Is it strange if they hate us?

06.03.06, 15:54
14.000 detained in Iraq without a trial. Constant reports about torture. How
would you feel if someone did this to your country? And yet some people want
another war. It would maybe be easier to nuke the entire Muslim world?

And no weapons of mass destruction. Bush and Blair are destroying the
credibility of the West, creating hatred and making it impossible to tackle
real problems like Korea.

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1724837,00.html
    • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 06.03.06, 17:30
      hardenfelt napisał:

      > 14.000 detained in Iraq without a trial. Constant reports about torture. How
      > would you feel if someone did this to your country? And yet some people want
      > another war. It would maybe be easier to nuke the entire Muslim world?

      Certainly there are those amongst them that would happily do that to us.

      Understand that just because there are things which for you are unthinkable to
      do to somebody else, it doesn't automatically mean that they won't happily do
      those things to you, and expect "72 dark-eyed ones" for doing it.

      > And no weapons of mass destruction.

      Of course not. That they had them, we know very well, since our governments
      were kind enough to sell them in the past. Nevertheless, they were not so
      stupid as not to put the time they spent messing about with Karen Blixen, or
      whatever his name was, to good effect.

      > Bush and Blair are destroying the
      > credibility of the West, creating hatred and making it impossible to tackle
      > real problems like Korea.

      The Chinese will deal with the Koreans when they feel like it, since it is
      within their grasp, and we can only hope they choose that half of Korea to deal
      with which we consider an enemy.
      • hardenfelt Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 06.03.06, 20:02
        David wrote:
        > Certainly there are those amongst them that would happily do that to us.
        >
        > Understand that just because there are things which for you are unthinkable
        to
        > do to somebody else, it doesn't automatically mean that they won't happily do
        > those things to you, and expect "72 dark-eyed ones" for doing it.
        >

        OK – so what’s your battle plan? Occupy Morocco, nuke Iran or destroy the soil
        in Pakistan? Now – more important than the battle plan, what’s your after-war
        plan. Because if we wage another war against a Muslim country now, then hatred
        will continue for the next 50 years or longer. The next war will just be the
        beginning. You might think that it’s impossible to change the mentality, but it
        is relatively short time ago that Britain tried to export Jesus to the rest of
        the world (and to flood China with drugs). People do change if you work on them.

        I don’t doubt that there are Muslims there would like to nuke the entire so-
        called Christian civilization just like there are Christian fanatics there
        would like to nuke any Muslim country. The point is just that the more hatred
        we create the more we’ll have of these Muslim fanatics.

        David wrote:
        > And no weapons of mass destruction.
        >
        > Of course not. That they had them, we know very well, since our governments
        > were kind enough to sell them in the past. Nevertheless, they were not so
        > stupid as not to put the time they spent messing about with Karen Blixen, or
        > whatever his name was, to good effect.

        Don’t be ridiculous – after 10 years of embargo Iraq wasn’t even able to defend
        itself, much less wage a war of aggression. We could have finished Saddam of 10
        years ago and almost the entire international community would have accepted
        this. What we did now was to kick somebody already laying. Of course Saddam
        deserved to be removed, but not more than many other dictators around the
        globe. The only reason we waged this war was that the wreck Bush wanted to be a
        war-time-President and thus avoid to be listed among the most insignificant
        Presidents USA has ever had.

        David wrote:
        > The Chinese will deal with the Koreans when they feel like it, since it is
        > within their grasp, and we can only hope they choose that half of Korea to
        deal
        >
        > with which we consider an enemy.
        >
        The world is to small to split it into spheres of interest. It’s history. The
        only acceptable war today is a war backed by an overwhelming part of the
        international community. If China unilaterally wants to deal with anything else
        than Taiwan then I would be ready to start a war against them even if the costs
        would extreme. Unilateral aggressions are just not acceptable and the earlier
        we get an efficient international body with a military muscle the better.


        • portulaco Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 07.03.06, 00:00
          Oil... the first problem, keeping that s*** as the main energy source, with so
          much bloody high-tech and we're stil running on that crap and poluting the
          planet to the limit of madness!

          Fuel Cells? Electromagnetic energy sources not even properly investigated and
          supported by governments.

          The mighty Petro-Dollar threatned by the euro. Cause: Euro arrives,
          Consequence: Dollar depreciation and strong possibilities of being replaced by
          Petro-Euro, Saddam Hussein wanted to change for Euros, Consequence War in
          Iraq...

          We could keep all night long with this matters but what is happening is that
          there is hatred beetween human beings because they believe in different profets
          using they're believes as football shirts, and God is not a Football game.

          This people don't even love themselfs and if they don't love themselfs than
          they will not love nobody else because this world we're living in promotes less
          and less the love between different peoples basing they're cultural and
          religious background in parchments wrote thousand of years ago by beduins who
          were figting the politeism, in a compilation of books chossed by the clergy to
          serve they're interests and to domain the population by the terror of the sin,
          by smashing they're freedom of thoughts, they´re self estime.

          An eye for eye a tooth for a tooth... great example!








          • kylie1 Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 07.03.06, 00:28
            Also, that war was supposed to make us so rich in oil!
            Where is it then? Before genius Bush could get to the Iraqi oil, they had
            already managed to blow up half the oil rigs, pipes and tankers. So much for
            low gas prices!
        • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 07.03.06, 00:54
          hardenfelt napisał:

          > David wrote:
          > > Certainly there are those amongst them that would happily do that to us.
          > >
          > > Understand that just because there are things which for you are unthinkab
          > le
          > to
          > > do to somebody else, it doesn't automatically mean that they won't happil
          > y do
          > > those things to you, and expect "72 dark-eyed ones" for doing it.
          > >
          >
          > OK – so what’s your battle plan? Occupy Morocco, nuke Iran or destr
          > oy the soil
          > in Pakistan? Now – more important than the battle plan, what’s your
          > after-war
          > plan.

          You are just putting up straw men. We need to do the following:

          - work on rapeseed vehicle fuel and safe nuclear energy in the West in order to
          reduce the dependence on Islamic wealth.

          - make air strikes on the nuclear facilities of any out-of-control Islamic
          state. That does not include a Pakistan controlled by Pervez Musharref, but if
          control were to pass to radical Islamists, then yes, that could in theory also
          include Pakistan. I believe in using drone aircraft, and developing robotics
          technology in pursuit of maximising efficient inteventions without unnecessary
          bloodshed.I do not want troops on the ground.

          - Take care over Islamic immigration, and repatriate people unwilling to pledge
          allegiance to anti-terrorism measures to the Islamic world.

          - Take care over known Muslims taking lessons in the use if aircraft or other
          feasible weapons. Infiltrate more Islamicist institutions. Regard it as the top
          espionage goal of any natyion to infiltrate all Al Qaeda cells and bring them
          to justice.

          > Because if we wage another war against a Muslim country now, then hatred
          > will continue for the next 50 years or longer. The next war will just be the
          > beginning. You might think that it’s impossible to change the mentality,
          > but it
          > is relatively short time ago that Britain tried to export Jesus to the rest
          of
          > the world (and to flood China with drugs). People do change if you work on
          them
          > .

          Britain - that is to say various groups of opposing people who only have in
          common that they come from Britain - is still exporting the Christian faith and
          still trading drugs, so I don't know what you are talking about.

          Now they already feel an aggrievance - over something that happened 600 and
          more years ago. If they are looking for an aggrievance so badly that they will
          continually bring up the crusades, then updating that won't make any big
          difference. Actually this war goes way back, we just took our eyes off them to
          sort out communism, and that's why they were able to grow out of control again.
          Now if we could get them under our control by superior methjodogy and
          technology before, then we will do so again, but along the way we are being
          hampered by sentimentalism and misplaced concerns about justice to people who
          certainly wouldn't give us any.

          > I don’t doubt that there are Muslims there would like to nuke the entire
          > so-
          > called Christian civilization just like there are Christian fanatics there
          > would like to nuke any Muslim country. The point is just that the more hatred
          > we create the more we’ll have of these Muslim fanatics.
          >

          Not really. They instigated the use of violence becasue it is the only thing
          that they understand and it is that violence which motivates them. Islam is a
          gutter disease of bullies and cowards. It was spread in violence not in error
          and failure centuries after the founder died, as with the violence you caqn
          associate with some of alas church history, but within Mohammed's lifetime and
          with his express approval, violence was the premier method for winning new
          converts.

          Now if you can sway a person one way with violence, you can sway them the other
          way with violence.

          > David wrote:
          > > And no weapons of mass destruction.
          > >
          > > Of course not. That they had them, we know very well, since our governmen
          > ts
          > > were kind enough to sell them in the past. Nevertheless, they were not so
          >
          > > stupid as not to put the time they spent messing about with Karen Blixen,
          > or
          > > whatever his name was, to good effect.
          >
          > Don’t be ridiculous – after 10 years of embargo Iraq wasn’t e
          > ven able to defend
          > itself, much less wage a war of aggression. We could have finished Saddam of
          10
          >
          > years ago and almost the entire international community would have accepted
          > this. What we did now was to kick somebody already laying. Of course Saddam
          > deserved to be removed, but not more than many other dictators around the
          > globe. The only reason we waged this war was that the wreck Bush wanted to be
          a
          > war-time-President and thus avoid to be listed among the most insignificant
          > Presidents USA has ever had.
          >

          You think 9/11 was his fault?


          > David wrote:
          > > The Chinese will deal with the Koreans when they feel like it, since it i
          > s
          > > within their grasp, and we can only hope they choose that half of Korea t
          > o
          > deal
          > >
          > > with which we consider an enemy.
          > >
          > The world is to small to split it into spheres of interest. It’s history.
          > The
          > only acceptable war today is a war backed by an overwhelming part of the
          > international community. If China unilaterally wants to deal with anything
          else
          >
          > than Taiwan then I would be ready to start a war against them even if the
          costs
          >
          > would extreme. Unilateral aggressions are just not acceptable and the earlier
          > we get an efficient international body with a military muscle the better.
          >

          We don't need a war with the Chinese, as in no point in their history have they
          shown themselves hellbent on the military domination of the world. Their
          culture is such that in most of the western countries where chinese people come
          to live, they don't make a nuisance of themselves. China is scary because it is
          big and different, but not because of its ideologies. They are not practicing
          Maoism now.
          • hardenfelt Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 07.03.06, 08:44
            David wrote:
            > - work on rapeseed vehicle fuel and safe nuclear energy in the West in order
            to reduce the dependence on Islamic wealth.

            YES! + renewable energy sources (wind, sun and others) which could cover 20% of
            our energy consumption. NOT because a lot of oil is located in Arab countries
            but because the world need new energy sources and research into new energy
            forms.

            David wrote:
            > - make air strikes on the nuclear facilities of any out-of-control Islamic
            > state.

            YES! As a last resort make air strikes on the nuclear facilities of any out-of-
            control state. But NOT because it’s Islamic and only with a broad international
            acceptance of the need to do so.


            David wrote:
            > - Take care over Islamic immigration, and repatriate people unwilling to
            pledge
            >
            > allegiance to anti-terrorism measures to the Islamic world.

            I don’t see terrorism as a big problem compared to war. Mass hysteria is a
            problem though. Maybe we should try to deal with that. Try to count how many
            people died as a consequence of terrorist attacks and then compare it to the
            amount of people dying in a minor war. The way to handle the Muslim population
            in Europe is through integration and love (a Christian should understand this
            term). As you might know, there is no way to find the mind’s construction in
            the face and attempts of mind control will just lead to more extremism.

            David wrote:
            Britain - that is to say various groups of opposing people who only have in
            > common that they come from Britain - is still exporting the Christian faith
            and
            >
            > still trading drugs

            Yes – just like opposing people who only have in common that they come from an
            Arab country - is still exporting the Islamic faith and still trading drugs.
            But most of the are peaceful and hardworking citizens.

            David wrote:
            > You think 9/11 was his fault?

            Certainly more than it was Saddams fault.


            David wrote:
            > We don't need a war with the Chinese, as in no point in their history have
            they
            >
            > shown themselves hellbent on the military domination of the world. Their
            > culture is such that in most of the western countries where chinese people
            come
            >
            > to live, they don't make a nuisance of themselves. China is scary because it
            is
            >
            > big and different, but not because of its ideologies. They are not practicing
            > Maoism now.

            You didn’t get the point. The global community can NOT accept unilateral
            actions, be it from China, UK, USA or Island.
            • bartis_ervin Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 07.03.06, 17:03
              David wrote:
              > - Take care over Islamic immigration, and repatriate people unwilling to
              pledge
              >
              > allegiance to anti-terrorism measures to the Islamic world.

              "I don’t see terrorism as a big problem compared to war. Mass hysteria is a
              problem though. Maybe we should try to deal with that. Try to count how many
              people died as a consequence of terrorist attacks and then compare it to the
              amount of people dying in a minor war."

              You have a great point here. I would not even mention "minor war" but rather
              hunger, which EVERY day kills approx. the same number of people as the tsunami
              did. This is the real terrorism, the other is just hysteria.

              Ervin

              Thebartiski.blogspot.com
              • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 08.03.06, 09:41
                It was Michael who said that.

                Terrorism is a lower killer than many things, but that's because they don't
                have good enough weapons. Yet.
          • bartis_ervin Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 07.03.06, 08:58

            "work on rapeseed vehicle fuel"
            Check Toyota's Prius.

            "make air strikes on the nuclear facilities of any out-of-control Islamic
            > state. That does not include a Pakistan controlled by Pervez Musharref, but if
            > control were to pass to radical Islamists"
            Musharraf's regime is not democratic. Just as Hosni Mubarak's, but the West
            supports them because they side with the West. Nobody should say with a straight
            face that the West supports democracy in the Middle East.
            If the West supports democracy, should learn how to deal with the outcome.

            "Take care over Islamic immigration, and repatriate people unwilling to pledge
            allegiance to anti-terrorism measures to the Islamic world."
            What is the Muslim is British or French citizen? They cannot be forced to say
            what you want them to say. Then the freedom is speech is dead.

            "Take care over known Muslims taking lessons in the use if aircraft or other
            feasible weapons. Infiltrate more Islamicist institutions. Regard it as the top
            espionage goal of any natyion to infiltrate all Al Qaeda cells and bring them
            to justice."
            Sorry, but I don't really believe in the might of the secret services. They
            screwed up with Sept 11 and since then with quite many things. They rather like
            listening to their own citizens then be out and catch the GUYS.
            Regarding infiltration, as the experience shows, they rather infiltrate US peace
            groups.

            "Islam is a gutter disease of bullies and cowards."
            I just cannot believe that you say this.

            "It was spread in violence"
            And how was Christianity spread??

            "They instigated the use of violence becasue it is the only thing that they
            understand and it is that violence which motivates them."
            Remotely not true. It is generalisation based solely on stereotypes.
            Where you ever in a Muslim country (except Turkey)?

            "We need to do the following
            Now they already feel
            If they are looking for
            Now if we could get them
            then we will do so again
            They instigated"
            Your posts are full of WE-THEM. There is no WE-THEM.. Even is there would be, WE
            would not be positive and THEM would not be a negative force.
            Who is we? If WE are the people who keep Iraqis in incommunicado detention, if
            WE are the people who should bomb them and "teach them a lesson" and send them
            back to their countries, then I am not in WE.

            Ervin

            Thebartiski.blogspot.com
            • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 07.03.06, 14:30
              Ervin, you and Michael are peacemakers.

              tinyurl.com/gj32x Here's what they think of peacemakers - they kidnap
              them, and they might behead them.

              bartis_ervin napisał:

              >
              > "work on rapeseed vehicle fuel"
              > Check Toyota's Prius.

              OK

              > "make air strikes on the nuclear facilities of any out-of-control Islamic
              > > state. That does not include a Pakistan controlled by Pervez Musharref, b
              > ut if
              > > control were to pass to radical Islamists"

              > Musharraf's regime is not democratic. Just as Hosni Mubarak's, but the West
              > supports them because they side with the West. Nobody should say with a
              straigh
              > t
              > face that the West supports democracy in the Middle East.
              > If the West supports democracy, should learn how to deal with the outcome.

              You cannot have democracy and Islam. The West needs to learn that Islam per se
              is the factor messing up its paradigm. There is as far as I can tell no Islamic
              democracy, and Turkey is not exactly the exception that proves the rule.

              >
              > "Take care over Islamic immigration, and repatriate people unwilling to pledge
              > allegiance to anti-terrorism measures to the Islamic world."
              > What is the Muslim is British or French citizen? They cannot be forced to say
              > what you want them to say. Then the freedom is speech is dead.
              >

              If someone atacks his fellow citizens, then he has reneged his citizenship, and
              should revert or be reverted to his previous citizenship.

              If someone is born British, but refers to the people in Islamic countries
              as "his people", as that manic from Yorkshire did on video tape prior to the
              7/7 bombings, then he has made his choice which citizen he is, and os very
              welcome to join them. I would give his the market value of his assets and his
              last three years' tax and social security paid by him as a leaving present in
              his hand.

              > "Take care over known Muslims taking lessons in the use if aircraft or other
              > feasible weapons. Infiltrate more Islamicist institutions. Regard it as the
              top
              > espionage goal of any natyion to infiltrate all Al Qaeda cells and bring them
              > to justice."
              > Sorry, but I don't really believe in the might of the secret services. They
              > screwed up with Sept 11 and since then with quite many things. They rather
              like
              > listening to their own citizens then be out and catch the GUYS.

              You seem to be confusing the American services with the British ones. We have
              had more successes than failures, and I say keep it up and get better.

              > Regarding infiltration, as the experience shows, they rather infiltrate US
              peac
              > e
              > groups.

              Shocked, I tel u.

              >
              > "Islam is a gutter disease of bullies and cowards."
              > I just cannot believe that you say this.
              >

              I speak as I find.

              > "It was spread in violence"
              > And how was Christianity spread??
              >

              There has never in the history of mankind been a convert to Christianity under
              duress. They might think they are, but it is a misunderstanding of the
              christian religion that only happened after it was politicised by the Roman
              Emperor, at which point the Church and its ethis were brutally vandalised.

              Where do you read converting people by force in the new testament or in any of
              the Church fathers? But Islam was spread by small armies with swords in
              Muhammed's lifetime, and with his knowledge and approval.

              So please do not equate the two, as it only shows your gaps in your
              acquaintance with the matter.

              If a Chriatian uses these methods, he is misguided, and of course ther are
              misguided Christians. If a Muslim uses them, he is doing what what planned and
              expected all along by the founders of his religion, which is why they made holy
              war one of the five pillars. There is no jihad in Christian theology. Our "good
              fight" is against sin and the old man, which needs to be mortified.

              > "They instigated the use of violence becasue it is the only thing that they
              > understand and it is that violence which motivates them."
              > Remotely not true. It is generalisation based solely on stereotypes.
              > Where you ever in a Muslim country (except Turkey)?

              Azerbaidzhan.
              But I was brought up among Muslims.
              I don't have these ideas as stereotypes, I came to them from my own studies,
              contacts with them, and just watching what is going on in the world.

              I don't know how pc you need to be, Ervin, to watch the news night after night,
              and still not be able to put 2 and 2 together.

              > "We need to do the following
              > Now they already feel
              > If they are looking for
              > Now if we could get them
              > then we will do so again
              > They instigated"
              > Your posts are full of WE-THEM. There is no WE-THEM..

              Of course there is.
              You cannot make it go away by denying it.
              You have your head in the sand.
              I cannot understand it, when you are such a bright person.
              But you are brainwashed by left-wing liberal thinking.
              I am deeply fond of you anyway, but it makes me sad.

              >Even is there would be, W
              > E
              > would not be positive and THEM would not be a negative force.
              > Who is we? If WE are the people who keep Iraqis in incommunicado detention, if
              > WE are the people who should bomb them and "teach them a lesson" and send them
              > back to their countries, then I am not in WE.
              >
              > Ervin

              You may not think so, but if those of us who are in the we act, then your kids
              will benefit the same as ours will, by not being enslaved in the future to
              militant Islam, or casualties in a war that is all the more vicious, because it
              was delayed.
              • ms.jones Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 10.03.06, 01:17
                >cryingDave to hardenfelt) along the way we are being hampered by sentimentalism and
                misplaced concerns about justice to people who certainly wouldn't give us any.

                >Now if you can sway a person one way with violence, you can sway them the
                other way with violence.

                >cryingto Ervin)you are brainwashed by left-wing liberal thinking.

                It made me think about you when I heard The Thought for the Day about Christian
                forgiveness this morning. I wondered how you'd reply to what he says.

                For myself, not being a Christian, I would like to substitute the
                word 'forgiveness' in the last two paragraphs with something else, not sure
                what at the moment... 'respect for life' maybe.

                Anyway, what do you think?

                www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/documents/t20060309.shtml
                Thought for the Day, 9 March 2006
                The Rev. Dr Giles Fraser

                Over the last few days, I have been thinking and praying a great deal for my
                colleague, the Rev'd Julie Nicholson. Julie, you may recall, is the Anglican
                priest who has recently resigned as a Vicar in the Diocese of Bristol because
                she feels unable to forgive the man who murdered her daughter in the terrorist
                attack on the 7th July.

                And who can blame her. A beautiful girl, so full of life, and so senselessly
                murdered. That's the evil and wickedness of terrorism. Little wonder Julie is
                unable to forgive. If anybody murdered my daughter, I'd feel exactly the same.

                Which is why Julie's resignation is an important challenge to the cheap and
                casual way many Christians bandy about words like forgiveness. Jesus spent much
                of his ministry attacking outward displays of piety, however well intentioned.
                And much Christian rhetoric concerning forgiveness falls into this category.

                Yet, for all of this, there is little argument that forgiveness is at the very
                heart of the gospel message. Yes, too often it's made to sound like a cheap
                religious platitude describing a human impossibility. Nonetheless, the ethic of
                forgiveness is woven deep into the fabric of the Christian imagination. There's
                absolutely no avoiding it.

                I think the mistake we often make is to think of forgiveness as a process by
                which we become friends with our enemies. As if we could have a hug and invite
                them round for supper.

                But what if forgiveness means something different. What if it's simply a
                refusal to believe that the best response to some moral evil is to repeat it?
                That forgiveness is a rejection of the formula: an eye for an eye and a tooth
                for a tooth.

                For that's the real challenge. The whole idea of "getting even" is deeply
                compelling. We feel we need some satisfying show of strength! to set things
                right. Let's not forgive them, let's squash them, they deserve it - that's the
                instinct. The authentic ethic of forgiveness is a refusal of that instinct. For
                it recognises that to respond back in this way sets up endless and repeating
                cycles of violence. Tit for tat, tit for tat. Forgiveness is a denial of that
                endless chain of violence. It isn't about being friends with the person that
                has murdered you child - it's about not copying them, not resorting to their
                ways.

                The problem is we all too readily reduce forgiveness to how we feel about this
                other person. That's a huge mistake. For if forgiveness means doing an
                impossible emotional somersault, then we give ourselves a massive excuse never
                to try. On the other hand, if forgiveness is refusing the supposed satisfaction
                of "getting even", if its about not answering violence with more of the same,
                then it's not only achievable - it's essential

                • bartis_ervin Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 10.03.06, 08:57

                  I am not religious, however thank for copying this text here.
                  It is true that some people cannot practice forgiveness, but that is ok.
                  Probably nobody expects them to forgive, except God.
                  At least, if you cannot forgive, don't make a person's guilt into a generalised
                  guilt of a nation.

                  Dave, what you are doing is making the guilt of all Muslims what an extremely
                  small percent of Muslims did. I cannot explain here how unfair this is.
                  My mother is religious, however not Catholic and when I was a kid I was
                  regularly reading the Bible. When I mention about love, you quote parts which
                  say how God would take revenge or how some should be killed. I also read Rudolf
                  Otto and co. and I know well what the "doctrine" is saying, but the Bible is
                  about love and not revenge. God is not the God of revenge. One cannot fail to
                  see this.

                  > >cryingto Ervin)you are brainwashed by left-wing liberal thinking.
                  Until now I did not see this line, but I guess it was written by Dave. You can
                  call it what you want, but at least I do what I "preach" and this is what I will
                  do all my life.

                  Ervin

                  Thebartiski.blogspot.com
                  • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 10.03.06, 10:03
                    bartis_ervin napisał:

                    >
                    > I am not religious, however thank for copying this text here.
                    > It is true that some people cannot practice forgiveness, but that is ok.
                    > Probably nobody expects them to forgive, except God.
                    > At least, if you cannot forgive, don't make a person's guilt into a
                    generalised
                    > guilt of a nation.
                    >
                    > Dave, what you are doing is making the guilt of all Muslims what an extremely
                    > small percent of Muslims did. I cannot explain here how unfair this is.

                    I do not actually blame "the Muslims" personally. They are the victims of the
                    false and harmful message they are indocrinated with, and I do not hate them.
                    Loving them means trying to point out what is wrong and harmful about what they
                    think, and I do this. I do not hate the average Muslim believer, I just pray
                    that he or she would believe in something that didn't suck big-time.

                    That having been said, I would take issue with your "extremely small percent".
                    Yes only an extremely small percent have actually committed a suicide attack
                    on "infidels", but in the UK 30% of Muslims living in Britain actively
                    supported, in an opinion poll (I believe the true figure is higher, but some
                    were worried about admitting to their feelings when those feelings are not even
                    legal in Britain) the 7/7 attacks on the london transport system. If 30% of
                    Muslims actively condone this when they are treated by us as countrymen and
                    given education, liberal media, western work colleagues and neighbours, etc,
                    then it should not shock us that there are huge swathes of the Muslim world
                    where this opinion is the majority opinion.

                    They support it, and when needed they are ready to have the bombs strapped to
                    them, and there is a long queue of those who want to do this. The bottleneck
                    are the strategists in the terrorist cells who need to plan and orchestrate
                    attacks so as to have the maximum disruptuve effect and maintain the maximum
                    security from having it traced back to their command centres.

                    They are in this war for the long haul, and they will gradually bleed us into
                    submission unless we face the problem head on.

                    > My mother is religious, however not Catholic and when I was a kid I was
                    > regularly reading the Bible. When I mention about love, you quote parts which
                    > say how God would take revenge or how some should be killed. I also read
                    Rudolf
                    > Otto and co. and I know well what the "doctrine" is saying, but the Bible is
                    > about love and not revenge. God is not the God of revenge. One cannot fail to
                    > see this.

                    If God is not the God of revenge, then why does He say in the Bible that He is?

                    There are numerous verses that show that that is PRECISELY what God is. GOd is
                    a jealous God, and vengeance beloings to Him.

                    But His love is such, that He sent His own Son to bear the vengeance on the
                    cross, in behalf of all those who would call on Him and want to be included in
                    His sacrifice, by faith.

                    But those who seek God outside of the person of Jesus Christ will find out that
                    God is not some sugar daddy. And the Muslim religion falsely claims that Christ
                    is not God and did not die for our sins. This cannot lead to salvation and
                    Christianity lead to salvation.

                    Christianity and Islam cannot be equally true and beneficial. Either they are
                    both untrue and harmful ir one of them is untrue and harmful and the other is
                    true and beneficial.

                    Christianity and Islam do not say the same things. In fact, in some of the most
                    vital questions in the relationship between man and god they say the opposite.

                    God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, so that whoever
                    believeth on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3 v 16)

                    God's love is to give everlasting life to those who believe on his Son.

                    He didn't give a whole bunch of alternatives. Had those alternatives been
                    available, He would not have needed to give His Son.


                    >
                    > > >cryingto Ervin)you are brainwashed by left-wing liberal thinking.
                    > Until now I did not see this line, but I guess it was written by Dave. You can
                    > call it what you want, but at least I do what I "preach" and this is what I
                    wil
                    > l
                    > do all my life.

                    Please find the place where I wrote it and note that I placed some other
                    thought immediately after it, so that you can see I didn't mean it in a hostile
                    manner.

                    Nobody says you don't practice what you preach.

                    I'd rather fail to be able to live up to my creed because of my own faults,
                    which are many, but at least to have basically preached the truth, than to be
                    preaching error and then live up to it 100%, but maybe I'm just odd that way.
                • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 10.03.06, 09:37
                  > It made me think about you when I heard The Thought for the Day about
                  Christian
                  >
                  > forgiveness this morning. I wondered how you'd reply to what he says.
                  >
                  > For myself, not being a Christian, I would like to substitute the
                  > word 'forgiveness' in the last two paragraphs with something else, not sure
                  > what at the moment... 'respect for life' maybe.
                  >
                  > Anyway, what do you think?

                  Thank you for asking my view, and I will give an honest response.

                  What we have here by the speaker on Radio 4's thought for the day is a
                  typical "BBC Religion" message. BBC Religion is such, that whether Rabbi Julia
                  Neuberger, Rabbi Lionel Bloom, any of the Church clergy or any of the Moslims
                  that take part or anybody else gives that religious slot, all they say is the
                  same school assembly sentimentalist nonsense about how we should be good
                  people, look after each other and all religions are equally true.

                  People are fed this pap, and then are amazed when they actually read the words
                  written in the Bible and from the very mouth of Christ and discover that in
                  fact He says something rather different and not always easy to take.

                  Whereas if they do quote Jesus, they very rarely get past the Sermon on the
                  Mount, and they certainly avoid a number of hard verses even of that.

                  I never thought that being a Christian meant glossing over some of the hard
                  things that Jesus says, the way these media religionists do.

                  And you will find that, whereas in the Lord's prayer it says "forgive us our
                  trespassers, as we forgive those who trespass (sin) against us" and that we are
                  to forgive our brethren 70 times 7 (brethren mind you), when Christ goes into
                  detail on the matter he always makes it clear that we forgive when asked for
                  forgiveness.

                  Although I am not a Catholic, I will give an example of something JP2 did
                  correctly: he forgave his Muslim attacker when this man came and asked him for
                  forgiveness.

                  Two things we learn from this - one is, he didn't say "oh, I already forgave
                  you before you bothered to come and ask for it or show any signs of
                  repentance", and the second is, forgiveness is an act of free will.

                  It is your right to forgive or not to forgive, but the Bible says, how can you
                  expect God to forgive you, on your repentance and application to God for
                  forgiveness, if you don't do the same to others when they come seeking
                  forgiveness from you.

                  And this is very important because God in no way promises to forgive our sins
                  if we never bother to get on our knees and ask Him to. But, as John's first
                  letter, first chapter says: "IF WE CONFESS OUR SINS he is faithful and just to
                  forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".

                  Now Julie Nicholson has resigned from an office in the church (let us leave
                  aside for on moment the fact that she could not have held this office if she
                  and others in the church of England had taken the Bible seriously in the first
                  place, as that is a whole other discussion) becasue she cannot find it in her
                  heart to forgive her daughters murderer. Well, just as she got that job by not
                  paying attention to what the Bible actually says about female church officers,
                  now she loses it by not paying attention to what the Bible teaches aboyut
                  forgiveness.

                  I do not read that the men responsible came to her and asked her for
                  forgiveness that they had killed her daughter, turning themselves into the
                  authorities as a sign of their genuine remorse. She is under NO BIBLICAL
                  OBLIGATION to forgive these people.

                  Now if, in the due course of time, one of them seeks to see her and explains
                  how he had a change of heart, and sees how wrong it was to do that, and how
                  much he regrests the pain he caused by his stupidity, his arogance, his being
                  easily led, his hatred of us, and says he wishes he had never done it, and
                  would never do it again, then I'm sorry Mrs Nicholson, but at that point God
                  calls on you to forgive him. That's tough, but true. And at that point, maybe
                  god would also give you that which is necessary to forgive him.

                  At the moment your considerations, Mrs Nicholson, as to whether you need
                  forgive him when he hasn't even asked you to are as premature and futile as
                  your considering whether you should marry him or not would be premature and
                  futile when he hasn't asked you that either.

                  For forgiveness and the acceptance of marriage proposals alike a good maxim
                  is "wait until you are asked". And then at that point, forgive whoever asks,
                  but don't apply that algorithm to marriage!

                  I don't say that Mrs Nicholson should go back to her old job, as I don't agree
                  with it in the first place, but I certainly don't think she needs to view this
                  as a challenge to her faith in God - but it certainly does challenge the
                  unworkable sappy religion that is the BBC version of Christianity which goes as
                  good currency in the Anglican church. She should use this as an occasion to see
                  what the Bible actually says. Many Christians, myself included, sympathise 100%
                  with her not forgiving at this time, and if I am not mistaken even the bishop
                  of Bristol said similar sentiments at her daughters funeral, although only a
                  snippet was shown on the Whirled Service news.

                  Thanks and kudos to you Ms Jones, for raising an interesting question.
                  • hardenfelt Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 10.03.06, 10:06
                    David - indeed a very interesting enlightenment. I admit I’m terribly curious.
                    What is your personal view on female chartered accountants?
                    • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 15.03.06, 12:29
                      hardenfelt napisał:

                      > David - indeed a very interesting enlightenment. I admit I’m terribly cur
                      > ious.
                      > What is your personal view on female chartered accountants?

                      I have no problem with female chartered accountants, and I have several females
                      on my own list of "aplikanci" so I have helped with the qualification of
                      several female auditors.

                      The Bible doesn't say that females can't hold an office in business, it says
                      they cannot hold an office in the Church.
                  • ms.jones Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 14.03.06, 00:12
                    What an interesting answer (to an interesting question smileI've forgotten about
                    the 'ballsy' voice of Christianity, if you don't mind me saying so smile


                    • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 15.03.06, 12:30
                      Incidentally, Ms Jones - I don't know if you can get it, but the film of the
                      book I recommended to you recently is on TVN Siedem tonight a just after eight
                      o' clock.
                      • ms.jones Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 16.03.06, 01:03
                        Can't get it, probably just as well, don't want to have nightmares uncertain
              • ianek70 Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 16.03.06, 17:24
                usenetposts napisał:

                > There has never in the history of mankind been a convert to Christianity
                under
                > duress. They might think they are, but it is a misunderstanding of the
                > christian religion that only happened after it was politicised by the Roman
                > Emperor, at which point the Church and its ethis were brutally vandalised.
                >
                > Where do you read converting people by force in the new testament or in any
                of
                > the Church fathers? But Islam was spread by small armies with swords in
                > Muhammed's lifetime, and with his knowledge and approval.

                You keep writing that someone who is made into a Christian by force (either the
                forced conversions of the middle ages or the conformist "think what the
                neighbours think" pressure of modern Poland) is not a real Christian, since he
                does not know or believe in the Gospel. And that's perfectly true, you can't be
                a true believer if you don't understand what you're supposed to believe in.
                So why are the rules different for people born, brought up and brainwashed in
                pseudo-Christian cultures (e.g. Poland) and those born in undemocratic
                countries where they're told that everyone has to be a Muslim and they have no
                choice what to believe in?
                Most people are Christian or Muslim only by default, they don't consciously
                decide what to believe.
                Wojtyła may have really, truly believed in angels, purgatory and
                transsubstantiation, but if he'd been born in Sweden or India he would never
                have become pope, because he'd have really, truly believed in something else.
                • usenetposts Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 18.03.06, 14:18
                  Ianek wrote:

                  > You keep writing that someone who is made into a Christian by force (either
                  the
                  >
                  > forced conversions of the middle ages or the conformist "think what the
                  > neighbours think" pressure of modern Poland) is not a real Christian, since
                  he
                  > does not know or believe in the Gospel. And that's perfectly true, you can't
                  be
                  >
                  > a true believer if you don't understand what you're supposed to believe in.

                  OK, so we agree at this point.

                  > So why are the rules different for people born, brought up and brainwashed in
                  > pseudo-Christian cultures (e.g. Poland) and those born in undemocratic
                  > countries where they're told that everyone has to be a Muslim and they have
                  no
                  > choice what to believe in?

                  In what way do you say the rules are different? I don't understand in what way
                  they are different?

                  > Most people are Christian or Muslim only by default, they don't consciously
                  > decide what to believe.

                  Indeed. Most people have no idea what to think, or even how. If I can stir up
                  people to a bit more thought, I will be happy with my on-line efforts.

                  > Wojtyła may have really, truly believed in angels, purgatory and
                  > transsubstantiation, but if he'd been born in Sweden or India he would never
                  > have become pope, because he'd have really, truly believed in something else.

                  In that case, somebody else would have been Pope, and that someone might have
                  been Wyszynski. I have no idea what difference that would have made. In "making
                  history", Stephen Fry speculates on what would have happened had there been no
                  Hitler. The thought provoking treatment is extremely well worth reading, if you
                  haven't read it yet.

                  It is in fact one of the best books ever written, which is why it was no
                  surprise to me to have spotted it in a remainder bookship not that long after
                  it was published. Sometimes comedians have very interesting insights, with more
                  in the way of serious observations that many non-comedic writers can manage.

                  Scott Adams of Dilbert fame is another good example.
          • firemouse Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 10.03.06, 10:15
            > We don't need a war with the Chinese, as in no point in their history have they
            >
            > shown themselves hellbent on the military domination of the world.

            Well, maybe not the world, but some regional aspiration still exist. Take Tibet,
            why have China annex it? Because they could. There was opportunity. The same
            with Taiwan, the first moment they can, they will attack. I can think of
            Siberia, maybe Bhutan or Burma as potential expansion directions. China is just
            now busy with making money, but who knows what happens if they will look for
            other ways of confirming they dominant position in the world or region.
            • varsovian Re: Is it strange if they hate us? 10.03.06, 10:38
              We should all cultivate our own gardens.
    • nasza_maggie have you seen the film 15.03.06, 12:32
      'Syriana' ?

      Drags on a bit but it touches a raw nerve with the oil business....
    • ianek70 Idiot wants blood 20.03.06, 17:06
      An American Christian who wanted an eye for an eye has now decided to turn the
      other cheek. Religion is a complex matter, especially for those who know
      nothing.

      news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060320/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_joe_johnson


Pełna wersja