mildodiferousfunk

Bill, This is my opinion, if what I state is not obvious, you are free to disagree. I do not claim that I "have the corner on what is right". We are all humans and prone to mistakes in logic. If I have made one, you are free to bring it to light. Have you watched a large portion of AJ programming, say for several hours, similar to CNN? You may have watched English-translated excerpts, but did you watch an actual several hour program? If I were to take excerpts from portions of Fox News programming and translate them to another language, I could verily show a very biased point of few. Do you have AJ at home? I am not saying AJ is not without its faults, however when someone states something not in the interests of our tilted ME policy, it is shot down without fair and unbiased assessment. About Israel and committment; Bill this is comical. We committed to many people in the past but did not stay with them. To list a few examples, go look at what happened in Bosnia, Liberia, the Kurds in Iraq, the list goes on and on. So, please do not bring up the term committment. What is unique about Israel? Religious ties of a particular group in the country. I do not call that committment, I call that deceiving the public into believing our support is based on noble motives when in fact it is a "wolf in sheep's clothing". Where you come from you keep your word, but that obviously is not where our foreign policy is from. I wish it were. With regards to keeping our promise to Israel "until they do something that keeps us from keeping our promise..." They have committed several events that were similar to the premises used to attack and/or label countries as enemies. Please do not fool the American public. Go speak to people in Europe and many other regions of the world about this same topic. They certainly do not share the same views as the general public we have. Perhaps due to the influence that is in our government and mass media. Again, perhaps this is why there are groups such as AIPAC and NPAC. Show us one other place in the world where similar groups exist. No? because the US has the mightiest Industrial Military complex in the world. Had, let's say, Uganda had the mightiest military complex, that is where you would find similar groups today. In summary, please do not state support of Israel is about committment or is in our best interests. It is in the interests of a religious group. In any case, what has happened has happened. At this point in history, the surrounding Arab states must accept Israel within defined boundaries with a Palestinian state alongside. As for Jerusalem, again, this should be cordoned off and controlled by a world body. I have stated this several times in my previous posts but everyone has ignored this suggestion, hopefully not on purpose. I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts. Bill, no disrespect intended and I apologize if you misunderstood my post as being condescending. That was not my intention. I simply ask that one supports their ideas with logic, even if in the end you still disagree. That is the beauty of debate.

Fish, gaining your respect is not my goal. My goal is to state the obvious. You may call it propaganda if you like, only since my opinion is different than yours. Nonetheless, I can support my opinions with a logic, which perhaps can be off at times, and am not discrediting your statement. I was only asking you to to support yours as well. Back to my question, have you watched AJ to come to the grand conclusion you made in your previous post or are you merely avoiding logic? If so, explain your conclusion. Propaganda is a statement made that has no logical foothold in the hopes that it will change opinion. It is quite convenient to discredit my previous statement as propaganda, but you are merely avoiding an uncomfortable question. I do not call you a terrorist. You do not support the definition of one. Nor do I call the US the Great Satan. To do so, I would be a hypocrite as I am US citizen. Questioning the path we as a country follow is not wrong, it is part of being an American. You can call this a game, I call it constructive debate. However, debate requires one key element: LOGIC......

Fish, Perhaps you should try AJ for a few days as well and compare. Have you ever done so? Probably not, unless you speak Arabic or you are just regurgitating what our government tells us. If you have not watched it, then what basis do you have to make your statement? I have watched it and I will admit, some of things they cover do have a slant to them, but overall they are actually not too bad. There are other news agencies in that region that are quite biased. I guess their office getting bombed by our forces was just mere coincidence? Compared to Fox News, they are actually quite balanced. In essence, any news organization will have slight bias. I used the BBC as an example, take your pick of the multitude of news agencies throughout the wrold. I am not attempting to provoke but am simply asking people to open their eyes to the notion there are other very valid points of view throughout the world. Perhaps we should try to understand this.

Silver, I'll leave the indefinite support topic alone. This is what we DID is not valid in my eyes. It does not work in our best interests. We DID many things historically, but changed the course once deemed it no longer best served our interests. Perhaps that is why we have groups such as AIPAC and NPAC. I believe I proved my point. I am not saying anyone has a better view of world history, but our view is quite slanted. What I mean is what makes it to the news and what does not and how it is reported. Just watch BBC for a few days for example and see how much of world events are explained. It is quite a different view. I was not critcizing, but merely stating an observation. I have not run out of steam...I am just building pressure[]

Silver, What the Jews suffered in WWII is common to many groups, some of which suffered at the same hands of the Naziz. On this, I do not disagree with you. In the same whim should we create a state for all of the descendants of the slaves here in the US and unconditionally support them as well? Many people have suffered, this does not justify what has happened in the last several generations in the ME. Silver, you said "We (along with Great Britain and others) helped set up the Jewish State of Israel and we committed ourselves to their protection indefinitly..." Do you not see the flaw in this statement? "Indefinitely", even at our own expense and at the expense of others? Our allegience should be to the interests of the US (and Justice to all). Should we support external interests at our own expense? On your statement, "the US of A does far more good globally than any other nation on the plant", I wholeheartedly agree with you. In general, the American people (not just the nation) are far more generous and helpful than any other people on this planet. Unfortunately, we also seem to be one the most out of touch with balanced world history as well. It is interesting to watch news broadcasts of other nations to compare their perspective to that of our own news agencies. It just makes you wonder...

Cal, you said: "Mild, I have indeed not been spoon fed with information in the ME. I have done my research and indeed have come to my own conclusions. The common linage we have with Israel is partially the same as the Muslims, namely we can both trace our roots to Judaism. We also have common forms of governments. So there is much indeed that we have in common and are indeed brothers." I understand that Christians, Jews, and Muslims trace their religious roots back to Abraham. What I was asking is what common grounds with Israel we have as a nation (not the Christian religion). A large population of the US has roots to Germany, Mexico, etc., etc. Does this mean we should indiscriminately support these countries? The support of Israel has religious roots masked by so-called political roots (supposedly only democracy in ME, etc. - there are other democracies in the ME, we just choose to ignore them because ankowledging them does not meet the interests of supporting Israel unconditionally). I do not like having the "wool pulled over my eyes" and I am sure a large number of the people in the US feel the same way. Therefore, no, Israel is not OUR brother, it is YOURS (as an individual and others that believe the same). A nation like ours should only have "brothers" based on the interests of the entire nation, not one religious group. Our stance in the ME has been one of hypocrisy and, at least to me, hypocrisy is one of the gravest things on can commit. This is exactly what is happening with our foreign policy. In this case, we work for the interests of a particular religion, which I do not believe is the basis of America nor did the founding fathers. It has only been in the last century or so that our foreign policy has shifted in this direction and, as I said before, allowing religion to dictate our foreign policy is an extremely dangerous scenario. Our soldiers are losing their lives because of the religious beliefs of one group here in the US. I do not believe these were the principles this nation was founded upon. I have seen what happens when the interests of an individual religious group steer the direction of foreign policy. Mark my words, if our foreign policy does not change, we will be fighting this "war" for generations to come. Is this what you want to leave for your children? That is not what I want to leave for mine. Cal, one last note, you wrote "I wonder how many of the loudest critics of the war have ever served in a military unit?" On the the other end, how many of the loudest proponents of the war have served? Also, what does this have to do with addressing the logic behind the war? A logical argument should stand on its own two legs.

Cal, I will leave the Christianity/religion thing alone. We seem to be mssing each other's point. In Islam, the basic foundation is the acceptance one God and the messengers (including Muhammad) as his prophet. Respect of fellow man is part oft he greater picture. For me to say Islam is unique unlike the other religions using this premise is the same path you are claiming for Christianity. In any case, I'd prefer to just drop the issue. In Islam, we have a passage from the Quran that says "I have my religion and you have yours". In other words, faith is matter of the heart and debating about the differences of faiths is a futile action. I wholeheartedly agee with this idea. With regards, to Israel..I'd rather not delve into this too far either but would like to ask what common ground as "brothers" we have with Israel? Again, I will go back to my original suggestion..that is allowing a World body to control Jerusalem since it is sacred to so many faiths and is also sore point between religions as well. With regards to temples being built on temples, every temple is built upon the ruins of another temple. The Dome of the Rock was built centuries after the destruction (by the Romasn) of the original temple. Should I go to your church and claim it was built upon an ancient Indian holy ground and claim ownership centuries later? Both Israel and their neighbors are dirty, we should not claim we are protecting the poor, little, weak brother. With places that are common to many people, control should be given to a large party so that there are no ill feelings towards one group or another as a result of the perception of favoritism, etc. This appears to be the most logical solution, at least to me. As far as what happened historically in the region, this is not the place to delve into it. My suggestion for those that do not know much of the history of the region, do quite a bit of research as there are many different contradictory collections of what has happened in that region over the past century. All I can say is what is reported as "history" in that region of the world today not very accurate. I am just asking people do their own research and come to their own conclusions instead of being "spoon-fed" history. With regards to Saddam, I do not disagree with the facet that Saddam is an evil man, but so are a large number of our so-called allies. Our motives had nothing to do "freeing Iraqis", rather it has more to do with working in the interests of some of our so-called allies in the region. I have seen what people like Saddam do first-hand, but we turn a blind eye. I would rather let people come to their own conclusions about our motives. Iraq is just the beginning, our current policy will keep our children and their children still fighting this colonialism, ahem, I mean "war". Modern warfare is not necessarily any cleaner, this is just part of the marketing policy of warfare. Just think about it, dropping a 500 lb pound bomb from several thousand feet cause quite a bit of impact force not considering the force of the explosives. During WWII, we carpet bombed, that is why it was "messy". We chose to be messy. I am not equating people with Zarqawi with our military but it is a litlle naive for me to say that dropping large explosive devices in residential areas is not going to cause a wee-bit of damage and death of innocent civilians. Don't believe the warfare marketing hype? Tell me why we have nice-sounding terms like "smart" bombs, collateral damage, etc.? The answer is to mask the horrors of modern warfare and make it more appealing to the general public. As far as the tactics he terrorists use, they are adapting to the warfare environment. I do not condone their tactics but we used tactics that were deemed contrary to current warfare standards when we fought the British during the revolutionary war. The point is, warfare is ugly and fighting a war that is not for self-defense is ugly no matter how you look at it.

Mild, you are indeed correct in many of your points, save one. Christianity is different from ALL other religions in the world. The core belief is that Christ laid down life of his own free will to pay for our transgressions and then picked it back up again and returned to this world to proclaim his victory over death thus giving man the hope to do the same through him. This is exclusive to the Christian faith, thus to say it is the same as all other faiths, is somewhat misleading. You can choose to believe this teaching or you may not choose to, I will not try to persuade anyone against their will. I am only pointing out that the foundation of this faith is not like any other so please do not lump us all together. You may have differences with Christians and that is fine. Cal, every faith can claim to be unique and exclusive, however I was simply making the point that every major religion teaches to respect fellow man above all. Does Christianity preach that one should disrespect their neighbor if they do not believe in the message of Christ as you believe? Obviously, NO. My point was that mutual respect if a primary tenet of any religion. I can claim Islam is unique an exclusive in some of its approaches just as one could claim the same of any religionthis is why we have different religions and different sects within these religions. In any case, we do have some different views but that is OKthat is the fabric of humanity. The troubles in the ME is that of brothers, and family. There has been much bad blood has passed over the years. Isaac and Ishmael started this whole thing centuries ago and it will take a higher power than man to fix it. I believe that the policy to protect the smaller homeland of the family of one brother from the family of the other brother who wants to wipe out the smaller homeland is a just one. I will not ponder on this too much, but the idea of the US protecting another country based on religious ideas is a dangerous concept. The uniqueness of the US is that it is a fabric of cultures and foreign policy, especially, should not favor any religion or group over another. If this happens, it destroys the fabric of the US and loses the uniqueness that other countries would like to emulate. If it indeed true that we protect a small country due to religious convictions, then the war against terror is not a war against terrorit is a war against Islam. If our motives are truly noble (protecting a smaller country from surrounding hostile countries), then take your pick of countries around the world which we should protect. I feel the situation in the ME can have an acceptable solution. Draw Israels final boundaries and Palestines boundaries and create a neutral state of Jerusalem (somewhat like the Vatican) controlled by a world party. The issue that Muslims have with Israel revolves around Jerusalem and control of the Dome of the Rockthe Palestinian issue is a secondary issue, although important nonetheless. In summary, my point is do not mix religion and foreign policythis is an extremely dangerous and volatile mix. We can not turn our backs from those who intend to do us harm either. The radicals who attacked us on 9-11 had free rein in Iraq; the leader of that country was defiant to the world. He had shown his true colors of region domination when he attacked his neighbor. He was defeted and driven back to within his own borders and part of letting him stay in charge of his country was to agree to terms of surrender. He was defiant to the terms, made inspections difficult or impossible and continued with his aggressive ways. The world spoke out over a dozen times for him to comply with the restrictions he agree to when he was defeated. The leader was defiant to the end. The radicals who attacked us 9-11 are in Afghanistancan anyone say Bin Laden? Saddam was our buddy until he no longer served our needs. The noble point of view as to why we attacked Iraq falls under its own pretenses. I do not feel this even needs to be discussed. The noble motives we had for removing Saddam are humorous at best. In the process of chasing those who had attacked us, we have freed MILLIONS of people who were under the oppression of this leader. Zarqawi was the bloodthirsty General of the radicals in Iraq, responsible for the deaths of several people at his own hand and for hundreds and hundreds with his direction to others, and thus needed to be removed. He moved house to house every few hours, he thought he was safe, he was wrong. Zarqawi was a bad personhe did his work up close and personal. Do you not believe that modern warfare is just as vicious? Dropping bombs that weigh as much as car from thousands of feet in the air does not kill cleanly either. The blood is on many hands on both sides. The problem is that many of us fool ourselves into believing our cause is more noble.

Cal, There are many Muslims that denounce what the terrorists claim..only thing is the media does not cover it. Fascination sells for the media and so the message of terrorists is more fascinating that the message of mainstream Muslims. You just have to search and you will see where it is denounced. To your point though, Muslims (I am one) do not do well enough of a job of "advertising" what the true message of the religion is. Muslims in general do not recognize any one "leader" of modern-day Islam as a representative, or "voice of Islam", and thus generally do not feel they need to denounce the actions of the terrorists. This is a double-edged sword. In general, it is felt that the actions of terrorists are not logical and thus any non-Muslim would understand that these actions could derive from this religion. Any logical person understands that any major religion could not condone the evils one sees today. Any twisting of religion is derived from a lust for power, money, etc. For example, the plight of widows in Hinduism does not derive from the true teachings of Hinduism. A good movie about this is Water. There is a scene where a widow asks the priest how could their religion teach this lifestyle for a widow and he replies that this a construct created so that the deceased husband's family no longer has to care for the widow. Many of today's following of the major religions have been twisted over time to suit the lusts (for power, money, etc.) of man. When one goes back to the original message, they are typically very similar whether it be Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, fill in the blank. They all teach that good treatment of your fellow man is the ultimate form of worship of a superior intellect/design. Back to the point, Muslims have a challnege before them and that is to speak for their own religion before allowing someone else with an ulterior motive speak for them (such as much of the media). Bart, I understand your feelings and am not sure if this is the best approach. I do not believe we should be passive, however this is a simple case of the "chickens coming home to roost". We drop 500 lb bombs and behead people in that manner...what do you think the product of this is? I am not sure I have an answer for this, however we are again the cowboy's fighing "those heathen indians". Those that do not learn from history... We have been meddling in Middle East affairs for sveral generations now. There is a cultural divide: the Muslims in the ME look at the decadance of Western culture (MTV, moral liberalism, etc.) and fear it as a threat to their way of life while Western leaders take advantage of the situation and culturally divide and conquer in the ME. My solution is to pull out and stop meddling with ME affairs (world affiars for that matter) and allow neighbors to act as neighbors. If someone threatens or attacks, only then respond with a strong and harsh response. Continuing in this trend of meddling will only leave our children and our children's children to deal with the affects of our actions today. The US is a role model and should never forget this. Muslims must also understand that many of the concepts of Western culture are parallel to those in Islam, we have just forgotten this somehow. As for Zarqawi, let God judge him.

DrWho, I promise this will be my last post on this topic[]...I will clarify something I said in my previous post - the Quran does make mention of "maidens" in Paradise and most Muslims do not take this literally (explains why I had never heard of the 72-virgin topic). Please see the following 2 links for more information (one contains a good explanation of the topic and the other quotes the exact verses - take a look at 55:56). Most Muslims I know have learned that this description of Paradise is merely a figurative description, not a literal one. The common belief is that one exists in a different state in the afterlife and the descriptions/concepts of this world are not applicable in the next. I'll leave this topic alone. http://www.islamfortoday.com/firestone01.htm http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/055.asp Again, I apologize for digressing from the original thread topic, just wanted to clarify.

Virgins? This is the problem with regurgitating what the media provides as "fact". There is no such thing in Islam. I am a Muslim and the first time I heard of the 72-virgins thing was directly after 9/11. If false information is repeated enough times, it becomes fact. No disregard intended travisc, but just wanted to point out this is a common misconception sourced from the media. Islam's concept of paradise is very similar to that presented in other monotheistic religions. I apologize in advance...I did not want to turn this into a religious thread, however just wanted to point out a common false statement.

Thanks. I was beginning to worry I had messed something up when I was switching speakers (and adjusting some of the connections behind my receiver).

Hello, I have a Samsung HL-R5067W Television connected through my Onkyo TX-SR702 Receiver (using component video cables) and I recently noticed a "grainy" look to some movies. I am not sure if this were present before, but just picked up on it. Specifically, while watching War of the Worlds, the picture appears somewhat grainy, particularly in the beginning when the first tripod emerges from under the street and "chases" people. I also noticed it in a few other scenes. I also noticed this in one of Simpson's (the cartoon) DVD's, however do not see this in some of my other movies. Of course, this could be my imagination, but wanted to ask if anyone has had similar experiences, most notably with WOW? I already purchased a new set of component cables and replaced the old ones to see if it made a difference. I noticed all of this after recently replacing my speaker system with the Reference series. I do not believe the speakers and video issue are related, however only noticed it recently. I still need to experiment with a few other movies to see if I can find other examples. Thanks in advance.

Thanks westcott, Your comments are appreciated and I am sure I will do some further "experimentation" with my set-up. I am constantly looking for an "improvement" and I am sure this addiction will lead me to rearranging some of the system. It was just one year ago that I installed my previous system and thought I had an excellent system. Then I went along and recently updated it. []

and the last one...