Artful Dodger:

> You have to twist history for that (and you do and have).

How have I twisted history? Christians fought wars for wealth and empire. They came to the Americas and exterminated entire cultures to convert the native inhabitants into Christians. Christians fought wars during the Reformation and even in our present era conflicts between Protestants and Catholics remain. Christians burned people at the stake, they tortured people, forced people to convert to their religion against their will. Christians prosecuted Jews, Moslems, Gypsies, and other religious minorities.

These are not twisted historical facts. These are well-known historical facts.

> I don't defend war for the purpose of building empires or extracting commodities.

What was your stance on the war in Iraq? Did you see it as right or wrong? I hope that you did not celebrate its arrival like many Americans did. The Bush administration lied to the American people and carried on a war of empire building and oil supply control. Let's say for a moment that I am wrong. War of any kind should be abhorrent to any Christian. Violence of any kind should be abhorrent to any Christian. That is the core of the Sermon on the Mount. So can any war be justified on political or ideological grounds?

> By being against that, you would be in favor of seeing innocent people die rather than some low-life terrorist experience a few moments of fearful discomfort.

Now I will use fear to compromise my faith. I am afraid of terrorists, so I will justify an act of violence. I know that in the real world there are cruel people, but does that justify being violent? I see these politicians saying that they are Christians, then they turn around and justify violence out of political motives and fear. I suppose God makes exceptions when higher ideals are used to justify violence, physical or psychological.

> Gun ownership is legal.

I am not talking about the law or the constitution. I am talking about true Christian values. Is it a Christian value to say that it is OK for a person to buy and learn to use a lethal weapon? I will hide behind the constitution and say that something that is unChristian is acceptable because it is legal. Pornography is legal. It is legal to buy it, own it, see it, etc. Does that make pornography acceptable to a Christian?

I bring these things up not to put you on the spot, or to make Christianity look bad. I bring them up because I think a lot of people make compromises with their beliefs. There are many things that deep inside we know how wrong they are. Yet we justify them in the name of higher ideals. We hide behind those higher principles to do wrong.

That is precisely what terrorists do. These people know that killing is wrong. They know it is unacceptable to their version of God and their religion. But they do it in the name of some ideology.

Cristians might tell themselves that they are better, but are they really? How can a Christian make that claim when that person has compromised the core principles of Christianity in the name of politics, ideology or abstract ideals?

Tuesday:

The point I am trying to make is that some Christians (not all) want to portray Islam as evil. Art keeps on going about how bad Islam is, how violent it is, etc. However, he is incapable of admitting that Christianity has been just as rotten through its history. Before pointing the finger at Islam, Art should take a hard look at Christianity and all the "compromises" and "excuses". He defends waterboarding, gun posession, war for building empires and extracting commodities, etc. He can't explain to us how all those right wing beliefs of his reconcile with Christ's true teachings. It is easier to hide behind "democracy, "constitution", or "Islam is bad", than to admit that much of what he believes is as unChristian as beliefs come.

Artful Dodger:

> You say its torture, I say it's not. I want my government to have in its toolbox the right, under presidential order, to use waterboarding.

If somebody waterboarded your children, would it be torture or a mere firendly questioning? I will belive that waterboarding is not torture on the day that Dick Cheney allows himself to be waterboarded publicly on national TV.

You threaten somebody with death, you do it over and over until they confess. You could do it pointing a gun to their head, or holding a knife to their throat, or pretending to drown them. It is PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE.

But then, a good Christian like you defends it.

All you say to me is:

"The STATE has the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens. The Bible says that the State doens't yield the sword for nothing. Meaning that it has the power and responsibility for social order etc."

Can you show me where it says that? Or is it (like much of what passes as the Bible) a misinterpretation of a passage out of context?

You are a Christian. Are nuclear weapons right or wrong? If you say they are an acceptable deterrent, can you explain to me HOW that conforms with your Christian ethic. You say Chirst is all about loving one's neighbor. Well, are 100 megatons more love than 20 megatons?

As for guns, you say it is a constitutional right and many good Christians own guns. Following the example of Jesus, those people own lethal weapons and use them "responsibly". I wonder if Jesus carried a sword and used it "responsibly".

you said that Islam is a religion of violence and that it has perpetrated violence throught its history. If that is the case, and considering your poor excuses for the rotten things Christians have done, Christianity reduces itself to a religion that preaches love, but in reality exercises hypocrisy.

Artful Dodger:

> Jesus:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
(Matthew 5:14)

Fine, but then, was that why it was OK for Christians to burn at the stake Aztec and Mayan priests?

Or more recently, is that why it was OK for American Christians to support and condone the wars that the US is involved in?

Is that why many christiansbelieve it is OK to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent?

Is that why Sarah Palin (self-described good Christian) believes in it is OK to be in the NRA and it is ok for people to own guns?

Is that why as a good Christian you were defending the psychological torture known as waterboarding?

Artful Dodger:

> Islam itself claims to be a religion that will spread by the sword.

And Christianity is without flaw, never using violence to spread itself around the world?

I suppose there never were war among Christians, and Christians never used violence to achieve their objectives. The fighting in northern Ireland had nothing to do with Christianity. When Europeans burned alive Aztec and Mayan kings and priests it had nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is all love and purity, incapable of cruelty, greed or destruction.

But then, you still didn't answer my questions. I suppose you have no argument to defend Christianity. Islam is bad, Christianity is good. Historical reality is immaterial.

Artful Dodger:

> Show me where as a global effort, Christians are at war with the world in the way that Islam is.

Just because al Qaeda wants westerners out of the Middle East it does not mean that Islam is at war with the world. I think that you have been repeating right wing propaganda for so long that you have actually have grown to believe it.

But then, we forget that it was Western empires that invaded the Middle East, rahter than the other way around. How many times did Iran deposed an American president and imposed a dictatorship in the USA? Yet Americans did it to Iran. How many times did countires in the Middle East gave money and weapons to dictators in the USA? Yet the USA did it in several countries, not only in the Middle East but around the world. Is it a surprise then that those people see our western way of life as undesirable?

One could very well argue that the USA is at war with the world. After all, your armed forces are present everywhere, invading other countries and threatening to overthrow goverments and bomb those people who disagree with your perceived self-superior way of life. But then, empires always blame those they invade. The Romans invaded the barbarians, even though it was the Romans who invaded those around them.

Irrespective of whether Isalam is at war with the world, you still haven't answered my questions:

How do you account for the wars of Reformation and Christians killing Christians?

How do you accounjt for Christians killing millions of natives in the Americas just to impose their empires and religion on them?

Artful Dodger:

> Muslims have been killing and warring with others since the inception of their religion. They have NEVER been a peaceful group. Except when they were the weaker, then they wait it out. They have always lived by the sword.

And Christians haven't? You live in denial. Christianity has been at war since it became the state religion of the Roman empire. It is so easy to point the finger at Moslems, but as they say, it takes two to tango.

And what about natives in the Americas? When did they provoke Christianity? Nobody invited Christians to come over and "christianize" the New World.

And the Reformation wars? How do explain those?

So much for Christian values. They are easily swept aside when convenient. Then you come here and claim that Christianity is a victim. Just because Jesus was a peace lover it does not mean that Christians are.

Artful Dodger:

> You are so wrong. Read up on your history. Muslims have been terrorizing people since they gained power hundreds of years ago.

I think that maybe you are the one who needs to read up on history.

Crusaders left a path of destruction, killing christians, Jews and Moslems along the way to the Holy Land. It was Salahadin the Great who gave people refuge from psychopaths like Richard the Lion Hearted. Jews, Moslems and Christians lived in harmony in the Caliphates of Granada and Sevilla until the Crusaders came in and imposed the Inquisition.

Then Europeans were at each others throats during the Reformation. Even in the recent past we have those conflicts of Protestants and Catholics going on in different parts of the world, most notably Northern Ireland.

In the Americas over 60 million natives were exterminated in order to "civilize" and "christianize" them. So great was the killing that Europeans had to start importing slaves from Africa to compensate for the lack of slaves in their plantations.

Then in developing countries millions of "communists", "socialists" and "left wingers" were killed in order to sustain capitalism and Christianity. You should study nice cases like Franco in Spain or Rios Montt in Guatemala. People who would come out and preach christinaity on TV, then go on and kill thousands of suspected communists.

But then, Christians always say to themselves that all that killing had nothing to do with Christianity but with something else. Christianity has become a religion of hypocrysy.

Artful Dodger:

> The mighty mujahideen are being killed by American women

The mighty mujahideen got their start when the CIA gave them money and weapons in the 80s. Thank you Ronald Regan!

Artful Dodger:

> An obscene overgeneralization. geeze

Isn't that what you do when you condemn Islam with a blanket statement, or when you condemn the left with a blanket statement? The point I am trying to make is that you can't judge EVERYONE based on the actions of a few.

Artful Dodger:

> Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah, considered one of the Islamic Republic's most radical clerics, issued a religious edict on his website whereby suicide attacks are not only legitimate but are a must for every Muslim, a special paper by the Middle East Media Research Institute shows.

I prefer the way Christians do it. They elect a president, cast their vote to let the guy do whatever it is he wants. When the guy goes and bombs another country, Christians pretend it wasn't they who allowed it to happen. Then they pretend that it has nothing to do with their Christian values. Since the other guys are evil, it is ok to torture them and kill them anyway. Since they are evil, they asked for it. Torturing and killing is OK if it is politically and economically convenient. When somebody asks why a Christian would allow such a thing to happen, they simply say it has nothing to do with Christianity. Voting and religion have nothing to do with each other anyway. Christians sleep soundly at night knowing that their military killed 400,000 people to protect their Christian values. There is no conflict of conscience. Just go to church on Sunday, and you will be a good Christian in the eyes of God. God doesn't even care about geopolitics anyway.

Artful Dodger:

> Obama said, “I believe that there are many paths to the same place.” Obama also said, “All people of faith—Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone knows the same God.”

> But Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

> He's either ignorant or he's NOT in the faith.

Assumption #1: The Bible is the Word of God.
Assumption #2: God exists.
Assumption #3: Jesus existed.
Assumption #4: John existed.
Assumption #5: The New Testament is an accurate depiction of the life of a man believed to have existed 2000 years ago.

Now, prove all of these assumptions. The general proof is like this: the one book says it is true, therefore it is true. It is a circular argument. There is no proof of the existence of Jesus or the existence of God outside of the Bible. The book itself is offered as proof, but there is no other proof beyond the book. The oldest copies of the book date 200 years after the supposed death of Christ. The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus. The book was written in Greek and not Aramaic, the language of the people Jesus is supposed to have come from. There is NO mention of Jesus by ANY writers contemporary to his life. No Roman sources, no Greek sources, no sources other than the Bible itself. So, is Obama ignorant of comparing all the Abrahamic religions, or is he ignorant for believing in something that can never be proven?

(V):

>Gaddafi is a known aggressor.. are you saying Bush and Obama have committed worse acts of terrorism and mass murder, or killed more of their own people then Gaddafi has?

Gaddafi is accused of ordering terrorist attacks against the West. As I mentioned some 1000 posts ago, the witness at the trial was very flimsy and left a big reasonable doubt about the accused. Then nobody can prove that Gaddafi ordered the bombing. It is surmised by the west, but never proven.

In contrast, our warplanes have killed two of Gaddafi's sons and three of his grandchildren, all aged under 2. The questions is, if somebody killed your family, would you hold feeling of friendship towards them?

As for Bush, does the Iraq War count? I can ask, who has attacked who? How many Lybian war planes have bombed the Us or the UK? It is like Iraq, how many times did Iraq attack the US directly? Or Vietnam, how many times did the Vietnamese attack the US or France?

Is it just me or are the bombings all going one way? It is the way of empires. Empires attack, then they blame the "barbarians" at the other side. It worked great for the Romans, and it still works great today. Our modern Capitalist Empire (The Nato axis) are the Mongols of the modern era.

The term comes from having darker skin around the neck. People who work in farming and ranching spend long hours in the sun. Their neck becomes sunburned around the collar of their shirt. It is a sign of hard work. Some people find it offensive, others do not. People in some rural areas tend to vote more for right wing, conservative political parties. It is a reflection of religious, economic and political values.

It is not always the case. There are parts of Canada where "rednecks" have voted for left wing parties. Saskatchewan was the birthplace of the National Democratic Party, Canada's socialist party. The left wing ideals sprung during the Great Depression. As Saskatchewan was runed into a dust bowl, the right wing governments failed to do anything to help farmers. People in those areas turned to socialism as a counterbalance to urban right wing conservatism.

I will never speak poorly of rednecks. I might disagree with their political views or their religious conservatism. However, they are the ones who plant and grow all the food I eat, and for that I am grateful.

GT:

> The U.S. media censored and right wing???

Consider for example the reporting of casualties in Iraq. Every day news channels reported who had died on the American side and the number of casualties that America had suffered. Then they would mention in passing bombings or casualties of other parties involved. Not even once did I hear a reporter say the number of civilians killed in Iraq. There are millions of Americans who don't even know that nearly 400,000 Iraqi people have been killed. Then it is illegal (that's right, illegal according to the Patriot Act) to show the American flag draped over a coffin of a dead soldier.

These thigns are legacy of the Vietnam War. The Bush admnistration did not want public opinion to turn sour when people saw dead Americans returning home in coffins, or when the level of killing reached an unacceptable level in the public eye.

Even those "left wing" channels were unwilling (or unable?) to do any true reporting of the extent of the killing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The American media are heavily controlled and anybody can be labelled a terrorist or unpatriotic. Before a journalist can have access to the White House, he/she must be screened to amke sure that they will not ask questions that would embarrass the administration. White House news briefings and questions from the media are carefully choreographed.

The Democrats (who are described as the "left") are as pro-corporate business as the Republicans. They also exist to favor capitalist monopolies. The workinng class matters only to the extent that they cast a vote during the election. However, the entire modus operandi of the american government is to make sure that monopolies reign supreme. It took no effort at all for Democrats and Republicans to fall in bed together to save financial companies from a self-made catastrophe at the expense of working class taxpayers. When it came down to giving money to the rich both parties were equally right wing. For all the criticism that they purported to cast, both parties voted for bailouts for banks and car makers. I wonder, would they bailout the poor when they go hungry?

Artful Dodger:

In addition to all the American news networks, cable here is also showing other news networks:

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)
CTV (Canadian)
Global News (Canadian)
BBC (International Edition)
Al Jazeera (English Edition)
RT (Russian Television, English Edition)

The BBC is great. I find them quite balanced, leaning neither left nor right. I was very impressed with RT. I found that their reporting is very high quality. They are impartial, but once in a while they seem to lean to the left.

I know that in the US some people see the BBC as "left wing", but I think that is because the US doesn't really have a socialist left wing. I find that all American networks have a right wing bias, maybe because of a nationalist undercurrent in the reporting and very strict censorship when it comes to criticising the wars the US is involved in.

Artful Dodger:

I wonder, would a pogo stick qualify as a green vehicle?

Artful Dodger:

I also forgot skate boards, roller skates and roller blades.

I realize that it is difficult for people to use human-powered vehicles, specially in bad weather or long distances. However, I do see people ride their car to go and buy a slurpee to the 7-Eleven just two blocks down the street. Then we use a lot of energy on things like air conditioning, and we literally waste electricity on christmas trees and the like.

It is hard to tell people to give away comfort and joy. So we all just have to be conscious of waste and try to minimize it. We shouldn't knock down green energy yet. It is in essence a young industry and soon enough somebody will design better solar panels and wind turbines. We shouldn't let the politics of global warming and oil distract us from pursuing better ways of generating energy and minimizing pollution.

Artful Dodger:

There is of course a very green form of energy, but everyone is too lazy to do it. It is called riding a bike and walking. Then there is public transport, but it is more comfortable to bring out the old SUV.

(V):

> Now the 'faithful' must wait till October 21st for the world to end.

5 months left to party and I haven't got any cash. Maybe I can borrow some of those 110 million to throw an end-of-the-world bash. Lady Gaga might be available for the gig.

Of course, Christ said that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man ot enter the kingdom of heaven. Come October 20th, the rich of the world will be giving away their ill-gotten gains to the poor, or else they might try to use their cash to buy themselves a ticket to heaven.

Artful Dodger:

This guy is a joke. Why is he not blaming the Nobel Committee in Oslo? They are the ones who give that moronic peace prize. People forget that people don't ask for the prize and they don't nominate themselves. They also don't decide who gets it and who doesn't. It is the Oslo people who do all that. And what are they supposed to do? Insult the Nobel committee and refuse the prize? People who have refused the prize don't fare any better. Jean Paul Sartre refused it, and even today people criticize him for doing so. I wonder, would Bill critize Henry Kissinger for receiving the prize? Kissinger is probably the most destructive double-faced fascist to arise after WW II, and he got the Nobel Peace prize. Should he give the money back too?

The Nobel Peace Prize is highly political, and the recepients are chosen on political grounds as much as on accomplishment. Half the recepients don't really deserve the prize, and those who deserve it are never recognized.

Artful Dodger:

There is a lot of people that don't like what passes for news at Fox. One of the tenets of journalism was impartiality, something that Fox is unable to do with their right wing bias. However, banning anyone from the air is stupid. Whoever comes up with petitions like that is an idiot because anybody with a brain knows that it is unacceptable either ethically or legally. I might dislike biased right wing commentators, but it is their legal and ethical right to express their views. However, how would you feel if there was a "Communist News Network" giving their own version and commentary of the news for 300 million Americans to see?

Artful Dodger:

I suppose Prescott Bush and Samuel P. Bush must be liberals since they were manging the finances of the Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen and helped him to come to New York before he moved to Argentina. The fact that the Bushes were indicted under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1942 must mean that they were in essence liberals who agreed with the dictator Bill is talking about.

Artful Dodger:

> There have been many commentaries from Muslims supporting the ideas of Hitler.

The main reason why those countries supported the Axis was because Hitler promised them independence from the British and French empires. It had nothing to do with a collusion of Nazi and Islamic ideology, but rather with a false anti-imperialist stance.

Artful Dodger:

> A petition is presented to liberals to sign. It's a petition that would prohibit conservatives access to a voice on the radio and TV.

If the Communist Party decided to create its own news network, would you think it is acceptable? If not, then Fox News should be renamed the Fox Neoconservative Right Wing Commentary Network.

I think anybody should be free to have a news netork, even communists and nazis. After all, we are all for free speech. People sign petitions without even lookingor thinking at what they are about. Of course, right wingers never put any petitions out there. They are without reproach.

Artful Dodger:

"The Nazi's had made their alliances with Islam".

No offense, but this guy should get some history lessons. Turkey made alliances with the Nazis. Islam had nothing to do with it. Turkey hated the Soviet Union because Georgia and Armenia became a part of the Soviet Unionand Bulgaria became communist. Those other "Islamic" countries that joined the axis did so because they were fed up with the British and French empires abusing and exploiting them. Nice history lesson Bill.

Artful Dodger:

That would be brilliant. A philanderer who still brags of having slept with over 4,600 women. It sounds like women welcoming him to his concerts with "open legs" is a very Christian thing to do. A man who said that he is an Israeli and he feels like a stranger in America. I am sure he would be very patriotic and put America's interests ahead of those of Israel. I think I get the joke. President Trump and Vicepresident Simmons would be a sure winner next election.

The Col:

Regarding the Second Intifada (uprising), I found the following snippet. The uprising started in September of 2000 and is considered to have ended in November of 2004 when Yasser Arafat died and the new Palestinian Autrhority president Mahmoud Abbas declared an end to the violence in 2005.

"The death toll, including both military and civilian, is estimated to be 6500 Palestinians and over 1100 Israelis, as well as 64 foreigners."

Regarding overall casualties of war, it is difficult to get accurate numbers, but I found the following:

According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, from 1987 to 2010:
Palestianians killed over the age of 18: 7978
Palestinians killed under the age of 18: 1620
Israelis killed over the age of 18: 1503
Israelis killed under the age of 18: 142

This does not include people wounded. I am trying to find better numbers for that, but obviously, more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed. The number being roughly 6 Palestinians dead for every 1 Israeli killed.

This is in line with Israel's superior military force, which is fully armed with tanks, helicopters and war planes. If anything, it is surprising that the numbers are not as skewed as America's wars in which casualties are easily over 100 to 1 (obviously due to America's superior naval and air power).

The situation is sad because both Jews and Arabs are Semitic peoples. Both have been sharing that land for thousands of years, and have been in conflict for thousands of years. Very often the origins of this violence are a case of the chicken and the egg, nobody pointing exactly at when the violence started. All we can point out is to triggers that erupted violence in an already very tense situation. For example, Ariel Sharon visited the Al Aqsa mosque and that triggered the Second Intifada.

Antisemites everywhere must love this conflict. Here are two Semitic peoples killing each other and unable to put aside hate and intolerance in favor of peace. Our western governments are not helping matters by favoring Israel in a one-sided manner. I think it is an issue in which it has become impossible to be impartial. Israel accuses Palestinians of being terrorists. Palestinians accuse Israelis of being fascists. Our western governments want to protect Israel from its hostile neighbors. Those hostile neighbors want to protect Palestinians from Israel. Nobody wants to compromise or make concesions. As always, civilians get squeezed and killed in between.

Artful Dodger:

> Obama sides with the terrorists against Israel. What a shameful president. He is a disgrace to America.

Why? Because he wants Israel to go to the borders the UN had given to them in the first place? I think the shameful thing is that nobody cares about what happens to Palestinians. Israel had its borders set by the UN. They might be justified in saying that they need some sort of buffer zone against their neighbors, but in reality it is all about ownership of land and water resources.

What about Palestinians? Have they not lived in that land for thousands of years too? Were they not driven out of their homes and their land to carve out Israel? If Palestinians are to live in exile for the rest of eternity, they should at least have some land to live in. People forget that Palestinians became militant as a result of being driven out of their homeland.

Of course, as a Christian you must know that Jesus was born in Palestine. But then, nobody cares that those descendants of the same culture as that of Jesus have their homes bulldozed by Israel's military.

(V):

I think it goes beyond the USA. Everybody (that means the superpowers, the Security Council, the General Assembly and Nato) have unilaterally sided with Israel. Palestinians get some support from Arab states and to some extent Iran. However, those with the power to bring peace to the region refuse to abandon their one-sided favoritism for Israel. The reasons are historical (the Holocaust as well as prosecution of Jews going back to Roman times) and strategic (western interests in oil and trade routes in the Suez Canal and the Red Sea). It is for this reason that Israel is the largest recepient of military and civilian monetary aid from the USA and Western Europe. The only way taht there is going to be peace there is when both Israelis and Palestinians are treated equally. The problem is that any aid that is given to Palestinians is tied to abandoning armed struggle against Israel. However, a similar demand is not made of Israel. Israel receives the aid, whether they pursue a militaristic policy or not. Israel is no longer a weak, isolated country in the beginnings of its formation. It is now a nuclear power with one of the largest, best trained military forces in the world. Yet western thinking still remains in the Israel of 1948. We need of think of the Israel of 2011, a very different country from what it was 63 years ago.

Thousands of Palestinians marched towards Israel's borders in protest, demanding statehood for the Palestinian people. Israel retaliated by sending tanks and troops with live amunition. The unrest spilled into Egypt where riot police used tear gas and live amunition, wounding several protesters. At the end of the protests Israel had down 15 people and injured 355 people in several locations. This protest was inspired by recent pro-democracy protests in the Middle East, and it was done to mark the aniversary in which Palestinians lost their lands to the newly-formed state of Israel.

The question is, if the international community imposes sanction on Syria, and bombs Lybia, will they do the same to Israel? Or is there a double standard, saying that it is OK to shoot down Palestinians in Israel and Shia Moslems in Bahrain, but it is wrong to shoot down protesters in Syria and Lybia?

Nato has taken sides in the Lybian civil war, not to promote democracy but to ensure that the oil empire remains alive and healthy. Then they impose sanctions on Syria, ignore Bahrain, appease Egypt's military with money, and give Israel carte blanche to do as it wills. We live in a world of imperialist hypocrysy.

(V):

> N' why include Obama??

Because he is to be blamed for EVERYTHING, him and his puppet master Soros. "My wife has a headache." "It is Obama's fault!"

Artful Dodger:

> Heyd's remarkably prescient insights

There is one thing that Heyd's analysis lacks, and which is central to the rise of radical Islamism in the Middle East. He completely fails to mention the Cold War, and how the western dominant powers allied themselves with radical islamists to destroy the Soviet Union.

The Cold War was characterized by a climate of fear and paranoia (nothing new there). Firstly, the October Revolution lead to the formation of the Soviet Union from the empire that had the largest land area at the time. Russia occupies 1/7th of the land mass of the world. Wester powers attempted to destroy the Soviet Union in the counter-revolutionary war of the 1920s, a conflict that left 13 million Russians dead. The alliance with the "Whites" failed and in spite of the little spoken genocide in Russia, western powers failed to stop communism in Europe and Asia.

WWII was characterized by intially appeasing Hitler in the hopes that he would attack the Soviet Union and destroy it. Until 1942 the USA was officially an ally, but unofficially doing bussiness and supplying Germany and Turkey with raw materials and financing in their war against the Soviet Union.

Then in 1949 China underwent a revolution that left 1/5 of the population of the world under communist rule. From 1917 to 1949 nearly 1/3 of the land area and 1/3 of the population of the world came under communist rule.

Thus 1949 becomes pivotal in western foreign policy. We have the birth of the CIA at that time, as we had McCarthyism, the American overthrow of democratically elected governments that leaned to the left, the support for fascist dictatorships, etc.

As the climate of fear increased, the dominant capitalist powers (USA, UK and France) made overtures towards their WW II enemies in the hopes that by presenting a unified front they could stop communist advance. It is at this point that western powers become allied to Germany and Turkey.

Turkey willingly acquiesced to western pressures to become secularized. Turkey's ruling elite longed to become economically integrated with western Europe in the hopes of cashing in on the big Western European markets.

However, the fall of Afghanistan into Soviet hands catalized fear both in Western powers and in islamic countries. Fear that other Islamic countries would fall under Soviet rule led the CIA and fundamentalist Moslems to form a dubious alliance. This was not unlike other dubious alliances with dictators, notorious drug traffickers and insurgent paramilitary anticommunist groups.

The USA, the UK, France, and other western powers channeled weapons, training, and money to fundamentalist Islamic groups that had as their objective to destabilize the communist countries. This is how the Soviets are driven out of Afghanistan. It is also how other conflicts arise. For example, conflicts in the Balkans, Nagorno-Karabakh (Adzerbaijan), Chechnya, and others.

Turkey, as one of the most populous Islamic countries in the world, saw itself drawn into Islamism. Mr. Heyd is right in saying that the seeds of Islamism had been there for a long time (as they had been in many other Islamic countries in the Middle East). Mr. Heyd does not acknowledge that the Cold War catalyzed western involvement in the Middle East, and that led to the birth of modern militant radical Islamism. Turkey's strategic location made it a target for western involvement.

As Marxism was undermined and lost its appeal, the ideological void to channel social discontent was lost, only to be replaced with radical Islam. If Marxism-Leninism channeled discontent into the class struggle, radical islamism could not do so and instead channeled discontent into an anti-Western anti-imperialist ideology. Turkey was not immune to that and the broad support for Iran among fundamentalist Turks is a symptom of that.

Today Turkey finds itself torn between its desire to join the EU; the desire to be a modern, free society; the desire to maintain its culture and traditions, including its Islamic roots; the desire to maintain a strong military presence; and the inability to deal with tribal discontent (Kurds) and the general rise of fundamentalist Islam.

According to Bin Laden's wife, they were in that house for 5 years. Most of that time they spent in a single room. They never went out, or met anyone. The question is, who knew about this? American intelligence agencies are trying to make Pakistan's intelligence look corrupt. That is probably true. However, did anyone in the Bush or Obama administration knew? I find it hard to believe that if the guy was there for 5 years, nobody in the American intelligence system ever heard about it. Either Bin Laden was that good, or the CIA was that bad, or the CIA knew at some point and never bothered to do anything about it until now. It raises questions as to how the Bush administration completely failed to locate the man when he was in a rather exposed location. We can blame Pakistan of corruption, but then one must blame the CIA of neglect, lack of due diligence, or plainly concealing the location of the man for a long time.

Artful Dodger:

> BTW, it was under Bush's efforts that intel led finally to Osama's hideout.

Like I said, some people think Obama can do nothing right. Even when he does something right, he does it wrong, or it was not him who did right but somebody else.

In reality it is not different from the Bush administration. To many on the left everything that Bush did was wrong.

I suppose it is a reflection of how polarized American politics has become. What started as bipartisanship has become a political vendetta. Neither party can see each other in the eye and they work not for the benefit of the country but to block each other. The end result is that the USA is mired in political inertia. The USA has become incapable of political change because when change is proposed both parties go to each other's necks, rahter than working constructively together to improve the system. The health care debate is a good example of that.

Now that Obama has done something right, nobody on the other side wants to admit that it was well done. When something goes badly, it is the president's fault. When something goes well, it is not because of the president but because of somebody else. It is a feature that started during the Clinton administration, carried on through the Bush administration, and now repeats itself in the Obama administration.

"Trump, like every other potential GOP candidate, has been utterly overshadowed by the administration’s triumph in killing Osama bin Laden (forcing NBC, irony of ironies, to cut away from Celebrity Apprentice on Sunday night). But the impact may have been greater for The Donald because it made the issue he was loudly pursuing—Barack Obama’s birth certificate—seem so small."

I can see why there will be no end to the criticism of the president. Did he hesitate, did he not? Attorney general this or that ... For all the criticism, and the hatred of healthcare reform, and the birther crap, Obama still got Bin Laden. I wonder if this will do anything to his approval rating, and his chances of reelection. I think Donald Trump should stay in the Apprentice. When it comes to politics, Trump is an apprentice. Well, Republicans will have to do something to top this one, because if the current polls are right, Obama is assured of reelection. Two years is a long time for politics to change. That is how long Republicans have to come up with something. Criticizing the president at this point is just petty-minded jealousy. But then, there are those who hate everything the president does, even the good things.

(V):

> Our countries do, that's why there have been several inquiries in to the Iraq war and it's
> legitimacy. That's why (or so the rumour goes) Blair and Brown were not invited to the
> recent royal wedding.

I am sure it really hurts not to sit there in a photo op with the royals. Let's contrast for a minute what happened with Slobodan Milosevic and his trial, against what our leaders face. Our leaders went to war and sent 400,000 Iraqis and 300,000 Afghans to their deaths. We have atrocities like Abu Graib. Bombings like the ones here in Lybia. Our leaders support fascists, dictators and despotic kings when it is politically and economically convenient.

Then they hold inquiries that find nothing worng. What a coincidence that the same governments that go to war also hold the inquiries. I am sure the government in the UK was really going to come out and say "Yes, we did manufacture intelligence to make Saddam look more dnagerous than he was. Then we went to war, not to save Iraqi people, but to make sure our big oil companies made fat profits." Then, the final veredict is that those people who ordered others to go to war don't get invited to a wedding? The truth is that our emperors face no real consequences for their actions.

Tuesday:

Killing Bin Laden might be all OK. Everybody is happy to see an evil man get what he deserves. It still does not answer why nobody cares about the bombing of Gaddafi's family. Everybody cares about the killing of an old terrorist, but nobody cares about the killing of two two-year-old toddlers and a six-month-old baby. The media doesn't care. Politicians don't care. The military don't care. Nodoby cares, and nobody admits responsibility for it. Bin Laden's death completely hid the news from everybody's eyes. It is very convenient for those in power. It is why our western empires are no better than the terrorists, because we are incapable of admitting that a great wrong was done, and we still go on hating Gaddafi, even though we killed two of his sons and three of his grandchildren. I might have bought the Lybia crap, but all I see is how Nato has behaved and how they cowardly killed three innocent children, and then swept it under the carpet. Well, I have lost all respect for Obama. For all of his talk of change, he hasn't even had the decency to address the issue or admit responsibility. How easily he has hidden behind Bin Laden. He has proven to be as much an emperor as Bush was. Neither have David Cameron or Nicholas Sarkozy. Then they want to put several Lybians on trial for crimes against humanity, but then, who judges the emperors?

Artful Dodger:

> Frankly, I really don't know what would have been the best thing to do with his body.

This was a tough call. On the one hand, I understand that the administration tried to avoid making a difficult situation even worse by displaying the bullet-ridden body around for days on end. I can understand the desire to avoid confronting Moslems further. After all, the ultimate goal of all this mess is that we may have peace some day. While in anger I might say that they should have put the thumbscrews on him, I also think that in the long term that would be more destructive than constructive.

Burying it on land is a tough one. Which country would want that? Anywhere that his body went to would become a target for two groups. First, his followers would try to retrieve the body or build a shrine to a martyr. Second, those who hate him would try to desecrate his grave. Burying him on land anywhere was a lose-lose situation. Probably the only acceptable place for his followers would have been an Islamic country, and nobody in the Middle East would want to end up with that hot potato.

Burial at sea made the most sense, short of spreading his ashes somewhere. His head might point to the bottom of the Red Sea and not to Mecca, but at least nobody is going to try to get to his mortal remains.

Artful Dodger:

> I'm not a conspiracy thinker but this whole thing has too many questions.

I think the problem is that the administration jumped the gun. They announced everything too quickly. They should have said something like:

"We carried out an operation in which we are nearly certain that Osama Bin Laden was killed. We will confirm his identity with DNA analysis within one to two weeks. We treated his body respectfully and tried to follow Islamic customs; however, he was buried at sea to prevent extremists from creating a shrine around his grave. We will release photographs and proof of his death at a later date."

Instead they jumped to conclusions because they were too happy to have killed the guy. Now they have to sort out fact from fiction, and everyone is left wondering what is true and what is not.

Czuch:

I found in Wikipedia a description of the ritual:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_funeral

* Bathing the dead body, except in extraordinary circumstances as in battle of Uhud.
* Enshrouding dead body in a white cotton or linen cloth.
* Funeral prayer.
* Burial of the dead body in a grave.
* Positioning the deceased so that the head is faced towards Mecca (Makkah Al-Mukarramah).

I suppose they took the time to bathe him. White cotton or linen is easy to find. Funeral prayers are easy if they have somebody qualified to say them. The last two points are trickier. Is the sea a grave? Which way is his head pointing when the fishies have finished their lunch?

I suppose they could get DNA from his sons, both living and dead.

There is Omar Bin Laden who wanted to marry a woman in the UK. They were married but apparently he never got a visa. They lived in Egypt for a while, and then they tried to move to Spain. Their romance made it in an odd way, but he was 27 and she was 51 at the time.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2056380.ece

http://www.ekimeeza.com/?p=2375

http://www.celebrifi.com/gossip/Osamas-Son-Omar-Bin-Laden-Wants-To-Date-Drew-Barrymore-3038832.html

Apparently he married another woman a year later or so. It seems that he has two wives. In September of 2010 he was living in Syria and described himself as "single", wanting to meet Drew Barrymore! If he volunteered DNA, they would have a sample to compare Y chromosome's with.

In 2009 a drone killed one of his son's in Pakistan. They could only be 80% sure that Saad Bin Laden was killed. If they truly killed him and they had a sample from that corpse they could compare Y chromosome's too. Difficult to do, because it was in a remote tribal area in Pakistan and sending somebody for just a DNA sample is a big risk. I suppose they could bribe a local to collect it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6724214.ece

Altogether, Osama Bin Laden apparently had 4 wives, and fathered from 12 to 26 children according to varied reports. Many of his children live in Iran under strict government control. I suppose that some of them could be sources of Y-chromosomal DNA.

One of his other sons, Khalid bin Laden, was also killed last week in the attack.

Some of his sons are jihadists, so there will be no shortage of replacements. I suspect it won't be lond before another Bin Laden, younger, healthier and full of hatred, will walk in his father's footsteps. I don't know if Hamza Bin Laden is alive, but apparently he is a true fanatic who recited poems of hatred against infidels. He grew up holding a kalashnikov.

In addition to my last post: Bin Laden was unarmed when the Navy Seals found him.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-says-bin-laden-unarmed-confronted-killed-195126845.html

The only excuse they give for killing him is that he made threatening moves, and that the navy seals were acting on a split-second decision. However, he had no guns with him when the seals barged in on him. Well, the administration says that they might release a photo of him, even if it inflames anger among his followers.

If they had not killed him, they would have to interogate him. Telling everybody that he was killed makes sense if they want to discourage his followers from attempting a rescue.

Artful Dodger:

> It does bother me that they killed Bin Laudin instead of capturing him.

I think that capturing him alive would have been the crowning achievement in the War on terror. The number one target who knew almost everything about Al Qaeda would have been the most valuable intelligence asset and they just smoked him off. The only reason i can see would be if bin laden killed himself rather than be captured, or if he fought to the death. That does make sense considering the mentality of the suicide bomber. However, people like Bin Laden are leeches who send others to die rather than dying themselves. It is all disconcerting.

> Why the burial at sea? That makes no sense. He's a murderer and a terrorist. Who
> gives a rip about his religion. According to the US, he's not a true Muslim anyway!
> Somethings not right with that. If true, the burial is moronic.
> Also, one report said that since they could not find a country that would accept the
> body for a land burial, they opted for a sea burial. But then they also said they did not
> want the location of his body burial to be known. Then why seek a land burial at all? > Why not bury him in the US in some secret place?

Somebody said that they did not want his grave to become a shrine to a martyr. That makes sense. Then somebody said that Islamic law requires a body to be buried within 24 hours of death. The administration comes out and says that he was treated "in the Islamic way". It is stupid. What is the islamic way? Pump his body full of bullets and dump him in the sea? If anything, it sounds more like an overt insult to Moslems

> And how long does it take for DNA to be analyzed (I have no idea). It seemed pretty fast to me.

First thing, for DNA to be analyzed there is a basic requirement. There must be an initial sample to comapre it too. Did the USA have an original sample of Bin Laden's DNA? If so, where did it come from? When did the CIA get to collect blood, or hair follicles or bucal swabs or anything with bin Laden's DNA? it seems foolish that they had a sample of his DNA all along so that they could compare it to the sample they collected from the corpse.

Second thing, the assumption is that they had a laboratory in Pakistan that could do the analysis. They had all the equipment waiting, including solutions, instrumentation, DNA polymerase, capillary electrophoresis machines, etc. They also had the original sample there to compare against the corpse. If not, they would have to fly the samples to the nearest country that had all that available. Maybe India or Israel. Preparing the samples and all that takes a couple of days. Most forensic laboratories in North America take from 3 to 7 days to do the analysis. Maybe they have all the technology in the world, and people on standyby 24 hours a day. At best, 48 hours working around the clock. Yet they annouce this not even 24 hours after bin Laden's death. It seems far fetched.

GT:

> yes strategic resources,oil water, minerals, land,ocean access etc... as old as human history

For all the talk and ideology, all of our governments are very good at making excuses. Freedom, democracy, justice, equality, tolerance and all the nice ideals that they sell to the masses are empty when we face the realities of empire building, aggression, greed and lust for power. Then when faced with reality everyone acts surprised,or pretends to be disappointed, or ignores the truth, or, even worse, makes excuses to justify wrongdoing in the name of a higher ideal.

GT:

> I wonder at their motives

It is black, it is sticky and it burns. Lybia is got a lot of it, and it is just a stone throw's away across the Mediterranean. The motive is the same as in Iraq and Afghanistan: oil.

Artful Dodger:

> I don't think it was an intentional thing as planning the capture of Bin Laudin took years
> and the planning months (after finding out where he was). So much goes on in the
> world that it's likely that two major event would be back to back.

While they looked for Bin Laden for years, the actual operation that killed him was decided on last Thursday. The American government decided not to inform Pakistan of the operation because they feared that Pakistani intelligence officers were passing information to Al Qaeda.

Coincidence or not, it all comes at a convenient time. Then there is all this conspiracy theories as as to why the American government decided not to show the body to anyobody else. The burial at sea is a problematic issue too. A lot of people don't believe that Bin Laden was killed. It makes no sense too. Why not capture him alive and interrogate him? I suppose they figured he would not allow himself to be captured alive. If captured alive, then there would be the issue of trials and inquests about who helped him and why, both before and after 9-11.

> But, where's the outrage over the killing of innocent children? That part I don't get
> either. The reports I saw treated it as just another news story.

You obviously missed the part about crowds in Tripoli protesting and ransacking embassies in ourage at the killings. But then, since the protests over this are all Lybian, nobody cares. Our western empires want Gaddafi and Lybians to like the west, but then they forget to mention that our war planes have in two occasions bombed Gaddafi in the hopes of killing him, only to end up killing two of his sons, and now three of his grandchildren, aged two years old and six months old. If Nato thinks that killing a six-month-old baby will make Gaddafi go away, then they are just fascist morons. I imagine that if somebody bombed the White house and killed the president's children, then there would be an outrage. This was nothing more than another example of the Empire's brutality.

You say it was treated as just another news story. That was exactly the objective, to make it look inconsequential. When I saw the report on TV they never mentioned that his grandchildren were killed, or the ages of the children. Then all I heard was Bin Laden this, Bin Laden that. The Empire succeded in distracting people from the fact that three children under the age of two were killed in a cowardly attack. Then they call it a military target. I suppose a six-month-old baby is a viable military target. Then if everybody is distracted, nobody in the Empire has to account for the murder of three children.

What a coincidence that the Osama Bin Laden news came right on time to distract people from the fact that Nato bombed Gaddafi's house. In that airstrike Gaddafi's son and three of his grandchildren were murdered. I suppose nobody cares if democratic Nato resorts to killing children, but then, it is not the first time that they kill Gaddafi's family members in the process of trying to kill him. It is nice that any international outrage over the incident was quickly put to rest once Osama Bin Laden was killed.

"The Libyan government said Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Arab Gaddafi, 29, was at a gathering of relatives and friends when three missiles struck the family house just after 8 p.m. Saturday, causing huge explosions. The Libyan leader and his wife, Safiyah, were at the house but escaped unharmed, government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said, calling the attack an assassination attempt. Kaim said a 6-month-old granddaughter, a 2-year-old grandson and a 2-year-old granddaughter also died, as did a friend of Gaddafi’s son."

Washington Post story

Then in Bahrain the opposition has complained that two members of parliament were arrested in the crackdown against protests against that western puppet government. Snce the king of Bahrain does anything that the American and British navies want, it is nice that bigger news are sweeping the dirt under the carpet. If Bahrain oppresses its people, it is OK because the sold-out king allows the American and British navies to build bases there.

"Authorities in Bahrain arrested two former parliament members of the Gulf kingdom's main Shiite opposition party as part of a wide crackdown on dissent, a senior party leader said Tuesday."

"Several members of the country's national football team were also detained and another 150 athletes, coaches and referees were suspended since April 5 for their alleged involvement in street protests."

"Bahrain is the home of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, Washington's main counterweight against Iran's expanding military influence in the oil-rich Gulf."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110503/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_bahrain_2

Maybe it is just me, but if there is a conspiracy, it is one to distract people from other important things and some of the nice things that our empires are doing.

**Edited to shorten link so that the page doesn't have to be scrolled side to side

Iamon_lyme:

> Do I place my Honor Uniformity bumber sticker next to the one that says Honor Diversity, or over it?

Cultural melting pot or cultural mosaic? I suppose some people think that a centralized world government would lead to a disappearance of all cultures, a cultural melting pot. In that sense the USA is a good example of cultures meeting and melding together. I think that in such cases people change, although they do retain some of their own cultural identity. Think of Irish Americans or Italian Americans. While their culture is transformed, much of the culture of their original homeland remains.

Artful Dodger:

> What's so scary about Trump is that he's actually gaining traction! I don't see any of the top picks for the Republican party as hopeful for anything. I'm getting completely disappointed in both parties. (I love the Tea Party though - seriously)

According to the latest poll (I think it was done by Reed), Donald Trump has a slight lead over Mike Huckabee. I am not entirely sure about whether he can keep this up. Notoriety is helping him, but Barrack Obama made a good point today. Obama said that instead of focusing on important issues, they turned the birther issue into a side show.

I am not entirely sure how Donald Trump would fare if he has to talk of fixing the economy, tackling the healthcare issue, fixing the foreign trade deficit, handling terrorism and hostile foreign governments, and keeping peaceful relations with Russia and China.

So far he has been successful in distracting the public from the real issues (like balancing the budget), but sooner or later he has to show his mettle in how he would deal with real problems that extend far beyond a birth certificate or a college degree. It will be interesting to see whether he can transform himself from provocateur to real contender.