Christian vs. Muslim

An old roommate shoots out his ideas on Congress and the tensions with Syria. His brother chimes in with a very hefty misunderstanding of what religion is like across the globe. You'll figure out who's who:

JL: Irony of ironies... Everyone hates that congress is up on the Hill not doing a damn thing except soaking up a paycheck, until it comes to Syria. Now everyone is thrilled that it looks like they'll decide to do nothing.

This world gets crazier by the minute.

• 5 people like this.
• HDGM: So does that mean u want to go kill people in Syria?

  September 12 at 3:43pm via mobile · Like
• JL: I think they way that everything suddenly seems backwards is just ridiculous. And just because the general population tends to agree with them on this one issue, I like to remind people that our Congress generally sucks at the moment and deserves to be fired.

  September 12 at 5:34pm · Edited · Like

  
  

  BL:  I've come to realize that the situation in the middle east is not what most people think it is. What we are looking at in Syria is less of a civil war and more of a tribal war. A war between two violent and murdurous tribes no less.. Standing back and doing nothing is not going to mean that fewer people die. But we can't just get rid of the problem. I think the strategy is to keep them fighting amoungst themselves so that they don't gain to much power and organization and start attacking everyone else. This would at least explain why the president would have such a strong hand in trying to prevent chemical weapons use which would turn the tide significantly toward the assad regime. 
• 
  There isn't going to be an end to this... not for a very long time..

  September 13 at 1:45pm · Like · 1
• JL: I agree, but instead of two tribes, it's multiple. The jihadist groups are multi-various. The FSA has military groups that are semi-autonomous. The Kurds have set up an autonomous region of the Turkey/Iraq border that they administer and try to keep out the jihadists groups, the there's the minority groups (Christian, Alawite, and Shia) that make up part of Assad's base of support only because they've been driven away from the other groups. Then there's the 6 million+ refugees that have fled the fighting to neighboring countries that are still waiting to return. 
  
  Syria is a very complicated situation. Even this potential removal of chemical weapons is going to be a nightmare. I've been part of NATO inspections conducted with Russian inspectors, and they literally have to open any building that might be large enough to hold any sort of weapon system or military equipment. They count hummvees, old display tanks that are out of use, and and any sort of offensive weaponry. They have a list of everything that's supposed to be there and they account for it all and are allowed to go looking aroudn to make sure we don't have anything extra. It's a pain. 
  
  If the UN approves this removal, there needs to be an accurate account of the weapons and locations. The hand offs need to be supervised and confirmed that none are missing along the way and adequate protection will need to be given to inspector and transportation teams in the midst of a civil war where Al-Qaeda might just attack because they see a target of opportunity and a way to get chemical weapons for themselves. 
  
  THEN, if any chemical weapons are used, this "removal" would provide a smoke screen for the Assad forces to say that they gave everything away so it must have been the rebels who used them even if it wasn't. It's a giant mess that's going to effect the world stage for the next 20 years at least.

  September 13 at 2:34pm · Edited · Like
• TS: Civil/tribal. Is there a difference?

  September 13 at 3:43pm via mobile · Like · 1
• JL: Only in the fact that one has a large, well established army, easier access to resources, and international allies and the other doesn't.

  September 13 at 3:46pm · Like
• TS: Not really sure that's the definition.

  September 13 at 3:46pm via mobile · Like
• JL: Eh, that's the situation. I figured tribal war is something like we saw in Darfur with cross border raids done by state sponsored violence on both sides.

  September 13 at 3:48pm · Like
• JL: You know, when you consider Hezbollah Shias fighting for Assad and Saudi/Jordan backed Sunni rebels fighting against the Syrian government, it really is a crazy mix of civil/tribal/religious war.

  September 13 at 3:54pm · Edited · Unlike · 1
• ME: I don't think anyone (sane) is celebrating how awesome congress is... I think they are just relieved and happy that they listened to their constituents for once. I'd actually say that is rather status quo.

  September 13 at 4:23pm via mobile · Unlike · 2
• TS: Yeah. No shit. "Diplomacy"?

  September 13 at 9:18pm via mobile · Like
• BL: There is a big difference between a civil war and a tribal war. A civil war occurs because someone is fighting for something. A civil war might happen because the people fighting are trying to get representation for example. A tribal war however is not about justice or representation or survival. A tribal war is about killing the other tribe(Jihad) and expanding your own(forced conversion). It is however human nature to divide on issues, so even if one tribe takes control for a little while and establish a temporary 'peace', a division in that tribe will occur and war will begin again. So war shall always be almost continuous in Islamic countries...

  23 hours ago · Edited · Like
• BL: and no, true diplomacy is not possible with a people who hold that you must eventually either convert or die.

  23 hours ago · Like · 1
• BL: There is nothing 'civil' about it.

  23 hours ago · Like
• TS: So the Crusades were a tribal war?

  23 hours ago · Like
• TS:  And obviously no one in the US thinks this could be a religious war. No one in the US thinks that Islam is the worst religion ever, even though those people in the US worship the same damn God/Allah. And no one in those Islamic countries care about survival. They thrive on killing and more killing. Who wants peace? Man, that response makes it seem like you really know the "enemy".

  23 hours ago · Like
• BL: I'm not sure what you are saying. There really needs to be a sarcasm font. 
  
  You think that everyone realizes that the war in Syria is a religious war. You think that everyone in the US thinks that Islam is the worst religion on earth despite the fact that Christians speak of the same God (which we don't by the way). You rightly think that muslims care about living and that their goal is not simply to kill. You think no one wants peace. You think that I am arrogant. 
  
  Did I get that right?

  21 hours ago · Like
• TS: I think that you're vastly blanketing an entire people, many of whom probably care more about living than killing. To me it's borderline racism. 
  
  Yahweh is/was a Semitic rain deity. Allah is/was a semitic rain deity. The only difference is the Levant area being spoken about. 
  
  I think there's a lot of history and not a lot of land, but a little bit of diplomacy over an extended period of time can do a lot better than war after war (eye for an eye).

  21 hours ago · Like
• TS: Not to mention, why then do both the Bible and Qur'an have similar heroes? Moses, etc. The difference only comes later when Jesus and Muhammad get on board. http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  20 hours ago · Edited · Like
• BL: I only intended to say that Islam predisposes people to violence, not that all Muslims are violent. 
  
  Yahweh was not a rain deity. You are probably thinking of Baal. I would imagine that a muslim would be quite angry with you for saying that about Allah as well. anyways... 'Allah' just means 'God' in their language. Even so, we still speak of a VERY different God. To show this, consider the Mormons. They speak the same names as Catholics, "God" "Jesus" "Moses", But they mean something very different when they say those words. When they say 'God the father' they mean a man of flesh and blood. When they speak about moses they speak of a man who came to america... In a similar way islam is very different from Christianity despite sometimes using the same names..

  19 hours ago · Like
• BL: I would not promote war over diplomacy.. But there is a limit to what diplomacy can do. We are not going to stop their wars by talking nicely.

  19 hours ago · Like
• TS: I would think that from an outsider view, the same could be said about Christians. One only needs to look at history. I bet there are plenty of Muslims with your same opinion on Christians. It's how this ridiculous cycle of hate propagation continues.

  
  Ba'al was also a rain deity. That's why Elijah and accompanying priests had a "storm-off" against Ba'al's priests in I Kings.
  
  I think the Mormon example is perfect. Mormons draw from the Old and New Testament to create their own religion, whereas Catholics and Muslims drew from the Old Testament to create their own religions.
  
  And I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Moses/Mormon. It was Lehi who came to America and who later battled with the Nephites. This post-dated Moses. Mormons do refer to Brigham Young as the "American Moses", but they also feature the Egyptian Moses in their beliefs.
  

  19 hours ago · Edited · Like
• TS: And yeah. Money does a lot of talking. If Russia can do something about it, I'd be all for it. Baby steps.

  19 hours ago · Like
• BL: My goal was to understand what was occurring in the middle east. For that, it hardly matters what Muslims think about Christians as Christians play a very small role in these events. Further, a comparison to Christians is unhelpful as no Christians are currently stuck in the same cycle of war that Muslim countries are.
  
  The only purpose that saying that I worship a rain god could serve is to try to upset. I don't really know how we got on that.. and I don't really care because.. your fishing. For the record, this would seem a little more sane if you tried to say he was a fire god.

  3 hours ago · Like
• TS: Well, if that was the goal then maybe you should think of them as people, as a living, dynamic culture, and not as some easily-defined, "they're all the same" group of people, when you should know full well that there are just as many sane Muslims over there as there are sane Christians here. And just as over here the less informed, very Bible-fearing, very loud Fundamentalist Christians with right-wing biased media back are often the ones making all the news, making the rest of us hang our heads in same. But yet we all know that's not really what most Christians are like.
  
  Christians are actually playing a huge part in these events. Many of them want to bomb Syria to "set things right". This is very likely just a simple war over resources (land and oil) with the scapegoat of religion as 99% of wars tend to be. There are also very many conflicts and civil wars in Christian countries, but they tend to just be called wars, as we're a bit biased on that front. You can look to Guatemala, Mexico, Venezuela, etc. as a few examples.
  
  Well, the reason to mention Yahweh as a rain god was to point out that the two religions, Christianity and Islam are actually very similar. The problem is that you have constructed for yourself this small box that you're unwilling to look outside. My intent was not in incite anger but to inform. Read a little bit about the history of your religion. If you choose to believe it, it would seem like the smart thing to do. It's also good to research a bit more about other religions, because as you've demonstrated here, you know little to nothing about them. Then once again you can see just how similar these two religions are. Go read a bit about Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Goliath, etc, etc. in the Qur'an. Because. It's in there.
  
  Christians and Muslims worship the same God with a very slight variant. If the Catholics hadn't done such of good job of being able to combine the Old Testament in with the New Testament a one Doctrine, one could say that the deviation from Judaism to Catholicism is just about as much as Catholicism to Islam. Somebody comes along in several generations and caters a religion to their own time. And people buy it.
  
  And when you say fire god is more appropriate, I can see why you'd think that, but also realize that with storms come lightning. Looking into it deeper it seems Yahweh, or "Elohim" was the sky deity, as was Allah, making them more powerful than just the storm deity Ba'al, as their powers would encompass more than just the clouds.
  
  See here for where Yahweh is also named Elohim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
  
  See here for a listing of the Proto-Semitic pantheon, with particular interest in the sky god:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Semitic_religion...
  
  This blog contemplates the idea of Yahweh being a rain/sky deity: http://worldreligion.hubpages.com/...
  
  Not to mention, as we see Yahweh now as ruler over all of nature, he's an amalgamation of all other deities, but at the time he was just the one that had the higher status and was able to eliminate all gods before him. This is likely because rain in a desert is a hot commodity. It's also a bit like Chaac Mo'ol, the rain deity in Maya religion, who had a much elevated status because of his ability to bring life to the fields. 
  
  Also, the notion of monotheism in this instance came out of Egypt with Akhenaten where (Tut)Moses (II) ran with it, pushing for the worship of just a single deity even though most people of the time were aware of the pantheon and had recently been worshiping them. The religion simplified things, although Catholicism, when formed, chose to create a loophole by creating an order of "saints" which isn't actually a deity, but close to it. It's a nice way though of remembering the history of a people, much like the stories told in the Bible.
  
  There are also instances of remnant lower deities in the Old Testament. If you'd like I'd elucidate them for you, but I have a feeling that much like your previous comment, you probably don't' have much of a concern in knowing.

Religion vs Science: Part 3 (Final)

So communication still existed between me and my discussant (R), although more infrequently were the exchanges made since the last post. Today I realized that I have since been blocked from responding to this person. I kind of wonder how long it took him to figure out how to do that. Anyway, here's how the rest of it played out. Oh, and my final comment was put back on the original link, just because I'm stubborn,I also want the last word, and I think that bailing like that is kind of a weak way out.

R
Curious. Have u red the Manifesto?

T
There are many manifestos. Communist? Not in its entirety, but most of it.

R
Thought you'd like this. That is your "share the wealth" comrade in the bottom left corner. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/14/trib-reruns-1934-cartoon-planned-economy-or-planned-destruction

T
That must have been horrible -- the people in the cap and gowns telling everyone how the government should spend money to give people jobs. I wonder if there's a website on all the jobs that were created by FDR during that time... It's funny because things keep popping up in even just my field that point back to FDR.

Here's a few things to read over:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#New_Deal_Programs
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/2008_30-39/2008_30-39/2008-37/pdf/11-13_3536.pdf
http://www.slate.com/id/2209781/

Oh, and Glenn Beck is talking in downtown Anchorage tomorrow. I'll be sure to say hi to him for you.

R
Seriously? Wiki write what you want again? It's proven that the giveaways that FDR did sustained the depression and made it worse and more prolonged. Did you look that up? Just like today. I'm a business man. I know what tax relief does to investment. I know what uncontrolled spending does to confidence to businesses. Its basic laws of capitalism. But then, that is the objective right? Kill capitalism.

R
By the way, while the socialist media tries to make us forget and move on, we will not forget. http://www.thomasmore.org/default-sb_thomasmore.html?124321245

T
I suppose you just want another war. Cuz two (and now one) just isn't enough. That seemed to work the last time.

R
We didn't start this.

T
Who did?

R
Oh my god. Where were you on 9/11/01?

T
Sleeping. It was a little early on the west coast.

T
Interesting take on freedom of speech.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/09/10/balkin.first.amendment/index.html?hpt=T2

T
Also hits on a few issues:
http://open.salon.com/blog/anthropologist_underground/2010/09/08/its_difficult_to_be_a_patriot_at_this_moment_in_history

Disagreement is treason:
The New Right knows, cynically, that their ideas cannot stand up to honest analysis, and so demonize those who disagree with them. It creates a Muslim Non-American of the President; a rampaging horde of immigrants, and tells us that to vote for universal health care is a choice between freedom and tyranny.

This is part and parcel of the fear of diversity, the inherent racism in fascist ideas. There must always be an “other” and in the case of the New Right, the other is distinctly brown.

Appeal to frustrated middle class:
During times of economic uncertainty, someone must be to blame for the decline in what seemed to be endless prosperity. Despite the fact that wealth in the U.S. has continued to concentrate in the wealthiest, these same wealthy successfully convince the middle class that it is really concentrating among The Others, those who are taking “our” jobs, raising taxes, etc. Despite the fact that our tax structure favors the rich rather than the middle or lower economic classes, it is the poorest or brownest that must be to blame. Them, and the bankers, whose names all seem to share some ethic similarities when repeated over and over.

Newspeak:
... The battle over an Islamic center in New York could perhaps be seen as an isolated incident by those who are completely blind, but as mosques and Muslims are attacked across the U.S., a trend has emerged: it’s open season on anyone demonized by the New Right. As Sarah Palin yells, “don’t retreat, reload,” a line that brings cheers from her 2nd Amendment-loving but 14th Amendment-hating followers, real people are reloading.

Fascism incites its followers to demonize the Other, to physically attack him and all he stands for. Once it becomes the new normal to attack Muslims, burn their books, and forbid their houses of worship, all it takes to spread the hate further is to accuse enemies of the cause of being Muslims or Muslim-sympathizers. The spread of lies about President Obama’s origins, religious beliefs, etc. aren’t just the rantings of a few nut jobs. They are part of an organized effort to create hate, division, and to delegitimize a lawfully elected and constituted government.

R
on your first link, stupid. I have the right to do ANYTHING in this country as long as I do not threaten others in doing it. Burning a book is completely within anyone's rights. Heck I may burn a koran every day from now on; who is to know and care? Oh... that's right... the Muslims care, as they threaten to KILL people ......and DO... for such legal rights. Oh, but you know what? Federal agents went to talk to this guy and told him what he was saying and doing was indeed threatening our troops all over the world. That is why he capitulated. It was the Muslims that threatened lives, not him.

You just don't get it man. These people are dangerous. They only know violence to solve their concerns. I recall somewhere up in this exchange you contended that "your side" doesn't support violence and asked me to site such. Here is another example. You democrats support people that openly threaten human lives for not doing what they REQUIRE others to do or act like. It's not about them. It's about our Constitution. Remember that? That is how this exchange between you and me got started. But when it doesn't support your agenda, you don't support it? Man. Oh, but you don't believe in "inalienable rights" either.

Fascism man is what the MUSLIMS do! Wake up! They are the violent threatening and demonizing people. Who is it you cannot see this? I'm just lost in your inability to see the truth. Maybe it just comes with age and breaking away from propaganda you are taught.

R
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/violence-continues-over-threat-to-burn-koran-2077571.html

T
I think you missed the point. The point was that people can do what they want, but they'll also succumb to pressure if it's great enough, which is also free speech from one side to the other.

Being a dick with your free speech is a lot different than openly practicing a religion. One just riles people up, and the other is people trying to do their own thing. If using the threat of potential violence for quelling what this dumbass minister wants to do, then so be it. Yeah, you can burn it, no one says you can't. But really, that's not helping anyone and will only incite more rage. Wouldn't you want to do something about Muslims burning a bunch of Bibles?

I think you don't get it. WE are dangerous. Have you seen how we blow the crap out of places over there? Did they really want us coming in and "making everything better"? I doubt it. We make up some WMD BS and rolled with the excuse to push those people around. I'd be pretty pissed about it myself. But, of course, you see it as there was "totally the potential" for WMD and you don't see how this was totally about resources, namely oil.

Remember in our Constitution -- that part about freedom of religion? Why is it OK for you to practice yours, meanwhile these other people shouldn't be allowed because a few of them are dangerous. ... We've already gone over this...

I know Alaska politics don't really affect you, but this Joe Miller guy is really something:
http://www.themudflats.net/2010/09/16/farmer-joe-and-the-feds/

And, ah yes, isn't fascism fun?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/240707fascistcoup.htm

Age has nothing to do with this other than our learning what we did at a receptive time in our lives.

R
gee man. You are SO amazingly blinded. Now I'm more interested to know how a naturally born and educated American gets this blinded?

You started this discussion touting the Constitutional rights the Muslims have; now you condone violence ,"so be it" you say,when others do what they have the freedom to do. Then you say that conservatives are intolerant, yet condone intolerant actions by Muslims against Christians. "Pressure" is defined as intolerance in your example above. You have no consistent principles, only an agenda led by Marxist tactics and philosophy. You will make no friends in the South with these Marxist ideals. Maybe it will help you wake up and see the truth. Maybe.

We didn't kill needless people in Iraq on purpose. We freed those people from tyranny and murder, and dispersed those that were trying to kill us as well. And Iraq is the one that tried and hung Hussein for his atrocities, giving justification to our actions. But heck, he was probably one of your heros, like Marx and Mao, that just killed those that offended the Koran or went against his own preferences.

And the WMD were moved; that was proven but your sources deny, as it doesn't fit your agenda. Stupid. There were also those that told that Russia assisted in this move; Russia and French had the most to lose when we freed that country. Look up the money trail in Iraq in those years.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/

I'm done. No need to correspond any more. You've shown your true colors in this dialog which is intolerance for others and violent tenancies to get your agenda installed; which is all communist Marxist teachings. I pray that your "nature" gives you what you need in life. Bye and good luck.

T
I suppose hiding is one way to win a discussion but it doesn't really leave things open to see both sides of the story. I don't condone violence, merely the threat of it. It's a power tactic for those who don't see that something as ridiculous as burning sacred texts will in no way help either side.

I do not promote intolerance unless it pertains to the intolerant.

That is all. Sorry, J.