<OT> -- WAY OT Re: So it goes . . .(Long, sorry about that)

[Condon Thomas A KPWA]

> > Note that that snopes article can only directly say that 
> the event  in 
> > question was wrong, its feeble attempt to refute the notion 
> of "jihad" 
> > just doesn't hold water.
> > 
> > There are a few facts that can't be argued with:
> > - Muslims do routinely kill non-Muslims for no particular reason.
> > - Muslims routinely commit suicide in the process.
> > - These events take place all over the world in essentially 
> all of the 
<SNIP>
> > (Did I miss anything?)

Only the ridiculousness of your argument.

There are white policemen killing black men in ghettos.  Does that make all
white men out to kill all black men?  Nope.  There are some of any group who
are truly insane.  Will you label everyone of that category by the behavior
of those few?  There are humans who kill other humans.  I guess we'd better
eliminate them all for the war-mongering, hate spreading, fanatical,
tyrannical, baby molesters that they are.  Quick, drop the bombs and put all
those vicious humans out of their misery.  We'll all be safer then.

[Note: If you didn't recognize it, that was sarcasm.]

For what it is worth, the Muslims have been better friends to the Jews and
Americans than ever the Aryans were in the '40s.  At least, if you go by
death tolls.

> A truly deafening silence. Probably because your 
> run-of-the-mill Moslem
> is taught not to discuss the Koran because they are not educated to do
> so. And if they get it wrong, they will be committing a great sin.
> Either because they misquote Mohammad, or because they may lead some
> other believer astray by a mistake.

I was being silent because this is really so off topic.  Some things I can't
leave alone, though.

My understanding, from some limited reading, is that "infidel" refers to
those who are not taught religion "by the book".  "By the book" has been
interpreted a couple of ways, but the most common is that their religion is
written down, instead of word of mouth.  Note it is not "by THE book" -- not
strictly from the Koran and no other.  The fanatics who wish war (for
whatever reason) frequently interpret "by the book" to mean from the Koran
and no other.  However, remember that the Muslim religion is based on the
Old Testament of the bible, and that Jesus is considered just another
prophet, but a holy figure.  Jews, Christians and Muslims have the same
religious heritage in the old testament.  It is my understanding that there
are very few "infidels" left in the world, but you could find more in a
Communist country than in the USA.

My wife also pointed out that there are various interpretations of the
meaning of "jihad".  It *is* a holy war, but on one extreme it means to kill
the infidels, while on the other it means to convert them.

So, depending on your interpretations, Islam can be more peaceful than
Christianity, or as violent as the Crusades and the Inquisition.

One other thought that someone mentioned a few months back.  Islam is about
600 years younger than Christianity.  Take a look at what Christianity was
doing 600 years ago.  It may well be that religions "grow up".

> The TV in the U.S., with its various agendas, do not show how everyone
> is acting. There was a BBC World special a week or so ago in 
> which they
> tried to address this. They asked things like "Are you better off now
> than a year ago?" (only half felt so), and "Do you expect to be better
> off in a year from now?" (much more than half felt so - faith in the
> future still strong). Many Iraqis made an interesting point: they felt
> that many were complaining now because they could, For so long they
> could say nothing in public. Now they feel it is almost their duty to
> exercise this recent freedom. They are also complaining so 
> that whatever
> gets set up will consider their views. Squeaky wheel and all. For most
> it did not seem lost on them that the fact that they could complain is
> in itself something. The BBC went on to tell that there are 
> some hundred
> newspapers in Iraq now, all with different vies of things - a healthy
> sign. A year ago there were a handful. All with similar things to say.
> 
> Has this sort of thing been reported in the US press? I 
> cannot say as I
> no longer live there. But what I do see seems to emphasize 
> the problems
> to the point one would think that was all there was. Services like the
> BBC are not commercial and definitely not an arm of the 
> government.Maybe
> that is why they present a wider picture.

One advantage to working of the military is that I get some reports from the
front circulated by now and again.  For security reasons they can't be
passed on, but they provide some interesting reading.

It seems that many of the protestors and insurgents seen on TV in Iraq are
Palestinians.  The troops know this (as do any people there who can
recognize the accents) and when they tell the news people they are ignored
(it was a BBC reporter in the specific letter I recall).

The American troops are generally liked by the populace.  First, for freeing
them from a tyrant.  Secondly, for their treatment of the people.  On
several occasions there have been confrontations where the rebellious
faction used women and children as shields.  In one case I read of they then
threw one of the women (she was pregnant) down the stairs when they ran.
Rather than pursuing the insurgents, the US troops called in a medivac and
got the woman to a hospital where they were able to get her the care she
needed to save the baby.  The looks on the faces of the other "shields" told
exactly who they sided with -- the US troops.

So, can we be a little less eager to throw the hate around?  Please?  And
maybe take this topic elsewhere?


In Harmony's Way and In A Chord,

Tom  ;-})

Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358
You Can't Catch A Virus From Plain Text Email!