Dept. of Islamist Barbarians & Psychotics

Someone needs to give those people a good talking to!

"Gee, I guess people on both sides of the situation can be really stupid and barbaric.
Posted by: JPL | July 17, 2008 1:01 PM"

They all need a 'time out' until they can decide to play nice together.

Everyone likes the guys who can make the trains run on time. . . . .

As brutal as Israelis can be, they don't have the cult of death that the Islamists in the region do.

"As brutal as Israelis can be, they don't have the cult of death that the Islamists in the region do."

Ever seen a state funeral for a fallen soldier? The fact that the sacrifice is for/to the state rather than for/to Allah is a moral qualifier without much real difference.

Irenaeus, don't you mean "SOME Israelis don't have the cult of death that SOME Muslims in the region do?" Because I'm pretty sure that people encouraging their elementary school children to sign bombs to be dropped on their enemies rates "cult of death" status in some measure. And as ossicle notes above, the "deadly, unjust, and illegal occupation of Paletine" certainly has had it's effects.

Rod is so immensely fearful of and biased against Muslims at this point that he can hardly take time out from bashing them to write misleading pieces bashing the Archbishop of Canterbury and spreading end-of-the-world fearmongering.

Yes, people cheering the return of a brutal killer is sick and perverse. Yes, children signing bombs is sick and perverse. And yes, cultures mired in rigid, ethnocentric perspectives will continue to engage in such actions against those their perceive as "enemies" until they grow up into better views.

The same dynamic applies here as did there. We too threw our political support to murderers, liars, torturers, thieves, etc. We knew they did a lot of bad things. But we were too afraid of our enemies, too afraid that the other political party in our country wouldn't "work". So we voted monsters into office, and cheered them on. Of course, by "we" I mean Rod and crew, since I never voted for these people.

Fear, rage, abuse, poverty, and ethnocentrism makes monsters of us all. Should we be disgusted by what we see happening in this situation? Sure. But let's remember that the same evil is within Israel, and within ourselves. Maybe we should work on the log in our own eye.

In the abstract, Judaism is as nasty as Islam. The only thoroughly evil religious texts are the Koran and the Torah - read the New Testament, Vedas, Gita, Tipitaka, Granth Sahib, or whatever - there's nothing to compare. THere is something intrinsically vile about Semitic desert monotheism. Christianity is the best of a bad bunch - it had the good fortune to be semi-Hellenised.

However, on a pragmatic level, short of believing some sort of Protocols-type stuff, the Jews do not threaten the rest of the world the way that the Muslims do.

"Obviously there is a gulf between Christianity and Islam on this point."
I would say a gulf in the countries in which they're primarily practiced.

Bridal virginity is the oldest standard, representing a proof of purchase rather than a moral decision, but white wedding dresses are barely over a century old and initiated as a trend to indicate wealth, not purity. When criticizing the sluttiness of a dress versus tradition, stick to tradition. Of course, tradition changes wildly in surprisingly short lengths of time from a historical perspective. See-through gowns were quite common among people who didn't need practicality in the early 1800s, a time most of us remember as Puritanical in fashion. It was replaced by the Puritan standard, first in England of course, but even our ideas of old-fashioned become confused since Puritans were very practical, a religious movement of the laboring class, and thus freely showed ankle. Then Queen Victoria reigned in England and fashions followed the royals, etc. She introduced the white wedding gown to major popularity, though it was beginning to spread among the rich. Other brides made due with the nicest dress they could possibly afford, or already had, and only the richest of rich could wear a dress that dirtied so easily. After that, Scarlett O'Hara gowns gained popularity. I doubt the bride of whom you speak has ever revealed so much cleavage outside her bedroom, though I wouldn't judge her if she did. Some wedding dresses leaned toward Victoria's fairly modest ensemble...some leaned toward white, corset-boned Wonderbras.
And all this before 1900.
Ignoring that sluttiness in clothing is entirely dependent on its environment and tradition can't change your opinion of what makes or breaks it so it shouldn't change one's opinion of what makes or breaks a proper wedding dress, brides may choose their outfits as they may any day. Dedicating oneself to a single man (though not quite all brides do this, but again, they're an entirely other subject) for one's life is as monogamous as one can get. Brides ought to look like themselves, not an imaginary version of themselves who gets married. This is as true for people who hate wearing white as much as it is for people who love looking sexy. Especially in a secular ceremony. In religious weddings I would deem revealing gowns bad taste, but that's still up to the officiant to decide. In summary, no, it isn't progress, unless there are laws about wedding attire I'm previous unaware of. It's social progress that women are behaving like themselves at their own weddings, and not being hypocrites anymore because that's surely more of an affront to their god(s) than bare skin which could well have normally been shown during the inception of their religion. Is it appropriate? That is in the eye of the beholder, and the times. Whatever the bride decides, it's important that she be the one to make the decision.

and thanks for all those highly relevant notes on wedding traditions ...

Interesting that the NYT article doesn't mention that Kuntar is a druze. Perhaps the name of Rod's department should be changed to refect this?

Kit's comment, while extremely interesting, seems to have migrated here from someplace else?

Up until fairly recently, I have appreciated Israel as the only free democracy in the middle east, yet been very critical of many of their actions. However, this episode has turned me into a 100% supporter of Israel. I don't care if they bomb the crap out of these freaking people and kill man, woman and child, to be perfectly frank. The monsters are getting back well fed, well cared for soldiers and a murderer to boot. These men have been given medical care, exercise, proper nutrition, reading materials, visits from the red cross, etc., etc, etc. The Israelis are getting back bags of bones and a pitifully incomplete dossier on a long lost soldier. A well cared for child murderer for the bones of soldiers doing their duty. Not to mention that it's a pretty good bet that they tortured the Israeli soldiers before murdering them. But we should worry about the suffering of people who have no human decency towards their enemies, their women or their country men who think differently than themselves. From this point forward, Israel has my complete support for whatever they do. I only feel badly that they are the ones who have to deal with such monsters. If other free, liberal democracies were forced to deal so closely with these monsters, no doubt there would be many fewer peace activists.

Ossicle: If you act as Israel has acted, the skulls of some of your citizens are going to get crushed. If they didn't want that to happen, they should've withdrawn to their proper borders decades ago. In my view (and the view of many other people), their occupation is as barbaric and psychotic as anything their adversaries have done.

Ossicle, you're entitled to any view you wish to hold, but it would seem to me that if you want some insight on the "proper borders" theory, there would be two major points of reference:
1) Israel from 1948 to 1967, during which time I assume you agree that Israel was defined and occupied territory within only its proper borders (please correct me if I have misunderstood your point); and
2) the offer made in 2000 by Ehud Barak to Yassir Arafat, the career terrorist, that Israel should cease to occupy the West Bank, Gaza, and even withdraw from large sections of East Jerusalem - essentially, giving the Palestinians a state in every bit of territory onto which they had officially laid claim.

During the first nineteen years of Israel's existence, it was frequently and viciously attacked and threatened by its Arab neighbours.

After the Camp David meetings in 2000, when Yassir Arafat had everything he had ever asked for and more than he could have hoped for, he went home and incited his people to the second intifadeh.

The problem, from the Arab point of view and the Muslim point of view, is not Israel's "proper borders" and its occupation of territory outside the pre-1967 borders. The problem is Israel itself. Do you seriously think that Samir Kuntar and other murderers are motivated out of indignation at Israel's seizure of territory outside their "proper borders" during a war? These killers and the disgusting people that support them are motivated by the desire to destroy Israel in its entirety and to kill Jews.

It really is that simple, and the talk of depression, barbarism and psychosis is only poppycock if you are wracked with equivocation. The truth is there for all to see.