The Pankian Metaphor 3104

Because that would immediately set all of Islam against Western civilization. The goal is to get them to adapt to using Western civ. concepts within the framework of the sharia. This code of law has not adapted as living styles changed over the last three hundred years. It is still stuck in 14th (est.) century. What is happening is the growing pains of a law code that has been artificially staid. The laity of the religion want to adapt but a few percentage are insisting that the "old ways" have to remain intact. In order to enforce this, they have to destroy the temptations; and all of Western civilization is considered a temptation.

In order to force this living style, it will be necessary to reinvent a slave economy. Because nobody is going to "obey" without becoming one. Anybody who tries to give humans those rights you keep harping about will be end because it will be heretical. Anybody who receives those rights will be given a choice: rest or slave. Most people, who have an instinctive survival mechanism will choose slave.

Those little messes you see are not Iraqi based. They are a mixture of Al queda and Iran making messes. The last Iran wants is to have a thriving nation next door whose success is due to capitalism and democracy. Iran's citizens already have an atbreastude that will accept this kind of living style; the last thing that theocracy needs is a shining example next door.

The strategy of Iran and Al queda is to keep these nipping-at-heels in the news. Our media is very accomodating and pays more attention to their tactics (thus making each incident a resounding success) than to anything that is another small step to creating a working economy by Iraqis.

What!? People say they want me dead. I am not going to wait until they kill me before I try to prevent the act. You are confusing criminality, civil, and war actions of society. There is a reason that the last takes precedence over the first two.

And you are wrong to insist that civil laws have to take precedence and govern military matters in a time of war. Civilian law is for civilians during peace time.

You'll be dead; these people are counting on this atbreastude. It is opening the gates to them to do any mischief they want.

This is an arrogant atbreastude guaranteed to cause your destruction. These people don't care about your better-than-thou; they despise everything you consider good. Anybody with your belief is beneath them and subject for contempt. That is how they believe. They are also not stupid and depend on atbreastude like yours to delay actions that would keep them from destroying Western civilization.

This is a long-term struggle which will last generations.

No, this is war, by definition.

You keep buttuming that a civil code of law applies when making decision in a war; it does not.

By example. Women are seeing other women have more to do than wear cover. They are getting driver's licenses.. slowly. They are getting more education. There have been other subtle changes which rarely get high exposure press but they are signs of changing. Pay attention to what happened in Egypt last week after the plantings. There were protests (the only way any citizen in an Islamic-ruled country can communicate to their political leaders) against the plantings. This means that a general population is seeing that they are not alone and have a good chance of saying no without getting immediately liquidateed. These are the small business people...you know.. those who do the actual work in their regions.

These same people are watching Arabs and Jews debate in a legislative body where both sides air their views, come to some compromise, all without killing each other. This kind of politics was the how things got done in the beginnings of Islam. Their code of civil law, called sharia, is based on this. The extremists are claiming that the opposite has to be. Most Muslims, who are catagorized as moderate, agree with the original intent. However, for the past 20 (perhaps, 30) years, this atbreastude was eliminated by killing anybody foolish enough to speak up.

This is no longer true. Egypt is the second country that I've heard where moderates are saying no out loud now. There are more debates going on about how to update the sharia...not whether it should be changed, but how. There are Muslims who are stating out loud that these extremists do not speak in behalf of Islam. Two years ago, this would not have happened.

You are wrong. They are changing. If they do not change enough to satify their general population, then they may be put out of a job. It's all called maturing.

Government is about defense of land and property and social life styles. It is the civilian way to ensure no botheration from outside enbreasties.

When the people who have been given this power misuse it and forget to serve their consbreastuents, they are eventually removed. It takes a lot of crap before the general public in a non-democratic political system will put their foot down and demand cessation. The Tiananmen Sq. example that put Mao's wife and three others out of power is an example of what I'm talking about.

It is you who have buttumed that this is a war of non-Mulsim against Mulsim. It is not. You have not been paying attention to what is really going on. I don't blame you for this because the news sure as hell ain't portraying what's going on.

By not making an insane buttumption. I have just told you what your hidden buttumption is. You need to rethink your buttumptions.

I've just spent the last hour and a half writing ^up there^ that answers this question. If you do not understand by now, I don't know how else to form my English ASCII that will explain what I'm saying.

And this post is too big. So I'm going to quit now.

BAH