Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (400)	12/6/2002 7:33:25 PM
From: epsteinbd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

While your explanation seems just and fair, I fear it is not complete. Those who act violently are not only protected by war lords and political leaders, but by entire segments of populations. And no one has a way to change that perception, that love. Pakistan is an excellent example of the local support AQ gets. So is Saudia. Support and protection from people like you and me. The only difference is that those population have invested hope in their anti western "guerilleros". Not freedom fighters but freedom busters, AQ are not the Che Guevara of the poor, but those who'll make you poor too, because that's what they sense as justice.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (400)	12/7/2002 2:05:40 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

I think the difference is in the way the violence is portrayed in the books. The Bible/Torah has incitements to quite bloody violence, by the Almighty Himself, but it is generally limited in scope. Such as incitement to violence in the break-out into Canaan, for example. There isn't a universal commandment from God or the Prophets to wage eternal war until all the unbelievers in the world are converted to the worship of the God of Abraham. Quite the contrary, the Hebrews make a claim to exclusivity. In the New Testament, Jesus is decidedly a-political altogether. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Christianity makes a claim to Universality, but that Universality isn't to be proclaimed by the sword. Islam's problem, as my little self sees it, is that it's founder DID make universal incitements to violence. Looking at the history of the founding of Islam, we can see that this was a political motivation as much as anything else, IMO. But to a believer, to whom the words of Mohammed are the words of God's infallible Prophet, it can be made into a universal claim to eternal warfare against the unbeliever. I do believe Islam has built-in violence, in the Koran, and in the Hadiths. So does the Bible, but I think the political practicalities of Mohammed's life make that violence a bit more problematic. Derek

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (400)	12/7/2002 2:53:34 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15987

<< "Why not seize this GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to foster a non-violent interpretation of Islam??" >> Golden opportunity??? FoxNews reported yesterday that Muslim Mosques in America were teaching hatred of Christians and Jews, and then sending their students throughout America, to build additional mosques, in order to spread the message of hate. << Why seek to create a religious "us versus them" conflict between two of the largest faiths?? >> Why not ask this question of Muslim leaders in America?