C J Morgan

I do not need to read about modern history, I have lived it. Reading modern history is just reading an opinion piece, probably by someone who has rarely left a leafy wealthy enclave. Trouble with sheeply who follow others rather than think for themselves.

bushbasher,
So you think I’m cherry-picking?
The process of determining which verses of the Koran apply and which ones don’t apply,
or “cherry-picking” as you call it,
is the process that Islamists go through to justify their actions.
There can hardly be a more clear-cut example than that of Major Nidal Hasan.
Hasan produced a Power Point presentation which demonstrates this process.
Let me quote from Slide 35 -
“Later verses abrogated former ie: peaceful verses no longer apply”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html
Let me repeat that for you bushbasher:
“(the) peaceful verses no longer apply”.
Says it all really.
These are educated people.
Hasan was a psychiatrist.
Abdulmutallab was an engineering student.
They are also well educated in the Koran.
They are far better educated in the Koran than the millions of peaceful Muslims who don’t carry out such acts.
Insofar as one can describe any adherence to Islam as logical,
Hasan and Abdulmutallab logically followed the dictates of the Koran.
They were not “cherry-picking” select verses.
They were following the clear intent of Koranic injunctions.
And if you still don’t get it bushbasher,
you must be a few minarets short of a mosque.
That would make you welcome in Switzerland, I guess.

stevenlmeyer
The subtlety of your point escapes me.
< In a TRULY free society ANY belief system, ideology or superstition is a LEGITIMATE target for critique, analysis, satire and scorn. This includes ALL religions. >
Is not a burqa a potent symbol of a “belief system, ideology or superstition” (a bit like a minaret really)
and hence “a legitimate target for “critique, analysis, satire and scorn”?
Your stance seems contradictory to me.
Or are you somehow conflating burqa-wearing with abortion under the sacred banner of CHOICE
(a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body)?
Your assertion that a woman CHOOSES to wear a burqa is, of course, tendentious at best
and deserving of a discussion in its own right.

Phillip Tang, you have avoided my questions. Too bad neither you nor HermanYutic is willing to meet my challenge. I think it clearly exposes your prejudice - you like to shout about Islamic violence, but you are not interested in publishing the violence of the US on civilians who happen to be Muslim.

Well, that is clear now anyway. Thanks.

CJ Morgan, Bushbasher, TheMissus, Grateful

Note Kristin's post of Monday, 28 December 2009 3:21:58 PM

If Wikipedia is correct then Kristin has quoted accurately.

So a man who is acknowledged to have possessed one of the great minds of the 20th Century thought Hitler was "like Mohammed".

Which, of course, means Jung thought Mohammed was like Hitler.

And what did Jung think of Hitler?

Quote:

In Jung's view, Hitler suffered from "hysterical dissociation of the personality," a condition exemplified by "auto-erotic self-admiration and self-extenuation, denigration and terrorization of one's fellow men, projection of the shadow, lying, falsification of reality, determination to impress by fair means or foul . . ."

End quote:

See: http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=841&Itemid=40

Well, well, well

Grateful,

I withdraw my comment that Muhammad was a seventh century psychopath. Instead I offer the diagnosis put forwarded by one of the world's pre-eminent psychologists.

MUHAMMAD WAS A SEVENTH CENTURY VERSION OF HITLER.

Or, if you prefer:

HITLER WAS A 20TH CENTURY VERSION OF MUHAMMAD.

And Nazism, qua Jung, seems to be a 20th Century version of Islam.

I had never paid much attention to Jung up till now but Kristin's post has inspired me to order some of his books from Amazon.

I've also ordered Wafa Sultan's "The God Who Hates"

See:

http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=841&Itemid=40

CJ Morgan, Bushbasher, TheMissus, Grateful

For future reference:

Don't argue with me about the nature of Islam, ARGUE WITH CARL JUNG.

LOL

BTW the great Swiss Historian, Jacob Burckhardt, also had a somewhat jaundiced view of Muhammad:

Quote:

"Muhammad is personally very fanatical; that is his basic strength. His fanaticism is that of a radical simplifier and to that extent is quite genuine. It is of the toughest variety, namely doctrinaire passion, and his victory is one of the greatest victories of fanaticism and triviality. All idolatry, everything mythical, everything free in religion, all the multifarious ramifications of the hitherto existing faith, transport him into a real rage, and he hits upon a moment when large strata of his nation were highly receptive to an extreme simplification of the religious."

End Quote

Kyoko,

“How many UNARMED muslim civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan civilians (children listed separately)
have been killed by US citizens during the past month and why is this not front page news every day?”

You demand that we make your point for you and if we don’t then you’re not going to talk to us?

That’s kind of like me demanding you prove that Islam isn’t responsible for more than 270 million deaths
since Mohammed received his divine revelations from Allah that unbelievers should be slaughtered.
http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad/

I would suggest that the rules of engagement for US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are the most rigorous
and “civilised” in the history of warfare.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121330893
What I mean by that is that they don’t have a policy of beheading their captives and enslaving their women,
as taught and practised over the centuries by Islam.
Predator drones may be somewhat less discerning but you’d have to take that up with Obama.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE59B4HS20091012

Anyway, here is the closest information I could find related to your request.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks
The descriptions are quite varied but they seem to have a common theme.

stevenlmeyer

I think you’re all being a bit harsh on Hitler in your comparisons with Mohammed.

Sorry, I can' resist this:

TheMissus: << I do not need to read about modern history, I have lived it. >>

Given that "modern history" generally refers to the period since the 1500s, TheMissus must have been around for a while and travelled alot during her long life. That's obviously why she posts such pearls of wisdom.

Ignorance is a bad enough basis on which to form opinions, but to celebrate it is idiotic.

However, it's good to see that Herman's getting the message about the hate speech that he continually posts.

While I'm here, I think that stevenlmeyer will discover that Jung has about much credibility among contemporary psychologists as does his better known contemporary, Freud.