The problem with the whole debate is that after “crying wolf” or exaggerating the facts, most of us don’t follow the debate anymore. Couple in the fact that we are fighting a savage enemy driven by a medieval theological supremacist ideology, and one wonders why the emphasis is first and foremost on our faults. It’s too bad, because a rational debate is always good for the country.
All 20 comments by...
JasonPappas
-
-
As you know, lb, the average person doesn’t follow the in-depth debate on military tactics that one finds in political websites or even political magazines (judging by circulation figures.) The early reports in the media tended to be unsubstantiated accusations, unqualified use of the word torture, and generally shoddy journalism. The mere fact that most stories faded-away suggest to the average person that I know (here in New York City) that the torture charge is questionable. Thus, people are immune to the promiscuous reporting of cases that don’t hold up over time (judging from the tenacity of the media to bring …
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
Did you not see the Abu Graib photos? That you start with Abu Graib says it all to me. After 45 days on the front page of the Times and continues media re-showing of the photo of some twit, finger shooting a man’s private parts, I figured there was nothing more to consider. That’s why I’m no longer interested in the other claims – most of which I've never heard. Like I said, I’m not alone. I ask my fellow workers and they can’t site one instance of torture. These are highly educated people, several with PhDs, in successful …
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
would you be so kind as to try and post a source for your ideas Sure. Here's a list of good books and articles on Islam. Oh, please, the example of Jesus is different than the example of Mohammad – the latter plundered, slaughtered, terrorized, conquered, and ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews. Christians are indeed a problem when then don’t follow the example of their Prophet; Muslims are a problem when they do. Please, do some reading. Try the links I provide.
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
Islamophobe? Is that like Nazi-phobe and Commie-phobe? Name-calling is a poor substitute for actually considering the ideologies in question. Yes, hate is the problem. As I’ve pointed out Islam is a supremacist ideology and if you condemn hate you condemn all supremacist ideologies. You should really learn something about Islam instead of spouting the Bush lies.
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
Dear lb, perhaps we’re not so far apart. I emphatically insist on making a distinction between an ideology (religious or secular) and a demographic group. It’s the difference between philosophy and sociology. Thus, I distinguish between the religious philosophy (the doctrines and texts of Islam) and the demographic group, Muslims. Many people merely call themselves Muslims, following the example of their parents, and don’t actually practice the religion. These nominal Muslims are indeed no different than any other nominal adherents of other religions and ideologies. Of course, there were Nazis who didn’t hate Jews but joined the party to further their …
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
If you are not an Islamaphobe as Rabbit has described you, then you’re at least doing a damned good impersonation of one. Can you not think of anything nice to say about Islam? - Wiley Can you think of anything nice to say about Nazism? Perhaps you’ll tell me about the ecologically minded Volkswagen created to Hitler’s specification. Does that change things for you? Not for me. I judge an ideology by the doctrines and what it would mean if implemented. As I said above, I understand people often don’t follow the doctrines of their religion; and when the doctrines preach …
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
Actually, T. E. Lawrence romanticizes the people he meets; he certainly creates a vivid picture of the few he met at that time in history: both Arab and Ottoman. But such a small sample doesn’t really do justice to a 14 century old religion and its central character: Mohammad. I’m sorry you take Bat Ye’or in that manner. I’ve seen her worry about Europe going from promiscuously tolerant (of those who are intolerant) to xenophobic as an over-reaction. I think she’s trying to be fair to the facts without being unfair to the people. But, at least you considered her thoughts. …
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
Please, Calm down, lb. I agree with you about Deuteronomy (you’ll find similar absurdities in Exodus.) However, Christians can choose to see Jesus as superseding the Old Testament and creating a new Covenant. Unfortunately, Mohammad, who starts out preaching tolerance when he seeks acceptance in his early Meccan period, becomes a tyrant who plunders, slaughters, conquers and ethnically cleanses when he rises to power in Medina. Thus his barbaric period supersedes his earlier teachings of tolerance. His mature practice, the culmination of his rise, is very Old Testament like. As a matter of fact, Islam has a formal doctrine of abrogation …
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
I agree there’s more to learn and Sufism is one area of Islam where I’m weakest. So you book reference is appreciated. I tend to focus more on original Islam – or in Arabic: Salafi Islam (the religion according to Mohammad and the first 4 rightly guided Caliphs.) I believe Al-Ghazali (11th century) made a major impact and help to solidify the Sufi practice as part of the tradition. Sufis that I've met often stress the early Meccan passages.
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
I don’t believe in faith or dogma, so I’m a critic of all religions. However, even though I don’t go down the religious path, I have to understand the content of other belief-systems. Some Christians emphasize the New Testament but mine the Old for selective passages. Others are heavy into the OT and the worse parts. Those that talk about God’s justice at the end of time don’t scare me – even when they do so with appalling imagery. It’s how they want to live this life that concerns me most (see lb's quote of "Imagine".) When they want to introduce …
Posted to Torturers R' Us
-
Kucinich is the reason Democrats lose. Let’s face it he’s saying nothing but “I told you so.” What’s his solution? Withdrawal and turn it over to the Iraqis. What’s the administration’s stated position? Turn it over to the Iraqis and withdraw. Undoubtedly, the Dems will add “when Iraqis are able” which makes it identical to the Republican position. There is no difference because neither is willing to leave it in the hands of slaughtering factions. Both hold the standard of civility and democracy for success. Neither can admit that Iraqis don’t have what it takes for a liberal democracy. The Democrats …
Posted to Democrats: It's the War
-
OK, so if was Quaddafi that had the nuclear program and not Saddam! So what? We got the job done anyway. The problem is not the war; it’s the nation-building. No one thought Iraq was ripe for democracy. Which Arab country had a democracy? Where is there a mix of Islam and democracy? This is the big story.
Posted to Lies Judith Miller Told Us
-
EmitFlesti is quite correct about the founding of fascism as a movement of the left. Of course, the left always had splinter groups that competed for the same audience. Hayak talks about it in the "Road To Serfdom." Fritz Stern did very little to show the role of religion in Hitler's rise. Most political leaders invoke religion but that does is often an afterthought to rally the population. Sometimes religion is used like flag waving. Lincoln and the Abolitionists used religion ("Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord ...") and so did the Confederate. Did that …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
You beat me to it, scorp. At the same time, that list holds for Islamist governments as well. It used to be that communist would boast that they are internationalist and not nationalist like the fascists. But with the rise of Identity politics, "ethnical group consciousness" and nationalism became acceptable in today's left. It used to be that communists advocated outright nationalization of industries while fascists left a façade of private property but controlled the industries by regulation, and central command. Today, the left has abandoned nationalization in favor of regulation. Finally, the rhetoric of the fascists and Nazis refered to …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
I have no problem saying that government in bed with favored businesses (it’s never all businesses but some at the expense of others) is fascist in nature even if it is not full blown fascism. Let remember, when government regulates business, some gain and some lose. Clearly government favors some at the expense of others (most often new aspirants to the market.) Of course, that would make FDR one of the biggest fascists in American history. Actually, he modeled his economic program for controlling businesses after Mussolini’s corporatism. Of course, the most fascist economic aspects were struck down by the Supreme …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
It wasn’t just that Mussolini was once socialist. He was always a socialist. He came to the realization that a road to socialism, with the absorption of all industries into the state, could be achieved in fact while the façade of capitalism remained. Real ownership is control. Who cares whose name is on the deed if that man can’t control the company? Who cares who sits in the CEOs office if that man must carry out the orders of the state? Besides being a socialist, Mussolini was knowledgeable on the American philosophy of Pragmatism (James, Dewey, etc.) He believed in being …
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
Not the old “Bush is just a Capitalist tool” routine. Give me a break. Do you have anything but stale leftist slogans? Odd you call me a shill when my post above (7:39AM) calls for less economic intervention – and that includes subsidies to corporations. I don’t know how you’d see anything I say as being from the “State Department” when I've written nothing about the "State Department" and have nothing but criticism for Powell and his State Department. You must not know anything about the organization of the American government.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
It looks like I stumbled onto another replay of the decades old debate between Libertarian-Anarchism and Anarcho-Communism. It’s been 30 years since I last considered these utopian ideas. My main problem is that societal evolution is so painstakingly slow that it rarely pays to fine tune the dream. I’ll leave you folks to re-hash the old debate. Might I suggest that fewer personal attacks might help.
Posted to A Fundamental History Lesson
-
As an atheist, I agree with Moyers about fundamentalism but his moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity is appalling. As a Christian, Moyers should know that the New Testament supersedes the Old as a New Covenant is established with the teachings of Jesus. Thus, the more peaceful example of Jesus’ life moderates the harsh OT proscriptions. In Islam it is the other way around. Mohammad preached tolerance when he was trying to get accepted but was a vicious tyrant when he rose to power in Medina. Mo ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews. Jesus did nothing like this. Christians would eventually …
Posted to Reckoning with the God Squad
Return to JasonPappas's profile
- Joined October 24, 2005
- Last Visit December 9, 2005
Other Profiles
IN THESE TIMES COMMUNITY MEMBERS
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Ignoring Outrage, Obama Set to Expand Pentagon Presence in Colombia
- 9.
- 10.
RSS Feed