#2
Can it be that the Repubs have an inkling of waking up on this?
For years, I've been saying that the goal of the Democrat party in the post-Cold War era has been to turn their backs on much of what makes us American and transform the U.S. into a society not meaningfully different from continental Europe. The proof of this is an easy thing to accomplish. Ask any Democrat to name five major policy areas - defense, Israel, gun control, taxation, regulation of business, attitude towards religion, whatever - where their notion of the way things should be here is different from the way countries like France or Belgioum do things. Universally, they can't do it. It bears repeating, over and over; the Democrats want to transform our country from a distinct America into just another moribund hyperregulatory, socialist, cultural Marxist state like those of Western Europe.
Hammering this message would be a huge winner for the Repubs come election time. It's a message like this that will bring in the so-called Reagan Democrat types and others, people who may want certain elements of what the Dems are selling but recognize the uniqueness of America and aren't willing to trade it away to be like Luxembourg.
I've always been mystified that this simple, easy-to-communicate message has never been emphasized by the trunks during elections. Perhaps this gives us a glimmer of hope that they will this time around.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/22/2007 5:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I wonder who'd put Bolton in his cabinet.
It would have to be someone who was confident of getting him approved by the Senate. Unfortunately.
#4
On a side note about the UK & EU.
The UK prime minister is ducking a Referendum on the new European Constitution Treaty which hands over swathes of UK Democracy to the EU, because every single poll shows the UK public voting against handing over more power to the EU.
Posted by: Pat ||
07/22/2007 7:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Is this article about beer? Then, yes, then being like Belgium would be a good thing.
Posted by: Captain Lewis ||
07/22/2007 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Based on the last five years I have come to the conclusion that there will be no referendum because the Brits' Labour rulers do want to be like Belgium and the common Brit hasn't sufficient desire to stop them. Sad but true. When that happens, the Malvinas will presently be reunited with the proper fatherland.
#7
Malloch Brown, he points out, was simply saying the sort of thing he used to say lurking behind closed doors in the United Nations, where diplomats have perfected the art of speaking with four or five faces.
Now that's gonna leave a mark!
Per no mo uro's observations:
There are a lot of people on the Democratic side here who think the European Union has better policies than the Bush administration, Bolton says.
Much as I might dislike Bush, his administration's follies cannot hold a candle to Europe's insanity. 'Nuff said.
I dont regard the use of military force as attractive, but if the choice is a nuclear-armed Iran, there is no question that you have to come down on the side of force.
Whichunlike nearly the entire field of candidatesmakes Bolton presidential material.
He is no longer confident of where Bush stands on Iran or other issues. Im not sure where he is today.
Blair is being dispatched to the Middle East as a sign of Bushs revived interest in a multilateral peace process, but Bolton believes it is mission impossible.
Please refer to the above comment.
Plainspeak had damned well better win out over Newspeak if this world wants to survive its current volley of threats.
#8
I also think that Labour and Tory leadership prefer the EU and would like to adopt the new consitution without a referendum. They are envious of the ability of the EU government to implement policies by fiat and without accountability.
#10
"Republican candidates are reported to be jockeying for Bolton's endorsement."
Hell, the Pubs have no viable candidates. (Fred T. has not truly committed yet) Bolton would be an ideal nominee. He has some name recognition and understands all the functions and shenanigans involved in both domestic and foreign politics. The guy just plain gets it and can transmit his thoughts in concise, cogent terms which are never misinterpreted. He'd be a great leader. Maybe he could get Newt to commit to Sec. of State. Those two, pulling as a tem, could get something positive done. Ahh, dreams!
It's unconscionable that The Times has given editorial credibility to terrorists
Memo to Al Qaeda's Ayman Zawahiri: Forget the mule pack; give your video cam a rest. Our nation's leading media outlets are making an offer you can't refuse: If you can keep it to 1,250 words, the next time you want to communicate directly to the American people, the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and New York Times want your byline.
Inconceivable? Consider Hamas' summer hot streak. Not only has it driven Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas out of Gaza, threatened Israeli civilians and bombarded fellow Palestinians, but it has scored the ultimate media trifecta. First, the New York Times and the Washington Post simultaneously ran Op-Ed articles by Ahmed Yousef, a senior leader of Hamas who defended his group's bloody putsch in Gaza. Now, the Los Angeles Times has opened its Op-Ed page to Hamas political bureau deputy Mousa Abu Marzook for his insidious take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Why should any Palestinian 'recognize' the monstrous crime carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state, while he or she lives 10 to a room in a cinder-block, tin-roof United Nations hut?" Marzook asked in his article in The Times earlier this month.
Of course, he knows very well why Palestinians are in the position they're in. It's because of the refusal of the Arabs to accept the 1947 U.N. resolution for a two-state solution in the Holy Land. The architects who laid the foundation for the U.N. refugee huts are the Arabs themselves. And why is that misery still continuing in the Palestinian territories today? Because of the delusional aspirations of their Islamic fundamentalist leaders who will not accept the rights of the Jewish people to any homeland in the Middle East. Had the Arab states then, or Hamas today, chosen peace, no Palestinian would be living in refugee camps and there would be no suicide belts.
In reaction to a firestorm of protest, the New York Times' public editor defended his newspaper's publication of Yousef's piece by stating that "the point of the Op-Ed page is advocacy" and that "if you get only one side, that's not debate," a view we're sure some editors at the Los Angeles Times share.
But how to explain the radical makeover from terrorist pariah to sought-after guest commentators in our national newspapers of record? Perhaps the editors at The Times and their colleagues back East think they are performing a service by accepting Op-Ed articles that allow people like Abu Marzook to speak unencumbered to the American people. What better way to prove to these radicals that the pen is mightier than the sword?
But this is a dangerously flawed and naive approach. Hamas, an offshoot and affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood, is as committed to its vision of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law as Hitler was to his "1,000-year Reich." And the editors turn a blind eye to Hamas' founding charter, which invokes the infamous forgery "The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion." Also ignored is the reality that Israel is in a struggle with a group of religious fanatics who embrace a culture of death, preferring the next world to this one; whose ideology abhors compromise; and who surely view their newfound status in the U.S. media as a complete capitulation by a crucial segment of America's elite.
This is the issue before us -- should the nation's Op-Ed pages be thrown open to everyone? Are there no constraints or red lines? Whatever happened to the basic standards that civilized people are expected to live by? Like a belief in the reverence and sanctity of all human life; an abhorrence of violence toward others, especially innocents; the desire and ability to be reasonable and avoid extremes. Has Hamas suddenly embraced any of these values? Of course not. So why is The Times conferring a journalistic honoris causa degree on terrorists whose modus operandi is to deliberately target innocent civilians of all faiths on buses, in theaters and in shopping malls?
So what will the editors' answer be? That simply because Abu Marzook can turn a good phrase, mass murderers will from now on be entitled to their point of view?
Let's be clear: This issue is not about giving ink to Hamas' views. Their statements and actions deserve real-time coverage, just the way the statements and actions of Hitler and Stalin received coverage by the most prestigious newspapers in the world's most important democracy. But such people do not deserve the status of a sagely byline, because that destroys the distinction between honorable men and women bound by basic principles of humanity and the despots and terrorists eager to destroy those values.
If the criteria is simply because "it is an important story," then would the editors have welcomed articles by Auschwitz's Dr. Josef Mengele justifying his gruesome medical experiments, or by the Virginia Tech killer explaining why he committed mass murder? Of course, newspapers have the right and responsibility to inform their readers about dictators and purveyors of terror. But they don't have the right to bestow editorial credibility on those bent on genocide.
It is true that, just like Hitler, Hamas was democratically elected. But it is equally true that once it took power, like Hitler, it made it brutally clear that its god is the bullet, not the ballot.
So if terrorism doesn't do it for the editors, when will their moral outrage kick in? When the KKK or Nazi party submit their rants for consideration? On Sept. 12, 2001, it would have been an inconceivable question to ask, but not today. When will Osama bin Laden's guest column appear? What price "relevance"?
In the twilight of George W. Bush's presidency, the president has shown himself to be a small and unpopular leader, but a fairly good politician.
A good politician is someone who knows how to get people to support him by making them believe that he agrees with them, even when the policies he advances are contrary to their wishes and interests. Bush's success in endearing himself to his supporters comes across clearly in his administration's handling of Iran.
Bush told the Palestinians that this is a "moment of choice" for them. It is time for them to decide if they are for terror or peace. But then, he said the same thing five years ago. Since then, at every decision point, the Palestinians chose terror. They have built terror armies and amassed terror arsenals. The have strengthened their ties to Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and al-Qaida. They overwhelmingly elected Hamas to lead them. But in the interests of advancing its policy of appeasement, the Bush administration abjectly refuses to acknowledge that the Palestinians have already chosen. ...
#1
Imagine for a moment that the GOP stopped sucking up to the "moderate" terrorist factions. Also imagine that Israelis stopped embracing a unilateral suicide wish. Also imagine that American jews stopped voting for anti-semitic leftists. The disturbance in the force would be great indeed...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/22/2007 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Also imagine that Israelis stopped embracing a unilateral suicide wish.
A suicide wish would be to precipitate a break between Israel and USA by refusing to go along with, whatever scheme the current occupant of the White House has for "gaining friends in Arab world" by advancing the "Palestinian Cause", has.
American jews stopped voting for anti-semitic leftists
And voted for GOP who's choke full of Saudi ass-lickers.
#3
In the twilight of George W. Bush's presidency, the president has shown himself to be a small and unpopular leader, but a fairly good politician.
The same could be said for Bill Clinton. Amass a huge campaign war chest by comprising your integrity with the fat cats. Issue a swarm of glittering generalities to the voters and "look presidential". It isn't all that hard to figure out and with any luck just about anybody who "looks presidential" and is willing to pimp themselves out can do it. The "looks presidential" part is something you kind of have to be born with but you can work on the ability to speak in public. Don't worry about what to say because you can hire a speech writer for that.
OK. I understand that it isn't good to be a single issue voter. So I'm ready to forgive George W. Bush for his cockeyed and corrupted immigration policies if he would JUST BOMB IRAN.
Posted by: Abu Uluque6305 ||
07/22/2007 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And voted for GOP who's choke full of Saudi ass-lickers.
Hey, look at which party actually voted against ANWR expansion. Or which party is actually bothering to fight a proxy war against the Saudis, and which party wants to _call it off_.
#5
And voted for GOP who's choke full of Saudi ass-lickers.
Hey, look at which party actually voted against ANWR expansion. Or which party is actually bothering to fight a proxy war against the Saudis, and which party wants to _call it off_.
#6
And voted for GOP who's choke full of Saudi ass-lickers.
Hey, look at which party actually voted against ANWR expansion. Or which party is actually bothering to fight a proxy war against the Saudis, and which party wants to _call it off_.
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
The CPI(M) otherwise known as the Chinese Puppets in India (Morons)
AS we go to press the national media reports of a dangerously disturbing development that India is to launch an Israeli spy satellite called Techsar (ToI, July 18). Once launched this satellite will be completely under the control of Israeli military. The satellite has advanced technological capabilities to locate very tiny objects. In other words, it can read the individual movement of people (particularly Palestinians) considered by Israel to have a potential danger to its security. This represents a big leap in the growing Indo-Israeli military colloboration.
Such expanding military colloboration with Israel comes at a time when Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands and the consequent denial of the legitimate right to a homeland for the Palestinians enters its 41st year.
yada yada yada
India has all along unambiguously reiterated that it along with a plethora of UN Security Council resolutions stands for the unqualified withdrawal of all occupation by Israel. India is also committed to the creation of an independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital. These commitments sound hollow in the face of such rapid growth in military ties with Israel. For in the final analysis military purchases from Israel only constitute a source of financing the occupation of Palestinian lands, the associated horrendous crimes against humanity and denying its peoples a nation. Such growing military colloboration is therefore simply unacceptable. It is a great travesty of Indias commitments and this UPA governments reiteration in the Common Minimum Programme of unqualified solidarity with the Palestinian peoples struggle.
During 2006, Israel has become Indias biggest military supplier after Russia, providing defence equipment worth US $1.6 billion. Recently, the Cabinet Committee on Security chaired by prime minister Manmohan Singh cleared the setting up of a joint venture for production of new generation missiles at an estimated cost of US $2.5 billion or more than Rs 10,000 crore. Indias high security public sector firm, Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), will be the prime contractor for the project which will have an indigenous investment of Rs 2300 crore. This is the second range of Israeli missiles that India would be acquiring. Recently, India concluded a deal for acquiring 18 Spyder missile systems for countering threats from low flying aircrafts. In addition, in January 2006, India entered into a US $480 million deal with Israel Aerospace Industries for a missile system for the Indian Navy.
Indo-Israeli defence ties are showing a sudden upswing spurt, having begun in 1999. Such growing military colloboration with Israel is not in Indias interests.
India should be weak and vulnerable to China
Apart from contributing to the financing of Israeli occupation of Arab lands and the virtual isolation of the Palestinian towns and villages along with a rapid and voluminous settlement of Jewish settlers in the occupied lands, such growing military ties also expose Indias security establishment and the all important DRDO to Israeli penetration. The work of Israeli covert operations organisations like the Mossad is well known internationally. At a time when international opinion is veering around towards imposing restrictions on economic cooperation with Israel until it vacates its illegal occupation, Indias growing military colloboration completely negates its overt statements of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. It must be remembered that Indias bonds with the Palestinian cause go back to the early decades of the twentieth century when in the midst of our freedom struggle the Indian people asserted the right of the Palestinians for a homeland. These traditions cannot be abandoned, neither can we strengthen the hands of those who deny the Palestinians their right to a homeland today.
Such growing military colloboration with Israel cannot but be seen as a hostile act by many Arab regimes. This again is not in Indias interests. There are more than five million Indians working in Arab countries and the value of trade between India and the Arab world is more than US $25 billion. Sixty per cent of Indian gas and oil imports worth $20 billion annually come from the Arab world. Under these circumstances, even in terms of protecting Indias own national interests such growing military colloboration with Israel is simply self-defeating.
Interesting logic. Not one Arab country has even sent a diplomatic demarche to India regarding its relations with Israel
Such a colloboration would also negate the vast potential that India has in playing a crucial role to resolve the West Asian crisis and deliver justice to the Palestinian people.
The US can't resolve the problem so India will step up to the table?
Instead, India is increasingly being seen as a partner of Israel in the continuing heaping of crimes against the Palestinians and the wars of aggression that are periodically launched like the recent one against Lebanon.
This is simply not acceptable. India must reverse this growing military colloboration with Israel. This colloboration cannot be justified, under the present circumstances, as India furthering its national interests. Indias national interests can never be served by collaborating with Israel militarily as it continues to deny the Palestinians their elementary rights and therefore emerge as the focus of instability and insecurity in West Asia.
Therefore, in Indias national interests, in the interests of pursuing an independent foreign policy and of strengthening the bonds of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, in the interests of not providing grist to the terrorist mill in India
So, Indian Muslims (allies of the communists) do engage in terrorism?
, in the interests of not undermining the friendly ties with the Arab world, these growing military ties with Israel must stop forthwith. Above all, this is required in the name of humanism, to further the human values of the inalienable right of a people to a homeland and to their choice of their social and political systems and dignified existence.
"China's Chairman is Our Chairman"
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/22/2007 17:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
Islam needs a Reformation. It needs someone with the courage of Martin Luther. This is the belief I've arrived at after a long and painful spiritual journey. It's not a popular conviction -- it has attracted angry criticism, including death threats, from many sides. But it was reinforced by Sept. 11, 2001, and in the years since, I've only become more convinced that it is critical to Islam's future.
Muslims are too rigid in our adherence to old, literal interpretations of the Koran. It's time for many verses -- especially those having to do with relations between Islam and other religions -- to be reinterpreted in favor of a more modern Islam. It's time to accept that God loves the faithful of all religions. It's time for Muslims to question our leaders and their strict teachings, to reach our own understanding of the prophet's words and to call for a bold renewal of our faith as a faith of goodwill, of peace and of light.
I didn't always think this way. Once, I was one of the extremists who clung to literal interpretations of Islam and tried to force them on others. I was a jihadist.
I grew up in Saudi Arabia. When I was 16, I found myself assailed by doubts about the existence of God. I prayed to God to give me the strength to overcome them. I made a deal with Him: I would give up everything, devote myself to Him and live the way the prophet Muhammad and his companions had lived 1,400 years ago if He would rid me of my doubts.
I joined a hard-line Salafi group. I abandoned modern life and lived in a mud hut, apart from my family. Viewing modern education as corrupt and immoral, I joined a circle of scholars who taught the Islamic sciences in the classical way, just as they had been taught 1,200 years ago. My involvement with this group led me to violence, and landed me in prison. In 1991, I took part in firebombing video stores in Riyadh and a women's center in my home town of Buraidah, seeing them as symbols of sin in a society that was marching rapidly toward modernization.
Yet all the while, my doubts remained. Was the Koran really the word of God? Had it really been revealed to Muhammad, or did he create it himself? But I never shared these doubts with anyone, because doubting Islam or the prophet is not tolerated in the Muslim society of my country.
By the time I turned 26, much of the turmoil in me had abated, and I made my peace with God. At the same time, my eyes were opened to the hypocrisy of so many who held themselves out as Muslim role models. I saw Islamic judges ignoring the marks of torture borne by my prison comrades. I learned of Islamic teachers who molested their students. I heard devout Muslims who never missed the five daily prayers lying with ease to people who did not share their extremist beliefs.
In 1999, when I was working as an imam at a Riyadh mosque, I happened upon two books that had a profound influence on me. One, written by a Palestinian scholar, was about the struggle between those who deal pragmatically with the Koran and those who take it and the hadith literally. The other was a book by a Moroccan philosopher about the formation of the Arab Muslim way of thinking.
The books inspired me to write an article for a Saudi newspaper arguing that Muslims have the right to question and criticize our religious leaders and not to take everything they tell us for granted. We owe it to ourselves, I wrote, to think pragmatically if our religion is to survive and thrive.
That article landed me in the center of a storm. Some men in my mosque refused to greet me. Others would no longer pray behind me. Under this pressure, I left the mosque.
I moved to the southern city of Abha, where I took a job as a writer and editor with a newly established newspaper. I went back to leading prayers at the paper's small mosque and to writing about my evolving philosophy. After I wrote articles stressing our right as Muslims to question our Saudi clerics and their interpretations and to come up with our own, officials from the kingdom's powerful religious establishment complained, and I was banned from writing.
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave new life to what I had been saying. I went back to criticizing the rote manner in which we Muslims are fed our religion. I criticized al-Qaeda's school of thought, which considers everyone who isn't a Salafi Muslim the enemy. I pointed to examples from Islamic history that stressed the need to get along with other religions. I tried to give a new interpretation to the verses that call for enmity between Muslims and Christians and Jews. I wrote that they do not apply to us today and that Islam calls for friendship among all faiths.
I lost a lot of friends after that. My old companions from the jihad felt obliged to declare themselves either with me or against me. Some preferred to cut their links to me silently, but others fought me publicly, issuing statements filled with curses and lies. Once again, the paper came under great pressure to ban my writing. And I became a favorite target on the Internet, where my writings were lambasted and labeled blasphemous.
Eventually I was fired. But by then, I had started to develop a different relationship with God. I felt that He was moving me toward another kind of belief, where all that matters is that we pray to God from the heart. I continued to pray, but I started to avoid the verses that contain violence or enmity and only used the ones that speak of God's mercy and grace and greatness. I remembered an incident in the Koran when the prophet told a Bedouin who did not know how to pray to let go of the verses and get closer to God by repeating, "God is good, God is great." Don't sweat the details, the prophet said. I felt at peace, and no longer doubted His existence.
In December 2002, in a Web site interview, I criticized al-Qaeda and declared that some of the Friday sermons were loathsome because of their attacks against non-Muslims. Within days, a fatwa was posted online, calling me an infidel and saying that I should be killed. Once again, I felt despair at the ways of the Muslim world. Two years later, I told al-Arabiya television that I thought God loves all faithful people of different religions. That earned me a fatwa from the mufti of Saudi Arabia declaring my infidelity.
But one evening not long after that, I heard a radio broadcast of the verse of light. Even though I had memorized the Koran at 15, I felt as though I was hearing this verse for the first time. God is light, it says, the universe is illuminated by His light. I felt the verse was speaking directly to me, sending me a message. This God of light, I thought, how could He be against any human? The God of light would not be happy to see people suffer, even if they had sinned and made mistakes along the way.
I had found my Islam. And I believe that others can find it, too. But first we need a Reformation similar to the Protestant Reformation that Martin Luther led against the Roman Catholic Church.
In the late 14th century, Islam had its own sort of Martin Luther. Ibn Taymiyya was an Islamic scholar from a hard-line Salafi sect who went through a spiritual crisis and came to believe that in time, God would close the gates of hell and grant all humans, regardless of their religion, entry to his everlasting paradise. Unlike Luther, however, Ibn Taymiyya never openly declared this revolutionary belief; he shared it only with a small, trusted circle of students.
Nevertheless, I find myself inspired by Luther's courageous uprising. I see what Islam needs -- a strong, charismatic personality who will lead us toward reform, and scholars who can convince Islamic communities of the need for a bold new interpretation of Islamic texts, to reconcile us with the wider world.
Posted by: ryuge ||
07/22/2007 02:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
This gentleman demonstrates why apostasy is considered such a great sin by all religions. Once you go adrift, if you're still religiously inclined you can talk yourself into anything. As an example, I offer Joseph Smith.
"Islam is the problem" is a subset of "Religion is the problem". Some religions are more problematic than others.
#4
Once you go adrift, if you're still religiously inclined you can talk yourself into anything. As an example, I offer Joseph Smith.
Smith's teachings have a direct lineage, through a chain of people as well as ideas, back to several strains of 16th century hermeticism in England. Brooke's book Refiner's Fire provides pretty solid documentation.
Which is to say that Smith wasn't quite making things up as he went, any more than William Blake came up with the symbolism in his books and paintings out of thin air.
#5
"Once you go adrift, if you're still religiously inclined you can talk yourself into anything." This statement is too restrictive. Human beings, religious or otherwise, can talk themselves into anything.
#8
Unfortunately, Islam has already had its "reformer" in the form of Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahab. He has steered Islam away from reason and inquiry into a path of phony "certainty" and "truth".
Anyone who tries to reform Islam now is not going to get very far because they are too influenced by outsiders (i.e. us).
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/22/2007 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I posited the reformation of Islam years ago, with the simple observation that Jihad should *only* be spiritual in nature, and never with acts of violence.
The justification for this among Muslims would be by pointing out that violent Muslims *always* fail, but peaceful Muslims usually prosper and lead good and long lives. Ergo, Allah favors the spiritual struggle, not the physical one.
It is hard to refute the power of prayer, even in Islam. This is because the typical shaman of any religion will generally go with prayer, as that is when the collection plate is passed around.
#13
The justification for this among Muslims would be by pointing out that violent Muslims *always* fail, but peaceful Muslims usually prosper and lead good and long lives. Ergo, Allah favors the spiritual struggle, not the physical one.
An even better justification would be to make sure that violent Muslims don't just failbut that they diefrequently and in large numbers. I'd even go so far as to make sure that a few surrounding undecided Muslims get killed as collateral damage in order to discourage those who would even be in the proximity of any violent ones.
This is because the typical shaman of any religion will generally go with prayer
Or whatever else that doesn't involve any heavy lifting.
Walk away from it. Turn your back on it. Your prophet was an alcoholic, pedophilic warlord who invoked the name of Allah to bamboozle a bunch of ignorant, superstitious goat herders into fighting his wars for him. He learned to read and write well enough to write a book. So what? The only notable element here is that 1400 years later billions of muslims still don't understand that the joke is on them.
Christians could have a Reformation because the basic teachings of Jesus don't need to be explained away or reinterpreted. Some of the old passages in Leviticus, maybe, but not the New Testament. It was abuse of power by the Vatican that sparked Luther's protest, not the Bible.
I can understand that muslims are looking for some spirituality, some meaning in their lives but Mohammed ain't it. Ask yourselves: Moses gave us the Ten Commandments; Jesus gave us the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule. What, besides, jihad, did Mohammed have to add? What kind of God wants you to kill other people who are, after all, every bit His children as much as you are? Where is the love? What has your culture given to the world? What great universities? What technology? What art, music or literature? Huh? What? Are we meant to do nothing but live in sand, tend goats, kill each other and study the Koran? Free yourself, Mansour. Walk away from it and don't look back.
Posted by: Abu Uluque6305 ||
07/22/2007 18:42 Comments ||
Top||
#15
What kind of God wants you to kill other people who are, after all, every bit His children as much as you are?
One that's told Islam the sun shines out of its ass.
#16
If Mansour believed Allah wanted him to kill people, then some real doubts on the existence of the "killing god" are justified and right. He would be better to lose his faith in a "killing god" and then search with his soul for the God of Abraham. He's not talking himself into anything, he is searching for the better nature of his angels.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
