If we did not allow Muslim foreigners into the United States...........

[Kondor3]

"...You are the one who is pathological. Pathologically so full of hatred you cannot see reason."

No.

Actually, he has a point.

Islam is incompatible with Western Culture, in the final analysis.

The sooner we admit that to ourselves, the safer and happier we will be.

I really and truly wish that this was not the case.

But it is, what it is.

No point wandering-about this life with a pair of touchy-feely blinkers on.

With instantaneous communications and high speed travel, the world has become far too dangerous a place to hide our heads in the sand and pretend those dangers do not exist.

Because they do.

That is not xenophobia.

That is simple truth.

 

[beagle9]

It means you need to put things into perspective and admit that it isn't only Muslims who do violence, who hate, who hijack a religion and do heinous things in the name of God. It means get a fucking brain.

The only perspective I know, is what is happening right now, and not what has happened in the past in which has already been dealt with, nor what had happened in the stone ages either, but what has been happening recently or right now. Got it ?

“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened-that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?...But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated...'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan,'controls the future:who controls the present controls the past.'...All that was needed was a series of victories over your own memory.”
― George Orwell, 1984

What Orwell means is that the 'party,' the totalitarian government in the novel 1984, controls knowledge and awareness of past events, eliminating from the collective memory any events they don't want the current populace to think about. That way, they can control people better. Fortunately, neither you nor your sort have control over the past. We must remember the past so we can live in the present with clarity of mind, with knowledge, with wisdom and vison, so we can understand the present and put events in the here and now into perspective. Shutting out from memory or meaning events of the past allows YOU to control how you see the present, but others who are wiser and more circumspect realize that past events influence and shape the present and the future as well as giving us a broader vision of the human experience and the human condition.

Those of us who accept the past as a part of ourselves and our human commonality realize that the terrorism we see today is the same type of behavior that has been visited upon others by those we consider our people, our antecedents. We realize that all of humanity has done heinous things, that such things are not limited to any one culture, ethnic group, religion, nationality , gender, etc. You can pretend all you want that the past does not matter, but it does. Fortunately, not all people believe as you do, hopefully, not most.

It all depends on how the past is utilized or is being used in context there of, and you know this, but you try and wiggle this away, and wiggle that away in order to make some other big mess of words as so to spin your way around and around or possibly out of this hole you keep digging for yourself, but I see through it all. You are using the past wrongfully (imho), and that is just my opinion of you and your words here. I could understand you referring to the past for an antidote maybe or a judgment maybe in order to get to a final verdict on the acts of those whom are guilty in the current, but you are using the past politically inorder to empower an agenda in which leaves us vulnerable, and that is just wrong or rather a wrongful usage of it.

 

[Esmeralda]

The only perspective I know, is what is happening right now, and not what has happened in the past in which has already been dealt with, nor what had happened in the stone ages either, but what has been happening recently or right now. Got it ?

“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened-that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?...But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated...'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan,'controls the future:who controls the present controls the past.'...All that was needed was a series of victories over your own memory.”
― George Orwell, 1984

What Orwell means is that the 'party,' the totalitarian government in the novel 1984, controls knowledge and awareness of past events, eliminating from the collective memory any events they don't want the current populace to think about. That way, they can control people better. Fortunately, neither you nor your sort have control over the past. We must remember the past so we can live in the present with clarity of mind, with knowledge, with wisdom and vison, so we can understand the present and put events in the here and now into perspective. Shutting out from memory or meaning events of the past allows YOU to control how you see the present, but others who are wiser and more circumspect realize that past events influence and shape the present and the future as well as giving us a broader vision of the human experience and the human condition.

Those of us who accept the past as a part of ourselves and our human commonality realize that the terrorism we see today is the same type of behavior that has been visited upon others by those we consider our people, our antecedents. We realize that all of humanity has done heinous things, that such things are not limited to any one culture, ethnic group, religion, nationality , gender, etc. You can pretend all you want that the past does not matter, but it does. Fortunately, not all people believe as you do, hopefully, not most.

It all depends on how the past is utilized or is being used in context there of, and you know this, but you try and wiggle this away, and wiggle that away in order to make some other big mess of words as so to spin your way around and around or possibly out of this hole you keep digging for yourself, but I see through it all. You are using the past wrongfully (imho), and that is just my opinion of you and your words here. I could understand you referring to the past for an antidote maybe or a judgment maybe in order to get to a final verdict on the acts of those whom are guilty in the current, but you are using the past politically inorder to empower an agenda in which leaves us vulnerable, and that is just wrong or rather a wrongful usage of it.

No, I am not 'using' the past. And it isn't about politics; it is about awareness of the human experience. But I see you don't want to be aware. I see you want only to believe what you want to believe, which is seeing things in simplistic terms and that the here and now is somehow lived in a vacuum that has nothing to do with the past. You say you "see through it all," but you don't see anything, you see a "wall of words,' as you put it, because, apparently, my post is too complex for you to understand. It isn't a wall of words or a big mess; in fact, it is quite simply and directly expressed.

 

[Meathead]

What Orwell means is that the 'party,' the totalitarian government in the novel 1984, controls knowledge and awareness of past events, eliminating from the collective memory any events they don't want the current populace to think about. That way, they can control people better.

No, I am not 'using' the past. And it isn't about politics; it is about awareness of the human experience. But I see you don't want to be aware. I see you want only to believe what you want to believe, which is seeing things in simplistic terms and that the here and now is somehow lived in a vacuum that has nothing to do with the past. You say you "see through it all," but you don't see anything, you see a "wall of words,' as you put it, because, apparently, my post is too complex for you to understand. It isn't a wall of words or a big mess; in fact, it is quite simply and directly expressed.

Esmeralda, you are transparently using the past to justify atrocities in the present. That you state that others see what they want to see and are thus simplistic shows me how little insight you have into yourself. Btw, your posts are not at all too complicated to understand. In fact, as I said they are transparent and indeed simplistic. Furthermore, you presume to interpret a thinker like Orwell as though others are incapable of understanding.

Seriously, you'll find the validation that you so desperately desire coming off as a pompous ditz even on internet sites such as this.

 

[Socio]

"...You are the one who is pathological. Pathologically so full of hatred you cannot see reason."

No.

Actually, he has a point.

Islam is incompatible with Western Culture, in the final analysis.

The sooner we admit that to ourselves, the safer and happier we will be.

I really and truly wish that this was not the case.

But it is, what it is.

No point wandering-about this life with a pair of touchy-feely blinkers on.

With instantaneous communications and high speed travel, the world has become far too dangerous a place to hide our heads in the sand and pretend those dangers do not exist.

Because they do.

That is not xenophobia.

That is simple truth.

I agree, unlike any other religion Islam has three arms, Religious, Military, and Political that are inseparable, under it there can be no separation of Church & State making it incompatible with the Wests definition of a religion.

Perhaps the right step would be to no longer classify it a religion thereby denying it the rights and privileges afforded a religion.

Cut of one arm the other two will go limp.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have completely missed the point of my post.

However, if you want to suggest that the Vietnamese have a grievance against the US for bombing them and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, let's take that point and look at it in regards to Muslims. American has done that and continues to do that now, in the present. They are called, as they were in Vietnam, "collateral damage." The Boston Marathon bomber called those killed "collateral damage." I am IN NO WAY

Your point was rationalizing the deliberate targeting of people by medieval people with medieval minds not as collateral damage, but brought about as a result of perceived historical injustices. My point was that those who seek to improve their lives and not dwell on perverse interpretations of history may do so successfully as the Vietnamese are doing today.

The damage done to the Muslim world is largely self-inflicted and it will continue to be so until they can come to terms with their own role in the catastrophe of so much of their own religion and culture. Wherever Islam borders with other religions in today's world, spanning from the Philippines to Nigeria and Central Asia to Kenya, violence and intolerance are the order of the day.

If it were confined to that huge swath, that would not be of immediate concern to the rest of the world. However, in the name of multiculturalism, significant Muslim population now find themselves embedded in the west and with them have brought a disturbing and suicidal mindset. They should not be given to chance to parasitically infect the far more progressed civilizations in which they have settled. Sweden is an excellent example.

The damage in their case, and I suspect yours, is not "collateral"; rather pathological.

Paranoid, ignorant, bigoted, nonsense.

It is a fundamental fallacy to assume that because a given terrorist is incidentally Muslim that he is representative of all Muslims or Islam as a whole; or that indeed all Muslims condone the criminal acts of terrorists who falsely claim to be acting in accordance with their faith.

And how exactly do you propose that Muslims not “be given to chance to parasitically infect the far more progressed civilizations in which they have settled” without violating the tenets of due process and the rule of law, particularly in the United States where all persons are guaranteed their due process and equal protection rights as mandated by 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Your advocacy that Muslims be subject to punitive measures absent evidence of criminal wrongdoing is offensive to the Constitution, and will bring far greater harm to the Republic than any ‘terrorist.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"...You are the one who is pathological. Pathologically so full of hatred you cannot see reason."

No.

Actually, he has a point.

Islam is incompatible with Western Culture, in the final analysis.

The sooner we admit that to ourselves, the safer and happier we will be.

I really and truly wish that this was not the case.

But it is, what it is.

No point wandering-about this life with a pair of touchy-feely blinkers on.

With instantaneous communications and high speed travel, the world has become far too dangerous a place to hide our heads in the sand and pretend those dangers do not exist.

Because they do.

That is not xenophobia.

That is simple truth.

I agree, unlike any other religion Islam has three arms, Religious, Military, and Political that are inseparable, under it there can be no separation of Church & State making it incompatible with the Wests definition of a religion.

Perhaps the right step would be to no longer classify it a religion thereby denying it the rights and privileges afforded a religion.

Cut of one arm the other two will go limp.

And yet more paranoid, ignorant, bigoted, nonsense.

How exactly would you go about ‘declassifying’ Islam as a religion no longer subject to First Amendment protections. Would you then move forward to pass legislation making the practicing of Islam ‘illegal.’ What would be the penalty for the crime of ‘being Muslim.’

Again, what you and others of your ilk are advocating is the true terrorism.

 

[Meathead]

Paranoid, ignorant, bigoted, nonsense.

It is a fundamental fallacy to assume that because a given terrorist is incidentally Muslim that he is representative of all Muslims or Islam as a whole; or that indeed all Muslims condone the criminal acts of terrorists who falsely claim to be acting in accordance with their faith.

I got through your preface because it was brief , but I've got to call you on the abject idiocy of the rest of your post. USMB may bit be "cerebral center', still, surely our expectations should not be so low.

 

[Beachboy]

Hey BitchyBoi...................what about all the murdering Christians who blew up abortion clinics and shot doctors in their own churches?

Good point. While those who blew up abortion clinics should pay the price in the American legal system, these nut jobs ARE STILL AMERICAN CITIZENS, and have rights. Now, I believe in a woman's right to choose.

Just considering 9-11 alone 2,977 people were killed. All kinds of people at RANDOM. Some were not Americans, most had done nothing offensive to Muslims to receive their death warrant. Deaths of abortion doctors were for a SPECIFIC REASON, and do not come any where near 2,977. So, there is a question of magnitude of the carnage. Foreign Muslims were given an opportunity in America, and seem to have forgotten they are here to LEARN, not TEACH!

I would be interested to see if you could find a link on how many abortion doctors were killed by fanatical extemeists. My guess it under two dozen. Can you provide a link to back up your point?

I guess I would define those who murdered abortion doctors to be "murderers," whereas the 9-11 perps were "terrorists."
​

 

[Beachboy]

The only perspective I know, is what is happening right now, and not what has happened in the past in which has already been dealt with, nor what had happened in the stone ages either, but what has been happening recently or right now. Got it ?

“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened-that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?...But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated...'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan,'controls the future:who controls the present controls the past.'...All that was needed was a series of victories over your own memory.”
― George Orwell, 1984

What Orwell means is that the 'party,' the totalitarian government in the novel 1984, controls knowledge and awareness of past events, eliminating from the collective memory any events they don't want the current populace to think about. That way, they can control people better. Fortunately, neither you nor your sort have control over the past. We must remember the past so we can live in the present with clarity of mind, with knowledge, with wisdom and vison, so we can understand the present and put events in the here and now into perspective. Shutting out from memory or meaning events of the past allows YOU to control how you see the present, but others who are wiser and more circumspect realize that past events influence and shape the present and the future as well as giving us a broader vision of the human experience and the human condition.

Those of us who accept the past as a part of ourselves and our human commonality realize that the terrorism we see today is the same type of behavior that has been visited upon others by those we consider our people, our antecedents. We realize that all of humanity has done heinous things, that such things are not limited to any one culture, ethnic group, religion, nationality , gender, etc. You can pretend all you want that the past does not matter, but it does. Fortunately, not all people believe as you do, hopefully, not most.

It all depends on how the past is utilized or is being used in context there of, and you know this, but you try and wiggle this away, and wiggle that away in order to make some other big mess of words as so to spin your way around and around or possibly out of this hole you keep digging for yourself, but I see through it all. You are using the past wrongfully (imho), and that is just my opinion of you and your words here. I could understand you referring to the past for an antidote maybe or a judgment maybe in order to get to a final verdict on the acts of those whom are guilty in the current, but you are using the past politically inorder to empower an agenda in which leaves us vulnerable, and that is just wrong or rather a wrongful usage of it.

You are so far off-base, I would not even know where to begin my remarks.

But, a picture is worth a thousand words!​

 

[Beachboy]

“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it never happened-that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death?...But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated...'Who controls the past,' ran the Party slogan,'controls the future:who controls the present controls the past.'...All that was needed was a series of victories over your own memory.”
― George Orwell, 1984

What Orwell means is that the 'party,' the totalitarian government in the novel 1984, controls knowledge and awareness of past events, eliminating from the collective memory any events they don't want the current populace to think about. That way, they can control people better. Fortunately, neither you nor your sort have control over the past. We must remember the past so we can live in the present with clarity of mind, with knowledge, with wisdom and vison, so we can understand the present and put events in the here and now into perspective. Shutting out from memory or meaning events of the past allows YOU to control how you see the present, but others who are wiser and more circumspect realize that past events influence and shape the present and the future as well as giving us a broader vision of the human experience and the human condition.

Those of us who accept the past as a part of ourselves and our human commonality realize that the terrorism we see today is the same type of behavior that has been visited upon others by those we consider our people, our antecedents. We realize that all of humanity has done heinous things, that such things are not limited to any one culture, ethnic group, religion, nationality , gender, etc. You can pretend all you want that the past does not matter, but it does. Fortunately, not all people believe as you do, hopefully, not most.

It all depends on how the past is utilized or is being used in context there of, and you know this, but you try and wiggle this away, and wiggle that away in order to make some other big mess of words as so to spin your way around and around or possibly out of this hole you keep digging for yourself, but I see through it all. You are using the past wrongfully (imho), and that is just my opinion of you and your words here. I could understand you referring to the past for an antidote maybe or a judgment maybe in order to get to a final verdict on the acts of those whom are guilty in the current, but you are using the past politically inorder to empower an agenda in which leaves us vulnerable, and that is just wrong or rather a wrongful usage of it.

No, I am not 'using' the past. And it isn't about politics; it is about awareness of the human experience. But I see you don't want to be aware. I see you want only to believe what you want to believe, which is seeing things in simplistic terms and that the here and now is somehow lived in a vacuum that has nothing to do with the past. You say you "see through it all," but you don't see anything, you see a "wall of words,' as you put it, because, apparently, my post is too complex for you to understand. It isn't a wall of words or a big mess; in fact, it is quite simply and directly expressed.

I disagree. It is all about the past. Muslims hold America responsible for the dictatorships in middle east and north African countries. It is all about the politics of oil. The United States would not give a damn about that region IF WE WERE NOT TRYING TO BUY OIL. Our efforts to buy oil have gotten America sucked into a whole bunch of Muslim problems we NEVER had an interest in.

"Awareness of the human experience" sounds like bull shit to me. The U. S. military, and American business run on oil. We have to have it. We are willing to pay for it, and the problem is the Muslim leadership that Muslims people have allowed to run their societies. Things go badly for a dictator, and the solution is to blame America.

Stop reading the ideaology of Khalil Gibran and start reading The Almanac of American History by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.

...........

We live in a jungle of hard-ball, not fantasy fiction.
You bring nothing viable to the table.
​

 

[Beachboy]

You have completely missed the point of my post.

However, if you want to suggest that the Vietnamese have a grievance against the US for bombing them and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, let's take that point and look at it in regards to Muslims. American has done that and continues to do that now, in the present. They are called, as they were in Vietnam, "collateral damage." The Boston Marathon bomber called those killed "collateral damage." I am IN NO WAY

Your point was rationalizing the deliberate targeting of people by medieval people with medieval minds not as collateral damage, but brought about as a result of perceived historical injustices. My point was that those who seek to improve their lives and not dwell on perverse interpretations of history may do so successfully as the Vietnamese are doing today.

The damage done to the Muslim world is largely self-inflicted and it will continue to be so until they can come to terms with their own role in the catastrophe of so much of their own religion and culture. Wherever Islam borders with other religions in today's world, spanning from the Philippines to Nigeria and Central Asia to Kenya, violence and intolerance are the order of the day.

If it were confined to that huge swath, that would not be of immediate concern to the rest of the world. However, in the name of multiculturalism, significant Muslim population now find themselves embedded in the west and with them have brought a disturbing and suicidal mindset. They should not be given to chance to parasitically infect the far more progressed civilizations in which they have settled. Sweden is an excellent example.

The damage in their case, and I suspect yours, is not "collateral"; rather pathological.

Paranoid, ignorant, bigoted, nonsense.

It is a fundamental fallacy to assume that because a given terrorist is incidentally Muslim that he is representative of all Muslims or Islam as a whole; or that indeed all Muslims condone the criminal acts of terrorists who falsely claim to be acting in accordance with their faith.

And how exactly do you propose that Muslims not “be given to chance to parasitically infect the far more progressed civilizations in which they have settled” without violating the tenets of due process and the rule of law, particularly in the United States where all persons are guaranteed their due process and equal protection rights as mandated by 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Your advocacy that Muslims be subject to punitive measures absent evidence of criminal wrongdoing is offensive to the Constitution, and will bring far greater harm to the Republic than any ‘terrorist.’

What planet are you on?

In high school my parents were often out of town on weekends. I would throw parties. Apparently, they were pretty good parties because I ended up Vice-President of the senior class.

When you open your house up, you learn several things;

1). There are the beer mooches who never contribute, but drink plenty.
2). There are the teen women who clean the house, and keep order.
3). There are the troublemakers who usually break something.
4). There are guys who are loyal to you forever because they finally get laid.

It only takes a few parties to figure out who falls into what group. Then you begin to eliminate the invitations to mooches and troublemakers, and reward the cleaners and guys who appreciate your efforts. It is the same with Muslims.

Consider the the United States like your home. It does not take long to figure out who should not be invited to the party!

A successful party, like a country, is all about controlling the guest list.
​

 

[Esmeralda]

It all depends on how the past is utilized or is being used in context there of, and you know this, but you try and wiggle this away, and wiggle that away in order to make some other big mess of words as so to spin your way around and around or possibly out of this hole you keep digging for yourself, but I see through it all. You are using the past wrongfully (imho), and that is just my opinion of you and your words here. I could understand you referring to the past for an antidote maybe or a judgment maybe in order to get to a final verdict on the acts of those whom are guilty in the current, but you are using the past politically inorder to empower an agenda in which leaves us vulnerable, and that is just wrong or rather a wrongful usage of it.

No, I am not 'using' the past. And it isn't about politics; it is about awareness of the human experience. But I see you don't want to be aware. I see you want only to believe what you want to believe, which is seeing things in simplistic terms and that the here and now is somehow lived in a vacuum that has nothing to do with the past. You say you "see through it all," but you don't see anything, you see a "wall of words,' as you put it, because, apparently, my post is too complex for you to understand. It isn't a wall of words or a big mess; in fact, it is quite simply and directly expressed.

I disagree. It is all about the past. Muslims hold America responsible for the dictatorships in middle east and north African countries. It is all about the politics of oil. The United States would not give a damn about that region IF WE WERE NOT TRYING TO BUY OIL. Our efforts to buy oil have gotten America sucked into a whole bunch of Muslim problems we NEVER had an interest in.

"Awareness of the human experience" sounds like bull shit to me. The U. S. military, and American business run on oil. We have to have it. We are willing to pay for it, and the problem is the Muslim leadership that Muslims people have allowed to run their societies. Things go badly for a dictator, and the solution is to blame America.

Stop reading the ideaology of Khalil Gibran and start reading The Almanac of American History by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.We live in a jungle of hard-ball, not fantasy fiction.
You bring nothing viable to the table.
[/CENTER]

I have never read Gibran. I read such people as Orwell, authors whose ideas are highly valued among intelligent, thinking people. I suspose my having 'nothing viable' to add or being a 'ditz' are both statements coming from nimno idiotic male chauvanists. Insults to a woman; it's extremely ironic, idiots like the two of you telling me I don't have the brain power to discuss something with you.Very amusing.

Sorry you find my language pompous; it's just a bit more sophisticated than what you use. I do agree that the US is interested in oil in the ME. They are also interested in placing themselves in the ME strategically as a world power. I have lived in 3 Muslim countries, two in the ME, for a total of six years. I have worked closely on a daily basis with Muslims, and some became good friends. They are not resentful of past imperialism. The extremists and terrorists are hostile due to the Palestinian issue and due to the military actiions in the ME, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are terrorists, however. There are plenty of people who do not agree with US policy here, and plenty who do not agree with Israel's position and actions either. However, they do not believe in terrorism. The vast, vast majority do not agree with, believe in or support terrorism. That is the bottom line.

In addition, if you research statistics in the US as far as violence by Muslims against others and others against Muslims, you would find that it is non-Muslims perpetrating the most violence against Muslims, not the other way around.

Historical significance, which was my point and connected to the allusion from 1984, has to do with putting things into perspective historically. It is a simple point. We cannot forget history if we are to deal intelligently with the present and future. Obviously none of you have read or if you have, did not understand, the passage from 1984. I did explain, but your willful desire to be ignorant, to ignore my points because you simply don't want to think about them, has made it so you missed the point of the post.

I am not using the past to justify anything, a point which I made clear in another post. There is a fundamental difference between justifying behavior and understanding it. Again, somehing which is either beyond your mental capacity, or which you choose to ignore.

 

[Beachboy]

No, I am not 'using' the past. And it isn't about politics; it is about awareness of the human experience. But I see you don't want to be aware. I see you want only to believe what you want to believe, which is seeing things in simplistic terms and that the here and now is somehow lived in a vacuum that has nothing to do with the past. You say you "see through it all," but you don't see anything, you see a "wall of words,' as you put it, because, apparently, my post is too complex for you to understand. It isn't a wall of words or a big mess; in fact, it is quite simply and directly expressed.

I disagree. It is all about the past. Muslims hold America responsible for the dictatorships in middle east and north African countries. It is all about the politics of oil. The United States would not give a damn about that region IF WE WERE NOT TRYING TO BUY OIL. Our efforts to buy oil have gotten America sucked into a whole bunch of Muslim problems we NEVER had an interest in.

"Awareness of the human experience" sounds like bull shit to me. The U. S. military, and American business run on oil. We have to have it. We are willing to pay for it, and the problem is the Muslim leadership that Muslims people have allowed to run their societies. Things go badly for a dictator, and the solution is to blame America.

Stop reading the ideaology of Khalil Gibran and start reading The Almanac of American History by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.We live in a jungle of hard-ball, not fantasy fiction.
You bring nothing viable to the table.
[/CENTER]

I have never read Gibran. I read such people as Orwell, authors whose ideas are highly valued among intelligent, thinking people. I suspose my having 'nothing viable' to add or being a 'ditz' are both statements coming from nimno idiotic male chauvanists. Insults to a woman; it's extremely ironic, idiots like the two of you telling me I don't have the brain power to discuss something with you.Very amusing.

Sorry you find my language pompous; it's just a bit more sophisticated than what you use. I do agree that the US is interested in oil in the ME. They are also interested in placing themselves in the ME strategically as a world power. I have lived in 3 Muslim countries, two in the ME, for a total of six years. I have worked closely on a daily basis with Muslims, and some became good friends. They are not resentful of past imperialism. The extremists and terrorists are hostile due to the Palestinian issue and due to the military actiions in the ME, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are terrorists, however. There are plenty of people who do not agree with US policy here, and plenty who do not agree with Israel's position and actions either. However, they do not believe in terrorism. The vast, vast majority do not agree with, believe in or support terrorism. That is the bottom line.

In addition, if you research statistics in the US as far as violence by Muslims against others and others against Muslims, you would find that it is non-Muslims perpetrating the most violence against Muslims, not the other way around.

Historical significance, which was my point and connected to the allusion from 1984, has to do with putting things into perspective historically. It is a simple point. We cannot forget history if we are to deal intelligently with the present and future. Obviously none of you have read or if you have, did not understand, the passage from 1984. I did explain, but your willful desire to be ignorant, to ignore my points because you simply don't want to think about them, has made it so you missed the point of the post.

I am not using the past to justify anything, a point which I made clear in another post. There is a fundamental difference between justifying behavior and understanding it. Again, somehing which is either beyond your mental capacity, or which you choose to ignore.

Gilbran is hogwash, but some years ago it was the "in" mantra of the left. A fad, a craze, soon to be replaced by some else with an unpronounceable name. In essence you have missed the point. I am saying that ideology is what gets political people in trouble while trying to find workable solutions to problems. Solid problem solving in the hard-ball real world is what is needed. The concept of "Everything for everyone" does not work on a planet with limited resources. We have a natural food chain with some on the top, and others at the bottom. While it can be improved, it can not be changed. You will not be of any help until you learn to build within the system.

To be more direct. Your pontification helps no one. Read some world history and get back to me.

World history is the story of survival of the fittest. It is a jungle out there, accept it, and develop a plan.
​

 

[Pogo]

I disagree. It is all about the past. Muslims hold America responsible for the dictatorships in middle east and north African countries. It is all about the politics of oil. The United States would not give a damn about that region IF WE WERE NOT TRYING TO BUY OIL. Our efforts to buy oil have gotten America sucked into a whole bunch of Muslim problems we NEVER had an interest in.

"Awareness of the human experience" sounds like bull shit to me. The U. S. military, and American business run on oil. We have to have it. We are willing to pay for it, and the problem is the Muslim leadership that Muslims people have allowed to run their societies. Things go badly for a dictator, and the solution is to blame America.

Stop reading the ideaology of Khalil Gibran and start reading The Almanac of American History by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.We live in a jungle of hard-ball, not fantasy fiction.
You bring nothing viable to the table.
[/CENTER]

I have never read Gibran. I read such people as Orwell, authors whose ideas are highly valued among intelligent, thinking people. I suspose my having 'nothing viable' to add or being a 'ditz' are both statements coming from nimno idiotic male chauvanists. Insults to a woman; it's extremely ironic, idiots like the two of you telling me I don't have the brain power to discuss something with you.Very amusing.

Sorry you find my language pompous; it's just a bit more sophisticated than what you use. I do agree that the US is interested in oil in the ME. They are also interested in placing themselves in the ME strategically as a world power. I have lived in 3 Muslim countries, two in the ME, for a total of six years. I have worked closely on a daily basis with Muslims, and some became good friends. They are not resentful of past imperialism. The extremists and terrorists are hostile due to the Palestinian issue and due to the military actiions in the ME, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are terrorists, however. There are plenty of people who do not agree with US policy here, and plenty who do not agree with Israel's position and actions either. However, they do not believe in terrorism. The vast, vast majority do not agree with, believe in or support terrorism. That is the bottom line.

In addition, if you research statistics in the US as far as violence by Muslims against others and others against Muslims, you would find that it is non-Muslims perpetrating the most violence against Muslims, not the other way around.

Historical significance, which was my point and connected to the allusion from 1984, has to do with putting things into perspective historically. It is a simple point. We cannot forget history if we are to deal intelligently with the present and future. Obviously none of you have read or if you have, did not understand, the passage from 1984. I did explain, but your willful desire to be ignorant, to ignore my points because you simply don't want to think about them, has made it so you missed the point of the post.

I am not using the past to justify anything, a point which I made clear in another post. There is a fundamental difference between justifying behavior and understanding it. Again, somehing which is either beyond your mental capacity, or which you choose to ignore.

Gilbran is hogwash, but some years ago it was the "in" mantra of the left. A fad, a craze, soon to be replaced by some else with an unpronounceable name. In essence you have missed the point. I am saying that ideology is what gets political people in trouble while trying to find workable solutions to problems. Solid problem solving in the hard-ball real world is what is needed. The concept of "Everything for everyone" does not work on a planet with limited resources. We have a natural food chain with some on the top, and others at the bottom. While it can be improved, it can not be changed. You will not be of any help until you learn to build within the system.

To be more direct. Your pontification helps no one. Read some world history and get back to me.

World history is the story of survival of the fittest. It is a jungle out there, accept it, and develop a plan.
​

Gibran was a artist, you flaming ignorant knuckledragger. Your "fad" is the third most published poet of all time after Lao Tzu and William Shakespeare. And a Christian, so he doesn't fit your fantasy anyway. What's your lack of point?

 

[beagle9]

You have completely missed the point of my post.

However, if you want to suggest that the Vietnamese have a grievance against the US for bombing them and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians, let's take that point and look at it in regards to Muslims. American has done that and continues to do that now, in the present. They are called, as they were in Vietnam, "collateral damage." The Boston Marathon bomber called those killed "collateral damage." I am IN NO WAY

Your point was rationalizing the deliberate targeting of people by medieval people with medieval minds not as collateral damage, but brought about as a result of perceived historical injustices. My point was that those who seek to improve their lives and not dwell on perverse interpretations of history may do so successfully as the Vietnamese are doing today.

The damage done to the Muslim world is largely self-inflicted and it will continue to be so until they can come to terms with their own role in the catastrophe of so much of their own religion and culture. Wherever Islam borders with other religions in today's world, spanning from the Philippines to Nigeria and Central Asia to Kenya, violence and intolerance are the order of the day.

If it were confined to that huge swath, that would not be of immediate concern to the rest of the world. However, in the name of multiculturalism, significant Muslim population now find themselves embedded in the west and with them have brought a disturbing and suicidal mindset. They should not be given to chance to parasitically infect the far more progressed civilizations in which they have settled. Sweden is an excellent example.

The damage in their case, and I suspect yours, is not "collateral"; rather pathological.

Paranoid, ignorant, bigoted, nonsense.

It is a fundamental fallacy to assume that because a given terrorist is incidentally Muslim that he is representative of all Muslims or Islam as a whole; or that indeed all Muslims condone the criminal acts of terrorists who falsely claim to be acting in accordance with their faith.

And how exactly do you propose that Muslims not “be given to chance to parasitically infect the far more progressed civilizations in which they have settled” without violating the tenets of due process and the rule of law, particularly in the United States where all persons are guaranteed their due process and equal protection rights as mandated by 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

Your advocacy that Muslims be subject to punitive measures absent evidence of criminal wrongdoing is offensive to the Constitution, and will bring far greater harm to the Republic than any ‘terrorist.’

And yet another one who ignores the reality of the situation again, and yet again...Hasan was one of the worse types to commit an act of terror/violence in this nation, for whom was found killing Americans under this Islam chanting crowd of terrorist murderors in which we have been encountering in the world. Why was he so bad ? It's because he had gotten himself on the inside, in which is where no one suspected him, then he unleashed his fury on the unsuspected innocents. This is their M.O. where as they befriend or get others to help befriend all of us whom they hate, then they position themselves for maximum damage from within. Was watching the Vietnam conflict on NatGeo today, and I couldn't help but sit back and maybe draw a conclusion that the libs caused us to lose that war for those poor souls in that nation, infact they may be signatured in many situations that we have encountered, and this all due their weak backbones or spines they seem to have. If not, then the government done a good job of casting blame on them for much of our losses looking back to the vietnam conflict and now beyond that into what is taking place in this nation to date.

 

[beagle9]

No, I am not 'using' the past. And it isn't about politics; it is about awareness of the human experience. But I see you don't want to be aware. I see you want only to believe what you want to believe, which is seeing things in simplistic terms and that the here and now is somehow lived in a vacuum that has nothing to do with the past. You say you "see through it all," but you don't see anything, you see a "wall of words,' as you put it, because, apparently, my post is too complex for you to understand. It isn't a wall of words or a big mess; in fact, it is quite simply and directly expressed.

I disagree. It is all about the past. Muslims hold America responsible for the dictatorships in middle east and north African countries. It is all about the politics of oil. The United States would not give a damn about that region IF WE WERE NOT TRYING TO BUY OIL. Our efforts to buy oil have gotten America sucked into a whole bunch of Muslim problems we NEVER had an interest in.

"Awareness of the human experience" sounds like bull shit to me. The U. S. military, and American business run on oil. We have to have it. We are willing to pay for it, and the problem is the Muslim leadership that Muslims people have allowed to run their societies. Things go badly for a dictator, and the solution is to blame America.

Stop reading the ideaology of Khalil Gibran and start reading The Almanac of American History by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.We live in a jungle of hard-ball, not fantasy fiction.
You bring nothing viable to the table.
[/CENTER]

I have never read Gibran. I read such people as Orwell, authors whose ideas are highly valued among intelligent, thinking people. I suspose my having 'nothing viable' to add or being a 'ditz' are both statements coming from nimno idiotic male chauvanists. Insults to a woman; it's extremely ironic, idiots like the two of you telling me I don't have the brain power to discuss something with you.Very amusing.

Sorry you find my language pompous; it's just a bit more sophisticated than what you use. I do agree that the US is interested in oil in the ME. They are also interested in placing themselves in the ME strategically as a world power. I have lived in 3 Muslim countries, two in the ME, for a total of six years. I have worked closely on a daily basis with Muslims, and some became good friends. They are not resentful of past imperialism. The extremists and terrorists are hostile due to the Palestinian issue and due to the military actiions in the ME, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are terrorists, however. There are plenty of people who do not agree with US policy here, and plenty who do not agree with Israel's position and actions either. However, they do not believe in terrorism. The vast, vast majority do not agree with, believe in or support terrorism. That is the bottom line.

In addition, if you research statistics in the US as far as violence by Muslims against others and others against Muslims, you would find that it is non-Muslims perpetrating the most violence against Muslims, not the other way around.

Historical significance, which was my point and connected to the allusion from 1984, has to do with putting things into perspective historically. It is a simple point. We cannot forget history if we are to deal intelligently with the present and future. Obviously none of you have read or if you have, did not understand, the passage from 1984. I did explain, but your willful desire to be ignorant, to ignore my points because you simply don't want to think about them, has made it so you missed the point of the post.

I am not using the past to justify anything, a point which I made clear in another post. There is a fundamental difference between justifying behavior and understanding it. Again, somehing which is either beyond your mental capacity, or which you choose to ignore.

Question then, lets say if I were to go over to your house, and I was to try and do business with you, and you wanted to do business with me, but your followers outside hated that you did business with me, so they want you to be removed as their leader or worse they want you dead, and they also now want me dead to (the visitor), but you are the leader and rebuke their wanting this, so they start killing all around you as a message onto you, but they donot kill you as of yet, so next you ask for help in this struggle, and so we help you and your supporters along with your house staff because we believe in you and your people. Next we find ourselves killing and fighting some tough fights out in the yards outside the house, and this in order to keep the house safe, but in this action it angers more and more of those whom have rose up against the dealings between the leader of the house, and also the visitor whom has come to the house on business, and on good measure this day.

Ok now we have come back home, and there are some whom want to come here to, and we think well in tradition there of, and because anyone whom wants to be free then we are all for them, so lets let them in these people, now (open the gates), and in comes the TROJAN HORSE right ? Is this a good thing that America seems to be using no good common sense on these days ?

Lord let thine enemy be thy stranger, in which I can see him coming for me, and not my brother in which I cannot see him coming for me.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I disagree. It is all about the past. Muslims hold America responsible for the dictatorships in middle east and north African countries. It is all about the politics of oil. The United States would not give a damn about that region IF WE WERE NOT TRYING TO BUY OIL. Our efforts to buy oil have gotten America sucked into a whole bunch of Muslim problems we NEVER had an interest in.

"Awareness of the human experience" sounds like bull shit to me. The U. S. military, and American business run on oil. We have to have it. We are willing to pay for it, and the problem is the Muslim leadership that Muslims people have allowed to run their societies. Things go badly for a dictator, and the solution is to blame America.

Stop reading the ideaology of Khalil Gibran and start reading The Almanac of American History by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.We live in a jungle of hard-ball, not fantasy fiction.
You bring nothing viable to the table.
[/CENTER]

I have never read Gibran. I read such people as Orwell, authors whose ideas are highly valued among intelligent, thinking people. I suspose my having 'nothing viable' to add or being a 'ditz' are both statements coming from nimno idiotic male chauvanists. Insults to a woman; it's extremely ironic, idiots like the two of you telling me I don't have the brain power to discuss something with you.Very amusing.

Sorry you find my language pompous; it's just a bit more sophisticated than what you use. I do agree that the US is interested in oil in the ME. They are also interested in placing themselves in the ME strategically as a world power. I have lived in 3 Muslim countries, two in the ME, for a total of six years. I have worked closely on a daily basis with Muslims, and some became good friends. They are not resentful of past imperialism. The extremists and terrorists are hostile due to the Palestinian issue and due to the military actiions in the ME, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are terrorists, however. There are plenty of people who do not agree with US policy here, and plenty who do not agree with Israel's position and actions either. However, they do not believe in terrorism. The vast, vast majority do not agree with, believe in or support terrorism. That is the bottom line.

In addition, if you research statistics in the US as far as violence by Muslims against others and others against Muslims, you would find that it is non-Muslims perpetrating the most violence against Muslims, not the other way around.

Historical significance, which was my point and connected to the allusion from 1984, has to do with putting things into perspective historically. It is a simple point. We cannot forget history if we are to deal intelligently with the present and future. Obviously none of you have read or if you have, did not understand, the passage from 1984. I did explain, but your willful desire to be ignorant, to ignore my points because you simply don't want to think about them, has made it so you missed the point of the post.

I am not using the past to justify anything, a point which I made clear in another post. There is a fundamental difference between justifying behavior and understanding it. Again, somehing which is either beyond your mental capacity, or which you choose to ignore.

Gilbran is hogwash, but some years ago it was the "in" mantra of the left. A fad, a craze, soon to be replaced by some else with an unpronounceable name. In essence you have missed the point. I am saying that ideology is what gets political people in trouble while trying to find workable solutions to problems. Solid problem solving in the hard-ball real world is what is needed. The concept of "Everything for everyone" does not work on a planet with limited resources. We have a natural food chain with some on the top, and others at the bottom. While it can be improved, it can not be changed. You will not be of any help until you learn to build within the system.

To be more direct. Your pontification helps no one. Read some world history and get back to me.

World history is the story of survival of the fittest. It is a jungle out there, accept it, and develop a plan.
​

So...............lemmie get this straight BitchBoi.................you've never read Gilbran, yet you seem to think you know what he's all about because you heard some kind of talking point in your little circle of how it's a "left mantra".

The Prophet is actually a pretty decent book, I've actually read it, and a lot of the philosophy is quite peaceful, and the story is pretty decent.

As far as it being a passing fad of the left? Might wanna check again..............

Synopsis [edit]

The prophet, Almustafa, has lived in the foreign city of Orphalese for 12 years and is about to board a ship which will carry him home. He is stopped by a group of people, with whom he discusses topics such as life and the human condition. The book is divided into chapters dealing with love, marriage, children, giving, eating and drinking, work, joy and sorrow, houses, clothes, buying and selling, crime and punishment, laws, freedom, reason and passion, pain, self-knowledge, teaching, friendship, talking, time, good and evil, prayer, pleasure, beauty, religion, and death.

Popularity [edit]

Research on sales figures is difficult to come by, but Khalil Gibran is a very widely read poet in modern history, having been translated into well over 40 languages.[4] The Prophet is in its 163rd printing and has sold over 100 million copies[citation needed] since its original publication in 1923.[4] The Prophet is consistently in the best selling category (overall) at Amazon.[5] The Prophet is one of the best-selling books of all time.[citation needed]

Of a rather ambitious first printing of 2,000 in 1923, Knopf sold 1,159 copies. The demand for The Prophet doubled the following year — and doubled again the year after that. Since then, annual sales have risen steadily: from 12,000 in 1935 to 111,000 in 1961 to 240,000 in 1965. Worldwide, The Prophet sells more than 5000 copies a week.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prophet_(book)

 

[Beachboy]

I have never read Gibran. I read such people as Orwell, authors whose ideas are highly valued among intelligent, thinking people. I suspose my having 'nothing viable' to add or being a 'ditz' are both statements coming from nimno idiotic male chauvanists. Insults to a woman; it's extremely ironic, idiots like the two of you telling me I don't have the brain power to discuss something with you.Very amusing.

Sorry you find my language pompous; it's just a bit more sophisticated than what you use. I do agree that the US is interested in oil in the ME. They are also interested in placing themselves in the ME strategically as a world power. I have lived in 3 Muslim countries, two in the ME, for a total of six years. I have worked closely on a daily basis with Muslims, and some became good friends. They are not resentful of past imperialism. The extremists and terrorists are hostile due to the Palestinian issue and due to the military actiions in the ME, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. These people are terrorists, however. There are plenty of people who do not agree with US policy here, and plenty who do not agree with Israel's position and actions either. However, they do not believe in terrorism. The vast, vast majority do not agree with, believe in or support terrorism. That is the bottom lin
, if you research statistics in the US as far as violence by Muslims against others and others against Muslims, you would find that it is non-Muslims perpetrating the most violence against Muslims, not the other way around.

Historical significance, which was my point and connected to the allusion from 1984, has to do with putting things into perspective historically. It is a simple point. We cannot forget history if we are to deal intelligently with the present and future. Obviously none of you have read or if you have, did not understand, the passage from 1984. I did explain, but your willful desire to be ignorant, to ignore my points because you simply don't want to think about them, has made it so you missed the point of the post.

I am not using the past to justify anything, a point which I made clear in another post. There is a fundamental difference between justifying behavior and understanding it. Again, somehing which is either beyond your mental capacity, or which you choose to ignore.

Gilbran is hogwash, but some years ago it was the "in" mantra of the left. A fad, a craze, soon to be replaced by some else with an unpronounceable name. In essence you have missed the point. I am saying that ideology is what gets political people in trouble while trying to find workable solutions to problems. Solid problem solving in the hard-ball real world is what is needed. The concept of "Everything for everyone" does not work on a planet with limited resources. We have a natural food chain with some on the top, and others at the bottom. While it can be improved, it can not be changed. You will not be of any help until you learn to build within the system.

To be more direct. Your pontification helps no one. Read some world history and get back to me.

World history is the story of survival of the fittest. It is a jungle out there, accept it, and develop a plan.
​

So...............lemmie get this straight BitchBoi.................you've never read Gilbran, yet you seem to think you know what he's all about because you heard some kind of talking point in your little circle of how it's a "left mantra".

The Prophet is actually a pretty decent book, I've actually read it, and a lot of the philosophy is quite peaceful, and the story is pretty decent.

As far as it being a passing fad of the left? Might wanna check again..............

Synopsis [edit]

The prophet, Almustafa, has lived in the foreign city of Orphalese for 12 years and is about to board a ship which will carry him home. He is stopped by a group of people, with whom he discusses topics such as life and the human condition. The book is divided into chapters dealing with love, marriage, children, giving, eating and drinking, work, joy and sorrow, houses, clothes, buying and selling, crime and punishment, laws, freedom, reason and passion, pain, self-knowledge, teaching, friendship, talking, time, good and evil, prayer, pleasure, beauty, religion, and death.

Popularity [edit]

Research on sales figures is difficult to come by, but Khalil Gibran is a very widely read poet in modern history, having been translated into well over 40 languages.[4] The Prophet is in its 163rd printing and has sold over 100 million copies[citation needed] since its original publication in 1923.[4] The Prophet is consistently in the best selling category (overall) at Amazon.[5] The Prophet is one of the best-selling books of all time.[citation needed]

Of a rather ambitious first printing of 2,000 in 1923, Knopf sold 1,159 copies. The demand for The Prophet doubled the following year — and doubled again the year after that. Since then, annual sales have risen steadily: from 12,000 in 1935 to 111,000 in 1961 to 240,000 in 1965. Worldwide, The Prophet sells more than 5000 copies a week.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prophet_(book)

And, another one misses the point. I read 'The Profit' when I was a young liberal. In fact I leafed through it the other day which is why I brought it into this thread.

We live in a world of hard-ball politics. We always have. In the real world it is called "an eye for an eye." It is now an everyday occurrence. If you want the key to civilization read world history. Save Gilbran for your casual fiction reading.

As an independent voter it is time for me to quote Winston Churchill, AGAIN.

"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill
​

 

[ABikerSailor]

Gilbran is hogwash, but some years ago it was the "in" mantra of the left. A fad, a craze, soon to be replaced by some else with an unpronounceable name. In essence you have missed the point. I am saying that ideology is what gets political people in trouble while trying to find workable solutions to problems. Solid problem solving in the hard-ball real world is what is needed. The concept of "Everything for everyone" does not work on a planet with limited resources. We have a natural food chain with some on the top, and others at the bottom. While it can be improved, it can not be changed. You will not be of any help until you learn to build within the system.

To be more direct. Your pontification helps no one. Read some world history and get back to me.

World history is the story of survival of the fittest. It is a jungle out there, accept it, and develop a plan.
​

So...............lemmie get this straight BitchBoi.................you've never read Gilbran, yet you seem to think you know what he's all about because you heard some kind of talking point in your little circle of how it's a "left mantra".

The Prophet is actually a pretty decent book, I've actually read it, and a lot of the philosophy is quite peaceful, and the story is pretty decent.

As far as it being a passing fad of the left? Might wanna check again..............

Synopsis [edit]

The prophet, Almustafa, has lived in the foreign city of Orphalese for 12 years and is about to board a ship which will carry him home. He is stopped by a group of people, with whom he discusses topics such as life and the human condition. The book is divided into chapters dealing with love, marriage, children, giving, eating and drinking, work, joy and sorrow, houses, clothes, buying and selling, crime and punishment, laws, freedom, reason and passion, pain, self-knowledge, teaching, friendship, talking, time, good and evil, prayer, pleasure, beauty, religion, and death.

Popularity [edit]

Research on sales figures is difficult to come by, but Khalil Gibran is a very widely read poet in modern history, having been translated into well over 40 languages.[4] The Prophet is in its 163rd printing and has sold over 100 million copies[citation needed] since its original publication in 1923.[4] The Prophet is consistently in the best selling category (overall) at Amazon.[5] The Prophet is one of the best-selling books of all time.[citation needed]

Of a rather ambitious first printing of 2,000 in 1923, Knopf sold 1,159 copies. The demand for The Prophet doubled the following year — and doubled again the year after that. Since then, annual sales have risen steadily: from 12,000 in 1935 to 111,000 in 1961 to 240,000 in 1965. Worldwide, The Prophet sells more than 5000 copies a week.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Prophet_(book)

And, another one misses the point. I read 'The Profit' when I was a young liberal. In fact I leafed through it the other day which is why I brought it into this thread.

We live in a world of hard-ball politics. We always have. In the real world it is called "an eye for an eye." It is now an everyday occurrence. If you want the key to civilization read world history. Save Gilbran for your casual fiction reading.

Time for me to quote Winston Churchill, AGAIN.

Might wanna check where the quote "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" comes from, as well as what the people (Jews) who wrote that quote actually meant by it.

An eye for an eye means that if you injure someone and incapacitate them from doing their work, you have to compensate them for not only the injury that you brought upon them, but, if say...............they used their eyes as part of their livelihood, you had an obligation to pay for the work that they have lost as a result of that injury.

It's not quite the bloodthirsty idea that you think it is.

And by the way.....................the title is "The PROPHET", not "The Profit". I don't think his main reason for writing that book was to make money, as much as it was a statement on what Gilbran thought of the way people treated each other. Might wanna look into him being considered a rebel by many of the Muslim world.