KaskadskyjKozak

No….and lets get is straight. It was not a war it was a show of force. There is a difference. I didn't ask you Boner. Why don't you go start another top 100/favorite musician/song/solo thread.

that's a load of shit. however doesn't change the fact that bush made a mistake after a mistake and pretty much most of the decisions his administration made were the worst possible choices. and i honestly believe that a lot of the choices are going to have a very long lasting consequences. Do you support the first Iraq War (Desert Storm)?

i wonder why is it that immigrants from former soviet block move to england ireland, france or other countries and they don't lock themselves in a ghettos? and why is it that they can find jobs and immigrants from north africa can't? Ditto for immigrants from southeast Asia and India. And it's not like they give up their culture and language (and religion) either.

And there you have it. Blame America first. It's not just a Fox News/Rush Limbaugh invention - it's based in fact. Thanks, Boner.

Is this the same Catholic church that split the Americas between Spain and Portugal? Yes it is.

Oh, perhaps we can agree: Christianity AND Islam generally suck and have ample examples of intolerance. I don't want either of them in charge of my government. Better now? Generally suck? No. Want either of them ruling my government? No. So we are in 50% agreement.

Jay, I've read that the Romans were "tolerant" of religion too. Tolerant as long as you stayed in your place. And of course, there was no doubt as to who was a first class citizen - and who was not. To be in a position of power you had less room to deviate from the norm. And of course, there was always an undercurrent of brutality and the cheapness of life, even during Pax Romana. So, when someone tries to claim that the Golden Age of Islam was marked by religious "tolerance", you'll have to excuse me for challenging just exactly what that means. Judging from the course of history, including the rise and spread of Islam, I have a pretty damn good idea. I think what most people mean is that they were generally spared death, allowed to practice their faiths, and administer their own affairs in exchange for acknowledging their status as second-class citizens and paying an additional set of taxes. This was all after the conquest was final and absolute. I'd personally put the Caliphs generally on par with the Romans on this front, or perhaps somewhere between the Romans and the Mongols (I seem to recall that Ghengis, Hulagu, at all could be surprisingly accommodating to those who gave no resistance). Certainly no higher. In comparison to Europe from the 8th-12th century, I'd even give them the edge when it comes to the general level of superstition, backwardness, and barbarism that prevailed within their societies. At some point between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, however, the balance started to shift pretty decisively in favor of the West - and the disparity has only grown over time, IMO. That's about what I thought. Thanks, Jay.

Not to be contrarian here but the power of the catholic church peaked in the 11-12th centuries and began waning immediately - well before the Reformation.

That has NOT been posited. What has been stated is that there are ample examples of intolerance from Islam throughout its history. A little "balance" for the constant barrage of examples of Christian "intolerance" that we get here. Moreover, as I state above, I question just what this tolerance you cite constituted. What you read is of course a combination of the author's opinion and your interpretation of his word.

Jay, I've read that the Romans were "tolerant" of religion too. Tolerant as long as you stayed in your place. And of course, there was no doubt as to who was a first class citizen - and who was not. To be in a position of power you had less room to deviate from the norm. And of course, there was always an undercurrent of brutality and the cheapness of life, even during Pax Romana. So, when someone tries to claim that the Golden Age of Islam was marked by religious "tolerance", you'll have to excuse me for challenging just exactly what that means. Judging from the course of history, including the rise and spread of Islam, I have a pretty damn good idea.

Only if you assume that we had a right to carry out enforcement of UN resolutions without letting the UN decide how to do so, or if you assume that the reason we invaded Iraq had much to do with enforcing any UN sanctions. Neither is true. As for the history of Islam, you have rejected the idea that there could have been any historic tolerance or liberalism or whatever associated with the Golden Age of Islam, but you are incorrect in your argument on this point. It is not "moral relativism." It is history. It is simply not the case that Europe = good guys and Moslems = bad guys. You're attributing statements/positions to me once again that I never have stated, but that's par for the course with you, eh counselor? Enjoy your evening.

Hussein signed an unconditional surrender and violated its terms as well as subsequent UN resolutions. We had every right to invade at any time as a consequence. Going to war in Iraq (again) is not comparable in any way to terrorism. We are not the extremists. Sorry, but we will never agree on this.

Nobody here seems to be doing that as far as I can tell. I argued that the history of the world isn't as one sided as you would like it to be and Bug argued that we should look at the world as it is and try to make choices that will promote the peace and stability that our leaders say in their speeches that we are seeking. Its too bad you find that so threatening and that other Americans, like you, respond with "f-that. We're going to continue being idiots." First of all, I never said the history of the world is "one sided". So don't put words into my mouth, or attribute a position to me. Secondly I interpret Bug's and a few other comments here differently than you. Bug clearly stated that this thread has turned to "hatred" of "all muslims". I call bullshit on that. Furthermore, he interjected the premise that "we all have a little nazi in us" by citing some philosopher whom he admires. So your denial that this is occurring falls flat. Thirdly, I reject this notion that "Americans are being idiots", by arguing for FREE SPEECH. Goddamnit, you're the guy who's constantly whining about how Bush is supposedly dismantling the constitution, and I don't see any freedom more important than freedom of speech, which these terrorist bastards are openly attacking. And I will remind you that if you are saying "Americans" are idiots for being "offensive" to muslims, the topic at hand are cartoons originating in Euroland not America.

One thing worth pointing out here. Look at the division Iraq has caused within our country. Look at the constant debate and criticism. Is it even remotely possible that this division and bitter debate is NOT visible to the muslim world? Now where is the debate on their side concerning terrorism? It's pretty damn silent by comparison. But I guess we should keep "looking at ourselves".

Well said. So where are all of the moderate Muslims who need to stand up even at great cost and take back their faith from the radical extremists? Oh, that's right. They're worried about having their throats slashed or their heads cut off. I think it goes deeper than simply fear of retribution for many "moderates".

This is patently unjust. A workable solution that directly addresses the specific problem is needed and deadly force is warranted. I have no idea what you just said. Deadly force is warranted? For whom - the cartoonists? I'm sorry, but that is complete and total bullshit. I reject this as well and it has nothing to do with the debate. I love how you guys are trying to justify the extremist muslims who kill over a friggin' cartoon by blaming the west, and accusing our people of being the "haters" and "nazis".

I'll be as offensive as I want - especially to those threatening chaos and murder because they don't like freedom.

Being offensive is part and parcel of free speech. Bombing those who offend you, or slitting their throats is not.

Nope, it's nonsense. Your "argument" is based on cherry picking examples of killing by Christians combined with examples of muslims supposedly being tolerant to others (as per something you read by some author somewhere- real convincing) rather than a total view of history.

You present a false and bogus choice. Kill all muslims? Please. The point here is muslims are immigrating to other countries and demanding that those countries change, and muslims are threatening acts of terror against those that they deem are acting in ways that are offensive (oh the horror) to their beliefs. Sorry, but I'm not CHANGING my country or myself one fucking iota with respect to free speech or anything that someone from islamofuckistan feels is offensive. Period.

Nonsense.

Wow, and so recent! 1209!!! Meanwhile, here in 2008, they are issuing fatwas for cartoonists.

That's probably the main reason he doesn't talk about it.

I don't think so. It was more about capturing territory than "converting anybody", and of the "collateral damage" were quite a few Christians. But let's stick to the point at hand in the 21st century and not the 11th. If you want to go back 1000 years, there's plenty of killing to be discussed, and it's all irrelevant to today's discussion. Why exactly should people die for publishing cartoons? And why should companies be terrorized by threats of death and destruction into not publishing them? That's the question at hand.