Osama's Message to America!

[AgingYoung]

Jim,

The Germans were portrayed as heartless monsters that did horrible things.

Were portrayed as heartless monsters??? Does holocaust ring a bell? Nuremberg trials? I can't believe you'd suggest they were 'portrayed' as heartless monsters. You are persistently unreal.

Gene

Most wars are fought because one country's government is greedy and wants something from another country. In the process the people of the other country are represented in a derogatory manner. The American Indian was depicted as being savage. The Germans were portrayed as heartless monsters that did horrible things. The Japanese and the Vietcong were called many names. My point is that the majority of humans are peace-loving individuals that just want to be left alone, raise a family, make a living, etc. They don't like others telling them what to do. Yet many seem to think it OK or even their right to tell others how they should act, talk, live, etc.

What this earth needs is more tolerance and less greed. Many diverse people from many races founded the United States as a republic. Most people today don't know the difference between a republic and a democracy. The reason I bring this up is because a true republic is a form of government in which individuals have rights and the governments main purpose is to enforce and protect those rights. In a true republic each citizen has complete freedom as long as he/she does not harm others. Harm is defined as physical harm, financial harm, or reputation harm. In other words life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In a true republic there is minimal government. In contrast a democracy demands that each citizen conform to the will of the majority. In a democracy the government is constantly telling individuals what the majority say they can or can't do.

Today the U.S. government is trying to export democracy to other countries. The American people have been brainwashed into thinking that democracy means freedom. Democracy does not mean freedom. Democracy means conforming to the will of the majority. If you are in the minority then tough! In a true republic there is no debate about what can or can't be published or said. In a republic there is true freedom.

The last U.S. president to refer to the U.S. as a 'republic' was John F. Kennedy. Our great republic died the day he was shot. The next president was Johnson, who tried to force his will upon the Vietnamese people, an example of a democracy trying to force the will of a government upon a people, rather than letting people be free to live as they desire.

The very first U.S. flag depicted a coiled snake with the words "Don't tread on me". That is the essence of true freedom. A rattlesnake will not strike unless you try to walk on it. Also it gives fair warning before striking.

This world would be a much better place if all people would adopt an attitude of 'Live and let live." rather than trying to cram one peoples philosophy down another people's throat.

[ken_behrendt]

Even if many in the Western pluralistic democracies do not believe in the theology of Islam, then I still think that it is imperative that we do respect their beliefs and customs (and, of course, expect them to respect ours). If we do not, then we will only wind up alienating the majority of the Islamic world and that will make Osama's mission of establishing a worldwide Taliban style "Caliphate" that much easier! And, if that is happens...then what does the West do?

I can see the potential for a massive conflict over the oil of the Middle East if that happens that might even lead to the West using WMD's on the Muslim world! The President of France has already hinted as much in a speech he gave several weeks ago.

Someone once said that more blood has been spilled in religious warfare during the history of mankind than in any other type of conflict. If the West does not handle this matter of terrorism in a manner which is as sensitive to the cultural and religious beliefs of the Muslim world as possible, then it might only serve to increase the casualty numbers in the long run. Now is when we must take steps to avoid this possibility.


When Jim wrote:

The Germans were portrayed as heartless monsters that did horrible things.

then Gene responded with:

Were portrayed as heartless monsters??? Does holocaust ring a bell? Nuremberg trials? I can't believe you'd suggest they were 'portrayed' as heartless monsters.

Gene, we are all familiar with the senseless horrors of the holocaust. But, I think it's important to remember that those crimes were committed by less than 1% of the citizens living in Germany during the reign of the Nazi party.

Hitler and his cronies took special care to never fully explain to the majority of the German people exactly what was happening to all of the "undesirables" that were being deported out of Germany.

It is true that there was much anti-semitism in Germany before and during WWII, but I think that if the German people knew, for a fact, that Nazis were murdering innocent people by the millions, then they would have rose up and put a stop to it long before the Allied forces arrived on the scene. Those who were "in" on the secret of the Holocaust made several, unfortunately unsuccessful, attempts to assassinate Hitler and paid with their own lives for the effort.


ken

[AgingYoung]

Anyone that opposed hitler was offed. The German people knew that it was a crime to harbor jews. My question was to Jim, though, Ken. That's kind of you to attempt to defray the point that there was any portrayal of the Germans that was inaccurate. I'm aware of some of the history of people that opposed hitler. Most people didn't want to risk it so they sat back and allowed it to happen. The people knew but they didn't speak up.

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Gene

[jim_mich]

Meaning of PORTRAYED
Definition: [adj] represented graphically by sketch or design or lines
Synonyms: delineate, delineated, depicted, pictured, represented

In my post I never stated if I thought the Germans were horibble monsters or not. I know for a fact that during WWII the U.S. put out some really ugly untrue propaganda about the Germans in order to stir up hatred. As a child I heard propaganda stories of the Germans sucking all the blood out of children and babies to be used for transfusions. Did the Germans do horible thing during a time of war? Sure they did! So did the Americans, the British, the French, etc. Remember that the victors always write the history books.

From your post it seems that you still carry hatred caused by a war that ceased 60 years ago.

[terry5732]

Jim, you don't need to tell Ken or I what would make the world better - you need to tell the raghead blowing up children that we all need to get along. However he may not listen. In which case...?
Jim, you are absolutely right about the modern government in the US. Iran is a democracy. The government there represents the majority. Hey, they're muslim too !

[AgingYoung]

Most wars are fought because one country's government is greedy and wants something from another country. In the process the people of the other country are represented in a derogatory manner. The American Indian was depicted as being savage. The Germans were portrayed as heartless monsters that did horrible things.

You made the point that governments because of greed represent other governments in a derogatory manner. To bolster your point you suggested that the germans were portrayed as heartless monsters that did horrible things.

My point is that they were accurately portrayed. The germans weren't misrepresented. They sure did horrible things. You then made this pointless point:

From your post it seems that you still carry hatred caused by a war that ceased 60 years ago.

That's a change of the topic (the inhumanity of germans) to me. You'd be wrong in that conclusion but since you want to change the topic I'm game.

This world would be a much better place if all people would adopt an attitude of 'Live and let live." rather than trying to cram one peoples philosophy down another people's throat.

Interesting philosophy. If that really were your philosophy you'd keep it to yourself.

Gene

[jim_mich]

Raghead is a derogatory prejudicial comment. I don't think it should be used.

As far as blowing up childern, it's very probable that the U.S. blew up many children during the war. So who is more evil?

My point is war and hatred causes more war and hatred. If each of us will stop hating maybe we can break the cycle of hate and war?

[AgingYoung]

As a child I heard propaganda stories of the Germans sucking all the blood out of children and babies to be used for transfusions.

I have to admit that this was well before my time. Do you have some evidence of that propaganda? It sounds too much like current propaganda against the jews.

Published in 2001, this cartoon from the Egyptian daily Al Ahram depicts an Arab being flattened as two Jews drink the blood. This image conveys the idea that Jews behave like Nazis, kill children and love blood.

Gene

ps edit:

The Germans were portrayed as heartless monsters that did horrible things.

The simile 'as' gives the sense of portrayed being something that wasn't accurate. What ever you'd want to call them they certainly did horrible things.

[AgingYoung]

While Muslims engaged in violent protests
worldwide over caricatures of Muhammad
have insisted any image of their prophet
is considered blasphemous, a prominent
frieze in the U.S. Supreme Court portrays
the Islamic leader wielding a sword.



Their claims are disingenuous.

Gene

[jim_mich]

http://www.channel4.com/history/microsi ... xbomb.html

As the war got nastier so did the 'sibs'. The following, blandly listed in British official documents, are from 1943:

'Shortage of blood for transfusion is so great that SS medical units are draining blood from all Jews executed in Poland, which is bottled and sent to the Eastern Front.'

'About 200,000 amputations have been made in Vienna hospitals. The meat is very sensibly being rendered for its fat for soap.'

I was born less than a year after Hiroshima. I was maybe 3 or 4 years old when I heard stories from my older brothers about atrocious things Germans (supposedly) did to children.

Propaganda has always been standard procedure in past wars. Because of mass media WWII propaganda didn't fade after the war ended. Some (NOT ALL) of the things the Germans were acused of never happened. Some facts were twisted and distorted. The conquering countries were hell bent on punishing the vanquished.

[AgingYoung]

As a child I heard propaganda stories of the Germans sucking all the blood out of children and babies to be used for transfusions.

I understand that propaganda is used in war; I don't see a mention of this particular piece of propaganda.

What ever the propaganda was this is what Gen. Eisenhower said after seeing Buchenwald:

“I have never felt able to describe my emotional reaction when I came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of human decency.” It is easy to find many examples of the Nazi brutality because they are so numerous.

It made the soldiers throw up to see it.

To your point of ending hate that's not happening anytime soon. The muslim culture breeds it. Blasphemy is a capital offense under sharia law whether your a muslim or not. Canada currently allows it's muslim citizens to by tried under their law. That's kind of close to home.

The Ontario government redrafted legislation in 1991, granting religious leaders the authority to mediate civil matters. The law, called the Arbitration Act, was designed to help unburden an already over-taxed court system. At the same time, they hoped it would enhance the country's official doctrine of multiculturalism, the notion that a society is made richer when ethnic groups are encouraged to share their cultural expression and values. Rabbis and priests have also used the act to adjudicate squabbles over everything from dietary rules to monetary disputes between parishes.

Gene

[ken_behrendt]

Gene wrote:

Canada currently allows it's muslim citizens to by tried under their law.

But, then as you noted in your quote:

The Ontario government redrafted legislation in 1991, granting religious leaders the authority to mediate civil matters.

When it comes to criminial matters, muslims in Canada as well as the USA, still have to go through the regular criminal justice system.




I was watching a religious "theme" show this morning and they were interviewing an author of a new book on Islam. Since this theme show tends to be pro-Israeli and anti-Islam, it was no surprise to me that the author had some negative things to say about Islam.

From the interview I learned that Islam is a highly "legalistic" religion. They are supposed to believe that Sharia or Islamic Law is the only law that a muslim need be judged by. Also, there are five "schools" of jurisprudence in Islam and they all stress the supremacy of Islamic law and the religion on Islam itself over all other religions on Earth. Supposedly, these schools teach that it is the destiny and duty of muslims everywhere to work to spread the Islamic faith throughout the world and to do so my violent means if and when necessary.

The author sounded "authoritative" and was obviously trying to boost book sales for his book in a country that is already Islamic phobic enough to start with. He further claimed that even the muslim terrorists who were not directly involved in the current worldwide Jihadist movement were still "sympathetic" to the movement and would support it if it came to a choice between it and the values of the modernized Western world.

Once again, all I can say is that if one can turn on a television set in the USA and see these types of distortions of a major religious faith being presented as "authoritative" then I can see little hope for avoiding a coming "Clash of Civilizations" and the enormous loss in lives that it will involve.

When will people stop judging a majority by the evil actions of a minority?


ken

[AgingYoung]

Generally it's a minority of the people that cause change. Allowing legal matters that are covered by a current form of government to be handled by a religious community is the camel's nose under the tent. Sharia is the Arabic word for Islamic law, also known as the Law of Allah. Islam classically draws no distinction between religious and secular life. Hence Sharia covers not only religious rituals, but many aspects of day-to-day life, politics, economics, banking, business or contract law, and social issues.

Ken, you imagine I judge all muslims just because a few radical and vocal muslims want that sort of change? You are wrong, I don't judge anyone. I do recognize that when a few very radical muslims like arafat (former plo chairman) or Mahathir Mohammed (former pm of Malaysia, I believe former) push their ideals and also when I see how that sways the crowds I notice. Mahathir believed that if the muslim world would pool their resources together and work at it they might just maybe be able to have a 'final solution.' Although it's only 1-10% of the muslim population that are extremists and radical that's somewhere between 10-100 million and they're the one's calling the shots for the rest of the muslim world.

When I see scenes like a muslim mother and father in Israel with a large family beam with pride at the death of a son in a recent homicide bombing I notice. Although canadian law allows Sharia law to handle civil matters Sharia law makes no distinction between civil and criminal offenses. If and when they can force the matter they will. Sharia law doesn't allow for a 'peaceful' muslim to be a conscientious objector. They would be considered worst than an infidel.

Gene
ps edit:

When will people stop judging a majority by the evil actions of a minority?

My question is when will those in authority in the muslim world cease their evil actions. I don't honestly think they ever will. They enjoy the power.

[ken_behrendt]

Gene wrote:

My question is when will those in authority in the muslim world cease their evil actions. I don't honestly think they ever will. They enjoy the power.

If you are right about this and the evil 1% to 10% fundamentalist Jihadists are, truly, in control of the remaining 99% to 90%, then it would seem that there is no hope of preventing one of the biggest religious wars in the history of humanity. In order to "root out" that 1% to 10% in order to liberate the others who are willing to practice a more moderate (and West friendly) form of Islam, the Western democracies will, literally, have to invade and occupy all of the Earth's now muslim countries!

Trying to control the actions of up to 100 million terrorists and their supporters will be a big job, indeed, for the West. Where will we find the will, manpower, and money that will be required for such a task, especially if those oil rich countries decide to rebel against our efforts by cutting of the flow of oil to the world?

I sense that, despite the best efforts of the peace makers, the coming decades will be turbulent ones indeed...


ken

[terry5732]

No we don't need to occupy them. It's called cleansing.
It's not pleasant.
It is akin to amputating a gangrenous limb to save the body. The limb may have recovered if left alone. But the prudent action is to remove the chance of catastrophic spread.
There are many similar analogies. An infected tree in an orchard. A bad apple in the basket.
There are six billion people on this planet.
In my scenario we remove one billion.
In their perfect world, five billion are removed.