December 20, 2007

Army Officer retention

A fascinating article on a growing problem in the Army. Young officers are leaving in higher numbers than before, and especially the young and gifted ones. So as Bush or whoever follows wants to expand the army, they may be doing so with fewer good officers, and that is troubling.

The reasons are complicated and rather interesting. The strain on family (divorces have tripled since 2002), the geography of the military (stationed on bases like Killeen, Texas), and the changing role for women even within the military. Some goes to Bush himself. Diverting away from the initial goal in Afghanistan cost in troop morale, and the increased deployments is not helping.
Studies show that one deployment actually improves retention, as soldiers draw satisfaction from using their skills in the real world. Second deployments often have no effect on retention. It's the third deployment that begins to burn out soldiers. And a fourth? There's no large-scale historical precedent for military planners to examine—yet.
But part of it is the leadership who is there now. This writer suggests a long gradual decline that really started after Vn, when Army leaders decided that they would simply avoid counter-insurgency conflicts from now on. And that showed up within the military as conflict between older Generals and some of the young thinkers from the Point.
"You have a three-star general like John Vines come down to talk to us, and he says, 'Just go out there and shoot people,'" Kapinos said. "And you know that that is not how to fight an insurgency. Everyone who's ever read the most basic article on counterinsurgency knows that is not how you're going to win."

"Yeah," Morin agreed. "The general would come out and give these bellicose speeches, and every time he did that, I'd have to go back to my guys and say, 'What the general really meant to say was ...'"

It always stuns me when some of our commenters here or elsewhere continually say that liberals are soft on national security. While I certainly think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been lately--it is because of their capitulation to Bush, not for opposing him. I have always admired people who served and have been fascinated by the military. Not enough to want to join, mind you, but from the outside, I see so much positive there. I have had students from the military and some have been among the best and most thoughtful. One former student was a Navy Seal who, unlike some of his fellow students, could thoughtfully address issues like patriotism and masculinity. And while conservatives complain about higher taxes, I would gladly pay more to ensure that our returning vets are taken care of. It seems to me that it has often been conservative "chicken hawks" who have done far more damage to our military than any liberal.

Anyway. Read the article. It is a good one.

123 comments:

fightingpreacher said...

Streak, unfortunately you are correct. I will share with you as someone who lives in a community that has 40,000 military people what is one of the reasons for that.

CONTRACTING...the contracting companies are paying in the neighborhood of 150,000-300,000 a year to do what those officers do in the Army!

Which would you choose?

There is also the (this is my opinion)growing disatisfaction in not allowing our soldiers to actually FIGHT this war! I just got a report back from overseas that this particular persons unit are sitting around and not being allowed to hunt down and kill the bad guys. So there is some disgruntled workers. Most of the people who join at this time, join because they want to go get the bad guys.

Streak said...

But obviously it isn't JUST pay. And if you read the article, you will see that many of the officers understood that first you need to a) make sure you are killing the right bad guys, and 2) actually connect to the local populace. Both are important in fighting an insurgency. Both are ideas that our military seemed (and Rumsfeld) to have ignored until recently.

fightingpreacher said...

Yes, but there are problems that are a little difficult to explain on a blog. For example because of the push to give terrorist rights under the constitution we have "arrested" bad guys and now they have constitutional rights we have to let them out of "jail" in 30 days. So locals refuse to give up information because they know the bad guys are getting out of jail. This is why we must fight a war, not "crime" in Iraq. There are other examples, but I wont give them here.

Streak said...

Yes, of course. The issue is our irrational desire to give terrorists "rights."

The problem is not that we have simply rounded up people for being in the wrong place, or collected people given us by warlords.

Nope, the problem has to be with liberals and their irrational belief in civil liberties.

Streak said...

And by the way, I am not sure your friends are up with the rest of the right's talking points. I am being told by conservatives that the surge is "working." So either things are getting better because we are treating the Iraqis like people, or they are getting worse because the Army can't go out shooting people. Pick one.

Because under Rumsfeld things got steadily worse.

steves said...

Iraqi terrorists have rights under the Geneva Convention according to the Justice Department. What is wrong with this? If I were an Iraqi citizen, I would certainly want some procedural protections.

Streak said...

I agree, Steve. This sounds suspiciously like the old VN story rehashed--"The liberals wouldn't let us fight the war correctly so we lost."

Rob said...

The liberals stabbed us in the back.

fightingpreacher said...

Streak I didnt say anything about liberals...cause there are so called conservatives that say some of the same junk. Simply put much to the dismay of some the surge is working...but there are roughly 10-20 thousand bad guys there. We have hit them hard and often, but still we have missed some. It is a simple military tactic with the surge more men in country means less ability to conduct operations. So when they lay low we dont have a lot to do. I was not a big rumsfield fan.

Yes it is an irrational desire to give terrorist rights! Sure they have basic human rights such as not to be waterboarded, but they dont have the right to trial, they dont have the right to a lawyer, they dont have anything but basic human rights to fair treatment, food, water, etc.

You have brought up the rounding people up that were in the wrong place at teh wrong time or where turned over wrongly for money. Could you give me proof of that?

Once again I have friends in a particular unit that conducted a raid on a known terrorist complex. They found chemical weapons manuals and left overs. They busted the guy (should of shot him but didnt). The guy was taken away to "jail". Fast forward 2 years...another terrorist complex and guess who was there?

It has nothing to do with the way we are treating Iraqi's! It has to do with 140-150 thousand troops there it makes it difficult to conduct operations.

Iraqi's totally have rights under Geneva convention if they have signed it and are a part of that pact...TERRORIST on the other hand are not protected on Geneva Convention. Further Constitutional rights are not guarenteed under that convention.

fightingpreacher said...

This is probably a question for steves based on the post on your other blog.

Unlawful combatants are not subject to projection under the geneva convention. But others are an there seems to be some gray grounds in that there must be a "competent tribunal" to try them. But in our situation we arent allowed the tribunal...so how should we in your position proceed?

fightingpreacher said...

An unclassified email from a Christian brother in Iraq.

"Dear Brothers & Sisters -

Things continue to go well. I have added only a couple of things.
1 - The Iraqi pay system is a mess and so is the banking system. We need a way for our Iraqi troops to be paid on time without them having to drive home with cash in their pockets. We see western solutions but there is probably an Arab solution that will work a lot better. Remember much of what gets done in Arab culture gets done WAY differently than the way we do it!
2 - It is no secret on the news that illegal militias still control several areas, particularly in the south. Please pray this gets fixed without the need for a lot of bloodshed.
3 - The court system is working better and better and God is answering prayer in that area. That said, we have a long way to go.
4 - While the surge is working, and we are winning back hearts and minds, there are still a lot of bad man who can never be reconciled to a free Iraq and have to be killed.
5 - Spiritual hunger is the highest I have seen it in the unit. There are a lot of our special operations guys praying the same cycle of prayer you are as they lay it on the line every night. Also I face a demand for more Bible training from my believers so I would appreciate prayer for me to maintain a strong walk and have the time and energy for it."

ubub said...

Thanks for passing that on.

Streak said...

Yep, those silly civil liberties are "junk." Yep, the only concern is applying them to the "bad guys." Of course, those silly "civil liberties" are part of how we determine bad from good, but who is counting?

I know anecdotally from several people who served in Iraq an Afghanistan (in addition to published reports) that warlords often turned over people based on nothing connected to terrorism. I know from those same sources that counter insurgency is not run by idiots killing people on their own.

Oh my god. Chemical weapons manuals? Do you mean to echo Bush's stupid "they had the knowledge to create WMD" argument? Amazed that they didn't shoot that guy right then. Let me guess, you are a fan of capital punishment in this country, and think that too many get off on "technicalities" and "lawyer's tricks." Sure, some might be innocent, but who is counting? We need to kill more people to convince people that killing people is wrong.

4 - While the surge is working, and we are winning back hearts and minds, there are still a lot of bad man who can never be reconciled to a free Iraq and have to be killed.

Amen and amen. Just as Jesus would do. And did. And will do. Glory be. God bless america.

fightingpreacher said...

Streak you are so consumed with your own version of what is going on that you cant see what is in front of you.

First, you take out of the story one section which is about making chemical weapons...the story is about a terrorist being put in jail and then let out to fight again.

Let us talk about civil liberities. Civil liberities have been debated in the extent of how far it goes in War. So dont try and say that we are violating civil liberaties just because you have a bleeding heart. you better back it up with some documentation.

Next, I suppose according to your comment that you believe all people in Iraq are innocent and gratefully accept the democracy! What a bunch of crap. There are men in that country that unfortunately their is only way to deal with them.

Yes I support Capital Punishment. The Bible does as well in the Noahitic Covenant that was not negacted with the coming of the new covenant with Jesus. In the Noahitic Covenant it says if you shed blood by mans hands your blood will be shed! Now of course you will use Jesus with the woman caught in Adultery...the problem with this is that it is in the Mosaic Covenant that is being debated there. If you are looking for indicators that the Noahitic Covenant is still in effect...look for the rainbow.

It is unfortunate that innocent people die. I wish there was a better way to do it, but as long as we are on this side of heaven there will always be imperfection, mistakes, corruption, etc. So what should we do? Do you think it is ok that they kill and just sit in jail? Do you think that is was ok for the Judge in Vermont that sentenced the Child Molester of 11 years to 60 days in prison that was later impeached? Do you think that the people who planned 9/11 should be allowed to live?

I dont think capital punishment convinces anyone of anything. To me there is only one thing that does that...Jesus Christ. I think capital punishment is exactly that...punishment. If you kill you should be killed. The Bible says it, I agree.

Let us presume that tomorrow we catch OBL. He is then what? Brought to the US and brought before a civilian court and tried? Then if that civilian court found it in their heart to declare him guilty which would be in doubt (even though he confessed) would you think that the death sentence is acceptable?

Did you think it was acceptable to exercise capital punishment on Saddam?

At what point to you is the life of one human worth more than the lives of 3000 or in the case of Saddam hundreds of thousands of lives?

When would you ever be happy? Grow up man. Life sucks and we must make difficult decisions that are messy and sometimes we get them right and sometimes we dont. But in your fantasy liberal world all terrorist would be given a trial and then put in a luxary jail in which they could live out the rest of their lives with 70 virigins and better food than their own country has, prayer rugs, etc.

Wake up to reality...and I hope for your sake that OBL's desire never comes to pass...and never happens in your city, because we would get to see if your ideological ideas would stand the test of fire. We would see if you could then look these people in the eyes after they have brutalized the high school in your town and say give them a trial and put them in jail. We will see that after they have raped little girls with AK-47's to the point that they had to have surgical repairs to their reproductive organs if you would think that hey they deserve civil liberties.

It is easy for you guys to sit on these blogs with your ideological beliefs and not have to confront the cold harsh reality of this war...whether this war is right or wrong it was coming!

Out of curosity has anyone on this blog lost a friend or family member on 9/11?

Out of curosity has anyone on this blog lost a friend or family member in the GWOT?

Out of curosity has anyone on this blog had to sit with a 10 year old boy whose father was just killed in Iraq?

out of curosity has anyone on this blog had to sit with a mother and young daughter whose father was killed by an IED that some coward set up the night before?

Dont lecture me from a position that has not cost you anything! Tell me streak what has this war cost you personally?

I lost one of my best friends! I spent 3 weeks with a guy who I sweat and bled with to get a report back that a CIVILIAN Iraqi threw a grenade at and killed. Have you lost anyone personally in this war?

Dont lecture me about your fantasy streak unless it has personally cost you something.


BTW i did read that article...once again I never said they are evil...but they sure do represent evil on more occasions than they have represented good.

fightingpreacher said...

More on the ACLU

Stuff they represent that is evil.
1. decrimilazation of drugs
2. Defended NAMBLA
3. Against the right of the Boyscouts to not include Homosexuals
4. Fought for Westboro...the guys who blame our soldiers deaths on Homosexuals
5. Defended the right to use CG children for pornography


the list goes on and on...

SO they have done some things I have agreed with after researching it out a little...but the little good they have done is far outweighed by the evil they support!

fightingpreacher said...

Just for anyones benefit who cares...yes this is a little of a touchy subject to me. I have lost a few personal friends in this war. I have first hand had to sacrifice on behalf of this war both in Afg and Iraq.

Remember we did not start the war with the Middle East. They did on 9/11.

fightingpreacher said...

OBL said and this is a paraphrase..."What we did to russia we will do to you a 100 times over"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://jihadwatch.org/

Read it and see what it is we really face

steves said...

As I have said before, international law is not may area, so I apologize in advance.

Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.

"Unlawful combatants are not subject to projection under the geneva convention. But others are an there seems to be some gray grounds in that there must be a "competent tribunal" to try them. But in our situation we arent allowed the tribunal...so how should we in your position proceed?"

This is a gray area, but it is not supported by international law. From the commentary on th Fourth Geneva Convention:

"Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[1] because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."

Why do you say we aren't allowed tribunals? The Geneva Conventions would allow it. Supreme Court Case Law would allow it. FDR used tribunals to convict and execute Nazi saboteurs in WWII. Despite urgings from numerous lawyers at the Justice Department, CIA, and the DOD, the administration has done a poor job. There have been Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT), but they have been heavily criticized as being inadequate.

From "Guantánamo Bay: A Reflection On The Legal Status And Rights Of ‘Unlawful Enemy Combatants’":

"It appears ... that the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals do not qualify as status determination under the Third Geneva Convention. <......> The fact that no status determination had taken place according to the Third Geneva Convention was sufficient reason for a judge from the District Court of Columbia dealing with a habeas petition, to stay proceedings before a military commission. Judge Robertson in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld held that the Third Geneva Convention, which he considered selfexecuting, had not been complied with since a Combatant Status Review Tribunal could not be considered a ‘competent tribunal’ pursuant to article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention."

There is certainly historical precedent for a lessening or bending of rights during war time, but what is unique to the current administration is the the total lack of trying to work with the other branches of government. FDR said he wanted a tribunal to deal with Nazi saboteurs. Reports indicate that he would probably have tried them without the consent of the Sup. Ct. or Congress. Despite this, he got the consent of both before he proceeded.

Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and did other things, but also had Congress and Sup. Ct. approval. He knew he was aking chances, but fully expected to face the consequences if he was wrong.

The current administration has shown an almost complete unwillingness to work within current law, past law and precedent and try to craft a solution. This is why they have faced so much flak and will continue to do so.

steves said...

"Stuff they represent that is evil.
1. decrimilazation of drugs
2. Defended NAMBLA
3. Against the right of the Boyscouts to not include Homosexuals
4. Fought for Westboro...the guys who blame our soldiers deaths on Homosexuals
5. Defended the right to use CG children for pornography"

1. What have they done to decriminilize drugs? Has this focused on federal law. If that is so, they I agree. Under the Constitution, the federal government has no power to make most drug laws. It is not an enumerated power that is listed.

2. I'll lump this in with 4 and 5. It is a free speech issue and free speech can be ugly. I am reminded of a quote from Noam Chomsky:

"Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech."

3. I think they are wrong. The right to free association also includes the right to exclude. The Boy Scouts are a private organization.

ubub said...

Thanks for the Chomsky quote, Steve, I was just going to look for it.

What I appreciate about the ACLU is that they stand for principles of civil liberties across the board. We may all agree that NAMBLA is a disgusting organization, but while the activities they promote essentially amount to sexual assault of a child, their right to speak about their views needs protection even if acting on those views merits prosecution. Restricting NAMBLA's right to speech is an example of the cure being worse than the disease.

I agree about private organizations such as the Boy Scouts being able to set and maintain their own membership criteria. Where it gets complicated for me is when public facilities, such as schools, serve as meeting places for the organization. In such cases, private organizations may not discriminate based on protected class status, which here includes sexual orientation.

ubub said...

And another thing . . .

My apologies for the multiple posts this morning - I am trying to play catch-up again.

FP, I lack your first hand knowledge of the war in Iraq, so I have a couple of questions.

I share your concern about the "bad guys," but wonder how we are best able to determine who they are when they are primarily a nonuniformed guerilla force?

As a related question, how would you recommend we "FIGHT this war?" Are you recommending changes to the rules of engagement? Your comment about fighting a war versus fighting crime seem to suggest so, as does your comment about re-capturing the same person years later.

fightingpreacher said...

ubub, I dont know, and therefore I dont critize the war nearly as much as some here. Because I dont have a better answer. I know this when you are talking about fighting an enemy not in uniform all the rules by necessity must change because you have no way to properly identify the bad guys. For example another friend of mine was attacked in the midst of a bunch of civilians. What was he supposed to do...die? How is that right? These are the issues we face. I would like to hear some constructive ways of dealing with the war and our enemy.

fightingpreacher said...

Steves I am all about free speech even the westboro and NAMBLA guys who I absolutely cant stand. There rights to free speech end when it takes away the rights of others. For example when Westboro shows up at a funeral and begins to say the things they say. Can the write books, appear on TV, etc? ABSOLUTELY! But does their right to free speech contain within it the right to violate others? I think not.

You think using Computer Graphic depictions of Children in pornography is the right to free speech?


Go to wikipedia. There are several articles there about ACLU that will show you they are on the wrong side of these issues.

Streak said...

I have a suggestion. Let's table the ACLU talk for a while. You obviously think (and have said) that they are evil. Fine. I think you are wrong. And this is not the forum to debate child porn. No one here thinks that is acceptable.

Let's move on.

Second, I was wrong to inject the death penalty into this discussion. While I reject your interpretation and fundamentally think the death penalty is barbaric, I should not have included it here in this discussion. We can come back to that another time, if you so want.

As for my "bleeding heart," I am not sure what you mean by it except as an insult. Given how Jesus responded to a lot of people (except for religious zealots), one could suggest that he had a bleeding heart as well.

And, as ubub says, (and I have said elsewhere) I am saddened by your losses in this war and respect that loss. But I think you misunderstand my and other liberal's "bleeding heart." I am not a softie, really. I oppose the death penalty because I don't think it deters crime, and in fact, I think it encourages more violence. Likewise, I support civil liberties, not because I want some vicious criminal coddled, but because I have a deep fear of jailing or executing the wrong person.

Perhaps a story might help. Around the Dallas area (perhaps ten years ago) a local neighborhood was very disturbed that they had a registered sex offender in their neighborhood. They didn't know who it was (at least this group of people didn't) but they assumed it was this Asian-American loner. Those neighborhood men beat up that loner and put him in the hospital. Turns out, it wasn't the sex offender. It was a mentally challenged person just trying to survive. As you note, these things will happen as we are flawed people, but our rule of law is established to try and avoid that. We have procedures and checks to make sure that we punish the guilty and free the innocent. "Better to let 10 guilty go than jail one innocent" as it were. It isn't because we like the guilty sex offenders, but because we want to make sure that we get it right.

I still remember during high school, a man kidnapped a young girl. He was last seen in a car that scarily sounded just like mine (and my car was not common). I wondered right then what would happen if I didn't have an alibi for the crime. How easy would it be for me to be misidentified?

The rule of law and our civil liberties like habeas corpus are there--not to coddle or free the criminals, but to ensure that we punish the right people.

That has been my point even about the engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. I completely understand that this new engagement presents new challenges. And those are hardest on those service men and women trying to understand their rules of engagement. I think that has to be the hardest thing to do.

But I also understand from those who have been there and have studied this kind of warfare that it is of the utmost importance that the Iraqis (I never said they were all innocent, of course, that would be ridiculous) don't see us as the enemy. If we round up people (and of course we did especially those who ended up in Abu Ghraib) and then they are abused (and of course they were at Abu Ghraib and other prisons) then we do the work for OBL. We turn Muslims who may not like us but aren't terrorists into terrorists.

That has always been the concern. I will admit, I opposed the surge because I have lost faith in our military and civilian leadership. The Rumsfeld years were horrible. But I will concede that the surge has succeeded in part of its goal. By working closer with locals, we are reducing violence in Iraq and that is good. (The political movement is much less optimistic.) But you seem to suggest both that the surge is working and that it has tied the hands of the soldiers.

fightingpreacher said...

I am suggesting that. It is both a blessing and a curse.

If you will go back you will see I never call the organization evil. Their actions yes are evil, but remember I specifically said that I dont believe in any organization being good or evil.

bleeding heart can be taken however you want, though it isnt meant as an insult. You just have a bleeding heart.

So really at the heart of this is that no matter what teh civilian or military leadership does you will not believe and trust. So what is the point then? Further if they are doing such a bad job....please enlighten us...

Lastly if you believe the bible, do a check in Genesis with the Noahitic covenant.

Rob said...

From what I've read -- and from what Petraeus has been arguing, not incorrectly, IMO -- the best weapon in fighting an insurgency is the community itself. Because an insurgency relies in part active or passive support from its own countrymen, finding ways to turn the community against its own fighters is the only real way to win.

Unfortunately, that DOES mean acting like policemen rather than soldiers. It means encouraging and persuading the community to help you ferret out the bad guys. I would assume also that treating the bad guys fairly when they ARE caught might be one element of that encouragement.

Streak said...

FP, no offense, but you say things like "liberal" and "bleeding heart" and then say you aren't using them to insult. But you aren't very convincing.

Second, I don't care what the Noahitic covenant is. That doesn't change my belief that the death penalty is barbaric.

Third: So really at the heart of this is that no matter what teh civilian or military leadership does you will not believe and trust. So what is the point then? Further if they are doing such a bad job....please enlighten us...

That is not a response, nor is it accurate. In fact, it is childish. I don't trust this particular civilian leadership to be sure. Why should I? They have lied and dissembled at every turn. The military leadership has more credibility in my eyes, and much of the harm was still done by people like Donald Rumsfeld. He did a terrible job and most likely authorized torture. He certainly refused to change course when everyone (and that means just about everyone except Bush) thought he should.

Look, I am not an expert on this stuff either. I am simply a historian who sees the longer context. But there are many people with experience who also take issue with how this war has been fought. This post's article is a great example. Here were people suggesting that fighting a counter insurgency required a different mindset than facing the Soviets.

Btw, I would be cautious to say that we are at war with the Middle East. Unless you are a General Boykin follower, we are at war with a small group of radical muslims. We are not at war with the Middle East and they did not attack us, anymore than we are at war with New York because Tim McVeigh was born there.

fightingpreacher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Streak said...

What have I said about cutting and pasting?

I would not be cautious in that regards. We are at war with Islam. When 9/11 happened how many hundreds of thousands of people danced in the streets at our apparent destruction? It for sure wasnt a minority of Radical Islam muslims.

Then we should just bomb them into submission. And we should start making more bombs, because there a lot of Muslims. If you really believe that, then I am afraid you are a bigot. If you really think Islam is our enemy, then I weep for our country. I weep because I am sure you share that view with all your "Christian" friends in the army. I weep because the theology of "us v. them" has won.

fightingpreacher said...

Sorry Streak, I have deleted it and will try and post the information in a much more managable way even though you probably wont go look.

Streak
Btw, I would be cautious to say that we are at war with the Middle East. Unless you are a General Boykin follower, we are at war with a small group of radical muslims. We are not at war with the Middle East and they did not attack us, anymore than we are at war with New York because Tim McVeigh was born there.

I would not be cautious in that regards. We are at war with Islam. When 9/11 happened how many hundreds of thousands of people danced in the streets at our apparent destruction? It for sure wasnt a minority of Radical Islam muslims.

Just some quick facts for you and since you are a historian you should be able to validate these very quickly.

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years.

Now streak if you have any question if we Islam/Middle East just look at a list that has been complied for your viewing. See if this is just Radical Islam or if this is nearly all of the middle east. Remember this is just the last 2 months.

List of Islamic Terror Attacks For the Past 2 Months

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm

fightingpreacher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
fightingpreacher said...

Then we should just bomb them into submission. And we should start making more bombs,

***Streak we dont need more bombs. We have plenty for the job if that were the way we decided to handle the matter

because there a lot of Muslims. If you really believe that, then I am afraid you are a bigot.

***I am not a biggot. Muslims are Muslims. There religious book calls for the butchering of all heathens! Of course you wont give me the same courtesy I have given you by reading the articles I can give you so you will probably never know the truth about Islam. It is not a religion of peace!

If you really think Islam is our enemy, then I weep for our country. I weep because I am sure you share that view with all your "Christian" friends in the army. I weep because the theology of "us v. them" has won.

***Next, this isnt Theology (that is the study of God)or about being a Christian or a non-Christian. This is about Islam and their desire to dominate the world and force them into service. IF you dont then you will be subject to their taxes which equates to like 90% of your income.

You made mention about not caring about the Noahitic covenant...would that mean that you dont care about the Bible? Would it be safe to assume then that you arent a Christian?

Streak said...

FP, did you read my comment (posted at 9:42) at all? About why I believe in civil liberties? Or did you just focus on the ACLU part and move on?

As for bigoted, I stand by that statement. If you ascribe to all people of the Muslim faith the idea that they want to butcher us, then you are a bigot. Sorry. But it is true.

Are you suggesting that we need to bomb them all? This does shed some light on your views on how we should fight this war. If they are all Muslim and therefor all want to kill us, then we should kill them all first, right?

You made mention about not caring about the Noahitic covenant...would that mean that you dont care about the Bible? Would it be safe to assume then that you arent a Christian?

Nope, that is just another example of your bigotry. Anyone who doesn't agree with your view is not a Christian? We have been over this before, but you don't listen. Just because I don't accept the literal or inerrant view of the Bible doesn't mean that I am not a Christian. And I tire of people dipping back into the OT to justify whatever bigotry or bloodlust they have. OT death penalty is barbaric too. I am not going to blame God for that. I am not going to blame him for some desert tribal people who decided an "eye for an eye" (of course, unless the loss is a fetus--then it is just a fine).

fightingpreacher said...

Actually, if you look back you will see that I say that I was glad that bombs were the way we decided to solve it. Further, you are the bigot my friend. You are bigot against justice, a bigot against righteousness.

I will go back and reread to see if I missed it.

Next, your inability to understand the bible is telling.

The Noahitic much further back in the OT than Moses which is what you were refering to as the Desert Wandering People.

The Noahitic covenant is the covenant God made with Noah after the Flood which says in Gen 9:6-7
"Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man. 'As for you, be fruitful and multiply;Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.'"
NASU

So I would like to see you interpret this in any other way...and if it isnt innerrant than you just pick and choose the verses you like?

I asked you if it was safe to assume. Nowhere did I say you were or werent. You said you didnt care what the Bible said...that is much different than saying you disagree with the common intepretation of that verse.

Streak said...

you will see that I say that I was glad that bombs were the way we decided to solve it.

Is that what you meant to say?

And I am a bigot against justice? Because I don't want to shoot innocent people? Because I think the death penalty is biased against people of color and the poor? Because I think there are other ways to punish wrongdoers and protect the public from dangerous criminals?

So I would like to see you interpret this in any other way...and if it isnt innerrant than you just pick and choose the verses you like?

Kind of. Of course, even the inerrantists do that. We all read the Bible through a lens of our own experience. And I would interpret that verse the way I interpret the OT--as an imperfect view of how man viewed God.

I asked you if it was safe to assume. Nowhere did I say you were or werent. You said you didnt care what the Bible said...that is much different than saying you disagree with the common intepretation of that verse.

What I said is what I meant. The fact that ancient peoples used the death penalty for everything from homosexuality to infidelity and insubordination doesn't mean that we have to follow their lead.

fightingpreacher said...

Went back and reread your comments. I agree that this is the orinial purpose for the civil liberties but it has become what you dont want it too be. Something people use to be soft on terrorism, rapist, and murders.

Once again all I see streak doing is complaining about the injustices of the system, but I have yet to see you offer ANY solution.

I deeply regret that they beat the mentally challenged man. That is unfortunate and wrong!

But lets be honest. No matter how hard we try, no matter how much evidence we have innocent people will be found guilty. Does that mean we should stop or give the criminals who are guilty a easier road to get out of their justly deserved punishment?

I totally agree that the Death Penalty isnt going to lower the crime rate. None the less if you are found guilty of crimes that constitute more than jail...then death penalty it should.

Streak said...

Something people use to be soft on terrorism, rapist, and murders.

Says you. But that seems to only be when you disagree with their view. It doesn't make it true.

Once again all I see streak doing is complaining about the injustices of the system, but I have yet to see you offer ANY solution.

How about the rule of law? How about the way we have done things for 200 plus years? Or tried to?

But lets be honest. No matter how hard we try, no matter how much evidence we have innocent people will be found guilty. Does that mean we should stop or give the criminals who are guilty a easier road to get out of their justly deserved punishment?

I really think you need to read up on logical fallacies. You just presented a false opposition, as if our only two choices are to convict innocent people or let all the guilty go free. That is idiotic. We can follow the rule of law and do the very best we can to ensure that we are convicting the guilty. That means appeals and legal rules. It means everything that the Bush administration opposes. It means Habeas review. It means that we follow the constitution and the Geneva accords.

fightingpreacher said...

Funny the noahitic covenant came from God, not man.

That was a typo. I am glad that we are not bombing them.

How would you deal with Islam? Do we just let them continue to kill? How do we deal with the wanton killing that is Islam? I would like to see one solution from you.

Yes I do agree that poor people and miniorities seem to get imprisoned more often. But there is also a reason for that. Right now 80% of criminals in jail are without fathers. That is from the FBI. Right now there is an epedemic in the poor communities of children outside wedlock. So we have a cycle that has started and I am not sure how to fix it. But the bottomline is poverty is not the problem it is a symptom of the problem.

fightingpreacher said...

It isnt a logical fallacy. Here is the scoop. We have a system that works as well as can be expected, but people like the ACLU want to allow people to waste billions of dollars on appeals and if a cop didnt read them their rights exactly the way he should of then the case gets thrown out, etc. Give them an appeal. ONE appeal. Then execute the punishment...whatever that is. OJ Simpson was guilty as the day is long, but because we have to reinvent the justice system for people that are soft on crime he got away with it.

Bottomline you are so concerned with the possibility of one innocent person, that you have lost perspective on the millions that are guilty!

Streak said...

Funny the noahitic covenant came from God, not man.

Again, says you. Not everyone believes that.

That was a typo. I am glad that we are not bombing them.

I assumed so.

How would you deal with Islam? Do we just let them continue to kill? How do we deal with the wanton killing that is Islam? I would like to see one solution from you.

Again, false opposites. We can appeal to moderate Muslims and do what we can to eradicate the radicals and undermine their support. You just don't read. I have said that many times.

Yes I do agree that poor people and miniorities seem to get imprisoned more often. But there is also a reason for that. Right now 80% of criminals in jail are without fathers. That is from the FBI. Right now there is an epedemic in the poor communities of children outside wedlock. So we have a cycle that has started and I am not sure how to fix it. But the bottomline is poverty is not the problem it is a symptom of the problem.

Also idiotic. You are saying the poor are in jail more, but that they deserve it. Read up on the poor and minority on death row. One thing you will find is that the states that execute the most people today led the country in illegal lynchings.

Oh, but I am sure those lynched had divorced parents.

fightingpreacher said...

Nowhere did I say let the guilty go. Why must you misrepresent everything I say. I said we make it easier for them...nowhere does that say we let them all go.

fightingpreacher said...

You are an arrogant ass. I never not once said Poor people deserve it. Yes I called you a name and I did it on purpose. I never even once entertained the foolish notion that poor people deserve it.

fightingpreacher said...

THIS IS IDIOTIC

Again, false opposites. We can appeal to moderate Muslims and do what we can to eradicate the radicals and undermine their support. You just don't read. I have said that many times.

How many radicals do you think there are? Where was the moderate Muslim outcry to the atrocities of 9/11? Can you show me one Muslim country that denounced the actions of the 19 muslims that did that? YOU CANT.

Where where the moderate muslims in the thousands of thousands of death by Radicals?

Where where the moderate muslims when they cutting off the heads of civilians?

Show me where the Moderate Muslim community has ever protested the Radicals?

fightingpreacher said...

could you please expound on "appeal" to the moderates?

could you please expound on "eradicate"


Does that mean kill them?

fightingpreacher said...

Out of curosity Streak have you ever read the Koran? I have.

steves said...

The poor are overepresented in the death penalty system. In other words, the percentage of poor murderers executed is greater than the percentage of more wealthy muderers. The reason is that the poor cannot afford decent lawyers. While there are good ones that do pro bono work, the reality is that most court appointed lawyers are overworked and underpaid. From what little I know of death penalty cases (I have never worked on one and probably never will, as my state does not have the death penalty), they are very complex.

There are other flaws, including the fact that many people on death row are there despite the fact that there were huge evidentiary problems. If you ever get the chance to see the play, The Exonerated, you should. It tells the story of 6 people that were worngly sent to death row and later released because they did not committ the crimes.

I have no doubt that there are some people that deserve to die, but our system is so deeply flawed and unfair, that we should no longer use the death penalty.

Streak said...

Steve, well said.

FP, you said:

You are an arrogant ass.

heh. perhaps.

Perhaps I misspoke slightly, but you certainly seemed to suggest that the poor are in jail because they are all guilty. There is more, as Steve suggests, to our judicial system and how we deal with class and race. Minority groups are also disproportionately represented in prison--but that doesn't mean that minorities are more criminal.

could you please expound on "appeal" to the moderates?

The evidence suggests that many Muslims are not on board with the radical muslims, but they need a reason to actually believe that the West isn't on another Crusade.

The problem with your approach is that if all Muslims are Radicals and all Radicals want to kill or control us, then your options are quite limited aren't they?

fightingpreacher said...

Well, we arent on a crusade and dont even go there because you know as a historian that the Crusades was not a religious thing. It was that the Arabs had invaded Europe and were conquering all of Europe. The response of Europe was the Crusades...there were brutal mistakes made in those military campaigns. One was that the Pope made it a religious war...which he shouldnt of done.

fightingpreacher said...

Once again please show me where these moderates are. If there are moderates I would like to see where they have voiced disapproval over Radical Islam.

Streak said...

Did it every occur to you that many of them may not voice support for us because they don't want to be the target of the radicals?

But please answer me. If all Muslims are radical, then how do we win without killing them all? Do you think you can just intimidate them into submitting to your rule? Do you think like Ann Coulter that we should force them to convert to Christianity? Do you really believe that all Muslims want to kill us?

Rob said...

There are several billion Muslims in the world; there have been plenty who've condemned al-Qaeda, but our media is awful at reporting it. And I have to say, some of our media (ahem, Fox News, Weekly Standard, The National Review, etc) would prefer it if Islam was another Soviet-style Evil Empire, and our entire country was under threat from invading armies of turbaned heathens, ready to rape our horses and ride off on our women and force us under pain of death by scimitar to convert.

But it just ain't so.

Here's an example I came across today, in Foreign Policy magazine, entitled "Top Ten You Missed in 2007". It's just one of many articles out there about this.

fightingpreacher said...

I doubt there is several billion muslims. A lot yes, several billion...not likely.

There might be some truth to they cant voice it for fear...but then again if we could prosecute this war like a war and not like a criminal case, they wouldnt have to fear would they. Oh yeah...forget before "Radical Islam" took charge where were the protest?

Where is the protest over issues not considered Radical...like treatment of women and children? Oh those moderates must not care about the gang rape of a woman who was then beat for her part in the crime or the moderates must not care about the running over of the hand of a child because he stole bread to feed his brother!

If that is the moderate Islam you refer to...man I feel better already.

fightingpreacher said...

It's all about Iraq, isn't it?

Yep, it's all about Iraq and...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Argentina and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal
and the Maldives and...

...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

fightingpreacher said...

Streak, still waiting on your answer. How would you deal with Radical Islam.

Bootleg Blogger said...

FP:
"Where where the moderate muslims when they cutting off the heads of civilians?"

Moderate muslims are everywhere. There's plenty who voiced disgust at 9/11. Most of them are like you and me i.e. have very little to do with what our government does/says/doesn't say on a daily basis. Many are subject to a fair amount of persecution themselves. Some of the poorer areas of the world have muslim majorities i.e. have very little in common on a daily basis with the oil-rich stereotypes. That is, in answer to your question above, they're mainly trying to feed their families and live their lives and probably don't feel a personal compulsion to comment on something that happened on one day to some country half-way around the world. I have personally known quite a number of conservative muslims whose religious practice/theology may be close to some of the wahabi teaching but would not resort to violence, terror, etc... They aren't participating in it in their own countries and don't support it elsewhere. They're just as much (most would argue MORE) muslim than the ones practicing terror tactics. Get to know some of them and then try generalizing.

Your lumping all muslims together indicates to me that the terrorist tactics have been effective in winning, at least with you, the psychological part of their battle. Nothing affirms their claims better than for those in the west to see this as a war with islam. I've known a number of guys who, at the time of our interaction, were withholding judgement and waiting to see how the US responded to 9/11. I doubt they've been very impressed.

None of this is to say there's not plenty of anti-american sentiment out there among muslims of every stripe. But where isn't there? Mostly my experience among moderates was a strong distinction between feelings about american foreign policy and americans. I think this was out of the assumption that we had as little to say about what our government did as they do. I don't know for sure. I don't think the US has done much to affirm their hopes.

Anyway, I hope you get to meet some people who might help you with your fear and anger. As Kosuke Koyama points out we need to get to know the "-ists" rather than dwelling so much on the "-isms".

Later- BB

fightingpreacher said...

Steves...I have acknowleged that are problems with the system. But lets talk real for a second. How many men and women are on death row? How many men and women are in prison? How many of those 2 catagories are miniorities? Of those minorities how many are falsely accused and convicted and punished?

Come on lets be real. What are we talking about here...whats the numbers? Does anyone even know?

fightingpreacher said...

BB...I am sure those moderates you met had huge issues with the Islamic riots in France...or in the netherlands over a comic as well?

Yes there are individual muslims out there who arent involved in what is actually going on. But stereotypes and generalizations are what they are because they are generally true! Hence generalizations.

I dont see you complaining about the generalizations that Steves and Streak are making that generally speaking there are more minorities in prison because they are too poor to afford legal representation. I dont see you complaining about the generalization that Steves adn Streak are making that the reason there arent more white people in jail is because generally we have the money to get good enough lawyers to get us off even though we are guilty.

fightingpreacher said...

Once again am I the only one on here who actually has read teh Koran? Does anyone else even own one?

fightingpreacher said...

BTW...not that you will check this link out, here is a link that details all the references in the Koran about how to handle us.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm

Bootleg Blogger said...

FP:
Now you are sounding naive and mean. Thusfar it has seemed like you've tried to at least avoid the mean part. Anyone can publish a website. Generalizations are what they are, that's true- they're generally WRONG and based on the minority experience of someone who gets benefit out of the generalization. You seem to like your stereotyped, generalized world. You claim to be a conservative christian. Fortunately MY experience has been with conservative christians who are much more gracious than yourself, hence I wouldn't generalize all conservative christians to have our attitude. Try generalizing "christianity". There's not a concensus on this blog about key issues- what makes you think any other religions would be any different.

Funny how you take issue with generalizations regarding troups based on your personal experience (which I support you on), but won't work that the other way. I think when you get riled up you sound alot like that which you claim to despise.
Later-BB

Rob said...

Well said *2, BB.

And I'd like to modify my prior statement, ie. "billions and billions of muslims." There are in fact 1.6 to 1.8 billion worlwide, according to Wikipedia.

Second largest religion only to Christianty.

fightingpreacher said...

BB...not trying to be mean...it is just the cold hard reality of what is going on.

fightingpreacher said...

BTW I can totally generalize Christinaity...it is about Jesus.

fightingpreacher said...

Rob, wow...I didnt realize there were that many muslims. I stand corrected as well.

Bootleg Blogger said...

"BTW I can totally generalize Christinaity...it is about Jesus."
I mis-spoke/typed. I meant generalize christians. At the same time, good luck generalizing how Jesus' teachings are lived out across all those claiming that label. Your "it is about Jesus" sounds cute but, again, how that is expressed day in/day out-easy to generalize, I guess- difficult to generalize and be acurate.

"not trying to be mean...it is just the cold hard reality of what is going on." That's a lame copout- you generalize about some of my friends and then tell me what their reality is? Now who's arrogant. Try to temper your "this is the way it is" delivery with some humility once in a while or there's not much point in having any discussion at all.
Happy holidays , FP

Streak said...

BTW I can totally generalize Christinaity...it is about Jesus.

Yeah, like Fred Phelps. Except there are thousands of variations. We have militant Christians too, and over the years have had too many of them. Now most are not, I would argue, but we do have the occasional abortion doctor shooter who claims he is doing it for Jesus. But it would be very unfortunate if we defined all of Christianity that way.

I dont see you complaining about the generalizations that Steves and Streak are making that generally speaking there are more minorities in prison because they are too poor to afford legal representation. I dont see you complaining about the generalization that Steves adn Streak are making that the reason there arent more white people in jail is because generally we have the money to get good enough lawyers to get us off even though we are guilty.

Didn't say there were more minorities in prison. Whites are the biggest number in this country. And many of them are also poor. Some of them are guilty, too. Just as with minorities. But the numbers (not a generalization, btw) suggest that poorer people can't get as good of representation. I would think you could figure that out.

With the death penalty, for example, we know that those who are charged with a capital crime are more likely to be charged if the victim is white. OJ Simpson is the exception that proves the rule, of course.

BTW, I have told you how to respond to Radical Islam. Some of it is hard to undo--as we have had policies in the last century that have had unintended consequences. Like undermining Mossadegh in Iran and giving them the gift of the Shah and his Secret Police (hint, they liked to torture as well). And of course, we have coddled people like Saddam when it served our national interest as well, so I am sure the Kurds love it when we use their gas attack as a justification.

We have to do better at understanding the needs and poverty of those rural areas that BB talks about. We have to do better at encouraging better education in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. We can respond strongly to actual terrorists and also make sure that the average Iraqi or Iranian citizen knows that we aren't going to bomb them, but actually want them to have good lives too.

But what about you? I already asked this:

But please answer me. If all Muslims are radical, then how do we win without killing them all? Do you think you can just intimidate them into submitting to your rule? Do you think like Ann Coulter that we should force them to convert to Christianity? Do you really believe that all Muslims want to kill us?

fightingpreacher said...

hmmmm...bb suggestion taken into consideration...but I notice you arent saying the same to Streak.

Bootleg Blogger said...

"Rob, wow...I didnt realize there were that many muslims. I stand corrected as well." - Fair enough.

FP- just curious, and if you don't know the answer it's no fair googling this until you make a guess in your head- What's the country with the largest number of muslims? What's the country with the largest muslim minority? What's a Sufi? Sunni? Shia? what's Zagat? I'm not trying to cute or a know-it-all- just think you'll be interested in the answers if you didn't already know them.

BTW, again, just in case this isn't generally known, reading the raw text of the Qu'ran can be fairly unrewarding without the aid of a muslim Qu'ranic scholar to cover the commonly held interpretations, the principle of abrogation, etc... Most Muslim teaching and practice actually comes from the Hadith. If anyone reads that cover to cover take you hat off to them- we're talking volumes. Again, the most rewarding way to learn it is in discussion with a muslim, preferably one that's used to teaching it. This is the same thing I recommend for muslims or anyone else for that manner i.e. if you are going to read the Bible, discuss it with a practicioner of the religion (jew or christian). Any holy book is easy to pick apart, compare apples to oranges, etc.... The first time I saw Ahmed Deedat give one of his diatribes about christians I resolved to study any religion's scripture with conversation or commentaries from that religion. Understanding increases and you make a few friends along the way.
Take care
BB

fightingpreacher said...

Streak you have given no answer! You gave two very very generalized statements like "appeal to the moderates" and "eridicate radical Islam." What do those two generic statements even mean? So I will refrain from answering until you clarify.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Hah! Apples to oranges, FP. AND it's his blog. I'm a guest here even if I felt like saying anything. Plus, he rarely, in my opinion self contradicts. I'm not sure he's made criteria for others that he he's then contradicted. Sorry- not a complete answer but gotta go. On the road- BB

Streak said...

Ok, I will assume that since you believe all Muslims are radicals that we have to kill them all.

I will be glad to work up a detailed plan for an ultimate fighting bigot who wants us to declare war on the entire Muslim world.

Maybe after I finish the last part of the War on Christmas and the liberal plan to wussify the Church.

you have been warned. All your balls belong to us.

Streak said...

.but I notice you arent saying the same to Streak.

Heh. BB knows me and knows I am not a bigot who thinks all Muslims are Radicals.

fightingpreacher said...

Streak said

Didn't say there were more minorities in prison. Whites are the biggest number in this country. And many of them are also poor. Some of them are guilty, too. Just as with minorities. But the numbers (not a generalization, btw) suggest that poorer people can't get as good of representation. I would think you could figure that out.

***Streak you said “Because I think the death penalty is biased against people of color and the poor?” Sorry, people of color are often minorities in the press…figured you meant it that way as well. Once again I would like to see numbers that white people are the biggest number in this country.

With the death penalty, for example, we know that those who are charged with a capital crime are more likely to be charged if the victim is white. OJ Simpson is the exception that proves the rule, of course.
***Is this a typo?

BTW, I have told you how to respond to Radical Islam. Some of it is hard to undo--as we have had policies in the last century that have had unintended consequences. Like undermining Mossadegh in Iran and giving them the gift of the Shah and his Secret Police (hint, they liked to torture as well). And of course, we have coddled people like Saddam when it served our national interest as well, so I am sure the Kurds love it when we use their gas attack as a justification.
***No question that sometimes our national interest BS gets us in huge trouble…I forget but wasn’t it Carter who put Saddam in power?

We have to do better at understanding the needs and poverty of those rural areas that BB talks about. We have to do better at encouraging better education in places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. We can respond strongly to actual terrorists and also make sure that the average Iraqi or Iranian citizen knows that we aren't going to bomb them, but actually want them to have good lives too.
***How do you encourage education with the Moderates who believe that women are property and that they can and should be beaten for indiscretion? Saudi Arabia is a fairly moderate country for Islam.

fightingpreacher said...

BB...these are guesses and I have not looked at google.

1. What's the country with the largest number of muslims? Iran.
2. What's the country with the largest muslim minority? Thailand
3. What's a Sufi? mystical muslim
4. Sunni? cant remember...but the more violent sect of Islam
5. Shia? If the sunni is the more violent then the Shia is the more peaceful.
6. what's Zagat? Absolutely no clue.

fightingpreacher said...

Since it is obvious for all to see that you cant answer your own question I will clarify.

I do not believe that all muslims are radical, but I believe all muslims deal with Radical Islamic thought processes and brain washing (I.E. cartoons depicting the killing of Jews). I believe that all Muslims must come to grip with teh overwhelming evidence from their own holy book that they must kill the infidel or force convert them. I believe there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. They are either Muslims who believe and act upon the guidelines laid out by the Koran or they are Muslims who believe and dont act upon the guidelines of the Koran or dont believe in the guidelines of the Koran.

How should we deal with them...I dont know! Which I have been hesitant to critize. Because I dont know if there is another way to deal with it. The Muslim religion has been causing trouble since before 1200 AD. Mr. Historian can tell you all about it. They have been trouble upon the entire world since their Prophet came. Moderate Islam is a false term and FYI Moderate Islam is a generalization. Tell me how many moderates there are? Tell me what does a moderate do or believe that makes them different from the radical?

BB...that is so lame that Streak doesnt have to answer because it is his page...a better response is that streak doesnt have to do anything because this is a free country.

Next, to my knowledge I have not contradicted myself...

But streak has since he says we HAVE TO ERADICATE RADICAL ISLAM.

Bootleg Blogger said...

1. What's the country with the largest number of muslims? Iran.- actually- Indonesia. It's also a secular government (not that religion isn't important in their policies)
2. What's the country with the largest muslim minority? India (Thailand's a good guess, though. Not alot of people know about the muslim minority there)
3. What's a Sufi? mystical muslim- Good start. Look more into this one and I think you'll find it very interesting.
4. Sunni? cant remember...but the more violent sect of Islam. Largest majority of muslims (80%+) Peacful/violent irrelevant. Kind of like saying pretestants or catholics are the more violent. Both groups have their militants, both have their pacifists. Currently there's plenty of conflict among and between groups. See Afghanistan for a glaring example.
5. Shia? Large, but minority sect. Iran is the most well known. BTW, division was early and based on succession of Islamic leadership after the death of Mohammed.
6. what's Zagat? Absolutely no clue. (also spelled Zakat, I think.) Giving to the poor. One of the 5 pillars of Islam. I'll leave it to you to find the other 4.

BTW, my answers above are very brief and don't do any of the subjects any justice. I'm by no means a scholar on these topics.

My belief is that the above should just be a start for anyone interested in US foreign policy, current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.... Islam 101 and some basic history on South Asia would have helped anticipate a good deal of the things that have gone wrong with this war. Read a history on the British experience in Afghanistan. Some things will sound awfully familiar. Ignorance is the enemy- on all sides.
Later- BB

Bootleg Blogger said...

Wow, FP. I guess you know it all. No point in responding, I guess, since you know it and I don't. I guess I'm not really typing on a computer, either. Thanks for that.

Yeh, like I said, not a complete answer on the Streak thing. Believe me, if you've read the archives he isn't spared much on this blog.

Other than that I guess there's not much left to say since you are dismissive of my experience. I guess if your experience contradicts your assumptions someday we'll have more to talk about.

Salaam.
BB

fightingpreacher said...

BB not sure what you are talking about.

Wow, FP. I guess you know it all. No point in responding, I guess, since you know it and I don't. I guess I'm not really typing on a computer, either. Thanks for that.

***Where did this come from since I told you I didnt know the answers to those questions?

Other than that I guess there's not much left to say since you are dismissive of my experience. I guess if your experience contradicts your assumptions someday we'll have more to talk about.

***Hmmm...I must of missed something.

fightingpreacher said...

sorry isnt it "salam" not salaam?

Streak said...

I believe there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

I think that makes you an idiot. And despite the fact that you have been more than a part-time asshole, your question has made me think.

Obviously, the problem in the Middle East is complicated and has been for sometime. It has been complicated by more than just Islam, however. Judaism and Christianity have helped fuck things up tremendously.

And now, the situation is more fucked than it has been. Bush has given us the option between bad and worse. If I had a magic wand, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan and continued to contain Saddam. But that ship sailed.

I think I would start by trying to push for reform in Saudi Arabia--and I am not sure you are right about it being moderate. Not from what I have read. I know a woman from Syria and she would disagree with many of your characterizations. (Oh right, i don't know anything about Islam--I forgot.)

But to do that we would have to really disconnect from this global oil. Peak oil will take care of that in the long run, but this President (and Clinton and daddy Bush) could have done much more to help with that by investing more in higher CAFE standards and alternative fuels. If we could underfund the radicals, we would be in better place.

I think we could do better in investing in those other Muslim countries like Thailand and Indonesia. Encouraging investment and education would help everyone. But all of that might cut into our own bottom line and access to cheap goods.

I can tell you this--treating the Muslim world with the lack of respect you have shown is not going to help. And if you colleagues in country do that, then we are in bad shape indeed. I have met a lot of informed and tolerant soldiers, so that makes me feel a little better.

fightingpreacher said...

Let me start here. You know you can have your own opinion and that’s cool, but you want to know what really pisses me off about you, it is that you are a hypocrite. You say I am rude but you are the one doing the name calling (except for me once) and a total lack of respect. You know you got BB on here talking about how bullheaded I am…but man look at your response below! You know I disagree with the vast majority of what you have said, but I but I never called you an idiot…I said something were idiotic, but didn’t call you names. So let your own colors be seen.

I believe there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

I think that makes you an idiot. And despite the fact that you have been more than a part-time asshole, your question has made me think.

Obviously, the problem in the Middle East is complicated and has been for sometime. It has been complicated by more than just Islam, however. Judaism and Christianity have helped fuck things up tremendously.
***Funny it wasn’t the Christians and the Jews who came into Europe and started slaughtering people because they wouldn’t convert to Islam. Funny it wasn’t Christians and Jews that tax people 90% of their income because they won’t convert to Islam. Funny it wasn’t Christians and Jews that flew planes into the twin towers. Funny it was Christians and Jews who in the last 2 months have been responsible for more causalities than we have lost in 5 years in Iraq. Funny that you hate America, Christians, and Jews so bad you are willing to make them the scapegoats for Muslim atrocities!

And now, the situation is more fucked than it has been. Bush has given us the option between bad and worse. If I had a magic wand, we would have finished the job in Afghanistan and continued to contain Saddam. But that ship sailed.
***Maybe so. I agree that we should have finished in Iraq first. But it is very easy for armchair quarterbacks to critique a game they have never played.

I think I would start by trying to push for reform in Saudi Arabia--and I am not sure you are right about it being moderate. Not from what I have read. I know a woman from Syria and she would disagree with many of your characterizations. (Oh right, i don't know anything about Islam--I forgot.)
***What reform would that be? How do you reform a religion of hate?

But to do that we would have to really disconnect from this global oil. Peak oil will take care of that in the long run, but this President (and Clinton and daddy Bush) could have done much more to help with that by investing more in higher CAFE standards and alternative fuels. If we could underfund the radicals, we would be in better place.
*** I hate it when I have to agree with you, but I agree here as well. But let me guess…that must be the Christian, Jews, and Conservatives fault right? Hmmm…who is it that keeps shutting down our attempts at alternative fuels?

I think we could do better in investing in those other Muslim countries like Thailand and Indonesia. Encouraging investment and education would help everyone. But all of that might cut into our own bottom line and access to cheap goods.
***Thailand isn’t a Muslim country yet, but the way they are attacking innocent people…it might be soon.

I can tell you this--treating the Muslim world with the lack of respect you have shown is not going to help. And if you colleagues in country do that, then we are in bad shape indeed. I have met a lot of informed and tolerant soldiers, so that makes me feel a little better.

***Yes I have met many soldiers that are misinformed just like you about the nature of the enemy.

ubub said...

Man, I wish I knew how to post Venn diagrams.

For one thing, that would prove useful in showing areas of agreement, or potential agreement. Occasionally I think I see a glimmer, but then things turn back to "busy discussers" mode. (That's right, I said it, and I mean you.)

Second, it would help to clean up what seem to be problematic categories used in arguments. When any population (Americans, Iraqis, Christians, North Americans, Muslisms, Middle Easterners, etc)is sorted along any single characteristic, great diversity remains within the category to the point that their heuristic utility becomes quite week. Categorical thinking, especially that which is based on single measures, obscures the wide variation within the category, and of course the broader population.

While it is accurate to state, for example, that all Baptists are Christians, the reverse, that all Christians are Baptist is not. I expect that we can all accept that. Perhaps not.

I lost track in the flotsam and jetsam of comments but really liked the idea of learning about the living "ists" rather than the more abstract "isms." In considering the categories I use myself, I have learned a great deal from Tony. His lived experience and lived example have shredded my stereotypes about Bapt"ists," especially Bapt"ist" clergy. (Wild at Heart was the last straw there.)

In thinking about building common ground and increasing the overlap in the hypothetical venn diagram, I would like to propose a fairly simple thought-experiemnt. Consider whether there may be parallels within our own experiences that we may use to test statements about others. We might each choose a category of people with which we self-identify and try out some of these statements about others. If we recognize differences among the 'usses,' whoever those 'usses' may be, why is it reasonable to assume that the "thems," whoever they may be, are all alike?

Streak said...

If you noticed, I didn't mind when you called me an ass. Perhaps you can quit your whining. When you act like an idiot and asshole, don't get annoyed if I call you on it. When you say things like there is no such thing as a moderate muslim or that the religion is one of hate--those are stupid things to say. You don't have to subscribe to bigotry. If you want to, don't get your masculinity in a bunch if someone calls you on it.

Funny that you hate America, Christians, and Jews so bad you are willing to make them the scapegoats for Muslim atrocities!

Hah. Except I never said that. Stop saying stupid stuff and I will stop calling what you say stupid.

Let me tell you a little story about this. I had a student last year from Kuwait. She was adorable and very interesting. She was from a very wealth pro-American family, but she related to me how watching the Israeli attack on Lebanon made her start to cheer for Hamas. She is a moderate, westernized women. She wore makeup and attended class without a covering. She had every reason to want to cheer for the West--yet she found the Israeli response horrible.

She is the kind of person we can't lose. If we do, then we truly are in trouble. Yet you say she doesn't exist--that even so-called moderate countries see her as property. That isn't true and makes you look like a bigot.

***Maybe so. I agree that we should have finished in Iraq first. But it is very easy for armchair quarterbacks to critique a game they have never played.

I assume you meant to type Afghanistan. But it doesn't take an armchair QB to notice that Bush has messed everything up.

***What reform would that be? How do you reform a religion of hate?

Except in Lebanon and even Syria, women are not as mistreated as you say. So there is much room for reform. Saudi Arabia is the source of the Wahabiism (which I think you mistake for all of Islam) but we can't really push Saudi Arabia because we don't have that much that they want. If we don't buy their oil, there are several countries lining up to do so.

*** I hate it when I have to agree with you, but I agree here as well. But let me guess…that must be the Christian, Jews, and Conservatives fault right? Hmmm…who is it that keeps shutting down our attempts at alternative fuels?

See. This is a good example of saying something idiotic. When I talked about Christians and Jews contributing to the problem, I wasn't talking about oil, but was talking about a very contested history over a region that all three faiths consider their home. The root of our inability to move forward on fuel is pretty simple--the oil companies and their representatives in the administration (G. W. Bush and D. Cheney). How else could you explain how they have shut down California's effort to curtail global warming?

I am glad that you are the only informed one. You are the bigot who says that all Muslims are radicals and can't be reformed. Say it-- you agree with Ann Coulter.

Streak said...

Ubub. Interesting experiment idea.

leighton said...

Ubub,

Probably the best you can do on the Venn diagram front is to draw it and scan it, or take a screenshot of this, then post it onto a picture sharing site like Flickr. That's a bit of work, though.

A linkable Venn diagram generator would be a really handy web tool to have.

fightingpreacher said...

If you noticed, I didn't mind when you called me an ass. Perhaps you can quit your whining. When you act like an idiot and asshole, don't get annoyed if I call you on it.

***I dont care what you say. I simply pointing out the double standard where I must be polite but you can do whatever you want.

If you want to, don't get your masculinity in a bunch if someone calls you on it.

***Trust me none of your liberalized agenda will affect my masculinity.

I want to focus on one comment that shows there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

"but she related to me how watching the Israeli attack on Lebanon made her start to cheer for Hamas"

She started to cheer for Hamas...notice in her mind Israel's attack on Lebanon...but there is nothing said of Hamas attacking Israel first or Lebanons refusal to take care of the issue on their own.

Thank you.

Next if you would bother to read the list of Terrorist attacks I gave you and look up the women treatment that I also provided you will see that once again you misrepresent the truth in order to further your own agenda and not the truth.

Further since you have been infected with Bush-itis (the disease that makes everything Bush's fault) of course the oil dependence we have had for years before he got in office is his fault.

Even though you havent read even one of the sources I have provided I will provide you with another.

http://www.superfactory.com/articles/meyer_what_in_the_world.htm

steves said...

Let me interrupt this discussion of Islam to answer your questions.

"Steves...I have acknowleged that are problems with the system. But lets talk real for a second. How many men and women are on death row? How many men and women are in prison? How many of those 2 catagories are miniorities? Of those minorities how many are falsely accused and convicted and punished?

Come on lets be real. What are we talking about here...whats the numbers? Does anyone even know?"

1. There are currently 3,349 people on death row.

2. There are currently 2.2 million people in prisons across the US. We are number 1 in the world for incarcerations. 25% of the world's prisoners are in US prisons (despite having only 12% of the world's population). China is number 2, with about 1.6 million in prison.

3. About 10.4% of all black males in the United States between the ages of 25 and 29 were sentenced and in prison, compared to 2.4% of Hispanic males and 1.2% of white males.

4. I will have to do some digging as to how many are falsely accused and falsely convicted.

Streak said...

***Trust me none of your liberalized agenda will affect my masculinity.

Hahahahah. I laughed aloud at that one. So glad to hear that you can report back to Brad Stine that his balls are still intact. "Pesky liberals will never tarnish my manhood...."

"but she related to me how watching the Israeli attack on Lebanon made her start to cheer for Hamas"

She started to cheer for Hamas...notice in her mind Israel's attack on Lebanon...but there is nothing said of Hamas attacking Israel first or Lebanons refusal to take care of the issue on their own.

Oh, but you added all the information about conclusions you had already reached. And you missed that this young woman started the conflict opposed to Hamas. She was on the side of Israel until they started an all-out war over a made up event. I am so glad you understood my point. Because, of course, Muslims are evil and deluded. Thank the lord that they have good Christians like you to show them the way.

Further since you have been infected with Bush-itis (the disease that makes everything Bush's fault) of course the oil dependence we have had for years before he got in office is his fault.

Hey, another laugher. Please stop. I am trying to type and the laughter is making it hard. I wonder if I can get treatment for my Bush-itis? Is that a cream? Perhaps a Cheney-induced torture? Perhaps I could vote Republican and see if my mind would simply turn off completely? Is there a place where I can get that lobotomy, or does Karl Rove take care of that? If I do have the surgery, does George Bush look like a leader? And does he suddenly speak English? Gosh.

Thanks for the levity. Hey, we are just a few days away from Christmas. Aren't there "Happy Holidays" people who need reminding that Jesus loves them? And that people who don't say "Merry Christmas" are somehow evil? And possibly a member of the ACLU?

Streak said...

btw, FP, I am sorry if you get annoyed here. But for the record, I never asked you to come and debate me here. Despite your delusions about me and Tony starting a "blog attack" we simply voiced our opinions about Brad Stine's men's movement which we find suspect. You don't like that, fine. You are more than welcome to hang out with him, whatever, but don't claim some victim status of us attacking you. We simply disagreed with you.

And speaking of that. If you are going to persist in saying that Islam is a religion of hate and there is no such thing as a moderate muslim, then expect to be called a bigot. And expect to face some derision.

Otherwise, it is up to you.

fightingpreacher said...

Steve, thanks for the stats, i will wait till you get the rest of the stats before commenting.

fightingpreacher said...

Streak, once again your comments dont bother me but you hypocritcal views do.

1st. Made up attack? So hamas is innocent?

Thanks nuff said.

Out of curosity do you teach historical fiction?

ubub said...

Here's something:

"Reading comprehension refers to the ability to understand information presented in written form."

http://www.muskingum.edu/~cal/database/general/reading.html

What's that Carly Simon song I am thinking of here? Oh yeah . . .

steves said...

There probably won't be any reliable stats on innocent people that are in prison.

fightingpreacher said...

Steves...there has got to be at least an estimate...if nothing else we could make an educated guess.

Streak said...

1st. Made up attack? So hamas is innocent?

I didn't say that. In fact, I clearly communicated that this woman as well as myself, clearly didn't want to side with a group as odious as Hamas. They are not innocent. But in that particular event, Israel over reacted. And over extended themselves. I think the evidence shows that.

Hamas is a terrorist organization. As are several others in the area. But the point you keep missing (I suspect on purpose) is that there are Muslims in the region who don't trust them and don't like their tactics. What does it say when after that short war, they are cheering more for Hamas than the Israelis? It doesn't mean what you think it means. It means that those of us opposed to terrorism are not making our case very well, and in fact, are making the terrorists case for them.

Out of curosity do you teach historical fiction?

Yes, I teach the historical fiction that our country used to abide by the constitution (or at least tried). I also teach that we, while racist and classist, have a good heart and try to overcome such prejudices. We try to welcome a variety of religious beliefs, and try to recognize the complexity of the world. I teach the fiction that Americans don't torture and don't support torture.

Stuff like that. And that there are moderate muslims. And that saying something like "they hate us for our freedom" means nothing. Oh, and I also teach on masculinity in American history. Here is a hint: you and Brad Stine wouldn't like it.

Streak said...

And you want some stats on how many innocent people are in prison? Good god. Do you think those are kept? I hope the hell not. Every prosecutor, I believe, is pretty convinced that the people they convicted are guilty.

Besides, that isn't really the point of the discussion. there are a lot of people on death row who are probably guilty, but that doesn't take away from the race and class bias of the system.

Rob said...

FP, Steve's right, getting solid and reliable numbers on those who are currently incarcerated but considered innocent is pretty impossible to come by. A good place to start thinking about this, however, is The Innocence Project (link goes to fact sheet). It's a foundation set up by law students at Northwestern to use DNA evidence to challenge wrongful convictions across the country. On the fact sheet I linked, there's some good info on the demographics and causes of wrongful convictions. Much of which echoes what Steve was saying upthread.

This group, (which, if their website quality is any indicator, might be a little fly-by-night), claims that between 3%-15% of the current population of 2 million inmates are innocent. That puts totals anywhere from between 60,000 to 285,000, which is a pretty big variance, but not necessarily impossible.

Point being that -- especially when taken together with the work of The Innocence Project above -- our system is far from perfect and actually may be broken in some critical ways.

Streak said...

Rob,

thanks for pointing to the Innocence Project. An important point, btw, is that there appears to be (at least in some states) a difference in the quality of the system depending on the severity of the charge. While you might expect that the system was more lax the less important the charge, it appeared to work the other way. Capital cases had more of the problems than lesser crimes. Prosecutorial misconduct, political pressure to get a conviction, bad defense, etc.

Personally, I think we have not made sense with what we are trying to accomplish in our prison system. Is it punishment? Or rehabilitation? Or both? We seem to cycle back and forth between them with conservatives wanting punishment almost alone, while some liberals (perhaps) wanting too much toward the other way.

But for the criminals who do get released, I read that many of them are much more violent when they get out than when they went in. That seems counter productive. Then you add the death penalty to the mix and you have a hodgepodge of something that never quite gets close to justice.

fightingpreacher said...

wow...3% equals 60,000 people that are detained in prison are innocent?

Hmmm...ok I think that is a much bigger problem than I had initially anticipated.

Ok, since we are the complain blog about screwed up everything is because Bush is the anti-christ and just wants to destroy you guys. How could we make the system better?

fightingpreacher said...

You know streak if you would stop being a jerk and post stuff like this I could almost stomach having a conversation with you.

Personally, I think we have not made sense with what we are trying to accomplish in our prison system. Is it punishment? Or rehabilitation? Or both? We seem to cycle back and forth between them with conservatives wanting punishment almost alone, while some liberals (perhaps) wanting too much toward the other way.

***Prison doesnt rehabilitate anyone. Only internal things do that. Prison should be for punishment and punishment alone. It is not the job of the government to change these men and women. That is the problem with Government. We make it an agent of change and take it WAY outside its original intent and purpose. Why do both conservatives and liberals both feel that the answer to every problem is that if the government would only do fill in the blank, that this would be better. It almost never works that way. Power Corrupts and corrupts absolutely! The major problem with all of this is we keep turning over to the government more and more things that they should have no authority in.

But for the criminals who do get released, I read that many of them are much more violent when they get out than when they went in. That seems counter productive. Then you add the death penalty to the mix and you have a hodgepodge of something that never quite gets close to justice.

***Absolutely...Because they are thrown in to a dog eat dog world where all kinds of violence and gang stuff, and animalistic type of behavior exists.

fightingpreacher said...

Streak you commented that "1st. Made up attack? So hamas is innocent?I didn't say that. In fact, I clearly communicated that this woman as well as myself, clearly didn't want to side with a group as odious as Hamas. They are not innocent. But in that particular event, Israel over reacted. And over extended themselves. I think the evidence shows that."

The evidence clearly shows you said it was a made up attack and here is where you say it

"Oh, but you added all the information about conclusions you had already reached. And you missed that this young woman started the conflict opposed to Hamas. She was on the side of Israel until they started an all-out war over a made up event."

fightingpreacher said...

"Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and
don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know. "

Streak said...

heh. It is funny when you call ME a jerk. Because you are ever so easy to talk to.

***Prison doesnt rehabilitate anyone. Only internal things do that. Prison should be for punishment and punishment alone. It is not the job of the government to change these men and women.

Ok, you can argue that. Government can actually do things. Conservatives like to badmouth it, but it can facilitate education; can build bridges, roads, hospitals and libraries that connect us all. Government can and does build systems to protect us both from environmental problems and disasters.

***Absolutely...Because they are thrown in to a dog eat dog world where all kinds of violence and gang stuff, and animalistic type of behavior exists.

Yes, and this is exactly the punishment you seem to enjoy. Prison can and does rehabilitate. The prison system you favor can turn a petty thief into a hardened violent criminal. A rehabilitation program can provide at least some of the things that often most criminals lack--namely education.

"Oh, but you added all the information about conclusions you had already reached. And you missed that this young woman started the conflict opposed to Hamas. She was on the side of Israel until they started an all-out war over a made up event."

That was probably imprecise on my part. Thanks for extending that grace you are so proud of. I certainly feel that Israel turned a minor event into a major war and treated it as if it were Iran themselves attacking.

But you still miss the point here. Whatever you think of the event, we can't afford to lose those moderates who want to support us. We cannot afford that and Bush has done everything he can, seemingly, to do just that. I am sure that is not his purpose, but it sure sometimes looks that way.

Ok, since we are the complain blog about screwed up everything is because Bush is the anti-christ and just wants to destroy you guys. How could we make the system better?

Nice hyperbole. Bush is just incompetent, and he has hired some very bad people around him. But if you want to make our judicial system better (and I am not convinced yet) then you have to go back to the basics. That means really fully addressing the idea of equality before the law. Meaning that whether it is Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, or Scooter Libby--they have to answer for their crimes. 2), because I believe our race and class issues are far from behind us--we should abolish the death penalty. If it cannot be meted out fairly, then it should not be meted out at all. 3), we have to beef up our public defense system. The adversarial system should be equally adversarial, and we should not have defense attorneys falling asleep during trial, (happened on a death penalty case in Texas). As Steve notes, many of the public defenders are able and well-intentioned, but their offices are routinely underfunded, or as in Texas (as I recall) there is no such office.

Streak said...

Correction: When I said Yes, and this is exactly the punishment you seem to enjoy. That should read "punishment you support."

ubub said...

So, um, what about Army officer retention? Is that the next aisle over? I seem to have found the prisons and Muslims section.

Streak said...

So, um, what about Army officer retention? Is that the next aisle over? I seem to have found the prisons and Muslims section.

Heh. Well, we got into the Muslims because of liberals irrational belief in things like rights and I am not sure how we ended up in prison.

Rob said...

A prison of our own making, my friend, of our own making.

fightingpreacher said...

Streak we got on prisons because you brought up captial punishment.

fightingpreacher said...

Streak you want to know another major difference between us?

I pray that you are right and that I am wrong. I pray that their is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. I pray that the massive evidence that their is much worse to come is false. I dont like the reality I see.

You on the other hand hope I am wrong and you are right.

ubub said...

I didn't realize you guys were so well-acquainted -- all I saw was a flurry of comments exchanged.

Streak said...

Streak you want to know another major difference between us?

I pray that you are right and that I am wrong. I pray that their is such a thing as a moderate Muslim. I pray that the massive evidence that their is much worse to come is false. I dont like the reality I see.

You on the other hand hope I am wrong and you are right.


Hmm. So we disagree, I guess, is the major difference. You think an entire religion is evil and radical and I don't.

fightingpreacher said...

There is no question that Islam is evil! Not all the people associated with it are. Obviously you didnt read my quote from earlier. Obviously you missed the entire purpose of the above post. Obviously you have not read the Koran or the Hadith or the the links that I provided. I can provide from the Koran and the Hadith multiple references to how to deal with the infidel which are all violent. None the less...you missed that I hope I am wrong and in your arrogance you automatically assume that I am wrong and you are right.

"Don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam and
don't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know."

Streak said...

I read both. Neither one made sense. You are right, I assume that bigotry is wrong. I assume that dismissing an entire religion as evil is wrong.

Look, I don't really care if you consider me arrogant. I don't consider myself that way, but it doesn't really matter. I do, as I noted above, think it is simplistic to simply dismiss Islam as evil and still say that asserting that there is no such thing as a "moderate Muslim" is beyond the pale. It is part of the propaganda that certain people on the right--who want this war to be one between our God and theirs.

And it sounds suspiciously like the way that radical Muslims identify the conflict. In fact, the parallels seem eerie sometimes. Both radical sides saying this is a battle between good and evil--both claiming the world will end soon--both claiming that God is on their side.

I am an expert in American history--or small parts of it, to be more accurate. So, you are correct that I am not an expert in either World History or the history of the Middle East. Nor am I an expert on Islam. But the only person in this discussion with extensive contact with Muslims (BB) gave you some new ways to consider the Koran. He worked next to Muslims for years and is far from believing the propaganda. I will trust him more than I will trust the "us v. them" mentality.

Rob said...

Dude, FP, have you ever read the Bible? I mean, if we're going to be picking apart a Holy Text to discern evil intent, look no farther than some of the books of the OT. There's scads of "smight thine enemy" talk, just as much as the Koran has "smight the infidel" talk. The only difference is, you've chosen to follow the former rather than the latter.

fightingpreacher said...

Rob, my degree is in Bible. I have read it and I know what the OT says in depth. I wont bore you with the theological explanation.

Bottomline, OT is not the measure by which we act, the NT is. In the NT ways are very different.

In Islam there is no OT/NT division.

ubub said...

FP, why would you assume anyone would be bored with your theological explanation?

I am also quite interested in your translations of Arabic.

fightingpreacher said...

ubub, I can only read a little arabic, there was a very short period of my life where I went to Mosque. During that time (which was for a Bible College course) I was given a Arabic/English Koran. I have not opened it in a few years as a majority of my time has been studying the Bible.

I assume that people will be bored based on the response from the few times I have brought up what the Bible says.

Streak said...

FP,

You said: Bottomline, OT is not the measure by which we act, the NT is. In the NT ways are very different.

I agree. Why is it then that it appears that people dip in to the OT to find justification for beliefs that they want? Like the death penalty or war against our enemies? I mean that question in all sincerity. I don't understand why some Christians use the NT when it is convenient, but then look back to the OT when they want to justify violence or antagonism against another.

Tony said...

Streak,

I would be very interested to hear a response because at my blogs, I used the same justifciation and reasoning you have used here, yet FP chided me for it.

Here he agrees with my position:

Bottomline, OT is not the measure by which we act, the NT is. In the NT ways are very different.

Curious.

Rob said...

FP, would a Muslim who picked up the Bible and read straight through from cover to cover come away understanding that a God-fearing Christian should act according to the NT and not the OT? How obvious is it that we should discard the violence in our holy book, and follow only the sweetness and light stuff?

Likewise, how obvious is it to you what's "OT" or "NT" in the Koran? They may not have testaments, but I'm betting no one told you which sections they live their lives by and which they don't. I applaud your reading of it, but what do you know about Islam and Muslims, really, just because you read their book?

Streak said...

Tony,

That is what I thought. I am curious as well.

Rob, well said.

Bootleg Blogger said...

Streak- I'm not sure if this fits here or not. (Not that I've been afraid to embark on a tangent before). BUT I came across
this discussion (click on "Baptists reflect on the aftermath of 9/11"). Of particular interest to me are the statements by Martin Accad, academic dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary in Beirut, Lebanon. I have not seen any discussion or news on the refugees to which he references. I also think the impact on Christians in the middle east, particularly in Iraq, has been absent or downplayed, keeping up the image of this mainly affecting Muslims, who are generally suspect anyway (see FP's comments). In no way do I mean to insinuate that a christian life is worth more than a mulim one or any other for that matter.

I don't remember anyone mentioning the diplacement of hundreds of thousands of christians. Somehow, I don't think that would have resonated very well from the stumps or pulpits. Forgive the cut and paste, streak, but here's a short one:
Question: What do you think global Baptists ought to say/do about the war in Iraq?
Martin Accad: "A good place to start would be a call to repentance. We must repent concerning the more than 2 million Iraqi refugees (among whom over 400,000 are Christians) in Syria and Jordan who are living in desperate and irremediable conditions as a result of this military engagement. We must repent for being active agents of war, rather than being true children of our God of peace and of the Prince of peace. In short, we must repent for indulging, actively or passively, directly or indirectly, in playing God; or for encouraging and voting for politicians who consider the world to be a chessboard and a stage for their political whit. Global Baptists ought to start calling for a politics of humility, for a politics of engagement and dialogue, against the widespread politics of colonialist-style arrogance."


Later- BB

Rob said...

Excellent find, BB. Accad is a sharp sharp man, and enumerating the thing that (in my book) a true Christian (as in, follower of Christ's teachings) must aspire to.

And you know what it is? It's humility, which is the exact quality Jesus the Warrior lacks. I think this finally (again, for me) puts the perfect point on why I simply can't handle FP's Godman thing . . . because it presumes a Jesus without one of his most essential elements. Worse, the Godmen seem to mistake that humility for cowardice. It's really nothing short of tragic hubris.