New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (5863 previous messages)

rshow55 - 03:00pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5864 of 5866) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

From Islamic Beliefs http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/MiddleEast/Beliefs.html

" According to Islamic beliefs, the angel Gabriel visited Mohammed in order that Mohammed might know and declare the will of Allah. The sacred texts of the Muslims, called the Koran, is a record of the meditative utterances of Mohammed that his followers complied after his death in 632 AD. Mohammed never claimed to be divine and is not worshipped as such. In fact, the strict monotheism of Islam will not allow for the worship of any other being but Allah. This monotheistic view took root with Abraham, the great patriarch of the nation of Israel who is considered the first Muslim. Though the Muslims adhere to the authority of the prophets of Judaism and Christianity, they do not look upon Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God, but as a man like any other prophet . Interestingly, followers of Islam do not consider their religion to be completely separate from Christianity and Judaism. Muslims claim to worship the God of the Bible, professing Islam as the ultimate revelation of God.

" Without any concept of a church or priesthood, Muslims reject any kind of hierarchy within their belief system. "

_ _ _ _ _ _

Is there really any reason that this foundation is so inflexible that it is incompatible with modernity - with the humanly reasonable needs of people who follow Islam - and the humanly reasonable needs of people who must live securely in the same world - and have a right to protect themselves?

If the system that has evolved from these foundations has such inflexibilities - are they really justified on religious grounds that truly deserve respect? Or are they justified on grounds that Mohammed himself might laugh at and scorn - if he was alive today?

These are practical as well as religious questions - because they say a great deal about what we are angry about, what we are fighting about, what is unsatisfactory between us, and what might be done about it.

I have a logical point to add. The most fundamental logical operator - the one that matters most is consistency - - is peace, prosperity, and modernity in ways appealing to almost all human beings inconsistent with constraints built into Islam that are valid?

Where exactly? Could it be that somebody's logic is wrong - that religious leaders of Islam, today and in the past - may have been fallible mortals?

I have a feeling, both practical and religious - I don't think Mohammed could approve, or the angel Gabriel could approve, of restrictions that hobble and devalue the lives of the followers of Islam - and make them far, far less as practical human beings than they could otherwise be.

rshow55 - 03:24pm Nov 17, 2002 EST (# 5865 of 5866) Delete Message
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

A Voice to Calm the Angry Americans By ELAINE SCIOLINO http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/17/weekinreview/17WORD.html

KHALED AL-MAEENA, the editor in chief of the English-language Saudi newspaper Arab News, is an unabashed America-lover. He studied in the United States, sent four of his five children to American colleges and, with a tiny budget, built a newspaper staff of young Saudi men and women who are required to speak flawless English.

So when dozens of Americans who read his newspaper on the Internet began to send him hate e-mail after Sept. 11, he fought back with deliberately moderate words.

  • **************

    They are interesting words - and people may reasonably take them seriously.

    But why, exactly, aren't American leaders to take the words of Saddam Hussein seriously? Those words are a large, and I believe justified parts of the reason why Americans are insisting that Saddam disarm, as he has repeatedly agreed to do.

    Consider the Golden Rule - what would Saddam, or many on the "Arab street" do to us? Why not judge that by their words?

    rshow55 11/16/02 10:06am . . .

    Real peacemaking would be a good alternative - and everything for that is in place - negotiated and ready in ample detail.

    If real peacemaking is denied - why not fight?

    More Messages Recent Messages (1 following message)

     Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
     Your Preferences

     [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





  • Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


    Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us