did he use on Iran, Powder Puffs buns? And what was that thing in Ritter’s Hand on TV for the UN, OOO , it must have been Saddam’s toy. His Love weapon. Lets not forget Saddam and Al-Qaeda, sorry that was not published in the Green Weekly.
We do not need any more Mad Mullahs, we have more than enough of our own Mad Leftists, same thing –Pathological Nincompoops. But they do not have control of the BUTTON yet.

Saddam and Terrorists, see here. Thousands of documents, but know one seems to have read them. YET, So start now.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

I wonder what will be in the Green Weekly next week. Yassa Arafat’s Love Affairs, well let me tell you- Women are not on top of the list.
I have heard the tape TIGA.

All.

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq have?
None, as reported by the UN inspection team.

Did I miss something, didn’t any of you see the satellite footage of Russian Special forces moving something over to Syria.

If they were moving “something” it wasn’t weapons of mass destruction. Did the Russian Special Forces have their uniforms on? Most Special Forces would be indistinguishable from the locals.

What did he use on Iran, Powder Puffs buns?

No they used conventional weapons provided by the USA to fight the US enemy Iran. Funny Iran also used weapons from the USA left over from when the Shah was the good guy.

Saddam may have backed Palestinian terrorism against Israel, but he detested Al-Qaeda. He saw them as a threat to his secular state and hence his own power.

Al-Qaeda was strongly opposed to the secular regime of Saddam Hussein and bin Laden had offered use of his fighters' services to the Saudi throne, but the deployment of 'infidel' forces to Islamic sacred territory was seen as an act of treachery by bin Laden.

If George Bush senior had listened to his political advisors instead of his war advisors he could quite easily have had Al-Qaeda as allies as they were in the Russian-Afghan war.

Remember that Iran has a border with Pakistan, good guys with nuclear weapons? Iraq full of American troops, Afghanistan full of American troops. They have good reason to feel worried.

American foreign policy disasters going back decades are the cause of terrorism in our world, now we have President Rambo making things much worse.

Not to mention threats to assassinate the head of an elected govt. in South America by elected US politicians.

If you believe the crud on the link you provided, you poor brain cell must be in overdrive.

What kind of world would we have if America kept its big nose out of others business

Call me old fashioned but I am s-t-i-l-l waiting for those weapons of mass destruction, that could be directed at us within the space of 45 minutes [the official reason we went to war in the first place] to be found. If a politician tells me something is true, of such an important nature that it triggers a country to war, I expect that the statements of Bush/Howard/Blair were not lies. They must be correct or we not only would not have gone, but if they were proven false, surely all three leaders would resign, wouldn't they.......

Bushbred, I am still an admirer of your knowledgeable posts, not only in this thread, Steve Madden and others of a similar opinion make valid comments, in my opinion, if we are only in Iraq to fly the flag to show we support the USA and the UK, then our token force should be home.

This is only an exercise in supposed mateship, as was Vietnam, we have been extremely lucky so far that we have had no casualties, this position can't last forever, as the USA has found, which is why there is now an anti-war movement in the USA and UK. Can't conservative Governments finf other ways to improve the World Economy, as Bushbred speaks in another thread on the USA-FTA, ABOUT COMMUNIST CHINA, well worth reading, can I take this opportunity of telling Bushbred and others that North Queensland Sugar Farmers were not impressed, and are still angry, and with good reason....

Sorry Steve, You would be wrong on all counts.http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Russia Moved Iraqi WMD
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005
Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon
According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.
"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.
According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.
"While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.
"I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq," stated Shaw.
Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Moscow Paranoid About WMD
Shaw's information also backs allegations by a wide variety of sources of Russia's direct involvement in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. One U.N. bioterrorism expert announced that Russia has been Iraq's "main supplier of the materials and know-how to weaponize anthrax, botulism and smallpox."
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Goldberg cited former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, who stated that Moscow supplied Baghdad with fermentation equipment to produce biotoxins.
According to Spertzel, the Russians on the U.N. inspection team in Iraq were "paranoid" about his efforts to uncover smallpox production.

The primary Iraqi chemical weapons were VX nerve gas and mustard gas, a blistering agent, both obtained from Russia.
According to the book "Russian Military Power," published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents.
More bad news Tomorrow Ssteve, TBC. Part 1

Why the hell would you believe one word printed in The Weekly Standard, another one of that well know backer of the IRAQ war and GW Bush, Murdock, and as with all his publications you have no opinion but Murdocks, I dont know who ALL is but you have to be a complete fool to believe anything that comes out of Murdock and the FOX NEWS in the US, to which Kristol is a I assume a paid hack who spouts what his master tells him.

Coach,

Muslims will never answer a straight question from an infidel. Even their websites just tell you only what they want you to know about Islam. Islam is a little like Alcoholics Anonymous: they will never indulge in discussion because they don't have the answers, or there is no positive answer to your questions.

We shouldn't blame individual Muslims, including FH. They have been brainwashed (like many other non-Muslim religionists). It's very hard for people who have been brought up to believe that the Koran is acutally the word of God - not of men interpreting the 'word' as in the Bible. Muslims in Australia have the facility of being able to think for themselves, and it is only when the majority of them question the Koran and sort fact from fiction will any enlightment come.

There is hope. An easy read showing the individuality of Muslims in Austalia is "Islam in Australia" by Abdullah Saeed. There are also books written by Muslims who think Islam should be brought into the 21st Century.

If you can't get direct answers you have to look for yourself. Dont blame Muslims. Blame Islam.

Why are there 1 Squadron SASR troops currently in Iran?

Why does this obscene government persist in enticing impressionable, sometimes disillusioned, young men (and now the ladies can have a 'go' on the front line in the War on Terror as well) into their military farces -oops forces as prospective cannon fodder?

We see the 'entry requirements' lowered for officer level, the general physical pre-requisites reduced - for what?

For more blood & guts to be spilled in the name of a cronies international incorporated wank fest.

I agree Leigh.

Its unsurprising a Muslim is incapable of dealing in a straightforward way with the fearful evil contained in the Quran and Sunnah. It would be humiliating. Spengler explains why http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FD27Ak01.html

(Compare Christs ultimate humiliation on the Cross with Islam where political domination is proof of the faith)

Eg. al-Tabari d. 315 years after Mohammed quoted from Ibn Ishaq who wrote the only narrative of Mohammed's life available records Mohammed's admission that "I have fabricated things against Allah and have imputed to him words which he has not spoken". Also al-Tabari records "Satan cast a false revelation on the Messenger of God's tongue". Mohammed says he was demon possessed. I could go on and on. .

Why is al Tabari important? Quran says to listen and obey M's example, but Q contains barely anything about him. Also the 5 pillars of Islam come from Tabari and the other writers of the Sunnah not the Q)

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

I challenge all who wish to comment on Islamic issues, all who wish to publish articles to read the Q and Sunnah and then post.

This massive ignorance (me included until recently) is tragic.

According to the latest tape from Osama he’s trying to recruit left leaning westerners as a fifth column have a read!

http://jewishworldreview.com/0106/pipes2006_01_24.php3

All,

What j5o6hn said.

How could you believe the propaganda of Murdoch and his cronies? You clearly have no idea of just how close the ties are between the Rebublicans and the Fox News network. You also appear to be unaware that "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was the name given to the war by Fox News when It didn't look like any WMD would be found. But if you want to believe the lies of a govenment and a news corporation, that have so much to gain from the war, Then I fell sorry for you.

The more intelligent conservative posters of this forum would be politely ignoring your Faux News propaganda (while cringing).

The more liberal posters of this forum are laughing their heads off!

Iraqi Freedom?

Why would the US spend over $200 Billion to free a county of people when they have so many problems in their own country?

Don't you find it just a little co-incidental that, out of all the countries they could "liberate", it was the one with lots of oil?

Get your head out of the sand. What kind of a La La land do you live in?

BOAZ,

So basically you condone the world's most powerful leaders lying to the world on such a grand scale and blowing over $236 Billion on a war for profits when that money could have:

- Fully funded global anti-hunger efforts for 9 years;
- Ensured that every child in the world was given basic immunizations for 78 years;
- Fully funded world-wide AIDS programs for 23 years.

The list goes on and on... See http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

I don't know who this God is that you claim to worship but it cirtainly isn't the God I was tought about.

The God I was tought about would detest the actions of the Bush administration. Electoral fraud, nepotism, cronyism, doing absolutely NOTHING for America's poorest 99% of the population and sacrificing their own soldiers for the profits of some of the world's largest corporations...just to name a few.

Yet you conservatives conveniently seem to forget all this.

Regarding the Alliance between radical Islam and the "LEFT" bear in mind that on Feb 9th DEAN MIGHELL of the Electrical Trade Union will be co-speaker at a 'RALLY AGAINST RACISM' in the Brunswick town hall (Melbourne) It seems the brother of one of the accused terror detainees Abdullah Merhi is a shop steward in the ETU and Mighell is a very left operative.

Only the naive and gullable would believe this rally is about 'racism' and the astute and wise will quickly recognize that it is just a means of establishing greater solidarity between the Leftist Union and Arab Australians.

The important question is....WHY ? I invite ASIO to consider this question very seriously.

I'm intrigued by the tenacity of those on the left side of politics in their zeal to condemn 'The Great Satan' of the USA, when in fact they are condemning every country of every time which ever lived -in doing so.

One would think that after all this time, the romantic idealists of the LEFT would have realized that there will never be a socialist Utopia. Perhaps they have faith in their manipulation of the UN.. well most sovereign states who have their brains switched on are treating the UN with the contempt it deserves. (BECAUSE of attempts to manipulate it in the interests of a specific political direction)

Instead of comdemning the war in Iraq, they would be better to vent their spleens in other more achievable directions, like

-destroying Political Correctness, (and focusing on common courtesy)
-Totally reviewing and replacing "Multi Culturalism" with 'A Diverse Culture'.
-Revamping our History education, and
-focusing on the idea of Australian cultural identity.
-Removing debilitating handbooks requiring our emergency services to take each 'customers' religion into account when dealing with them.
-Reviewing Immigration requirements and ensuring would be migrants KNOW our culture b4 coming.

BOAZ,

"I'm intrigued by the tenacity of those on the left side of politics in their zeal to condemn 'The Great Satan' of the USA, when in fact they are condemning every country of every time which ever lived -in doing so."

Not quite. Other countries don't have the wealth or power to inflame international terrorism (for their own selfish, pocket-lining reasons) on the scale that America has.

"One would think that after all this time, the romantic idealists of the LEFT would have realized that there will never be a socialist Utopia."

You are talking about only a VERY small (and loopy) fraction of the Left. That's like me saying "Surely The Right have realised that facism doesn't work." I could argue that Conservatives should have realised by now that war doesn't solve much and there will never be a world-wide Christian Democratic Utopia.

"Instead of comdemning the war in Iraq, they would be better to vent their spleens in other more achievable directions, like

-destroying Political Correctness, (and focusing on common courtesy)
-Totally reviewing and replacing "Multi Culturalism" with 'A Diverse Culture'.
-Revamping our History education, and
-focusing on the idea of Australian cultural identity.
etc, etc..."

Because the war in Iraq is the result of a much more frightening, large-scale (Global) problem - A rougue administration lead by neo-conservatives and right-wing extremists who, instead of running the worlds most powerful country, are using it's wealth and military strength for personal gain. Meanwhile their own country is riddled with communities of people living below the poverty line with and when an entire city is destroyed by a hurricane, their own citizens are given less attention then the Iraqis. Yes, Jesus would be proud of Bush. Especially since it was God who told Bush to do all this (or so he claims).

But as for your list of acheivable directions - all good ideas. Anyone who would disagree with this is a "Lefty", they're an idiot.

You clearly have a very sensitive inbuilt social justice detector Mr Man. Do I need to even quote the facts in Islamic countries? Before you post again Mr Man make a detailed study of what goes on inside their borders before you make a show of your outrage against ‘the great Satan’

Truth is a dedication to reality. One doesn’t have to appeal to secret aims and US conspiracies to understand global geo politics. The political goals of Islam are plain for anyone to read in the Quran and accompanying Sunnahs. Muslims are just doing what pious ppl do. Whats the big deal?

I’ve said elsewhere the US can do it better but its not helping things to demonise.

Inflame international terrorism? Terrorism is a religiously sanctioned maneuver in Islam. Good Muslims who are dedicated to living out their scriptures will take to it like a duck to water.

In the left’s dismissal of religion, in their moral vacuity they work from premises that are maddeningly unreal. What do I mean? How arrogant is it to not even bother to understand the religion of the people they say are being so cruelly colonized by the US. They don’t care about Muslims, if they did they would wonder about Islam, all they care about is the seeming rightness of their own feelings.

The philosophical ground of many lefties is bankrupt. They can’t see any reason, any transcendent reason why we ought to live. The universe has no meaning, truth is relative, morality is a construct, marriage is a malleable social contract or whatever. Islam sees this and is encouraged. Ours is a septic culture where these things rule, as it does in Europe which can’t be bothered to continue existing.

'Why Europe chooses extinction'
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_page/ED08Aa01.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FL07Aa01.html

Instead of this sick anti Americanism and sanctimonious critique of their global politics how about understanding a little bit of Islam, if we care so much about Muslims. The motivations of an entire region might be illuminated. Or try and understand evangelical Texans (who in large numbers do missionary work around the world).

The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were the nerve agent "VX" and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I."
Russian Chemical Weapons in Iraq
Iraq did most of its WMD killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers. In addition, Saddam used French-made artillery and helicopters to dump gas on Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds.
Iraq obtained Russian delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian-made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets were armed with Warsaw Pact-designed bombs filled with chemical weapons. Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war.
Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf War, but they were detected and destroyed on the ground before they could launch a deadly chemical attack.
Other Russian weapons found with chemical weapons include the FROG-7 missile, 122 mm rockets, 152 mm artillery and the M-1937 82 mm mortars. All the Iraqi artillery missiles, rockets, shells and mortar rounds filled with chemical weapons are of Russian design.
Iraqi forces were trained by Russians in the use of chemical weapons and equipped by Russia with anti-chemical suits. The Iraqi armed forces were trained, equipped and supplied with the proper logistics to perform chemical warfare by Russia.

There is a lot more, but by the looks of it, some are having spasmodic psychotic moment and can not handle it.
It is more frightening to realize there are people with such vivid Imaginations, and display in the open such pathological hatred of the very society they live. That is not good.

I always hear this Iraq war for oil crap. Would it have been easier to make a deal with Saddam, lift the embargos and get oil flowing again. Cheaper, no 2000 US dead.

With approx 100 billion barrels of reserves and price at $20/barrel (pre war) that is only 200 billion dollars. Something says to me a war is risky just for the oil?? especially if it was going to cost a fair portion of that oil production?

Again if oil was the driver why not just get Saddam "on side"?

I wouldn't take too much heart from the demise of the US.Sure the Bush adminstration haven't a clue but you don't right off their entire nation on the basis of a few idiots.

Who will take their place as the world's policeman,China,Japan, Iran or North Korea?Imagine the new world order whereby Japan could unilaterally wipe out all the whales and continue what they started in WW2.China censor the internet with the help of Google and still stifle free speech.Who would stop their enormous armies?

The US has a lot of foibles,but the last thing we need to encourage is their demise,until such time that we see a more democratic world.

The US bashers need to have a reality check.

Recall comment - recall coment - stupid stupid. 2000 billion.
It was late.....
DOh!

Martin Ibn Warriq,

Your 'evangelican Texan Missionaries' is the source of all evil.
Islamist terrorism ideology is promoted all over the web by those bastards to brand all Muslims as the same or at least imply that an average Muslim can easily become a terrorist.

Most material published you refer to is by your 'do-evil' missionaries in Africa and Asia. Even if they see Islam as their competitor or an alternative story of Jesus, they should act responsibly.

Have a look at a related topic I published on my blogspot:
www.musliminsight.blogspot.com

Peace,

Martin, your Spengler of course leads to a Catholic website.
http://tcrnews2.com/

You are obsessed that the Catholics will be outbred by the Muslims, you really are, so of course is the Vatican.

If Europe had 30% less people, it would probably be a good thing. The place is overcrowded now, which is what most Europeans realise.

World populaton is still increasing at 80 million a year so its not as if humanity is headed for extinction. In fact rather then head for 10 billion people, as we are doing, things would be far more sustainable with only say 3 billion. But of course the Catholic Church is more obsessed with its own surivival, rather then what is good for the planet long term.

in comparing islam and christianity it might help to concentrate on a few issues.

a martyr in islam is someone who dies whilst killing to defend thier faith. A martyr in christianity is someone who dies whilst defending their faith by refusing to give it up and always in a peaceful way.

Islam means submission (slavery), and this is what it asks of all it adherants. christianity asks its adherants to be partners, that is why we do not follow some law from a society hundreds or thousands of years ago.

I would be interested to understand how even a christian community as radical (in its literalist interpretation of the bible) can be called evil, when compared with a whole religion that espouses world domination as an essential element.

Look at the lives of Christ and mohammad, one is totally peaceful, the other is little more than a plagerising war leader!

"I would be interested to understand how even a christian community as radical (in its literalist interpretation of the bible) can be called evil, when compared with a whole religion that espouses world domination as an essential element."

Fide, you forget of course that the "Jesus loves you story", is a relatively new emphasis in Christianity. Read your history and your bible. The old testament, part of your holy book, is extremely violent, babies were slaughtered, women raped, nobody said boo, even God agreed.

History shows that the Catholics were fairly violent too. Heretics were burned at the stake, so were witches and anyone else that upset the church. Look at the violence in South America, as the Spanish converted the locals to Xtianity by force.

Even today, the Catholic Church tries to influence and force its agenda on people, where it can. Look at Chile or the Philipines. Look at Ireland, before people rebeled.

So Jesus loves you is a quaint slogan, but it does not represent the history of the Catholic/Christian Church.

Fide Mae,

In all my postings I distinguished between religion and its followers. I see a lot of misrepresentation and twisting of Islamic teachings by liars who claim to follow Christianity (enough to compare a meaning translation of the Quran with their translation) and they dare to wear the religious robe and claim to be men of truth!

As a Muslim, I have to believe in all Holybooks and all prophets are equal. Islam is about the commandments and doing good, no more no less. Muslims should respect and treat well people of other religions especially the ‘people of the book’ ie Christians and Jews.

That’s all. Comparing religions is a luxury you can afford but I can’t.

Peace and good week end.

FH, you say:

>>As a Muslim, I have to believe in all Holybooks and all prophets are equal. Islam is about the commandments and doing good, no more no less. Muslims should respect and treat well people of other religions especially the ‘people of the book’ ie Christians and Jews.
That’s all. Comparing religions is a luxury you can afford but I can’t.<<

1. You believe in all holy books but not in their contents (you don’t read them). If you did you will know how your religion is alien to the other revelations of the true God and His prophets.

2. All prophets are not equal. Mohamed is a self proclaimed prophet not announced in any other holy book. Jesus is not just a prophet – he is the messiah the son of God. It says so in the bible. Which book is right?

3. You mention the commandments – where are they mentioned in your book? Or is ‘doing good’ the same thing for you as having the 10 commandments that Moses received from God?

4. Speaking of Moses – how come in all the (27?) times that the exodus from Egypt story is repeated in the Qur’an NOT ONCE was the Passover mentioned? WHY? (I have the answer but do you?)

5. Muslims ‘should’ respect people of other religions… So why do they destroy monuments and temples that belong to other religions?

6. Comparing religions is not a luxury – a luxury is for you to enjoy and practice your own religion in freedom and democracy. I can’t say it is reciprocated in any other true Islamic country. What is your opinion on that?

dear mr All
you use Deroy Murdock's website "husseinandterror" as a reference for the connection of Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.........Murdock's "undeniable evidence" is based on the 2003 US court case presided over by Baer........the finding of "albeit barely" hearsay evidence based on the "beliefs" of an ex-CIA director and a "expert" from the right-wing Republican "think-tank" the American Enterprise Institute (yes the one with Lynne CHENEY as senior fellow), and the Feb 2003 UN speech to the UN by Colin Powell..yes that one.........
mate, if you want to be taken seriously, try harder

Interestingly a book launch has just occured where the second in command of the Iraq air force before the war, claims in the book "Saddams Secrets" that the WMD were airlifted out of Iraq to Syria using gutted passenger air liners? Anyone heard that? Can anyone confirm?

Also a report I remember seeing that in the trolling through the millions of documents collected after the war that Iraq had terrorist camps set up. Again anyone heard that. It was a recent development?

Ta.

Did someone mention WMD?

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says
By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
January 26, 2006

[...]

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

[...]

His book contains a foreword by a retired U.S. Air Force colonel, David Eberly, who was a prisoner of war in Iraq during the first Gulf War and who vouches for Mr. Sada, who once held him captive, as "an honest and honorable man."

[...]

Said Mr. Law, "This is not a publicity hound. This is a man who wants peace putting his family on the line."

[...]

He thanked the American troops. "They liberated the country and the nation. It is a liberation force. They did a great job," he said. "We have been freed."

He said he had not shared his story until now with any American officials. "I kept everything secret in my heart," he said. But he is scheduled to meet next week in Washington with Senators Sessions and Inhofe, Republicans of, respectively, Alabama and Oklahoma. Both are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The book also says that on the eve of the first Gulf War, Saddam was planning to use his air force to launch a chemical weapons attack on Israel.

Read it all:

http://www.nysun.com/article/26514?page_no=1&access=581297

Yabby, your ignorance is truly astounding.

why do you think that luther called one of his cheif reformation papers, 'the babylonian captivity of the church'? Cos the kings of europe had taken it over for thier own uses.

As a history student I find your post as little more than the usual skimming of history prevelant in most of post-modernity. Thank God that the PM is taking this matter in hand. Perhaps if you had been taught history in a meaningful way you wouldn't be so lacking in intelectual worth?

And what does the church have to do with Christ anyhow, it is a body of sinners, imperfect in every way. Why would they adequately represent Christ. Try reading the NT and then understanding the place of the old in Christian theology. The OT is essentially a story of how bad the Israelites were at coming to terms with God, not directly about God's veiws. No I am not a literalist, as you need to be to see Christianity as a bad thing.

Get over yourself and tell me why I would ever consider taking your opinion over that of a billion and more people? And that is just at this point in time. I pray to God that your children won't be brought up in the education system that has obviously failed you!

"And what does the church have to do with Christ anyhow, it is a body of sinners, imperfect in every way."

Umm Fide, you forget that your Jesus built his rock of a church on the Catholics, like it or not, they "are" the original xtian church.

"The OT is essentially a story of how bad the Israelites were at coming to terms with God, not directly about God's veiws."

The OT is about a violent, unreasonable, irrational god. Now if its not gods word, then its just human opinions, so its not worth the paper its written on, so why include it in a holy book?

"Get over yourself and tell me why I would ever consider taking your opinion over that of a billion and more people?"

There are about 1.2 billion muslims. Do you consider their word?
IMHO religion is the biggest con that ever existed, for very good reasons related to how the human mind evolved. It makes people fear, gives them hope, lets them deal with their own mortality, kids them that the worms won't really eat them after all, that does not mean its true. Religion balances your brain chemistry, so what is true does not really matter. What matters is that it makes you feel better. Fair enough.

" I pray to God that your children won't be brought up in the education system that has obviously failed you!"

Well you had better blame that on the nuns and then on the Baptists!
They both tried to brainwash me, but later in life I learned the power of reason.

Yabby, "the OT is about a violent..."
try reading "Genesis; the story we haven't heard" by paul borgman (2001), might change your small mind.

I think you will find St. Peter was a Jewish Christian, hardly catholic, although they do claim him as one (only someone as gullible as you would accept this at face value though). What is your reason for suggesting he was catholic, just the sayings of catholics years later?

But I am willing to play at your game and on your terms (reason alone), where did the energy for the big bang come from? Or do you just accept the sayings of scientists in a similar faith-like (although idolotrous) way to a Christian's faith in Christ? did nothingness just suddenly have a whole lot of energy for no reason? How could scientists ever find this out, as the energy must have been given before there was time or a universe, which followed the explosion of the energy? Can you even understand what I am saying, or will you just fob me off? What do you actually believe in, or do you just follow the trends?

"try reading "Genesis; the story we haven't heard" by paul borgman"

Perhaps Fide, its just easier to read the bible itself, to see how violent it is.

"I think you will find St. Peter was a Jewish Christian, hardly catholic" Well there ya go Fide, a billion Catholics claim he was their first pope. I told you not to trust the masses :)

"where did the energy for the
big bang come from?"

Where did God come from? If you can get your mind around the fact that he was always here, you can get your mind around the fact that perhaps energy always existed, that there have been a number of big bangs.

What I know is that there is a 95% certainty that you are a Xtian, as you were born in a Xtian country. Had you been born in Iraq, most likely you would be a Muslim, in India and you would be a Hindu.

What I believe is that I am agnostic. As there is no substantiated evidence to prove anything, no 10 commandments written on the moon for all to see, just human claims, I am wise enough to withhold judgement and spend time understanding those things which we do have imformation on and can understand, not run off and make rash claims.

I also know that throughout the history of humanity, people have worshipped whatever gods to reduce anxiety and feel better, hundreds of gods, many so called holy books. I am just not that gullible.

Coach,

Your points with comments:

Point 1:
We believe in all Holy books (I studied the VanDyk Arabic bible through the Bible society). The only ‘out of norm’ teachings as you claim is the Trinity.

Point 2:
In Islam all prophets are equal, that what the Quran teaches (Part II).

Point 3:

The commandments are mentioned across II & III. The Quran confirms the believe in one God, prophets & messengers, honour your parents, and confirms whats in the Torah and the Bible.

Point 4:

Not sure what you mean but in line, why the Quran and the Torah have an additional miracle of Jesus PBUH that isn’t in the Bible? (talking when he was a new born). The Quran have only one version that was written during the life of the prophet. Prophets stories in the Quran are moral and some are comprehensive, I tend to disregard any discrepancies with the Quran (like striking the first born in Egypt for example)

Point 5 & 6:

Muslims respect other religions and their respective Holy places. Churches (& synagogues) in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and many other majority Muslims countries are well looked after and have been for centuries. That’s our teachings.

Peace,

Yabby. "Where did God come from? If you can get your mind around the fact that he was always here, you can get your mind around the fact that perhaps energy always existed, that there have been a number of big bangs".

Oh sorry, I thought you believed in reasoned understanding of the world, not just blind faith, and imaginings. For your information, philosophers of science reject your answer.

The reason I suggested the book by borgmann was that presumably you neither read hebrew, nor have the time to learn how. Perhaps you could at least look into all that is lost in translation. A studied look at the old testament would be able to give you a similar understanding, if you were willing to read three or four translations, comparing each line.

Given that you clearly are not interested in addressing other peoples veiws, but simply wish to state your own, I think there is little to be gained from further discussion. I think it would be wise, however, to come to terms with the fact that all science is just as based on faith as is religion. just asking the believer to believe in different things. too see this tell me why the sun will 'come up' tomorrow, (this is a standard philosophy of science eg, not some crackpot intelligent design thing), is it because it always has before? thats not very reasonable. Is it because of the laws of gravity, velocity etc? then why should we assume these 'laws' will be valid tomorrow? If you read into philosophy of science (as you may be more inclined to do than my religious suggestion), you will find that there is no certain knowledge, all knowledge is based on faith in assumptions.

I would appreciate it if you would not slander religious thinkers for their faith, given you don't even recognise that your beliefs are based on just as much faith.

"I would appreciate it if you would not slander religious thinkers for their faith, given you don't even recognise that your beliefs are based on just as much faith. "

Actually thats not so. As an agnostic, I am the only one taking an honest position, saying " I know that I don't know" . Wheras you claim to know, big difference!

Now reading all sorts of things into some obscure holy books, which are full of mistakes, then claiming that anyone should take any notice, is plainly ridiculous! Have faith all you want, satisfy your emotional needs, your fear of death or anything else that religion gives you, but don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously or to live by the rules of that religion.

so lets get this straight, you are a religious agnostic (you don't know) yet you are willing to slander people who are religious. you are a scientific agnostic, yet you use scientific arguments in your posts.

So lets assume you are agnostic about everything (as you would need to be, as to not to have faith in anything is to refuse to believe anything). So how do you get to work. Lets say you drive, how do you know that the green light at the traffic lights means go. It always has before? So what it could have changed, and lets not forget you are agnostic, so you cannot know that the light being green means go. So why do you go when the light is green? I know, its because everyone else does, you are a sheep. Seeing as though agnosticism is so popular, this sheep like behavior shows why you are agnostic.

I would much prefer to be part of a protest movement than a simple sheep, a sheep who abuses others for holding beliefs and thinks one can get away with it because you have no beliefs and are just following the agnostic (or atheist) crowd.

Enjoy the pastures, lost cause.

Fide - if you want to reply to Yabby and use up your post quota be aware others have had a run in with him. They have learned their lesson.

Yabby seems immune to the rules of argument, he doesn't know when he has been shown to be wrong.

I think he believes argument is something like hammering a nail until you feel better, rather than two people who need each other to get to the truth.

I don't know - Yabby why don't you prove me wrong.

Martin, all Yabby has done is be honest - ie he doesn't know if God exists. It is not slanderous to question something to discover more about it. Stating his views is not slanderous.

I really find your attitude lacking in courtesy and, as such, revealing a narrow mind.

The whole point of this forum is the airing of different opinions. If we all agreed this website wouldn't even exist.

Do you have an opinion on the "war on terror" or not?

I believe it is about oil - terrorism has always been with us and the phrase is merely rhetoric, rather than truth.

Fide, you misunderstand science. In science all knowledge is tentative. Yup, there are also lots of things that we don't know, but we know a hell of a lot more then we used to. So when we don't know, the honest position is to wait for more data, before we make an informed decision.

Religions can show no substantiated evidence for their claims. Yet it is the religious who constantly try to impose their values on me and interfere with mine and other peoples freedoms. That makes some religions political and therefore open to criticism, no different to any other political party. Now take note of the loudest and most shrill critics on OLO. Its usually Christians abusing Muslims!

So I will continue to point out the many flaws of Chrisianity, just as the Xtians find fault with the Muslims. The problem really comes down to tolerance. I am intolerant of the intolerant.

I have absolutaly no respect for what you believe, I think its gobblygook, I think you have been hoodwinked. But I respect your right to believe it, but not to impose it on me, as the religious constantly do.

Now if you read one of Martin's heroes, Alan Keyes, religion is tied up with power and power cannot be relied on to respect wisdom. That may be true, but ultimately wisdom will win against power, sometimes it just takes a while.

Scout thanks for sticking up for me, but I have a pretty thick skin :) For I know that when people attack me personally, they are becoming emotional, so are not thinking that clearly, so have lost the argument... Thanks anyhow.

Martin, truth be told I am not really writing to Yabby, but to anyone who cares to see how ridiculous the agnostic position is. I can very well see that Yabby cares little about the conventions of dialogue etc.

scout
"Martin, all Yabby has done is be honest - ie he doesn't know if God exists. It is not slanderous to question something to discover more about it. Stating his views is not slanderous."

Yabby says "Have faith all you want, satisfy your emotional needs, your fear of death or anything else that religion gives you, but don't expect the rest of us to take you seriously or to live by the rules of that religion." here we see yabby smearing all religious people as irrational.

"hundreds of gods, many so called holy books. I am just not that gullible." implying that there is no rational basis in any religion

"religion is the biggest con that ever existed" implying that religious people are stupid for believing

"The OT is about a violent, unreasonable, irrational god." This is slandering the God of the Old Testament.

The continual implication that religious people are of necessity irrational and gullible is most definitely slanderous. In many of Yabby's other posts he contends that because some christians have acted badly all christians are evil. One wonders if Yabby is this condemning of all similar situations, such as all whites are evil because of the actions of a few in a long gone generation?

C'mon Yabby, give up on this tentative agnosticism business and embrace atheism. You've had enough time to come to terms with the absurdity of God and the vacuity of his followers. Go towards the light!

"I can very well see that Yabby cares little about the conventions of dialogue etc."

Well Fide, the Viet Cong didn't know the rules and look what happened to them :)

"here we see
yabby smearing all religious people as irrational."

Well Fide, I have had a few of these debates before and in the end its been religious people who have told me that religion is not about the rational, they claim it goes beyond the rational and boils down to having faith. If religion was rational, then any fault in their holy book, would mean that either their God was full of faults or their holy book is not so holy. So which is it?

"religion is the biggest con that ever existed" implying that religious people
are stupid for believing"

Even the intelligent are conned sometimes.

"The OT is about a violent, unreasonable, irrational god." This is slandering
the God of the Old Testament."

Read the old Testament and honestly tell me that this is a loving caring god, not one who kills babies or who kills people for wasting sperms etc. Was he violent? Yes. Was he unreasonable? Yes.
The truth is not slander Fide.

My continual point is that Christians are much like Muslims. Both want to impose their beliefs on us, neither has substantiated evidence for their claims, both rely on faith for their ultimate reason for believing. Why can't they leave the rest of us alone?

I asked a question about the topic, about the war on terror, not about the existence or not of god. Still waiting for a response from our fundie christian contingent.

Yabby, agree we have as much to fear from the neo-con fundie christian as we do from islam. All our retinue of fundie christian posters have achieved is reveal how intolerant, discourteous and narrow minded they are.

BTW - I added my-two-cents worth not so much to stick up for you, Yabby m'dear, but felt a further voice was needed. Fortunately not all Christians are as blinkered as Martin, Fide, coach et al. Some of my best friends.....

Has the world woken up to the war on terror?
Has the world woken up to the terror of dogma?

Know that you don’t know?? That’s a position with respect to knowledge you foolish man. You have to stand somewhere. You say yours is the superior place. How do you know? Do you have an elevated postion from which to see other epistemologies?

If you would read and learn rather than be a pest then you might help Australia. I enjoy discussions about ultimate questions, I respect people who seem to want to find things out. I was an atheist myself once.

For the last time:

Science is about an accumulation of facts and the theories it generates are considered tentative. When scientists go beyond the facts into an interpretation of what ultimately stands behind them they are no longer scientists but metaphysicians. When their metaphysic colours their science they are ideologues.

“the only valid knowledge is the scientific kind” cannot be proved in any scientific way. It has to be a starting dogma.

This has been made clear to you. But instead of understanding your own beliefs as tentative and dogma laden, we go round in circles with you about faith=superstition/irrationality and skepticism=reason/normalcy.

Enough.

Scout I’ve had enough of you also. Show you know anything about theology. Show us that you know anything about dogma. I think the Desiderata is as far as you’ve gone. Find anything I have said that is wrong and we’ll discuss it. Like I’ve said before. I’d much rather be proved wrong than be called names.

Stop behaving like a moonbat – thinks they know everything about a subject. Can’t give evidence for anything they say. Resorts to ad hominem rather than good arguments.

"You say yours is the superior place. How do you know?"

By my ability to reason Martin, you clearly havent thought about it too hard.
The atheist cannot prove no god exists, as you cannot prove a negative.
The religious have no substantiated evidence for their claims either.
So they don't know, they guess, they hope, they have faith, but they don't know.
So the perfectly logical philosophy, as opposed to dogma, is to be agnostic. To
know that you don't know.

"If you would read and learn" Umm Martin I most likely read and learn far more
then you do. Why don't you expand the fields about what you read, rather then
being bogged down with a fear of a muslim takeover. Learn about primatology and
neuroscience for instance, if you really want to understand people.

"When scientists go beyond the facts into an interpretation " You have no need
to believe anything, they interpret, just stick to facts. Science is a process
to provide you with substantiated evidence. Thats all we need from science.

"we go round in circles with you about
faith=superstition/irrationality and skepticism=reason/normalcy."

No Martin, the real problem is that you won't think outside the tiny square of
your mindset. I read 55 pages of one of your links. What did Keyes come down
to? He likes a god as an idea, its good for peoples dignity, its good for
creating armies, its good for power. Nothing about any of it being true.

Yabby,

Excuse me from budging in but I think the argument with Martin is going no where fast.

There is no way under the sun that you and your atheist friends will begin to understand what we are talking about because of your lack of a very important ingredient: the spirit of God.

You are coming from a humanistic pseudo-intellectual corner trying to persuade someone with the Holy Spirit residing in them. Very much like a child with plastic tools truly believing that he/she can fix dad’s car.

Unfortunately and with all due respect Martin is falling for it – like many of us do so often here and in everyday life… we forget that non-christians cannot philosophise, scientifise, rationalise, etc. their way around a truth they have no affinity with.

As for the concept of TRUTH – that is another area that has lost its significance. Nothing for you is as simple as true or false in the mighty name of relativism. “Truth is whatever is true to you as long as you don’t impose your truth on me…kind of thing.”

Why do you bother so much about religious matters when you refuse to play by the rules? You dislike religious dogmas, Scout is fearful of them – just stay out and you won’t get hurt (I pray)

You are absolutely wrong that all religions are the same – that is again an area of high contempt that you and your friends better stay out of. Let the people who can discuss these matters have the final word here.

Agnosticism is an epistemological position. You claim it is the logical philosophy yet an agnostic has to begin with the dogma “it is more reasonable when faced with conflicting information to withhold commitment”. Bloody primatology and neuroscience can't prove agnosticism.

Commitment is freeing. Life isn’t meant to be one long committee meeting, the intellect like the mouth prefers to close around something solid. Your philosophy is not self evident it rests on a dogma, every other philosophy is not self evidently wrong. You caricature arguments for Christianity as fideism, but have no understanding of the basis of your own beliefs.

Show me a ‘scientifically substantiated’ fact that supports agnosticism. Yet you attack Christians for not providing you with 'scientific' facts.

You can’t go from science; from raw facts to a philosophy about what created the facts in the first place. You have no notion of the difference between empirical science and philosophy. Read and understand.

You say you use your reason - fantastic ! Why is that though when people use it to devastate your arguments it has no effect on you?

The ‘tiny mindset’ I’ve worked hard to establish has lead me through science and arts degrees in among other things neurobiology and pharmacology as it happens. I’m employed in these fields.

To you anyone who undertakes serious analysis of Muslim disaffection is held guilty of Islamophobia, when a cheerful ignorance of Islam have long been characteristic of the West.

What is truth if not something that works in the world? Wouldn’t belief in God, if God is real, have positive effects on social relations and human dignity. Isn’t something true when it leads to the flourishing of human life? How dare you make him out to be some kind of faithless conservative.

Monkeys can read Yobby they just don’t understand what they read.

You’re behaviour is a menace. This is the last time I’m responding to you. Unless you decide to start contributing.

"an agnostic has to begin with the dogma "it is more reasonable
when faced with conflicting information to withhold commitment"."

Thats not dogma Martin, thats common sense. Anything else is jumping to
conclusions. I use the term as Huxley used it when he coined the term,
stating that the religious should provide some evidence for their claims, not
just claim to know.

" Commitment is freeing. the
intellect like the mouth prefers to close around something solid."

To put it another way, belief can help the brains chemistry to achieve
homeostasis or balance, to quell anxiety etc. Yup. That makes you feel better.
Thats less about intellect, more about emotional circuits and subconcious brain
activity.

"Yet you
attack Christians for not providing you with 'scientific' facts."

Well its you making the claim for god, making all sorts of claims, then using
politics to affect our lives, based on those claims. So provide evidence.
I don't attack Hare Krishnas or Buddhists, they don't try to change the rules by
which I am forced to live. If religion turns political, as the Catholic Church
does, then it is open to ricidule and criticism, as is any political party. Any
court of law relies on evidence to make decisons. So provide
evidence.

I am fully aware of what Islam is about. I just think that Christianity is not
much better, there are other solutions for society, based on our ability to
reason. So I point out Christianity's foibles :)

"Wouldn't belief in God,
if God is real, have positive effects on social relations and human dignity."

There are better ways to affect social relations and human dignity, then
religious addiction. The problem with religion, is that it can't show that God
is real, except for them, in their minds. No 10 commandments written on the
moon etc, so far just power for the clergy.

" Isn't
something true when it leads to the flourishing of human life?"

Mass delusion can lead to a flourishing of human life, that does not
mean that what is claimed is true.

Martin and Coach,

Coach wrote on Agnostics "we forget that non-Christians cannot philosophise, scientifise, rationalise, etc. their way around a truth they have no affinity with.”

I don’t think affinity is a precondition to think ontologically about belief. Remember billions of humans have lived for thousands of years across the world without the Christian god but still developed a sense of their own religious transcendentalism. Agnosticism is not anti-Christian or a self fulfilling nihilism. This I assume must be very hard for Christians to comprehend.

I personally respect that you have belief in your God and can see that this belief is good for you and others. I do believe in a god like entity or spirit but not the one you guys know so well from your bible and the ways you were taught to believe and proselytise.

So this juncture between belief and action is interesting to me.

For example, the philosopher Friedrick Nietzsche once insististed that with the decay of organised religion (the "death of God") will require us to responsibility for setting its own moral standards.

Bearing this in mind, does taking a Christian epistemological position incur a responsibility to taking a diametrically oppositional stance to Islam, Buddhism, and other non-Christians and is this a symptom that relates to the death of your god? (ontologically speaking)

With respect, I’ve always wanted to get one answer to this to mull over.

Looking forward to your responses

Well, if some want to maintain any credibility, they better find out who “Salman Pak” was and his slot in the Islamic cake, considering he was Persian and not an Arab.
That’s why this name forms part of the secret Islamic buisiness. Some truths not post modern fantasy.
Some have been beyond medication stage and for some for some time, Mr. Man, Steve M and a hand full of others, but see how you go with this link.
In advanced Attila warfare I would opt for the real intelligence and not your medicated state of mind thank you very much.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

Ranier,
Congratulations, I can help.
With Philosophers, it is imperative you have an understanding of their Biography that gives you a better understanding of the Psyche of their perspectives.
F N in child hood was a very happy lad, until his father died suddenly, the onset of Post Traumatic Stress set in and developed worse later in age. At 19 years of age, an ill fated sexual encounter with a loose woman, he contracted syphilis. Realize the connotations of that and sanity later in life.
His Philosophical Perspective was Zarathustra spoke through him.
See this link: PDF.
http://www.solargeneral.com/library/ThusSpakeZarathustra.pdf
That is the link for Religion and Aryan. (Iran) and the beginnings of the first Prophet Zarathustra and Monotheism. Something Akhenaton could not sustain and achieve after his reign. Egyptian Pharaoh.
See Professor Revlo P Oliver History of Christianity here.
http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/RPO_NewChrist/toc_ol.htm

There are some floors, but the perspective is there.
You to Steve M and Mr Man, you will love this: Right up your ally.

Rainier,

I must repeat my point on TRUTH: if something is right it cannot also be wrong. E.g. the sun is “hot” cannot also mean “cold”. There are degrees of hotness but the fact (truth) is the sun is hot.

If the universe we live in was designed and created by “God” therefore all the evidence- physical, spiritual, biological…- must follow their maker and originator (a bit like the chicken and the egg) and point back to Him.

To the Israelites the progressive revelation of God through historical, physical, spiritual, prophetic,… facts and events transformed what could have been a chain of haphazard coincidences into a beyond doubt “conviction” that defies any scrutiny. That God is: Truth. (like the sun is hot or the earth is spherical).

Christianity is just the last chapter in the series of progressive revelations.

Nothing has proven christianity wrong, though many critics have tried and will continue to try to no avail, WHY? Because it is TRUTH, it always points back to God... supported by countless proofs and witnesses over many centuries.

Other beliefs, religions … no matter how sincere, scientific, ancient, or how many followers they may have; co-exist with “the truth” but they cannot claim to be true also; they simply fade away in comparison. In other words they are sincerely wrong and have been wrong for however long, and will continue to be wrong.

Today, there is no excuse to hang on to those beliefs because the truth has been revealed.

This is not an elitist self indulgent stance – even though it has all the making of being one – it is purely that light cannot co-exist with darkness.

Today it would be ridiculous to have people arguing that the earth is still flat.

Similarly to say: who needs God when we control life anyway... is equivalent to saying who needs the sun when it is day time anyway?

I am no philosopher, theologian, anthropologist, nor that one needs to be anything like that to have FAITH in ‘the truth’ and TRUST in the God that keeps all His promises.

"Nothing has proven christianity wrong, though many critics have tried and will
continue to try to no avail, WHY? Because it is TRUTH, it always points back to
God... supported by countless proofs and witnesses over many centuries."

Coach, at some point you are going to have to accept that Christianity is not the truth, but your perceived truth, no more.

Fact is, that you can't prove that the tooth fairy or Santa don't exist! Proving a negative is not possible, that does not mean that the claims are true either.

What we do know from holy books is that they are all full of mistakes and contradictions, so were written by people, forget the godly input.

No substantiated evidence either, that Chritianity is right and the other 3000 religions are wrong. You make claims like all the others, none verified.

We also today know that when people walk in the desert and hear voices, perhaps its not actually god, just another case of schizophrenia, which affects about 1% of the population.

The Catholics still have a department dealing with being possessed by "demons". Today we understand epilepsy pretty well.

Luckily science is around to make sense of the world for you :)

Fellow Human,

Do you still check in OLO?

Sorry I did not notice you answered my questions (27/01/06)

Here are my comments:

Point I
You claim to have studied the bible; I find it incredible that all you disagree with is the doctrine of the trinity (and the sonship of Jesus).

TRINITY

The concept of ‘shirk’ in islam is misleading because it assumes that God is associated with other partners.

The concept of the three in one is best understood as three (or more) natures, disposition, states, forms, … of God.

Water for example can exist in liquid, solid, vapour, and a mixture of all 3. But it is one and the same element.

Surely God the creator of all things seen and unseen can decide to be spirit, body, or anything else. We cannot limit God to our own human understanding.

REDEMPTION

It is also amazing that you could have missed the “meat” of the bible i.e. God’s message to humanity.

You see all other world religions are man trying to reach out to a god.

Judeo-Christianity is the ONLY concept where God reached down to man. Incredible but true.

And God (contrary to Allah) does not change his mind.

Point 2 – Therefore Jesus is more than a prophet. He is unique as confirmed in the Qur’an.

That fact alone should make you think and question the validity of the scriptures as the word of God - instead of just relying on your interpreted version of it.

Point 4 – The PASSOVER is a Jewish celebration with a particular significance in the scriptures… it points to salvation by way of the death of the Lamb of God, Easter, the curse of the anti-Christ, the son of God, etc…

By omitting this (and other) notion in your holy book, redemption is so conveniently “by-passed “ reducing Jesus to just a mere prophet.

If "salvation" is by rituals alone - Jesus' death on the cross - (another FACT nicely wiped out in the Qur'an) was a waste of time and a gross error on God's part.

Coach,

I answered your questions to me out of courtesy. I can't engage in philosophical debates on religion for I might hurt 'my Jesus'.

I am watching your interaction with Aziliz though!.

Peace,

Thanks Coach for your explanations.

Your wrote (amongst other points of view) that "This is not an elitist self indulgent stance – even though it has all the making of being one – it is purely that light cannot co-exist with darkness".

I understand that this is not elitist (and how you come to this truth). My question is not so much about your belief in this truth (which is plainly evident) but in its ability to embrace those who do not believe in your truth.

I heard this great explanation about the Christian god on ABC radio by Sister Joan Chittister.

Read her lecture: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/spirit/stories/s1288761.htm

I don't know what kind of Church she exists in, maybe the cloistered Abbey doesn't get much contact from the outside world. If this is the case then all those things she spoke about are beneficial to her.

Who disagrees that if ritual doesn't help the spirit to come then it is empty.

Who disagrees that an emphasis on sin and judgment is a lopsided view of the Gospels?

Who disagrees that it is personal encounter with God, "taste and see the goodness of the Lord",sensual experience, that is religion not just thinking about Him.

Who disagrees that everyone has been given a little of God's rationality? Such that when we reason about things we discover things, and this need not be strictly theology but every kind of subject.

The Sister gets close to pandering to the common murmur of "i don't believe in organised religion". She forgets to mention it is the structures of the Church that enabled her to live out her vocation int he first place. If no one went to church there wouldn't be one in 30 years.

Is that what Sister wants?

What is really needed today is someone who reminds us of the value of the institutional church. The education, sacraments, teaching, community outreach, worship. Its impossible to be Christian without a community. We're like coals taken out of the fire.

The institutional Church is the trellis that supports the vine. Sister seems to be making the common error of ppl who have reached heights in life. "All those rules and regulations about climbing properly. Its not about climbing its about the view - we forget about the view from up here. Forget the fitness and exercise. Look at this view everyone!"