Islam & Talk Radio

[prisonchaplain]

I'm concerned about the tone and approach that many--including some religious leaders--have taken towards Islam and the War on Terror.

1. The War on Terror is not a war on Islam

2. There are plenty of "moderate Muslims," who are happy to live in western Democracies, and quietly practice their faith.

3. To argue that Muslims are dangerous because a few are and not enough of the rest condemn them to our satisfaction, is an outrageous standard.

4. The media drumbeat against Islam, primarily aimed at convincing the public that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, and bent on conquest, is dangerously similar to Nazi propaganda against Jews in the mid-1930s.

Speaking for my own faith, to condemn non-aggressors in such blanket fashion creates fear and hate. My God is not a God of fear, and my Scriptures tell me that He is love.

Bottom-line: We should be able to combat terror without resorting to mass barbarism.

[shanstress70]

The media drumbeat against Islam, primarily aimed at convincing the public that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, and bent on conquest, is dangerously similar to Nazi propaganda against Jews in the mid-1930s.

I honestly don't see this, PC. What channels/shows have you seen that tries to convince the public that Islam is violent?

How can you compare some people speaking out against Islam to the Nazis against the Jews? Do you really foresee Christians physically harming or killing Muslims?

Some may see my comments in the other thread about Muslims treatment of women as coldhearted, but I for one don't wish to see anyone physically harmed over it. I just feel bad for my fellow females who practice that religion.

PC, I know you have a lot of knowledge about the Koran. Have you not read the verses about fighting and killing the infidels? If you have, what are your thoughts about them? You truly don't believe that religion is inherently violent?

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

The media drumbeat against Islam, primarily aimed at convincing the public that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, and bent on conquest, is dangerously similar to Nazi propaganda against Jews in the mid-1930s.

I honestly don't see this, PC. What channels/shows have you seen that tries to convince the public that Islam is violent?

The biggest voice is probably Michael Savage (take a look at http://www.michaelsavage.com to see what I mean). Additionally, I've seen numerous posts on the net (mostly over at hannity.com) that argue vociferously that Islam is inherently violent and bent on conquest. They'll cite a few verses, and when a Muslim tries to explain them, the poster tells them they don't know their own religion (sound familiar?).

How can you compare some people speaking out against Islam to the Nazis against the Jews? Do you really foresee Christians physically harming or killing Muslims?

Savage has called for internment. He speaks about "the enemy within." He uses terms like Islamofacist, and the on-going drumbeat is that it is the "extremists" who represent true Islam. More and more I'm hearing talk of Muslims taking over communities and being bent on taking over the country--by force, when possible. Again, shades of the Elders of Zion nonsense.

Some may see my comments in the other thread about Muslims treatment of women as coldhearted, but I for one don't wish to see anyone physically harmed over it. I just feel bad for my fellow females who practice that religion.

We may disagree on what Islam actually does to women, but I did not have you in mind with this thread--more things I'm hearing on Talk Radio, and seeing in general religion forums.

PC, I know you have a lot of knowledge about the Koran. Have you not read the verses about fighting and killing the infidels? If you have, what are your thoughts about them? You truly don't believe that religion is inherently violent?

I do not claim to be an expert on the Qur'an. I've taken some courses, read bits, and worked with Muslims. The mainstream orthodox understanding of the Qur'an is that many of those passages, like many passages of the Old Testament, were time-specific, and NOT meant as universally and eternally applicable commands.

If I wanted to do violence to Christian Scriptures, I could take the verses about cutting off the hands and cutting out the eyes that offend, about hating mother and father, about Jesus saying he did not come to bring peace, but a sword, etc. Look how Peter, one of Jesus' main disciples, cut the ear off a soldier? etc. Most here know enough about the Scriptures to answer each of these, but if someone were to take this litany to a Muslim audience, unknowledgeable about our New Testament, and say, "How can you say Christians are peaceful? Don't you see the inherent violence?" . . .

Sometimes we need to walk in the other's shoes a bit, imho.

[shanstress70]

PC: "We may disagree on what Islam actually does to women, but I did not have you in mind with this thread--more things I'm hearing on Talk Radio, and seeing in general religion forums."

I know you didn't... it just came to my mind when reading your post and I wanted to be sure that no one thought I wished Muslims harm.

You do have some valid points, PC, but I really don't think the mainstream media is guilty of painting Muslims in a bad light. Yes, there are extremists like Savage... but he's just a freak and I'm not sure anyone takes him seriously!

[prisonchaplain]

I really don't think the mainstream media is guilty of painting Muslims in a bad light. Yes, there are extremists like Savage... but he's just a freak and I'm not sure anyone takes him seriously!

As the title of the string indicates, I'm primarily concerned about talk radio (which I love, generally). I agree that most in the mainstream media don't demonize Muslims. On the other hand, me thinks you underestimate the influence of talk radio, and of folk like Michael Savage.

[shanstress70]

On the other hand, me thinks you underestimate the influence of talk radio, and of folk like Michael Savage.

Possibly you are correct with that. I listen to Savage sometimes just for pure entertainment purposes and laugh at some of his crazy ideas. However, I must admit that a lot of times I do agree with him.

Rush is another that's not so far out there, but he just annoys the heck out of me with his arrogant attitude.

I do like a local talk radio guy here in my town... he's conservative, but not extreme.

My favorites though are the doctors - Laura and Joy - although Laura can make me crazy sometimes too.

Then there's the Swap Shop, although that's probably not what you mean by 'talk radio'.

[CrimsonKairos]

He uses terms like Islamofacist, and the on-going drumbeat is that it is the "extremists" who represent true Islam.

The fundamentalist Islamists are fascist inasmuch as they try to acquire power through physical force and terror. In the "traditional" Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, et al) the majority of Muslims are fundamentalists thanks to their governments.

If you really want to get a better understanding of mainstream Islam in those countries, particularly the one Osama hails from, read Inside the Kingdom by Carmen bin Laden (one of Osama's sisters-in-law who was raised as a "casual Muslim" before entering the strict world of Saudi Islam through her marriage).

I still say irradiate the oil-rich regions controlled by fundamental Muslim governments and rob them of their wealth. If they despise the West and capitalism so much, they should give up the benefits of our way of life (cars, tv, radio, modern medical technology, airplanes, etc...). Otherwise, they reek of hypocrisy.

You can't keep one foot in the 7th century and the other in the 21st century. Carmen bin Laden says it well...the muslims of Saudi Arabia and other fundamentalist countries are born with a rear-view mirror on their foreheads, forever looking back to Mohammed's time and the first generation of Muslims.

We all know what happens to someone who drives down the freeway with their eyes glued to their rear-view mirror...

[Rosewood]

PC, I realy have to agree with you on this. Mike Savage especially, but there are others. I've been a big talk radio/Christian radio fan for yrs, but in the last yr I listen less and less because of the anger that is generated. I guess it increases ratings, but contention turns my radio off! I used to hear it only on the left, but the right is no different anymore.

I think the feeling of anger is seductive to some people. It makes them feel powerful, thats why mobs can be so dangerous.

This is exactly how it began with the Nazis; the idea that our way of thinking is better and yours is dangerous (or distructive to us).

We have to be careful to not get exactly the same attitude about them that we say they have about us.

I knew a racist man who use to say, "there are blacks and then there are n---" in an attempt to justify his way of thinking. I see the same thing about to happen with the Muslims and some of the very loud media.

I don't know what to do about it though. Pray I guess.

[CrimsonKairos]

Comparing the Nazi's ideas about and treatment of Jews to America's ideas about and treatment of Muslims is ridiculous. I mean that in every sense of the word.

Ree-dik-you-lus.

There weren't radical groups of Jews blowing themselves up in German trains, or setting up road-side bombs on major roadways, or capturing German workers and sawing their heads off with knives, or declaring Holy War on Germany in the name of Yahweh.

The differences are stark. Germany had no practical, empirical reason to hate the Jews. Stated another way, the Jews hadn't attacked or declared intent to attack Germany. Radical Muslims have attacked and declared intent to attack America and her allies.

The Nazis' fear/hate of Judaism was founded on pseudo-science and propaganda.

America's fear/hate of fundamental Islam is founded on 9/11, the beheadings in Iraq and elsewhere, and countless conflicts around the globe involving Muslim fanatics.

[Rosewood]

I understand what you are saying. Our aggression against terrorist is justified. The ignorant hysteria toward all Muslims isn't. Certain sectors of the media encourage the fanaticism because it pays. My concern is the unjustified self righteous anger that threatens the innocent, not the guilty.

[prisonchaplain]

Comparing the Nazi's ideas about and treatment of Jews to America's ideas about and treatment of Muslims is ridiculous. I mean that in every sense of the word.

Ree-dik-you-lus.

If you look at the title and OP, you'll find that what I was comparing was quite compelling--the propaganda against a whole religious group. Those people want to conquer our economy (Jews), those people want to conquer us and force conversions (Islam), those people have secret conspiracies (Jews), those people--even the 'so called moderates' are commanded to lie for the cause (Muslims), etc. ad nauseum. What I was comparing were two attempts to demonize religious groups and to obliterate any nuance or realization that within a large religion, there are factions and different understandings.

There weren't radical groups of Jews blowing themselves up in German trains, or setting up road-side bombs on major roadways, or capturing German workers and sawing their heads off with knives, or declaring Holy War on Germany in the name of Yahweh.

Some would argue that the Jewish Defense League (we had some members in our federal prisons) was somewhat in that vein. Furthermore, there are indeed radical Christians (remember the Crusades? Rev. Phelps of godhatesfags.com noteriety?)

The differences are stark. Germany had no practical, empirical reason to hate the Jews. Stated another way, the Jews hadn't attacked or declared intent to attack Germany. Radical Muslims have attacked and declared intent to attack America and her allies.

I hope you are not seriously suggesting that we have "practical, emperical reasons" for hating Muslims. Again, my point is NOT to oppose the war on terror, and upon those who would use Islam to do violence against us. My argument is against those who would create distrust, fear, and hate against Islam itself, and against Muslims in general. The Christian approach ought to be to find ways to help these God-seekers receive the fullness of the gospel.

The Nazis' fear/hate of Judaism was founded on pseudo-science and propaganda.

America's fear/hate of fundamental Islam is founded on 9/11, the beheadings in Iraq and elsewhere, and countless conflicts around the globe involving Muslim fanatics.

You use the term "fundamental Islam." I'd would argue that we keep our focus on the terrorists, and upon those who would use Islam to bolster their socio-politically radical and violent goals.

We understand that here, keeping a watch on such 'Christian' groups as the KKK, Ayran Brotherhood, Christian Identity, etc. We don't lambast Christians or 'fundamental Christianity.' We watch for those who would use Christianity to promote domestic terrorism.

[CrimsonKairos]

You make a lot of good points PC.

I have nothing against peaceful Muslims, or members of any religion or no religion at all.

Fundamental Isalm refers to those who believe the Wahhabi-flavor of Islam, or something like thereto. What is wahhabism, a.k.a. salafism? Check it out:

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

As practiced in Iran and Saudi Arabia: Beat women for not wearing abayas in public, for crossing the street alone; treat women as property; all non-Muslims have no rights and are worthless; etc...

Saudi Arabia and other countries do believe these things, as a whole. Sure there are always moderate factions within most groups.

When I say fundamental Islam, or Islamists, I'm referring to people who believe they are good Muslims, who truly do believe the Koran is God's word, and that they are His servants. I know there are terrorists who use Islam to further their own goals. But there are honest-to-gosh radical muslims who are muslims, not pretenders, and whole countries are governed by such fundamentalists.

Read Carmen bin Ladin's book, "Inside the Kingdom." It's an eye-opener, written by a Muslim. She reveals what fundamental Islam is and what it consists of (and what Islamists would love to see displace our culture, economy, legal system and way of life).

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

[pushka]

I can't really add anything to the above, except to say that I agree with you wholeheartedly, PC.

I find the posting of youtube.com video clips of particular Islamic clerics, apparently preaching hatred and violent views disturbing.

I live in a town that has a very large Muslim population. Yes, there are incidents where gangs of asain youths attack one or two non asians, but this I see as no different from other 'gang' activity elsewhere in the country/world, I do not see it as a reflection of the whole of the Islamic population.

[Dror]

I agree with you, PC.

Unfortunately, I have heard a surprising number of ordinary everyday people I know personally say outrageous things pertaining to Muslims and Islam, or the Middle East. For example, the young lady I used to work with who thinks we should nuke the entire Middle East in order to solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. (Maybe she doesn't realize the most populous Muslim countries are not in the Middle East!) She said she realizes plenty of innocent people would get killed, but that they would go straight to the Celestial Kingdom, so it wouldn't be so bad to kill them in defense of the American people. (According to her logic, wouldn't innocent Americans killed by terrorists also go the the Celestial Kingdom, and therefore terrorism isn't really all that bad?)

Anyway, my point is, talk radio is popular for a reason. One, it is entertaining. Two, a lot of people agree with them. They may or may not be a majority, but they're enough to keep talk radio in business, and that kinda scares me. If people totally disagreed with them/were offended by them, I don't think they would listen to those programs even if they are entertaining.

I think your average American understands the difference between normal, moderate Muslims and fundamentalists. But there are enough people displaying prejudice that it worries me.

Dror

[Fiannan]

The media drumbeat against Islam, primarily aimed at convincing the public that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, and bent on conquest, is dangerously similar to Nazi propaganda against Jews in the mid-1930s.

Uh, speaking of Nazies and Muslims here's some REALLY interesting pictures that were probably not in your high school social studeis textbooks.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543

By the way PC, have you ever asked your Islamic cleric what his vision of America is? If not, please ask him what his ideal America is and what kinds of laws would exist if the majority of Americans were Muslim.

Also, why demonize Michael Savage? I have only heard him a few times but he seems to have a braod background -- being originally a liberal Jew and eventually evolving into a conservative. He is blunt but could you give me some examples of what he says that might put him into the extremist camp?

[CrimsonKairos]

being originally a liberal Jew and eventually evolving into a conservative.

Isn't that Michael Medved?

[shanstress70]

Also, why demonize Michael Savage? I have only heard him a few times but he seems to have a braod background -- being originally a liberal Jew and eventually evolving into a conservative. He is blunt but could you give me some examples of what he says that might put him into the extremist camp?

In April 2006, Savage called for the killing of those that constitute the radical fundamentalist wing of Islam, saying, "Intelligent people, wealthy people...are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, there’s a billion of them (Muslims).' I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them (radicalist Muslims); then there'd be 900 million of them.' I mean...would you rather us die than them?...Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because you’re going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later."[41] In 2004, Savage described radical Islamic fundamentalist Arabs as "non-humans" and "racist, fascist bigots" and advocated a nuclear attack on a "major Arab capital".[42]

On October 9, 2006, Savage labeled Madeleine Albright a “traitor” because the Clinton administration was in office when North Korea bought two nuclear reactors from a Western company in 2000. Savage said former Secretary Albright should be “tried for treason and when she’s found guilty she should be hung” Savage has previously called Albright a "hag" and "a monster in a dress".[5]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Savag...8commentator%29

Seems pretty extreme to me to call for killing 1 million Muslims.

[CrimsonKairos]

Extreme isn't necessarily bad.

I'd have no problem eliminating all radical Muslims. I'd have no problem eliminating all radical Christians either, but they aren't using IED's and internet-televised beheadings to spread their message and agenda.

I admire the way Book of Mormon generals and captains dealt with hostile Lamanites.

1. Give them a chance to surrender.

2. Hit them with the full force of their army.

3. Give losing enemies the chance to surrender again.

4. Put prisoners to work.

5. Kill those attempting to escape.

There are some exceptions to this pattern, but by and large this is how the Book of Mormon military leaders (who were often spiritual leaders) dealt with their enemies. I wish we had the guts to pursue the same pattern today.

[prisonchaplain]

First, I think most got my key point. Thanks! As Brother Andrew (who used to smuggle Bibles into Communist nations, but for the last 20 or so years, has ministered Christian truth in Muslim lands): These are God-seekers. We may disagree strongly with their theology, politics, and means. But, most of them sincerely want to please God. So, let us engage them, demonstrate our truth to them, and seek to bring God's spirit of redemption to those who might yet receive it. Hard to do when demonizing them indiscriminately.

Uh, speaking of Nazies and Muslims here's some REALLY interesting pictures that were probably not in your high school social studeis textbooks.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543

And, here again, we have the use of an "Anti" site to explicate Islam to us Christians. Haven't we had this discussion before, in reference to the host faith group of this site?

By the way PC, have you ever asked your Islamic cleric what his vision of America is? If not, please ask him what his ideal America is and what kinds of laws would exist if the majority of Americans were Muslim.

Well, let's see. He's a professor at the University of Washington. He's on the Religious Advisory Council for Washington State's Department of Corrections, he takes a bus for 2.5 hours each way, so he can meet with a dozen or so of our inmates, and, if I'm not mistaken, he's probably offered counsel to the local branch of our nation's terrorism task force.

In Miami, the IMAM that served with us was of Pakistani origin, but grew up in South Africa. He praised the Adventists next to his mosque, because they knew how to dress decently before entering their house of worship (to his parishioners, that is). He'd tell our inmates that they don't know what real prison is, and should be thankful for what they get.

Me thinks their vision is to serve Allah, to help their fellows do likewise, and to achieve peace through submission to him.

Also, why demonize Michael Savage? I have only heard him a few times but he seems to have a braod background -- being originally a liberal Jew and eventually evolving into a conservative. He is blunt but could you give me some examples of what he says that might put him into the extremist camp?

First, I did not demonize him, and I too listen to him occasionally. But, if you clicked the link to his site, you'd find frequent references to "Islamofacists" (could be accurate in a limited sense), repeated snide intonations about "the religion of peace," and, he has called for internment of Muslims.

[Fiannan]

<div class='quotemain'>

being originally a liberal Jew and eventually evolving into a conservative.

Isn't that Michael Medved?

Medved, Prager, Schlesinger (Dr. Laura), and Savage are all Jews. Glenn Beck is a Mormon, Michael Reagan may be a Catholic (don't know when his father converted to Protestant) and who knows what Rush is.

Oh, and yes, there are various elements within Islam. However, here's how many in the "fundamentalist" corner want to deal with moderates:

http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1283

[Brother Dorsey]

I do not claim to be an expert on the Qur'an. I've taken some courses, read bits, and worked with Muslims. The mainstream orthodox understanding of the Qur'an is that many of those passages, like many passages of the Old Testament, were time-specific, and NOT meant as universally and eternally applicable commands.

And this is why I am so glad for the restoration of the Lord's church and that fact that Heaven is not closed to us....that the Lord is still guiding his children in this day with a Prophet! Because the Lord is revealing truths to us line upon line, precept upon precept as we understand and grow.....for our time....not 20 centuries ago!

[Dror]

Extreme isn't necessarily bad.

I'd have no problem eliminating all radical Muslims. I'd have no problem eliminating all radical Christians either, but they aren't using IED's and internet-televised beheadings to spread their message and agenda.

I admire the way Book of Mormon generals and captains dealt with hostile Lamanites.

1. Give them a chance to surrender.

2. Hit them with the full force of their army.

3. Give losing enemies the chance to surrender again.

4. Put prisoners to work.

5. Kill those attempting to escape.

There are some exceptions to this pattern, but by and large this is how the Book of Mormon military leaders (who were often spiritual leaders) dealt with their enemies. I wish we had the guts to pursue the same pattern today.

**Edited because I said something inappropriate here. I hope CK didn't read it. If you did, I apologize for being too extreme! No offense intended--I think you're a good person! --Dror**

Nor is it the same as what you have described the BOM military leaders as doing. They didn't slaughter their enemies wholesale; that is, they didn't eliminate all of them. They may have killed those who tried to escape, but they didn't kill everybody. Moreover, you seem to have missed what the Book of Mormon goes to great pains to point out, that Moroni, for one, did not want to kill even one person. He did what he did only out of the most extreme necessity, when the very survival of his people was in imminent danger. Even then he didn't just kill the people who attacked his people without provocation--he gave them a chance to simply give up their arms, promise not to attack again, and go home free men. I have heard of nothing like that in the modern era, and certainly not in the fight against terrorism. Even when they refused to make that covenant he did not kill them, but kept them prisoner and yes, made them work. (FYI, prisoners usually prefer to work rather than sitting in a cell all day--it's used as an incentive in modern prisons to get prisoners to behave well. Even this was very humane and progressive on Moroni's part, not necessarily a matter of punishment.) As far as we know, Moroni did not torture his prisoners, and he did not kill them without a very good reason. Comparing what righteous Book of Mormon figures did to what some of the extreme talk show hosts suggest is just wrong.

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

**Edited because I said something inappropriate here. I hope CK didn't read it. If you did, I apologize for being too extreme! No offense intended--I think you're a good person! --Dror**

I didn't read the part you edited out. Now I'm curious, lol.

They didn't slaughter their enemies wholesale; that is, they didn't eliminate all of them.

Never said they did.

Moroni, for one, did not want to kill even one person.

I don't think anyone "wants" to kill someone. There's a difference between "wanting" to and "choosing" to. Moroni didn't want to. Moroni chose to. He had compelling reasons. When I say I'd like to eliminate all radical Muslims, I have compelling reasons to say so.

In case anyone doesn't know, by radical I mean terrorist-Jihadist-Islamo-fascists who refuse to discuss their grievances or desires calmy but instead make their argument with C-4, RPG's and IED's.

...he gave them a chance to simply give up their arms, promise not to attack again, and go home free men.

I believe I mentioned twice in my pattern that the enemy was offered the chance to surrender. I'm beginning to wonder what post you read. It surely wasn't mine.

(FYI, prisoners usually prefer to work rather than sitting in a cell all day

No need for an FYI here. I agree that making prisoners work is just common sense.

As far as we know, Moroni did not torture his prisoners, and he did not kill them without a very good reason.

We don't know that Moroni or the Nephite army didn't torture prisoners. Torturing someone is not the same as enjoying torturing someone. Even if the Nephites didn't torture their prisoners, that doesn't mean it's not a good idea in our day. Of course, the Nephite commanders were usually righteous men, often prophets, who consulted with the Lord and let God guide them in their efforts to defend their people. Our commanders today don't necessarily rely on prayer or the Lord for information, y'know?

Comparing what righteous Book of Mormon figures did to what some of the extreme talk show hosts suggest is just wrong.

Not necessarily. People keep bandying the word "extreme" around in a pejorative manner. In case anyone hasn't noticed, our enemies are extreme; their goals are extreme; their methods are extreme; their motivation is extreme. Such a situation calls for extreme measures and extreme responses.

[Dror]

(Dror) They didn't slaughter their enemies wholesale; that is, they didn't eliminate all of them.

(CK) Never said they did.

(CK) When I say I'd like to eliminate all radical Muslims, I have compelling reasons to say so.

So what is your position? You admit the Book of Mormon folks didn't eliminate all of their enemies, but then proceed to say you have compelling reasons to say you'd like to eliminate all radical Muslims. Are you admitting, then, to disagreeing with the Book of Mormon military leaders on what is appropriate? It sounds to me like they did not kill all of their enemies, yet you do want to kill all of yours.

In case anyone doesn't know, by radical I mean terrorist-Jihadist-Islamo-fascists who refuse to discuss their grievances or desires calmy [sic] but instead make their argument with C-4, RPG's and IED's.

I believe I mentioned twice in my pattern that the enemy was offered the chance to surrender. I'm beginning to wonder what post you read. It surely wasn't mine.

Moroni had defeated his enemies and had them clearly and completely in his power, and then offered to let them surrender their arms and go home free. We have not defeated the terrorists, had them in our power, and then offered to let them go home free if they surrender their arms and promise not to attack again, and doubt our leaders ever would do such a thing. We have captured some of the terrorists, but I have not heard any accounts of our leaders offering them freedom if they promise not to attack us again.

We don't know that Moroni or the Nephite army didn't torture prisoners. Torturing someone is not the same as enjoying torturing someone. Even if the Nephites didn't torture their prisoners, that doesn't mean it's not a good idea in our day. Of course, the Nephite commanders were usually righteous men, often prophets, who consulted with the Lord and let God guide them in their efforts to defend their people. Our commanders today don't necessarily rely on prayer or the Lord for information, y'know?

I would make so bold as to say that torture is wrong, whether in our day or in ancient times.

People keep bandying the word "extreme" around in a pejorative manner. In case anyone hasn't noticed, our enemies are extreme; their goals are extreme; their methods are extreme; their motivation is extreme. Such a situation calls for extreme measures and extreme responses.

Maybe we are giving the word "extreme" a bad rap. We could talk about people who are "extremely kind," "extremely generous, "extremely gentle," "extremely faithful," etc. When you're talking about talk show hosts in favor or torture, murder, the suspension of civil rights, etc., etc., however, that's the bad kind of extreme.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. Even so, it appears we might disagree on some things anyway. But that's ok!

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

So what is your position? You admit the Book of Mormon folks didn't eliminate all of their enemies, but then proceed to say you have compelling reasons to say you'd like to eliminate all radical Muslims.

The situations are different in a few major ways.

- The Lamanites were an enemy nation and lived within fairly defined geographical regions. They did not have access to biological or nuclear weapons (a nuclear attack--on whatever scale--against a Western country is inevitable).

- The terrorists are not an enemy nation and can't be easily defined geographically. They do have access to biological and nuclear weapons.

A lone Lamanite couldn't kill or injure thousands of Nephites in one attack. There is an ideological difference as well...radical Muslims want to destroy the West and our way of life; radical Lamanites wanted to conquer and rule the Nephites, not destroy them or their economy.

Are you admitting, then, to disagreeing with the Book of Mormon military leaders on what is appropriate?

I never said anything of the kind. I agree with how they dealt with their enemies...enemies who are fundamentally different from Islamist-terrorists in our day. To apply how generals dealt with foes using medieval technology to our current situation is introducing an unreasonable anachronism.

It sounds to me like they did not kill all of their enemies, yet you do want to kill all of yours.

Let me be specific. I'd offer the terrorists the chance to cease and desist. The USA has done that many times. After 9/11 we said enough is enough. No more chances. It's war. If the terrorists gave up and swore to leave us alone, and actually stopped their IED's and attacks, the USA wouldn't hunt them all down just to kill them and neither would I.

I said I'd eliminate all radical Muslims because they're radical...and not willing to change or surrender. In that case, yes, I'd eliminate them all.

We have captured some of the terrorists, but I have not heard any accounts of our leaders offering them freedom if they promise not to attack us again.

Again, one Lamanite couldn't wipe out a Nephite city with just a sword. Our foes are of a different nature today.

I would make so bold as to say that torture is wrong, whether in our day or in ancient times.

You're entitled to your opinion. I shudder to think of how boring the show "24" would be if no torture was allowed. :) Seriously, it's a valuable tool and I wholly support it. Yes, I understand that my enemies would torture me if I were captured. I'm not going to serve my enemies tea and cakes and ask politely for them to tell me where their dirty-nuke is.

When you're talking about talk show hosts in favor or [sic] torture, murder, the suspension of civil rights, etc., etc., however, that's the bad kind of extreme.

In case anyone missed it, I never said I agree with everything talk show hosts propose. I think locking up all Muslims in our country because they're Muslims is ridiculous.