hate-filled rhetoric against islam (or catholicism, even) = anything from “who cares” to “damn straight”

hate-filled rhetoric against america or white america = BAD BAD thing

these aren’t my views, they are the reality of our degraded society. and it’s why this mccain/pastor issue will never get any traction. until you can pull out someone connected to mccain that says something as inflammatory to mom, baseball and apple pie (though caricatured and out of context) as rev. wright has said, the press will never care.

the outrage doesn’t come until white, protestant america is the perceived victim. because that’s the wholesome 1950’s image the traditional media and many americans still want to have of this country.

According to the polls I’ve seen, about the electorate is more concerned by McCain’s relationship with Hagee than Obama’s relationship with Wright. It all depends on which segment of the population you poll.

True the last part. As to the first, time will tell.

The intention in both cases is to kill the enemy. The only difference is that the bomber pilot survives the attack.

Not quite. The bomber pilot is targeting people with weapons. The sucide bomber is targeting people with groceries.

May 8th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

The intention in both cases is to kill the enemy. The only difference is that the bomber pilot survives the attack.

Well, yeah, they could, but don’t you think you are putting too fine a point on this, Toast?

Never. This is a complex world in which we live, and I don’t believe there is such a thing as “too fine a point” in understanding the nature and motivation of conflicts that have a daily cost in human lives.

Or to put it another way – and this is just a political assessment, not a moral or ethical one – if you have one preacher saying “America must fight the false religion of Islam” and another saying “God Damn America”, which is going to be more problematic with the electorate?

According to the polls I’ve seen, about the electorate is more concerned by McCain’s relationship with Hagee than Obama’s relationship with Wright. It all depends on which segment of the population you poll.

But you can bet dollars to donuts, the air force pilots were – or didn’t you hear about the hyper-christian US air force?

I did – but didn’t the general behind that get disciplined? Can you imagine AQ discipling one of its leaders for being too religious in his indoctrination?

shoeless Says:
So, it’s not the murder of innocent people that bothers you, it’s the motive and the method of killing them. If a suicide bomber kills innocent children because of a misguided religious belief, that’s bad. If you fire cruise missiles from miles away, and never have to see the innocent children you are murdering for political and economic reasons, that’s fine.

No, jeez, I never said that and I would think I have at least enough time on this blog for you to know that is not how I think.

BUT – a suicide bomber targets the innocent. A bombadier does not. If we used the tactics of our enemies there would be radioactive craters pock marking the Sunni triangle.

Dead is still dead so in the end it doesn’t matter, but I do draw a huge ethical divide between a suicide bomber and a bomber pilot. Intention matters to the morality of the act.

May 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
—–
And how exactly does screaming “God is great” make an act of violence religiously motivated? In Arab culture, and by extension many other Muslim cultures, phrases such as “praise be to God” and “God willing” are used like punctuation, even by secular individuals. The fact that your stereotyped “garden variety Jihadi,” might indeed use such a phrase does not mean that the motivation for his/her actions are religious – they could be motivated by self-defense, vengeance, money, power, or plenty of other factors.

Well, yeah, they could, but don’t you think you are putting too fine a point on this, Toast? The original debate was actually about whether this guys association with McCain would hurt McCain; you are not going to be able to get 90% of Americans to look at this issue and go “yeah, actually, yelling God is Great while detonating yourself is a cultural thing that doesn’t really reflect a religious belief.”

Or to put it another way – and this is just a political assessment, not a moral or ethical one – if you have one preacher saying “America must fight the false religion of Islam” and another saying “God Damn America”, which is going to be more problematic with the electorate?

We got off on a theological tangent, but the original object was the political aspect.

But you can bet dollars to donuts, the air force pilots were – or didn’t you hear about the hyper-christian US air force?

May 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
—–
And how exactly does screaming “God is great” make an act of violence religiously motivated? In Arab culture, and by extension many other Muslim cultures, phrases such as “praise be to God” and “God willing” are used like punctuation, even by secular individuals. The fact that your stereotyped “garden variety Jihadi,” might indeed use such a phrase does not mean that the motivation for his/her actions are religious – they could be motivated by self-defense, vengeance, money, power, or plenty of other factors.

The point of this particular debate is whether the killing is done in the name of religion or not.

Watched the movie at your link “Want the truth? http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com “.

Very powerful. Unfortunately, it seems so beyond the pale of how we think, that people tend to dismiss such things as conspiracy theory. However, if you educate yourself with world and US history, one will see the repition of certain things.

All should watch, and then make up tour minds.

Gee, what could be more flashy than “Shock and Awe”?

Not much! But I highly doubt the ordinance officers aboard the Aegis cruisers were screaming “Blood and Souls for the Redeemer!”, wheras “Allahu Akbar!” is the prefered final words of your garden variety Jihadi.

I assume you offer this poll in good faith. I also assume you will agree it is possible for polls to be manipulated to achieve a pre-determined outcome. Forgive me if the authors of this poll read – to me – like a Rogue’s Gallery of liberal bias, particularly the OSI. In other words, I do not necessarily accept this data as an inviolate metric of
“reality”.

Fair enough. I invite you to find me a survey by an organization you deem more neutral that shows that Muslims are more likely then Christians to support violence for religious reasons.

As to the Koran not having the concept of Jihad in it, I have heard Muslim theologians vehemently debate the point. SOME Muslims believe it is in there. I would be going in over my head to say whether it was so or not. I know you are better versed in things Arabic than I, but it is at least my impression that there is debate within the faith significant enough that it isn’t a fringe view.

It depends on how you define “jihad,” of course. The literal definition of the word is “struggle,” and the Qu’ran has references to struggling against injustice and outside attackers and whatnot. It can also refer to an inner struggle, to purify or better oneself – struggling to quit smoking is a type of jihad.

The “holy war” definition, however, is not found in the Qu’ran. It is a product of Crusader propaganda that has come into common usage, but is not a fundamental tenet of the religion. The fact that current Muslim scholars debate it is not necessarily proof of its existence – just further proof that people can bend scripture to justify any agenda they like.