read this now

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   First and foremost, I am not a muslim hater. I do not support Bush or many of the actions that the American government conduct. 
The democracy in America is that of the people electing who they deem to be the best governing body (republican, democrat, etc.) and the best elect senator for presidential candidate. However, each candidate for president has their own personal agenda. If you're trying to fortify your position as president, what better way then to appease the people by saying what they want to hear. Many times over, what is stated in the agenda's listed by each party never gets accomplished. New laws go into circulation, tax-cuts and tax-hikes, and a never-ending lineup of personal agenda based items surface during a president's stay in office. Yes, some of what they claim they're going to do does happen in the 4 to possibly 8 years that a president has in office. But most, if not all, of the initial items listed on a president's agenda does not get accomplished in their term.
The same can be said about each party of legislation. Today's politics have become so corrupt. It is entirely about the "big game". Case in point, these political parties do not care about the concerns of America or its people, but in winning their party into the House and into office. We, the people, have the ability to cast a vote for who we feel is the best presidential candidate. What is sad is that this is a very limited say in American governance. If it were up to the people, the Iraq war would still be a fragment of imagination. Although, Saddam was a mass murderer, killing more than 700,000 Iraqi-kurdish civilians and militia by means of chemical weapons...his ousting, if up to the people, would not have been. 
I strongly feel, as do many including Noam Chomsky, J. Michael Sproule, Henry Vizi, Barrington Moore, Joe Conason, Amitai. Etzioni, Michael Woodiwiss, Richard Miniter, Prof. Mark Crispin Miller, and the Axis of Justice group, to name a few; that the American government has become very big, too big. Having this big government limits the rights and initially the power of have-nots. Do you think the people of America wanted its government to give aid (mainly weapons) to Indonesia for its invasion and annexation of East Timor, which reached near-genocidal proportions? Or the shipment of arms to Iran through Israel to the Khomeini regime in the 80s, which later surfaced the Contra war cover-up? And what about the Cold War, a National Security analyst, George Kennan, said, "it is not Russian military power which is threatening us, it is Russian political power"; or with President Eisenhower's consistent view that the Russians intended no military conquest of Western Europe and that the major role of NATO was to "convey a feeling of confidence to exposed populations, a confidence which will make them sturdier, politically, in their opposition to Communist inroads." Do you think, the people would act this way towards incidents that will clearly affect their lives in the long run. The American government cares only about two things: money and power. 
My case here applies to believing that because an evil dictator takes hold of a religion then that immediately makes that religion evil. According to you Hanan and ak_m_f, because Nazi-Germany chose their countries rooted religion as theirs automatically assumes that Christianity, in it's entirity and wholeness (according to the Bible), accepts killing millions of Jews? Of course NOT. Many followers of religions claim to be followers when in fact they're not. It's a misconception, a sense of acceptance that all people have and need. Please, explain to me how the Grand Mufti can be a follower of the Quran, yet believe he can corroborate with Hitler and assist him in killing millions of Jews. According to you, this then must make Islam evil, just as Christianity became evil because the Nazi's claimed to be "followers" of Christianity. 
The same can be said about past and current American presidents. The mass population of American people are Christians. Thus, if you want to have power over the people, what better way then to appeal to them by claiming to be apart of their sect? I do not consider Bush, Kennedy, or any other in office to be a true patriot of Christianity. If they were religious, it became too distorted and manipulated by power and greed. You cannot attack Christianity only because a select few contradict the peacefulness of it true doctrine. Just like I cannot claim Islam to be evil because of Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, Al-Husseini, or any other person that abuses and distorts the true doctrine of the Quran.
True Christians do not want to go to war. They do not want to kill those who do not follow. God is the ultimate judge of non-follower's demise. It is complete hypocrisy and ignorance to think that Christianity, a monotheistic and accepted religious people by the Quran, supports the acts of Hitler.
Do you consider the aforementioned arab-men to be true followers of Islam? 
Every Christian know's to be true that the Nazi regime does not exemplify Christianity. Would Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, portray Islam by using nuclear weapons against another man? I'll assume that the Islamic teachers, and I understand there is not a hierarchy in Islam, but who are commonly referred to as "priests", would not defy Ahmadinejad, but would bless him and his political decisions, whether good or detrimental, on the sole basis of patriotism and fear. This was demonstrated by the priests of Nazi-Germany. They feared Hitler, as did all, and wanted nothing more than to keep a bullet away from their head. There is no circumstantial evidence to prove otherwise and to further a case in accepting that Christianity can now be defined because of Hitler. Also to be noted, that because the American government, who under the constitution is to keep religion out of it's ultimate decision process, dropped an atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki also does not conclude that Christians played a role in this act of disgrace; whether or not a few men in conjunction with the decision to drop the nuclear bombs were Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Sihk, etc. This does not exemplify nor define the religion they may be associated with.  
Here, immerse yourself in the knowledge of Al-Husseini, whom you seem to have been censored to. I already know of the corruption of the American government. Please, discontinue trying to use that to justify the means of a disillusioned concept of Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amin_al-Husayni
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/
http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/amin_en.html
http://www.pmw.org.il/bulletins-050802.html

Edited by think.box