The broader war that exists beyond conspiracy theory's of U.S. dominance

[vta]

Link (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/06/content_8320827.htm)

MADRID, June 5 (Xinhua) -- Spain's national court on Thursday indicted 11 South Asians for plotting a suicide attack against public transportation in Barcelona, northeast of the country.

Ismael Moreno, judge of the National Audience court for anti-terrorism, charged them with forming an armed terrorist group and possessing explosives, even though the amount of explosives seized "didn't have the capacity to produce large damage."

The 11 suspects -- nine born in Pakistan, one in India and one whose nationality was not given -- had planned to conduct suicide attacks in January 18-20, but 14 of the group were arrested before the attack.

The charged could face up to about 20 years in prison if found guilty.

"Three of the suspects had been tasked to carry suicide bombs, and other three were explosive experts," Moreno said. "Their group was about to accomplish a highly technical capacity in explosive devices, with which they intended to commit several suicide attacks against public transportation in Barcelona."

The charges were based on the declarations of witnesses and the judge has enforced an international warrant of arrest for other suspects.

Spanish authorities have carried out operations against radical Islamists since Al-Qaida bombed trains in Madrid on March 11, 2004,killing 191 people and injuring 1,800.

[Rackat]

I appreciate the thread title. I don't believe some will understand it though.

[vta]

I appreciate the thread title. I don't believe some will understand it though.

:laugh2:

It's a war against the Western ideology, not just the U.S. and it's not caused by the U.S. or it's policies.

[ScipioCowboy]

I see what you did there.;)

[burmafrd]

But of course sultan and others like Canadian will say its all Bush's fault.
Does not matter what the real reasons are.
Al Queeda and the islamic crazies hate all western CULTURE.
But the numbies like all too many in Europe just will not accept that FACT.

[SultanOfSix]

Bush is just a pawn - a puppet - where the true masters remain hidden. The president stopped wielding power along with the general mass of people many years ago. The true conspiracy lies in the weaved web of the supra-national banking system, which divides the world into nation states for the benefit of their masters with little care for cultural and religious differences, dividing the people and their thought processes into false and superficial borders of nationalism. The flimsiest house is the web of the spider.

Can we define what Western culture is, see whether there exists a dichotomy between it and Islamic culture, and then determine whether the war is initiated by the former, or the latter?

[iceberg]

But of course sultan and others like Canadian will say its all Bush's fault.
Does not matter what the real reasons are.
Al Queeda and the islamic crazies hate all western CULTURE.
But the numbies like all too many in Europe just will not accept that FACT.

and you'll just come out in instant extreme. : )

i think we can all be pinned to our beliefs and styles by now. however, sultan and i don't always agree, but the more i listen to what he's saying, the more i understand *why* he says it. like i said, not always agree, we all have our viewpoints... but i'm not as quick to dismiss him as i once was.

[iceberg]

Bush is just a pawn - a puppet - where the true masters remain hidden. The president stopped wielding power along with the general mass of people many years ago. The true conspiracy lies in the weaved web of the supra-national banking system, which divides the world into nation states for the benefit of their masters with little care for cultural and religious differences, dividing the people and their thought processes into false and superficial borders of nationalism. The flimsiest house is the web of the spider.

Can we define what Western culture is, see whether there exists a dichotomy between it and Islamic culture, and then determine whether the war is initiated by the former, or the latter?

maybe i was wrong.

[SultanOfSix]

maybe i was wrong.

"O People of the Book [Jews, Christians, and all followers of earlier revelation]! Come unto that tenet which we and you hold in common: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall not ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and that we shall not take human beings for our lords beside God." And if they turn away, then say: "Bear witness that it is we who have surrendered ourselves unto Him." (Qur'an 3:64)

What does this philosophy of Western ideology call you to?

I hear a lot of phrases in the media, "war against Western ideology", Al-Qaida did this or that (how many leaders outside of Al-Qaida do you know of besides Osama bin Laden), etc. but do people who readily believe all of this actually think and really know what is being told to them? I'm just curious.

[iceberg]

"O People of the Book [Jews, Christians, and all followers of earlier revelation]! Come unto that tenet which we and you hold in common: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall not ascribe divinity to aught beside Him, and that we shall not take human beings for our lords beside God." And if they turn away, then say: "Bear witness that it is we who have surrendered ourselves unto Him." (Qur'an 3:64)

What does this philosophy of Western ideology call you to?

I hear a lot of phrases in the media, "war against Western ideology", Al-Qaida did this or that (how many leaders outside of Al-Qaida do you know outside of besides Osama bin Laden), etc. but do people who readily believe all of this actually think and really know what is being told to them? I'm just curious.

at first take i don't believe much of anything. i take the time to know the mind behind the voice and go from there with intent.

if i see someone as "reactionary" and always at an extreme, i just tune them out because my mind doesn't work that way. that's almost going out and begging for a fight / argument. that's wanting respect you don't give to me.

as for what people believe - well that's guided largely by their own life and experiences. some will eat it up and the passionate will make stuff up to go with it. then believe it.

but that's just one type of a mindset and there are many out there. when people start talking in general insults i tune them out too because it's personal at that point, not logical.

so at this point i really have no idea what you're asking me but my apathy just kicked in and i need to go get some lunch.

[SultanOfSix]

so at this point i really have no idea what you're asking me but my apathy just kicked in and i need to go get some lunch.

The question was there: What does Western ideology call you to?

People get labelled with names, associated with actions, generalized with insults, etc., but do people really think about what is happening and why it is happening?

This thread said "it" (I don't know what it is, so I made an assumption) is at war against Western ideology. It's a simple question, that may or may not have a simple answer. I wanted to know what the latter is, and what it calls you to?

[iceberg]

The question was there: What does Western ideology call you to?

People get labelled with names, associated with actions, generalized with insults, etc., but do people really think about what is happening and why it is happening?

This thread said "it" (I don't know what it is, so I made an assumption) is at war against Western ideology. It's a simple question, that may or may not have a simple answer. I wanted to know what the latter is, and what it calls you to?

considering my trips out of the country include cancun a few years ago, vancouver 8 years ago, and the border when i was around 7 years old (don't order fish in mexico - you get the whole damn fish pretty much pan fried) my perspective will be different than yours i'm sure. *different* - not right or wrong.

my idea of western ideaology is simple - freedom to follow your dreams within a support system there for *all* dreams. i'll support you if you can support me. hell, the 2nd part is rarely a requirement for me either.

it's far from perfect but what is? nothing. but people get wrapped up in religion so their faith has purpose to them, as i see it. if it were not religion (which to me was born out of fear of the unknown in as much as anything) then there would be something else to get people worked up and so divided.

in their own (dis)beliefs.

it's faith that keeps us all going and to me the more insecure you are in your own faith the more someone believing another way scares you. sometimes to the point of killing them to be "right".

i don't give a damn who wants to be what religion. go pray in any way you feel fit and proper. i only want that same right. to be different but not wrong. certainly not to die for it.

so i would assume based on human (not american) nature these things hold true too. so to me my idea of western culture is to try and help where we can (and if a typhoon hits a 3rd world country, we're the first to get looked to for help but the first to get yelled at in the process - goes with the terratory) and allow differences to bring us together, not divide us apart.

today, i only know of 1 religion, even if only practiced in incorrect or extreme measures, that condones killing innocent people for their "ideaology".

in my mind that's wrong.

[SultanOfSix]

today, i only know of 1 religion, even if only practiced in incorrect or extreme measures, that condones killing innocent people for their "ideaology".

See, this is what I don't get. You know of one religion practiced in "incorrect or extreme measures" that condones killing "innocent" people. Is this not a loaded statement? Is this not a contradiction?

If I was an Iraqi civilian, and I just witnessed my family get blown up by a misguided bomb dropped by an American warplane on my house, what makes you think I wouldn't make the assumption as you have done, that there is only one country that condones the killing of innocent people for their "ideology"?

[iceberg]

See, this is what I don't get. You know of one religion practiced in "incorrect or extreme measures" that condones killing "innocent" people. Is this not a loaded statement? Is this not a contradiction?

If I was an Iraqi civilian, and I just witnessed my family get blown up by a misguided bomb dropped by an American warplane on my house, what makes you think I wouldn't make the assumption as you have done, that there is only one country that condones the killing of innocent people for their "ideology"?

you have a point to a point and yes, those mistakes do hurt badly.

but intent. go back up to where i said i blow by talk and view the intent of the person. in your example it was not the intent of our government (ie, NOT religion) to hurt an innocent family. but it does happen in wars.

9/11 - was their intent the same? should 3000+ families just let it go?

now, let's not start mixing up religion with country with politics with ideaology.

as a government, please show me where we ever said it was ok to kill innocent people.

to me you're fighting to get me to see past US policy and more from your own point of view. i'm trying. i really am. but like i said, that doesn't mean i agree or ever will agree. just like i'll probably never get you to agree we're doing it the "right" way.

no one is - no one is perfect. but we're a country that applauds our differences and fights to work through them. we don't cover up our women and force a singular belief on all, killing those who don't choose to convert.

and as far as i know, we don't condone the killing of innocent people. please don't try to call an accident something intentional and "policy". that doesn't help that family or families, no. but it's still not the same.

[Vintage]

9/11 - was their intent the same? should 3000+ families just let it go?

now, let's not start mixing up religion with country with politics with ideaology.




We were justified in taking action in Afghanistan following the attacks on 9-11.

We needed to take action, and we did.

But we also need to realize in doing so, we will radicalize sects of populations... and we shouldn't be surprised when anti-American sentiment rises as a result.

The key is trying to minimize it.

[iceberg]

We were justified in taking action in Afghanistan following the attacks on 9-11.

We needed to take action, and we did.

But we also need to realize in doing so, we will radicalize sects of populations... and we shouldn't be surprised when anti-American sentiment rises as a result.

The key is trying to minimize it.

of that i agree and am not surprised at all. like in sultans example. yes it was a mistake but that doesn't help the family. in those examples, does our government go back and help rebuild? try to make ammends? anyone know?

[SultanOfSix]

That's not the point. You took a small subset and made the whole guilty via association. You know of only "one religion" that allows the killing of "innocent" people, even if practiced wrongly.

Extremism can exist in every religion, in every way of life. I can rationalize any action. Whether I can justify them is debatable. Religion is an ideology. People in countries follow religion. Politics are influenced by the beliefs of the people, which include the various religions they adhere to. There is no partition.

As far as intent is concerned, how does the Iraqi who just had his family killed know it wasn't the "intent" of the Americans to kill his family? How are you going to rationalize a term like "casualties of war" to him? How about the Japanese victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

All societies have laws. Laws are a reflection of the moral code of the society. In America, it is ok to dress down "up to a point". You can't start walking around nude in a shopping mall and not be expected to be thrown in jail.

So, is Islam at war with Western ideology? Or is that just what some people want you to believe?

[Vintage]

of that i agree and am not surprised at all. like in sultans example. yes it was a mistake but that doesn't help the family. in those examples, does our government go back and help rebuild? try to make ammends? anyone know?

I think the best way to do it is through soft power.

Take your military action (using smaller, more precise strikes/actions)... then you go after the disenfranchised sects. Terrorists are after political gain, too. They are trying to convince the population that they can provide better for their people than the current gov't can. So we need to go in, help build infastructure (schools, roads, hospitals), help them set up their security, etc.

This shows the disenfranchised that the US does care about their people; that their current gov't is viewed as legitimate and able to provide for their people.

Terrorist target disenfranchised groups. So should we. Go after the population they target to limit their ability to grow. Furthermore, the citizens will rise up, take part of their gov't, and ultimately look away from terrorism. Terrorists will have to target a new country for success (in terms of growth). And of course, the usual freezing of assets, working with countries to secure their borders, etc.

A lot of this applies to Iraq.

We've done well in some areas of this...

And we've had some epic failures.

The handling of Iraq by this current administration has been questionable... which is also why I do not want anything to happen with Iran until Bush is OUT of office.

[vta]

Can we define what Western culture is, see whether there exists a dichotomy between it and Islamic culture, and then determine whether the war is initiated by the former, or the latter?


What does this philosophy of Western ideology call you to?

The question was there: What does Western ideology call you to?

You live in the U.S. - I have no idea if you have ever traveled to the Middle East, but even if not, look around you; I imagine it doesn't take grand leaps of comprehension to recognize the overall difference in living, be it a system of governing, or worshipping (or choosing not to), between the regions are ideologically created.

Do you need these differences enumerated and how they collectively constitute an ideology?

The world's history has been full of ideological conflicts and cultural struggles. The fading of the Cold War has given a generation a false impression that this isn't so; that people are just trying to get along, without creating a broader, farther reaching environment that will benefit it's own ideology, at the expense of another. This is untrue.

A greater percentage of the worlds conflicts at this moment include Islamic extremism, stretching from Asia to deep into the West. In Thailand, Indonesia, farther West provinces of China, to Africa, Islamic extremists are struggling with different ideologies for power and influence. Eastern Europe, (Spain for example) is experience numerous attempts of attacks. Denmark, (over a cartoon, no less) is experiencing a major backlash, in it's own border's as well as it's embassy in Pakistan. Germany is vigilant and arresting people for plotting attacks.

Try to read the above objectively and without a sense of indignation and what do you find to be true? It's not a 'right' or 'wrong' question, it's a question that asks what a pragmatic observance of the facts will lead one to conclude.

----

The Western Ideology calls you to be what God intended: a self determining individual. It doesn't hold a pretension that it is ordained to steer you in a certain direction, spiritually. You're allowed your own system of beliefs, as evidenced by the multi-cultural nature of our country. There is no need for arrogant humans to erroneously believe they are doing God's work by imposing a set of governmental guidelines, beyond outlwaing general societal crimes, such as murde, rape and theivery, and enforcing laws of the soul, which is to be a poduct from within a man, not enforced from the outside.

Western Ideology doesn't call you to God, it allows you to call on God, or not, which is the purest form of religion: choosing. To choose God is to be truly religious, to have God forced on you isn't.

[Vintage]

That's not the point. You took a small subset and made the whole guilty via association. You know of only "one religion" that allows the killing of "innocent" people, even if practiced wrongly.

Extremism can exist in every religion, in every way of life. I can rationalize any action. Whether I can justify them is debatable. Religion is an ideology. People in countries follow religion. Politics are influenced by the beliefs of the people, which include the various religions they adhere to. There is no partition.

As far as intent is concerned, how does the Iraqi who just had his family killed know it wasn't the "intent" of the Americans to kill his family? How are you going to rationalize a term like "casualties of war" to him? How about the Japanese victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

All societies have laws. Laws are a reflection of the moral code of the society. In America, it is ok to dress down "up to a point". You can't start walking around nude in a shopping mall and not be expected to be thrown in jail.

So, is Islam at war with Western ideology? Or is that just what some people want you to believe?


We are not at war with Islam. Hell, Bush has even said so.

Its certain fanatical groups that use Islam as a cover/way to 'convince' others/promote their agenda.

[iceberg]

That's not the point. You took a small subset and made the whole guilty via association. You know of only "one religion" that allows the killing of "innocent" people, even if practiced wrongly.

Extremism can exist in every religion, in every way of life. I can rationalize any action. Whether I can justify them is debatable. Religion is an ideology. People in countries follow religion. Politics are influenced by the beliefs of the people, which include the various religions they adhere to. There is no partition.

As far as intent is concerned, how does the Iraqi who just had his family killed know it wasn't the "intent" of the Americans to kill his family? How are you going to rationalize a term like "casualties of war" to him? How about the Japanese victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

All societies have laws. Laws are a reflection of the moral code of the society. In America, it is ok to dress down "up to a point". You can't start walking around nude in a shopping mall and not be expected to be thrown in jail.

So, is Islam at war with Western ideology? Or is that just what some people want you to believe?

and taking a misplaced bomb by our troops as an example of how bad and evil we are is not doing the same?

i've also been very careful to say "extreme" of that faith as well.

but i've yet to meet an extreme baptist today strapping bombs to him/her self to take out a starbucks for their cause.

to date i have no idea if i've ever even met an extremist, sultan. go to lunch with several who practice that faith all the time and so far i've never even been scared to do so. the war is with the extremes. it would just be easier of the non-extremes of that faith would help.

[iceberg]

You live in the U.S. - I have no idea if you have ever traveled to the Middle East, but even if not, look around you; I imagine it doesn't take grand leaps of comprehension to recognize the overall difference in living, be it a system of governing, or worshipping (or choosing not to), between the regions are ideologically created.

Do you need these differences enumerated and how they collectively constitute an ideology?

The world's history has been full of ideological conflicts and cultural struggles. The fading of the Cold War has given a generation a false impression that this isn't so; that people are just trying to get along, without creating a broader, farther reaching environment that will benefit it's own ideology, at the expense of another. This is untrue.

A greater percentage of the worlds conflicts at this moment include Islamic extremism, stretching from Asia to deep into the West. In Thailand, Indonesia, farther West provinces of China, to Africa, Islamic extremists are struggling with different ideologies for power and influence. Eastern Europe, (Spain for example) is experience numerous attempts of attacks. Denmark, (over a cartoon, no less) is experiencing a major backlash, in it's own border's as well as it's embassy in Pakistan. Germany is vigilant and arresting people for plotting attacks.

Try to read the above objectively and without a sense of indignation and what do you find to be true? It's not a 'right' or 'wrong' question, it's a question that asks what a pragmatic observance of the facts will lead one to conclude.

----

The Western Ideology calls you to be what God intended: a self determining individual. It doesn't hold a pretension that it is ordained to steer you in a certain direction, spiritually. You're allowed your own system of beliefs, as evidenced by the multi-cultural nature of our country. There is no need for arrogant humans to erroneously believe they are doing God's work by imposing a set of governmental guidelines, beyond outlwaing general societal crimes, such as murde, rape and theivery, and enforcing laws of the soul, which is to be a poduct from within a man, not enforced from the outside.

Western Ideology doesn't call you to God, it allows you to call on God, or not, which is the purest form of religion: choosing. To choose God is to be truly religious, to have God forced on you isn't.

you sure do type pretty. : )

[SultanOfSix]

The Western Ideology calls you to be what God intended: a self determining individual. It doesn't hold a pretension that it is ordained to steer you in a certain direction, spiritually. You're allowed your own system of beliefs, as evidenced by the multi-cultural nature of our country. There is no need for arrogant humans to erroneously believe they are doing God's work by imposing a set of governmental guidelines, beyond outlwaing general societal crimes, such as murde, rape and theivery, and enforcing laws of the soul, which is to be a poduct from within a man, not enforced from the outside.

Western Ideology doesn't call you to God, it allows you to call on God, or not, which is the purest form of religion: choosing. To choose God is to be truly religious, to have God forced on you isn't.

Thanks for answering my point. You just showed me that there is nothing from within Western ideology that could be antithetical to the tenents of Islam.

"Let their be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks." [Qur'an 2:256].

"Religion" is just a personalized or institutionalized set of beliefs, i.e. a total way of life.

And the prophet said: "If you have no shame, then do whatever you want."

[vta]

Thanks for answering my point. You just showed me that there is nothing from within Western ideology that could be antithetical to the tenents of Islam.

OK, and I don't want to indict Islam in a general sense, but how is it reconciled with societies who pass law's and in some instances, death sentences, for apostates? Isn't that in and of itself an abuse of compulsory powers?

[SultanOfSix]

OK, and I don't want to indict Islam in a general sense, but how is it reconciled with societies who pass law's and in some instances, death sentences, for apostates? Isn't that in and of itself an abuse of compulsory powers?

As I said, people can rationalize whatever they want. Whether they can justify based on the evidence is debatable: "Truth stands out clear from error."

Many of those who want the death penalty to be enforced on apostates use as evidence a hadith attributed to the prophet that says "Kill the one who changed his religion". Not getting into the veracity of hadith itself, which contradicts an explicit command of the Qur'an, which Muslims believe to be a command by God, if one just takes this statement by itself, as a general rule, then the Muslim would have to kill the Christian or the Jew who reverts and becomes Muslim. For those who use it as support for apostasy, why wouldn't it be applicable in this case?

There was a specific context associated with the saying that was talking about a Muslim who now became a non-Muslim and is now fighting against the Muslims, i.e. is actually perpetrating an act, which would be labelled in modern terms as "treason", i.e. a Benedict Arnold, or a traitor.

[iceberg]

Thanks for answering my point. You just showed me that there is nothing from within Western ideology that could be antithetical to the tenents of Islam.

"Let their be no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error. Whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trust worthy hand-hold, that never breaks." [Qur'an 2:256].

"Religion" is just a personalized or institutionalized set of beliefs, i.e. a total way of life.

And the prophet said: "If you have no shame, then do whatever you want."

And when the broken hearted people living in the world agree,
there will be an answer, let it be.
For though they may be parted there is still a chance that they will see,
there will be an answer. let it be.
-the beatles, let it be,

we can quote people all day long, sultan. you can look for things and choose not to find them or you can choose *to* find them. but religion is nothing more than an extreme faith. i said that long ago.

the bible was written by man, right? so was "let it be". we have no real evidence of a greater being, but faith makes Him there. all faiths share the same stories of flood and damnation. go back long enough and the greeks and norse had gods for just about anything that moved. eqyptians also, right?

in time we kinda condensed them down to 1, didn't we?

it's not what book i can hold up in front of me that would truely define me. my actions do that and while i'm not responsible for writing the book, i am responsible for the way i carry it out. so continuing to point to your scriptures as if it's right because it's how you were taught is only going to go as far as it would for someone to read some of the bible to you. so forgive me if i don't bother.

i'm not going to keep looking to divide, sultan. we've got enough of that in the world. if you really want people to see more of where you're coming from it's been my experience that you should look just as hard at how they got their own beliefs - without judging along the way.

[SultanOfSix]

I was not pointing out evidence from the Qur'an to show whether my faith is right and yours is wrong. As Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, I was just showing what its actual beliefs are based on the highest form of evidence in the religion itself.

it's not what book i can hold up in front of me that would truely define me. my actions do that

And we should always be wary of this fact. The opposite applies as well, i.e. it is not always the actions of the believer that define the religion.

[vta]

As I said, people can rationalize whatever they want. Whether they can justify based on the evidence is debatable: "Truth stands out clear from error."

Many of those who want the death penalty to be enforced on apostates use as evidence a hadith attributed to the prophet that says "Kill the one who changed his religion". Not getting into the veracity of hadith itself, which contradicts an explicit command of the Qur'an, which Muslims believe to be a command by God, if one just takes this statement by itself, as a general rule, then the Muslim would have to kill the Christian or the Jew who reverts and becomes Muslim. For those who use it as support for apostasy, why wouldn't it be applicable in this case?

There was a specific context associated with the saying that was talking about a Muslim who now became a non-Muslim and is now fighting against the Muslims, i.e. is actually perpetrating an act, which would be labelled in modern terms as "treason", i.e. a Benedict Arnold, or a traitor.

I understand that, but in the context of our societal differences, with such things occuring, doesn't it strike quite a contrast between the two societies? There are in fact broad antithetical instances in practise between the two cultures and where they hold their influence.

How people like you and I are allowed to live and understand our religions, is a product of the ideology we live under.

There are individuals in this country of ours, who hold very unsavory beliefs, (ala Phelps), legally, but his actions are never sanctioned by the state or federal levels of law. They can't be, because individual right's transcend religion, which brings us back to the question of what Western ideology calls for and it's difference to the ideology of those we are in conflict with: A system of governing that caters to the rights of an individual. The interpretation of Islam in regard to governing seems to contrast how you yourself interpret Islam or how it is written, based on your quotes of the Qur'an.

We can basically say all political leaders are full of s___t. That much is true, so strip away their pretensions and what do we have? Basic ideological differences and the need to hold a greater sphere of influence to ensure your own ideology's prominence, security, etc.

The individual can afford to live a pious life, but the collective can't or won't, due to insecurity. So we elect mouthpieces to keep us and our ideological existence safe.

The main thrust of this thread is, it's not the U.S.'s fault in terms of a simple action/reaction way of characterizing the issue, it's the natural order of mankind to conflict with itself. The reason the U.S. is the main protagonist? Because it is the strongest, the most influential, who's power benefits not only itself, but it's allies as well. It could easily have been the U.S.S.R., had the Cold War turned out differently. It's not a 'wrong' set of policies, it's a conflicting set of policies..

[iceberg]

I was not pointing out evidence from the Qur'an to show whether my faith is right and yours is wrong. As Muslims believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, I was just showing what its actual beliefs are based on the highest form of evidence in the religion itself.

And we should always be wary of this fact. The opposite applies as well, i.e. it is not always the actions of the believer that define the religion.

point taken and understood.

[SultanOfSix]

There are individuals in this country of ours, who hold very unsavory beliefs, (ala Phelps), legally, but his actions are never sanctioned by the state or federal levels of law. They can't be, because individual right's transcend religion, which brings us back to the question of what Western ideology calls for and it's difference to the ideology of those we are in conflict with: A system of governing that caters to the rights of an individual. The interpretation of Islam in regard to governing seems to contrast how you yourself interpret Islam or how it is written, based on your quotes of the Qur'an.

The comparison you made doesn't really apply. Not a single Muslim country that actually implements an Islamic government exists in the world. Even Saudi Arabia which claims to adhere to the "sharia" is a kingdom and they aren't allowed under the "sharia". Islamic government requires that a khalifa be elected and established as the leader of all lands with majority Muslim populations that form its dominion. Even so, none of the actions of "Islamic" extremists have ever been sanctioned by any of the existing governments that reside currently in Muslim countries.

In applications of Western ideology, an individual has rights. It's not something unique to it, and as in all other ideologies, the individual's rights are limited. And the laws that limit an individual's rights are typically made for the collective benefit of society as a whole. It is nothing more complex than that.

Western ideology, if it ever has anything that it collectively calls people to, is some concept of "progress", and typically it's technological or material, via adherance to "the state".

[iceberg]

The comparison you made doesn't really apply. Not a single Muslim country that actually implements an Islamic government exists in the world. Even Saudi Arabia which claims to adhere to the "sharia" is a kingdom and they aren't allowed in the latter. Islamic government requires that a khalifa be elected and established as the leader of all lands with majority Muslim populations that form its dominion. Even so, none of the actions of "Islamic" extremists have ever been sanctioned by any of the existing governments that reside currently in Muslim countries.

In applications of Western ideology, an individual has rights. But as in all other ideologies, the individual's rights are limited. And those laws that limit his rights are typically made for the collective benefit of society as a whole. It is nothing more complex than that.

Western ideology, if it ever has anything that it collectively calls people to, is some concept of "progress", and typically it's technological or material, via adherance to "the state". If you take away that concept, it has nothing that can unify people across the world.

so pray tell me - what can unify people across the world?

[SultanOfSix]

so pray tell me - what can unify people across the world?

Basically, what I said didn't make any sense after I read it again, so I took it out. Obviously, if you take away the main unifying factor of an ideology, it has nothing left to unify the people across the world.

[vta]

The comparison you made doesn't really apply. Not a single Muslim country that actually implements an Islamic government exists in the world. Even Saudi Arabia which claims to adhere to the "sharia" is a kingdom and they aren't allowed under the "sharia". Islamic government requires that a khalifa be elected and established as the leader of all lands with majority Muslim populations that form its dominion. Even so, none of the actions of "Islamic" extremists have ever been sanctioned by any of the existing governments that reside currently in Muslim countries.

Well, you're talking about interpretation. The Islamic Republic of Iran is considered by itself, to be an Islamic government. Saudi Arabia is using an interpretation that it finds suitable to the ruling class, obviously. They are putting a tangible face to what is considered and Islamic Government for outsiders to define by their own definitions and actions. The West didn't label Iran the Islamic Republic, nor did it affix any such labels to Saudi Arabia.

Whether or not we don't call Iran a true Islamic government, we're still at odd's with their ideology. The crux of the matter is that, not their bad interpretations of their own holy book.

In applications of Western ideology, an individual has rights. It's not something unique to it, and as in all other ideologies, the individual's rights are limited. And the laws that limit an individual's rights are typically made for the collective benefit of society as a whole. It is nothing more complex than that.

Western ideology calls for social laws, never adhering to religious laws. There exist no laws preventing conversion, adultery (though in some states it's a sueable offense) or other spiritually immoral behavior.

Western ideology, if it ever has anything that it collectively calls people to, is some concept of "progress", and typically it's technological or material, via adherance to "the state".

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'vai adherence to the state'.

[ScipioCowboy]

so pray tell me - what can unify people across the world?

Currently, nothing.

As Sultan alluded, Western and secular thought have always tried to rally people behind purely humanistic notions of progress. However, these notions vary from society to society and even person to person. One person's notion of progress may be technological advancement at any cost while another person's notion may be seeking a balance between mankind and nature.

I believe is the only force capable of unifying the world. But even Christian doctrine holds that true unification will not occur until the Second Coming. Too many people invoke ' name solely for their own personal gain or to justify their greed.

In the here and now, unity cannot be forced upon the world; such endeavors normally lead to violence. We can only hope to respect a people's desire for self-governance. But that's just my opinion.

[SultanOfSix]

Well, you're talking about interpretation. The Islamic Republic of Iran is considered by itself, to be an Islamic government. Saudi Arabia is using an interpretation that it finds suitable to the ruling class, obviously. They are putting a tangible face to what is considered and Islamic Government for outsiders to define by their own definitions and actions. The West didn't label Iran the Islamic Republic, nor did it affix any such labels to Saudi Arabia.

Actually, even the Saudis will tell you that their kingdom isn't viable under "sharia". They are allowed to persist because they establish the prayer, enforce the collection of charity, and are custodians of the two holy places in Makkah and Medinah.

Whether or not we don't call Iran a true Islamic government, we're still at odd's with their ideology. The crux of the matter is that, not their bad interpretations of their own holy book.

I don't really think you are. I think you are at odds with them obtaining nuclear capability and "possibly" affecting "US interests" abroad. I think ideology is just used as a motivating factor to turn opinions in a certain direction. What does it matter that Iran subscribes to their own interpretation of Islam within its borders?

Western ideology calls for social laws, never adhering to religious laws. There exist no laws preventing conversion, adultery (though in some states it's a sueable offense) or other spiritually immoral behavior.

What does that matter? All societies are based on laws. In an Islamic society established under "sharia", laws are based on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. There is no false dichotomy that is set up between the secular and the religious. Even in a democracy, supposedly a Western ideology, where laws are determined by the will of the people (a secular humanistic philosophy as opposed to a "divinely" sanctioned order) religion isn't removed from the picture, because if enough people subscribe to its beliefs, they are going to affect how government and political desicions are made.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'vai adherence to the state'.

Nationalism.

[vta]

Actually, even the Saudis will tell you that their kingdom isn't viable under "sharia". They are allowed to persist because they establish the prayer, enforce the collection of charity, and are custodians of the two holy places in Makkah and Medinah.

This is still arguing semantics and addresses nothing along the lines of the topic.

I don't really think you are. I think you are at odds with them obtaining nuclear capability and "possibly" affecting "US interests" abroad.

Then you choose to ignore the history of the conflict, which is much older than Iran's interest in obtaining nuclear capabilities. That's just a new concern in an old conflict.

I think ideology is just used as a motivating factor to turn opinions in a certain direction.

And keeping in line with the original topic, how can this be reconciled with the other conflicts of the world that do not include the U.S.? Denmark? Spain? They've distanced themselves a great deal since they'd been bombed, yet they are still targeted. Asia? No oil in Thailand or Indonesia and certainly no U.S. interests in the Western provinces of China. The Horn of Africa and Darfur, where severe prejudice is causing ethnic cleansing. These are all Islam related.

I had asked a question earlier which you'd ignored: looking at the facts objectively, what conclusion can you come to? If answered honestly, it would be, that there is a large global ideological conflict concerning Islam, within Western civilization and without.

Whether or not you want to paint them as non-adherents to the true religion is irrelevant. They are having a much greater impact on the world at large than the true adherents to the religion and they are the face of Islam for many. Islam has to harmonize itself, before the rest of the world can change it's views of it.

What does it matter that Iran subscribes to their own interpretation of Islam within its borders?

What they do in their borders is their business; what they do without (Hezbollah) is everybody else's. The conflict isn't about their religion, it's their actions. If their religion, or their interpretation of their religion, drives their actions or is used as a motivational factor, then here we are still arguing semantics.

Whatever the root cause of the ideology, it is what it is and will not be traced solely to U.S. policies, by anyone willing to objectively study the conflict. The U.S. has it's blame, Iran has it's blame in that regard. In regard to the actions outside of our direct conflicts, the blame goes to someone other than the U.S. The U.S. isn't a convenient whipping boy, bad guy on the block to blame all of the world's ill's on. Everybody is responsible for their own actions. Including Muslims who foment violence in countries that have distanced themselves from the U.S. in an act of appeasement. Which of course goes to show how well that tact works.

What does that matter? All societies are based on laws.

It's relevant in noting one of the differences in our society's: the U.S. has separated Church (religion) from state, in an effort to allow other interpretations of spiritual freedoms to have equal rights. Differences you are claiming do not exist.

Even in a democracy, supposedly a Western ideology, where laws are determined by the will of the people (a secular humanistic philosophy as opposed to a "divinely" sanctioned order) religion isn't removed from the picture, because if enough people subscribe to its beliefs, they are going to affect how government and political desicions are made.

The separation of Church and State is glaringly obvious in the United States. While the initial tenets of religion guide as a moral compass, religion itself is not imposed as standard, nor given favorable status. Again, if you're claiming there exists no difference, I'd have to say you're outright lying.

Nationalism.

And what does that tell you? I know Nationalism and Patriotism are dirty words in the current political climate, but if a nation, based on the unity of it's people and of it's nation, can attain what the U.S. has, then obviously, it's doing somethign very right. It allows for a people, regardless of their religious differences, their ethnicities, their backgrounds, to have a common ground and sense of unity.

That in and of itself is 'progress' indeed.

You intentional distancing of yourself from the country in which you reside, as well as your subtle allusions that one should not only adhere to strict religious fidelity, but that in order for a society to properly function, other's should be made to also, is pretty telling. Couple that with your insistence that the problem's within Islam are media contrived speaks of someone, who might very well speak/write a high form of speech, but at root, has very little understanding of how he himself is victim of what he is accusing others of: being outwardly influenced by ideological motivational factors. From what, I have no idea, but your writing gives you away.

[ScipioCowboy]

And what does that tell you? I know Nationalism and Patriotism are dirty words in the current political climate, but if a nation, based on the unity of it's people and of it's nation, can attain what the U.S. has, then obviously, it's doing somethign very right. It allows for a people, regardless of their religious differences, their ethnicities, their backgrounds, to have a common ground and sense of unity.


I agree with much of what you say, VTA, but I think you may be overlooking a valid point offered by Sultan.

You rightfully castigate these Islamic terrorist organizations for their violence and their use of religion as a wedge. However, nationalism and patriotism are often viewed as "dirty words" because they, too, have shown incredible potential for divisiveness and violence. Consider the war in Iraq. Once the US failed to discover any WMDs and, thereby, failed to produce any tangible justification for the war, nationalism in the form of patriotic fervor became the primary impetus for American support of the war.

Of course, we can debate the validity and ultimate consequences of our presence in Iraq all day long, and excellent points and arguments would be made on both sides. I'm merely illustrating the destructive potential of nationalism.

Extreme nationalism only differs from Islamofascism in that nationalism divides people by government affiliation and level of patriotism rather than religion.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that nationalism and patriotism are necessarily bad things. They are, in fact, very good things when balanced by rationalism and the proper perspective of one's place in the world.

Let me reiterate that I agree with much of what you say, VTA. I simply didn't want to overlook a valid point.

[iceberg]

just to say - good read - appreciating the viewpoints going back and forth from some pretty intelligent people.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I agree with much of what you say, VTA, but I think you may be overlooking a valid point offered by Sultan.

You rightfully castigate these Islamic terrorist organizations for their violence and their use of religion as a wedge. However, nationalism and patriotism are often viewed as "dirty words" because they, too, have shown incredible potential for divisiveness and violence. Consider the war in Iraq. Once the US failed to discover any WMDs and, thereby, failed to produce any tangible justification for the war, nationalism in the form of patriotic fervor became the primary impetus for American support of the war.

Of course, we can debate the validity and ultimate consequences of our presence in Iraq all day long, and excellent points and arguments would be made on both sides. I'm merely illustrating the destructive potential of nationalism.

Extreme nationalism only differs from Islamofascism in that nationalism divides people by government affiliation and level of patriotism rather than religion.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that nationalism and patriotism are necessarily bad things. They are, in fact, very good things when balanced by rationalism and the proper perspective of one's place in the world.

Let me reiterate that I agree with much of what you say, VTA. I simply didn't want to overlook a valid point.

:clap: :toast2: :thumbup:

[ScipioCowboy]

:clap: :toast2: :thumbup:

Nevermind. Forget all that I just said if BP agrees.;)

I kid. I kid.

[vta]

I agree with much of what you say, VTA, but I think you may be overlooking a valid point offered by Sultan.

You rightfully castigate these Islamic terrorist organizations for their violence and their use of religion as a wedge. However, nationalism and patriotism are often viewed as "dirty words" because they, too, have shown incredible potential for divisiveness and violence. Consider the war in Iraq. Once the US failed to discover any WMDs and, thereby, failed to produce any tangible justification for the war, nationalism in the form of patriotic fervor became the primary impetus for American support of the war.

Of course, we can debate the validity and ultimate consequences of our presence in Iraq all day long, and excellent points and arguments would be made on both sides. I'm merely illustrating the destructive potential of nationalism.

Extreme nationalism only differs from Islamofascism in that nationalism divides people by government affiliation and level of patriotism rather than religion.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that nationalism and patriotism are necessarily bad things. They are, in fact, very good things when balanced by rationalism and the proper perspective of one's place in the world.

Let me reiterate that I agree with much of what you say, VTA. I simply didn't want to overlook a valid point.

And I agree with your points. They are valid concerns. We do know that both religion and nationalism/patriotism can be used to such ends.

You hit the nail on the head when you stated that balance is needed. The true test or mark of a good man, or what have you, is his ability to achieve balance. Balance is everything.

I believe you also said earlier that only himself is capable of providing such balance. I agree in that, what I consider to be true, man will never come to realize his true potential to be balanced in justice, tolerance and co-existence. I don't mean it apocalyptically, but in the sense that there will always be strife in some form or another.

I don't hang my hat simply on patriotism and leave it at that, nor do I adhere to an ideal that others must think (worship, believe) like me or be damned for eternity, because I am not an extremist. I'm fully aware of my limitations as a human and accept my ignorance and don't judge, based on that, but I do strive for balance.

I'm capable of being both patriotic and true to the core of my religious belief, which is Christianity. There is a limit to which I can be pushed, in as much as I won't blindly follow a path because it is an American path and I don't white wash my country's complicity in the conflict itself. I do know right from wrong.

As for Sultan's point, I take into account much more than current debates when characterizing the points (Sultan's in this case) I am debating. His is a characterization of the issue that states that blind nationalism rules the mind in understanding and supporting the conflict we're talking about. That the image of the war and of our enemy is simply media contrived and based on nationalism, leaving no room for the reality that no one is blameless.

Yet as living proof, I support our country's efforts on the grounds of nothing so shallow. I didn't believe Bush the night he gave his pre-war speech - I outright knew he was lying, but I understood the tact. Mine is not so shallow. Is his condemnation of it? That's for him to answer.

If simple-minded nationalism or media contrivance cannot be applied to me, then what are we left with?

[SultanOfSix]

If answered honestly, it would be, that there is a large global ideological conflict concerning Islam, within Western civilization and without.

I sought answers to questions on what the ideological conflict was that exists between "Western civilization" and Islam by asking what the former calls people to and where the conflict exists between them.

I answered the first question on my own, and I received no real answer on the second, only an explanation on what "Western civilization" defines itself as, which turned out to be really nothing more than a verbose explanation on a civilization that allows the individual free choice in the way he lives, which doesn't contradict the philosophy of Islam in the slightest. There are numerous verses in the Qur'an in addition to the one I quoted that specifically tell the prophet that you are just a warner, and you are not one to compel them to believe because real faith does not enter into hearts through compulsion. It is man's free choice, the trust granted to him by God, that determines his destiny. He chooses his way for better or for worse.

You claim not to steroetype an entire religion with the actions of the few extremist elements, yet your words contradict this stance when you say that the elements that I claim aren't practicing the "real Islam" are the "face of many".

Extremist elements in any philosophy are almost always the loudest, because they typically are fueled by an irrational anger.

I think this class of civilizations is a total falsehood, that is reiterated over and over again by certain elements in the media for ulterior motives. They are the real extremists. An Islamic civilization ruled over Spain for over 600 years where Jews, Christians, and Muslims (who currently encompass over half the world's population) lived together in peace, and were free to practice and worship as they saw fit and lived by their own "religious" laws, centuries before the founding fathers of this country came up with the concept of "separation of church and state". A concept that doesn't say that religion doesn't influence politics, only that "the state" cannot sponsor or enforce the will of one religion at the expense of others.

Islam is a religion of the middle way. It encompasses balance. A religion that has the face of every "race" from West Africa to Indonesia, from one side of the US to the other, to the tips of South America and Africa does not compel people to believe, otherwise only a few generations later it would be erased from the memories of existence.

[vta]

I sought answers to questions on what the ideological conflict was that exists between "Western civilization" and Islam by asking what the former calls people to and where the conflict exists between them.

I answered the first question on my own, and I received no real answer on the second, only an explanation on what "Western civilization" defines itself as, which turned out to be really nothing more than a verbose explanation on a civilization that allows the individual free choice in the way he lives, which doesn't contradict the philosophy of Islam in the slightest.

You're still arguing semantics and calling on ideals, in favor of characterizing the facts as they are.

You talk of the philosophy of Islam, yet it's not a philosophy that governs The Islamic Republic of Iran. Or the Sudanese governement. Or the Thai extremists. You have no answer for any of these things which highlight a glaring contrast between the Western Ideology and it's system of governing, and an Islamic system of governing, which according to you does not exist.

If you're going to claim there is no difference between Western civilization an Islamic civilization, you're either lying, or very sheltered.

There are numerous verses in the Qur'an in addition to the one I quoted that specifically tell the prophet that you are just a warner, and you are not one to compel them to believe because real faith does not enter into hearts through compulsion. It is man's free choice, the trust granted to him by God, that determines his destiny. He chooses his way for better or for worse.

That's great, yet there are many instances of men contradicting such a proposition and governing in a way totally contrary this ideal. Apostacy is punishable by death in some area's of the world. Do you deny this? Will you ignore it? What it say's in the Qur'an and what is happening are two different things. Here you are once again talking of ideals to avoid admitting the differences that factually exist.

You claim not to steroetype an entire religion with the actions of the few extremist elements, yet your words contradict this stance when you say that the elements that I claim aren't practicing the "real Islam" are the "face of many".

That's correct. The entire religion is one thing, yet the behavior of men who claim to ahdere to it is another. I accept there is a greater number of individuals who adhere properly to their religion, yet I understand the fact there are collective states that probably don't and misinterpret it and have a more profound impact on the world, Islam's image and how outsider's will interpret it.

Extremist elements in any philosophy are almost always the loudest, because they typically are fueled by an irrational anger.

And? This is no source of comfort for someone who has lost a loved one. Embassies have been bombed, people killed by them.

I think this class of civilizations is a total falsehood, that is reiterated over and over again by certain elements in the media for ulterior motives. They are the real extremists.

Because you choose to ignore worldwide facts. You have no answer for the lack of reconciliation that there exists global strife, that for the most part, the media isn't even touching. The Buddhist mnoks who get beheaded by Islamic extremists, get no air time. The Christian students found dead get no air time. These are recent historical facts that aren't the product of media bias, by horrendous truths of the world we live in. Yet you don't even touch these considerations of the facts and go on about the ideals of Islam and blame the media for an observers understanding of the conflict

An Islamic civilization ruled over Spain for over 600 years where Jews, Christians, and Muslims (who currently encompass over half the world's population) lived together in peace, and were free to practice and worship as they saw fit and lived by their own "religious" laws, centuries before the founding fathers of this country came up with the concept of "separation of church and state". A concept that doesn't say that religion doesn't influence politics, only that "the state" cannot sponsor or enforce the will of one religion at the expense of others.

Perhaps you should define 'rule over' and see exactly what you're alluding to, which is exactly what I have been saying. There does exist an ideology that wants once again to have an influential rule, because quite frankly, in terms of world power, they do not have any. And if you think because it's due to a higher moral value, you're naive.

Islam is a religion of the middle way. It encompasses balance. A religion that has the face of every "race" from West Africa to Indonesia, from one side of the US to the other, to the tips of South America and Africa does not compel people to believe, otherwise only a few generations later it would be erased from the memories of existence.

And yet again, whatever the ideals of Islam are, mankind is not realizing it in his system f governing in Islamic countries. Transcending nations and ethnicities is not unique to Islam, Christianity is practised world wide, also, amongst all races and and regions.

This is not about that. This is about the conflict of what is considered Islamic governing and Western ideology.

[vta]

I should also say, that you should cease from trying to make this a religious debate. The OT is about ideological conflicts and not the merits of a religion.

[SultanOfSix]

And? This is no source of comfort for someone who has lost a loved one. Embassies have been bombed, people killed by them.

And?

Civilians have been killed by Israeli soldiers, Palestinian children have been shot, and American bombs have killed civilizians that "the media doesn't touch." What is your point besides obfuscation? The last time I checked, American and European civilians are pretty safe in the world as compared to innocent Muslim civilians that exist in their own countries where puppets and dictators that have been supported and installed by Western countries and rationalized by yourself using some Machiavellian "end justifies the means" for some far-off in the future possible imposition of "freedom" and "democracy". If the "West" seems to pick and choose when it adheres to its own ideology, why should other countries give value to what it says? If certain Muslim countries can be castigated for such actions, then they can certainly wonder why the pot is calling the kettle black.

Religion IS ideology. No true adherant to any faith believes in a false "secular" and "sacred" dichotomy imposed by "secular humanism".

I have yet to see an answer to the question of what is the war of ideology that exists between Western civilization and Islamic civilization, or Western ideology and Islamic government, or whatever you're talking about.

[burmafrd]

Extremists have declared the war. Sadly, as usual, Sultan makes no mention of the fact that most Islamic communities and leaders in most of the world do very little to fight the extremists.

[SultanOfSix]

Extremists have declared the war. Sadly, as usual, Sultan makes no mention of the fact that most Islamic communities and leaders in most of the world do very little to fight the extremists.

Yeah, I heard they just let them run around and kill people. I'm wondering how there can be so many peaceful Muslims in the world, and yet they just let these extremists run around and kill people. Well, maybe because there really isn't any peaceful Muslims as they are all "potential" terrorists, or so I've heard on Fox news. But wait, it's not a war against Islam, but only the extremists, who just run around and blow people up and most of the peaceful Muslims just sit around and let them do what they want. Wait, I'm so confused. It's not a war against Islam, but against an Islamic ideology that isn't the "real" Islam, but some types of Islam practiced by certain countries. But then one wonders what differentiates these types from other types. It's just all so confusing.

[burmafrd]

Of course YOU are confused.
Big surprise.
Whenever someone like you is on the defensive you try the "Fox News" card.
Typical.
Show me where Muslim community leaders stand up and demand that the extremists in THEIR own communities need to be confronted- and then do it.
Actually go after them THERE.

[vta]

And?

Civilians have been killed by Israeli soldiers, Palestinian children have been shot, and American bombs have killed civilizians that "the media doesn't touch." What is your point besides obfuscation? The last time I checked, American and European civilians are pretty safe in the world as compared to innocent Muslim civilians that exist in their own countries where puppets and dictators that have been supported and installed by Western countries and rationalized by yourself using some Machiavellian "end justifies the means" for some far-off in the future possible imposition of "freedom" and "democracy". If the "West" seems to pick and choose when it adheres to its own ideology, why should other countries give value to what it says? If certain Muslim countries can be castigated for such actions, then they can certainly wonder why the pot is calling the kettle black.

Religion IS ideology. No true adherant to any faith believes in a false "secular" and "sacred" dichotomy imposed by "secular humanism".

I have yet to see an answer to the question of what is the war of ideology that exists between Western civilization and Islamic civilization, or Western ideology and Islamic government, or whatever you're talking about.

Religion may be an Ideology, but Ideologies are not always Religious.

As for an answer, you've never asked such a thing, you just keep changing questions, because the answers you receive are not the one's you like. And yes, an answer that has been provided. The facts that there are attacks in numerous countries, where Islamic extremists are attacking non-Muslims, in an effort to gain broader influence in the world, to counter a dominant power/ideology.

It's you who refuses to answer the question: how do you reconcile the facts with the ideals you are presenting? Worldwide attacks involving Muslims, that have no correlation with the U.S.

[vta]

Wait, I'm so confused. It's not a war against Islam, but against an Islamic ideology that isn't the "real" Islam, but some types of Islam practiced by certain countries. But then one wonders what differentiates these types from other types. It's just all so confusing.

You were the one who stated that there exists no 'real' Islamic country, as you say they (notabl,y Saudi Arabia and Iran) are not adhering truly to the faith. I suppose you should not wonder what differentiates these countries since you've already provided an answer.

[SultanOfSix]

Religion may be an Ideology, but Ideologies are not always Religious.

As for an answer, you've never asked such a thing, you just keep changing questions, because the answers you receive are not the one's you like. And yes, an answer that has been provided. The facts that there are attacks in numerous countries, where Islamic extremists are attacking non-Muslims, in an effort to gain broader influence in the world, to counter a dominant power/ideology.

It's you who refuses to answer the question: how do you reconcile the facts with the ideals you are presenting? Worldwide attacks involving Muslims, that have no correlation with the U.S.

I've asked the question plenty of times. You've just ignored it.

Islam is a total way of life, as it is based on tawhid, or the unity of God and all that exists. It encompasses all facets of it, from the communal to the personal, from economics, politics, and government, to relationships between kith and kin and individual worship.

The war isn't an overt war against the individual "portion" of the religion of Islam, or even against "Islamic" extremism. The latter is an oxymoron in reality as one cannot be extreme in anything, and then claim one is acting like a Muslim. It's a war of "secular humanism" against an Islamic "governing" order, or even any notion of a "divinely" sanctioned religious order. It's a covert war that wants to relegate a religion that won't submit to the imposition of a false dichotomy of the "secular" and the "sacred", like it has succeeded in doing with other religions, which had its inception in the dismantling of the authority of "the Church" that existed in Europe for centuries.

I know exactly what it is. I just knew you couldn't say it.

[vta]

I've asked the question plenty of times. You've just ignored it.

No you didn't. The path of this thread still exists to be followed and it can easily be seen that when an answer to 'what Western Ideology' calls you to, you altered your subject matter, to try to make this religious debate, knowing full well, it's against the rules and will result in the thread being closed. All the while ignoring all relevant questions, and showing complete dishonesty.

Islam is a total way of life, as it is based on tawhid, or the unity of God and all that exists. It encompasses all facets of it, from the communal to the personal, from economics, politics, and government, to relationships between kith and kin and individual worship.

I don't care. This isn't a religious debate. Remember?

The war isn't an overt war against the individual "portion" of the religion of Islam, or even against "Islamic" extremism. -- It's a war of "secular humanism" against an Islamic "governing" order, or even any notion of a "divinely" sanctioned religious order.

Ridiculous. By all means, offer something other than ideals about the divine sanctioning any Government on this earth enjoys. Any man, collective society or group otherwise who makes such a claim is arrogant. And there in lies the root of the problem: an ideology that believes it is divinely sanctioned to rule over a people. Any ideology that holds power has done so by force, including Muslim Empires of the past.

It's a covert war that wants to relegate a religion that won't submit to the imposition of a false dichotomy of the "secular" and the "sacred", like it has succeeded in doing with other religions, which had its inception in the dismantling of the authority of "the Church" that existed in Europe for centuries.

You've proven nothing, but what I initially said: it's an [i]Ideological war[/] that transcends the U.S. itself. As I've stated, while you ignored the facts. So you call it a war on Islam. Still arguing semantics.

As you claim blind nationalism and media influence is affecting the Western observance/support of the war, so it goes with the religious phonies, who play upon religious zealotry to manipulate their followers. It's not a higher moral ground that spurns the fighters on, just the illusion of one.

The latter is an oxymoron in reality as one cannot be extreme in anything, and then claim one is acting like a Muslim.

Then perhaps you should take this up with the fools that have affixed the label of Muslim to themselves and act in an a fashion, contrary to how a Muslim should. It's no one's fault but theirs, yet you put the onus on everybody else to understand this. Your transparency is laughable.

I know exactly what it is. I just knew you couldn't say it.

I have no fear of the truth, which is why I address all points. I'm sure you'll deny this, but a more adult version of 'I know you are, but what am I?" doesn't hold water. The thread is easily followed.

[SultanOfSix]

Can we define what Western culture is, see whether there exists a dichotomy between it and Islamic culture, and then determine whether the war is initiated by the former, or the latter?

Actually you don't get it vta. It's why you keep telling me to stop talking about religion.

That's the point. You are trying to impose a false dichotomy division of the secular and sacred on Islam and Muslims and it's not going to work. It's exactly as what I said it is.

[vta]

Actually you don't get it vta.

That's the point. You are trying to impose a false dichotomy division of the secular and sacred on Islam and Muslims and it's not going to work. It's exactly as what I said it is.

I've already stated I do not care about the label's and practise's of Islam. I've already stated I'm talking about a real war, with real principles, no matter what they call themselves.

Apparently, you are the one who (still) does not get it.
Stop trying to make this a religious debate. Period.

[SultanOfSix]

LOL.

You post an article and state "it's" a war against Western ideology, and "Islamic" extremism is mentioned in it and you're telling me to not talk about religion?

I haven't debated religion one bit.

[vta]

LOL.

You post an article and state "it's" a war against Western ideology, and "Islamic" extremism is mentioned in it and you're telling me to not talk about religion?

I haven't debated religion one bit.

And you've clung to one aspect of it and yes, in fact have posted from Qu'ran, trying to derail the thread, while ignoring the main thrust and facts of my end of the discussion, to lecture someone about what Islam should mean.

Try to pay more attention to what you've done and you might be able to stay consistent.

As of yet, you still have not refuted the OT.

[SultanOfSix]

And you've clung to one aspect of it and yes, in fact have posted from Qu'ran, trying to derail the thread, while ignoring the main thrust and facts of my end of the discussion, to lecture someone about what Islam should mean.

Try to pay more attention to what you've done and you might be able to stay consistent.

As of yet, you still have not refuted the OT.

I never tried to derail the thread. I tried to find out from my first post what is the war of ideology that exists between Western civilization and Islamic civilization.

Even you mentioned apostacy and a supposedly "religious" sanctioning of it for your own purposes, and phrases like "Islamic governing" and you expect me not to talk about religion?

Seriously.

That's the problem. You want to take religion out of the picture. But, you can't say it's "Islamic" extremism, and its proponents use "Islam" to justify it, and then expect people not to talk about Islam.

[BrAinPaiNt]

You two do know you can talk all the religion you want...in PMs.
Or at a local meeting spot like maybe a cheap motel that charges by the hour.;) :p:

[vta]

I never tried to derail the thread. I tried to find out from my first post what is the war of ideology that exists between Western civilization and Islamic civilization.

A battle for influence and power. What all societies want. I've stated this already, early on.

Even you mentioned apostacy and a supposedly "religious" sanctioning of it for your own purposes, and phrases like "Islamic governing" and you expect me not to talk about religion?

I noted one difference in governing - as an example. The why's and wherefore's of it to me are irrelevent. I'm not interested in how they govern, or if they are properly Islamic. It's just simply a 'difference' that does exist, factually. Where by you said there was no difference in the principles of Western Ideology and Islam.

That's the problem. You want to take religion out of the picture. But, you can't say it's "Islamic" extremism, and its proponents use "Islam" to justify it, and then expect people not to talk about Islam.

Because at the core of it, what is it? You yourself had stated that there truly does not exist an 'Islamic' Government. So strip away religious pretenses and at the core of it is what? An ideological conflict with two ideologies, vying for influence.

Why is it happening in places, not relating to the U.S.? What does it mean? What conclusion can you come to by observing the facts objectively? In short; the broader war that exists beyond conspiracy theories of U.S. dominance.

[vta]

You two do know you can talk all the religion you want...in PMs.
Or at a local meeting spot like maybe a cheap motel that charges by the hour.;) :p:

Hey, leave your fantasies out of this.
I feel so... dirty, now.:p:

[SultanOfSix]

So what's your point then?

If it's "ideologies have vied for existence throughout human history" thanks for the newsflash.

That does nothing for me and means nothing to me. The question becomes who is right and who is wrong, and why is that so? Which leads one to quesion what one calls one to, and what the other calls one to, and how they are incompaitable or not.

It's as simple as that.

[vta]

So what's your point then?

If it's "ideologies have vied for existence throughout human history" thanks for the newsflash.

That does nothing for me and means nothing to me. The question becomes who is right and who is wrong, and why is that so? Which leads one to quesion what one calls one to, and what the other calls one to, and how they are incompaitable or not.

It's as simple as that.

If it has nothing to do with you, why did you expend so much time on it? I didn't ask you to reply, you chose to.

Re-read the title and see what kind of person it might mean something to. It's pretty self explanatory.

And while you're at it, feel free to offer up your own conclusions, to the questions you feel it leads to. A religious war? Based on U.S. oppression? Then correlate it to the instances not relating the U.S.