Pericles,

(1) Wisdom

Like Chamberlain, many intelligent people (esp. Germans themselves) were fooled by Hitler.
But intelligence is not the same as wisdom. There is a subtle yet important difference. Out of 10 intelligentias, perhaps only 2 or 3 wise ones.
Churchill was wise, Chamberlain not.

(2) Courage

Getting inside an aeroplane (for the first time in his life) does not mean courage, for heaven sake !
He probably didn't have a choice, did he ?

For a start, Chamberlain would never dared to invite Hitler to meet him in Britain. Hitler would have spurned (thereby humiliated) him. Hitler must had regarded him as a fool that can be manipulated.

So what happened soon after Chamberlain's meetings?
"...On October 1st... Hitler had got what he wanted without firing a shot."

In the name of peace, Chamberlain betrayed another country and foolishly sold out to Hitler. That's short-sighted, selfish, betrayal, cowardice. Not courage !

(3) Leadership.

Leadership is to TAKE OTHERS on a path you believe in.

Chamberlain was no leader. He was baited to take the path that Hitler believed in. That was how Hitler got what he wanted without firing a shot. Hitler led, Chamberlain followed.

I read: "Chamberlain struggled on as Prime Minister until May 1940 when he resigned..."

Just think... Do you honestly believe Chamberlain was even capable of leading Britain through the war with Hitler ?

I really don't want to dwell further on Chamberlain. But thanks to him, today we have a classic real-life history case-study.

But despite history lessons, obviously history repeats itself in people.

Interesting slant GZ.

>>I really don't want to dwell further on Chamberlain. But thanks to him, today we have a classic real-life history case-study<<

My point on Islam is that there is no Hitler, no mobilization, no border threats to our nation, or to any of our major allies.

Your suggestions are that

a) this is irrelevant, Islam making enough aggressive noise for us to be worried,

b) anyone who doesn't see this must have their head in the sand and

c) anyone who doesn't see this must have no wisdom, courage or leadership qualities.

I do agree with you on one point, and that is that Chamberlain would have seen absolutely no reason for us to get involved in a world war, or evangelical crusade, or whatever hostile activities that you might be contemplating.

And I would also have to agree that I would be right there with him. There are some ultra-religious factions taking pugnacious stances around the place, but they will not last.

It is clear that your overreaction to Islam is motivated by fear, which is a very powerful and persuasive emotion. But you should not let that fear convince you that we are facing a situation that is somehow parallel to that of Chamberlain in 1938, nor that a policy of appeasement is equivalent to cowardice.

The use of Chamberlain as "a classic real-life history case-study" is therefore highly inappropriate.

Incidentally, your contempt for Chamberlain is puzzling. What does it matter to you anyway? I suspect that it is merely an attempt to bolster your use of "appeasement" as a metaphor for my position on Islam.

If so, it is a very cheap shot against a statesman whose boots you are unfit to lick.

At least, I suspect you would be unfit. Of course I really have no idea who you are, all I really have to go on is that you take a simple pleasure out of libelling dead people to score debating points on a discussion forum.

And I very much doubt whether Churchill would agree with you either, by the way.

Pericles....I'm sitting here wondering if I actually read you right.. and good grief..I DID.. and this is what you said:

"My point on Islam is that there is no Hitler, no mobilization, no border threats to our nation, or to any of our major allies."

Are you serious ? Where were you on 9/11 ? Is the USA not a 'major ally' ?

Did you turn off the Tely when London was bombed ? Spain ? Bali ?

Mate.. you're a worry.. "Look a train is coming and we are stuck on the crossing" says your passenger... "No.. its not a train, its a mirage" you claim.

Silly ? yep.... about as much as your words I quoted.

Its like you suddenly dropped in from outer space and know nothing of what's been happening here.

No Hitler? Ahmadinajad, Bin Ladin ?

cripes.. and stone the crows for luck.. fair dinkum...ur a worry.

Attention all..you MUST see this.

Discussion on wife beating in Katar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUI3TUdFCk&mode=related&search=

F.H. this is the real deal mate.. these are not bin ladins in outer east Waziristan... they are moderates ? look at the women..no hijab even.. Qatar....

Notice the comments by the men.....

One of the women reports.

"Weapon of choice for Egyptian men to beat their wives 'Electic cord'"

"LIGHT" beatings? you can cause a LOT of pain without causing bruises or killing or breaking bones.

This is 'majority status' Muslims speaking 'to muslims' IN Islamic countries, does anyone notice a slight discrepancy between what these Muslims are saying and the way FH portrays this faith in OLO ?

BD, I watched the clip (complete with dramatic music in the background).
I'll assume that the translations are honest and accurate.

The speaker seemed to make it clear that the Koran does not establish wife beating as a rule, that extreme force is forbidden. He did suggest that Allah thought men are more reasonable than women - not the only religious male I've heard spouting that line. He did suggest that women were made from a rib bone - again not the only religious type I've heard say that. He did suggest that the Koran makes concessions for wife beaters provided that they don't get too extreme. Another book you might be familiar with makes concessions regarding dealing with your slaves - wife beater or slave owner, which does your god condone?

The women on the panel appeared to disagree with his views.

I saw a cultural practice being discussed in a religious context. A cultural practice that I disagree with.

I saw a sexist male taking a religious book a bit more seriously than is wise. I saw a sexist male thinking he should be the head of the house because he is male. Now where have I seen that before?

R0bert

Boaz,

We all read you 'loud and clear' : when you got stuck on a challenge or run out of steam, you resort to the famous copy and paste dodgy articles.
Just answer the challenge above Boazy.
btw, u still owe pericles an explanation re the "VT massacre"
Come on, challenge back, concede or be a sport and take it on the chin!

Robert,

Good to read from you. not sure if you are Melbourne based, I will be in Melbourne next week. If u r, email me on viewsexchange@gmail.com and we can have a coffee.

Peace,