Karzai Twists the Knife - Would Support Pakistan over US

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And my attitude is far better then the current US administration’s handling of the Arab Spring, which is only guaranteeing the creation of several more Iran’s, this time of the Sunni flavor.  I mean, how ignorant do you have to be not to have known Egypt would turn into a radical Sunni state?

jmfcst, you think any Sunni state is radical. Besides, the Middle East exists for people who live there, not for the benefit of the West. The Middle East doesn't dislike the West just because we're here; they dislike us in part because we're there. If we had pursued your policy towards Iran and Syria the entire Third World would have turned much more radically against us than it has anyway.

Yeah, those rapidly depleted Christian minorities in the ME are sure loved by the citizens of their own countries, aren’t they?  They're simply loved to death by the Muslims.

---

And whether or not killing people is effective or leads to desired results has no bearing on whether or not it's wrong. It's wrong to kill enemy combatants. It may be excusable given circumstances, but it's still wrong

So, do you also think it is wrong for SWAT teams to take-out armed murderers threatening to kill more people?  Where did you get the idea that killing in the defense of others is “wrong”?!  Where does an idea like that come from?

It may be unpleasant and undesirable, but it is NOT “wrong”!  In fact, killing is sometimes the only righteous action to take in this world.  Jesus Christ himself wasn’t some pansy pacifist, in fact he said if his kingdom were of this world he’d paint the place red with blood (which he will do when he comes back).  And he instructed his disciples, who would remain in the world, to arm themselves – not for conquest – but for self defense.  

---

; and it's not excusable to kill civilians--any civilians--because of the actions of their governments.

You, on the other hand, do think that it's okay to kill civilians because you don't like their government, which is also al-Qaeda's justification for 9/11. Literally that was their exact excuse, that American civilians are culpable for US government action because the US government is elected.

Where is this argument coming from?  Where exactly in my plan do you find me targeting civilians?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yeah, those rapidly depleted Christian minorities in the ME are sure loved by the citizens of their own countries, aren’t they?  They're simply loved to death by the Muslims.

They were 'rapidly depleted' before, too, and also that has nothing to do with what I was saying. You do know that what happened with those Copts in Egypt got a lot of people really angry at the army and the SCAF had to go into damage control mode by banning religious discrimination, right?

I'm also not buying your sudden concern for Christian minorities in the Middle East, considering your views on the subject of Israel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's called pacifism. You may have heard of it.
I would certainly think it was wrong for the SWAT team to do that, but I would understand why they did it and not judge them for it. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's not sometimes called for. Because we live in a Fallen world, which you apparently don't want to understand the full import of.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He also said that His Kingdom isn't in fact of this world, if you'll recall.

Agreed, there is such a thing as 'proportionate force' and the early Christians needed to defend themselves. But killing when there is any other option to solve the situation is always, always, always wrong, for the precise reason that only God has rights over our lives.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm referring to your apologism for dropping atomic bombs on factories full of conscripted children at the end of World War II. And you may not be 'targeting' civilians here but the fact of collateral damage certainly isn't enough to diminish your sabre-rattling.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

They were 'rapidly depleted' before, too, and also that has nothing to do with what I was saying.

but it has everything to do with what I am saying - Islam is a religion intended to be a politically imposed religion that is not tolerant of anything other than Islam…simple and accurate.

---

You do know that what happened with those Copts in Egypt got a lot of people really angry at the army and the SCAF had to go into damage control mode by banning religious discrimination, right?

Yeah, I’m sure the Copts are snug and secure now.

---

I'm also not buying your sudden concern for Christian minorities in the Middle East, considering your views on the subject of Israel.

The NT view (which matches the OT view) that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews is not contradictory with NT theology.

---

It's called pacifism. You may have heard of it.

Yeah, and it’s a pretty naïve and despicable belief.  Like to see someone break in and attempt to rape your mother and wife and we’ll see how pacifist you become.

---

I would certainly think it was wrong for the SWAT team to do that, but I would understand why they did it and not judge them for it. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's not sometimes called for.

You are so full of contradictions - if it is called for in certain circumstances, then it is NOT wrong in those circumstances, in fact, in those circumstances it is the righteous thing to do.  Me blowing the brains out of someone breaking into my house with the intent of killing my family is the righteous thing to do.  Period.  Exclamation point!

---

Because we live in a Fallen world, which you apparently don't want to understand the full import of.

Oh, I am fully aware of it.  The fallen world ushered in death as a needed consequence.  And God intended man to be prepared to kill to defend life, both in the OT and in the NT.  God never forbid killing, rather he forbid murder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He also said that His Kingdom isn't in fact of this world, if you'll recall.

See part in bold

---

Agreed, there is such a thing as 'proportionate force' and the early Christians needed to defend themselves. But killing when there is any other option to solve the situation is always, always, always wrong, for the precise reason that only God has rights over our lives.

The only way to deter barbarism is through force, especially religious barbarism.  Unlike the secular tyrant, religious barbarism is planted in faith, not in gain or loss in this world…which is why bring-us-back-to-the-stoneage Shria law is desired by the majority of Muslims.  The only way to defeat when it is forced upon you is through force, there is no other option unless you want to pay tax and treated as a second class citizen.

And if you think the Muslims are content with just having Shria law in their own countries, then you are extremely naïve.  Islam is not a race or nation or freedom-of-choice based religion, rather it is a religion that seeks to unify the whole world under an Islamic political state.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm referring to your apologism for dropping atomic bombs on factories full of conscripted children at the end of World War II. And you may not be 'targeting' civilians here but the fact of collateral damage certainly isn't enough to diminish your sabre-rattling.

How many civilians were killed in the battle of Okinawa?  Answer – Estimates range from around 80k to 150k.

How many Japanese soldiers were killed in the battle of Okinawa?  Answer – 100k (roughly 90-95% of Japanese fought to the death)

How many Japanese soldiers were killed in the battle of Iwo Jima?  Answer – about 99% of 18k soldiers fought to the death, only 278 were captured alive

Multiply those numbers to the mainland of Japan and the decision to drop the nukes to end the war is a no-brainer….in fact, 90k–166k people killed in Hiroshima (2nd Army HQ)and 60k–80k in Nagasaki (home to huge sea port and factories) is about the same as the carnage of just Okinawa alone

But my plan to defang Iran/Iraq/Syria is not anywhere on the scale of the civilian causalities of the WWII nukings.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

but it has everything to do with what I am saying - Islam is a religion intended to be a politically imposed religion that is not tolerant of anything other than Islam…simple and accurate.

Absurdly bigoted and historically myopic. There are certainly types of Islam that are like that, and we have the ill luck to be living in an era in which Islam is in one of its sh**ttier phases, but the same is true of any other religion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Relative to how they were before? Actually, depending on how enforcement goes, yes, it's entirely possible that they will be. They're certainly better off now than under Mubarak, even if a lot of sh**t is bubbling to the surface by the nature of what revolution entails.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's contradictory with opposing religious discrimination, though. But you obviously don't actually care about religious discrimination unless it's Muslims doing it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have in fact been in situations in which my family was endangered. Remarkably, I managed to defuse them without killing anybody. Had I not been able to I would have tried to atone for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not the righteous thing to do. It's the tragic thing to do, because life is tragic. There's actually a book called Del Sentimiento Trágico de la Vida which I highly recommend you read. Like a lot of the author's work, it's partially about how to reconcile the inherent wrongness or tragedy of a lot of contingently necessary things. I'd also recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on pacifism, which can be found online, since it's a concept that you're grossly and willfully oversimplifying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed as far as the exegesis of the Seventh Commandment goes, but forgive me I don't think God intended man to be violent, jingoistic hypocrites.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See part in bold italics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is why religious dictatorships are often more forgivable than secular ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. Sharia
2. They desire it because it's the traditional legal system of their culture. They desire it for much the same reason that we would desire a return to the Common Law if it were taken from us. Whether this is right or wrong isn't affected by that, but that's why they desire it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Killing people because they make you pay relatively small taxes is such a childish, short-sighted, and morally reprehensible disproportionate response that I don't even know where to begin. Also, you know that there have been many non-Muslim theocracies throughout history, right?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some types of Christianity also seek to unify the whole world under a Christian political state; it's just that the Christian political state is eschatological. Also, some types of Islam seek that. Are you familiar with the concept of fiqh and different schools thereof? How about 'denominations', in general?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's far from clear what was actually going on in Japanese high command at the time and whether or not the United States jumped the gun, but this really isn't the point. Also, the huge seaport and factories were being run by conscripted children. I'm going to keep using the phrase 'conscripted children' until it sinks into your venal, tribal little skull.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a question of 'scale'. It's a question of it being wrong to preemptively kill civilians.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

but it has everything to do with what I am saying - Islam is a religion intended to be a politically imposed religion that is not tolerant of anything other than Islam…simple and accurate.

Absurdly bigoted and historically myopic. There are certainly types of Islam that are like that

Certain types?  How about the type practiced by Mohammad himself?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Relative to how they were before? Actually, depending on how enforcement goes, yes, it's entirely possible that they will be.

Can you give me a count on the number of nations where the Christian population has increased after an Islamic government was put into place?  I think the answer will be 0 +/- 0

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's contradictory with opposing religious discrimination, though. But you obviously don't actually care about religious discrimination unless it's Muslims doing it.

This has nothing to do with religious discrimination, rather it is racial…it’s the Jews land whether the Jews are religious or atheists.  I myself do not have the right to claim land in Israel.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have in fact been in situations in which my family was endangered. Remarkably, I managed to defuse them without killing anybody. Had I not been able to I would have tried to atone for it.

I don’t know what rock your got your concept of atonement from, but:

1) there is no justification for doing something that you know you will later regret.  If you think that there is, then name me one single example in scripture where someone had ask forgiven for something they had to do, much less for killing someone in self-defense.
2) it’s a basic foundational doctrine of Christianity that you cannot atone for your own actions.

So all this self-pity self-righeous self-contradicting pacifism of yours is just a bunch of baloney.

religious dictatorships are often more forgivable than secular ones.

what?  On what basis?

---

Killing people because they make you pay relatively small taxes is such a childish, short-sighted, and morally reprehensible disproportionate response that I don't even know where to begin.

So, you’d be willing to lay down and give up your rights and be treated as a second class citizen in your own country if Muslim attempted to take it over, instead of picking up a gun and defending it?!  What kind of a pussy are you?

---

Also, you know that there have been many non-Muslim theocracies throughout history, right?... Some types of Christianity also seek to unify the whole world under a Christian political state

Yeah, and I’d put a bullet between the eyes of a “christian” theocrat attempting to overthrow the constitution a lot quicker than I would a Muslim theocrat.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's far from clear what was actually going on in Japanese high command at the time and whether or not the United States jumped the gun, but this really isn't the point.

So, Harry S. Truman was expected to be Marvin the Mind Reader, eh?  I think Truman allowed the actions of the Japanese high command to speak to their intentions.

---

Also, the huge seaport and factories were being run by conscripted children. I'm going to keep using the phrase 'conscripted children' until it sinks into your venal, tribal little skull.

And all those Japanese soldiers who died in WWII were NOT conscripts and were instead all volunteers?

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's not a question of 'scale'. It's a question of it being wrong to preemptively kill civilians.

I…never…mentioned…targeting…civilians…while…defanging…Iran…Iraq…Syria…

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

we need a new representative for pacifism...I just can't reconcile "it is 'wrong' for a SWAT team to kill someone in the defense of others, but it is called for...though they will need to atone for their actions"

what is the SWAT team to do for atonement - adopt 10 miles of a local highway and clean it for 2 Saturdays per person they 'wrongly' but 'necessarily' killed?  

How about cleaning poop droppings of homeless kittens in the local animal shelter?  My wife does that.  I'll have to go home and ask here what she is attempting to atone for.

[opebo]

jmfcst, has it ever occurred to you that it's intrinsically wrong to kill people, not just incidentally wrong to kill people from cultures and under governments of which you approve?

there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing those who are trying to kill you...it's called self-defense.  Iran has been at war with the US since 1979, and every move they make is an attempt to destroy us, mainly because we are Israel's protector. 

No, jmfcst, the Iranians want to kill the Americans because the Americans have always killed the Iranians.  You see, jmfcst, your nation-state is the biggest aggressor in the history of the earth, and sometimes the victims fight back.  That's all.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Can you give me a count on the number of nations where the Christian population has increased after an Islamic government was put into place?  I think the answer will be 0 +/- 0

Persia and India, among others. As I said, Islam right now is indeed comparatively sh**tty, historically speaking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, so it's racial discrimination. Gotcha.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I killed someone, it wouldn't be because I was trying to; it would be because that was an unintended result of trying to stop them to do something else (other than 'being alive'), and I would rightly feel horrible about it. As it happens, I've never done that, so I'm not pitying myself at all. Also, I misspoke. I meant 'repent', not 'atone'. Sorry about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The basis of intent. Faith is a better intent than greed, even if it's really messed-up faith.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One who doesn't feel that it's right to kill people. Again, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article, in particular the section headed 'Transformational Pacifism'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You shouldn't put a bullet between the eyes of either if there were any other options available, but good to know, I guess.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What actions? They were consumed with infighting as to what to do next and when they tried to communicate with Truman somebody mangled the translation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was wrong to conscript them on the part of the Japanese government. The United States had considerably more control over its own actions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than in fog-of-war situations prevalent in actual combat. Had the United States had some sort of divining rod to separate conscripts from volunteers, however, then yes, it would have been absolutely wrong to intentionally kill the conscripts.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You never mentioned civilians at all, except to say that they follow a demonic religion and can be justifiably treated as a homogeneous mass. Forgive me if I used that fact as a starting point for deduction about how much you care about them.

we need a new representative for pacifism...I just can't reconcile "it is 'wrong' for a SWAT team to kill someone in the defense of others, but it is called for...though they will need to atone for their actions"

what is the SWAT team to do for atonement - adopt 10 miles of a local highway and clean it for 2 Saturdays per person they 'wrongly' but 'necessarily' killed? 

How about cleaning poop droppings of homeless kittens in the local animal shelter?  My wife does that.  I'll have to go home and ask here what she is attempting to atone for.

I'm not claiming to be a representative for pacifism, just one for myself, which is why I keep trying to get you to read the damn article.

You can't reconcile it because you have a risibly simplistic worldview and are also misunderstanding what I am saying, possibly deliberately. Here:

1. It is wrong to intentionally kill somebody.
2. If the SWAT team ends up with somebody dead from trying to do another task, that's not a good outcome and it's something for which they should repent.
3. If the SWAT team intentionally killed somebody, that's a completely unjustifiable outcome.

You also seem to think (or not to care if it comes across that way) that if one believes in repenting and atoning through works, one can't believe in doing good works for their own sake. I don't know what this says about you but whatever it is I don't like it.

Your suggestions would be perfectly good things for SWAT police to do with their time, yes.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Can you give me a count on the number of nations where the Christian population has increased after an Islamic government was put into place?  I think the answer will be 0 +/- 0

Persia and India, among others.

As I said, Islam right now is indeed comparatively sh**tty, historically speaking.[/quote]

What?!   Historically speaking…Mohammad pretty much cleansed Christianity from the ME, the Christian populations dropped (usually by the sword) dramatically during his conquests.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, so it's racial discrimination. Gotcha.

Yeah, I am discriminating against myself…what a bigot I am.

---

Also, I misspoke. I meant 'repent', not 'atone'. Sorry about that.

So, basically ‘wrong’ equates to ‘sin’, thus the need for repentance…now, we’re speaking the same language….so, you believe it is a “sin” for a SWAT team to use deadly force, yet you think that that “sin” is justified?!

Does your bible have Jesus saying, “Go and sin no more…unless it is justified”?…cause I think I missed that verse.

---

I am willing to entertain arguments to wait out Iran…but I am not going to sit here and listen to a bunch of contradictory nonsense that attempts to define deadly force used in the act of self-defense as a “sin” and then attempts to claim “sin” is sometimes justified.  Your attempt to muck up the English language has one aim and one aim only – to cloak the lie that you are pedaling.

Sin is sin, period.  The bible NEVER portrays it as justifiable.

Again, I am fine with people arguing that my plan will cause more bloodshed in the near and long term.  That is a viable argument.  But it is NOT a viable argument to openly claim sin is justifiable in some cases for it is never presented that way in scripture.

[Sbane]

Do you care about any other religious minorities in the mideast or Islamic Asia other than Christians, Jmf? Like say, Hindus under Islamic rule India for example? Pretty sure their population rose under kings like Akbar. Though to be fair to you, he was the exception, and most Islamic rulers were pretty sh**tty.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Do you care about any other religious minorities in the mideast or Islamic Asia other than Christians, Jmf? Like say, Hindus under Islamic rule India for example? Pretty sure their population rose under kings like Akbar. Though to be fair to you, he was the exception, and most Islamic rulers were pretty sh**tty.

what is this, the exception that disproves the rule? 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I am willing to entertain arguments to wait out Iran…but I am not going to sit here and listen to a bunch of contradictory nonsense that attempts to define deadly force used in the act of self-defense as a “sin” and then attempts to claim “sin” is sometimes justified.  Your attempt to muck up the English language has one aim and one aim only – to cloak the lie that you are pedaling.

Sin is sin, period.  The bible NEVER portrays it as justifiable.

Again, I am fine with people arguing that my plan will cause more bloodshed in the near and long term.  That is a viable argument.  But it is NOT a viable argument to openly claim sin is justifiable in some cases for it is never presented that way in scripture.

You are willfully misinterpreting what I am saying or else you are so incredibly ignorant that you genuinely do not understand that there is any kind of Christian moral thought other than your own. I am not attempting to cast sin as 'justified', only 'understandable'. If it is justified in the sense of being forgivable, which is a word that I have used while you have been the only one insisting on the use of 'justified', it is because the result is unintentional. I have never claimed anything else and if you genuinely think that I have then I am afraid that you are well beyond the help of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Maybe if you spent the rest of your life doing nothing but reading Unamuno and Endo over and over again you might eventually break even. MAYBE. But I'm not going to sweat it until that happens. Welcome to ignore.

[patrick1]

Do you care about any other religious minorities in the mideast or Islamic Asia other than Christians, Jmf? Like say, Hindus under Islamic rule India for example? Pretty sure their population rose under kings like Akbar. Though to be fair to you, he was the exception, and most Islamic rulers were pretty sh**tty.

what is this, the exception that disproves the rule? 

Jmf, it is not just an exception to the rule.  There were centuries when Islamic rule was more tolerant of other faiths than Christendom was.  Of course to put these things into an Islamic vs Christian structure is simplistic and misguided in the first place. Both religions span continents and intersect with different cultures, producing wildly varying forms of expression.

Tbs, I am not happy with some of the extremist elements gaining more power, and I think we should press for minority rights diplomatically.  I do not think that we should automatically assume that these new Arab Springs governments will be hostile to the US and preemptively foster this enmity by bombing them.

[Хahar 🤔]

Given the great tolerance of Christians as opposed to Muslims, certainly the Christian conquest of Spain must have been a great blessing for the Jews of Spain.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Probably time to stop funds and bring the troops home.

That would be the obvious thing to do, but American policy and obvious are usually in disagreement.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There were centuries when Islamic rule was more tolerant of other faiths than Christendom was.

you know, after the 839th time, it's gets boring having to explain that I don't care for any kind of theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

---

Tbs, I am not happy with some of the extremist elements gaining more power, and I think we should press for minority rights diplomatically.  I do not think that we should automatically assume that these new Arab Springs governments will be hostile to the US and preemptively foster this enmity by bombing them.

again, another straw man argument - for I haven't advocated preemptive strikes against the Arab Spring countries, only Iran and Syria.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You are willfully misinterpreting what I am saying or else you are so incredibly ignorant that you genuinely do not understand that there is any kind of Christian moral thought other than your own.

actually, I prefer biblical moral thought, rather than creating my own.

---

I am not attempting to cast sin as 'justified', only 'understandable'. If it is justified in the sense of being forgivable, which is a word that I have used while you have been the only one insisting on the use of 'justified', it is because the result is unintentional.

Then where in the bible is sin “understandable”…give me a single example out of the entire bible.  And where is sin only forgivable if the result is unintentional?

I don’t recall a single passage where the bible has anyone saying, “Sorry, God can’t forgive you for this sin since it was intentional.  You wanted to steal.  You planned the theft.  And you intentionally stole….so, ‘No Forgiveness For You! Next!’”

God is not a soup nazi when it comes to forgiving sin.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You are willfully misinterpreting what I am saying or else you are so incredibly ignorant that you genuinely do not understand that there is any kind of Christian moral thought other than your own.

actually, I prefer biblical moral thought, rather than creating my own.

No, it's still your own moral thought, you just describe it as Biblical because you're engaging in a particularly hubristic type of value attribution.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then where in the bible is sin “understandable”…give me a single example out of the entire bible. [/quote]

There are enough examples of points where Jesus understands people's sin that I don't feel the need to list any specifically if you can't read it yourself. Understanding sin isn't the same thing as excusing it. You and the Pharisees are the only ones who think that. Jesus certainly didn't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll concede this semantic point (and I completely agree with your last sentence), but what I'm referring to is the distinction between venial and mortal sin, which is one of degree, not of kind. Again, somebody reasonably familiar with the history of Christian moral thought would have understood this. A venial sin ('forgivable' in this context, which was probably a stupid word for me to have used) is simply one that doesn't in some way at least point to or pave the way for blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, in that it either does not concern a 'grave matter', is not committed with full knowledge, or is not committed with both deliberate and complete consent (the last of which is the relevant one here).

I don't agree with the classical interpretation of what 'mortal sin' entails precisely, because I agree with you that that particular part of the analysis doesn't have any basis in the teachings of Jesus, but denying that there is at least some sort of distinction here strikes me as faintly absurd at best.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nathan, I've created a thread on the Religion Board where you can continue attempting to explain the logic of your "pacifism + the need for sinning SWAT teams"

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nathan, I've created a thread on the Religion Board where you can continue attempting to explain the logic of your "pacifism + the need for sinning SWAT teams"

I'm not interested in discussing the particular example of the SWAT teams any more, since I'm analyzing it as a result of a fallen and violent world whereas you're more interested in the applied morality of it as itself (which there's nothing wrong with, aside from the fact that it seems to be hampering your ability to understand what I actually believe; which I admit I haven't been doing the best job of explaining, because you won't read the Stanford article). Here, I'm going to create an 'Opinion of transformational pacifism' thread and we'll see if that gets us anywhere.

[patrick1]

There were centuries when Islamic rule was more tolerant of other faiths than Christendom was.

you know, after the 839th time, it's gets boring having to explain that I don't care for any kind of theocracy, Christian or otherwise.

---

Tbs, I am not happy with some of the extremist elements gaining more power, and I think we should press for minority rights diplomatically.  I do not think that we should automatically assume that these new Arab Springs governments will be hostile to the US and preemptively foster this enmity by bombing them.

again, another straw man argument - for I haven't advocated preemptive strikes against the Arab Spring countries, only Iran and Syria.

Sorry, my mistake.  It is tough to keep up with whom you are advocating a kill crazy rampage against. So you only want to bomb Iran and Syria.  Please update us when Egypt or Turkey are added to your list

Also, I am not saying that you were advocating a theocracy. It is frustrating when people misinterpret and misconstrue someone's political positions.

The Christian kingdoms (Christendom) that persecuted Muslims and killed or exiled Jews were not theocracies either.   Several Islamic kingdoms were quite tolerant in comparison. My general point is that you are making broad generalizations about over 1 billion people with a weak foundation.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The Christian kingdoms (Christendom) that persecuted Muslims and killed or exiled Jews were not theocracies either.

such as...?

---

Several Islamic kingdoms were quite tolerant in comparison. My general point is that you are making broad generalizations about over 1 billion people with a weak foundation.

my knowledge of current events is a bit hazy...remind me again which Muslims countries currently have a growing Christian population?

[patrick1]

The Christian kingdoms (Christendom) that persecuted Muslims and killed or exiled Jews were not theocracies either.

such as...?

---

Several Islamic kingdoms were quite tolerant in comparison. My general point is that you are making broad generalizations about over 1 billion people with a weak foundation.

my knowledge of current events is a bit hazy...remind me again which Muslims countries currently have a growing Christian population?

Really?  There are hundreds of examples.  Edward I expulsion of the Jews, Ferdinand and Isabella's forced conversions and expulsions, pogroms throughout C. and Eastern Europe for 600 years.  Religious tolerance isn't exactly a western virtue.

If you read several posts earlier, I am not making the claim that the "Muslim world" is very tolerant right now. However, Muslim nations are not as monolithic as you are inferring and intolerance is not necessarily its default position.  Perhaps, I am reading you wrong but you seem to equate every majority Muslim country as one short step away from a Wahhabist regime. I just dont find that a realistic fear.  Now I think it is true that in many of these countries the people feel that the Western ideologies have failed the large majority of the population and they wish to re-incorporate some Islamic principles into their governments.   That doesn't mean they will turn into Talibs overnight.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Really?  There are hundreds of examples.  Edward I expulsion of the Jews, Ferdinand and Isabella's forced conversions and expulsions, pogroms throughout C. and Eastern Europe for 600 years.  Religious tolerance isn't exactly a western virtue.

well, forced conversions fits under my definition of theocracy...and Western persecution of the Jews doesn't have to involve Christianity, take Hitler for example.

so, I am not saying this is limited to Islam...I'm just saying the Arab Spring is going to turn out bad, very bad

[© tweed]

Really?  There are hundreds of examples.  Edward I expulsion of the Jews, Ferdinand and Isabella's forced conversions and expulsions, pogroms throughout C. and Eastern Europe for 600 years.  Religious tolerance isn't exactly a western virtue.

well, forced conversions fits under my definition of theocracy...and Western persecution of the Jews doesn't have to involve Christianity, take Hitler for example.

someone of course will say here that 'Hitler was a Christian'