Oh, I completely agree! I'm not expert, but I would think they would then target Western Europe, free nations with high Christian popluations.

Yea, then after they finish off everyone who believes differently to them, they would start fighting each other until eventually the human race becomes extinct... that is the Al quaeda dream, and all their other extremist muslim comrades (pretend comrades that is).

And all that is required for this violent end of human existance to be avoided is for extremist muslims to wake up one day with just a little more tollerance of others in their hearts, or by being unable to exterminate hethens quicker than they are borne!! which is probably the case unless muslim extremist can regularly obtain nukes.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that'll happen within the week.

If only, if only.

hahahaha

Sadly i do not know how you can stop the cycle of intollerance and hatred? Apart from with a bullet that is!

If anyone else has any ideas on how to stop muslim extremista apart from using a bullet, then i would like to hear it?

Get rid of religion, that should help cure most intolerance. But knowing us Humans, we would just find another reason to hate each other. But I dont really care about it anymore. We were at war when I was born, and we still are. War is part of American life.

Oh, man, I'm just checking the post before I leave for work. I don't have time to respond - I'll try to get back later. Good thoughts, all of you. I don't agree with you all (what fun would that be), but great discussion. I'm going to spend my commute trying to organize my thoughts.

Ahhh, yet another voice of reason. Well put, well put. I think this is the number one reason my opinions against my country/government are as strong as they are. People seem to think that I am somehow 'against' democracy, but I am not. I believe most Americans today believe that our country runs under a true 'democracy' but it doesn't. We have confused the two, thinking that they go hand in hand but I don't believe they do. Now I never claimed to be an expert on forms of government so if I am wrong in my perceptions of what a democracy is truly supposed to be vs. capitalism and her definitions by all means enlighten me.
If other people wish to try other forms of government I do not wish to see my government interfere, regardless of reasons. Some forms work better than others, some people wish to have different systems... there should be nothing wrong with this as it is a big planet and our borders have pretty much been defined for us.
The number one reason my government does interfere is because whatever form of government is about to take hold almost always goes against what would be good for big business. If we did it for any other number of reasons such as human rights violations or substandard living conditions I would be all for it since we are after all supposed to be the 'super power'.
Invasion by force should be the LAST thing done to try to change a bad situation. Those people who would defend our actions by saying that we gave all involved a chance when we put the political process to work 'in the hopes' of coming to an equitable and violence free compromise need to go back and look at what occurred in this process. It was nothing more than a formality and a stall tactic. It was done to try and make us look good in the world's eyes, for "were trying to give Saddam all chances to comply". Yeah, and elephants are pink and fly. Our politicians knew they were asking things that would never be accepted... these were the 'formalities' before 'opening up a can of whoopass'.
No my friends, I believe the true idea of 'democracy' in this country is long dead. I don't know what our founding fathers had in mind when they started all of this but I am quite certain we have deviated far off course from their 'intentions'.
I believe it was the ancient Greeks who first came up with the concept of democracy and individual 'rights' IIRC. They also felt everyone else in the world was inferior to themselves. Hmmmm...

I'm not sure I'd agree. We all fear what we don't know. The solution is to learn about each other.

I've come to know people of all backgrounds over the years. I'm trying to make sure my kids get the same. It is much harder to judge a group of people when you know people in that group, be it economic, ethnic, or whatever. But does Osama Bin Laden want to know about us? I think not.



I would. If we should intervene anywhere because of human rights violations, then we should intervene everywhere there are human rights violations. We don't. We go where we feel our national security issues are. I'm not saying its right or wrong, I'm just pointing it out. As have many others.



I hate to admit it, but this is a good point. The "proof" I have is that Osama said he did it and our government said he did it. That's it. But, as I have said before, I think it more likely that this is true than there is some large conspiracy. But, yes, that is only my opinion. There is no real "proof".

Oh, I can't resist - keep in mind that the "proof" to my side would have burned up in the towers and on the planes, so there's no way to know. Just like WMDs...  



I'll hold you to the same standard I did Stormbringer - how is it harmful? I don't see India complaining about the IT jobs that are going there. China isn't griping about Wal-Mart. And don't even mention Mexico...

It's harmful when bombs are falling, yes. But our culture and economy has never started a war (unless you can convince me otherwise). You have a great quote, but I'm not sure the facts back it up.



Yes, it is. If you commit an attack we drop bombs. If you are supporting an attack I don't think that warrants a military response.



We support America by discussing and solving our problems. "My country, right or wrong" is like "My mother, drunk or sober".



Nope. That is the stated goal of fundamentalist Islam. We are in a war. Try to accept that.



Well, it's debate. I wouldn't call it intelligent debate. These discussions help me hone my wit, to help verbalize my beliefs, to make me express what I feel. And sometimes I see that I might be...well, let's call it less than well-informed. Any debate is helpful.

The Muslim religious leaders, the imams, could preach a message of love, compassion, and understanding. But they don't. This week an American imam called for the death of an Iraqi woman author living in the US because she wrote a book criticizing the Islamic treatment of women. They continue to spread their message of death.



War is part of human life, not just America. Here's a hard question - we're all GalCiv2 players, right? Look in the mirror! We spend our spare time trying to conquer the universe! I know it is pretend, but why do we do it? Because galactic domination is FUN! Humans are just built this way.





There is an argument to be made that the founding fathers only felt that wealthy landowners should be allowed to vote, that the government should be run by the people with the most at stake. Which is sort of what we have today.

No, this isn't true democracy. The technolory has existed for 15 years at least to have presidents elected by direct popular vote. We don't do it. We have a lengthy primary process before we even get to vote. Why not have run-offs?

Because this works for those in power.

Thomas Jefferson wanted the people to "keep and bear arms" because he felt that another revolution would be neccessary one day. Maybe that is what it will take for election reform. Hey, Kryo, how about that for "Political Machine II"?



No, that can't be true. WE are superior to everyone!!   (I'm being silly)

If this ever happened I wouldn't know what to do. On the one hand I would gladly take up arms against the system and deal with all who oppose me with swift and deadly action... probably more than would be necessary, which would be the sinister, kill 'em all side of me that I can usually suppress.
Then the logical side of me would want no parts of violence because as I stated elsewhere, I don't believe violence is the answer and I do actually believe that my soul will be judged one day, ahem.
So, as I said, if this were to happen in our country I would become thoroughly confused as to what action I would wish to take. I just don't know, in the end I don't think I would sacrifice my eternal soul for my mortal flesh... know what I mean.
Although if someone knows of some loopholes in the way all of this works with regards to Judgement day...

This is really the challenge in these discussions, I think. Not to overthrow the government, I mean, but what would you change if you could? And how can we begin to effect that change, even on a small level?



I am always struck by the fact that the founding fathers "pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" and risked everything to create this nation. I'm not sure I would or could sacrifice my eternal soul, either...but they did. Do we owe them any less?

it's not that simple, either. for starters, there's as much diversity among muslims as there is among christians. is the american christian bombing of abortion clinics any less a form of terrorism than is a car bomb?

Al Queda represents one response to a well-established history of western/christian imperialism in the middle east dating back to the crusades. particularly, i think they're reacting most strongly to our culture and economic models being forced onto thier socieity. they're afraid that everything they know is being pushed aside. and they're right about that much.

is their response to the crimes they feel have been committed against them right? of course not. but it's not so irrational as people like to think. after all, we've got Pat Buchanan and that crowd inventing "the gay agenda" because there are plenty of christians in this country who feel the same way as Al Queda. i don't think they're directly behind things like clinic bombings and Matthew Shepard, no. but they fan the flames, and i think they'd do more if they could.

we're not innocent victims. we've allowed this state of affairs to develop by neglecting the consequences of our own greed, and our solution seems to be throwing fuel on the fire.

Then where is the internal Muslim debate about what they are doing? I'm a practicing Christian and I don't have any insight into current Muslim worship. What I do see is a consistent message from the imams supporting the jihad view. I know that there must be differing views. Where are they?



In principle, no. In practice, yes. If we had 100 citizens a day being killed at abortion clinics I think we would mobilize the National Guard. And Iraq is roughly the size of Californian. Could you imagine the outrage if 100 Californians a day were dying?



That's great rhetoric. Is it true? I'm not sure, and really there's no way to tell. If you are saying that their customs and beliefs are being destroyed, well, the people that are leading the destruction are doing it in the name of Islam! We're not putting IEDs in markets. And if we leave the violence will probably continue. If it continues, then we must not be the cause.

What got pushed aside was Saddam.



As I said earlier,


Convince me. Otherwise, I think what you are saying sounds great, but may be meaningless.



I agree. We need to wean our economy off of oil. But I drive a Jeep 90 miles a day to work and I don't have another option. Well, I could get a smaller car, but we have two teenagers in band so I need room to lug instruments. And we have dogs. Big dogs. So, really, I'm part of my own problem.

the Imams only speak for the Shi'a, which is a minority of muslims. and they don't even necessarily "speak for" every Shi'ite. most muslims are Sunni: from western africa to indonesia, this is the form of Islam that spread. a portion of Sunnis are Sufi, which is the more mystical form akin to classical Hassidism among Jews or pentacostal Christians (or Tantra in Hinduism and Buddhism). as for where their debates are, well, they're in Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, and many other languages. (as an aside, when i say "Christian," i don't just mean Protestant, but also Catholic and Eastern Orthodox - when you include those, this debate you speak of seems a little less robust than your diction indiciates).



so it's not terrorism because it happens less frequently and with less organization? that doesn't fully convince me, but you make a fair enough point. also, we don't have too many clinic bombing here, but a recent outbreak of gay bashings here in San Diego (about 6 over the last year) has got several uptown neighborhoods quite outraged, effectively to the point of forming a militia.



well, i hate to throw articles at you, but this is the guy that convinced me: Benjamin Barber. i only give the link instead of responding directly because he's a lot more eloquent than i am on this topic.



so what are the labor protests in the Phillipines all about? and yes, those happened in Mexico too, about 10 years ago IIRC. their governments don't complain; hell, they put these protests down. international business doesn't fully control government (ours or others), but the effect is there. but Al Queda isn't a government, and that's why they complain. its members gain nothing from our globalizing economy (with the exception of the bin Laden family, who've become rich exporting oil to the West and are close friends of the Bush family).

though, actually, i wasn't referring to labor markets nearly as much as consumables and media; the implications of that emphasis are clearer in the article i linked.



did you know hydrogen cells have been around as a viable, totally renewable (by sunlight, no less) fuel for over 20 years? material science has brought tank ruptures to nothing more than a distant possibility, and i even vaguely remember reading a Scientific American article about turning molecular hydrogen into a mostly innert liquid that'd still oxidize under the right conditions (created in the engine itself). of course, i don't have a link for that readily available.

the engines based on corn-derived alcohol GMC has made lately would actually be worse for the environment if fully implemented as a replacement for gas-powered engines. the amount of corn we'd need for this country's automotive uses would deplete our soil in a few years and turn water vapor into the new greenhouse gas, but at least we could grow the corn ourselves. and for now, we've got enough surpluss corn in the U.S. that it's not going to make us worse off, environmentally.

we've had alternative technology for some time, but none of the industry money-makers are willing to leave behind their production investment in gasoline-powered cars. the government will only offer tax incentives to the consumer: god forbid they'd insitute something like an annually increasing tax on the production and sale of gasoline-powered vehicles. i'm not saying we turn with open arms towards a command economy, but why does the citizen always bear the brunt? i've read that mulitnational corporations worm out of over 50% of the taxes they rightly over the government, which is an inferred estimation to be sure. still, can you imagine what kind of money that is? but what's true at work is true in taxes: sh*t flows downhill.

Yes, that will surely get rid of intolerance- poeple would so tolerate the destroying of their religion.



I see your point, it is so complicated, but I don't think I can agree with you on your second point. The so called "bombing of abortion" is done in a legal, peaceful manner. Yes, there have been actual attacks on clinics, but letting them speak for all Christians would be like letting me speak for all of you, which I know I don't.

i was referring to actual bombings, not protests.



or like letting Al Queda (or the Imam) speak for all muslims... which you never said is happening. but it's a stereotype all too common. that was mostly the point i was trying to bring to fore. the same problems over there can be found here.

Oh... Please people, even if those bombers say they are Christian, that doesn't mean anything if they're killing innocent people.



Yes, thank you. That was similar to the stereotype I was reffering to before (see reply 149).

I didn't know that.

But then shouldn't there be some Sunnis preaching tolerance and understanding? Maybe there are, but why don't we hear them?



No, those governments don't complain. They don't have to - all the people who are upset enough to complain just come here! I'm all for immigration - both sets of my grandparents were immigrants. My point is that these governments aren't trying so solve their problems, the problems leave. And they come here and become productive citizens. The Mexican government would be much different if they were actually trying to solve their poverty problem.



Everything you say about alternative fuels is true. Because of ethanol, the price of corn has gotten so high that we are about to see a rise in food prices because so much corn is going for fuel. And what happens we no longer have surplus food to feed the world? Let 'em eat oil!



Amen!



Wow, look at that. We had groups of intolerant people practicing hateful acts against innocent citizens. So what did we do? We discussed it openly, enacted hate crime laws, and used societal pressure to make it wrong. Is it fixed completely? No, and it probably never will be. But a society can address these issues - if they and their leaders want to. I am sure that you wouldn't argue that we are more highly evolved, would you?

Outstanding Benjiman Barber pot, Dystopic. I don't agree with all of it, but good stuff.

Gentlemen, check out the link. It is very pertinent to this discussion.

I think he sounds afraid that nationalism will disappear. I think we are seeing the beginning of that now. We are not fighting a nation-state, we are fighting individuals.

Maybe that is the solution. If the planet truly does become globalized maybe we all will live in small, fragmented states. And then maybe we will all be happy with who we live with.

Well if you think that supporting an attack isn't the same as committing it then you should also be asking why being an accessory to a crime in America such as murder carries such high penalties?

hmm on second thought... now that i think of it, if you are not actually involved in the murder but openly say how wonderful it is that that person got murdered, i do not believe that is a crime is it?

Not only is it not a crime, someone will stand up for your freedom of speech rights!

hehehe true,,, unless your in a Muslim country!

I haven't got time to comment about the thread yet, but skimming through I noticed this.



You surely have brutality sorted, Not just the dehumanization of those you feel are at war but the wholesale alienation and summary judgement of, In your words "innocents"

To dismiss your argument, "Innocents" Do they "kill out citizens" " or are they, as you say, INNOCENT.

PS, some people have no humanitarianism. they mix warmongers with the general public,
I wonder if this is why some in the west stick so blindly to the state arguments of hate.

I never did say one power abolish religion, I mean everyone discards it. It wont happen, since most religious people are stubborn, and naive fools. But if everyone wilfully gave up their religion, it would cure most intolerance, since the majority of intolerance IS caused by religion. I dont see why we have to fight and hate each other over NOTHING. We are nothing more than highly evolved animals.

Now Marcus. On 9/11 nearly 3000 people were killed for no reason by radical islamists. Now, we are returning the favor. And whats next? Some muslim smuggles a nuke through Mexico, and blows up NY completly? Since, I assume your not American, you probably wont give a damn about it, and still support peaceful means. Now you see, they wont mind, cause doing that is SUPPORTED. Now we havent done it, cause all the democrats in DC think we can stop them peacefully. Hahaha yea, cause building a democracy and building up ISF is REALLY gonna change their genocidal ideology.

Good point. The Iraqi citizens we kill in collateral damage are innocent, as are the Palistinian children shelled on the beach. I think we rationalize this by the argument that the citizens become legitimate targets when their own leaders choose to use terror tactics. If Osama Bin Laden decides that US citizens are legitimate targets, then, as far as I am concerned, the citizens of governements committing those attacks are legitimate targets.

It gets less clear when you realize we are not fighting governments, we are fighting individuals. How do you do that? When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Our interrogations of "high-value suspects", our detainment camps at Guantanemo Bay, our (possibly illegal) phone taps are all efforts to fight individuals. But then we (myself included) complain about infringment of our rights. We are fighting a war we haven't even figured out how to fight!



This is a very easy phrase to hide behind, but I don't think it is true. Most of the world's religions, including most sects of Islam, preach love, tolerance and understanding. Intolerance is caused by ignorance, not religion. Ignorance fueled the KKK, not Christianity. Was religion a cause of Vietnam? Or Korea? Or WWs 1 or 2? Or our Civil War? Or the American Revolution?

There were a number of 17th century European wars about religion. But I think your argument lost it's strength after the Enlightenment, in the mid-1700s.

But, as always, I'm open to a different viewpoint. Prove me wrong.