Less than 1,000 years ago. The bombing of Hiroshima was a terrorist act...meant to terrorize the Japanese government into surrender. It was a political act of extreme violence, just as terrorism is an act of violence for a political goal. No difference really, the action itself produces terror (in the case of the nuking of Hiroshima, the goal was to terrorize the entire globe), the goal is using violence as a political tool. The bombing of Iraq was also a terrorist action. Just because the neokons claim it was an "act of war" doesn't make it legit, for if simply claiming some violence an act of war makes it a legit war, then then Bin Laden and his extremists, or Israel and their vengeance brigade just as legit. "I am not religious." Of course you are not, that's why you blindly support Israel and call those who are religious Jews against Zionism and the violence of Israel "kooks." Yes indeed, your religious bigotry is prominent in your thinking...
The bombing of Hiroshima was a terrorist act...The bombing of Iraq was also a terrorist action. While I disagree with your premise that those were terrorist acts, what does Hiroshima and Iraq have to do with religious fundamentalism and extremism that we were discussing. You said that all religions had resorted to violence and extremism at some point of time and I actually agreed with you, I also pointed out that Islam is as medieval and blood-thirsty today as Christianity was 1000 years ago. What does Hiroshima and Iraq have to do with this discussion? I suppose you don't have a better explanation of why Islam is still stuck in the 7th century, do you? "you blindly support Israel and call those who are religious Jews against Zionism and the violence of Israel "kooks."Yes indeed, your religious bigotry is prominent in your thinking... My support of Israel is not blind, it's based on research, analysis, knowledge, my western values and my sense of fair play. Those anti-Zionist fringe orthodox jews are indeed kooks, how else do you call those who are waiting for the Messiah to take the Jews to Israel. And I am not clear why these things make me a religious bigot. Please explain.
The bombing of Hiroshima was a terrorist act...The bombing of Iraq was also a terrorist action. While I disagree with your premise that those were terrorist acts, what does Hiroshima and Iraq have to do with religious fundamentalism and extremism that we were discussing. You said that all religions had resorted to violence and extremism at some point of time and I actually agreed with you, I also pointed out Islam today is as medieval and blood-thirsty as Christianity was 1000 years ago. What does Hiroshima and Iraq have to do with this discussion? I suppose you don't have a better explanation of why Islam is still stuck in the 7th century, do you? Religious fundamentalism is nothing new, it is used as a tool for political purposes. Hatred of Arabs by Americans goes back to the 70's and the oil embargo. Those with political goals, as opposed to leaders with spiritual goals, use this hatred by America of Arabs as a tool. No, they don't have an army like Japan or Germany, but they have declared war on the west...not genuinely out of a religous cause, but out of a political cause. There are worldly events that trigger levels of hatred sufficient to rationalize violence in the name of God, that is nothing new. Americans, especially the right wing Christian types and Jews have no problem with terrorism by the US that has taken place in Iraq, nor the terrorist act of nuking Japan, as long as they can be the ones pushing the buttons. They think they are right, extremely right, and the reaction of the right wing Americans, who have been in the executive branch is to match the extremism of feelings. I just don't buy into the moral equivalency argument that abounds here to rationalize our violence toward others. The actions are intended to promote fear and terror on both sides, we just have bigger buttons we can push. They feel victimized by Western agression, especially the blind support of Israel's agression, so they rationalize violence in the name of God, we do exactly the same, so I don't see either party as civilized. Western Civilization Gandhi said, "I bear no enmity towards the English but I do towards their civilization." [3, 66] Thus, an essential part of swaraj was the expulsion of the influence and institutions of modern Western civilization that the British introduced into India. To Gandhi, those Indians who had embraced modern civilization had become "enslaved." [3, 37] It was because Indians had accepted modern civilization that the British were able to maintain control of India. Gandhi held that "We [the Indian people] keep the English in India for our base self-interest. We like their commerce; they please us by their subtle methods and get what they want from us." [3, 20] Essentially, Gandhi believed it was not so much the English that Indians kept in India but their modern civilization. As Gandhi said, "It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down, not under the English heel, but under that of modern civilization." [3, 21] Gandhi regarded modern civilization as fundamentally evil, going so far as to call it "the reverse of civilization." [3, 62] He said, "This [modern] civilization takes note neither of morality nor of religion⦠[Modern] civilization seeks to increase bodily comforts, and it fails miserably even in doing so." [3, 17] Commerce, Gandhi believed, was at the heart of modern civilization, and to those living in it "money is their God." [3, 20] The railways, lawyers and doctors that represented to Gandhi the principal apparatuses of modern civilization had "impoverished the country." [3, 23] Ultimately though, Gandhi felt that modern civilization would be "self-destroyed" and that those living in it "deserve our sympathy." [3, 18] Gandhi saw many critical differences between modern civilization and Indian civilization, which he held to be "far superior." [3, 62] These sentiments are captured by Gandhi's statement: "â¦Modern civilization represents forces of evil and darkness, whereas the ancient Indian civilization, represents in its essence the divine force. Modern civilization is chiefly materialistic, as ours is chiefly spiritual. Modern civilization occupies itself in the investigation of the laws of matter and employs the human ingenuity in inventing or discovering means of production and weapons of destruction, ours is chiefly occupied in exploring spiritual laws." [5] To attain swaraj, Gandhi urged his people to revive the Indian civilization that still existed in the villages of India, "where this cursed modern civilization has not reached [and] India remains as it was before." [3, 36] Gandhi explained the key to swaraj and its relation to modern civilization when he stated: "In order to restore India to its pristine condition, we have to return to it. In our own civilization there will naturally be progress, retrogression, reforms, and reactions; but one effort is required, and that is to drive out Western civilization. All else will follow." [3, 57] http://www.wildewildeweb.com/gandhi/civ.html "you blindly support Israel and call those who are religious Jews against Zionism and the violence of Israel "kooks."Yes indeed, your religious bigotry is prominent in your thinking... My support of Israel is not blind, it's based on research, analysis, knowledge, my western values and my sense of fair play. Those anti-Zionist fringe orthodox jews are indeed kooks. And I am not clear why these things make me a religious bigot. Please explain. [/B] "Those anti-Zionist fringe orthodox jews are indeed kooks." You see them as kooks, so much for your sanity to judge orthodox Jews for their genuine and sincere non violent religious practices and beliefs...
LOL their alleged sincerity does not prove that they are not kooks. People waiting for the Messiah to bring all Jews to Israel are in fact kooks, albeit sincere and genuine kooks. As far as their non-violence is concerned, alas you're wrong again: "Predictions of violence issued last week by a spokesman for the extremist ultra-Orthodox Haredi sect came true in an unsurprising turn of events..." http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=21185 And you're certainly unable to rebut my assertion that Islam is stuck in the 7th century, your attempts to change the subject to terrorism are way too obvious. Let alone the fact that you have your own definition of terrorism which has nothing in common with what the word means in the real world.
More evidence of religious bigotry... God, what an American you are to call people kooks for their sincere non violent religious practices... Your brand of fanaticism is most dangerous, as you think you actually are functioning under the delusion that you are civilized... I don't need to try and defend Islam to point out your lack of civilization... Perhaps if you were supporting non violent causes rather than blindly defending the violent acts of Israel you would have grounds to discuss civilized behaviors...
More evidence of religious bigotry... God, what an American you are to call people kooks for their sincere non violent religious practices... Your brand of fanaticism is most dangerous, as you think you actually are functioning under the delusion that you are civilized... I don't need to try and defend Islam to point out your lack of civilization... Perhaps if you were supporting non violent causes rather than continually blindly defending the violent acts of Israel you would have grounds to evaluate the uncivilized behaviors of others... I don't support violence, civilized or what you consider 7th century violence... The net result is essentially the same, using violence to terrorize people for a political end...
and that alone says that US foreign policy is a non-issue? one guy or even one group of crazed religious fanatics who have come to rationalize the use of violence the way they have, and are using this form of brainwashing to enroll scores of similarly angst-crazed and/or weak-minded people, that's it, thats the answer? US foreign policy, removing democratically-elected secular arab leaders, financing, training, abetting of radical islamist terror groups for a couple decades, not an issue??? jem, tell us about the IRA, at least u must know about that, right??? just try and fuckin' THINK for once, just once, ok?
These are not supported openly or directly, but rather unwittingly, by default. As a rule of thumb, if there is a cemetery on the back forty, there is support for murder and war. Jesus
Let me see if I have this straight. To define a religion by a group of extremists within it is irrational. Yet here you define a nation by a group of extremists within it. Is this rational? Nevertheless, I must build my church on you. What other choice do I have? I am sorry when my brothers do not share my decision to hear only one Voice, because it weakens them as teachers and as learners. Yet I know they cannot really betray themselves or me, and that it is still on them I must build my church. There is no choice in this, because only you can be the foundation of God's church. A church that does not inspire love has a hidden alter that is not serving the purpose for which God intended it. I must found His church on you, because those who accept me as a model are literally my disciples. Disciples are followers, and if the model they follow has chosen to save them pain in all respects, they are unwise not to follow him. We are still equal as learners, although we do not need to have equal experiences. The Holy Spirit is glad when you can learn from my experiences and be reawakened by them. That is their only purpose, and that is the only way in which I can be perceived as the way, the truth and the life. When you hear only one Voice, you are never called upon to sacrifice. Jesus