Bushbred

Are you senile or just not very bright?

I think it’s probably the former. I already mentioned in my previous post that the war in Iraq is not a war against Sunnis, as you have so simplistically suggested. Therefore the fact that the Americans turned their weapons on Shia insurgents is no great news to me, nor should it be to anyone else.

Maliki is now fighting the Shia gangs, like the Sadrists, many of whom have Iranian weaponry and support. Seems they have managed to turn the once rather secular Basra into a mini Iran where women are being murdered for having the temerity to work or wear their own clothing.

So I haven’t ignored your “NEWS” that the US had a run in with the Shia. It just isn’t news at all. It would only be NEWS to those who were stupid enough to imagine that the US had gone to Iraq to make war on the Sunnis.

It is absolute nonsense that Israel’s nukes multiply Arab hatred. The Arab’s mostly hate the fact that they can’t ethnically cleanse the Middle East of Jews. Their absolute defeat in three wars, all started by Arab nations, has also dented Arab pride. Finally, the fact that Israel has not succumbed to the European notions of first world guilt and refuses to deal with Hamas, an organization not only committed on paper to Israel’s complete destruction but actively seeking it out daily, marks them as a hated enemy.

Israel hasn’t even admitted it has nukes let alone threatened anyone with them. Yet nearby Iran, that home of the maniacal Ahmedinejhad, not only quests for nukes but actually threatens to wipe out Israel. And you think they are just misunderstood. Iran’s meddling in Iraq, including providing the weaponry that kills Sunnis and Kurds every day, puts the lie to the ridiculous suggestion that somehow Iran is not a military threat to anyone. Iran is bent on spreading its hegemony in the Middle East and its military assistance to terrorists, along with its nuclear ambitions are an obvious pointer to that fact.

It is you that needs to wake up, Paull. I am talking as an academic historian who knows history thoroughly right back and before Socrates, which is more factual than religion because it has been tried and tested for instruction in universities.

The line you are taking appears spot on with the preaching of George W Bush, which being based on a so-called global tussle between good and evil, Bush believes he has the right, as one on God's right side, to declare who is evil and who is not, very similar to his so-called evil Moslems in many ways.

As well as his so-called role to rid the world of evil nations as well as their leaders, Bush also along with his neo-cons, has also claimed the 21st Century as America's own.

Both Blair and Howard went along with the above Bush line also, and both have been tossed out virtually by their own
Parties.

I must say I have not much time for the present leader of Iran, either, Paull, but there are many decent people in Iran also. Just as an Iranian woman judge has mentioned, she believes in democracy also, but would prefer it not to be patterned on the American Way.

What worries me so much, Paull, is that if Bush and Cheney manage to get us all backing them along with Israel to attack Iran before Bush goes out, heaven knows where it will turn out?

In fact, to not believe in a term like Sharing the Blame to preserve future peace, Paull, sounds very elitist and arrogant to me.

Gentlemen, please!

bb and Paul, Surely it's unlikely that one side is to blame and one side is innocent.

Paul, Do you agree that some US behaviour has made things worse (even if we allow for the possibility of good, or mixed, intentions)?

bb, While you speak of Sharing, you also speak largely against one side (the US et al). Do you agree that Islam is a problem, and that it would be even if the US were not around?

Like any two polemical adversaries, you would address issues of disagreement more efficiently if you first identified common ground. I don't mean you to wallow on that common ground, just identify it, as that will take some of the heat out of the disagreement. (I'm assuming that you're not disagreeing for the joy of it.)

Pax,

From BB

Excellent question, Good Thief, so much needed.

Yep, reckon without the US and Israel in the Middle East, peace would be a very strong possibility.

As a historian, one is reminded here of the differences between two great German philosophers Hegel and Kant.

While Hegel taught that war's are necessary to open a path for peace, Immanuel Kant taught about a much more peaceful world brought on by a Federation of Nations, not so much in love with one another, but able to fathom things out like sharing ideas rather than going to war.

It was from Kant that our United Nations grew, but so difficult when you have a nation like America believing one very strong nation is needed alone to Rule the Roost, especially when it is free to indulge in regime change on any country it wishes to do so.

Spot on Goodthief... "informed vigilance"...but the focus I've tried to maintain is on the doctrines and practices of "Islam" rather than the somewhat relativistic and moderate behavior of most cultural muslims.

I would hate to think that a person could be so gullable as to embrace a religion which permits what we describe as 'child abuse'.. Of one thing you can be utterly sure- No Imam or Muslim 'evangelist' will tell a propsective convert:

-And your little 5 yr old sister will now be available to the 'Ummah' men as a wife...

-If you convert.. you will face extreme sanctions if you then withdraw (in some cases the death penalty)

-It is your obligation to fight for Islam even in your host non muslim country.

-Domestic violence is permitted in Islam, just don't hit such that bruises occur and don't hit the face.

Aah..but THIS one is a likely candidate for them being fully informed:

"Muslim Jihad will result in captive women with whom you may have sexual relations"

I went to considerable trouble to determine the truth of the 'child abuse' claim and now feel totally confident the claim will stand up in the highest court using Muslim expert witnesses.

In my case, rather than seeking to stir up animosity against Muslims, I'm hoping that 'would be' converts are informed of what they would NOT be informed about by Muslim missionaries.

I've not said "Australian Muslims practice child abuse according to the Quran"... because Australian law would forbid them, but if the law was challenged...changed...?

Regarding the 'danger level'? Practically speaking I'm probably pretty close to Pericles believe it or not, but lets KEEP it that low.

Yes B_D, a list of very scary doctrines, and that’s why I said Islam can get dangerous fairly naturally, without distortion. I hope your readers take note of your final two paras, because they make it clear that your list is not a rant but simply information. I would love to see multiculturalism work. I think it’s a high-risk experiment, but I’m excited about it.

bb, I’m not a student of history or of thought, but I bet Islam missed both Hegel and Kant. I have no doubt that the US has aggravated whatever is going on, but I thought the existence of Israel was problematic even before the US got closely involved. Britain was the original sponsor, wasn’t it?

Whether or not I’m right about that, there seems to be a great deal of Muslim-sourced strife elsewhere than in the Middle East. Places where the US has not been active. I used to think that resolving the spat about Jerusalem would solve it all, but I no longer think that: I think Islam is on a roll.

I see the US as quite enigmatic: powerful (though declining), greedy, belligerent, benevolent, self-righteous, self-opinionated, naïve, clumsy, analtyical, ignorant, smart, unempathic .... Leaving me very ambivalent. My impression is that you have a very one-dimensional view of the US – regarding it as simply evil – which seems at odds with your general approach to issues. Is it possible that this is what has got Paul L so steamed?

Paul L: You ask bb, “Are you senile or just not very bright?”. It’s rare on OLO for one to take another directly to task about the use of intemperate language. I take the liberty now because my impression is that we are both Christians, and I think I have a fraternal obligation to ask you to pause and reflect. That aside, I have found your posts full of useful information: alarming, but that’s not your fault, it’s just alarming information.

Hey runner, where you at? Wondering what you think of my last post to you.

Pax,