Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Who Will Replace Spain's Troops?

No, the dire warnings were definitely in connection with bloody house to house fighting in the streets of Baghdad. Most thought that Saddam probably would not use WMD if he had them because our troops were prepared for that and it would not be effective anyway.

Different because there is not (nor was there ever) bloody house to house fighting in the streets of Baghdad nor are there thousands of body bags coming home. Things have improved there quite a bit of late and American casualties are down to almost nothing. I would say that is quite a bit different than the dire prediction I described above.

Gay marriage will fix it. Trust me, it's smooth sailing once government decides. I don't know about that backwards catholicism. Has there ever been a government that has disallowed religion? Might be the way to go for Spain.

Religion is just fine, as long as it's not in government...here it still is. Although I don't ascribe to any religion myself, I have no problem with religion as long as it is an individual choice and is kept that way. By the way, I did not mean that Spain was backwards because it was deep-rooted in catholicism, though some would agree with this interpretation, but that gay civil unions will probably be held back because of the catholic church's influence in government decisions AND because the mentality here still is backwards (as in not very universal). What can you expect in a country where many of the older generation longs for the predictability of the Franco dictatorship.

Elena
http://www.pianofourhands.com

I am not a Muslim, but I lived in a Muslim-majority society for quite some time before.

Even after you separate the "moderate" Muslims from the "fundamentalists," there is one more separation to be done: that of the "extremists."

The way I separate "fundemantalist" from "extremist" is that the fundamentalists restrict the more literal reading of the scriptures and the practice thereof to themselves and perhaps their families without going out to hurt people; the extremists would impose their more literal reading of the scriptures and the practice thereof on others, even by violent force, if they deem necessary.

Just like Chritians, the "moderates" can tolerate or even accept gay union and wild parties and euthanasia and abortions, the "fundamentalists" cannot but will keep their objections civil, and the extremists would bomb the wild parties and blow up abortion clinics and wave jihad/crusade.

I know some Muslims in South East Asia and some in North America. All moderates (even liberal) as far as I can tell. There were foreign Muslims who studied in the college I attended, right here in America. They aspired to a good life, American life style, and a few partied just as hard as the Americans.

Go to South East Asia or visit Turkey or Tanzania and you will see mostly moderate Muslims. You don't hear much about them here because they are not prone to rash actions that make news. The few Muslims I've met here, who are American citizens or legal permanent residents themselves, are also moderate, including those emigrated from Iran.

I sometimes read about fundemantalist Muslims in the news or see them in the media. The Canada Islamic Civil Justice Institute's representative, for example, I'd characterize as having a fundamentalist leaning. I've read about an Islamic politcal party in Malaysia that gained control of a couple of states there and tried to implement tougher Sharia laws, but even there they are considered a minority party and as far as I know, they never managed to push tougher Sharia through even in the two states they control. But I did pick up a news bit about a Sharia judge who ruled that an "intent to divorce" notice txt'ed over the cell phone is VALID according to Sharia principles. Not sure if that can be called "fundamentalist."

I can't say I've met any fundamentalist Muslim in person, much less an extremist. I have never been to the Middle East or Africa. Among Muslims, the extremists who commit suicide/terror attacks are exceptions rather than the norm as far as I can tell.

Oh, one more thing, I have yet to meet any Muslim who study Western classical music. Can't say I have any good idea why that is. This might partially explain why we don't have any Muslim posting here. (Or may be they just figured this place is so hostile towards Muslim that they'd rather not admit to being one?)

Yes, Albania (officially from 1945 to 1990) and possibly North Korea.

My first guess would have been the former Soviet Union.

China.

No, the USSR, even under Stalin did not forbid people from practicing religion. Some churches, synagogues and mosques remained active but were controlled by the the Soviet state. The system certianly did not encourage religion and often sanctioned or even, from time to time, incarcerated those who were known to practice religion, but it did not at any time forbid it outright. Overall relgion was tolerated only insofar as it could be a useful tool of the Soviet State.

Albania, a predominantly Muslim country, on the other hand did forbid religion and considered it a criminal act of terrorism directed aginst the Communist Party.

Sort of like here.

A little more so.

More Violence in Iraq as Invasion Anniversary Nears

I wouldn't get too carried away. :rolleyes:

If you'd like to cut and paste semi-unrelated quotes, I'd be happy to do so for you.

Would you rather be a Klansman, or a Jew-hating Aryan nation type?

All it takes is some word juggling, and a bit of time.

I promise, you won't think it is cute, at all.

So there are thousands of body bags coming home? Who is it that is getting carried away. :rolleyes:

*Quote restored to original before butchering to once again make sense.

I think the Left is having a definite case of selective memory. There are no thousands of body bags, there was no house-to-house urban combat which claimed thousands, there wasn't any fulfillment of many of the dire predictions that circulated through here, masquerading as the well-informed opinion.

As for the violence that is occuring now...The U.S. military is fully expecting an escalation, and has said so in several interviews over the past week.

The other fact they point out, is that the insurgents have changed tactics. The American military is no longer the primary target. Now, the insurgents are killing their own people, to make a political statement. And they could be correct. Witness the statement released today about the Spanish election.

Al Quaeda is going to "reward" the new Spanish government with a truce period, since the electorate bowed to Al Quaeda's wishes.

The UN is controlling the situation in Kosovo, yet four times as many people were killed there yesterday than in the hotel bombing in Iraq. Then what, half again as many today? That's going well. What was Clinton's exit strategy there? Heck, what's our exit strategy for Korea?

That would be chilling, but if true, is one of the first things I thought re the election in Spain: blackmail by Al Quaeda.

Hey, I know who can replace the Spanish troops: how about the human shields that were in Iraq last year? After all, don't they still care about the Iraqi people as they once did? They can camp out at Iraqi Police Stations to keep terrorists from attacking them and tie themselves to the al Rashid hotel to keep innocent reporters from being attacked by mortars and rockets and car bombs. They would do more good than 100 times their number in troops!

those terrorists are cold with their feet in heck. We should not judge a country who responds in fear.

So apple, you're saying that Spain didn't make an intelligent decision, they made one because they were afraid of the terrorists. Hmmmm....

let's face it. they caved. just like the left wants us to cave by finding out what is troubling these poor dear little lambs and giving them a great big hug. How much do you think that "truce" declared by Al Qaeda with the Spanish is worth. Especially now that they know which button to push.