Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Animalman, I think I've already answered virtually all your points in my previous posts.



I've read through all the posts in this thread. I think we've touched on some of the points, but haven't really resolved any.

Quote:

It's still a stretch to compare Hitler to Islamic fundamentalism, beyond their murderous tendency to kill dissenters to their cause. But Hitler's alleged fervent Christianity is baseless and scriptureless (as I already said).



Baseless? Hardly, he goes on and on and on about his religious beliefs. Whether or not he quotes scripture continuously is beside the point. Religion is a lot more than a series of quotes.

In Hitler's Mein Kampf, he does, infact, quote the Bible, and states that the basis of his beliefs are consistent with that of a Christian. Furthermore, he says:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Clearly a profession of his beliefs as a Christian. Now, while I do think that he distorted the message of Christianity to fit his own agenda, it's quite clear(to me, at least) that he did infact believe he was doing what was right, on the basis of being a Christian.

Yes, he did kill Christians, too, but he only killed those that he thought weren't fit to be a part of his new Arian society. They "weren't Christian enough", essentially. The same holds true for the Christian officials he criticized later on for not supporting his call for war. It doesn't prove that he wasn't a religious person, I just think it proves that he was so crazy he turned on everyone around him, alienating himself(and his followers) from the rest of the world.

Quote:

I completely disagree with your assertion that the a vast percentage of the Muslim world does not eagerly embrace terrorism and Jihad, and support it with grassroots fundraising and active support. Saudi Arabia's imams had a broadcast telethon to support Palestinian terrorism, for God's sake.



Even if we were to assume that the Arabic Muslims were supportive of terrorism(and assumption that can hardly be made by local broadcasts, broadcasts that are controlled by the powerful, not by the majority), the Arabs make up only a small percentage of the Muslim people around the world.

Outside of this region(one that has been decimated by war and violence for so long it's not hard to see why such acts might be embraced), it becomes increasingly clear that the number of violent supporters lessen. For every 60 minutes interviewee, I can cite educated individuals in direct opposition to Bin Laden's Jihad.

And speaking of education, is it possible that the reason Bin Laden has so many supporters in Saudi Arabia is that the people aren't receiving truthful information? In one of the articles I linked in my last post there was a man interviewed who said he supported Bin Laden because he had yet to see evidence linking him to 9/11.

Is it possible that these people believe Bin Laden is a hero....because that's exactly what they're being told? After all, who controls the flow of information in these poor regions? How much do they really know? They know that Osama Bin Laden claims America's capitalist ways are destroying Islam, and they also probably know that we've invaded their Holy Land, in essence violating what they consider to be sacred. In such a scenario, who would you believe?

This is, for the most part, speculation on my part. I'm merely trying to provide different points of view, here, looking at "the bigger picture". I certainly have an easier time digesting a theory like this than I do the one you're presenting.

Quote:

It seems to me that your arguments try to intellectualize the issue with academic writings, and deny the obvious active widespread popular Muslim support of terrorism.



That's the problem. I don't see it as obvious. I consider the opinions of scholars to be more reliable than random people shown on 60 minutes or Dateline or other supposedly "non-partisan" TV shows because the scholars are often those who have studied Islam, it's believers, and it's affect on society for years; some devote their life to it. I'd like to believe that they would have a better idea of what the general Muslim population thinks of Osama Bin Laden.

Quote:

Your assertion that Wahabism is not connected to al Qaida, is likewise a skillful circumventing of the truth.



I'm not asserting that. This is just clearly what they themselves are saying.

Quote:

Al Qaida has long been recognized as a terrorist sect that has sprung from Wahabist missionary teachings in Afghanistan.



Well, the information on that website seems to suggest that that recognization, while common, is ultimately false.

Quote:

Again, I refer to to the story on Saudi Arabia in TIME, "Do We Still Need the Saudis", in the August 5, 2002 issue, exploring Saudi Islamic clerics's active cultivation and financial support of terrorism, and Wahabism in particular.



I'll have to check that issue out.

Quote:

You constantly mouth anti-American rhetoric



No. No, I do not. I'm simply stating what the common conception of America is. Just ask some of the foreigners here on this very message board, like Dave or Mxy. More than 85% of Chile(Mxy's home) was opposed to the U.S invasion of Iraq. This does not mean such countries are "anti-American". Disagreeing with a person(or a group of people)'s actions, and being "against" that person aren't the same thing.

I am not taking sides on the issue. I'm just presenting the evidence in as impartial a fashion as I am capable of, for argument's sake. That being said, yes, I do still have my bias, my leanings, my slant, as do we all.

I am not "anti-American". I almost feel silly having to even type that. Frankly, I wouldn't know how to go about being anti-American. It's who I am. I was born here, I've lived here my entire life, and I certainly don't regret that fact.

Quote:

You say that as if you're stating that as what they believe, but you ambiguously imply that you believe that yourself.



You're close to opening quite a can of worms here, Dave. I have to admit that one of my biggest pet peeves is having other people assume something about me and my thought processes without proper evidence. I cannot stand that. It infuriates me.

If I imply anything when in these conversations, it is that, in an argument, I am inclined to present opposing viewpoints, if I feel they might hold water. By presenting them, I am not pledging my own allegiance. I'm just the type of person who tries to examine as many different angles as possible in every discussion. I can tell you that I've held this same discussion from the opposing viewpoint, while talking with some of my more fiercely liberal friends.

If I wish to disclose my personal feelings on a matter, rest assured that(unless I think it's self explanatory) I shall prefice my statements with "I think", or someting similar. I'll make it blatantly obvious when I'm sharing my thoughts, and, from now on, I'd appreciate it if you'd respect that. In return, I shall try my best to reciprocate.

Quote:

And I've seen comments by you on other topics that are very pessimistic about American motives and basic nature.



I question that which I feel I must, and I make no apologies for that. If anything, I think that makes me a good American, and, to be honest, a more enlightened person. It is my greatest wish that the world will never reach a point where thinking for yourself becomes unfashionable, or something to be scorned. I don't feel entitled to speculate on whether or not that point already has been reached.

Quote:

Which again ignores many facts. That our foreign intervention is not out of the blue, but a U.S. reaction to Arab aggression



Without suggesting that I lend my support to either side of this issue, let me just say that your statement there(that the reason the U.S is intervening in foreign affairs is to react) is not a fact, but an opinion. An opinion that I do not ignore, but rather examine in relation with other opinions.

And, in any event, U.S intervention in the Middle East is another issue entirely, and one that I've already discussed to death elsewhere.

Quote:

It is not because of American action that Arabs hate the United States. That is merely a rationalization for violence. It is because of hate propaganda in the Arab world, no matter what the United States does.



Then why is it that America was the target of such hate propaganda to begin with?

Quote:

Islamic violence is rampant. And it is utter blindness not to credit this violence as originating from Islamic religion and teaching.



I do not deny that such violence stems from origins of an Islamic nature. I simply don't believe that because something has produced violence(with other factors being involved), it must, therefore, be violent itself.

Last edited by Animalman; 2004-01-25 6:51 AM.
MisterJLA is RACKing awesome.