Obama directs NASA to Improve Relations with the Muslim World

SS33, you're toiling on top of the toilet bowl. You missed a spot.Bring something better than that or don't bother.

Well sense Obama isn't closing Gitmo (another broken promise to his loyal followers) he could just have NASA work with the guys there. They could start with the basics of rocket building. Then work up to guiding a rocket with satellite systems (we know they have them because SS provided links). We could allow them to fire off a few testers over Israel because that would really make them like use.
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tracking Barack Obama's Campaign Promises (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/)
119 kept
245 in the works
19 broken
pretty good ratio to me

and...
Obama said after the inauguration that he hoped to close Guantanamo within one year, and administration officials admit they won't make that deadline. During the campaign, Obama gave himself no such deadline, and we're judging him here on his campaign promises. He said he would close Guantanamo Bay, and concrete steps are being taken to do so. The promise remains In the Works.

Bring something better than that or don't bother.

You are all over the place. I don't know whether you think NASA shouldn't be involved in outreach, we shouldn't do outreach at all or limit our outreach? Or perhaps you really think NASA's new primary mission is to appeal to the Muslim World.

I'm no expert on Muslim studies, but there are plenty of folks that are experts in this field that have an opinion similar to mine.

So without going down the whole Islamic extremist hole and completely hijacking the thread, maybe you should read the Koran itself, or books from Robert Spencer (Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine, and has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community). I'd say if the folks that fight terrorism for a living are listening to him, his opinion carries a lot more weight than the opinion of an academic.

Maybe you could ask yourself why sharia law allows for stoning to death of women. People have killed over extreme religious views for thousands of years, I don't recall any evidence of people killing because they felt slighted over acknowledgment of their contirbutions to the world-wide math/science community.

I'm thankful that here we can have this debate, in countries ruled by sharia law I'd be executed. Or I could be just full of $hit and "toiling on top of the toilet bowl".

I have read the Koran, several times actually, just as I have read the Bible several times. I read a lot of literature about religion.

You seem to be confused in terms of experts. Robert Spencer is a consultant regarding how to militarily engage Muslims. John Esposito is an expert on Islamic culture. The two are not the same. And, considering my original point was about Islamic culture, experts on Islamic culture like Esposito and Rohan Gunaratna are the relevant experts for this argument.

We can't beat an enemy that we don't understand. The people who study Islamic cultures know Islamic cultures best. I have indicated some of these people already. Now I am reminded of the saying, "You can lead a horse to water..."

As for your statement about Sharia law, you vastly oversimplify a complex issue. You seem unaware that through most of the Muslim world, those injunctions remain unenforced, just as injunctions to stone people in the Bible are not enforced here. Also, those Americans who use the Bible to support capital punishment are doing a similar thing. Thus the situation regarding Sharia law is much more complex than you indicate. Perhaps you should read someone like John Esposito or Rohan Gunaratna.

As for your statement, "I don't recall any evidence of people killing because they felt slighted over acknowledgment of their contirbutions to the world-wide math/science community," I gave you one example already, although the "slight" is not just over math, it is a holistic felt loss of heritage. And your claim that people don't go to war because they feel that they have been slighted doesn't hold up in the light of history. In other words, I offered you an aspect of a complicated situation and you dumbed it down so that you could dismiss it.

Again, we can't beat an enemy that we don't understand. Educating ourselves about Islam helps to fight terror.

While I am not much of a proponent of feel good nonsense for the sake of it, where nobody keeps score so nobody loses and....feels bad and the whole juice boxes for evereybody mentality, that is not the issue.
The issue is....Why is a space agency doing diplomatic work?
BTW, John Esposito has an opinion. The truth can be more elusive...

I didn't give you a feel-good argument for the sake of it. I gave you an argument based on serious research. I even pointed out who some of the world-recognized experts on the issues are. In other words, I gave you an educated, reasoned argument.

As the old saying goes, "know thy enemy." While experts can be wrong, most of them are right more often. I'm going to learn from them.

You seem to be confused in terms of experts. Robert Spencer is a consultant regarding how to militarily engage Muslims. John Esposito is an expert on Islamic culture. The two are not the same. And, considering my original point was about Islamic culture, experts on Islamic culture like Esposito and Rohan Gunaratna are the relevant experts for this argument.I am not confused at all. Your statement about Spencer is incorrect. He is just as much, if not more an expert on Islam and its culture as Esposito/Gunarantna.

We can't beat an enemy that we don't understand. The people who study Islamic cultures know Islamic cultures best. I have indicated some of these people already. Now I am reminded of the saying, "You can lead a horse to water..."I agree, hence my reading of Spencer and others. And regarding your saying, I'll not drink from your watering hole, thank you. It's quite dangerous IMO.

As for your statement about Sharia law, you vastly oversimplify a complex issue. You seem unaware that through most of the Muslim world, those injunctions remain unenforced, just as injunctions to stone people in the Bible are not enforced here. Also, those Americans who use the Bible to support capital punishment are doing a similar thing. Thus the situation regarding Sharia law is much more complex than you indicate. Perhaps you should read someone like John Esposito or Rohan Gunaratna.This is quite common, equating the actions of violent Muslims to Christianity in some way. Your comparisons are not accurate or relevant.

In other words, I offered you an aspect of a complicated situation and you dumbed it down so that you could dismiss it. Again, we can't beat an enemy that we don't understand.I'm not dumbing anything down. My point with stoning is, it's another instance of Muslim extremeists killing over religious beliefs. And it does occur on a regular basis in countries ruled by sharia law.

Educating ourselves about Islam helps to fight terror.I absolutely agree with your point. I understand your position and have researched the issue over the years since 9/11 as well. I think we are focusing on two different elements within the Muslim community, you're focusing on mainstream Muslims who are peaceful and just want a good life for their families. They may not like the U.S., but no more so than many mainstream people in Europe, China, etc. I'm focusing on the violent extremist minority who you cannot reason with or negotiate with. Unfortunately the violent element has a lot more power in that region because they often reach into the governments and will resort to violence.

You are all over the place. I don't know whether you think NASA shouldn't be involved in outreach, we shouldn't do outreach at all or limit our outreach? Or perhaps you really think NASA's new primary mission is to appeal to the Muslim World.How's this? NASA's job is to do "space stuff". The amount of focus the NASA Administrator should be paying to outreach to Muslim countries should directly correspond to the funding NASA has in its budget for this. The funding amount is zero, so any outreach by the NASA Administrator to the Muslim world should only be incidental and as necessary within the scope of a specific program. It should not be a "top three" priority.

I didn't give you a feel-good argument for the sake of it. I gave you an argument based on serious research. I even pointed out who some of the world-recognized experts on the issues are. In other words, I gave you an educated, reasoned argument.

As the old saying goes, "know thy enemy." While experts can be wrong, most of them are right more often. I'm going to learn from them.
It appears many experts agree we should "know our enemy" and acknowledge it.

FOXNews.com - Terror Experts Blast Obama Move to Drop References to Islamic Extremism (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/12/critics-argue-dropping-talk-islamic-radicalism-say-threat-needs-defined/)

From the link:
(Sen. Joe) "Lieberman raised the issue in a letter to the White House, saying that "the failure to identify our enemy for what it is — violent Islamist extremism — is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence doctrine to 'know your enemy.'"

and...
Obama said after the inauguration that he hoped to close Guantanamo within one year, and administration officials admit they won't make that deadline. During the campaign, Obama gave himself no such deadline, and we're judging him here on his campaign promises. He said he would close Guantanamo Bay, and concrete steps are being taken to do so. The promise remains In the Works.

I still say in two years from now when we are getting geared up for elections Gitmo will still be open.