A "religion of peace," says President Bush about Islam. But investigative journalist Robert Spencer, in his new book "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West," argues that what we call "Islamic extremism" stems from a straightforward reading of the Koran and interpretative Islamic texts.
Spencer argues that:
There are millions of peaceful Muslims . . . but the fact is that radical Muslims are using core texts of Islam that are deeply rooted in Islamic theology, tradition, history and law to justify their actions, and those radical Muslims are able to recruit and motivate terrorists around the world by appealing to these core Islamic texts. . . . As far as the radical, violent elements of the religion go, they are very deeply rooted, and we are naive in the extreme if we don't recognize that and try to get moderate Muslims to acknowledge it so that real reform can take place.
He notes that the Koran provides, for example, that:
Muslims must present non-Muslims with the three choices of Sura 9:29 of the (Koran): conversion, submission with second-class status under Islamic rule, or death...This is a deeply rooted tradition in Islam. Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine theology in law that mandates violence against non-believers.
Not all Muslims take it seriously, but the radicals do, and they are working to recruit and motivate terrorists. So . . . whenever anybody says we want to institute Sharia Islamic law in a country, they mean these laws. They do not provide for the equality of rights and dignity of non-Muslims in a Muslim society . . . (but) mandate just the opposite -- that non-Muslims are not to be given equality of rights, but denied various jobs because they're not allowed to hold authority over Muslims.
He goes on to state:
The only Koran that really matters is what's in Arabic, because as far as traditional Islamic theology goes, Allah . . . was speaking to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel, and the language is intrinsic, can't be separated from the message. The fact is that what's in Arabic is very clear . . . but in two opposite directions. What you have are very many verses of peace and tolerance, and also very many verses sanctioning and mandating violence against non-believers. . . .
You find many moderate Muslim spokesmen and American-Muslim advocates in this country, who quote you the peaceful and tolerant verses, and no reference to the violent verses. . . . When you read Islamic theologians themselves . . . you find they actually confront this problem directly. . . . Some of the most respected thinkers in Islamic history say that when you come upon these kinds of disagreements -- where you see peace in one place and violence in the other -- you have to go with what was revealed last, that cancels out what was revealed before. Unfortunately, for the moderates, the violent verses were revealed later and they cancel out the peaceful ones -- but you won't hear this from the American Muslim advocacy groups. . . .
He concludes:
What we need to see is a forthright acknowledgement of it and reform from moderate Muslims themselves, the same way that the Pope has apologized for the Crusades and Christianity at large . . . has repudiated the theology that gave rise to them. So we need to see . . . moderates on a large scale repudiating the theology that has led to violent jihad, which the radicals are using to justify their actions.
Just the fact that the Jihad is part of the religion makes me believe that no, it is not a religion of peace. Peaceful people might subscribe to the religion, but the religion itself is not one of peace.
I read a theory once that all religions go through a "growth" phase or something in which they are warlike and then, hopefully calm down. The proponent of the theory postulated that Christianity and Judaism had their phases already and Islam was in its now.
Of course, that doesn't explain the Moorish invasion of half of Europe....
In fact, others postulate that the violent side of Christianity, ie, the crusades was a direct defensive response to a threat posed by violent Islamic expansionism across that section of the globe.
Quote: rex said: Are their any religions of peace? Does anyone remember the crusades?
In the Torah, Jews are commanded to exterminate the evil nation of Amalek, which attacked us immediately after we left Egypt (this commandment is not applicable today because it's impossible to tell in this day and age who's a member of Amalek.) We were told to conquer the land of Israel and purge it of idolatry. There's even a whole chapter dedicated to the rules of war. Several of our holidays like Hannukah and Purim are dedicated to fighting for our survival or the survival of our faith - victories won through force of arms.
I think a better question to ask is - what does it mean to be a religion of peace?
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: A muslim friend told me once that Jihad refers to defending one's home against foreign aggressors. Not a holy war against infidels as many believe.
Are their certain rules to a jihad? I remember seeing a show on the discovery channel saying the rules were: You have to warn the person you're attacking. You cannot attack innocents. You cannot harm plants or animals.
Quote: the G-man said: That's an interesting point, Rex.
I read a theory once that all religions go through a "growth" phase or something in which they are warlike and then, hopefully calm down. The proponent of the theory postulated that Christianity and Judaism had their phases already and Islam was in its now.
Of course, that doesn't explain the Moorish invasion of half of Europe....
In fact, others postulate that the violent side of Christianity, ie, the crusades was a direct defensive response to a threat posed by violent Islamic expansionism across that section of the globe.
Thoughts?
Name one big world power back then that wasn't on a tear across the world seeking power and enslavement. Remember the Catholic Spanish right after they kicked the Muslims out oppressed and enslaved the American Indians in the name of their god.
Condemn Muslims if you want, but you need to condemn the Christians too.
Even today. Would you call people who blow up abortion clinics, shoot abortion doctors or blow up Federal Buildings any different than Jihad Suicide Bombers?
Quote: rex said: Are their certain rules to a jihad?
I remember seeing a show on the discovery channel saying the rules were:
You have to warn the person you're attacking.
You cannot attack innocents.
You cannot harm plants or animals.
Does anyone know if these are true or not?
These sound somewhat similar to the rules of war in the Torah I mentioned earlier.
Quote: In fact, others postulate that the violent side of Christianity, ie, the crusades was a direct defensive response to a threat posed by violent Islamic expansionism across that section of the globe.
I see some truth in that. The difference is the cusaders were violating scripture, there is no place in Scripture that prescribes death for all non believers today.
Quote: In fact, others postulate that the violent side of Christianity, ie, the crusades was a direct defensive response to a threat posed by violent Islamic expansionism across that section of the globe.
I see some truth in that. The difference is the cusaders were violating scripture, there is no place in Scripture that prescribes death for all non believers today.
Islam is a religion that will not rest until it sees the destruction.......let me say it again THE DESTRUCTION of all non-muslims.....specifically christians and especially jews.
Quote: PJP said: Islam is a religion that will not rest until it sees the destruction.......let me say it again THE DESTRUCTION of all non-muslims.....specifically christians and especially jews.
Actually History has shown Christian to be much more oppressive towards Jews.
Quote: the G-man said: That's an interesting point, Rex.
I read a theory once that all religions go through a "growth" phase or something in which they are warlike and then, hopefully calm down. The proponent of the theory postulated that Christianity and Judaism had their phases already and Islam was in its now.
Of course, that doesn't explain the Moorish invasion of half of Europe....
In fact, others postulate that the violent side of Christianity, ie, the crusades was a direct defensive response to a threat posed by violent Islamic expansionism across that section of the globe.
Thoughts?
good point, also more or less historical fact.
History shows that Islam is indeed not a peaceful religion. But I think that it is an unfair assumption to make. I believe this becaise those wars of old had human architects behind them. Naturally these people focused on the aggressive parts of the Koran, and not on the peace teaching parts.
The same goes for christianity methinks. There are also parts of the bible which preach that violence can be acceptable
Quote: the G-man said: In fact, others postulate that the violent side of Christianity, ie, the crusades was a direct defensive response to a threat posed by violent Islamic expansionism across that section of the globe.
From the old midieval documents I read in history class it looked like the knights were sent of crusades to get them out of Europe. They were uncontrolable thugs. With the vikings no longer attacking, the knights began to terrorize other kingdoms. The crusades, from my understanding/interpretation were to ship off the bad boys once they were unwanted dangers to society.
Well sure, the expansion of the Arab Islamics was the reason given to the Crusaders and there was definately some religous/political importance in the decision, however it was known to be a pointless death-mission and they sent the knights off anyways. From the documents we read for the history class I took it seemed like everyone other than people working with the Pope thought it was just to get rid of the brutes.
Those were the original objectives until Islam stepped things up and more soldiers who took religion a bit more seriously got involved. After the power play, it really did become a war based on religion in the sense that people who were fighting actually believed it that way.
In light of the Islamic riots over the Newsweek article, and some of the comments on that thread, I thought it might be time to revisit some of the questions posed by the tenents of Islam and whether or not we are hampered by a "PC" attitude to same.
IS IT JUST ME .or are some of the rest of you getting just a little bit tired of all of the butt kissing we're delivering to disgruntled Muslims out there?
This whole flap over the faulty Newsweek story is starting to get under several different patches of my skin.
Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad [has stated] that we need to work harder at understanding the sensitivities of the Islamic people. He says "The apology and retraction are not enough. "They (Newsweek) should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims."
I getting just a bit beyond the point where I'm all bent out of shape trying to understand Islamic sensitivities. If there is something about your religion that should make me feel badly about poor Muslims getting their feelings hurt, you had better get it out there on the table now.
All I see is a religion that seems to take great pleasure in passing condemnations and "death sentences" on various people around the world for all sorts of meaningless infractions of some great system of Islamic law.
I'm just not going to get all worked up worrying about the sensitivities of devotees of a religion that will stone a woman to death for adultery, while letting the man go unpunished.
Sensitivity would not be the word to describe how I feel about a religion that is in some way involved in more than 95% of the actual shooting conflicts and wars around the world.
Muslims shoot school children in the back! Remember Chechnya? They brag about bombs in schools in Israel! Tell me again about how I need to be sensitive?
The daughter of a devout Muslim gets violently raped. The devout Muslim takes a knife and, in front of the entire family, cuts his daughter's throat because she has dishonored her family .... by being a rape victim. Yeah, sport. Let me just pour out my sensitivities to this practitioner of the religion of peace.
There's a school on fire outside Riyadh. It's a girls school. The girls are trying to escape! But wait! Their faces aren't covered! It's the Islamic defenders of the faith to the rescue! They block the doors to keep the young Muslim girls from escaping ... from a burning building. The dignity of the great and wonderful religion of peace must be protected, even if young women burn to death! Yeah ... my respect for your sensitivities is on the way.
Those insurgents who are killing innocent civilians in Iraq? The suicide bombers in their cars and trucks? Haven't you heard? Most of them are from Saudi Arabia. They're crossing borders to kill innocent women and children because they don't like the idea of people being able to chose those who will rule them. I'm feeling so sensitive to that.
Tell you what: When you stop killing your own daughters; when you stop trying to lock young girls into burning buildings; when you eschew shooting school children in the back; and when I can look in a newspaper and read that Muslims are NOT involved in one way or another in revolts, insurrections and hot wars around the world --- and when you're not working so hard to kill American civilians --- and when you start to show some tolerance and respect for the world's other religions .. then maybe I'll feel a bit more worm and fuzzy toward your incredible religion of peace.
Quote: PJP said: If an American commits an act of terror whether its here (Mcvie, Rudolph) or overseas our whole counrty our whole society condemns them from top to bottom .....especially the media. When an arab commits an act of terror he may or may not be condemned by some arab governments but I can gauradamntee you they aren't sincere.....deep down they are all high fving each other and screaming and dancing in the streets. They are barbarians and the sooner people realize this the sooner we can start whuppin all tehir asses and bring them into line.....those dirty motherfuckers.
The arab community does nothing internally to stop terror....and more than likely they support and fund it whenever they can. So Yes I blame the entire arab community without remorse. They want sympathy start fucking killing terrorists and hunting them down.
Quote: the G-man said: In light of the Islamic riots over the Newsweek article, and some of the comments on that thread, I thought it might be time to revisit some of the questions posed by the tenents of Islam and whether or not we are hampered by a "PC" attitude to same.
IS IT JUST ME .or are some of the rest of you getting just a little bit tired of all of the butt kissing we're delivering to disgruntled Muslims out there?
This whole flap over the faulty Newsweek story is starting to get under several different patches of my skin.
Pakistani Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad [has stated] that we need to work harder at understanding the sensitivities of the Islamic people. He says "The apology and retraction are not enough. "They (Newsweek) should understand the sentiments of Muslims and think 101 times before publishing news which hurt feelings of Muslims."
I getting just a bit beyond the point where I'm all bent out of shape trying to understand Islamic sensitivities. If there is something about your religion that should make me feel badly about poor Muslims getting their feelings hurt, you had better get it out there on the table now.
All I see is a religion that seems to take great pleasure in passing condemnations and "death sentences" on various people around the world for all sorts of meaningless infractions of some great system of Islamic law.
I'm just not going to get all worked up worrying about the sensitivities of devotees of a religion that will stone a woman to death for adultery, while letting the man go unpunished.
Sensitivity would not be the word to describe how I feel about a religion that is in some way involved in more than 95% of the actual shooting conflicts and wars around the world.
Muslims shoot school children in the back! Remember Chechnya? They brag about bombs in schools in Israel! Tell me again about how I need to be sensitive?
The daughter of a devout Muslim gets violently raped. The devout Muslim takes a knife and, in front of the entire family, cuts his daughter's throat because she has dishonored her family .... by being a rape victim. Yeah, sport. Let me just pour out my sensitivities to this practitioner of the religion of peace.
There's a school on fire outside Riyadh. It's a girls school. The girls are trying to escape! But wait! Their faces aren't covered! It's the Islamic defenders of the faith to the rescue! They block the doors to keep the young Muslim girls from escaping ... from a burning building. The dignity of the great and wonderful religion of peace must be protected, even if young women burn to death! Yeah ... my respect for your sensitivities is on the way.
Those insurgents who are killing innocent civilians in Iraq? The suicide bombers in their cars and trucks? Haven't you heard? Most of them are from Saudi Arabia. They're crossing borders to kill innocent women and children because they don't like the idea of people being able to chose those who will rule them. I'm feeling so sensitive to that.
Tell you what: When you stop killing your own daughters; when you stop trying to lock young girls into burning buildings; when you eschew shooting school children in the back; and when I can look in a newspaper and read that Muslims are NOT involved in one way or another in revolts, insurrections and hot wars around the world --- and when you're not working so hard to kill American civilians --- and when you start to show some tolerance and respect for the world's other religions .. then maybe I'll feel a bit more worm and fuzzy toward your incredible religion of peace.
It's interesting how a good deal of what I'm reading here is what people say Islam says it stands for, and little about what Islam itself actually says it stands for.
This is why I think it's unfair to have a discussion about Islam without any Muslims. After all, for every other discussion we've had around here, we've had representatives of a certain POV to speak for their side.
Quote: Darknight613 said: It's interesting how a good deal of what I'm reading here is what people say Islam says it stands for, and little about what Islam itself actually says it stands for.
This is why I think it's unfair to have a discussion about Islam without any Muslims. After all, for every other discussion we've had around here, we've had representatives of a certain POV to speak for their side.
I'll speak for the Muslims. *trying to keep a straight face*
Quote: Darknight613 said: It's interesting how a good deal of what I'm reading here is what people say Islam says it stands for, and little about what Islam itself actually says it stands for.
This is why I think it's unfair to have a discussion about Islam without any Muslims. After all, for every other discussion we've had around here, we've had representatives of a certain POV to speak for their side.
I'll speak for the Muslims. *trying to keep a straight face*
I have read the Koran twice and I am currenly reading through it for a third time. There are passages in the book that leave little hope that relationships between Jews and Muslims can be anything other than strained.
Darknight613 is a Jewish man and yet he has it in him to seek an understanding of a religion which has tenets that are contrary to his own beliefs.
If there were more people like him representing world religions and less willfully ignorant people, such as yourself, who go on to use their ignorance as a platform for spreading prejudice, then the world would be a better place.
Quote: Darknight613 said: It's interesting how a good deal of what I'm reading here is what people say Islam says it stands for, and little about what Islam itself actually says it stands for.
This is why I think it's unfair to have a discussion about Islam without any Muslims. After all, for every other discussion we've had around here, we've had representatives of a certain POV to speak for their side.
I'll speak for the Muslims. *trying to keep a straight face*
I have read the Koran twice and I am currenly reading through it for a third time. There are passages in the book that leave little hope that relationships between Jews and Muslims can be anything other than strained.
Darknight613 is a Jewish man and yet he has it in him to seek an understanding of a religion which has tenets that are contrary to his own beliefs.
If there were more people like him representing world religions and less willfully ignorant people, such as yourself, who go on to use their ignorance as a platform for spreading prejudice, then the world would be a better place.
Douchebag. Yes you backwards. you're a fucking moron. always have been. If you and dk and whoever else you want to pick went over to any country with a muslim majority.....really went into the heart of the country, not just a major city or a tourist attraction like Cairo or Constantinople....they would slice your little bitch bodies up and laugh about it. Then they would talk about peace. You dickless son of a bitch. I haven't hit another man in awhile but I'd be willing to make an exception for you bitch. Have a nice day!
Quote: Darknight613 said: It's interesting how a good deal of what I'm reading here is what people say Islam says it stands for, and little about what Islam itself actually says it stands for.
This is why I think it's unfair to have a discussion about Islam without any Muslims. After all, for every other discussion we've had around here, we've had representatives of a certain POV to speak for their side.
I'll speak for the Muslims. *trying to keep a straight face*
I have read the Koran twice and I am currenly reading through it for a third time. There are passages in the book that leave little hope that relationships between Jews and Muslims can be anything other than strained.
Darknight613 is a Jewish man and yet he has it in him to seek an understanding of a religion which has tenets that are contrary to his own beliefs.
If there were more people like him representing world religions and less willfully ignorant people, such as yourself, who go on to use their ignorance as a platform for spreading prejudice, then the world would be a better place.
oh and I gaurantee you, you haven't read shit. Read the koran twice my ass. you ignorant fuck.
But again, as PJP commented, a great number of muslims worldwide are inspired to violence directly by Koran scripture, chapter and verse.
Much as those hostile to Christianity and Judaism try to paint these two far more peaceful religions with the same brush as Islam, in point of fact Islam at its core tells its followers to expand by conquest, and have all non-muslims convert or be put to the sword.
Christianity in its first few hundred years spread peacefully across the Roman empire and the rest of Europe, despite persecution.
Islam, beginning in the 7th century, immediately spread by war and conquest, and slaughter of non-believers, wiping out Christian communities in North Africa and the Middle East.
At the time Columbus was discovering America, the Ottoman Turks had invaded deep into central Europe, and were finally turned back at the gates of Vienna.
Ottoman Empire expansion, 1359-1683, MAP here
And later began the Crusades to take back what had also previously been Christian territory, in what is now Israel and Lebanon, after repeated harassments of Christians in the birthplace of Christianity.
Much that's been discussed in this topic was explored in a previous topic:
In the present day, much of the murderous rhetoric of al Qaida, Wahabists, and other muslim radicals is not a bastardization of the Koran to rationalize war (as those who try to downplay or rationalize Muslim violence allege), it is exact scripture, chapter and verse, from the Koran.
While there are a significant percentage of Muslims worldwide pushing to focus on more peaceful elements within the Koran, to create more rights for women, end violence toward women, focus on the peaceful sections of the Koran to limit muslim political violence, the simple fact is that ALL this violence is clearly endorsed in the Koran !
( Some of those Koran passages are transcribed in the above prior topic.)
As I pointed out in an article from TIME magazine that focused on violent muslim extremism, where TIME asked the question: "Is Saudi Arabia our friend or our enemy?", it is pointed out that Wahabist missionaries sent from Saudi Arabia to all points across the globe, are the focal point of islamic violence and terrorism everywhere they go.
From the Phillipines to Indonesia to India to Pakistan to Chechnya, to the West Bank and Gaza to Algeria and elsewhere.
And similarly, Islamic immigration to Europe and North America is the focal point of violence toward Jews, desecration of Synagogues and Jewish graveyards, and increased violence toward women.
I posted considerable documentation of all these violent trends that follow Islamic missions and immigration worldwide.
But again, even in the heart of Islam, in Saudi Arabia, 50% of Arabs surveyed say they detest the repressive Sharia laws (strictly enforced Koran teachings) in Saudi Arabia, and would like these laws abolished.
And I point that out because I don't wish to paint an overly negative picture of those who want to reform Islam.
But it is a simple fact that the Koran does teach these violent practices (toward women, toward non-muslims, toward any muslims who deviate from the "true" teachings of Islam).
And it is a fact that the number of muslims who have this violently bigoted hostility toward those who don't believe what they believe, and quote the Koran to defend their violence, chapter and verse, are the majority, and reformers are a minority.
It is not misinterpretation of the Koran that teaches violence, it is reading of the Koran in its exact context.
And that creates a fertile ground for terrorist recruits.
Quote: Wonder Boy said:. And began the Crusades to take back what had also been Christian territory in what is now Israel and Lebanon, after repeated harassments of Christians in the birthplace of Chrisatianity.
Just a question. Do you think this is something Jesus would have endorsed himself?
And yes, Christianity spread peacefully for a time. The church and Christianity are two very different things.
Quote: Wonder Boy said:.
And began the Crusades to take back what had also been Christian territory in what is now Israel and Lebanon, after repeated harassments of Christians in the birthplace of Chrisatianity.
Just a question. Do you think this is something Jesus would have endorsed himself?
And yes, Christianity spread peacefully for a time. The church and Christianity are two very different things.
Jesus said "those who live by the sword will die by the sword" and
"Love your enemies and pray for your enemies, bless those that curse you".
But Jesus also allowed for those who serve in the military to defend their homeland, their homes and their families.
I already said in the other topic that the excesses of the Crusades were not scriptural.
But pushing the invaders out of Europe, and then taking the battle home to the invaders, is not necessarily non-scriptural. Although as I said, the excesses of the Crusaders are clearly not scriptural.
I certainly don't fault Christians for driving muslims out of Europe, and wanting to insure that they were not invaded again.
Biblical or non-Biblical, the Europeans had that right.
I asked this earlier in the thread, and I'm going to ask it again: what does it mean to be a religion of peace?
For example, in the movie "Hero," the King of Qin wants to put an end to the constant war between the Seven Kingdoms of China and unite them as one unified country - and to do that, he intends to conquer them. He wages war in the name of peace, but does that make him a man of peace?
Something else to keep in mind (and this is something I need to find out a LOT more about):
Islam has an oral law called "The Hadith," which as far as I can tell, seems to have equal prominence as the Koran, and contains among other things a series of moral laws.
In Judaism, we have an oral law called The Talmud. the Torah is the guideline, and The Talumd is where we get the actual instructions on how to practice Judaism. The Talmud has equal importance to the Torah, and to go by the Torah literally without the Talmud is not considered to be true Judaism. The Talmud also explains and qualifies some of what's in the Torah, and tempers some of the harsher commandments.
Now, this is just a guess on my part, because I have no idea of what's actually in the Hadith. But it may be possible that the Hadith may have laws and rules that temper the warlike message of The Koran, and many of the hardcore Islamic terrorist fanatics are ignoring the Hadith. I don't know this for sure, and I'm looking into it so that I hopefully will know.
This is why I think a discussion like this needs to be conducted with someone who is actually Muslim who can explain the Hadith and cue us in on stuff like this.
Quote: Darknight613 said: Something else to keep in mind (and this is something I need to find out a LOT more about):
Islam has an oral law called "The Hadith," which as far as I can tell, seems to have equal prominence as the Koran, and contains among other things a series of moral laws.
In Judaism, we have an oral law called The Talmud. the Torah is the guideline, and The Talumd is where we get the actual instructions on how to practice Judaism. The Talmud has equal importance to the Torah, and to go by the Torah literally without the Talmud is not considered to be true Judaism. The Talmud also explains and qualifies some of what's in the Torah, and tempers some of the harsher commandments.
Now, this is just a guess on my part, because I have no idea of what's actually in the Hadith. But it may be possible that the Hadith may have laws and rules that temper the warlike message of The Koran, and many of the hardcore Islamic terrorist fanatics are ignoring the Hadith. I don't know this for sure, and I'm looking into it so that I hopefully will know.
This is why I think a discussion like this needs to be conducted with someone who is actually Muslim who can explain the Hadith and cue us in on stuff like this.
Muhamed will gladly answer any questions you have.
Quote: Wonder Boy said: But Jesus also allowed for those who serve in the military to defend their homeland, their homes and their families.
Did he really? Are you sure of that? What did he have to say on the issue of Roman control of Israel?
I can't recall the precise verse, but there is a verse in the New Testament that allows for service in war for one's country.
Regarding what Jesus thought of Roman control of Israel, the conflict between Jesus and the Hebrew leadership that led to his false accusation of citing rebellion and Jesus' crucifixion, was that Jews were expecting a political/military leader, to lead Israel back to independence as a sovereign nation, out from Roman occupation.
But Jesus was always clear that his was a spiritual kingdom, and never had any inclination toward a rebellion, despite what he was accused of.
As this verse from MARK 12: verses 13-17makes clear:
Quote: 13 Later they [Jewish political leaders] sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to catch him [Jesus] in his words. [i.e., trick him into saying something that could be interpreted as rebellious against Rome and get him arrested.]
14 They came to him and said, "Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. But you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? 15 Should we or shouldn't we ?"
But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. "Why are you trying to trap me?" he asked. "Bring me a denarius (a Roman coin) and let me look at it."
16 They brought the coin and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?" "Caesar's", they replied.
17 Then Jesus said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
Meaning give your taxes to the state, your obedience to government. And give reverence to God in spiritual matters.
I can't recall the precise verse, but there is a verse in the New Testament that allows for service in war for one's country.
How about the general wording of this verse, or the context in which it was supposedly delivered.
As to the rest of your post, it rather makes my point for me. He not only didn't encourage rebellion against the Romans, he decryed any such action passionately. If the crusades were 'Christian' there must be some sort of precendent from Christ, no? Something he said that inspired thier actions in the first place.
I can't recall the precise verse, but there is a verse in the New Testament that allows for service in war for one's country.
How about the general wording of this verse, or the context in which it was supposedly delivered.
As to the rest of your post, it rather makes my point for me. He not only didn't encourage rebellion against the Romans, he decryed any such action passionately. If the crusades were 'Christian' there must be some sort of precendent from Christ, no? Something he said that inspired thier actions in the first place.
I feel like you're trying to play a game of "gotcha" with me, and I don't like it, Klinton. If I can find the verse later about allowing for service in war time, I'll add it.
In any case, you misinterpret verses extolling the virtues of peace, to mean that war is never an option, allegedly, according to the Bible.
The Bible teaches not to look for war, to use peaceful means whenever possible, but to defend your nation (particularly in the Old Testament, to defend Israel )
If the Bible did not allow for military service, then Israel would never have become a nation, in Biblical times or presently.
Quote: Wonder Boy said: The Bible teaches not to look for war, to use peaceful means whenever possible, but to defend your nation (particularly in the Old Testament, to defend Israel )
If the Bible did not allow for military service, then Israel would never have become a nation, in Biblical times or presently.
I agree. But a lot of things changed between the Old Testament and the new. There were things that were no longer advocated, or in fact discouraged. This was one of them.
This isn't a 'game'...Just a discussion. There are many things that can be read out of the Bible, and debated. But Jesus insitence on peace is not open to debate...It's undeniable. The fact that you are so indoctrinated by church teachings to think otherwise is unsettling.
And the difference between defending one's country and hunting down your enemies is a large one indeed. There is no Christian justification for the crusades.
Just a further point...The idea that Chritians should be a powerful force, or that a Christian nation should impose itself on others is completely contrary to Christ's teachings. This is a church agenda, not a Christian one.
Quote: Wonder Boy said: The Bible teaches not to look for war, to use peaceful means whenever possible, but to defend your nation (particularly in the Old Testament, to defend Israel )
If the Bible did not allow for military service, then Israel would never have become a nation, in Biblical times or presently.
I agree. But a lot of things changed between the Old Testament and the new. There were things that were no longer advocated, or in fact discouraged. This was one of them.
I disagree.
The core teaching of the New Testament --of Christ-- is free will.
The freedom to choose or reject Christianity, as one observes its evidence, history and values.
The only thing the New Testament (i.e., Jesus) rejects is empty ritual that bypasses true faith. He rejects empty ceremony that projects the appearance of faith in God, but is not true faith.
Jesus doesn't discourage Jewish rituals, he only says that it is possible to have faith, and not practice those Old Testament traditions and rituals.
But God looks favorably on those who practice those rituals as a manifestation of true faith. And not just the appearance of faith.
You speak presumptuously and innacurately, with a lack of knowledge of Biblical scripture and customs.
Quote: klinton said:
This isn't a 'game'...Just a discussion. There are many things that can be read out of the Bible, and debated. But Jesus insitence on peace is not open to debate...It's undeniable.
No, it's not.
Jesus taught peace and forgiveness, but not the way you imply, that would castrate Christians of the ability to have a political opinion, or to politically preserve their lifestyle from changes in the law that intrude on the free practice of their religion, and thus ability to serve God.
Or even to serve in the military, and defend their nation.
To say Jesus insists on peace in all circumstances is your uninformed and presumptuous opinion.
Quote: klinton said:
The fact that you are so indoctrinated by church teachings to think otherwise is unsettling.
That is a really uncivil and sleazy attempt of yours to smear me, and it assumes a lot.
My Biblical opinion comes from reading the Bible, and various scholarly writings that give added understanding to the historic and symbolic context of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic my NIV and King James (both English language) translations are derived from.
Your opinions, on the other hand, are derived solely from your uninformed opinions, your gay lifestyle, and your pathetic attempts to change Biblical scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality, so as to rationalize your gay lifestyle is not in contradiction with the Bible, and smear anyone who points out the Biblical standard which clearly has the most strenuous condemnation of homosexuality, an act grouped (in both the Old and New Testaments) with adultery, murder, and blasphemy.
And with that, I'd rather not respond to your posts to this topic anymore.
You launched an attack on me, and I defended myself. I'd rather not waste my time continuing to respond to your poisonous rhetoric.
Quote: klinton said:
And the difference between defending one's country and hunting down your enemies is a large one indeed. There is no Christian justification for the crusades.
To a degree there is, specifically driving invading Muslims out of Europe.
But as I said in the prior topic, I don't pretend that the Crusades were a theologically Christian act, and said that at that time the average person in Europe did not have access to scripture, to see what the Bible truly said.
But again, Biblical or not Biblical, I give people license to defend themselves from invaders, and insure they are not invaded again.
If you want to continue this discussion, please do so without me.
Christ did not allow Peter to defend Him by force because He had come in the world to die for the sins of men in order that they might be forgiven and reconciled to God. It will be otherwise when He comes again in mighty power and glory (Matt. 24:30; II Thess. 1:7-9; Rev. 1:7; 19:11-21).
During the Lord's earthly ministry, He provided for and protected the disciples, but as He prepared to depart, He told them that if they had no sword, to sell their clothing in order to buy one (Luke 22:35-38). Why was this appropriate? Romans 1:18-32 tells us that in order to reveal His wrath against men's rebellion against Him, God has given them up to all of those personal moral evils which cause the troubles in society, among which is war. In Old Testament times, the nation Israel lived in just such a world, and today, so does the Christian.
With this perspective we must recognize that peace is a holistic concept. Peace is not simply the absence of war. It is far more - it is positive, active peacemaking. The Hebrew word shalom contains in it the idea of wholeness or soundness.
Properly read, Romans 13 is telling us that God ordains political institutions for ordering the society: But since God ordains the powers he remains above them. In that light our response on many occasions will be that as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). We cannot assume that since God ordains government we are always obeying God in our obedience to it. We are not to be lawbreakers, for Paul says that the authorities do "not bear the sword in vain" (Rom. 13:4). But we also cannot disobey a divine law to obey a contrary law by the government. The passage in Romans 13 calls us to be "subject to" the powers, but it does not use the term "obey." Our ultimate allegiance is to the God who ordains nations to function for order in society. Any serious attempt to resolve the question of a Christian's participation in war hinges significantly on this issue.
So far I've only been able to read the first article, and I can't believe they're using these New Testament scriptures to validate Christ being okay with taking up arms and going to war.
Matthew 8:5,8,13; Luke 7:2,6; these are about a military officer having faith that Christ is the Messiah and has the power to heal his manservant just by willing it. It says nothing regarding military service, whether Christ agrees with it or not.
Matthew 27:54; Mark 15:39, 44-45, Luke 23:47 regarding a military officer that commented on the events after Jesus died. Again, how does this show God sanctions Military?
Acts 10:1,22 Talks about Cornelius, an Italian military officer who is considered to be the first uncircumsized Gentile Christian. Yes, he is found favorable due to his supplication to God. Still, while he is not condemned for his being an officer he is not praised for it either.
Acts 21:32 A commander heard there was some sort of uproar in Jeruselem (the people were beating Paul) so they went down to stop it and get a hold of the situation. Kind of like riot police.
Acts 22:25-26 They're going to whip Paul, when he mentions he's a Roman citizen so they stop. Why are they using this to try and prove God approves of Military service?
Acts 23:17,23; 24:23 This isn't even grasping at straws. This just feels like they put it there because it includes military reference.
Acts 27:1,6,11,31,43 Roman soldiers were taking Paul and other prisoners to the island of Malta. See my above post.
Acts 28:16 Paul was allowed to stay by himself in Rome but still had to have a soldier guard him.
Not one of those scriptures, especially the majority of the cited Acts scripture, had God or Jesus encouraging Christians to join the military. The Old Testament is a different story, however once Jesus came to Earth to offer himself as a sacrifice, thus fulfilling the Law and setting a new standard, the rules were different. Peace was an order, not an option. Love was the highest command.
In these two passages from the sermon on the mount, Jesus is ordering peace, regardless of the actions of the other.
Matthew 5: 38-40
38 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ 39 However, I say to YOU: Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him. 40 And if a person wants to go to court with you and get possession of your inner garment, let your outer garment also go to him.
Matt 5:43,44
43 “YOU heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies and to pray for those persecuting YOU.
And I don't think this scripture can be any clearer on Christians going to war...
2 Timothy 2:24,25
24 But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth.
So even though the Islamists may have been slaughtering Christians, they were still under a direct command to not fight back, but instead to continue leading an example of peace and teaching Gods will.
Romans 12:17
17 Return evil for evil to no one.
Vengeance belongs to God, not men.
Romans 12:19
19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"* says the Lord.
*see Deuteronomy 32:35 for cited scripture.
I'll check out the other articles tomorrow. I'm going to bed.
Quote: Stupid Doog said: I'm still waiting for the scripture that Jesus talks about taking up arms to defend your nation.
I know you're not going to find it because it's not there, but I'm waiting for you to admit it.
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Here is the initial exchange I had with Klinton, recalling the first two times I mentioned the verse:
Quote: Wonder Boy said:
Quote: klinton said:
Quote: Wonder Boy said: But Jesus also allowed for those who serve in the military to defend their homeland, their homes and their families.
Did he really? Are you sure of that? What did he have to say on the issue of Roman control of Israel?
I can't recall the precise verse, but there is a verse in the New Testament that allows for service in war for one's country.
Again, it's quite clear I was recalling the verse from memory, and I've been very specific about so much, but it's hard to recall everything with complete accuracy.
About a year ago I made comments about the movie The Passion, a South Park episode parodying it, and the contrast of actual scripture and true Christian beleifs. I made some minor factual errors, corrected them, and acknowledged the error.
Regarding this current topic, I spent several hours today looking for the verse that I remember, and the closest I could find is ROMANS 13, verses 1-7. I recall others that I can't find.
I agree that Jesus, in all specific quotes I could find in the four Gospels, urges love, avoiding violence, and turning the other cheek.
But that doesn't mean that the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, (i.e., "God-breathed" scripture, written under the direct inspiration of God) doesn't instruct that there are times where war is appropriate action, or military service toward that end, either in active war, or as a deterrant to war.
From a related article to one of my above previous links:
Question: "I think all war is wrong! Jesus told us to love each other, not kill each other!"
Answer: ...I do not think your view of war is Biblical.
In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites (Num 31:2).
See also Deuteronomy 20:16-17,
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you."
Exodus 17:16 proclaims,
"He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."
Also, 1 Samuel 15:18,
"Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out."
So, obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God's will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
... It is an error to say that God never supports a war. In a world filled with evil people, sometimes a war is necessary to prevent even greater evil.
If Hitler had not been defeated by World War II, how many more millions of Jews would have been killed?
If the Civil War had not been fought, how much longer would African Americans have had to suffer as slaves?
We must all remember to base our beliefs on the Bible, not on our emotions (2Tim 3:16-17).
Question: "What should our response to the war be?"
Answer: Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, "there is a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace."
In a world filled with sin, hatred, and evil (Romans 3:10-18), war is inevitable.
Some wars are more "just" than others, but all wars are ultimately the result of sin.
Christians should not desire war, but neither are Christians to oppose the government God has placed in authority over them (Romans 13:1-4; 1Peter 2:17).
The most important thing we can be doing in a time of war is to be praying for godly wisdom for our leaders, praying for the safety of our military, praying for quick resolution to the conflict, and praying for minimum casualties on both sides of the conflict (Philippians 4:6-7).
One last thing:
The verses that you listed as "just thrown in" because they mention soldiers.
As the article you quoted them from makes clear, those verses are listed because they show consistently that soldiers are portrayed (in both Old and New Testaments) honorably working in a noble profession as soldiers, honorably upholding law, and preserving order, in the profession God has allowed them to pursue. And whether Christian beleivers or not, upholding God's design of justice and order.
In the specific verses from Acts that you list as the greatest waste of time, Roman soldiers who don't necessarily like or agree with the apostle Paul, nonetheless listen to reports of an assassination attempt on Paul's life, and act to protect Paul and save his life.
Also, as described with crystal clarity in the same linked verses you deconstructed, several soldiers in the Bible are described favorably in scripture.
If Jesus and his disciples saw being a soldier as anti-Christian or contrary to Christian teachings, these soldiers would not be described as favorably in the Old and New Testament, and exalted ( in Matthew 8, exalted by Jesus himself) as faithful servants of God.
There does seem to be a dichotomy Biblically of :
(1) manifesting and spreading peace/"love one another",
and
(2) with other parts of scripture, more subtlely in the New Testament, where soldiers and war are also conducted in the service of God.
In particular, the battle of Armageddon in Revelation describes Jesus leading the armies of God in The Final Battle.
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Boo hoo.
If you're going to make any claim of biblical pretext, be prepared to back it up. If you just quote from memory without rechecking scripture and expect us to just go along with it be prepared to get hammered.
Regarding this current topic, I spent several hours today looking for the verse that I remember, and the closest I could find is ROMANS 13, verses 1-7. I recall others that I can't find.
Right before Romans 13, at the very end of chapter 12, it talks about not returning evil for evil and that vengeance belongs to God alone. To take chapter 13 in the context you take it in would conflict with the previous chapter.
chapter 13 talks about respecting the laws of the government because the governments are allowed by God to rule over men. Even Jesus ordered his disciples to obey the laws of the government. When the Pharisees tried to trick Jesus with a question regarding taxes, he told them to pay the government their dues.
Mark 12:17
Jesus then said: “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God.
The verses that you listed as "just thrown in" because they mention soldiers.
As the article you quoted them from makes clear, those verses are listed because they show consistently that soldiers are portrayed (in both Old and New Testaments) honorably working in a noble profession as soldiers, honorably upholding law, and preserving order, in the profession God has allowed them to pursue. And whether Christian beleivers or not, upholding God's design of justice and order.
In the specific verses from Acts that you list as the greatest waste of time, Roman soldiers who don't necessarily like or agree with the apostle Paul, nonetheless listen to reports of an assassination attempt on Paul's life, and act to protect Paul and save his life.
Also, as described with crystal clarity in the same link you deconstructed, several soldiers in the Bible are described favorably in scripture.
If Jesus and his disciples saw being a soldier as anti-Christian or contrary to Christian teachings, these soldiers would not be described as favorably in the Old and New Testament, and exalted ( in Matthew 8, exalted by Jesus himself) as faithful servants of God.
There does seem to be a dichotomy Biblically of (1) peace/"love one another", and (2) with other parts of scripture, more subtlely in the New Testament, where soldiers and war are also conducted in the service of God.
In particular, the battle of Armageddon in Revelation describes Jesus leading the armies of God in The Final Battle.
none of those scriptures in the New Testament say to take up arms for your nation, that's why they're not sufficient evidence to back up your claim.
Before Jesus, the Jews were Gods favored people. They were a sovereign nation and of course they had a military. However when Jesus came to Earth all the rules changed. We are no longer under the Law Covenant as Jesus was the fulfillment of it. Now in order to be found favorable to God you must be a follower of Christ. I already listed several scriptures from the sermon on the mount where Jesus ordered his followers to be peaceable even against those who wrong you. Nowhere does Jesus tell his followers to take up swords for their nation or their beliefs.
And Jesus is as above us as God is above Jesus. God placed Jesus and the angels with the task of eradicating evil through force, not us. We were commanded to stay peaceable and allow God to enact vengeance for us.
Dogg, you're absolutely right concerning the the rule for keeping God's vengeance his own, but as far as justified interventions are concerned, you can't condemn the country or its corresponding citizens in taking up a cause that's proponent of war from a Christian viewpoint. God himself told the Jews to battle and kill the Canaanites. And simply saying that because the Old Testament didn't emphasize Christ's point regarding God's vengeance, that doesn't dispel the inherent principles that make up the rules, which have been in effect since the beginning of time (I'm referring to causality).
Christ tells us to turn the other cheek, but not to remain accessory. If someone's beating up a defenseless innocent--Perhaps to the point of death, how would God feel towards someone simply standing there and doing nothing?
I find it safe to say that God condones and encourages the taking up of arms against another country in the name of your own if the the very country you reside under sponsors component Christian philosophy and acts based upon those (at least) inherent ideals as ordained by The Christ. The Iraqi War, for example, I find, goes under such categories. President Bush sought to protect other people, mainly Americans, from WMD threats. There was also the ulterior motives of freeing the Iraqi people.
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Boo hoo.
If you're going to make any claim of biblical pretext, be prepared to back it up. If you just quote from memory without rechecking scripture and expect us to just go along with it be prepared to get hammered.
I did back it up. With multiple sources.
If you go beyond politely responding to the issue discussed, make angry and personal remarks that are completely unnecessary and divert from the issue at hand, prepare to be called the abrasive jerk you've proven yourself to be.
I certainly think you raise a valid issue in asking whether Jesus always advocates peace, or in some cases justifies war and military service as a solution to human conflict if circumstances get bad enough.
I've answered that question, abuntantly.
You've ignored my answers and dismissively ignored that I give Biblical evidence that God/Jesus does not condemn war in all circumstances.
But I did back my argument Biblically, from several sources.
You say that only in the Old Testament does God/Jesus advocate war as a solution.
But as is clear throughout the new testament, and as you previously ignored, since it didn't sink in to you the first time, I'll repeat it:
Question: "I think all war is wrong! Jesus told us to love each other, not kill each other!"
Answer: ...I do not think your view of war is Biblical.
In the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to: "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites" (Num 31:2).
See also Deuteronomy 20:16-17,
"However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them--the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites--as the LORD your God has commanded you."
Exodus 17:16 proclaims,
"He said, "For hands were lifted up to the throne of the LORD. The LORD will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation."
Also, 1 Samuel 15:18,
"Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; make war on them until you have wiped them out."
So, obviously God is not against all war. Jesus is always in perfect agreement with the Father (John 10:30), so we cannot argue that war was only God's will in the Old Testament. God does not change (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17).
And also Matthew 5:verses 17-18, also from the Sermon on the mount:
Quote: Jesus said: 17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law of the Prophets" [the Old Testament] "; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
18 "I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter , not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
If you go beyond politely responding to the issue discussed, make angry and personal remarks that are completely unnecessary and divert from the issue at hand, prepare to be called the abrasive jerk you've proven yourself to be.
Personal remarks? Abrasive jerk? I must have missed my post where I called you a complete moron because I don't remember making angry personal remarks, just scripture and reasoning. You, however, are ready to yell persecution when anybody dares challenges your fragile belief system. Yes, I challenged you because you did not back up your reasoning with scripture. Just because you say it's there doesn't mean I have to blindly believe you. People like you are the reason there are so many people in the dark on things because you flip out when people demand a rational explanation. And notice, I didn't have to go to so called "biblical scholars" to back up my belief. I went straight to scripture.
Talk about not noticing the rafter in your eye...
Quote: Wonder Boy said to Klinton:
Your opinions, on the other hand, are derived solely from your uninformed opinions, your gay lifestyle, and your pathetic attempts to change Biblical scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality, so as to rationalize your gay lifestyle is not in contradiction with the Bible, and smear anyone who points out the Biblical standard which clearly has the most strenuous condemnation of homosexuality, an act grouped with adultery, murder, and blasphemy.
And with that, I'd rather not respond to your posts to this topic anymore.
You launched an attack on me, and I defended myself. I'd rather not waste my time continuing to respond to your poisonous rhetoric.
...maybe you were talking about yourself in the first quote? Klinton being homosexual has nothing to do with this debate. It's exactly what I was saying above. When anyone challenges you you flip out and go for the low blow thinking we'll just give in.
Now I'm done dealing with you. Get a life and lets get this thread back to what it was originally intended to be a discussion for: Islam.
Quote: Stupid Doog said:Get a life and lets get this thread back to what it was originally intended to be a discussion for: Islam.
In reviewing this thread, it seems like a lot--but not all--of the posts that are a "defense" of Islam are based on the premise that Christianity is just as violent.
Such a defense does not establish that Islam IS a religion of peace, instead it simply admits it is not, but then argues no religion is.
But is that because the tenets of Christianity are not followed correctly or is it, as some claim with Islam, that the tenets demand violence against the "non-believers"?
Quote: Pariah said: Dogg, you're absolutely right concerning the the rule for keeping God's vengeance his own, but as far as justified interventions are concerned, you can't condemn the country or its corresponding citizens in taking up a cause that's proponent of war from a Christian viewpoint. God himself told the Jews to battle and kill the Canaanites. And simply saying that because the Old Testament didn't emphasize Christ's point regarding God's vengeance, that doesn't dispel the inherent principles that make up the rules, which have been in effect since the beginning of time (I'm referring to causality).
Christ tells us to turn the other cheek, but not to remain accessory. If someone's beating up a defenseless innocent--Perhaps to the point of death, how would God feel towards someone simply standing there and doing nothing?
I find it safe to say that God condones and encourages the taking up of arms against another country in the name of your own if the the very country you reside under sponsors component Christian philosophy and acts based upon those (at least) inherent ideals as ordained by The Christ. The Iraqi War, for example, I find, goes under such categories. President Bush sought to protect other people, mainly Americans, from WMD threats. There was also the ulterior motives of freeing the Iraqi people.
First off, thank you for a reasonable, level headed post. Of course if I saw somebody being attacked I would step in, however I would try to not step over the line of murder. It's one thing to disable somebody from causing you harm, it's another when you have to kill them to do it. Of course, if in the act of self preservation you would kill the other person (whether purposefully or accidentally), that is a matter to weigh on your conscience and something you would have to be held accountable to God for, and He would judge you righteously.
Since I strongly feel killing somebody goes against Christs teachings, I would not put myself in a situation where I would have to choose their life or mine. That is why I, as a Christian, will never go into military service nor support the actions of war. My duty to God is more important than duty to my government.
Quote: the G-man said: But is that because the tenets of Christianity are not followed correctly or is it, as some claim with Islam, that the tenets demand violence against the "non-believers"?
I do not believe the tenets have been followed correctly in regards to conversions.
Again, I quote 2 Timothy 2:24,25
24 But a slave of the Lord does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth.
It speaks out against violent preaching methods and encourages peaceful methods.
If Jesus wanted forced conversions, why did he instruct his disciples to go door to door teaching, and if somebody didn't want the message to just walk away?
Mark 6:10
10 Further, he said to them: “Wherever YOU enter into a home, stay there until YOU go out of that place. 11 And wherever a place will not receive YOU nor hear YOU, on going out from there shake off the dirt that is beneath YOUR feet for a witness to them.
Quote: Stupid Doog said: First off, thank you for a reasonable, level headed post. Of course if I saw somebody being attacked I would step in, however I would try to not step over the line of murder. It's one thing to disable somebody from causing you harm, it's another when you have to kill them to do it. Of course, if in the act of self preservation you would kill the other person (whether purposefully or accidentally), that is a matter to weigh on your conscience and something you would have to be held accountable to God for, and He would judge you righteously.
Ah yes, but in the regards of war, one must kill to disable a hostile country. You've lived and have been sheltered in the nation that's going to war. Provided that your life and the life of your fellow citizens have been attended to in a satisfactory manner with the intent to allow you, the society of individuals, to flourish, you'd owe that country a debt. And in the case of America, I feel strongly that we've been as equally attending to ourselves as we have tried to be to other countries. Granted that our reasons for going to war don't merit extremist ideals (domination, monopoly, etc.), it's more than likely in our Christian interest and duty to repay our country. In turn, I see no reason why we would be judged for the death of other soldiers. The real ones who are fighting are the political powers. If anyone's going to be judged, it's them. The instrument of a soldier is made up of two things: Objectives and Survival. Nothing in that job description implies murder.
I'll just end this with a, "Render unto Caesar what is do Caesar. Render unto God what is do God."
If you go beyond politely responding to the issue discussed, make angry and personal remarks that are completely unnecessary and divert from the issue at hand, prepare to be called the abrasive jerk you've proven yourself to be.
Personal remarks? Abrasive jerk? I must have missed my post where I called you a complete moron because I don't remember making angry personal remarks, just scripture and reasoning.
"Just scripture and reasoning" ?!?
A bit more than that, S. Doog.
Quite a bit more.
Here's your opening salvo:
Quote: Stupid Doog said: I'm still waiting for the scripture that Jesus talks about taking up arms to defend your nation.
I know you're not going to find it because it's not there, but I'm waiting for you to admit it.
And here's my response, with your 2nd salvo:
Quote: Stupid Doog said:
Quote: Wonder Boy said:
Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it.
I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Boo hoo.
If you're going to make any claim of biblical pretext, be prepared to back it up. If you just quote from memory without rechecking scripture and expect us to just go along with it be prepared to get hammered.
That is considerably more than respectful dissent, and a respectful counter-argument.
And as I said, I did back up my position with scripture, you just chose to to ignore it, and paint me as unable to back up my position.
I initially couldn't recall the specific verse, and I still was unable to find the specific verse I had in mind. But I offered plenty of scripture that supports my position that the New Testament does not condemn military action, and does allow submission to state authority. ( Specifically ROMANS 13: v 1-7)
Romans 13
Submission to the Authorities
1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Quote: Stupid Doog said:
You, however, are ready to yell persecution when anybody dares challenges your fragile belief system.
I simply said I don't like being accused of things and being talked to by you like I'm an idiot, simply because you disagreee with me.
Whether you like it or not, there is a counter-argument, scripturally, for military service of Christians, that I'm sure a fair percentage of the Christian community would agree with me.
As the articles I posted make clear, it is not just my opinion. These are the articulated views of many Christians.
If you disagree with that and you would choose conscientious objector status to maintain the integrity of your scripture-based beliefs, I respect that.
My interpretation of scripture is different from yours.
Perhaps you see my perspective as blasphemous, and that possibly explains the abrasiveness of your first two posts.
But again, I backed up my position with scripture, both in my own words, and with articles on the subject by others.
Quote: Stupid Doog said:
Yes, I challenged you because you did not back up your reasoning with scripture.
Again, I did back my views scripturally, chapter and verse.
You simply choose to reject the logic of a scripture-based argument on the issue counter to your own.
I've listened to your view, and it has made me reflect on my existing interpretation.
I might eventually agree with you, as I've similarly turned 180-degrees from accepting abortion to condemning it.
But the fact remains, there is a scripturally-based counter-argument (which I voiced) that many Christians who have struggled with the issue see as the correct interpretation.
Whether or not you agree with it.
Quote: Stupid Doog said:
Just because you say it's there doesn't mean I have to blindly believe you.
Fair enough.
Quote: Stupid Doog said: People like you are the reason there are so many people in the dark on things because you flip out when people demand a rational explanation.
I realize you feel strongly about the issue, as do I.
But that's abrasive, overly personal, and not a rational discussion of the issue.
Quote: Stupid Doog said: And notice, I didn't have to go to so called "biblical scholars" to back up my belief. I went straight to scripture.
I also directly quoted scripture, chapter and verse.
In addition to quoting scripture and cross-referencing verses that discuss previous wars, God's commanding the Jews to war in the Old Testament, and the favorable portrayal of soldiers in the New Testament (particularly the centurion in Matthew 8), yes, I did post some articles as well.
Matthew, chapter 8 :
The Faith of the Centurion
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
6 "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."
7 Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."
8 The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."
10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.
Please note that Jesus did NOT say to the centurion: Your work as a soldier opposes God's will. To serve me, you must abandon your work as centurion and follow me.
No.
Jesus said:
"I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. " and
"Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour
Indicating that he was faithful to Jesus already in his work as a soldier, and was not condemned by Jesus for it.
If I didn't post articles to show others hold the same view of scripture not being in conflict with military service, you'd be saying: "well, that's just your opinion." So I demonstrated that it's not just my opinion.
But it's Catch-22, you condemn me instead for posting articles of scripture by others that explore the issue of New Testament scripture and military service.
Again, your point that vengeance is God's alone, and that Jesus' commandment going forward is that man is, from Jesus' birth forward, to leave war and vengeance to God and his angels, is not a point that's lost on me, and it's compelled me to reflect on the issue.
I see your view as also an interpretation at this point, but it's potentially just as valid as my own interpretation.
Quote: Stupid Doog said:
Talk about not noticing the rafter in your eye...
Again, I understand you feel strongly about the issue, as do I.
That is not a logical argument, just an angry cheap-shot.
Quote: Stupid Doog said:
Quote: Wonder Boy said to Klinton:
Your opinions, on the other hand, are derived solely from your uninformed opinions, your gay lifestyle, and your pathetic attempts to change Biblical scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality, so as to rationalize your gay lifestyle is not in contradiction with the Bible, and smear anyone who points out the Biblical standard which clearly has the most strenuous condemnation of homosexuality, an act grouped with adultery, murder, and blasphemy.
And with that, I'd rather not respond to your posts to this topic anymore.
You launched an attack on me, and I defended myself. I'd rather not waste my time continuing to respond to your poisonous rhetoric.
...maybe you were talking about yourself in the first quote? Klinton being homosexual has nothing to do with this debate. It's exactly what I was saying above.
Klinton being homosexual is relevant. It underscores his personal biases that warp his interpretation of Biblical scripture, particularly on the subject of homosexuality and sodomy.
As his angry misrepresentation of me manifests. And again, he fired the first inflammatory shot, not me.
How conveniently you removed those remarks from their full context.
Up to that point in the topic I had exchanged multiple posts, respectfully discussing the issue with Klinton, not voicing the slightest anger or hostility, just discussing the issue.
Then Klinton posted the following remarks I quoted and responded to:
Quote: Wonder Boy said:
Quote: Wonder Boy said:
The Bible teaches not to look for war, to use peaceful means whenever possible, but to defend your nation (particularly in the Old Testament, to defend Israel )
If the Bible did not allow for military service, then Israel would never have become a nation, in Biblical times or presently.
Quote: Klinton said:
I agree.
But a lot of things changed between the Old Testament and the new. There were things that were no longer advocated, or in fact discouraged. This was one of them.
I disagree.
The core teaching of the New Testament --of Christ-- is free will.
The freedom to choose or reject Christianity, as one observes its evidence, history and values.
The only thing the New Testament (i.e., Jesus) rejects is empty ritual that bypasses true faith. He rejects empty ceremony that projects the appearance of faith in God, but is not true faith.
Jesus doesn't discourage Jewish rituals, he only says that it is possible to have faith, and not practice those Old Testament traditions and rituals.
But God looks favorably on those who practice those rituals as a manifestation of true faith. And not just the appearance of faith.
You speak presumptuously and innacurately, with a lack of knowledge of Biblical scripture and customs.
Quote: Klinton said:
This isn't a 'game'...Just a discussion. There are many things that can be read out of the Bible, and debated. But Jesus insitence on peace is not open to debate...It's undeniable.
No, it's not.
Jesus taught peace and forgiveness, but not the way you imply, that would castrate Christians of the ability to have a political opinion, or to politically preserve their lifestyle from changes in the law that intrude on the free practice of their religion, and thus ability to serve God.
Or even to serve in the military, and defend their nation.
To say Jesus insists on peace in all circumstances is your uninformed and presumptuous opinion.
Quote: Klinton said:
The fact that you are so indoctrinated by church teachings to think otherwise is unsettling.
That is a really uncivil and sleazy attempt of yours to smear me, and it assumes a lot.
My Biblical opinion comes from reading the Bible, and various scholarly writings that give added understanding to the historic and symbolic context of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic my NIV and King James (both English language) translations are derived from.
Your opinions, on the other hand, are derived solely from your uninformed opinions, your gay lifestyle, and your pathetic attempts to change Biblical scripture that clearly condemns homosexuality, so as to rationalize your gay lifestyle is not in contradiction with the Bible, and smear anyone who points out the Biblical standard which clearly has the most strenuous condemnation of homosexuality, an act grouped with adultery, murder, and blasphemy.
And with that, I'd rather not respond to your posts to this topic anymore.
You launched an attack on me, and I defended myself. I'd rather not waste my time continuing to respond to your poisonous rhetoric.
That is the full context of my mentioning Klinton's homosexuality.
I was very respectful in my posts up to that point.
I guess I'm just supposed to say nothing when he, out of the blue, says to me "The fact that you are so indoctrinated by church teachings to think otherwise is unsettling.".
Oh, yes ! That's SO representative of my discussion of scripture in this topic up to that point.
I should just let that pass unchallenged, right ?
In spite of that, I made a great effort to otherwise respectfully answer all the legitimate issues he raised, aside from my necessary response to such a pointlessly abrasive smear of a remark on his part.
Why is it you guys feel like you can be such unbeleivable cocksucking bastards in the way you smear those you disagree with, and then when I respond, as any human being would to such inflammatory remarks, you --amazingly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- can in your minds see ME as the one who is being uncivil.
Look at what you posted. The level of venom.
Look at what I posted. A measured, less over the top response.
Quote: Stupid Doog said: When anyone challenges you you flip out and go for the low blow thinking we'll just give in.
Now I'm done dealing with you. Get a life and lets get this thread back to what it was originally intended to be a discussion for: Islam.
Quote: Wonder Boy said: Y'know, it really bugs me that you addressed me in such a confrontational way.
And even if I am wrong (although I don't think I am), I think it's clear that I'm talking here from my best memory of scripture as I recall it. I fail to understand your eagerness to see me proven wrong, and attempt to rub it in may face.
Quote: Stupid Doog said: Boo hoo.
If you're going to make any claim of biblical pretext, be prepared to back it up. If you just quote from memory without rechecking scripture and expect us to just go along with it be prepared to get hammered.
That's brutal honesty. You ascerted something was scriptural. I challenged you bluntly to prove it because for whatever reason you did not feel it was necessary to indicate what scripture you took it from, and you took it personally.
Did I hurt your ego? What did you expect from me? An apology?
I'm sorry, but...
You're way too touchy for a debate here.
And you still can't find your scripture.
And I already made my point about Romans 13. In order to take the context the way you want to take it, you have to ignore the scriptures directly before it that says to not return evil and to be peaceable with all men and allow God your vengeance.
The KKK isn't Christian-based. The majority is Christian (probably), but the organization itself isn't centred around it. The entirety of the terrorism that originates from Muslims is represented by them as Islamic wrath and/or Allah's vengeance.
Quote: Wednesday said:
Quote: rex said: Are their any religions of peace?
Does anyone remember the crusades?
No, and that includes modern-day Christianity.
No it doesn't.
In the context of this thread, the analysis of what religions are or are not based on peace is rooted from doctrine. If the first post of this thread is to be believed, Muslomic religion has an inherently violent logic that accompanies it. Christianity, however, doesn't have this characteristic. The Crusades were started because Christians felt threatened that their way of life was going to be annhilated. They were extending defense, not launching mass conversion.
The KKK isn't Christian-based. The majority is Christian (probably), but the organization itself isn't centred around it. The entirety of the terrorism that originates from Muslims is represented by them as Islamic wrath and/or Allah's vengeance.
Quote: Wednesday said:
Quote: rex said: Are their any religions of peace? Does anyone remember the crusades?
No, and that includes modern-day Christianity.
No it doesn't.
In the context of this thread, the analysis of what religions are or are not based on peace is rooted from doctrine. If the first post of this thread is to be believed, Muslomic religion has an inherently violent logic that accompanies it. Christianity, however, doesn't have this characteristic. The Crusades were started because Christians felt threatened that their way of life was going to be annhilated. They were extending defense, not launching mass conversion.
Pariah, the crusades happened because a few Popes needed to call for war so they could better control the kings of Europe. They had nothing to do with self defense and everything to do with murdering non Christians throught Erurope and in Israel itself.
Quote: rex said: Are their any religions of peace? Does anyone remember the crusades?
No, and that includes modern-day Christianity.
No it doesn't.
In the context of this thread, the analysis of what religions are or are not based on peace is rooted from doctrine. If the first post of this thread is to be believed, Muslomic religion has an inherently violent logic that accompanies it. Christianity, however, doesn't have this characteristic. The Crusades were started because Christians felt threatened that their way of life was going to be annhilated. They were extending defense, not launching mass conversion.
I don't think Muslomic is a word.
The NT may have a doctrine of peace but it hasn't been practiced that way since Constantine's conversion and merging of thhe Church with the Roman Empire.
Quote: PenWing said: Pariah, the crusades happened because a few Popes needed to call for war so they could better control the kings of Europe. They had nothing to do with self defense and everything to do with murdering non Christians throught Erurope and in Israel itself.
PenWing, this is such bullshit. The Muslims were eating up territory like empirical whores and, in retaliation, the Christians reacted by taking that territory back. Were the Europeans pushing for war? Maybe. But they weren't the ones who started the shit.
Where exactly do you get your info from?
Quote: magicjay said: The NT may have a doctrine of peace but it hasn't been practiced that way since Constantine's conversion and merging of thhe Church with the Roman Empire.
I agree with this to an extent. I, however, prolly find that more has come from Christianity in this past century, in terms of spreading peace, than you do. i.e. Things aren't as good as they were, but they're not necessarily bad.
this argument is like saying there's more crime in Harlem therefore all black people must be criminals.
Christians and Muslims both do bad shit. Most of the times though the Christians are "legit." Bush is Christian, he's killed more than Osama. The IRA are Catholic and have been pretty much in the same vein as the Iraqi insurgents.
Pariah reads movie scripts and complains (that's the most offensive thing I say).
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: this argument is like saying there's more crime in Harlem therefore all black people must be criminals.
Christians and Muslims both do bad shit. Most of the times though the Christians are "legit." Bush is Christian, he's killed more than Osama. The IRA are Catholic and have been pretty much in the same vein as the Iraqi insurgents.
Pariah reads movie scripts and complains (that's the most offensive thing I say).
The difference between Christian violence and terrorist violence seems to be the level of detachment by the perpetrator of the violent act. Xtian from far away, Muslims, in your face and personal. For example, you're riding on Muni and a guy gets on with explosives strapped to his body and detonates it during the morning rush. You are killed or injured. Transport this scenario to Fallujah. You're on the bus and a US F-18 is overhead and the pilot decides that your bus looks like a military target so he launches an air to ground missle and blows the shit out of your bus. You are killed or injured. In what way is this different from what happened in San Francisco. Either way, you are fucked. The Muslim terrorist committed suicide for the greater glory of Allah. You looked him in the eye before the explosion. The Xtian pilot was 10 miles away and 5000 feet above you. One perp goes to the morgue in pieces, the other returns to base and drinks beers with his buddies. In a moral sense, what differentiates these two?
Quote: PenWing said: Pariah, did you ever watch Highlander, the TV series? There were these guys called watchers, and they watched the immortals though history?
Well, the only difference between the watchers and my people, is that we unfortunately had to experience the history.
This isn't good enough PenWing.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: this argument is like saying there's more crime in Harlem therefore all black people must be criminals.
No. It's not.
I'm saying that a confirmed Muslim terrorist is 99.9% likely to be representing Islam than some other cause that's....Secular or something.
Quote: Christians and Muslims both do bad shit. Most of the times though the Christians are "legit." Bush is Christian, he's killed more than Osama.
If you'd please to note, the Iraq War and the elimination of the Taliban had nothing to do with religion.
Quote: The IRA are Catholic and have been pretty much in the same vein as the Iraqi insurgents.
In the sense that you're referring to Christians doing "bad shit", you're correct, but it's not entirely analogous with the motivations of the Iraqi insurgents. While it isn't any excuse, the IRA....Was angry about God's doctrine being changed by the Protestants and they, in turn, said fuck off. Truth be told, I don't know who started the actual violence, but the point is that the reason they started terrorizing was because they both felt their respective religion was threatened to destruction by either one's presence. At this point, eye for an eye has denominated their motives into pure hatred. In the case of the Muslims' actions: They were always hate-inspired.
Quote: magicjay said: The difference between Christian violence and terrorist violence seems to be the level of detachment by the perpetrator of the violent act. Xtian from far away, Muslims, in your face and personal. For example, you're riding on Muni and a guy gets on with explosives strapped to his body and detonates it during the morning rush. You are killed or injured. Transport this scenario to Fallujah. You're on the bus and a US F-18 is overhead and the pilot decides that your bus looks like a military target so he launches an air to ground missle and blows the shit out of your bus. You are killed or injured. In what way is this different from what happened in San Francisco. Either way, you are fucked. The Muslim terrorist committed suicide for the greater glory of Allah. You looked him in the eye before the explosion. The Xtian pilot was 10 miles away and 5000 feet above you. One perp goes to the morgue in pieces, the other returns to base and drinks beers with his buddies. In a moral sense, what differentiates these two?
The difference between Christian violence and terrorist violence seems to be the level of detachment by the perpetrator of the violent act. Xtian from far away, Muslims, in your face and personal. For example, you're riding on Muni and a guy gets on with explosives strapped to his body and detonates it during the morning rush. You are killed or injured. Transport this scenario to Fallujah. You're on the bus and a US F-18 is overhead and the pilot decides that your bus looks like a military target so he launches an air to ground missle and blows the shit out of your bus. You are killed or injured. In what way is this different from what happened in San Francisco. Either way, you are fucked. The Muslim terrorist committed suicide for the greater glory of Allah. You looked him in the eye before the explosion. The Xtian pilot was 10 miles away and 5000 feet above you. One perp goes to the morgue in pieces, the other returns to base and drinks beers with his buddies. In a moral sense, what differentiates these two?
It's all a question of your beliefs and culture. Whilst the suicide bomber sounds like a heartless killer to us, he's a saint to his people. As for the pilot... well, we don't talk about that kind of mistake on the news, so shhhhhh
Quote: magicjay said: The difference between Christian violence and terrorist violence seems to be the level of detachment by the perpetrator of the violent act. Xtian from far away, Muslims, in your face and personal. For example, you're riding on Muni and a guy gets on with explosives strapped to his body and detonates it during the morning rush. You are killed or injured. Transport this scenario to Fallujah. You're on the bus and a US F-18 is overhead and the pilot decides that your bus looks like a military target so he launches an air to ground missle and blows the shit out of your bus. You are killed or injured. In what way is this different from what happened in San Francisco. Either way, you are fucked. The Muslim terrorist committed suicide for the greater glory of Allah. You looked him in the eye before the explosion. The Xtian pilot was 10 miles away and 5000 feet above you. One perp goes to the morgue in pieces, the other returns to base and drinks beers with his buddies. In a moral sense, what differentiates these two?
Quote: PenWing said: Pariah, did you ever watch Highlander, the TV series? There were these guys called watchers, and they watched the immortals though history?
Well, the only difference between the watchers and my people, is that we unfortunately had to experience the history.
This isn't good enough PenWing.
Pariah, the crusades were the Christian equivalent of Islamic Jihad. Nothing more, nothing less. It's best you let of it, because history has proven this. Just because the Church won't admit it, that doesn't mean the rest of the world is wrong. It means the Church has too much pride. Something the Church isn't supposed to have at all.
Quote: Pariah said:
Quote: The IRA are Catholic and have been pretty much in the same vein as the Iraqi insurgents.
What the hell does anything have to do with the IRA? They haven't committed any acts of terrorism. And they're not all Christian either--And if they have committed any acts of terrorism, I highly doubt it was over the subject of Christianity.
Of course the IRA is partly to do with religion. They're Irish Catholic. England is not. Half the problems between the Irish and the English are religious. And, yes, the IRA was a major terrorist organization. This is old news.
Quote: PenWing said: Pariah, the crusades were the Christian equivalent of Islamic Jihad. Nothing more, nothing less. It's best you let of it, because history has proven this. Just because the Church won't admit it, that doesn't mean the rest of the world is wrong. It means the Church has too much pride. Something the Church isn't supposed to have at all.
Where has it been proven that it was a "Jihad"? You haven't given me anything to work with.
Quote: Pariah said: Of course the IRA is partly to do with religion. They're Irish Catholic. England is not. Half the problems between the Irish and the English are religious. And, yes, the IRA was a major terrorist organization. This is old news.
Actually, the main problem between England and Ireland isn't so much about religion as it is about old grudges Ireland has with the Brits regarding past oppression. The real religious friction is between Northern Ireland and Eastern Ireland.
Quote: magicjay said: Could you elaborate, please?
I shouldn't have to. Needless to say you're a stereotyping generalizing fuckwit in that you proclaim everyone who went to war, from America, as Christian and fighting with Christian intent.
Quote: magicjay said: Could you elaborate, please?
I shouldn't have to. Needless to say you're a stereotyping generalizing fuckwit in that you proclaim everyone who went to war, from America, as Christian and fighting with Christian intent.
Okay, most of the USA soldiers are Xtian. If it makes you feel better call them Americans. The question is which would feel better; having your face burned off by a Muslim 'terrorist' or an American pilot?
R3x's context involved the religious intent of Muslim terrorists. You rolled with that by saying that the American forces were Christian, and therefore had religous motives in fighting the war. And that's bullshit.
Quote: Pariah said: R3x's context involved the religious intent of Muslim terrorists. You rolled with that by saying that the American forces were Christian, and therefore had religous motives in fighting the war. And that's bullshit.
What a pussy! Can't answer the question in a way that leaves your militarism intact? Tell me Pariah, what is the difference between a revolutionary and a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Is it just a matter of who's side your on?
Quote: PenWing said: Pariah, the crusades were the Christian equivalent of Islamic Jihad. Nothing more, nothing less. It's best you let of it, because history has proven this. Just because the Church won't admit it, that doesn't mean the rest of the world is wrong. It means the Church has too much pride. Something the Church isn't supposed to have at all.
Where has it been proven that it was a "Jihad"? You haven't given me anything to work with.
In the definition of Jihad:
Quote: "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Jihad \Ji*had"\, Jehad \Je*had"\, n. [Ar. jih[=a]d.] (Moham.) A religious war against infidels or Mohammedan heretics; also, any bitter war or crusade for a principle or belief.
Yes MJ, I'm already aware of how you like to disregard context.
Quote: PenWing said: In the definition of Jihad:
Quote: "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Jihad \Ji*had"\, Jehad \Je*had"\, n. [Ar. jih[=a]d.] (Moham.)
A religious war against infidels or Mohammedan heretics;
also, any bitter war or crusade for a principle or belief.
Yeah, I know. This doesn't go under the category of Christian Europe.
Quote: Pariah said: Yes MJ, I'm already aware of how you like to disregard context.
Quote: PenWing said: In the definition of Jihad:
Quote: "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Jihad \Ji*had"\, Jehad \Je*had"\, n. [Ar. jih[=a]d.] (Moham.) A religious war against infidels or Mohammedan heretics; also, any bitter war or crusade for a principle or belief.
Yeah, I know. This doesn't go under the category of Christian Europe.
Technically the Nazis were fighting for a principle or belief. Bush had no real WMD evidence so he was going on faith. On a principle or belief. Wasn't most of the U.S. settled on the belief that the indians were savage because they weren't Christian? That sounds like your version of a jihad to me.
Either your simply trolling or you're incredibly stupid.
I'm aiming for the latter.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: Technically the Nazis were fighting for a principle or belief.
There was no religion involved.
Quote: Bush had no real WMD evidence--
On the contrary, he did.
Quote: Wasn't most of the U.S. settled on the belief that the indians were savage because they weren't Christian? That sounds like your version of a jihad to me.
No. The Natives that were more openly slaughtered were hostile tribes. The others were just screwed out of land.
Generally, they were believed to be savages, but people didn't wage war with em' cuz' of that.
Quote: Pariah said: R3x's context involved the religious intent of Muslim terrorists. You rolled with that by saying that the American forces were Christian, and therefore had religous motives in fighting the war. And that's bullshit.
"The cause we serve is right, because it is the cause of all mankind. The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable--and it is not carried forward by our power alone. We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true." --State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004
"I believe that God wants me to be president." --According to Richard Land, as quoted in ""Understanding the President and his God"
"This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." -- George W. Bush, September 16, 2001
Bush is clearly a very religious man. He's referred to the war on terror as a crusade. He makes speeches about god being on our side. Now, being the same god as the Muslims he makes it a religious war.
Again, you're clutching at straws. If we were to ask Bush directly and specifically, "Is this war about Christians vs. Muslims", do really think he'd answer "yes".
When we went for the Taliban in 2001, the terrorists we were disposing of were very clearly religious in their intentions for hating us. It's their holy war. Not ours. There's nothing to indicate Bush meant otherwise.
We've never deviated from a set path of retaliation after 9/11 (Taliban) or rooting out mass destructive material (Iraq). Bush has never said "God commandeth me to put the smackdown on those Muslims!!"--And especially not in relation to our insertion into the middle-east. That segment from the "State of the Union Address" you quoted didn't have anything to do with the war on terrorism or Iraq, and thus, did not make it holy war.
There are too many things wring with that from a Christian POV to be reasonable enough an argument. In which case, you're taking those words way too literally.
Quote: Pariah said: There are too many things wring with that from a Christian POV to be reasonable enough an argument. In which case, you're taking those words way too literally.
Christian man leads war against "evil" enemies using billions of tax dollars and a trained army. Christian man excuses deaths in part of a just war.
Muslim man leads war against "evil" enemies using millions of dollars in raised funds and a trained army. Muslim man excuses deaths in part of a just war.
Obviously if you can accept that not all Christians support Bush or his war, then not all Muslims support fanatic terrorists and their wars.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: Christian man leads war against "evil" enemies using billions of tax dollars and a trained army.
Christian man excuses deaths in part of a just war.
Those billions of tax dollars were used against threats. I don't think Bush ever used the wording "evil". And even if he did, he was most definitely referring to Saddam, his collaborators, and the Iraqi insurgents. And as far as just goes: Yes, it was just, but Bush never tried to pass this war off as purely moral justification through Saddam's evil. This war was fought because Saddam was a possible threat. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote: Obviously if you can accept that not all Christians support Bush or his war, then not all Muslims support fanatic terrorists and their wars.
I never said that "all Muslims support fanatic terrorists and their wars".
Quote: Pariah said: Those billions of tax dollars were used against threats. I don't think Bush ever used the wording "evil". And even if he did, he was most definitely referring to Saddam, his collaborators, and the Iraqi insurgents. And as far as just goes: Yes, it was just, but Bush never tried to pass this war off as purely moral justification through Saddam's evil. This war was fought because Saddam was a possible threat. Nothing more, nothing less.
but the Muslim terrorists see their cause as attacking nations who in the past have fucked up their homeland, and will probably do it again in the future. The Iraqi insurgents are defending their home from Occupation.
Also, who are we to judge? With all the attrocities in our country what's to stop some foreign power from calling Bush evil and conquering us to "free" us? It was up to the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam, or to live under his rule. That's what freedom is, the right to choose. And had Bush's daddy not withdrawn his support for the Iraqi uprising in the 90's it would have ended then.
This whole notion that terrorists are supervillains sitting around plotting the end of America because they hate freedom is wrong. We fuck up them, they blow up us, we invade them. Its got to stop at some point. And it won't stop with explosions and wars, it'll stop when rational and smart leaders strive for peaceful solutions.
Quote:
I never said that "all Muslims support fanatic terrorists and their wars".
This whole notion that terrorists are supervillains sitting around plotting the end of America because they hate freedom is wrong.
We fuck up them, they blow up us, we invade them. Its got to stop at some point. And it won't stop with explosions and wars, it'll stop when rational and smart leaders strive for peaceful solutions.
Quote: Pariah said:
I never said that "all Muslims support fanatic terrorists and their wars".
More like ill-educated lunacy. But that caters to you just fine.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: but the Muslim terrorists see their cause as attacking nations who in the past have fucked up their homeland, and will probably do it again in the future.
The Iraqi insurgents are defending their home from Occupation.
I see. So essentially your defending murderers. That's great. That's fuckin' great. The insurgents may be "defending their homeland", but the war is over, and they're getting their own people killed. If you don't want to recognize that and just latch ont this ideal of 'Americans are bad, everyone else, no matter who, is good', then you can fuck off.
"In the past", we did nothing to hurt them except respond to their offenses. Other that that, all of their animosity towads us was/is undergrounded and hate-inspired.
Quote: Also, who are we to judge? With all the attrocities in our country what's to stop some foreign power from calling Bush evil and conquering us to "free" us?
It was up to the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam, or to live under his rule. That's what freedom is, the right to choose.
And had Bush's daddy not withdrawn his support for the Iraqi uprising in the 90's it would have ended then.
WHAT. ARE. YOU. TALKING. ABOUT????
This wasn't about freeing the Iraqi people. This was about establishing our own security and, as an ulterior, with the rebuilding of Iraq, a gaining of a possible ally in an otherwise hostile middle-east.
You just wanted to get that out of your system didn't ya?
Quote: This whole notion that terrorists are supervillains sitting around plotting the end of America because they hate freedom is wrong.
They're not super-villians? How so? They kill mass amounts of innocents; how long before they they qualify, by your standards, as a villain?
Now and then a terrorist actually takes the trouble to explain his motives. London's Daily Telegraph reports on the trial of the man who murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh:
Mohammed Bouyeri, a baby-faced 27-year-old with dual Dutch-Moroccan nationality, broke his vow not to co-operate with the Amsterdam court by admitting shooting and stabbing his victim last November.
"I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion," he told its three-strong panel of judges.
"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do the same, exactly the same." . . .
Bouyeri then turned to the victim's mother, Anneke, in the public gallery, and told her he felt nothing for her. Mrs van Gogh watched as he read out from what appeared to be a statement: "I don't feel your pain. I have to admit that I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because you're a non-believer."
This had nothing to do with Israeli "occupation" of "Palestinian lands," America's "unilateral invasion" of Iraq, "torture" of prisoners at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, the widening "income gap," or any of the other litany of complaints that the terror apologists trot out.
According to this terrorist, Islamist terrorism arises from religious fanaticism and hatred, plain and simple.
Quote: Pariah said: More like ill-educated lunacy. But that caters to you just fine.
I know you are, but what am I?
Quote:
I see. So essentially your defending murderers. That's great. That's fuckin' great. The insurgents may be "defending their homeland", but the war is over, and they're getting their own people killed. If you don't want to recognize that and just latch ont this ideal of 'Americans are bad, everyone else, no matter who, is good', then you can fuck off.
Had you posted the first part of that paragraph then its clear that wasn't my intention to defend either. I was simply making an analogy between killer-christians and killer-muslims.
Quote: "In the past", we did nothing to hurt them except respond to their offenses. Other that that, all of their animosity towads us was/is undergrounded and hate-inspired.
No. We actually started things by going over there and imposing our will and our money.
Quote:
WHAT. ARE. YOU. TALKING. ABOUT???? This wasn't about freeing the Iraqi people. This was about establishing our own security and, as an ulterior, with the rebuilding of Iraq, a gaining of a possible ally in an otherwise hostile middle-east.
You just wanted to get that out of your system didn't ya?
see my above point.
Quote:
They're not super-villians? How so?
they're not plotting global dominition (But Bush is ), they're not robbing banks. They have motives beyond just being evil.
Quote: They kill mass amounts of innocents; how long before they they qualify, by your standards, as a villain?
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You've already been proven wrong and your stupidity has been thoroughly demonstrated. But you still cling to the hope that by having a last word, no matter how moronic and irrelevent it may be, you'll be percieved by others as winning the argument. Good show.
Quote: Pariah said: Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. You've already been proven wrong and your stupidity has been thoroughly demonstrated. But you still cling to the hope that by having a last word, no matter how moronic and irrelevent it may be, you'll be percieved by others as winning the argument. Good show.
Pariah has declared victory and withdrawn from the field of battle. Alert the media!
It now appears that the terrorists behind last week's London attacks were British citizens of Pakistani descent, rather than foreign nationals.
As the BBC notes, this development has a number of far reaching implications:
So why does it make so much difference that the bombers are, as now suspected, British?
In the hours after the bombings, Muslim leaders in the UK, joined by other faith leaders, senior police chiefs and ministers, launched an action plan long prepared for such an attack on British soil.
That plan focuses on keeping communities together by very publicly and loudly saying all that can be said to differentiate between British Muslims and those who would seek to use a faith to justify atrocities.
But the revelation that the four London suspects were British will confirm the worst fears of many Muslim leaders. . . .
If the apparent British suicide bombers are of similar stock--young British-born men who are not driven by desperation, then British society's ability to deal with this may be severely tested.
In addition, if the British terrorists are "young British-born men who are not driven by desperation," then it seem to appear that their sole motivation is their religion, not any of the "economic" or "geographic" factors that many claim motivates the terrorists.
MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) — Dozens of gunmen loyal to Islamic courts stormed a video studio in Somalia’s capital on Monday, destroying equipment and confiscating hundreds of tapes that were being translated into the Somali language.
The courts consider watching movies, listening to music, dancing and many other forms of entertainment un-Islamic.
“We are very proud that we closed down the biggest movie translating firm,” said Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, chairman of the Union of the Islamic Courts. “What’s considered as harmful to the public will be destroyed.”
Exactly what I'm talking about. I suppose, G-man, that we're supposed to believe that these dozens of gunmen are representative of the entire religion, as per your heading.
With titles like that, no wonder you accuse the media of being liberal.
Quote: Wednesday said: Exactly what I'm talking about. I suppose, G-man, that we're supposed to believe that these dozens of gunmen are representative of the entire religion, as per your heading.
With titles like that, no wonder you accuse the media of being liberal.
What's lacking is a vocal opposition for actions like this from the Muslim community at large. When polls are taken they often show thatt a MAJORITY of Muslims are at the very least sypathetic to these kinds of attacks.
I think they're scared of the repercussions of opposing the radical minority. What's needed is some active opposition to the most visible members (capping clerics?) to show the moderate majority out there they don't have to let the wackos do the talking.
In a new survey by a Turkish university, almost 40% said a woman who commits adultery deserves to be murdered.
A survey by a university in Turkey has shown almost 40% support for the practice of “honour killing”.
The results come days after a court in Istanbul gave a life sentence for the murder of a girl by her brothers for giving birth to a child out of wedlock.
Turkish law, which used to be lenient on “honour crimes”, was heavily revised as part of the country’s preparation for EU accession proceedings.
Turkey has started talks with the EU but is not expected to join for years.
The survey questioned 430 people, most of them men. When asked the appropriate punishment for a woman who has committed adultery, 37% replied she should be killed.
Twenty-five percent said that she deserved divorce, and 21% that her nose or ears should be cut off.
We do Muslims no favors by excusing attitudes or practices that ought always to be deemed inexcusable. In Australia's Victoria state, the Herald Sun reported recently, police have been issued a "religious diversity handbook" that advises them "to treat Muslim domestic violence cases differently out of respect for Islamic traditions and habits."
Sikhs, for example, "should not be disturbed" when reading their holy scriptures, a practice that normally takes 50 hours. Photographing Aborigines is discouraged, since it might raise fears of "sorcery and spiritual mischief." And Muslim wife-beaters should be treated with kid gloves, in deference to Islamic norms. "In incidents such as domestic violence," the handbook instructs, "police need to have an understanding of the traditions, ways of life, and habits of Muslims."
Could anything more perfectly capture the moral bankruptcy of multicultural relativism? The Koran may tolerate wife-beating (Sura 4:34: "As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to bed apart and beat them"), but why on earth should Australia?
"All Muslim husbands are not wife-beaters," remarks Robert Spencer, a scholar of Islam, "and it is condescending and irresponsible . . . to give those who are a free pass, instead of denouncing the practice unequivocally and calling upon Muslim men to heed the better angels of their nature." ....[H]e says, the West's unwillingness to "confront the elements of Islam that jihad terrorists use to justify violence, for fear of offending moderate Muslims," ends up undercutting the ability of those very moderates to demand reform from within.
The war against radical Islam is above all a war of values -- the values of liberty, equality, and human dignity against the values of jihad. The jihadis don't hesitate to proclaim their values. We must not be shy about defending ours.
Pakistan — Hundreds of Muslims attacked and burned two churches in Pakistan on Saturday after reports that a Christian man had desecrated Islam's holy book. No one was injured in the blazes.
A school, student hostel and the home of a priest were also torched by the crowd of about 1,500 Muslims near the town of Sangla Hill, about 80 miles northeast of Lahore, said police official Ali Asghar Dogar.
The attacks were being investigated. About two dozen people had been arrested, Dogar said.
The fires came a day after a local Muslim resident accused a Christian of burning a one-room Islamic school along with copies of the Quran. Dogar said the allegations were apparently leveled by people who lost money while gambling with the Christian man on Friday, but police had detained him and were investigating.
Shahbaz Bhatti, head of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance — which promotes the rights of minorities in mainly Muslim Pakistan, denied the charges and condemned the attacks on the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches.
All this isn't about Muslims hating freedom, its about Muslims and Christians hating each other. Why don't the members of both religions go off into the mountains and box each other and leave the secular world/religions that aren't insanely violent out of it.
Quote: the G-man said: Where are Christians rioting against Muslims?
Christians are running things in these countries and don't need to riot, they just egg them on. Look at this story (that I think you posted) about the school where Muslims asked for their religious holidays too and their was a big backlash. Why can't they have their holidays counted if Easter and Christmas are.
Lets be honest here, the Jews are the only one of the big three that aren't assholes.
Getting back to serious discussion, this is from an op-ed piece in today's San Francisco Chronicle. It presents an insight into Al Qaeda that I hadn't heard before. Here's an excerpt and a link to the full article.
MISJUDGING THE JIHAD Like their leader, bin Laden's lieutenants are well educated, well traveled and well heeled
- John Arquilla Sunday, November 13, 2005
Our attempts to reduce al Qaeda's flow of fresh recruits by spreading democracy and prosperity throughout the Muslim world are likely to backfire. That's partly because the political and military pressure that accompanies American-inspired "regime change" policies enrages many of the world's billion-plus Muslims, swelling the ranks of those who would oppose us.
But there is another big problem: We are shooting at the wrong target.
Over the years, al Qaeda cadres have generally not come from the pool of poor, semiliterate villagers who never ventured far from home and whose only education has been in religious schools, known as madrassas.
Instead, many of al Qaeda's fighters have been educated in first-rate universities, have been successful in a material sense and are well traveled.
Marc Sageman, a practicing psychiatrist and former CIA field agent who worked with the mujahedeen during their struggle against the nine-year Soviet occupation of Afghanistan that ended in 1989, notes that about 80 percent of al Qaeda members were living away from their home country when they joined the jihad.
His in-depth study, "Understanding Terror Networks," is based on personal histories of more than a hundred leading members of al Qaeda and portrays a movement energized by worldly, smart, idea-driven operatives.
In this respect, personal profiles of al Qaeda recruits have often resembled their leader's. Osama bin Laden is well educated, comes from a background of great wealth, yet has sacrificed all to lead his network into battle against a coalition of nations.
Instead of quietly enjoying his fortune and his family, and basking in the glory of victory over the Russians in Afghanistan, he took up the jihad once more.
While few terrorists have such starkly dramatic backstories, bin Laden is hardly an exceptional case of a man giving up privilege and embracing peril. Indeed, many al Qaeda fighters have personal histories that echo his.
John Arquilla is professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. His views do not represent official Defense Department policy.
Quote: the G-man said: Where are Christians rioting against Muslims?
Christians are running things in these countries and don't need to riot, they just egg them on. Look at this story (that I think you posted) about the school where Muslims asked for their religious holidays too and their was a big backlash. Why can't they have their holidays counted if Easter and Christmas are.
Lets be honest here, the Jews are the only one of the big three that aren't assholes.
Then why are the Muslims so determined to kill them too or Hindu's for that matter? Yea, we should just let the seularists like you, Mao and Stallin take over then we'll all have peace.
Oh and Cristians are running things in Pakistan? Another incredible fact from Ray! Now you know the REST of the story.
Quote: Al-Zarqawi's Jordan Family Renounces Him By JAMAL HALABY, Associated Press Writer 18 minutes ago
AMMAN, Jordan - Family members of Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi renounced the terrorist leader Sunday after his al-Qaida in Iraq group claimed responsibility for the Nov. 9 suicide attacks on three Amman hotels that killed 59 people.
The family of al-Zarqawi, whose real name is Ahmed Fadheel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, reiterated their strong allegiance to Jordan's King Abdullah II in half-page advertisements in the kingdom's three main newspapers. Al-Zarqawi threatened to kill the king in an audiotape released Friday.
"A Jordanian doesn't stab himself with his own spear," said the statement by 57 members of the al-Khalayleh family, including al-Zarqawi's brother and cousin. "We sever links with him until doomsday."
The statement is a serious blow to al-Zarqawi, who no longer will enjoy the protection of his tribe and whose family members may seek to kill him.
"As we pledge to maintain homage to your throne and to our precious Jordan ... we denounce in the clearest terms all the terrorist actions claimed by the so-called Ahmed Fadheel Nazzal al-Khalayleh, who calls himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," the family members said.
"We announce, and all the people are our witnesses, that we — the sons of the al-Khalayleh tribe — are innocent of him and all that emanates from him, whether action, assertion or decision."
The statement said anyone who carried out such violence in the kingdom does not enjoy its protection.
The al-Khalayleh tribe is a branch of the Bani Hassan, one of the area's largest and most prominent Bedouin tribes, which help form the bedrock of support for the royal family's Hashemite dynasty.
Relatives hold senior posts in the army and other government departments.
Al-Zarqawi often boasted of his family's influence when he was jailed in his native Jordan, said Yousef al-Rababaah, an ex-convict who shared al-Zarqawi's cellblock for four years until both were freed under a royal amnesty in 1999.
"Prison wardens and other prisoners feared him because of his family connections and influence," he told The Associated Press recently.
The family statement follows a rally Friday by dozens of angry al-Khalayleh tribe members, who also denounced al-Zarqawi.
The terrorist leader took his name from the city of Zarqa, 17 miles northeast of Amman.
"If my son was a terrorist, I wouldn't hesitate to kill him," family member Mousa al-Khalayleh said during Friday's rally, claiming he spoke on behalf of the tribe. "This is the slogan raised by the tribe as of this moment."
Sunday's message was similar to one sent last year by some members of al-Zarqawi's clan to Abdullah. That message, which contained fewer signatories, severed links with the terrorist for claiming a failed plot in April 2004 that targeted the Amman headquarters of Jordan's intelligence agency, the prime minister's office and the U.S. Embassy.
Officials have said thousands of people would have been killed had the attacks been carried out.
Al-Zarqawi has claimed responsibility for several terrorist attacks in Jordan and was sentenced to death in absentia for planning a conspiracy that led to the 2002 killing of U.S. aid worker Laurence Foley.
He also leads a campaign of bombings and kidnappings in Iraq, and the United States has offered $25 million for information leading to his capture.
I've also come across other items in Arab press condemning al-Zarqawi's terrorist actions.
Then why are the Muslims so determined to kill them too or Hindu's for that matter? Yea, we should just let the seularists like you, Mao and Stallin take over then we'll all have peace.
You're viewing all secular governments by Communism? Communism is an economic/social structure, not a religious based one. Religious based governments have been the most evil in history. The Spanish conquest and slaughter of the Indians in the name of Christ comes to mind.
Oh and Cristians are running things in Pakistan? Another incredible fact from Ray! Now you know the REST of the story.
Where did I mention Pakistan? We're talking about Paris. Another incredible idiocy from WBAM! Now you know the REST of the story, but can safely ignore it and blame Jesus.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I recall a couple of posters saying something about how Muslims don't do anything or enough to speak out against terorrism (it's a sentiment I've heard plenty of times in the real world). I'm not digging through thousands of posts to find out who among us said it, though.
Besides, it's not an accusation. It's just that if there is anyone around here who does feel this way, I just thought it would be a good idea to bring to their attention so they can see for themselves that there are Muslims who publicly condemn terrorism.
I don't think anyone has said it never happens, only that
[1]it doesn't happen enough and
[2] a lot of the religions' leaders (though not all) seem to, at best, fail to condemn the violence or, at worst, actively encourage it.
Quote: the G-man said: I don't anyone has said it never happens, only that[
[1]it doesn't happen enough
[2] a lot of the religions' leaders (though not all) seem to, at best, fail to condemn the violence or, at worst, actively encourage it.
Either way, I think those comments merited my taking the time to post the article that I did - just to show that it does happen, although I'll agree that it doesn't happen often enough - which seems to have been overlooked on account of people apparently thinking I'm making an accusation when I'm not.
I'm now no longer addressing any comments or debate about which RKMBers have said what. That wasn't the intent of my original post. I've addressed G-Man and Pariah only because it seemed to be necessary in order to clarify my statement. I've done that, and there's nothing else to be said about it.
Did anyone actually read the article, just out of curiosity? 'Cause that's what I want to talk about, not the mindset of the RKMBs.
Quote: the G-man said: I don't anyone has said it never happens, only that
[1]it doesn't happen enough and [2] a lot of the religions' leaders (though not all) seem to, at best, fail to condemn the violence or, at worst, actively encourage it.
Plus, that the Islamic religion had genuine violent doctrine within its teachings in the first place. In which case, it couldn't be said that these terrorists are actually perverting the religion itself.
Even as they were passing another six resolutions condemning Israel, the United Nations General Assembly failed to define terrorism, because the Organization of the Islamic Conference demanded exceptions for terror gangs like Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the head-hacking Al Qaeda holy warriors in Iraq.
“This is a priority for us and the secretary-general and it’s unfortunate that it’s come down to some members of the [Organization of the Islamic Conference] being so obstructionist, trying to carve out what’s considered terrorism,” Benjamin Chang, deputy spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said yesterday. “We think that it’s unfortunate that we’re at this stage of things this long after we rhetorically made all these commitments in September.”
On Tuesday, committee members agreed without a vote to postpone work on the contentious language, while denouncing as “unjustifiable” acts of terror designed to provoke fear in the general public. They also agreed that all states should prevent terrorist acts and prosecute perpetrators.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a statement that he is “disappointed” with the lack of action and indicated that he would soon meet with key players to try to resolve their differences.
Every nation agrees that terrorism is wrong, but many Arab and Islamic governments insist that an exception must be made for those fighting colonial domination or foreign occupation.
Among the groups that might fit that description: Islamic Jihad and Hamas in the West Bank, the insurgents of Iraq, and secessionist movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, the Philippines, Indonesia and Northern Ireland, among many others.
MULTAN, Pakistan - Nazir Ahmed appears calm and unrepentant as he recounts how he slit the throats of his three young daughters and their 25-year old stepsister to salvage his family’s “honor” — a crime that shocked Pakistan.
The 40-year old laborer, speaking to The Associated Press in police detention as he was being shifted to prison, confessed to just one regret — that he didn’t murder the stepsister’s alleged lover too.
Hundreds of girls and women are murdered by male relatives each year in this conservative Islamic nation, and rights groups said Wednesday such “honor killings” will only stop when authorities get serious about punishing perpetrators.
The independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said that in more than half of such cases that make it to court, most end with cash settlements paid by relatives to the victims’ families, although under a law passed last year, the minimum penalty is 10 years, the maximum death by hanging.
Ahmed’s killing spree — witnessed by his wife Rehmat Bibi as she cradled their 3 month-old baby son — happened Friday night at their home in the cotton-growing village of Gago Mandi in eastern Punjab province.
It is the latest of more than 260 such honor killings documented by the rights commission, mostly from media reports, during the first 11 months of 2005.
Bibi recounted how she was woken by a shriek as Ahmed put his hand to the mouth of his stepdaughter Muqadas and cut her throat with a machete. Bibi looked helplessly on from the corner of the room as he then killed the three girls — Bano, 8, Sumaira, 7, and Humaira, 4 — pausing between the slayings to brandish the bloodstained knife at his wife, warning her not to intervene or raise alarm.
“I was shivering with fear. I did not know how to save my daughters,” Bibi, sobbing, told AP by phone from the village. “I begged my husband to spare my daughters but he said, ‘If you make a noise, I will kill you.’”
“The whole night the bodies of my daughters lay in front of me,” she said.
In a poll taken after the Gaza disengagement, 65% of Palestinians strongly supported Al Qaeda terror attacks in the US and Europe.
And nearly 80% want their fledgling new state (funded by the same countries they’d like to see attacked) institute the Dark Ages code of shari’a law.
A poll carried out in the Palestinian Authority shows 65% support for Al Qaeda terror attacks on the United States and European countries - the biggest donors to the PA. The poll comes at a time when US and European funding of the Palestinian Authority is at an all-time high.
With elections due to be held next month and the Hamas terror group gaining significantly in municipal elections and polls, the survey further illustrates the desire of a majority of PA Arabs to establish an Islamic state, similar to Iran. A whopping 79.9% of Palestinians would like the PA to follow Shari’a - Islamic religious law. Included in the figure are 11.3% of the respondents, who would like to see Shari’a supplemented by the laws of a PA Legislature.
“What is striking is the willingness of Palestinians to turn against even the Western countries upon whom they are so totally dependent in order to progress,” said Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) Director Itamar Marcus. “The poll underscores what PMW has been documenting for years - the profoundly negative impact hate education has had on PA society ... Palestinians are not in direct conflict with the US, and certainly have counted on the Europeans as active allies. And yet an overwhelming majority desire to see Europeans and Americans killed by a religion-based terror organization.”
Quote: the G-man said: In a poll taken after the Gaza disengagement, 65% of Palestinians strongly supported Al Qaeda terror attacks in the US and Europe.
Srdja Trifkovic is the foreign-affairs editor of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture and director of The Rockford Institute's Center for International Affairs. He asks Can a Pious Muslim Become a Loyal American?
A Muslim who becomes a naturalized American citizen is literally millions of times more likely to plot terrorist acts against his fellow citizens than a member of any other religious creed or political ideology (Islam is both). It is not possible to wage a meaningful “Global War on Terrorism” without considering the legal, moral, and pragmatic implications of this problem.
First, the facts. Muslims account for up to one percent of the population of the United States, in contrast to Western Europe where their share of the population is up to ten times greater. They like to pretend otherwise, and groups such as the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Student Association, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the American Muslim Council (AMC), and the Harvard Islamic Society routinely assert that there are between 4.5 and 9 million Muslims in the United States. It is remarkable that these sources do not provide any empirically verifiable basis for their figures.
Impartial studies currently place the number of Muslims at between 2 and 3 million. The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) polled more than 50,000 people in 2001 and found the total American Muslim population to be 1.8 million. The University of Chicago’s Tom W. Smith reached a similar figure
It is estimated that up to two-thirds of that group are foreign-born immigrants, and about one half are naturalized American citizens. In other words, about one-half of one percent of the country’s overall population are foreign-born Muslims who are now naturalized U.S. citizens.
As U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials are well aware (and some readily admit off-the-record), the attitudes of these people tend to change once their status in America is secure. As visa applicants or permanent residents they refrain from statements and acts that may make them excludable under current laws. But as soon as they gain citizenship, some among them are quick to rediscover the virtues of sharia and jihad.
“We must never forget . . . that as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government—anywhere in the world – in order to replace it by an Islamic one,” the speaker concluded his remarks. The venue was a mosque, not in Rawalpindi or Jeddah but in San Francisco. When a recent convert noted that if Muslims are obligated to overthrow the U.S. government then accepting Islam was tantamount to an act of political treason, the lecturer responded matter-of-factly, “Yes, that’s true.”
He was right both technically and substantively. A breach of allegiance to the United States by naturalized Muslims is not a rarity, it is an integral part of the Muslim-American experience. It is an inherent dilemma for many; it leads the serious few to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem will be solved only if and when Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who actively supports or preaches jihad, inequality of “infidels,” the establishment of the Shari’a law, etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.
For a Muslim to declare all of the above in good faith, and especially that he accepts the Constitution of the United States as the source of his highest loyalty, is an act of brazen apostasy par excellence, and apostasy is punishable by death under the Islamic law. The sharia, to a Muslim, is not an addition to the “secular” legal code with which it coexists with “the Constitution and laws of the United States of America”; it is the only true code, the only basis of obligation. To be legitimate, all political power therefore must rest exclusively with those who enjoy Allah’s authority on the basis of his revealed will. In America that is not the case and its government is therefore illegitimate.
It is equally sacrilegious for a Muslim to swear to “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That vow, if it means anything substantial, means that he would be prepared to shoot a fellow Muslim, or denounce him to the authorities, in defense of his adopted homeland. That this is not how many if not most naturalized Muslims see it is a matter of record.
So how can a self-avowedly devout Muslim take the oath of American citizenship, and expect the rest of us to believe that it was done in good faith and not only in order to get that coveted passport? A devout Muslim can do it only if in taking the oath he is practicing taqiyya, the art of dissimulation that was inaugurated by Muhammad to help destabilize and undermine non-Muslim communities almost ripe for a touch of old-fashioned Jihad. Or else he may take it because he is not devout and may be confused, in other case if he is not a very good Muslim at all; but in that case there is the ever-present danger that at some point in the future he or his American-born offspring will rediscover their roots. The consequences of such awakening for the rest of us are invariably perilous.
Quote: magicjay said: Okay, most of the USA soldiers are Xtian. If it makes you feel better call them Americans. The question is which would feel better; having your face burned off by a Muslim 'terrorist' or an American pilot?
I'd like to comment on this statement by saying that I was at the recruiter's office a few weeks ago. Consequently, I told them I was Christian, and they all gave me a funny look and asked, "Why?" They all proceeded to say, "You're a smart guy, why the hell would you be in a religion?!" Quite frankly, I was within a congregation of atheists who felt I had to justify my faith to them.
Quote: Jim Jackson said: OK, so what's your solution? I read all this evidence presented herein that says Islam is not a religion of peace.
OK, so what do you propose to do about it?
The solution advocated for Pat Robertson way back when sounds like more fun to me, but I'm sure that capping clerics will only make more martyrs. Since the religious and political establishments in Muslim nations are so intertwined, it might become necessary to manipulate things from the inside to help promote more moderate clerics.
Quote: Jim Jackson said: OK, so what's your solution? I read all this evidence presented herein that says Islam is not a religion of peace.
OK, so what do you propose to do about it?
From the article G-man just quoted:
Quote:
A breach of allegiance to the United States by naturalized Muslims is not a rarity, it is an integral part of the Muslim-American experience. It is an inherent dilemma for many; it leads the serious few to give aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem will be solved only if and when Islamic activism is treated as grounds for the loss of acquired U.S. citizenship and deportation. The citizenship of any naturalized American who actively supports or preaches jihad, [who preaches the ] inequality of “infidels,” [who advocates] the establishment of the Shari’a law, etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.
I'd further advocate a complete or near-total ban on muslim immigration to the U.S.
You see nothing scary in the position you're advocating?
Hey, like everybody else, I don't wish to die or see my family or members of anybody else's family die as a result of any religious-based terrorism.
But there's a potential slippery slope in what's being advocated in the passage you quoted. One day it's Islam being targeted. The next day maybe it's Agnosticism.
I don't discount that what you say may ultimately be a correct path to take in terms of safety(and the Liberal in me finds it nearly disgusting that I'm saying that, for while I practice no formal, organized religion, the thought of viewing someone else's status in this country based solely on their religious beliefs really, really scares me), I just worry about the precedents it sets.
An issue, though, is the extent to which the person's demonstrated those dangerous views. It's down to whether or not we deny immigration based solely on What Is Your Religion?
As I recall, this nation was founded by a bunch of people who came here so they could freely exercise their own religion. That said, at what point does one person's free exercise infringe upon another's?
The head Islamic chaplain for the city jail system was suspended yesterday after he claimed Muslims were being tortured in Manhattan lock-ups, and declared that the "greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House."
Mayor Bloomberg and City Correction Commissioner Martin Horn put Abdul-Jalil on paid administrative leave from his $76,602-a-year job, pending the outcome of an investigation into his inflammatory remarks.
Last April, a counterterrorism organization, the Investigative Project, secretly recorded two speeches Abdul-Jalil gave at a conference sponsored by the Muslim Students Association in Tucson, Ariz.
In remarks to two panels at the conference, Abdul-Jalil alleged that Muslims jailed after the 9/11 attacks were being "tortured" in the Manhattan Correctional Center, that "the greatest terrorists in world occupy the White House" and that Muslims should not allow "Zionists of the media to dictate what Islam is to us."
House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.) and several other New York area politicians called for Abdul-Jalil to be axed.
"A person with those views should not be allowed to serve in any government agency," King said.
Like many news junkies, I've noticed that stories putting Muslims in a bad light tend to be sketchy and underreported. A minor example is this comment by the head Muslim chaplain of New York City's prisons: "The greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House." In Manhattan, remarks like that are nearly as conventional as talk about the weather, so the controversy was fairly small.
It might have been larger if the media had shown any interest in other points the imam made. For instance that Muslim prisoners are being tortured in Manhattan, and that Muslims must be "hard against the kaffir" (i.e., nasty to infidels), which presumably city employees are not paid to recommend. (By the way, why are clergymen city employees at all?)
A much bigger example is the misleadingly low-key reporting of the Ilan Halimi murder in Paris. We now know that Halimi was killed as a classic expression of Jew hatred. But with so much evasiveness and misdirection by police, government and press, it took a month to get that fact clearly on the table. Halimi, a cell phone salesman, was kidnapped and held for ransom by a mostly Muslim gang. He was horrifically tortured for three weeks, then slain. From time to time, neighbors had come to watch the torture or to participate in it. Nobody called the gendarmes.
At first the government and the press presented this story as a straightforward kidnapping for ransom. A spokesman said Jewishness may have played a role simply because the kidnappers thought Jews were rich. AP and UPI, in feeds to the United States, barely mentioned the possibility of anti-Semitism. After arrests were made, the BBC worked hard to avoid using the word "Muslim," though verses from the Quran were recited during the torture.
The Los Angeles Times account of Feb. 28 shows how hard candor can be. It reported that the gang made hundreds of abusive phone calls to Jews and had systematically tried to kidnap Jews. But the reporters wrote this: "Rather than a premeditated anti-Semitic murder, it seems a more complex product of criminality and dysfunction in the narrow world of thug culture: a poisonous mentality that designates Jews as enemies along with other faces of 'outsiders.'"
Oh, please. If whites had tortured and killed a black man, I doubt that reporters would be carrying on about how complex and unpremeditated it all was. They would just say it was a lynching.
In an excellent article last week, Colin Nickerson of The Boston Globe said the crime was being attributed to a "predominantly Muslim youth gang" notorious for "virulent anti-Semitism." The gang's taunting phone calls to Halimi's father were filled with anti-Semitic slurs and a rabbi had been told, "We have a Jew." The Globe said hatred of Jews is now a hallmark of what's cool in France, even among young immigrants from non-Muslim nations. Very strong article. No dancing around, just good reporting.
Governments and the media often avoid calling terrorism by its proper name. Presumably the idea is to calm the public and avoid embarrassing Muslims. It took nine months for the FBI and the government to admit that the attack on L.A. airport in 2002 was a terrorist operation. We had been told that personal reasons might explain why a pro-Palestinian gunman, who openly admitted the desire to kill civilians, would kill two people at an El Al counter.
The same verbal dance took place recently when an Iranian student rented a large van and tried to run down and kill as many students as possible in North Carolina. He said he was attempting to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world." But the university tried desperately to avoid the obvious T-word.
Tony Blankley wrote a Washington Times column, March 8, on the underreporting of Muslim violence. He said British politicians tell him there is increasing radical Muslim street violence, explicitly motivated by radical Islam, but not reported or characterized as such. Blankley said rioting Moroccan youths in Antwerp went on a rampage, beating up reporters and destroying cars, but police were instructed not to arrest or stop them. A database search shows little reporting on Antwerp riots.
The scary riots in Australia last December, pitting Lebanese immigrants against native whites, were well-covered. But nobody seems quite sure that we are getting the full story about other serious disturbances. From time to time the Internet carries reports of riots that don't make the newspapers, but they are mostly uncheckable.
Governments and the media often avoid calling terrorism by its proper name. Presumably the idea is to calm the public and avoid embarrassing Muslims.
The scary riots in Australia last December, pitting Lebanese immigrants against native whites, were well-covered. But nobody seems quite sure that we are getting the full story about other serious disturbances. From time to time the Internet carries reports of riots that don't make the newspapers, but they are mostly uncheckable.
The only reason the "scary riots in Australia" were reported was because it could be spun as 'white racist Australians' attacking 'innocent Muslims'.
Except that the 'innocent Muslims' were all too eager to lash back violently, rather than exhibit restraint and allow the Australian justice system to punish their non-Muslim attackers.
And in that lack of restaint, Muslims in Australia again demonstrated the consistent Muslim impulse for violence, and contempt for the culture and government of nations that are gracious enough to allow Muslims in their borders.
Despite the overthrow of the fundamentalist Taliban government and the presence of 22,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, a man who converted to Christianity is being prosecuted in Kabul, and a judge said Sunday that if convicted, he faces the death penalty.
Abdul Rahman, who is in his 40s, says he converted to Christianity 16 years ago while working as an aid worker helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan.
Relatives denounced him as a convert during a custody battle over his children, and he was arrested last month. The prosecutor says Rahman was found with a Bible.
Governments and the media often avoid calling terrorism by its proper name. Presumably the idea is to calm the public and avoid embarrassing Muslims.
The scary riots in Australia last December, pitting Lebanese immigrants against native whites, were well-covered. But nobody seems quite sure that we are getting the full story about other serious disturbances. From time to time the Internet carries reports of riots that don't make the newspapers, but they are mostly uncheckable.
The only reason the "scary riots in Australia" were reported was because it could be spun as 'white racist Australians' attacking 'innocent Muslims'.
Except that the 'innocent Muslims' were all too eager to lash back violently, rather than exhibit restraint and allow the Australian justice system to punish their non-Muslim attackers. And in that lack of restaint, Muslims in Australia again demonstrated the consistent Muslim impulse for violence, and contempt for the culture and government of nations that are gracious enough to allow Muslims in their borders.
I didn't catch the story on Aussie riots but are you sure they were Muslims? All the Lebanese I know are Maronite Christians. We've got a lot of them around here. They own all the liquor stores that the Chinese don't own.
Quote: Afghan Clerics Demand Convert Be Killed By DANIEL COONEY, Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan - Senior Muslim clerics demanded Thursday that an Afghan man on trial for converting from Islam to Christianity be executed, warning that if the government caves in to Western pressure and frees him, they will incite people to "pull him into pieces."
In an unusual move, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice telephoned President Hamid Karzai on Thursday seeking a "favorable resolution" of the case of Abdul Rahman. The 41-year-old former medical aid worker faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws for becoming a Christian.
His trial has fired passions in this conservative Muslim nation and highlighted a conflict of values between Afghanistan and its Western backers.
"Rejecting Islam is insulting God. We will not allow God to be humiliated. This man must die," said cleric Abdul Raoulf, who is considered a moderate and was jailed three times for opposing the Taliban before the hard-line regime was ousted in 2001.
The trial, which began last week, has caused an international outcry. President Bush has said he is "deeply troubled" by the case and expects the country to "honor the universal principle of freedom."
Rice spokesman Sean McCormack said she told Karzai it is important for the Afghan people to know that freedom of religion is observed in their country. But in deference to the country's sovereignty, Rice evidently did not demand specifically that the trial be halted and the defendant released.
"This is clearly an Afghan decision," McCormack said. "They are a sovereign country."
Still, Rice's direct appeal to a foreign leader in a judicial proceeding in their own country is an unusual move.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters she had received assurances from Karzai in a telephone call that Rahman would not be sentenced to death.
"I have the impression that he (Karzai) has a firm willingness" to abide by the human rights requirements, Merkel said going into pre-European Union summit talks. "I hope we will be able to resolve this."
Diplomats have said the Afghan government is searching for a way to drop the case. On Wednesday, authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.
But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they do not believe Rahman is insane.
"He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque.
"The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed."
Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed. "The government is playing games. The people will not be fooled."
"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left."
He said the only way for Rahman to survive would be for him to go into exile.
But Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country.
"If he is allowed to live in the West, then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. "We must set an example. ... He must be hanged."
The clerics said they were angry with the United States and other countries for pushing for Rahman's freedom.
"We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. "We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."
Afghanistan's constitution is based on Shariah law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death.
Hamidullah warned that if the government frees Rahman, "there will be an uprising" like one against Soviet occupying forces in the 1980s.
"The government will lose the support of the people," he said. "What sort of democracy would it be if the government ignored the will of all the people."
Meanwhile, human rights group Amnesty International said if Rahman has been detained solely for his religious beliefs, he would be a "prisoner of conscience."
"The charges against him should be dropped and if necessary he should be protected against any abuses within the community," the London-based group said in a statement.
Rahman is believed to have lived in Germany for nine years after converting to Christianity while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He returned to Kabul in 2002.
It was not immediately clear when Rahman's trial will resume. Authorities have barred attempts by the AP to see him and he is not believed to have a lawyer.
Yeah, my Spanish teacher thanked God that he was released in her prayer before class the other day. All I could think was how little she understood what was actually going on.
A Jordanian woman has hacked her 26-year-old daughter to death in her sleep with an axe for giving birth out of wedlock, the Jordan Times reported.
The 69-year-old mother and another daughter turned themselves in to police after Saturday's killing, claiming they had acted to cleanse the "family honour", the paper said, quoting official sources on Sunday.
They were charged with premeditated murder, the sources said.
It seems as if, every few weeks or months, we hear about some Muslim killing his or her daughter for having sex out of wedlock. Conversely, however, I can't recall the last time that even an evangelical Christian did the same thing.
A Jordanian woman has hacked her 26-year-old daughter to death in her sleep with an axe for giving birth out of wedlock, the Jordan Times reported.
The 69-year-old mother and another daughter turned themselves in to police after Saturday's killing, claiming they had acted to cleanse the "family honour", the paper said, quoting official sources on Sunday.
They were charged with premeditated murder, the sources said.
It seems as if, every few weeks or months, we hear about some Muslim killing his or her daughter for having sex out of wedlock. Conversely, however, I can't recall the last time that even an evangelical Christian did the same thing.
You have to consider that the middle east is a very harsh section of the world. things are different due to the history and the geography as much as the religion. the chinese sometimes drown their daughters in rivers. i'm not defending either practice, but i think its rather biggoted for you to pick out a story and then use it to attack a religion.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: Yeah there are terrorists who are muslim, there's also the ira, and those guys in wyoming and montana with bunkers and guns, and you could argue the israelis do terrorist acts. no religion of the big 3 is free of fringe evil elements.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: You have to consider that the middle east is a very harsh section of the world. things are different due to the history and the geography as much as the religion. the chinese sometimes drown their daughters in rivers. i'm not defending either practice, but i think its rather biggoted for you to pick out a story and then use it to attack a religion.
A religion is composed of ideas and beliefs. If ideas or beliefs are repugnant or dangerous they deserve criticism.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: Yeah there are terrorists who are muslim, there's also the ira, and those guys in wyoming and montana with bunkers and guns, and you could argue the israelis do terrorist acts. no religion of the big 3 is free of fringe evil elements.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: You have to consider that the middle east is a very harsh section of the world. things are different due to the history and the geography as much as the religion. the chinese sometimes drown their daughters in rivers. i'm not defending either practice, but i think its rather biggoted for you to pick out a story and then use it to attack a religion.
A religion is composed of ideas and beliefs. If ideas or beliefs are repugnant or dangerous they deserve criticism.
But its the middle east governments that are the problem, you can't make the blanket statement that all muslims want to overthrow the U.S. Its just silly and bigotted.
Quote: Matter-eater Man could have just as easily said: Does anyone really takes [me] seriously since (I) make those types of denounciations [against Republicans] all the time?
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: Does anyone really takes wbam seriously since he makes those types of denounciations all the time?
Maybe I denounce Ray for that all the time because it's true... you ever consider that?
Of course not, because you treat the posters on this board the same way you treat elected officials. Are you claiming that Ray doesn't make ignorant generalisations about Christians or are you just trying to make a backdoor denial by implying that my accusation must be false because I've made it more than once.
You ever consider that your addressing another poster that you regularly denounce WBAM? The WBAM/G-man show is getting a little old. If you guys want to concentrate more on attacking posters & less on what they say, why oh why is it a surprise that you start getting some of it back?
Yea, and you prove our point about your hypocracy by ignorring the fact that the poster I was denouncing was denouncing Wonder Boy. I just called him out because he does exactly the same thing he's accusing WB of.
We've pointed out that you have a magical way of not seeing any fault in your own even when they do teh same thing you claim others are doing. That's ok, though, I guess it's your schtick.
Do you really want to make the claim that I don;t adress what people say? Because I would love to have the oppertunity to make you look silly, but I'll give you a chance to amend your statement if you'd like to avaoid that.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said:its the middle east governments that are the problem, you can't make the blanket statement that all muslims want to overthrow the U.S. Its just silly and bigotted.
I haven't made that statement.
I've criticized tenets of Islam which I believe are dangerous or wrongheaded. I've criticized the faith and its followers for allowing themselves to be co-opted by "holy men" who use those, and similar, tenets to justify acts of evil.
I agree with your statement that the Islamic governments are a problem. However, it must also be noted that often those governments use religion as a basis for what they do.
For example, the leader of Iran has made it clear that his nation's recent acts have been in response to his belief in jihad.
Granted, you can find Christians who do similar things but, I would submit, the same numbers aren't there.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said:its the middle east governments that are the problem, you can't make the blanket statement that all muslims want to overthrow the U.S. Its just silly and bigotted.
I haven't made that statement.
I've criticized tenets of Islam which I believe are dangerous or wrongheaded. I've criticized the faith and its followers for allowing themselves to be co-opted by "holy men" who use those, and similar, tenets to justify acts of evil.
I agree with your statement that the Islamic governments are a problem. However, it must also be noted that often those governments use religion as a basis for what they do.
For example, the leader of Iran has made it clear that his nation's recent acts have been in response to his belief in jihad.
Granted, you can find Christians who do similar things but, I would submit, the same numbers aren't there.
well how do the muslims see bush though? probably the same way we see the muslims. religious people who say god wants them to find wars. i think if bush were toned down then it'd be harder for these leaders to gain leverage. i also think we shouldn't support israel so strongly. it only has us taking sides.
Generally speaking I think we should support Israel. They are an ally and they are in a tough position out there, surrounded by countries that think they shouldn't even be there. But they are making it tough at the moment, they are killing a hell of a lot of civilians and doing pretty much what Hezbollah want them to. But they aren't in a great situation, they have to protect themselves somehow, Lebanon's government are no help and the UN is taking it's own sweet time.
You can't seriously blame Bush for this. Islamist terrorists have been targeting victims, and the U.S., since well before his presidency.
Remember the Iranian hostage crisis? The president at that point was Jimmy "Mr Sensitive Liberal Camp David Peacemaker" Carter.
And while we defend Israel, which is only fitting since it is the only democracy in the middle east, we have often tried to get them to make concessions to the Palestinians.
Finally, as noted above, there are all sorts of violent, backwards, religious tenets that having nothing to do with global politics. In fact, we were just talking about one: the honor killings of young women.
Its not only absurd, its twisted, to blame the murder of young women on Bush and the Jews.
Quote: the G-man said: You can't seriously blame Bush for this. Islamist terrorists have been targeting victims, and the U.S., since well before his presidency.
i didn't say he started it, just that it doesn't help things. and he is aggrevating things.
Quote: And while we defend Israel, which is only fitting since it is the only democracy in the middle east, we have often tried to get them to make concessions to the Palestinians.
i'm not saying we turn on Israel, just that we shouldn't make such a strong alliance. Get us looking more impartial.
Even if you magically get a cease fire between Israel and every other middle eastern country, how will that stop honor killings, which are murders of young women for failing to remain suitably chaste under Islamic law.
Especially when such killings occur in Islamic nations not located in the middle east, for example, Indonesia?
Quote: the G-man said: Even if you magically get a cease fire between Israel and every other middle eastern country, how will that stop honor killings, which are murders of young women for failing to remain suitably chaste under Islamic law.
Especially when such killings occur in Islamic nations not located in the middle east, for example, Indonesia?
r3x reply:
Try to put this into context! The religion that's situated in that region is just in the middle of a harsh section of the world. So you can't judge it so scathingly G-bitch.
Sure, there haven't been any honor killings by the Christian population in the Middle East, but think about what goes on here! Daughters get excommunicated when they're not chaste. That's just as bad if not worse that Muslomic traditions.
After all, most of them are very smart and peaceful people. We can't make negative conclusions about the Muslims just from these hundreds of articles depicting violence perpetrated by them.
Quote: the G-man said: Even if you magically get a cease fire between Israel and every other middle eastern country, how will that stop honor killings, which are murders of young women for failing to remain suitably chaste under Islamic law.
Especially when such killings occur in Islamic nations not located in the middle east, for example, Indonesia?
Quote: r3x reply:
that's not how you write a fake reply.
Quote: Try to put this into context! The religion that's situated in that region is just in the middle of a harsh section of the world. So you can't judge it so scathingly G-bitch.
i don't think i can remember asking to have anything put into context. also i never use the word scathingly, it seems too gay. see, my point that you're trying to mock is that the region is harsh and if it were christians there as the dominant faith, then they would be brutal too because the bible has just as many things about violence and killing as the koran does. my problem is with the assertion that islam itself is violent and hellbent on killing everyone. if that were the case then something big and a worldwide fullscale war would've happened by now. from the muslims i've known, they said jihad is more about fighting invaders, not terrorism against non-believers outside your home. meaning they must see us as invaders and a threat to them. i think we should look at the motives of people to understand things better.
I think we can all agree that the notion that Islam is a religion of peace is a tad bit over-exxagerated!
Sure, the great majority of muslims live exemplary lives and deserve nothing but respect for renouncing the fundamentalistic muslims who use religion to further their cause.
But really, the islamic culture is based on among other things, honour. And that honour is often the cause of much death and grief.
Are muslims in general evil? of course not, but some are and they are the ones who's putting the lie to the truth that Islam is a religion of peace.
But then again. I think there are many outstanding muslims who follow the laws of the land and live exemplary lives who would not want us to confuse their religion with the fundamentalists....fundamentalism.
Quote: Chant said: I think we can all agree that the notion that Islam is a religion of peace is a tad bit over-exxagerated!
No we can't. It's no more or less violent then Christianity. The misconception comes in when one forgets to take into account the place of priveledge that Christians have in American society. They are a dominent force in the world (at the present moment). Were they in a similar underdog position as Muslims, there actions wouldn't be so different (as history can attest to).
Quote: klinton said: No we can't. It's no more or less violent then Christianity. The misconception comes in when one forgets to take into account the place of priveledge that Christians have in American society. They are a dominent force in the world (at the present moment). Were they in a similar underdog position as Muslims, there actions wouldn't be so different (as history can attest to).
In countries where Muslims aren't dominent, such as the US, they tend to be less violent than in nations where they are dominant, such as the middle east, Indonesia, etc.
Osama bin laden was, and is, wealthy and that never stopped him from attacking us.
Yes, Christianity was violent in the past. But at that same time, so was Islam. However, where Christianity has largely eschewed a tradition of violence, large segments of Islam continue to embrace it.
Finally, I gotta say, klinton, I really think guys like you (ie, liberal gays) are slitting your own throats with your defense of Islam. If they ever do get in power, do you think you won't be executed?
In Saudi Arabia on April 16, 2001, five homosexuals were sentenced to 2,600 lashes and 6 years in prison, and four others to 2,400 lashes and 5 years’ imprisonment for “deviant sexual behavior.” Amnesty International subsequently reported that six men were executed on charges of deviant sexual behavior, some of which were related to their sexual orientation, but it was uncertain whether the six men who were executed were among the nine who were sentenced to flogging and imprisonment in April
It is difficult to establish precisely the number of homosexuals that have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979, since not all sentences are widely publicized, but estimates range from several hundred to 4,000 (3). According to Amnesty International, at least three homosexual men and two lesbians were publicly beheaded in January 1990. The Islamic Penal Law Against Homosexuals, approved in July 1991 and ratified in November of that year, is simple. Article 110: “Punishment for sodomy is killing; the Sharia judge decides on how to carry out the killing.” Article 129: “Punishment for lesbianism is one hundred (100) lashes for each party.” Article 131: “If the act of lesbianism is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will be issued the fourth time.”
While the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, it regularly executed homosexuals.
And, yet, here you are, blindly preaching acceptance of a belief system that would take you out faster than any Jerry Falwell.
I'm well aware of the reality, G-man. I don't want them in control either. But as a human being, I will not condemn them for thier beleifs. Perhaps it is the eternal human condition to want to assert your will on others...but I honestly believe there's room for everyone on this globe. I don't feel it's my position to judge thier path to heaven any more than it theirs to judge yours or mine.
I merely stated that it's severly hypocritical of anyone here to condemn them and declare them a violent people. They are no more or less so than you or I were positions reversed.
In Britain, a recent poll commissioned by TV documentarians discovered that nearly a third of young Muslim men agreed that the deadly bombings in England's subway and bus system in July 2005 "were justified because of British support for the war on terror."
Another survey, by The Times of London, found that 13 percent of Muslims of any age - the great majority of them of Pakistani origin - felt the bombers were "martyrs."
A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.
Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.
"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion," he said in Friday evening prayers.
"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.
"We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope," he said.
Reached by telephone on Saturday, Malin confirmed making the remarks that were echoed in less strident form by other senior clerics in the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS).
An elderly Italian nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in Africa was shot dead by two gunmen at a hospital Sunday in an attack possibly linked to worldwide Muslim anger toward Pope Benedict XVI and his recent comments on Islam.
Sister Leonella, 65, was shot in the back four times by pistol-wielding attackers as she left the Austrian-run S.O.S. hospital. Her bodyguard was also slain.
There was no claim of responsibility for the attack, which came just hours after a leading Somali cleric condemned the pope's remarks last week on Islam and violence.
Two churches in the West Bank were set on fire, following five incidents in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, when five churches were firebombed and fired at.
In some quarters, there were signs the Pope's remarks in Castelgandolfo were enough to draw a line under the affair. The second most senior leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said he accepted the clarification.
But, elsewhere, firebrand Islamic preachers continued to milk the crisis for all it was worth. In the holy city of Qom, in Iran, a hardline cleric, Ahmad Khatami, told hundreds of demonstrators that the Pope and President Bush were "united in order to repeat the Crusades".
"If the Pope does not apologise, Muslims' anger will continue until he becomes remorseful," he went on. "He should go to clerics and sit and learn about Islam."
In response to the Pope's suggestion that Islam might not be a peaceful religion, as if that's a news flash, Muslims murder an elderly Italian nun at the Children's Hospital in Somalia by shooting her in the back three times. They attack Christians and their churches, burn American flags and western leaders in effigy, all to prove just how peaceful and civilized they really are.
A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.
Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.
"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion," he said in Friday evening prayers.
"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.
"We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope," he said.
Reached by telephone on Saturday, Malin confirmed making the remarks that were echoed in less strident form by other senior clerics in the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS).
An elderly Italian nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in Africa was shot dead by two gunmen at a hospital Sunday in an attack possibly linked to worldwide Muslim anger toward Pope Benedict XVI and his recent comments on Islam.
Sister Leonella, 65, was shot in the back four times by pistol-wielding attackers as she left the Austrian-run S.O.S. hospital. Her bodyguard was also slain.
There was no claim of responsibility for the attack, which came just hours after a leading Somali cleric condemned the pope's remarks last week on Islam and violence.
Two churches in the West Bank were set on fire, following five incidents in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, when five churches were firebombed and fired at.
In some quarters, there were signs the Pope's remarks in Castelgandolfo were enough to draw a line under the affair. The second most senior leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said he accepted the clarification.
But, elsewhere, firebrand Islamic preachers continued to milk the crisis for all it was worth. In the holy city of Qom, in Iran, a hardline cleric, Ahmad Khatami, told hundreds of demonstrators that the Pope and President Bush were "united in order to repeat the Crusades".
"If the Pope does not apologise, Muslims' anger will continue until he becomes remorseful," he went on. "He should go to clerics and sit and learn about Islam."
In response to the Pope's suggestion that Islam might not be a peaceful religion, as if that's a news flash, Muslims murder an elderly Italian nun at the Children's Hospital in Somalia by shooting her in the back three times. They attack Christians and their churches, burn American flags and western leaders in effigy, all to prove just how peaceful and civilized they really are.
its tragic that these few crazy radicals are able to damage the entire religion's reputation.
G-man I could post articles about Christians committing violence to claim its the way the whole religion is. I could post how black people commit crimes so therefore all black people are evil. I could post about a woman who lies thus proving all women lie.
A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.
Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin urged Muslims to find the pontiff and punish him for insulting the Prophet Mohammed and Allah in a speech that he said was as offensive as author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses.
"We urge you Muslims wherever you are to hunt down the Pope for his barbaric statements as you have pursued Salman Rushdie, the enemy of Allah who offended our religion," he said in Friday evening prayers.
"Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim," Malin, a prominent cleric in the Somali capital, told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu.
"We call on all Islamic Communities across the world to take revenge on the baseless critic called the pope," he said.
Reached by telephone on Saturday, Malin confirmed making the remarks that were echoed in less strident form by other senior clerics in the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS).
An elderly Italian nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in Africa was shot dead by two gunmen at a hospital Sunday in an attack possibly linked to worldwide Muslim anger toward Pope Benedict XVI and his recent comments on Islam.
Sister Leonella, 65, was shot in the back four times by pistol-wielding attackers as she left the Austrian-run S.O.S. hospital. Her bodyguard was also slain.
There was no claim of responsibility for the attack, which came just hours after a leading Somali cleric condemned the pope's remarks last week on Islam and violence.
Two churches in the West Bank were set on fire, following five incidents in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, when five churches were firebombed and fired at.
In some quarters, there were signs the Pope's remarks in Castelgandolfo were enough to draw a line under the affair. The second most senior leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said he accepted the clarification.
But, elsewhere, firebrand Islamic preachers continued to milk the crisis for all it was worth. In the holy city of Qom, in Iran, a hardline cleric, Ahmad Khatami, told hundreds of demonstrators that the Pope and President Bush were "united in order to repeat the Crusades".
"If the Pope does not apologise, Muslims' anger will continue until he becomes remorseful," he went on. "He should go to clerics and sit and learn about Islam."
In response to the Pope's suggestion that Islam might not be a peaceful religion, as if that's a news flash, Muslims murder an elderly Italian nun at the Children's Hospital in Somalia by shooting her in the back three times. They attack Christians and their churches, burn American flags and western leaders in effigy, all to prove just how peaceful and civilized they really are.
its tragic that these few crazy radicals are able to damage the entire religion's reputation.
Yeah, because there's such a small minority of Muslims who believe in Jihad, suicide bombings, and murder in the name of Islam.
I'm not saying there aren't some peaceful Muslims out there. But watching the daily killings on the news, in pretty much every country Muslims immigrate to, from the Phillipines to Indonesia to Afghanistan to Chechnya to Iraq to Sudan to Algeria to France to Denmark to the Netherlands to Pakistan, etc., it's pretty clear to me that there there isn't much "peaceful Islam" to misrepresent.
Islam, at its root, is violent. The deviation is peaceful Islam.
Muslim terrorists proved Pope Benedict XVI's point yesterday - vowing to fight Christianity and spill blood until Islam conquers the world.
"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," warned an umbrella group of extremists led by al Qaeda in Iraq.
Another Iraqi terrorist group, Ansar al-Sunna, challenged "sleeping Muslims" to prove their manhood by doing something other than "issuing statements or holding demonstrations." It called the pope "the stupid pig . . . prancing with his blasphemies in his house.
"Let him wait for the day coming soon when the armies of the religion of right knock on the walls of Rome," the group said in a Web statement.
In London, Anjem Choudary, a militant Muslim lawyer, said during a protest outside Westminster Cathedral that those who insulted Islam should be killed.
In Iraq's southern city of Basra, up to 150 demonstrators chanted slogans and burned a white effigy of the pope.
In Egypt, a parliamentary committee called for the expulsion of the Vatican envoy if the pope did not apologize more forcefully.
In Jakarta, Indonesia, more than 100 people rallied in front of the heavily guarded Vatican Embassy waving banners that said the "pope is building religion on hatred."
A leading opera house canceled a 3-year-old production of Mozart's "Idomeneo" that included a scene showing the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad, unleashing a furious debate over free speech.
In a statement late Monday, the Deutsche Oper said it decided "with great regret" to cancel the production after Berlin security officials warned of an "incalculable risk" because of the scene.
After its premiere in 2003, the production by Hans Neuenfels drew widespread criticism over the scene in which King Idomeneo presents the severed heads not only of the Greek god of the sea, Poseidon, but also of Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha. The disputed scene is not part of Mozart's original staging of the 225-year-old opera, but was an addition of Neuenfels' production, which was last performed by the company in March 2004.
"We know the consequences of the conflict over the (Muhammad) caricatures," Deutsche Oper said its statement announcing the decision. "We believe that needs to be taken very seriously and hope for your support."
On Tuesday, Deutsche Oper director Kirsten Harms said security officials had recommended, but not ordered, that she either cut the scene or pull the entire production from the 2006-2007 lineup.
muslims have decided to kill until they take over the world. isn't that how christianity 'took over' the world? (the quotes are because christianity isn't the religion with the largest following) The crusades come to mind
Muslims as a whole don't want to conquer the world.
Jews do not have a secret banking conspiracy, they just happened to own some banks when pissy Russians wrote the Protocols.
Jihad doesn't mean "holy war," its a very varied phrase with many meanings.
Jesus was not a white man with an english face and blue eyes.
Jesus was a Jew.
Muslims and Jews actually believe in Jesus, just not his divinity.
99% of the world just wants to live their lives in peace, its the crazy and powerhungry 1% that fuck it up and manipulate the rest into fighting.
G-man's poolboy doesn't "service" the pool.
Quote: Ariel AKA Warp said: muslims have decided to kill until they take over the world. isn't that how christianity 'took over' the world? (the quotes are because christianity isn't the religion with the largest following) The crusades come to mind
The Crusades had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with territory whores. The only people who may have brought religious friction into the fray were the soldiers. And they certainly weren't the ones who laid out the reasons to go to war. They just fought it.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: Muslims as a whole don't want to conquer the world.
Then why exactly are they trying to force their culture on the parts of the world that they've decided to migrate to (see also: France, see also: Australia, see also: London)?
Quote: Jihad doesn't mean "holy war," its a very varied phrase with many meanings.
"Jihad" means "struggle." Which is synonymous with "Holy War." It was first concieved when the Muslim higher ups knew they would have to go to war and used it as a catchphrase (for the lack of a better word).
Quote: Jesus was not a white man with an english face and blue eyes. Jesus was a Jew.
It's typical that you'd try to make race an issue.
Quote: Muslims and Jews actually believe in Jesus, just not his divinity.
The Muslims believe Christ is a prophet. So He's not lacking divinity in their eyes. You're somewhat correct regarding the Jews: They believe that Christ was holy and wise, but not that he was God.
Quote: r3x29yz4a said: Muslims as a whole don't want to conquer the world. Jews do not have a secret banking conspiracy, they just happened to own some banks when pissy Russians wrote the Protocols. Jihad doesn't mean "holy war," its a very varied phrase with many meanings. Jesus was not a white man with an english face and blue eyes. Jesus was a Jew. Muslims and Jews actually believe in Jesus, just not his divinity. 99% of the world just wants to live their lives in peace, its the crazy and powerhungry 1% that fuck it up and manipulate the rest into fighting. G-man's poolboy doesn't "service" the pool.
You know, ray, this post is fairly typical of you. There are actually a few really good points in there, and they really make people think.
Then you don't stop while you're ahead and go and shoot yourself in the foot.
Maybe G-Man should keep abridging your posts - except keeping the good parts from now on.
The interesting thing about Ray's posts is that he doesn't actually really dispute Islamic violence. Instead, he implicitly concedes it, but then tries to claim that an equal number of Christians and Jews are also violent.
Suspected Islamic militants today shot dead four Buddhists in two separate attacks in Thailand’s mainly Muslim south, where an insurgency has raged for more than two years, police said.
In one attack, two teenagers in Islamic students’ dress and riding a motorcycle, shot and killed three Buddhists in Yala, the capital of a province of the same name.
“The militants exploited the fact that the men were shopping at a grocery store and could not defend themselves, even though they had a gun,” police Colonel Somsak Wannawak said.
Earlier a militant shot dead a Buddhist man in Pattani province while he was riding a bus, police said.
More than 1400 people have died in the conflict in Thailand’s far south since early 2004. The violence has been blamed on Malay separatism, religious extremism and organised crime in the border region.
Suspected Islamic militants today shot dead four Buddhists in two separate attacks in Thailand’s mainly Muslim south, where an insurgency has raged for more than two years, police said.
In one attack, two teenagers in Islamic students’ dress and riding a motorcycle, shot and killed three Buddhists in Yala, the capital of a province of the same name.
“The militants exploited the fact that the men were shopping at a grocery store and could not defend themselves, even though they had a gun,” police Colonel Somsak Wannawak said.
Earlier a militant shot dead a Buddhist man in Pattani province while he was riding a bus, police said.
More than 1400 people have died in the conflict in Thailand’s far south since early 2004. The violence has been blamed on Malay separatism, religious extremism and organised crime in the border region.
This is another geopolitical hot potato - and another geopolitical catch-22. Shouldn't somebody do something about this? What should be done? Who should do it?
Quote: Teacher in Hiding After Attack on Islam Stirs Threats
PARIS, Sept. 29 — A French high school philosophy teacher and author who carried out a scathing attack against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a newspaper commentary says he has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving a series of death threats, including one disseminated on an online radical Islamist forum.
The teacher, Robert Redeker, 52, wrote in the center-right daily Le Figaro 10 days ago that Muhammad was “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass-murderer of Jews and a polygamist,” and called the Koran “a book of incredible violence.”
The Redeker case is the latest manifestation in Europe of a mounting ideological battle that pits those who believe Islam and the Prophet Muhammad can be criticized in the name of free speech against those in the Muslim community who believe no criticism can be tolerated.
A recent speech by Pope Benedict XVI that seemed to link Islam and violence caused such an uproar in the Muslim world that the pope issued a rare expression of regret.
The pope expressed regret for the reaction to his remarks after Muslims demonstrated against him around the world. Just this week, a Berlin opera house decided to cancel performances of the Mozart opera “Idomeneo” because of security fears over a scene showing the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad. The decision prompted an outpouring of protest about what was seen as the surrender of artistic freedom.
In his commentary, Mr. Redeker compared Islam unfavorably to Christianity and Judaism, although he admitted that the history of the Catholic Church was “full of dark pages,” and he criticized the hostile reaction to the pope’s remarks.
“Jesus is a master of love; Muhammad is a master of hatred,” Mr. Redeker wrote, adding, “Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites forsake violence and remove its legitimacy, Islam is a religion that, in its very sacred text, as much as in some of its everyday rites, exalts violence and hatred. Hatred and violence dwell in the very book that educates any Muslim, the Koran.”
Immediately afterward, Mr. Redeker, who teaches in a public high school near Toulouse and is the author of several books on philosophy, began to receive death threats by telephone, e-mail and through the online Islamist Web site known as Al Hesbah, a password-protected forum with ties to Al Qaeda. The forum published photos of him and what it said was his home address, directions to his home and his cellphone number, according to the SITE Institute, which tracks violent Islamist groups.
That day’s issue of Le Figaro was banned in Egypt and Tunisia. Mr. Redeker was denounced by a commentator on Al Jazeera television.
“I can’t work, I can’t come and go and am obliged to hide,” Mr. Redeker told Europe 1 radio in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location on Friday. “So in some way, the Islamists have succeeded in punishing me on the territory of the republic as if I were guilty of a crime of opinion.”
Mr. Redeker, who has kept in contact with news agencies by cellphone and e-mail, said that his wife and their children had also been threatened with death. He told Europe 1 that his wife was in hiding with him, but he was less clear about his three children, saying that one of them had been forced to move and that another was in a boarding school.
Asked to describe the sort of threats he had received, Mr. Redeker replied, “You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred thousand Muslims are ready to kill you.”
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin on Friday called the threats “unacceptable,” adding: “We are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others, of course.”
The Interior Ministry has confirmed that Mr. Redeker is under police surveillance, and that counterterrorism experts have begun a preliminary investigation into the threats, which the ministry has described as “dangerous.” Mr. Redeker complained in the radio interview that he had to arrange his own logistics and “find a place to sleep at night or live for a day or two.”
One of the threats came from a contributor to Al Hesbah, who wrote, “It is impossible that this day pass without the lions of France punishing him.”
The contributor called on his Muslim brethren in France to follow the lead of Muhammad Bouyeri, who murdered the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh after he made a film denouncing the plight of abused Muslim women.
“May God send some lion to cut his head,” the contributor said of Mr. Redeker, whom he described as a “pig.”
Mr. Redeker’s situation echoes that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch politician who collaborated with Mr. van Gogh on the film and has been relentless in her criticism of some Islamic practices. The subject of numerous death threats from radical Islamists, she was put under the protection of bodyguards in the Netherlands in 2002, and currently has security protection in Washington, where she recently became a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
In the Figaro commentary, Mr. Redeker wrote, “Islam tries to dictate its rules to Europe: opening swimming pools at certain hours exclusively for women, forbidding the caricature of this religion, demanding a special diet for Muslim children in school cafeterias, fighting for wearing the veil in school, accusing free thinkers of Islamophobia.”
Mr. Redeker, who has written against Islam in the past, does not shy from controversy. At the time of the American-led invasion of Iraq, he criticized French pacifists, and he has written extensively about how watching sports competitions is worse than opium. His new book, “Depression and Philosophy,” is about to be published.
At first, Mr. Redeker did not speak out about the threats. In an e-mail message to The New York Times last Tuesday, he said it was not the right time to talk about his plight.
Then, in an interview with the local Toulouse newspaper, La Dépêche du Midi, published Thursday, Mr. Redeker described the death threats, adding, “What is happening to me corresponds fully to what I denounce in my writing: the West is under ideological surveillance by Islam.”
That interview set off a public defense of Mr. Redeker in the name of free speech and condemnations of those who threaten him, which snowballed Friday after his radio interview with Jean-Pierre Elkabbach, the president of Europe 1, who is the host of a popular interview show.
Philippe de Villiers, a far-right politician, wrote President Jacques Chirac a letter on Friday asking that Mr. Redeker be given “shelter — as a symbol — at the Élysée Palace, which is the palace of the republic, rather than let him wander,” according to Agence France-Presse.
Le Figaro, in an unusual front-page open letter on Friday signed by the editor and the publisher, said, “We condemn with the greatest conviction the grave attacks on freedom of thought and freedom of expression which this affair has provoked.”
On Thursday, Education Minister Gilles de Robien was less forceful. He expressed “solidarity” with Mr. Redeker, but cautioned that a “state employee must show prudence and moderation in all circumstances.”
But two large teachers’ unions in separate statements on Friday threw their support behind Mr. Redeker’s right to speak freely, though one of them made clear, “We do not share his convictions.”
Mr. Redeker said that he had no second thoughts about what he wrote. “No regrets,” he said in the radio interview. “I have given a lot of thought in writing this text.”
From the New York Times, unfortunately you have to register at their site to read the articles.
However, this man is a genius, pure and simply. I really don't have anything against Islam, not at all. But he's absolutely right!
Around one in 10 Indonesian Muslims support jihad and justify bomb attacks on Indonesia’s tourist island of Bali as defending the faith, a survey released on Sunday showed.
Indonesia is the world’s fourth most populous country, with 220 million people, 85 percent of whom follow Islam, giving the Asian archipelago the largest Muslim population of any nation in the world.
“Jihad that has been understood partially and practiced with violence is justified by around one in 10 Indonesian Muslims,” the Indonesian Survey Institute said in a statement.
“They approved the bombings conducted ... in Bali with the excuse of defending Islam,” it added, saying the percentage of such support “is very significant.”
One tenth of 85% of 220 million = 18.7 million Muslims who approve the terrorist murder of infidels IN ONE COUNTRY ALONE.
At what point can we stop pretending that the number of radical Muslims is an insignificant number?
Jamal Miftah, a Muslim who lives in Tulsa, wrote a column for the newspaper Tulsa World condemning Al Qaeda and calling on fellow Muslims to reject terrorism.
In return, he was kicked out of the local mosque by leaders until he apologizes for his article—and threatened with violence by other members of the peaceful Islamic community of Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Lipscomb University theologian Lee Camp told an interfaith gathering yesterday that in order to live peacefully with Muslims, Christians are going to have to give up the idea that there’s anything special about Jesus:
To live peacefully with Muslims and Jews, Christians must put aside the notion that their faith requires the creation of a Christian kingdom on Earth, a Lipscomb University theologian told an interfaith gathering at the university.
“We are not going to get very far in our relationship with Jews or Muslims if we do not let go of this idea,” Lipscomb professor Lee Camp said at Tuesday’s conference.
The unusual gathering of several dozen clergy and lay people was devoted to resolving religious conflict in Nashville and around the world.
“We need to forsake the Christendom model,” Camp said. “The most basic Christian commitment ... is that we say we believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But, if we claim that, how can a Muslim or Jew trust us, if we say Jesus is the Lord of all Lords?”
That’s very noble. Professor Camp (whom, I'm sure, is not a liberal, nope) is willing to give up core Christian beliefs in order to have a world of peace, love, and fluffy bunnies.
So what did the Islamic spokesman think of this?
“Every religion has different teachings,” he said. “For Muslims, it’s: Do you believe in one God and that Muhammad is his prophet? I don’t think we can teach individuals that the way you go to heaven in other religions is OK.”
Just so everyone knows, Jews believe anyone who lives their life as a good person, Jewish or not, can go to whatever "heaven" is. You can believe in Jesus, you can believe in Muhammud, you just need to be good and you've got a shot. The righteous get rewarded no matter who they are.
Quote: the G-man said: Lipscomb University theologian Lee Camp told an interfaith gathering yesterday that in order to live peacefully with Muslims, Christians are going to have to give up the idea that there’s anything special about Jesus:
To live peacefully with Muslims and Jews, Christians must put aside the notion that their faith requires the creation of a Christian kingdom on Earth, a Lipscomb University theologian told an interfaith gathering at the university.
“We are not going to get very far in our relationship with Jews or Muslims if we do not let go of this idea,” Lipscomb professor Lee Camp said at Tuesday’s conference.
The unusual gathering of several dozen clergy and lay people was devoted to resolving religious conflict in Nashville and around the world.
“We need to forsake the Christendom model,” Camp said. “The most basic Christian commitment ... is that we say we believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But, if we claim that, how can a Muslim or Jew trust us, if we say Jesus is the Lord of all Lords?”
That’s very noble. Professor Camp (whom, I'm sure, is not a liberal, nope) is willing to give up core Christian beliefs in order to have a world of peace, love, and fluffy bunnies.
So what did the Islamic spokesman think of this?
“Every religion has different teachings,” he said. “For Muslims, it’s: Do you believe in one God and that Muhammad is his prophet? I don’t think we can teach individuals that the way you go to heaven in other religions is OK.”
Actually, the latter individual makes more sense than the former. His consistency is more admirable than Camp's Unitarian disposition.
Here’s a very interesting piece in Saudi Arabia’s English-language mouthpiece, ArabNews, about Mohammed’s history as a warrior:
Islam is a religion of peace, which prefers to live with all communities in an atmosphere of mutual respect and true understanding. However, Islam does not shrink from fighting a war imposed on it by its enemies.
The interesting part isn’t the long discourse on Mohammed’s great wisdom and prowess in battle, it’s the last paragraph, which concludes with an offhand admission that Mohammed ordered slave girls murdered for no other crime than verbally mocking him:
Abdullah ibn Khatal used to be a Muslim. The Prophet once sent him to collect zakah from people who lived far away. He traveled with another man and a servant of his who was a Muslim. At one stage on the way they stopped. He gave the servant orders to slaughter a big goat and prepare food for him while he himself went to sleep. When he woke up, he discovered that the servant had not done anything. He killed his servant and, fearing the Prophet’s punishment, reverted to idolatry. He also had two slave girls who used to sing for him and for his companions songs full of abuse of the Prophet. The Prophet’s instructions specified that the two slave girls should also be killed. The man was killed as he was actually holding on to the coverings of the Kaaba. Abu Barzah Al-Aslami and Saeed ibn Hurayth Al-Makhzumi killed him along with one of his slave girls. The other managed to flee until someone sought a special pardon for her from the Prophet, which he granted.
This is held up as a model for "peaceful" Muslim behavior, and it’s clear from the context that the author doesn’t even recognize he’s describing sheer savagery.
Yeaaahhhh, we cannot exist together...at all. Unless, of course, we convert to islam. We may as well accept the fact that we have to bomb middle-eastern and southern Asian muslims into the stoneage..moderate or not.
We will have a nuclear and/or biological exchange otherwise...at minimum.
Pig Iron said: Yeaaahhhh, we cannot exist together...at all. Unless, of course, we convert to islam. We may as well accept the fact that we have to bomb middle-eastern and southern Asian muslims into the stoneage..moderate or not.
We will have a nuclear and/or biological exchange otherwise...at minimum.
The region considered most likely place on earth for thermonuclear war is between Muslim Pakistan and neighboring India. And has been since the early 70's when both acquired nuclear missile capability.
They had the equivalent of a Cuban Missile Crisis in 2002, and came very close to all-out war.
Your comments are close to what I said about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the inevitability of Israel at some point, out of self-preservation, will have to turn its muslim neighbors into molten glass.
That can be spun as warmongering or fanatic, or it can be honestly viewed as the cold hard truth that it is.
Western civilizations have a right to defend themselves from the murderous barbarians massing at the gate.
Quote: Brad Lee said: Just so everyone knows, Jews believe anyone who lives their life as a good person, Jewish or not, can go to whatever "heaven" is. You can believe in Jesus, you can believe in Muhammud, you just need to be good and you've got a shot. The righteous get rewarded no matter who they are.
I love the Righteous Brothers. I guess God does too.
Unchained Melody by Gareth Gates, performed by the Righteous Brothers
Lonely rivers flow to the sea, to the sea
To the open arms of the sea
Lonely rivers sigh, wait for me, wait for me
I'll be coming home, wait for me
Oh, my love, my darling
I've hungered for your touch
A long, lonely time
And time goes by so slowly
And time can do so much
Are you still mine?
I need your love,
I oh I need your love
God speed your love to me
Lonely rivers flow to the sea, to the sea
To the open arms of the sea
Lonely rivers sigh, wait for me, wait for me
I'll be coming home, wait for me
Oh, my love, my darling
I've hungered, hungered for your touch
A long, lonely time
And time goes by so slowly
And time can do so much
Are you still mine?
I need your love,
I oh I need your love
God speed your love to me
Quote: Wonder Boy said: Western civilizations have a right to defend themselves from the murderous barbarians massing at the gate.
But as many of us are to some degree descended from either the Britons or the Germanic tribes that pwn3d Rome, doesn't that mean that once upon a time we were the barbarians massing at the gate?
Technically, we're all barbarians except for Peejus and reax. If you wanna go on the original definition of the word and such.
But I still agree that a nuclear fireball would be a helluva way to resolve the Middle East conundrum. Fucked up on innumerable levels, but rather pretty to watch from a v-e-r-y long ways away!
Quote: Wonder Boy said: Western civilizations have a right to defend themselves from the murderous barbarians massing at the gate.
But as many of us are to some degree descended from either the Britons or the Germanic tribes that pwn3d Rome, doesn't that mean that once upon a time we were the barbarians massing at the gate?
Technically, we're all barbarians except for Peejus and reax. If you wanna go on the original definition of the word and such.
But I still agree that a nuclear fireball would be a helluva way to resolve the Middle East conundrum. Fucked up on innumerable levels, but rather pretty to watch from a v-e-r-y long ways away!
Okay, touche, you make a good point.
After 1000 years or so of barbarism, we (Europeans, Germanics, Scandinavians, Slavs, Gauls, and others who were either occupied or outside of the Greek and Roman empires) had the Renaissance and the Enlightenment after a long period of bloody barbarism.
And perhaps, if we disappear, those who replace us will go through a period of barbarism and eventually rise civilization to new heights as we did.
Or perhaps this is as good as it gets, and with no "New World" left to discover, there is nowhere to escape the brutal social system that will replace Western democracy.
Quote: Pig Iron said: In what way? Enslavement? Persecution? The jews weren't perfect, but they were oppressed a bunch.
I was thinking about the times God did stuff like the great flood or Soddam & Gomorah in reference to G-man's post about the slave girls being sentenced to death for no good reason.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: That isn't much different then some parts of the old testament though.
Okay.... but what modern Jewish scholar or publication is saying they should continue to treat women in exactly the same way they were treated 5000 years ago?
Quote: Pig Iron said: In what way? Enslavement? Persecution? The jews weren't perfect, but they were oppressed a bunch.
I was thinking about the times God did stuff like the great flood or Soddam & Gomorah in reference to G-man's post about the slave girls being sentenced to death for no good reason.
Notice that God did those things Himself. It's not like anyone was about to go up to Him and say, "y'know, are you sure we shouldn't give those guys another chance?" Big difference between divine wrath and "the" "prophet" not being able to take a little criticism.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: That isn't much different then some parts of the old testament though.
Okay.... but what modern Jewish scholar or publication is saying they should continue to treat women in exactly the same way they were treated 5000 years ago?
I didn't see where the guy was saying that women should be treated exactly like they were 5000 years ago. It just seemed similar to sermons that relied heavily on stories like Sodam & Gomorah or Noah's ark that may be used in a more fundamental setting (whatever branch of God).
Quote: Pig Iron said: In what way? Enslavement? Persecution? The jews weren't perfect, but they were oppressed a bunch.
I was thinking about the times God did stuff like the great flood or Soddam & Gomorah in reference to G-man's post about the slave girls being sentenced to death for no good reason.
Notice that God did those things Himself. It's not like anyone was about to go up to Him and say, "y'know, are you sure we shouldn't give those guys another chance?" Big difference between divine wrath and "the" "prophet" not being able to take a little criticism.
Actually Lott did try to get God to spare the doomed. If I remember correctly Lott keeps bargaining up as to how many would be spared. I do see your point that there is a difference between God & some prophet though. Although I guess I expect more mercy from God then a fellow imperfect sinner.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: I didn't see where the guy was saying that women should be treated exactly like they were 5000 years ago.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: I was thinking about the times God did stuff like the great flood or Soddam & Gomorah in reference to G-man's post about the slave girls being sentenced to death for no good reason.
In this case, I think guilt by association is pretty fair. That is to say, if thinking about one thing makes you think about another, then perhaps both are in the same league according to you.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: Actually Lott did try to get God to spare the doomed. If I remember correctly Lott keeps bargaining up as to how many would be spared.
Lot Asked God if he and his family were truly the only ones who were actually good people within those cities. God then said that if his type of person was ten times greater within the cities, he would not destroy them. That has nothing to do with "bargaining" or "sparing the doomed."
Here's the part of Genesis 18 I was talking about...
Quote: 22 ¶ And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.
23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?
24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?
25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked; and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?
26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
Abraham 'bargained', which was really God's way of showing how merciful He really was. And showing that He couldn't even find ten reasonably well-behaved people in the place. Still, a totally different situation, as is any attempt to apply human logic to the divine. And don't let the Muslims hear you talk about Muhammad that way.
"Bargaining" was a poor choice on my part. I do think that part of Genesis does show Abraham trying to get those towns spared in his conversation with God.
Quote: Matter-eater Man said: "Bargaining" was a poor choice on my part. I do think that part of Genesis does show Abraham trying to get those towns spared in his conversation with God.
Whether the word choice is "bargaining", "negotiating", "appealing" to God, or another word-choice, your point is clear and well made, MEM.
That God ordered the destruction of whole cities, or in the case of the Canaanites, the destruction of an entire civilization (A Canaan civilization which was deeply entrenched in evil for generations, including the occult, human sacrifices and the drinking of human blood. And similarly, Sodom and Gommorah).
On a minor point, it was Abraham (not Lot) who appealed to God to spare Sodom and Gommorah. God began offering that if there were 50 righteous people in the city, he would spare it from destruction. Abraham appealed repeatedly, and God in his mercy said that if there were even only 10 righteous there, he would spare the city.
As it turned out, there were not even 10, and God sent two angels, appearing as men, went into Sodom and safely brought out Lot and his wife and daughters before Sodom's destruction.
So yes, God ordered the destruction of cities full of people in the Old Testament.
But... not without benign purpose, and the desire of God to stay his hand, if the civilization marked for destruction would only turn from evil.
God only ordered destruction of cities and civilizations, after generations of their not turning from evil.
It was not extermination born of hate, or lack of ability for these people to prevent their own destruction.
It was God reluctantly destroying those he created, with a desire at every point to give foregiveness and spare even the most evil individuals, if they turned from evil.
Even the most prominent figures in the Bible, such as Moses, Jacob, Job, David, Jonah, Mary Magdalin, the apostle Paul, and the apostle Peter, for example, were clearly described in the Bible as flawed and guilty of sinful acts.
But they served God, and later saw the wisdom of obeying God.
A Muslim cabdriver from Somalia ran over two college students near Vanderbilt University after getting into an argument with them about religion, police said.
Ibrahim Ahmed, 37, a driver for United Cab, picked up two men near the Vanderbilt campus early Sunday morning, Capt. Mike Alexander of the Nashville Police Department said, referring to the incident report.
The two men, reportedly college students from Ohio who were visiting Nashville, were on their way back to the campus.
A conversation about religion ensued between the driver and his two fares. At some point, according to the police, the two men exited the cab, and the cabbie also got out. They paid him his fare, and then they exchanged words.
According to the incident report, Ahmed then returned to his cab as the students fled on foot. Ahmed then allegedly drove across a parking lot, jumped a curb and struck the two men.
Ahmed, charged with assault and attempted homicide, is being held on $300,000 bond. He also was also charged with theft because police said the license plate on his cab was listed as stolen.
The next wave of Palestinian suicide bombers could include little girls with ribbons in their hair.
Three years after Reem Saleh al-Riyashi blasted into infamy as the first Palestinian mother to launch a suicide bomb attack, her 4-year-old daughter is being primed to follow in her fanatical footsteps.
And in an apparent bid to sell another generation on mad martyrdom, a shocking new music video that depicts little Duha Riyashi serenading her mommy while she suits up for her suicide mission is being aired repeatedly on Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV - the official station of the new Palestinian prime minister.
"My love will not be words," the Duha character sings at the end of the video, when she opens a drawer and finds a stick of explosives. "I will follow mommy in her steps."
Duha herself revealed the extent of the brainwashing she has already endured in a March 8 television interview. Sitting beside her fidgety brother and wearing a green ribbon in her hair, she dutifully declared that her mother was in "paradise" and needed only a little encouragement to recite a poem titled "Mama Reem."
"Reem, you are a fire bomb, your children and submachine gun are your motto," the little girl chanted.
Nadia Rasheed, a spokeswoman for the Palestinian mission to the United Nations, did not return a call for comment.
So what's this thread about, posting evidence that arabs are inherently evil? Like a cab driver in Somalia running over a student?
For the sake of equity, shouldn't we start one on whites too? With examples like Adolf Hitler and Henry Kissinger we could easily conclude they should all be nuked. To get them all in one place, we announce that McDonald's is having a McChicken Wings sale. 50% off, free bucket of sauce!
In an interview broadcast on Al Jazeera March 16, 2007, top Lebanese Islamic cleric Fathi Yakan, described by IslamOnline as a prominent scholar with a Ph.D. in Arabic and Islamic Studies, says Osama bin Laden is "A Man After My Own Heart"
Interviewer: But there was an operation, for which Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility - the bombing of the Twin Towers in America, and what was described as terrorist attacks against the Americans. In this case, for example, are you with him or against him? Were you happy when you saw the towers collapse?
Fathi Yakan: If we examine the ideology of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden in depth, we see that he has become completely convinced that the only way to curb the disease that is afflicting the Islamic world... The only way to stop this octopus is to crush the serpent’s head.
Interviewer: Do you share this opinion?
Fathi Yakan: It’s fine with me. I might have crushed the serpent’s head in a different way. I might have crushed it by means of the Islamic resistance in South Lebanon, by attacking Israel. But Bin Laden said: “No, I will strike it in its own home. I will strike it in the World Trade Center, and shake its economic status.” This is his methodology, and he should bear responsibility for it, but I am not sad or depressed that this happened, and I do not condemn it. In all honestly, I have never condemned this. Just like it had negative ramifications, it had positive ones as well.
Related to G-man's remarks 3 posts above this, CBS' program 60 Minutes tonight aired a 15-minute segment about how tolerance in London toward Islamic radicalism is creating a fertile environment in London for radical Islamic terrorism, which is widely called "Londonistan".
Here's a link to both text and video of tonight's CBS report:
That basically, there is no separation between Islam and Radical Islam. They are one and the same, says a reformed terrorist activist leader interviewed (former islamic activist/militant Hassan Butt). Any deceit or crime is permissible and forgiven by Islamists, so long as it serves expansion of Islam, and it causes destruction and chaos in the West.
The liberal media is trying to deceit you, WB, by making you think the Islamicalists are set up in London... when they're right here, planting chaos between us.
Can't you feel their boiling brownish rage burning your skin?
"We’d talk about the suffering of the Muslims all over the world," Butt tells [CBS reporter] Simon.
[Hassan Butt: ] "We were very well-versed in the Koran, in the verses of the Koran, in the sayings of the Prophet and show how it was permissible for people to go around killing innocent men, women and children."
[Simon, for CBS' 60 Minutes: ] "You would explain to them why it's permissible to kill innocent men, women and children?"
[Hassan Butt: ] "Well, a better way to put it is, we would take away the innocence from the person so they were no longer innocent men, women and children"
[Simon, for CBS' 60 Minutes: ] "So, men, women and children would become non-innocents?"
[Hassan Butt: ] "Become non-innocent and hence, combatants and allowed to be targeted"
And, as we all know, no innocents are being killed by the US in Iraq. Nope, no blown up babies to see here, Balloonknot! Go get your wanking material somewhere else!
These viewer comments on the CBS 60 Minutes story, go to the irony that the U.S. is baselessly called "evil", while the true and obvious evil cannot even be questioned, in a stacked-deck liberal atmosphere where all cultures have to be viewed as equally valued and of equal merit:
Is Islam Evil?
Given the recent worldwide attacks by Islamic terrorists, why isn't the question "Is Islam evil?"
.
With few exceptions (Turkey, for example), Islamic countries are fascist, autocratic or theocratic, where women are subjugated and minorities persecuted.
Islamic countries are rife with poverty and have been for centuries.
Polls show that in many Islamic countries a majority of Muslims lionize the man responsible for the atrocities of September 11th and the terrorist gangs who routinely slaughter civilians in Israeli buses and restaurants.
In Arab schools and on Arab television, children are taught the glory of becoming suicide bombers.
Almost everywhere that Islam borders other cultures, there is violence.
The idea, then, that Islam is evil has far more plausibility than the idea that United States is evil.
But merely, raising the question, "Is Islam evil?" provokes an instant, inevitable outcry: "Bigot!" "Racist!" "Zionist!"
Indeed, the attempt to suppress debate on this question is so intense that few people in the mainstream will ask it.
Quote: Im Not Mister Mxypltk said: And, as we all know, no innocents are being killed by the US in Iraq. Nope, no blown up babies to see here, Balloonknot! Go get your wanking material somewhere else!
I'm not sure how relevant that was to the conversation but, fuck, that's just fucking nuts.
The United States makes every effort to prevent innocent people from being targeted or killed.
Conversely, the forces of Saddam Hussein, and those of Al Qaida and other Muslim groups, make every effort to specifically target innocent people and non-combatants, and to use them as human sheilds, even housing pro-Saddam/Islamist fighters in schools, hospitals and mosques, so they can later condemn the U.S. for attacking these fortifications.
Were innocents killed at Normandy, and in the battle forward from there, across France and Germany? Yes. Absolutely. And yet no one questions, despite those collateral deaths, that this was a just war, to liberate Europe.
Similarly in Iraq, innocents are sometimes caught in the crossfire with insurgents by the U.S. and its allies. But that is clearly the fault of the aggressors who abduct and slaughter Iraqi civilians, and who target Iraqi people with suicide bombers, not the fault of the American forces who are simply struggling to bring order to the chaos there.
Only a partisan radical like yourself, Mxy, could blame the U.S. forces who labor to prevent innocent deaths, rather than the Islamists who specifically target innocent civilians.
Islamic worldview and the reason why it becomes a calamity in the 21st century :
The Islamic world view of converting the entire human species to Islam at the pain of death is not something novel. It has existed for 1400 years since this cult of death and destruction was founded by Mohammed-ibn-abdallah, the nefarious bandit and murderer in the 7th century in Mecca.
What makes this world view a calamity is the fact that Muslims have started acquiring WMD capability of late.
All these centuries, they could carry on with their murder and mayhem only with swords from the 7th century up to the 16th century. So they could be defeated by those who could wield swords better and more so by those who in addition to this managed to recognize the mortal threat to all non-Islamic civilizations that Muslims represented.
There have not been very many on this planet who could see through the murderous message of the Quran, that the Muslims robotically believe is the message from some god, to be divinely followed by placing their swords on the necks of all their defeated victims and giving them the choice Islam or death.
Quote: Wonder Boy said: in a stacked-deck liberal atmosphere where all cultures have to be viewed as equally valued and of equal merit:
I did notice, however, that you called me a something something. Radisan particule, I think. Dude, what's with the name calling? I mean, you're a nutjob, I know you're a nutjob, you know you're a nutjob, but I don't go around calling you a fucking nutjob! (Except just now). But seriously, what's with the labelling? I'm just saying what I believe, you're saying what you believe, if that makes us both radiant particles, fine, whatever. Don't pretend you're any less biased than I am, cause, FUCK, if biases were moustaches, you'd be in desperate need for a full-body waxing. Don't point at the moustache in your fellow's eye, if you got a moustache yourself in the finger you're using to point at my moustache.
Quote: Im Not Mister Mxypltk said: I know you're talking, WB, but all I hear is:
Quote: Wonder Boy said: in a stacked-deck liberal atmosphere where all cultures have to be viewed as equally valued and of equal merit:
I did notice, however, that you called me a something something. Radisan particule, I think. Dude, what's with the name calling? I mean, you're a nutjob, I know you're a nutjob, you know you're a nutjob, but I don't go around calling you a fucking nutjob! (Except just now). But seriously, what's with the labelling? I'm just saying what I believe, you're saying what you believe, if that makes us both radiant particles, fine, whatever. Don't pretend you're any less biased than I am, cause, FUCK, if biases were moustaches, you'd be in desperate need for a full-body waxing. Don't point at the moustache in your fellow's eye, if you got a moustache yourself in the finger you're using to point at my moustache.
I didn't call you names, I said that your argument has no valid or logical basis.
While what I've said about Islam, and its one-and-sameness with radical-Islam, is painfully obvious.
My "radical partisan" description of you stems from the rabidly hostile remarks you've made about the United States in other topics where we've clashed, and your voiced ideology that seems conspicuously socialist.
I'm sticking to the transparent facts, while you're slapping labels like "fucking nutjob" on me. After which, your sleazy self-incriminating underhandedness is so obvious, that there's nothing more I need to say in my defense.
Quote: Wonder Boy said: It's okay when I call Mxy names, but if he calls me a fucking nutjob he's slapping my gentle face. I don't like being slapped in the face, because my skin is as sensitve as a baby's bottom. I have to use special creams, you know.
Also, my opinions are facts, in fact (HA!), they're so facty that they're transparent facts. NOW THAT'S A FUCKING FACT! Meanwhile, Mxy's opinions have no valid or logical basis. Yes, and I did say that, verbatim. Unlike the baby's bottoms part, which Mxy just wrote.
Also OH SHIT I FORGOT DAVE IS A FUCKING NUTJOB WHO THINKS IT'S LIBEL WHEN I PUT WORDS HE DIDN'T SAY INTO HIS QUOTE BALLOONS! OH FUCK I'VE GONE AND RUINED IT AGAIN! SHIT MOTHERFUCKER WHAT AM I GONNA DO! I BETTER NOT THREATEN TO KILL THE FUCKING NUT AGAIN, CAUSE THIS TIME HE'LL PROBABLY SUE ME! OH, KLINTON, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT!
Also, in a stacked-deck liberal atmosphere where all cultures have to be viewed as equally valued and of equal merit
Having just reviewed my post, I'd like to apologize for that last line. No sane person would ever say something like that, and I'm sorry to have accused you of saying it, NOT-job Dave (get it? "not"-job? get it?). I just wrote down the most outrageous and idiotic piece of intollerant shit I could think of and wrote it down in that last line. So, again, I apologize and, again, fuck you.
Wondy, we seem to have a slight communication problem. I've told you repeatedly to go fuck yourself, and you've yet to do it. Please, don't make me call the Administrator. Also,
Quote: Wonder Boy said: in a stacked-deck liberal atmosphere where all cultures have to be viewed as equally valued and of equal merit:
IRA didn't suicide bomb anyone. They just regular bombed people. And it's the general consensus in Ireland that bombing is a very bad thing. In the Middle East however, the culture is saturated with it to the point of reverance.
Quote: Pariah said: IRA didn't suicide bomb anyone. They just regular bombed people. And it's the general consensus in Ireland that bombing is a very bad thing. In the Middle East however, the culture is saturated with it to the point of reverance.
So blowing someone up but not dying yourself is better? I guess Catholics don't have martyrdom.
Quote: MisterJLA said: All cultures are not equal. Any culture that encourages people to strap bombs to themselves, and target civilians is the definition of inferior...
I thought you guys were arguing that a RELIGION encouraged that shit. Now it's a suddenly whole culture. In the end you're talking about people. You're saying people aren't equal. Equal! Such a silly word. To be used only in jokes and parties, never in amendments and the like.
Quote: the G-man said: (b) murder was a mortal sin.
Pariah is the resident expert and he disagrees. In fact, if you kill someone for the right reason (= what you think is the right reason), it's so good it's not even murder!
Look, you guys are blowing up babies in Iraq. No one disputes that. But it's for the right reason, so it's okay. Guess what, boys and girls: radical islamists (= all islamists = all arabs = nuke em all!) ALSO think they're blowing up babies for the right reason! They bombed two towers to enforce what they believe in, well, you bombed two japanese cities for basically the same reason. Everyone thinks they're right. Your crimes look as atrocious to them as theirs look to you. Granted, there's an obvious difference in scope that makes them the bigger nuts in the locker room (after all, I'm talking about radicals and not a whole culture even if you're not), but the fact that you're both blowing up babies when you could choose not to remains.
You're never gonna get along, first of all, because you both insist in judging a whole culture (do you even understand what "a whole culture" implies?) by their worst exponents, and secondly because you refuse to even consider viewing things from their perspective, which is how logic says problems should begin their solution. Not from the perspective of the terrorist (for fuck's sake), from the perspective of the guy in the street who leads a normal hard-working Allah-fearing life and is secretely glad them american infidels were given a taste of their own medicine, even though he generally doesn't say it out loud. It should be easy to get on his position, cause you feel exactly the same towards them. Both sides think they would live in peace if the other side ceased to exist, but you're both wrong.
I didn't bother to read all that, but as near as I could tell it boiled down to "I hate Bush, so its okay that what seems like an entire religion encourages killing innocents."
Quote: MisterJLA said: All cultures are not equal. Any culture that encourages people to strap bombs to themselves, and target civilians is the definition of inferior...
I thought you guys were arguing that a RELIGION encouraged that shit. Now it's a suddenly whole culture. In the end you're talking about people. You're saying people aren't equal. Equal! Such a silly word. To be used only in jokes and parties, never in amendments and the like.
Quote: the G-man said: (b) murder was a mortal sin.
Pariah is the resident expert and he disagrees. In fact, if you kill someone for the right reason (= what you think is the right reason), it's so good it's not even murder!
Killing and murder are two different things. You can kill someone who is going to kill you...a person can kill someone who murdered someone (eye for an eye-equal punishment for the crime).You can kill in war or battles if governments are at war. Murder is a cold blooded act that is unwarranted-murder is someone killing another for a pair of shoes.
Muslim clerics don't consider blowing up non-combatants as Murder, because the enemies are all supposed to convert or die. They are all enemies. Non-combatants are not supposed to be "targets" of any "Christian " nation's army/military, because it goes against our laws and most citizens' religious laws. some Muslim nations do not necessarily have those laws, because all citizens of those foreign powers are considered combatants. Hence, a lone Muslim can be sanctioned to blow up women and children in a coffee shop, and not consider it evil-or therefore murder.
Quote: Pig Iran said: Killing and murder are two different things. You can kill someone who is going to kill you...a person can kill someone who murdered someone (eye for an eye-equal punishment for the crime).You can kill in war or battles if governments are at war. Murder is a cold blooded act that is unwarranted-murder is someone killing another for a pair of shoes.
You casually list occasions in which killing is justified such as taking an eye for an eye, killing at war. Others consider abortion justified, and in fact don't even call it killing. I don't think those reasons are valid and a lot of people in "our" side of the world feel the same way, so we already have discrepancies within western culture. In the end we're talking about reasons why taking another life can be right, which, keeping the obvious distances, is the same thing they're doing in the other side.
Quote: the G-man said: I didn't bother to read all that, but as near as I could tell it boiled down to "I hate Bush, so its okay that what seems like an entire religion encourages killing innocents."
Did I miss any nuance to what you wrote?
No, you forgot to mention that I hate freedom.
I'm impressed that you managed to get the subliminal anti-Bush message I included in my post. I thought I'd be on the safe side by, you know, not mentioning him, but obviously I was wrong. I can't get anything past you, you amerrrrican dog!
Quote: MisterJLA said: All cultures are not equal. Any culture that encourages people to strap bombs to themselves, and target civilians is the definition of inferior...
I thought you guys were arguing that a RELIGION encouraged that shit. Now it's a suddenly whole culture. In the end you're talking about people. You're saying people aren't equal. Equal! Such a silly word. To be used only in jokes and parties, never in amendments and the like.
Culture, religion...whatever. Getting strapped and taking out dance clubs and school buses is the way it is done for some people, as they taught through their religion and culture.
Any fuckhead that does that is not my equal.
Quote:
Pariah is the resident expert and he disagrees. In fact, if you kill someone for the right reason (= what you think is the right reason), it's so good it's not even murder!
Look, you guys are blowing up babies in Iraq. No one disputes that. But it's for the right reason, so it's okay. Guess what, boys and girls: radical islamists (= all islamists = all arabs = nuke em all!)
We do our best not to "blow up babies" in Iraq. With our technology and tactics, we do everything possible to target terrorists and not civilians. Civilian deaths are unavoidable, and always will be.
Our opponents on the other hand, don't care who they kill, and go out of thier way to kill civilians.
Quote: ALSO think they're blowing up babies for the right reason! They bombed two towers to enforce what they believe in, well, you bombed two japanese cities for basically the same reason.
Not even close. The crazy as fuck terrorists attacked on 9-11 to start a war (again, attacking a civilian target). We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end a war that the Japanese started. They were given many chances to surrender before and after the bombs were dropped, and they refused.
We rebuilt Japan after the war...I don't think the Islamic fundamentalists would be as kind to us if they had their way.
Quote: Everyone thinks they're right. Your crimes look as atrocious to them as theirs look to you. Granted, there's an obvious difference in scope that makes them the bigger nuts in the locker room (after all, I'm talking about radicals and not a whole culture even if you're not), but the fact that you're both blowing up babies when you could choose not to remains.
You're never gonna get along, first of all, because you both insist in judging a whole culture (do you even understand what "a whole culture" implies?) by their worst exponents, and secondly because you refuse to even consider viewing things from their perspective, which is how logic says problems should begin their solution. Not from the perspective of the terrorist (for fuck's sake), from the perspective of the guy in the street who leads a normal hard-working Allah-fearing life and is secretely glad them american infidels were given a taste of their own medicine, even though he generally doesn't say it out loud. It should be easy to get on his position, cause you feel exactly the same towards them. Both sides think they would live in peace if the other side ceased to exist, but you're both wrong.
I never judged the entire religion or culture. Peaceful Muslims do exist. Why they don't do something about the those who kill in Allah's name, I have no idea. There obviously are some aspects of the religion that cause and encourage the insanity of the attacks on 9-11, or the suicide attacks in Isreal, or the bloodshed in Iraq, or the violence against women in Afghanistan, or the human rights abuses in the Sudan, or the...
Mxy said: You casually list occasions in which killing is justified such as taking an eye for an eye, killing at war. Others consider abortion justified, and in fact don't even call it killing. I don't think those reasons are valid and a lot of people in "our" side of the world feel the same way, so we already have discrepancies within western culture. In the end we're talking about reasons why taking another life can be right, which, keeping the obvious distances, is the same thing they're doing in the other side.
I am saying: I think there is a difference between murder and killing. I cannot get any clearer than that. I am also not casually listing anything-I'm just separating myself from the argument, and trying to explain certain aspects. I think abortion is wrong, but it's legal where I live so I pretty much just shut my mouth about the issue. Most states in the US do not follow through on the death penalty, even if the criminal was sentenced to death (and the state itself may not have a death penalty). I pretty much keep my mouth shut on that issue too. I'm not a warmonger, Mxy. I don't think we should be in the Middle East, or Korea, or Europe, or Japan, but our troops are stationed there or fighting there. These are not my decisions, and I do not believe in the ultra nationalized/federal defense policies currently being practiced. Again, I voted but didn't vote for Bush or Kerry so I really can't say much about it other than I'm against it. I'm a Constitutionalist, and I believe in state rights and state power, and as little federal power as feasibly possible. I do believe in an "Eye for an eye", Mxy-in the principle. The principle is that you take an eye for an eye-an equal measure. You don't take a hand off if someone steals a loaf of bread-you make them pay the person who was robbed or give the robbed compensation equal to the stolen bread. If a person kills an innocent civilian they should lose their own right to life, because they stole it from someone else. A life can only replace a life, but it doesn't mean you should take two or three in return for the one.
Quote: Everyone thinks they're right. Your crimes look as atrocious to them as theirs look to you. Granted, there's an obvious difference in scope that makes them the bigger nuts in the locker room (after all, I'm talking about radicals and not a whole culture even if you're not), but the fact that you're both blowing up babies when you could choose not to remains.
You're never gonna get along, first of all, because you both insist in judging a whole culture (do you even understand what "a whole culture" implies?) by their worst exponents, and secondly because you refuse to even consider viewing things from their perspective, which is how logic says problems should begin their solution. Not from the perspective of the terrorist (for fuck's sake), from the perspective of the guy in the street who leads a normal hard-working Allah-fearing life and is secretely glad them american infidels were given a taste of their own medicine, even though he generally doesn't say it out loud. It should be easy to get on his position, cause you feel exactly the same towards them. Both sides think they would live in peace if the other side ceased to exist, but you're both wrong.
I never judged the entire religion or culture. PeacefulMuslims do exist. Why they don't do something about the those who kill in Allah's name, I have no idea. There obviously are some aspects of the religion that cause and encourage the insanity of the attacks on 9-11, or the suicide attacks in Isreal, or the bloodshed in Iraq, or the violence against women in Afghanistan, or the human rights abuses in the Sudan, or the...
The peaceful Muslims are afraid of speaking out against the Crazy Muslims, lest they themsleves become the next target of the Crazy Muslims.
Quote: MisterJLA said: All cultures are not equal. Any culture that encourages people to strap bombs to themselves, and target civilians is the definition of inferior...
I thought you guys were arguing that a RELIGION encouraged that shit. Now it's a suddenly whole culture. In the end you're talking about people. You're saying people aren't equal. Equal! Such a silly word. To be used only in jokes and parties, never in amendments and the like.
Quote: the G-man said: (b) murder was a mortal sin.
Pariah is the resident expert and he disagrees. In fact, if you kill someone for the right reason (= what you think is the right reason), it's so good it's not even murder!
Look, you guys are blowing up babies in Iraq. No one disputes that. But it's for the right reason, so it's okay. Guess what, boys and girls: radical islamists (= all islamists = all arabs = nuke em all!) ALSO think they're blowing up babies for the right reason! They bombed two towers to enforce what they believe in, well, you bombed two japanese cities for basically the same reason. Everyone thinks they're right. Your crimes look as atrocious to them as theirs look to you. Granted, there's an obvious difference in scope that makes them the bigger nuts in the locker room (after all, I'm talking about radicals and not a whole culture even if you're not), but the fact that you're both blowing up babies when you could choose not to remains.
You're never gonna get along, first of all, because you both insist in judging a whole culture (do you even understand what "a whole culture" implies?) by their worst exponents, and secondly because you refuse to even consider viewing things from their perspective, which is how logic says problems should begin their solution. Not from the perspective of the terrorist (for fuck's sake), from the perspective of the guy in the street who leads a normal hard-working Allah-fearing life and is secretely glad them american infidels were given a taste of their own medicine, even though he generally doesn't say it out loud. It should be easy to get on his position, cause you feel exactly the same towards them. Both sides think they would live in peace if the other side ceased to exist, but you're both wrong.
Quote: the G-man said: I didn't bother to read all that, but as near as I could tell it boiled down to "I hate Bush, so its okay that what seems like an entire religion encourages killing innocents."
Did I miss any nuance to what you wrote?
Wow. Mxy made incredible points in a wonderfully written post. And you ignore and belittle it like a child would because he makes a good opposing argument in a post that you can't truly counter. How "fair and balanced" of you. How "fair and balanced
Quote: Im Not Mister Mxypltk said: Look, you guys are blowing up babies in Iraq. No one disputes that. But it's for the right reason, so it's okay. Guess what, boys and girls: radical islamists (= all islamists = all arabs = nuke em all!) ALSO think they're blowing up babies for the right reason!
There's a difference between war and terrorism. They terrorized and we went to war. It's as simple as that.
Terrorism is murder in that terrorists become citizens and claim to be Americans until they bomb us. The only reason we don't call them "traitors" is because they had murderous intent since before they started posing as Americans.
Americans, on the other hand, went to war. And they(we) did so as a result of the attacks and Hussein's mean streak by associating with the people who terrorize us. The war is a means of self-defense--In which case, civilian casualities are inevitable even if they're avoided.
Quote: They bombed two towers to enforce what they believe in, well, you bombed two japanese cities for basically the same reason.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended up saving more lives then they took away. I don't find that we have to justify the destruction of those cities. If it wasn't for the deterrent fear inspired by those bombings, The world would probably still be at war.
Quote: but the fact that you're both blowing up babies when you could choose not to remains.
If they're not going to choose to stop blowing up our babies, then we shouldn't choose not to blow them up. I'm sure you already realize that we don't aim for their babies (unlike them).
Quote: Everyone thinks they're right. Your crimes look as atrocious to them as theirs look to you.
Yes, and we all already know what you define as "our crimes."
Mxy, I'm very worried about you. Perhaps you should take some midol and calm down.
Quote: You're never gonna get along, first of all, because you both insist in judging a whole culture (do you even understand what "a whole culture" implies?) by their worst exponents, and secondly because you refuse to even consider viewing things from their perspective, which is how logic says problems should begin their solution.
The rest of the Arab culture is a cheering accessory to the other terrorist segments. And the amount of belligerent Muslims in the mid-east is too startling to simply say, "We can't judge them all based on just a few examples." Well there aren't "just a few," they're terrifyingly voluminous--And this end result doesn't come from the people themselves, it comes from the traditions that make up their culture. The culture, in turn, is what crafts the mentality of the people.
Pariah said: Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended up saving more lives then they took away. I don't find that we have to justify the destruction of those cities. If it wasn't for the deterrent fear inspired by those bombings, The world would probably still be at war.
I said:
That is entirely debatable. many people saw it then and now as a way to bully the Soviets-the Japanese were pretty much done by then.
Quote: Pig Iran said: That is entirely debatable. many people saw it then and now as a way to bully the Soviets-the Japanese were pretty much done by then.
No they were not. They were still fully capable of killing a lot more of our soldiers. They proved that with Iwo Jima.
I also don't see how "bullying the soviets" could possibly have been such a bad thing. If we didn't give them incentive to stay in their own corner, we would have had a shooting war instead of a cold one.
Quote: Pig Iran said: That is entirely debatable. many people saw it then and now as a way to bully the Soviets-the Japanese were pretty much done by then.
No they were not. They were still fully capable of killing a lot more of our soldiers. They proved that with Iwo Jima.
I also don't see how "bullying the soviets" could possibly have been such a bad thing. If we didn't give them incentive to stay in their own corner, we would have had a shooting war instead of a cold one.
I'm not judging it-just trying to state debatable facts.
Quote: Not even close. The crazy as fuck terrorists attacked on 9-11 to [do what they thought was right] (again, attacking a civilian target). We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to [to do what we thought was right (again, attacking a civilian target].
I agree with this.
Quote: I never judged the entire religion or culture.
Didn't you just say their "religionorculture" encourages them to blow up dance clubs or something...? I don't know, I deleted that part.
Quote: Peaceful Muslims do exist. Why they don't do something about the those who kill in Allah's name, I have no idea.
I think the problem starts with the innocent guy I mentioned before, the one who does nothing wrong but is secretely glad that there are terrorists attacking the US. He feels that way out of resentment, because from his perspective his culture is being invaded by the western world. He can't reconcile his ideas with those coming in all directions from the west (and, let's face it, if we were bombarded with ideas from the east the way they are, we would feel the same way). He takes the silliest little things we do as personal insults and mockery (a bit like Oakley). There are millions of innocent guys like that who don't harm anyone in their lifetimes, but their unspoken discontent makes up the general sentiment in their society. Every society has extreme expressions of its general mood and, in this case, the result is disastrous. Fighting the extremists (the end of the chain) is obviously a necessity but it's just a temporary solution, cause there are millions of potential others like him hiding inside decent people who have done nothing wrong. I think the only way to permanently solve a problem this complex is by reaching out to the regular guy and, somehow, calming his discontent. Explaining our differences, maybe (though, how can we expected to explain them if we don't know them ourselves? "Culture, religion... whatever!") Instead, what are you doing? Inadvertedly blowing up his village while trying to get the bad guys and giving him more reasons to hate you.
Quote: There obviously are some aspects of the religion that cause and encourage the insanity of the attacks on 9-11, or the suicide attacks in Isreal, or the bloodshed in Iraq, or the violence against women in Afghanistan, or the human rights abuses in the Sudan, or the...
By that logic we could say that there our some aspects of the predominant western religion that encourage racial crimes, sex crimes, fascism, school shootings, serial killers, etc...
Quote: Pig Iran said: I am saying: I think there is a difference between murder and killing. I cannot get any clearer than that. I am also not casually listing anything-I'm just separating myself from the argument, and trying to explain certain aspects. I think abortion is wrong, but it's legal where I live so I pretty much just shut my mouth about the issue. Most states in the US do not follow through on the death penalty, even if the criminal was sentenced to death (and the state itself may not have a death penalty). I pretty much keep my mouth shut on that issue too. I'm not a warmonger, Mxy. I don't think we should be in the Middle East, or Korea, or Europe, or Japan, but our troops are stationed there or fighting there. These are not my decisions, and I do not believe in the ultra nationalized/federal defense policies currently being practiced. Again, I voted but didn't vote for Bush or Kerry so I really can't say much about it other than I'm against it. I'm a Constitutionalist, and I believe in state rights and state power, and as little federal power as feasibly possible. I do believe in an "Eye for an eye", Mxy-in the principle. The principle is that you take an eye for an eye-an equal measure. You don't take a hand off if someone steals a loaf of bread-you make them pay the person who was robbed or give the robbed compensation equal to the stolen bread. If a person kills an innocent civilian they should lose their own right to life, because they stole it from someone else. A life can only replace a life, but it doesn't mean you should take two or three in return for the one.
As I said: you're explaining when you think taking a life is right. I don't agree with you. I think it's only justified when you absolutely have no other choice. Then there's someone else who think I'm wrong, you can never kill no matter the context. We all agree that it's never okay to target innocents... but are we that far removed from that posture? I don't think so. It's an extreme side within the same ballpark.
Quote: Pariah said: There's a difference between war and terrorism. They terrorized and we went to war.
Yeah, the difference is in who you ask. If you ask them, it's a Holy War.
Listen, do you think the kid who gets his family blown apart gives a shit about the noble causes the US had for dropping that bomb? When someone comes offering him a way to punch back, how could he say no?
Quote: Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended up saving more lives then they took away. I don't find that we have to justify the destruction of those cities.
And yep, you guessed it, they don't see why they would have to justify the destruction of those two towers. Obviously I can understand your reasons for Hiroshima a lot better than I can understand the reasons behind 9-11, but that's only because we have similar cultural settings.
Quote: If it wasn't for the deterrent fear inspired by those bombings,
Yeah, fear worked real good in the Middle East.
Quote: The world would probably still be at war.
Isn't it?
Quote:
Quote: Everyone thinks they're right. Your crimes look as atrocious to them as theirs look to you.
Yes, and we all already know what you define as "our crimes."
Mxy, I'm very worried about you. Perhaps you should take some midol and calm down.
In this case, I'm talking about what they percieve as your crimes. But thanks for worrying.
Quote: The rest of the Arab culture is a cheering accessory to the other terrorist segments. And the amount of belligerent Muslims in the mid-east is too startling to simply say, "We can't judge them all based on just a few examples." Well there aren't "just a few," they're terrifyingly voluminous--And this end result doesn't come from the people themselves, it comes from the traditions that make up their culture. The culture, in turn, is what crafts the mentality of the people.
So what are you gonna do? Nuke 'em all? Then the rest of the world will turn against you. Fuck, I'll sign up to fight you myself. What then? You gonna nuke us too? The way you're handling this, it's never gonna end.
It's at the very heart of human nature for man to kill. We are still a very primitive, young, and violent species.
It would be ideal if man survives his infancy..after all, we were still living in caves 20 thousand years ago.... We will evolve past all this..if we do not self - destruct before that point.
What is the answer to our problems with violence and war for right now? Damned if I know.
Quote: Not even close. The crazy as fuck terrorists attacked on 9-11 to [do what they thought was right] (again, attacking a civilian target). We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to [to do what we thought was right (again, attacking a civilian target]
I agree with this.
You have a weird rational for 'what people think is right'. Terrorists think they are right...so that makes it acceptable? We know what they think: what do you think? They should get a free pass because they have a twisted outlook on life?
Quote: I never judged the entire religion or culture.
Didn't you just say their "religionorculture" encourages them to blow up dance clubs or something...? I don't know, I deleted that part.
Then go back and read it. Save the 'I shouldn't read it/I didn't read it/I'm not going to read it' "threats".
Anyway, yes, there is appearantly something in the Muslim religion or culture that encourages their followers to blow up dance clubs, school buses, and hospitals.
Unless they all happen to get the ideas randomly.
...
Quote: Peaceful Muslims do exist. Why they don't do something about the those who kill in Allah's name, I have no idea.
I think the problem starts with the innocent guy I mentioned before, the one who does nothing wrong but is secretely glad that there are terrorists attacking the US.
Doesn't sound like he's so innocent then. Not at all different than the Germans who were secretly happy that the Nazis were killing all over Europe (but were "horrified" when they "discovered" the concentration camps) or all the collaborators the dirty Soviets had.
Standing by and letting it happen isn't going to change the situaton, especially if you are "secretly happy" that it is going on in the first place.
Quote: He feels that way out of resentment, because from his perspective his culture is being invaded by the western world. He can't reconcile his ideas with those coming in all directions from the west (and, let's face it, if we were bombarded with ideas from the east the way they are, we would feel the same way). He takes the silliest little things we do as personal insults and mockery (a bit like Oakley). There are millions of innocent guys like that who don't harm anyone in their lifetimes, but their unspoken discontent makes up the general sentiment in their society. Every society has extreme expressions of its general mood and, in this case, the result is disastrous.
Fighting the extremists (the end of the chain) is obviously a necessity but it's just a temporary solution, cause there are millions of potential others like him hiding inside decent people who have done nothing wrong. I think the only way to permanently solve a problem this complex is by reaching out to the regular guy and, somehow, calming his discontent. Explaining our differences, maybe (though, how can we expected to explain them if we don't know them ourselves? "Culture, religion... whatever!") Instead, what are you doing? Inadvertedly blowing up his village while trying to get the bad guys and giving him more reasons to hate you.
I think communicating and teaching is important, too. A lot of that is being done. We've built schools, hospitals, and given the Iraqi people a better chance at freedom and democracy than their own glorious leader and his asshole kids ever did.
Quote: There obviously are some aspects of the religion that cause and encourage the insanity of the attacks on 9-11, or the suicide attacks in Isreal, or the bloodshed in Iraq, or the violence against women in Afghanistan, or the human rights abuses in the Sudan, or the...
By that logic we could say that there our some aspects of the predominant western religion that encourage racial crimes, sex crimes, fascism, school shootings, serial killers, etc...
Those people are punished by the law, and generally ostracized, and are not given the martyr/hero treatment.
Quote: MisterJLA said: You have a weird rational for 'what people think is right'. Terrorists think they are right...so that makes it acceptable? We know what they think: what do you think? They should get a free pass because they have a twisted outlook on life?
You totally missunderstood me. You have conviction that what the US is doing the right thing, right? People are being killed (intentionally or not, but always knowingly), but it's for a good reason. Well, what I'm saying is that they feel exactly the same way on the other side. Guess what: they don't think of themselves as evil. They think YOU'RE evil. And unless you're some sort of omniscient entity, how do you know that you're not the one with the twisted outlook? Because you know you're not? That's not good enough: they also know they're not twisted.
What this means is that invading them will get you nowhere, because from their general perspective you're not saving them, you're spitting on their culture. You may kill the terrorists of today, but in the process you're fueling the terrorists of tomorrow. As long as the cultural missunderstanding between both sides continues this problem will remain in one form or another. If you take away all their weapons they'll find another way to strike back. You're setting things up so the only option is exterminating them all, and that's not gonna happen.
Quote: I never judged the entire religion or culture.
Quote: Anyway, yes, there is appearantly something in the Muslim religion or culture that encourages their followers to blow up dance clubs, school buses, and hospitals.
You're judging the entire religion or culture.
Quote: Unless they all happen to get the ideas randomly.
Again: does this mean there's something that encourages violence in our culture because we have crazy fucks too? You're judging them by their worst exponents, when ours are just as bad.
Quote: Doesn't sound like he's so innocent then. Not at all different than the Germans who were secretly happy that the Nazis were killing all over Europe (but were "horrified" when they "discovered" the concentration camps) or all the collaborators the dirty Soviets had.
If you found out Saddam's Iraq was accidentally blown off the face of the earth, wouldn't you feel the tiniest bit of satisfaction? That feeling that maybe they're getting what they deserved. That Sam Kinison monologue about Chernobyl. That conversation with your mom, "Did you hear about it?" "Yeah... It's a shame..." "Yeah..." "They had it coming, though..." "Oh, yeah... But still... Horrible..." "Yeah..."
That's the feeling I'm talking about. The same general feeling in pre-WWII Germany: they were bummed out after being beaten in WWI, they resented the countries that constantly shoved their loss in their faces through their many restrictions, so normal people like you and me, most of which had nothing to do with WWI, started following a nutjob simply because everyone else was doing it. They didn't happen to get their ideas randomly, as you say, and it's improbable that a whole generation of psychos happened to be born at the same time. We may say we wouldn't act the same way if we were in their situation, but we don't really know do we?
This is part of the reason why I don't like Bush: he seems like the kind of leader that could only be elected out of disquiet.
Quote: I think communicating and teaching is important, too. A lot of that is being done. We've built schools, hospitals, and given the Iraqi people a better chance at freedom and democracy than their own glorious leader and his asshole kids ever did.
This is a personal opinion, but I think they see all that as condescending. "Hey kids, you can't take care of ourselves, so here comes Uncle Sam to teach you how it's done!" Just my perception.
Quote: Those people are punished by the law, and generally ostracized, and are not given the martyr/hero treatment.
Doesn't stop 'em from coming up more and more often. The fact remains that western culture, too, breeds violent psychos. Also, as I said, I don't think that in general they're openly idolized (remember that Arab Nation doesn't equal Terrorist Nation), it's more of an unspoken feeling. Kinda like what happened in some social circles after the Columbine shootings... some angsty teens thought those psycho kids were the coolest fuckers ever.
Quote: Pig Iran said: Muslim clerics don't consider blowing up non-combatants as Murder, because the enemies are all supposed to convert or die. They are all enemies. Non-combatants are not supposed to be "targets" of any "Christian " nation's army/military, because it goes against our laws and most citizens' religious laws. some Muslim nations do not necessarily have those laws, because all citizens of those foreign powers are considered combatants. Hence, a lone Muslim can be sanctioned to blow up women and children in a coffee shop, and not consider it evil-or therefore murder.
Actually Islam does not support the killing of any innocent. These people have perverted their faith by saying a Bush-esque "with us or against us" black or white mentality so that they can justify anyone not on their side as being an enemy. Jihad isn't a holy war, a muslim friend explained it as basically strong faith and the struggle against temptation and corruption. It too has been perverted by these radicals to say that the same rules that allow them to kill a man who is invading their home can also allow them to kill anyone who is against them. But even then they often have their own views and justifications, same as we do. I think both the chickenhawks here and the radicals there need to stop being so damn rigid and conservative and religious. Then we'd probably be able to work this out.
I think we should work on America. We should make America the greatest country instead of just saying it is. We should make it so the wealthiest and most powerful county on Earth doesn't have such high poverty and embarassingly low education rates. We should elect leaders based on intellect and not on slogans, we should only act with honor and nobility around the world. Then and only then will we have the right to "fix" other countries.
We will never have the right to "fix" other countries--No one has that right, not even your precious UN. That's just absurd. And if that's what this nation decided to become, I'd make sure to burn it down to make sure the world, as influenced by Western culture, stood a fighting chance against such tyrrany.
We act on our own interests--We invade countries (and in the case of Iraq, we also stabiliaze) in the pursuit of our own interests.
Quote: Im Not Mister Mxypltk said: Yeah, the difference is in who you ask. If you ask them, it's a Holy War.
You and I know better.
Quote: Listen, do you think the kid who gets his family blown apart gives a shit about the noble causes the US had for dropping that bomb? When someone comes offering him a way to punch back, how could he say no?
By actually analyzing the difference between the two cultures?
I hold no ill will towards other countries that committed certain acts against American forces in the past because what they did was commit acts of war that are offensive to me only as a nation. I wouldn't take the torture of American soldiers or their deaths personally because they died in a war during wartime (although I would be saddened). If America was the one who got atomic bombs dropped on its cities by a warring country, I wouldn't have held it against the country even if I would defend my nation against them to the death.
If that kid actually understood the ways of war rather than acted out of blind rage, he definitely could say no. In which case, I don't find your example to be any kind of excuse even if it is a reason.
Quote: And yep, you guessed it, they don't see why they would have to justify the destruction of those two towers. Obviously I can understand your reasons for Hiroshima a lot better than I can understand the reasons behind 9-11, but that's only because we have similar cultural settings.
And because of our more properly alligned perceptions, we can honestly say that we're right and they're wrong AND fucking crazy.
Just because there's two sides to the argument, that doesn't mean there's not an absolute answer. You can't say I'm close-minded just because I believe something that the other side doesn't.
Quote: Yeah, fear worked real good in the Middle East.
The Middle East wasn't the problem at the time. And I never presumed to say it would work on them. I fully realize that their zealousness is so impressive that death doesn't scare them. At the same time, I think that's all the more reason to wipe them out if they become our enemies.
That, to me, is the real problem we're facing right now; America is not respecting the Middle East enough to understand that they can't be pacified. They are, quite frankly, a diseased limb that the world refuses to amputate. The only reason China and Russia won't do it because they're so good at distracting/splitting the US.
Quote: Isn't it?
No. Just certain parts. I was talking about World War 2.
Quote: So what are you gonna do? Nuke 'em all?
It's not a matter of wiping the people out, it's a matter of wiping out the culture. The death is an unfortunate but unavoidable bi-product since the only way the culture survives is through those people. Would I be prepared to nuke all of the Mid East if I had the chance? I'm not particularly sure that I would. However, I will admit that I would be vastly tempted seeing as how the entire region can be justifiably described as socio-cultural virus that destroys and perverts all it touches (see also: Europe, Australia, the Crusades, America).
Quote: Then the rest of the world will turn against you. Fuck, I'll sign up to fight you myself. What then? You gonna nuke us too? The way you're handling this, it's never gonna end.
Considering detterents are still in place, I doubt the world would turn against us if we actually do grow the balls to wipe them out and then stand up to the UN to boot. But I'm not gonna bother with that line of argument since you obviously wrote it out of anger.
Quote: Pariah said: We will never have the right to "fix" other countries--No one has that right, not even your precious UN. That's just absurd. And if that's what this nation decided to become, I'd make sure to burn it down to make sure the world, as influenced by Western culture, stood a fighting chance against such tyrrany.
But that's what we're doing now. We're trying to force feed our political system to the middle east. They have obvious flaws in their governments. If we wanted them to truly improve we would stop giving money and support to their worst leaders (Saudi Arabia), stop fueling the jingoism of their worst leaders (Iran) and just let them sort it out. Once you remove the western influence that we force on them through overt and covert actions you remove the enemy that unites them. that allows them to improve upon themselves and allows us to improve upon ourselves. But Bush wants to "fix" Iraq since his daddy didn't and make it America jr.
Quote: We act on our own interests--We invade countries (and in the case of Iraq, we also stabiliaze) in the pursuit of our own interests.
We didn't actually stabilize Iraq. Saddam had it stabilized and under control and we had him neutered enough that he couldn't be a real threat. All we did was remove him (instead of letting the people of Iraq get fed up and revolt) and now we've turned the country into a focal point for terrorists. Under our control Iraq has less reliable electricity and water (Bush was told that he needed to maintain those systems right away and he ignored it) and they have more violence.
Quote: Im Not Mister Mxypltk said: Yeah, the difference is in who you ask. If you ask them, it's a Holy War.
Quote: Pariah: You and I know better.
Bush has called it a crusade, said the democracy we're bringing is "god's gift." He's making it a holy war as well.
Quote: Someone: Listen, do you think the kid who gets his family blown apart gives a shit about the noble causes the US had for dropping that bomb? When someone comes offering him a way to punch back, how could he say no?
Quote: Pariah: By actually analyzing the difference between the two cultures?
So your family is killed violently and suddenly by a French soldier and you're going to sit down and compare their art and culture and laws to our own? You're going to do a statistical analysis of all their laws and history and then say "yeah, I should support the people who killed my family not this guy who speaks my language and looks like me."
Quote: I hold no ill will towards other countries that committed certain acts against American forces in the past because what they did was commit acts of war that are offensive to me only as a nation. I wouldn't take the torture of American soldiers or their deaths personally because they died in a war during wartime (although I would be saddened). If America was the one who got atomic bombs dropped on its cities by a warring country, I wouldn't have held it against the country even if I would defend my nation against them to the death.
Then why don't you join the army? You seem to love war and think it's such a great way to go about international relations. Why haven't you joined up? Or is it just easier to support the war from the safety of your mom's basement?
Quote: If that kid actually understood the ways of war rather than acted out of blind rage, he definitely could say no. In which case, I don't find your example to be any kind of excuse even if it is a reason.
So then you must clearly feel that the people who joined the army in response to 9/11 weren't thinking rationally?
Quote:
And because of our more properly alligned perceptions, we can honestly say that we're right and they're wrong AND fucking crazy.
How can we absolutely say we're right and they're wrong? We're all only human, flawed as we are? Has the great Pariah never made a misjudgment, never been wrong once in his life? How can you say that we are somehow the absolute end all be all of human potential?
Quote: Just because there's two sides to the argument, that doesn't mean there's not an absolute answer. You can't say I'm close-minded just because I believe something that the other side doesn't.
But that's the whole point, isn't it? You're on one side of the debate claiming that your side is right. And somewhere there is a guy on another messageboard denouncing America as a corrupt place of sin and saying he is right. god hasn't smited either of you yet, so how can you say absolutely that you are right?
Quote: The Middle East wasn't the problem at the time. And I never presumed to say it would work on them. I fully realize that their zealousness is so impressive that death doesn't scare them. At the same time, I think that's all the more reason to wipe them out if they become our enemies.
You find their willingness to die impressive? I find it sad that any person is at that point. I'm not sensing a whole lot of christian love, Pariah. In fact for someone who is getting into heaven (because your own rulebook says you are) you don't seem like a very positive or compassionate person.
Quote: That, to me, is the real problem we're facing right now; America is not respecting the Middle East enough to understand that they can't be pacified. They are, quite frankly, a diseased limb that the world refuses to amputate. The only reason China and Russia won't do it because they're so good at distracting/splitting the US.
They are the spawn of the "holy land" so.... The fact that you see any race or nation as being in need of total destruction is just so sad. Every culture has it's value. Even with terrorists, the middle east has many positive things. And there are the majority of people there who have never harmed another person, but you would see them killed? I personally have known some muslims who were bright people and had extremely similar religious views to the christians i've known. I've known muslims who denounced the violence in their home countries the same way there were russian who denounced the USSR. Every culture has value, every country has value. I would hope that one day when America isn't quite so strong militarily that someone doesn't come along and look at our bloody history with the indians or our bloody present in terms of crime and poverty and say we need to be amputated.
Quote: It's not a matter of wiping the people out, it's a matter of wiping out the culture. The death is an unfortunate but unavoidable bi-product since the only way the culture survives is through those people. Would I be prepared to nuke all of the Mid East if I had the chance? I'm not particularly sure that I would. However, I will admit that I would be vastly tempted seeing as how the entire region can be justifiably described as socio-cultural virus that destroys and perverts all it touches (see also: Europe, Australia, the Crusades, America).
That's right they were responsible for the Holocaust, and for our treatment of the Indians, and for Pearl Harbor, and for Kennedy being killed, and Vietnam, and for the 600,000 who died in our Civil War, and for every violent murder that happens every day in this world, and for the IRA, and Apartheid (sp?). Or maybe violence is used by members of every culture and every race. And they're just the ones using it now. And maybe like all the enemies we've had in the past 200 years (Indians, Germans, Russians) we'll be at peace with them in 50 years.
Quote: Then the rest of the world will turn against you. Fuck, I'll sign up to fight you myself. What then? You gonna nuke us too? The way you're handling this, it's never gonna end.
Considering detterents are still in place, I doubt the world would turn against us if we actually do grow the balls to wipe them out and then stand up to the UN to boot. But I'm not gonna bother with that line of argument since you obviously wrote it out of anger.
Quote: Listen, do you think the kid who gets his family blown apart gives a shit about the noble causes the US had for dropping that bomb? When someone comes offering him a way to punch back, how could he say no?
By actually analyzing the difference between the two cultures?
"Hmmm, I'm 8 years old and my family's been blown to bits. I shall now sit down and quietly analyze the difference between the two cultures."
Quote: If that kid actually understood the ways of war rather than acted out of blind rage, he definitely could say no. In which case, I don't find your example to be any kind of excuse even if it is a reason.
Did you understand the ways of war when you were a kid? Now picture yourself surrounded by rublle and body parts. Do you give a shit about the ways of war? You wouldn't be human if in that situation you said "Oh well, it's for the greater good -- carry on!" You're not taking the kid's perspective. You're still being yourself coldly analyzing his situation from the outside. I've noticed this is particularly hard for Americans to do.
Quote: And because of our more properly alligned perceptions, we can honestly say that we're right and they're wrong AND fucking crazy.
Why does our honesty count more than theirs?
Quote: Just because there's two sides to the argument, that doesn't mean there's not an absolute answer.
I don't believe that for a second. The world is made of perspectives. I have mine and I defend it, but I realize that it could easily be wrong.
Quote: You can't say I'm close-minded just because I believe something that the other side doesn't.
If you invert that sentence it's still true.
Quote: The Middle East wasn't the problem at the time. And I never presumed to say it would work on them. I fully realize that their zealousness is so impressive that death doesn't scare them. At the same time, I think that's all the more reason to wipe them out if they become our enemies.
That, to me, is the real problem we're facing right now; America is not respecting the Middle East enough to understand that they can't be pacified. They are, quite frankly, a diseased limb that the world refuses to amputate. The only reason China and Russia won't do it because they're so good at distracting/splitting the US.
That's not an option. The minute you do that, the whole fucking world goes to shit. War breeds war, one way or another. If you do that, you'll start a bigger war and, of course, your only solution will be dealing the same way with your new enemies.
Quote: No. Just certain parts. I was talking about World War 2.
Look at what you wrote in your previous paragraph: How is that not a world war? With that kind of mentality, you're putting the whole word at risk, even if only on the long run.
Quote: It's not a matter of wiping the people out, it's a matter of wiping out the culture. The death is an unfortunate but unavoidable bi-product since the only way the culture survives is through those people. Would I be prepared to nuke all of the Mid East if I had the chance? I'm not particularly sure that I would. However, I will admit that I would be vastly tempted seeing as how the entire region can be justifiably described as socio-cultural virus that destroys and perverts all it touches (see also: Europe, Australia, the Crusades, America).
That's fucking nuts.
Quote: Considering detterents are still in place, I doubt the world would turn against us if we actually do grow the balls to wipe them out and then stand up to the UN to boot. But I'm not gonna bother with that line of argument since you obviously wrote it out of anger.
No, I'm serious. And I'm not writing out of anger. There's a lot of resentment against the US in the rest of the world. I thought it was just us (Latinamerica) until I started working in a cruise line and realized it's everywhere. As I said before, the general mood of a society has its way of being expressed in its most extreme form (see: "Death to fags" and "Fuck the troops" rallies in the US). If you do something as unthinkable as wiping out the Middle East, that general mood would grow and so would its maximum expression. If our governments don't decide to go to war with you, then I'm sure terrorist cells would be formed to do the same thing. I insist: it's never gonna end this way.
Then we will be forced to invent a ginormous booze launcher that will fling free intoxicants into all other nations, thus spreading goodwill and pissdrunkery throughout the world.
I've tried that arguement about looking at both sides and taking in the other sides perspective before people. Trust, you'll not get very far with it on these boards.
Oh look. Karl dissected my post and responded with his usual idiocy that I already exposed in a dozen other conversations prior to this one. Good for him.
Quote: Im Not Mister Mxypltk said: Who says we're right? We do?
Exactly. And you can't say that's wrong just because we think we're right.
Making attempts to look through the eyes of the Middle Easterners will only get you so far before your realize that you have to operate on your own views in the end.
Quote: "Hmmm, I'm 8 years old and my family's been blown to bits. I shall now sit down and quietly analyze the difference between the two cultures."
Just because he would be so emotionally torn as to render the suggestion totally unlikely post-bombing scenario, that doesn't mean it's not good advice. If a person can't see past their blind rage well enough to stop and wonder if a suicide bombing (which will kill his own brethren as well as Americans) just might be the wrong approach, then how useful do they prove themselves to the rest of the world let alone their own country?
I fully realize that the only reason an 8 year old in the Mid East would have no fear or problem with going through with a suicide bombing is because that's how he was raised. But that, to me, is all the more reason to destroy the culture--So the atmosphere created it by it won't create anymore threatening fanatics.
Quote: Did you understand the ways of war when you were a kid? Now picture yourself surrounded by rublle and body parts. Do you give a shit about the ways of war? You wouldn't be human if in that situation you said "Oh well, it's for the greater good -- carry on!" You're not taking the kid's perspective. You're still being yourself coldly analyzing his situation from the outside. I've noticed this is particularly hard for Americans to do.
Have you ever stopped to think that this is perhaps the best way to look at the situation? By having an overview that's not corrupted by extraneous elements?
No. I didn't fully understand war when I was 8. And I wouldn't assume that kid would either, but just because nobody bothered to teach him about it (which is very odd considering where he lives), that doesn't mean I should compromise my principles for the sake of his inability to grasp the true volume of the matter.
Quote: Why does our honesty count more than theirs?
Are you saying it doesn't?
Mxy, you and I use absolutes all the time: You say America has committed crimes; I say countries are incapable of committing crimes based on the construct and nature of a country. And while we debated such things, I never heard you say, “I could be wrong,”* and I certainly don’t expect you to because that’s not what you believe. All of us must admit the possibility that we could be wrong about anything and everything, but that doesn’t mean that we have to, or should, re-distribute the amount of faith in our primary views for the sake of trying to empathize with our enemies’ views. It simply doesn’t make sense, the world can’t move it ANY direction if we all thought that way.
*That’s not say that you don’t think you could be proven wrong. I’m just saying that you wouldn’t pre-dispose yourself to such an idea.
Quote: I don't believe that for a second. The world is made of perspectives.
That doesn’t mean one of them, or even a greater amount, isn’t correct.
Quote: I have mine and I defend it, but I realize that it could easily be wrong.
But you don’t operate on the assumption that it’s not do you? That’s exactly what you’re asking me to do when you say I should look through the tainted eyes of an Middle Eastern child who’s family is a tragically unfortunate casualty. It’s enough that I don’t want that kind of thing to happen without being told that I have to stop fighting to make it so. If the West let those kind of things stop itself from having wars, it would have been destroyed decades before.
Quote: If you invert that sentence it's still true.
Bullshit. Socrates and Aristotle both spent their entire lifetimes analyzing the status of reality, outlining all of its facets in an attempt to understand what it was composed of and how it got there. They spent countless hours approaching the idea of there being a God from both the positions of the theist and the atheist. They both came to the conclusion that there is a God and that monotheism is the most logically philosophical outlook. Obviously you think they’re wrong, but would you also call them close-minded for coming to an absolute conclusion even after their study?
My point being that it’s very possible to look at all sides of the situation and then take an absolute stand on the issue. One doesn’t need to stay away from taking sides to be open-minded in regards to the subject. Your assessment isn’t fair.
Quote: That's not an option. The minute you do that, the whole fucking world goes to shit. War breeds war, one way or another. If you do that, you'll start a bigger war and, of course, your only solution will be dealing the same way with your new enemies.
That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.
If we destroyed the Middle East entirely and crumbled its infectious and radiant culture into pieces so as to make sure their brand of fanaticism was never encountered again…You’re right, it’s very possible that the rest of the world would then try to destroy us. Then again, the ME has been a problem for everyone in some form or another, even if they wouldn’t immediately realize it, it’s also possible that they wouldn’t do shit…Except call us imperialist and murdering bastards of course. I mean you do it all the time—As does the UN—As does China—As does Russia. Furthermore, each of those countries would probably cheer us on since they, and us, realize with the most clarity the ME is a world problem. Even after they’d be happy for their destruction, they’d still use it as an excuse to slander America and, if your worst case scenario holds true, attack us. In which case, I’d gladly fight them if it meant defending myself and my country against worldwide dishonesty.
In any event: The world didn’t do anything about Darfur, which involved the mass slaughter of innocent people in a culture that was more or less peaceful aside from the people who seized it. Assuming the world did anything to us if we decided to nuke the shit out of the ME, an area that undeniably harbors a hostile and violent populace and culture, what do you think that would say about the world’s integrity—About how it really feels towards America and its successes? Would you still be so willing to take up arms against us?
But before any of this, I want one thing and one thing only: A second American Civil War. One that destroys this ideological divide and then reunites the nation in whatever philosophy wins the battle (I don’t actually want people to die, but words just aren’t doing the trick anymore and true cultural change has proven to be unattainable any other way). That way, not only would we have one goal, but then we’d have a truly sincere empathy for what the rest of the world wants of us that we should tear each other apart. Other nations and propaganda machines have been working very hard to insert themselves into our culture so they could have a say in what we do and gain growing influence over certain Western populations so as to immobilize our ability to make decisions for ourselves. And guess what? They’ve been successful so far.
So you see Mxy, this is a lot more complicated then just having the world take revenge for a destroyed nation; it’s about bitterness…Towards the West.
Quote: Look at what you wrote in your previous paragraph: How is that not a world war? With that kind of mentality, you're putting the whole word at risk, even if only on the long run.
It’s not America’s fault if the whole world overreacts to America’s retaliation against the ME’s long history of malevolence and belligerence towards us. In that rite, it’s pretty ironic, and pathetic, that America is the one who ends up saving the world from itself by chopping off the gangrene limb that is the Middle East.
Quote: That's fucking nuts.
*shrug* I think it’s nuts that you’d take up arms against me rather than the Middle East.
Quote: No, I'm serious. And I'm not writing out of anger. There's a lot of resentment against the US in the rest of the world. I thought it was just us (Latinamerica) until I started working in a cruise line and realized it's everywhere. As I said before, the general mood of a society has its way of being expressed in its most extreme form (see: "Death to fags" and "Fuck the troops" rallies in the US). If you do something as unthinkable as wiping out the Middle East, that general mood would grow and so would its maximum expression. If our governments don't decide to go to war with you, then I'm sure terrorist cells would be formed to do the same thing. I insist: it's never gonna end this way.
A reaction from terrorist cells is undeniable. But we shouldn’t live in fear of them.
As for the world…Well, let’s just say that I won’t be taking that bet. But if it does physically react to us, then I’ll remember Darfur and proceed to kill rest of the world off out of disgust.
Quote: Pariah said: Oh look. Karl dissected my post and responded with his usual idiocy that I already exposed in a dozen other conversations prior to this one. Good for him.
You're an idiot. I've long noticed that any time I take the time to actually get into anything with you, you eventually whine that I'm wrong and then ignore what I said. Mostly this happens when I bring morality or shades of gray that conflict with your sense of amorality and it's okay to kill just because other people are killers. I think the best point I made was that you could find people saying 50 years ago about Russia what you're saying now about the Middle East. And 65 years ago they said the same about the Germans. And over a hundred years ago it was the Indians. Then 300 years ago it was witch trials. People like you always need some enemy. And not just a person or a group, but an entire race of people that you can point to as the ultimate evil in the world. Does it make you feel better having an enemy?
The difference is that now people who think like Pariah actually have the power to wipe out whatever they see as their enemies before eventually realizing that they were wrong.
Quote: Pariah said: Exactly. And you can't say that's wrong just because we think we're right.
Making attempts to look through the eyes of the Middle Easterners will only get you so far before your realize that you have to operate on your own views in the end.
My point is that you justify doing horrible things in the name of what you believe and they're doing the exact same thing. So what's the difference? Why should the fact that you think you're right count for anything if they share the exact same conviction? In the bigger picture the whole situation is just two cultures reacting to each other. Take an objective point of view and you'll see that the only undeniable effect this conflict has had is the loss of millions of innocent lives (in both sides).
You say they're a poison to the world: to most of us so are you. You said it yourself, you do whatever you have to do to protect your own interests. Well, the result is that many nations, like mine, have been damaged irreparably by your influence. How is that not a virus? Considering your perspective (in that particular case), is like trying to look through the eyes of a cancer eating through your body. It's also protecting its interests. It also thinks it's right.
Quote: Just because he would be so emotionally torn as to render the suggestion totally unlikely post-bombing scenario, that doesn't mean it's not good advice. If a person can't see past their blind rage well enough to stop and wonder if a suicide bombing (which will kill his own brethren as well as Americans) just might be the wrong approach, then how useful do they prove themselves to the rest of the world let alone their own country?
We're going around in cirlces. When I ask you to think logically you insist in going back to your subjective opinion as if you were incapable of distnacing yourself from it even for a second, and when I ask you to think empathically you dissect the situation with logic. The former paragraph is YOU analysing the situation, not the 8 year old. How hard is it to take his place for a moment? It wouldn't be human to react any other way in an extreme situation like that. I'm saying that your country's violent response only motivates innocent victims to join the conflict and keep it going. If you're agreeing with that and using it as an argument to destroy them all, then just say that.
Quote: I fully realize that the only reason an 8 year old in the Mid East would have no fear or problem with going through with a suicide bombing is because that's how he was raised. But that, to me, is all the more reason to destroy the culture--So the atmosphere created it by it won't create anymore threatening fanatics.
It becomes more and more clear to me that the only reason your country has no problem going there and perpetuating the violence is because you, too, have been raised to respond violently. The examples r3x and I have given could easily be attributed to a "whites are inherently evil" theory... I mean, if someone was motivated to start that theory the way you're motivated to start one about arabs. Let me explain myself with an hypothetic situation: what if, instead of being white, the Columbine kids had been of arab descent? The exact same situation, but they happen to have a different ethnicity. It wouldn't be the Columbine Tragedy, it'd be the Columbine Attack. Their violence would suddenly mean something else. It would be used as proof that arabs are predisposed to violence. There would be a ten page thread about it here and G-man would bump it every two weeks with an article about an arab kid pushing another while standing in line. But no, since they're white, it just means that videogames are evil, or something.
To clarify, I'm not saying you're inherently evil... I'm just saying it could be argued as easily as you argue that arabs are.
Quote: Have you ever stopped to think that this is perhaps the best way to look at the situation? By having an overview that's not corrupted by extraneous elements?
To do what, conclude that that kid is better off dead? Corrupting the overview with extraneous elements is exactly what you're doing in the other part of our debate.
Quote: No. I didn't fully understand war when I was 8. And I wouldn't assume that kid would either, but just because nobody bothered to teach him about it (which is very odd considering where he lives), that doesn't mean I should compromise my principles for the sake of his inability to grasp the true volume of the matter.
Why is it that hard to "compromise your principles"? What's the big deal? It's just your opinion. By logic, everyone should seriously reconsider their position at least once in their lifetime, especially when they involve matters like these.
Quote: Are you saying it doesn't?
Mxy, you and I use absolutes all the time: You say America has committed crimes; I say countries are incapable of committing crimes based on the construct and nature of a country. And while we debated such things, I never heard you say, “I could be wrong,”* and I certainly don’t expect you to because that’s not what you believe.
I don't need to say I could be wrong, because to me that's implied in everything everyone says, including myself.
Quote: All of us must admit the possibility that we could be wrong about anything and everything, but that doesn’t mean that we have to, or should, re-distribute the amount of faith in our primary views for the sake of trying to empathize with our enemies’ views. It simply doesn’t make sense, the world can’t move it ANY direction if we all thought that way.
It's not that important when you're having an argument about who would win in a fight, Superman of Goku (Superman), but when we're talking about wiping out an entire culture, it's not only important, it's necessary. The direction the world has been moving for the past 60 years or so is one filled with escalating wars and loss of life. I don't know for sure in what direction it would move if nations valued empathy over protecting their interests, but it can't be worse than that. After all, what's empathy if not looking out for the greater good?
Quote: *That’s not say that you don’t think you could be proven wrong. I’m just saying that you wouldn’t pre-dispose yourself to such an idea.
I AM predisposed to that posibility, which is why I don't take extreme positions (such as saying a whole culture should be wiped out). I don't support abortion for the same reason: I personally don't think a two week old fetus is alive, but what if it is? That fetus is worth defending for that posibility alone.
Quote: That doesn’t mean one of them, or even a greater amount, isn’t correct.
I don't think in terms of "correct" or "incorrect": they're all equally valid, because we're all equal. If someone's conviction directly undermines all the rest, then of course he needs to be restrained from doing what he wants to do, but in looking out for the greater good we should necessarily keep him in mind and, if possible, find a way to co-exist in harmony. In the case of the US and the ME: stay the fuck away from each other.
Quote: It’s enough that I don’t want that kind of thing to happen without being told that I have to stop fighting to make it so.
But if you stopped fighting, you would make it so.
Quote: If the West let those kind of things stop itself from having wars, it would have been destroyed decades before.
Destroyed by what? Peace?
Quote: Bullshit. Socrates and Aristotle both spent their entire lifetimes analyzing the status of reality, outlining all of its facets in an attempt to understand what it was composed of and how it got there. They spent countless hours approaching the idea of there being a God from both the positions of the theist and the atheist. They both came to the conclusion that there is a God and that monotheism is the most logically philosophical outlook. Obviously you think they’re wrong, but would you also call them close-minded for coming to an absolute conclusion even after their study?
Didn't Socrates say "that what I don't know, I don't think I know"? A more accurate translation would be "all I know is that I know nothing". He was predisposed to the posibility of his entire system of beliefs being wrong, which from my understanding is what gave him so much clarity of mind.
Quote: My point being that it’s very possible to look at all sides of the situation and then take an absolute stand on the issue. One doesn’t need to stay away from taking sides to be open-minded in regards to the subject. Your assessment isn’t fair.
On the contrary, I think what isn't fair is putting so much value in your personal opinion that you'd be willing to commit genocide.
Quote: That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it.
If we destroyed the Middle East entirely and crumbled its infectious and radiant culture into pieces so as to make sure their brand of fanaticism was never encountered again…You’re right, it’s very possible that the rest of the world would then try to destroy us. Then again, the ME has been a problem for everyone in some form or another, even if they wouldn’t immediately realize it, it’s also possible that they wouldn’t do shit…Except call us imperialist and murdering bastards of course. I mean you do it all the time—As does the UN—As does China—As does Russia.
If the situation that we already percieve as evil imperialism were to be exalted, our response would grow as well. And what's the next logical step? Taking action to stop it.
Quote: Furthermore, each of those countries would probably cheer us on since they, and us, realize with the most clarity the ME is a world problem. Even after they’d be happy for their destruction, they’d still use it as an excuse to slander America and, if your worst case scenario holds true, attack us. In which case, I’d gladly fight them if it meant defending myself and my country against worldwide dishonesty.
In any event: The world didn’t do anything about Darfur, which involved the mass slaughter of innocent people in a culture that was more or less peaceful aside from the people who seized it. Assuming the world did anything to us if we decided to nuke the shit out of the ME, an area that undeniably harbors a hostile and violent populace and culture, what do you think that would say about the world’s integrity—About how it really feels towards America and its successes? Would you still be so willing to take up arms against us?
But before any of this, I want one thing and one thing only: A second American Civil War. One that destroys this ideological divide and then reunites the nation in whatever philosophy wins the battle (I don’t actually want people to die, but words just aren’t doing the trick anymore and true cultural change has proven to be unattainable any other way). That way, not only would we have one goal, but then we’d have a truly sincere empathy for what the rest of the world wants of us that we should tear each other apart. Other nations and propaganda machines have been working very hard to insert themselves into our culture so they could have a say in what we do and gain growing influence over certain Western populations so as to immobilize our ability to make decisions for ourselves. And guess what? They’ve been successful so far.
Quote: It’s not America’s fault if the whole world overreacts to America’s retaliation against the ME’s long history of malevolence and belligerence towards us. In that rite, it’s pretty ironic, and pathetic, that America is the one who ends up saving the world from itself by chopping off the gangrene limb that is the Middle East.
Quote: fanaticism A noun
1 fanaticism, zealotry
excessive intolerance of opposing views
What's more excessive than wiping out a culture, even if it means going into a world war? Take the end result out of the picture for a second: you're talking about how much you'd benefit from a civil war. Maybe you'd also benefit from spreading a plague, ever considered that? This reminds of the conference where the "Yes Men" (a group of activists) suggested causing natural disasters for profit in front of oil industrials, and were cheered. That's psychopathic behaviour.
Quote: So you see Mxy, this is a lot more complicated then just having the world take revenge for a destroyed nation; it’s about bitterness…Towards the West.
Ever thought that maybe you're responsible for that bitterness for sticking your nose in other countries to protect your interests? If so, then I guess it must be totally justifiable.
Quote: *shrug* I think it’s nuts that you’d take up arms against me rather than the Middle East.
If the Middle East wiped you out for whatever reason, I'd take arms against them. It's not the altruist american soldier I'm against, it's the unspeakable crime he commits.
Quote: A reaction from terrorist cells is undeniable. But we shouldn’t live in fear of them.
Listen to yourself. It's that exact attitude what got you in this problem in the first place.
Quote: As for the world…Well, let’s just say that I won’t be taking that bet. But if it does physically react to us, then I’ll remember Darfur and proceed to kill rest of the world off out of disgust.
As I said: that's exactly where your current path leads you, and it's disturbing that you seem to have no problem with it.
Pig Iran said: Muslim clerics don't consider blowing up non-combatants as Murder, because the enemies are all supposed to convert or die. They are all enemies. Non-combatants are not supposed to be "targets" of any "Christian " nation's army/military, because it goes against our laws and most citizens' religious laws. some Muslim nations do not necessarily have those laws, because all citizens of those foreign powers are considered combatants. Hence, a lone Muslim can be sanctioned to blow up women and children in a coffee shop, and not consider it evil-or therefore murder.
Actually Islam does not support the killing of any innocent. These people have perverted their faith by saying a Bush-esque "with us or against us" black or white mentality so that they can justify anyone not on their side as being an enemy.
Jihad isn't a holy war, a muslim friend explained it as basically strong faith and the struggle against temptation and corruption. It too has been perverted by these radicals to say that the same rules that allow them to kill a man who is invading their home can also allow them to kill anyone who is against them. But even then they often have their own views and justifications, same as we do. I think both the chickenhawks here and the radicals there need to stop being so damn rigid and conservative and religious. Then we'd probably be able to work this out.
Blame it on America... again. Despite the facts.
As I already said elsewhere( Islamic ignorance topic, page 3), quoting Al Qaida's own 1998 Declaration of Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders, no less, Islamic faith isn't "perverted" by Al Qaida. Quite the opposite, it is very consistent with Koran scripture, and quotes the Koran, chapter and verse.
It is also consistent with Islam's long history of conversion by conquest.
The islamic belief is that there is no such thing as innocent Westerners. All Westerners supply tax money to U.S. and Israeli "oppression" of violent Islamic people (who are in truth the aggressors who started it, not westerners, and whose violent actions simply forced the West to respond).
And unarmed Westerners, including children, are also regarded as targets, because they grow up to become soldiers of the West, or contribute more supportively to the Western economy, feeding U.S. military power through paying taxes, and through passive endorsement of U.S. middle East policy.
And it isn't an abberant isolated strain of Islam, Al Qaida is cheered on for its terrorism against the U.S. by between 30 and 50 percent of the population in most Islamic countries.
Jihad is a struggle, yes. It can be a spiritual internal struggle. But it can also be violent fanatical military conflict against non-muslims. And it often is, despite what you choose to partisanly believe, contrary to the facts.
Quote: Karl Hungus said: You're an idiot. I've long noticed that any time I take the time to actually get into anything with you, you eventually whine that I'm wrong and then ignore what I said.
*a whole lot of shit that doesn't real mean anything*
On the contrary Karl, I've argued with you in long drawn out conversations, that I probably shouldn't have wasted my time on, in numerous other threads on these boards. In each one I've shown you to be full of shit.
Nothing you wrote is unique to any of your past diatribe, thus I won't respond to it.
Quote: Im Not Mister Mxypltk said: My point is that you justify doing horrible things in the name of what you believe and they're doing the exact same thing.
The problem with dubbing what I propose America should do as "horrible" is that you have very scattered defintions of what's considered as such. For example, you think "murder" and "killing" are the exact same thing.
Quote: So what's the difference? Why should the fact that you think you're right count for anything if they share the exact same conviction?
The end to their means is much different then the end to mine.
Quote: In the bigger picture the whole situation is just two cultures reacting to each other. Take an objective point of view and you'll see that the only undeniable effect this conflict has had is the loss of millions of innocent lives (in both sides).
Actually, that's an intrinsically ignorant POV. In only viewing us as two countries fighting against eachother, you generalize all wars and refuse to look at the intent of either culture and analyze how unique one is from the other.
I suppose this means that you feel the history between America and Chile is just a intercultural reaction devoid of any real meaning?
Quote: You say they're a poison to the world: to most of us so are you.
Yes. I'm sure you feel that way about me.
Quote: You said it yourself, you do whatever you have to do to protect your own interests. Well, the result is that many nations, like mine, have been damaged irreparably by your influence. How is that not a virus? Considering your perspective (in that particular case), is like trying to look through the eyes of a cancer eating through your body. It's also protecting its interests. It also thinks it's right.
I'm sure you wouldn't have minded the domino effect taking place in your country, but I can't say that I'd feel very comfortable living not too far away from such a nation. That brand of government is just another disease more refined than the Mid Eastern governments.
Sorry Mxy, but I'm not going to consider helping out a coup a form of terrorism or even "irreparable damage." I can't say I'd be too happy if the Middle East or some other nation with ethnic influence in the US helped endorse a coup on my government. But since actual US citizens, merely sponsored by outside sources, would carry out such a coup, I'm not going to consider that terrorism or even a form of "damage" either. U.S. citizens forcefully switching political paradigms isn't the same thing. I will, however, admit that there’s a fine line between a revolution and terrorism: The former needs enough constituent volume not to be considered the latter.
Quote: We're going around in cirlces. When I ask you to think logically you insist in going back to your subjective opinion as if you were incapable of distnacing yourself from it even for a second, and when I ask you to think empathically you dissect the situation with logic. The former paragraph is YOU analysing the situation, not the 8 year old. How hard is it to take his place for a moment? It wouldn't be human to react any other way in an extreme situation like that. I'm saying that your country's violent response only motivates innocent victims to join the conflict and keep it going. If you're agreeing with that and using it as an argument to destroy them all, then just say that.
What I’m saying Mxy is that if those innocent casualties want to jump the gun and become terrorists, it’s not my fault. By your very reasoning, America should’ve been traumatized enough by the WTC to have gotten as irrational as that 8 year old and just nuked the entire Middle East by now, and yet it hasn’t happened. You say we live in fear and yet we haven’t lashed out the way one of your caliber thinking would predict. If we really weren’t any better than the Middle Easterners, we wouldn’t have given them enough respect to actually take them to war instead of bomb them back to Allah. If anything, our responses have been inferior to what we should be dealing out. Our example has been one of extreme tolerance; America tolerates the Middle East murdering and torturing Americans due to pacifists like yourself who continually say we shouldn’t be fighting even though we’re being fought against in the process.
So when an 8 year old’s family gets blown to bits by friendly fire and they become a suicide bombing terrorist, you’ll know it’s the ME culture that’s encouraged him or her to do such a thing. They sure as hell haven’t used us as an example for their behavior.
In the end, I’m the one who becomes the radical because I keep telling the people here in America that I shouldn’t have to empathize with the child since I’ve already empathized with the people who are victims of terrorist attacks—Unprecedented victims who weren’t even given a declaration of war. You see Mxy, the terrorist attacks aren’t going to stop even if we did cease our siege of the Middle East. So it wouldn’t be very bright to just ‘turn the other cheek.’ That eight year old would definitely suffer as a casualty, but your suggestion that we should allow ourselves to be killed for the sake of those innocents (who’re probably going to grow up to fanatics in the future) is both unpractical and suspiciously retarded. I’m sure you didn’t care when Hezbollah kept bombing Israel even after Israel pulled out of Gaza, but they sure as hell cared when Lebanon’s powers ended up killing their citizens.
I’m rather confused as to how you’d think there would be any sort of peace if we stopped fighting. I guess you just forgot to take into mind the chicken and the egg. i.e. You refuse to analyze my culture in pursuit of only empathizing with another that opposes mine.
Quote: It becomes more and more clear to me that the only reason your country has no problem going there and perpetuating the violence is because you, too, have been raised to respond violently.
Which means you’re making an unfounded assumption about my history. This is because you boil down America to a stereotype of violence based on gun ownership and [jingoism/blind patriotism]. What you refuse to take into account is that America is country that’s in an ideological conflict with itself. My mother and father for example are both on opposite extremes of the political spectrum. Neither of them however, gave much of a crap about how I turned out after I turned 16. In which case, I was raised in a very nebulous atmosphere that didn’t involve a lot of extremes until I actually bothered to discover them for myself. So no points for you.
They don’t have these kind of options in the Middle East. It’s undeniably an oppressive culture, which doesn’t allow any form of dissent away from the norm. It doesn’t make sense to compare my upbringing to theirs except for the sake of being facetious—As per your usual mannerisms in an argument.
Quote: The examples r3x and I have given could easily be attributed to a "whites are inherently evil" theory...I mean, if someone was motivated to start that theory the way you're motivated to start one about arabs. Let me explain myself with an hypothetic situation: what if, instead of being white, the Columbine kids had been of arab descent?
If the recordings they left were identical to that of Reb and Vodka’s, then that means they were victims of the clique. If the recordings were about Allah, that would make them fundamentalists. If they didn’t leave recordings, that would be evidence of fanaticism until an observation of their lifestyle and personal beliefs would say otherwise.
Quote: The exact same situation, but they happen to have a different ethnicity. It wouldn't be the Columbine Tragedy, it'd be the Columbine Attack. Their violence would suddenly mean something else. It would be used as proof that arabs are predisposed to violence. There would be a ten page thread about it here and G-man would bump it every two weeks with an article about an arab kid pushing another while standing in line. But no, since they're white, it just means that videogames are evil, or something.
Again, you’d first have to assume that the evidence and recordings didn’t exist for this to be true. You’d also have to overlook the fact that we already know trench coats aren’t spiritually significant garb to Muslims. If they were would-be Muslim terrorists, why would they bother to name themselves “The Trench-Coat Mafia?”
Quote: To do what, conclude that that kid is better off dead?
To conclude whether or not the inadvertent sacrifice of the kid’s family is an acceptable risk that’s proportionate to the past loss, as well as potential future loss, of American lives. When one cultural ideology is threatening the survival of another, you have to ascertain those kinds of balances.
Quote: Corrupting the overview with extraneous elements is exactly what you're doing in the other part of our debate.
Uuh…Okay.
Quote: Why is it that hard to "compromise your principles"? What's the big deal? It's just your opinion. By logic, everyone should seriously reconsider their position at least once in their lifetime, especially when they involve matters like these.
Would you compromise your principles? Don’t bother answering, I already know you wouldn’t.
Quote: I don't need to say I could be wrong, because to me that's implied in everything everyone says, including myself.
But you wouldn’t consider it while you’re arguing or else you’d destroy your consistency. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you operate on a pre-disposition of possibly being wrong? The answer is that you don’t operate on such a pre-disposition because you don’t make reservations or compromising statements. No matter what anyone says, you always spin it in that direction because you know that even if you view the method of our actions in the wrong context, you’ve still convinced yourself that we’re criminal and war-mongering any which way you slice it.
Quote: It's not that important when you're having an argument about who would win in a fight, Superman of Goku (Superman), but when we're talking about wiping out an entire culture, it's not only important, it's necessary. The direction the world has been moving for the past 60 years or so is one filled with escalating wars and loss of life. I don't know for sure in what direction it would move if nations valued empathy over protecting their interests, but it can't be worse than that. After all, what's empathy if not looking out for the greater good?
What you’re ignoring is that you’re continually telling me that your way is the greater good when I’m making an effort to prove to you that your viewpoint is corrupted. If I actually think that I act for the sake of the greater good when you say I’m doing the exact opposite, how is that all on its own supposed to convince me that I’m wrong? You don’t even bother empathizing with my views and you expect me to turn over in my beliefs?
The fact of the matter here is that you’re incapable of viewing me and my culture in an objective light because you still hold a grudge against it. There’s really no use trying to convince someone who thinks the worst of you, for whatever reason possible, of anything.
Quote: I AM predisposed to that posibility, which is why I don't take extreme positions (such as saying a whole culture should be wiped out).
But you do take extreme positions. The only reason you don’t think so is because you’re used to thinking of “extreme” as a form of violence. Telling another culture to be pacifistic when it’s surrounded by hostile elements is just as much an extreme position as being open to endorsing or participating in a war.
Quote: I don't support abortion for the same reason: I personally don't think a two week old fetus is alive, but what if it is? That fetus is worth defending for that posibility alone.
That much I agree with, but I don’t see that as being extreme so much as it is common sense.
Quote: I don't think in terms of "correct" or "incorrect": they're all equally valid, because we're all equal. If someone's conviction directly undermines all the rest, then of course he needs to be restrained from doing what he wants to do
If one of those perspectives undermines the others and encourages you restrain the more hostile one(s), then that proves that you don’t actually believe all philosophies are equal. And since cultural individuality is built upon mass practiced philosophies, that means that not all cultures are equal or “equally valid.”
Are you honestly going to tell me that you don’t feel a viewpoint that’s violently disharmonious with all others isn’t “incorrect?” Are you really not telling me that I’m “incorrect” in what I posit?
Quote: But if you stopped fighting, you would make it so.
We weren’t actively fighting the ME when the USS Cole was hit or the WTC was attacked both times and yet we were still being assaulted. Now that we’re engaged in a war with them, we’ve stymied the fanaticists of the population and our heightened security both in America and in Europe has intercepted numerous terrorist attempts. Our greater success at fighting terrorism on both fronts proves that just raising security here, when we can also be interrupting their ability to plan there, is an inadequate strategy.
Quote: Destroyed by what? Peace?
The greatest obstacle I encounter when arguing with you Mxy is that you suffer from the delusion that America is the root of all the violence. Do you honestly think that America would be left alone by the rest of the world if it just withdrew into itself? Time and again, we’ve been shown that things don’t work that way.
There are much more terrifying things in this world than the US Mxy. It’s rather tragic, and stupid, that you were raised to believe that we’re the monsters under your bed.
Quote: Didn't Socrates say "that what I don't know, I don't think I know"? A more accurate translation would be "all I know is that I know nothing". He was predisposed to the posibility of his entire system of beliefs being wrong, which from my understanding is what gave him so much clarity of mind.
That’s not evidence of pre-disposition. I just as easily say that I acknowledge that possibility that I’m wrong regarding all things, but I’m not about to admit it when you give me no evidence to the contrary except for your feelings. Socrates didn’t use his feelings as evidence, he inferred upon reality based on logical observations.
Quote: On the contrary, I think what isn't fair is putting so much value in your personal opinion that you'd be willing to commit genocide.
I put more value in my personal opinion because opposing opinions are combating mine. The fact that I don’t agree with them means I’ve already analyzed them. Genocide is more contextually appropriate in describing murder. I argue that annihilating the ME, in the pursuit of destroying its culture, is a form of self-defense. I know you don’t agree with that, but that’s the point of the conversation.
Quote: If the situation that we already percieve as evil imperialism were to be exalted, our response would grow as well. And what's the next logical step? Taking action to stop it.
Again, past history of international relations shows us that the world is pretty much apathetic to the mass extermination of people aside from some lip service that it’s an awful tragedy. The spotlight is only on us because everyone is s bitter towards us. We’re trying to protect our population whilst the ME inserts itself into our culture and harms us and yet you put China, Russia, the ME itself, and the nations within Africa, in the background even though their violence and oppression towards others is totally unprecedented.
Darfur isn’t going to be avenged. The ME will be though (if the world actually DID react). Not because it’s a tragic loss; it’s just because everyone hates America.
The world is petty, jealous, and pathetically shallow. I’m glad that I’m not considered apart of its population considering every other country makes such great efforts to distance themselves from us.
Quote: What's more excessive than wiping out a culture, even if it means going into a world war? Take the end result out of the picture for a second: you're talking about how much you'd benefit from a civil war. Maybe you'd also benefit from spreading a plague, ever considered that? This reminds of the conference where the "Yes Men" (a group of activists) suggested causing natural disasters for profit in front of oil industrials, and were cheered. That's psychopathic behaviour.
War is just the most sincerest form of disagreement. Here in the US, we’re divided on everything. Every damn little thing that comes to the table has be argued and dissected, then argued and dissected, and then argued and dissected again—It’s ridiculous. We don’t get anything done because the modern belief, yours, is so concerned with spreading the idea that there’s no such thing as an absolute truth. But we shouldn’t have to waste our time on this idea that all views need to be taken into account. The only reason that other countries actually get shit done is because they don’t waste so much time analyzing and just do what they need to. Why exactly do you think the UN, as disgusting an organization as it is, turned out to be such a failure? It’s because no one can agree on what to do about anything. In any case, it’s getting to the point where it’s become dangerous and stagnating just to sit around and do nothing.
It’s very possible that a civil war would actually give you what you wanted Mxy. Depending on who won it of course.
Quote: Ever thought that maybe you're responsible for that bitterness for sticking your nose in other countries to protect your interests? If so, then I guess it must be totally justifiable.
Actually Mxy, I’m not really talking about Chile or the Middle East. I’m talking about Europe, Asia, and Mexico. Each and everyone is denouncing us and threatening us with sanctions, and yet they’ve done more to us than we ever have to them in the past. This includes stealing our technology, intelligence, and money. Living on our soil and trying to devastate our country with nuclear destruction (see also: Bay of Pigs). On top of all this, Europe tries keep us in bondage so the other nations can go to work. And while all of this is going on, we’re donating and aiding other countries and trying to stabilize our greatest enemies.
Fuck them. And fuck you.
Quote: If the Middle East wiped you out for whatever reason, I'd take arms against them. It's not the altruist american soldier I'm against, it's the unspeakable crime he commits.
Again: We’re all aware of how you define “crime.”
Quote: Listen to yourself. It's that exact attitude what got you in this problem in the first place.
The terrorist cells would eventually die out if we destroyed their culture. If we just try to fight them without actually going to the source, we’ll have to be dealing with them forever.
Quote: As I said: that's exactly where your current path leads you, and it's disturbing that you seem to have no problem with it.
As I said: The world is dishonest, conniving, ungrateful, and pathetically/impressionably shallow. I have no problem disassociating myself from such an establishment.
Quote: Pariah said: The problem with dubbing what I propose America should do as "horrible" is that you have very scattered defintions of what's considered as such. For example, you think "murder" and "killing" are the exact same thing.
I'm sorry for thinking genocide is horrible. I guess my perception is just warped.
Quote:
Quote: So what's the difference? Why should the fact that you think you're right count for anything if they share the exact same conviction?
The end to their means is much different then the end to mine.
What difference does that make, objectively?
Quote:
Quote: In the bigger picture the whole situation is just two cultures reacting to each other. Take an objective point of view and you'll see that the only undeniable effect this conflict has had is the loss of millions of innocent lives (in both sides).
Actually, that's an intrinsically ignorant POV. In only viewing us as two countries fighting against eachother, you generalize all wars and refuse to look at the intent of either culture and analyze how unique one is from the other.
You're thinking two small. I never said "two countries", I said "two cultures". Two different worlds that see the other one as something strange and impossible to understand. Or, in some cases, they arrogantly think they can understand them and mistake their natural fear of the unknown for valid reason to attack.
Quote: I suppose this means that you feel the history between America and Chile is just a intercultural reaction devoid of any real meaning?
I don't see how you could get that from what I wrote.
Quote:
Quote: You said it yourself, you do whatever you have to do to protect your own interests. Well, the result is that many nations, like mine, have been damaged irreparably by your influence. How is that not a virus? Considering your perspective (in that particular case), is like trying to look through the eyes of a cancer eating through your body. It's also protecting its interests. It also thinks it's right.
I'm sure you wouldn't have minded the domino effect taking place in your country, but I can't say that I'd feel very comfortable living not too far away from such a nation. That brand of government is just another disease more refined than the Mid Eastern governments.
See? You're going back to your own perspective. How is what you think relevant to what I wrote up there? I'm saying that from our perspective your influence is negative, and even if you want to minimize the effect a 20 year dictatorship has on a society, you can't deny that. Again: how is that not a virus?
Quote: What I’m saying Mxy is that if those innocent casualties want to jump the gun and become terrorists, it’s not my fault.
It's directly your fault. It follows a chain of events that may or may not be caused by you, but speaking in inmediate terms it's still your fault. You're part of a viscious cirlce and what traps you in it is your own arrogance.
Quote: By your very reasoning, America should’ve been traumatized enough by the WTC to have gotten as irrational as that 8 year old and just nuked the entire Middle East by now, and yet it hasn’t happened.
It hasn't happened yet, but you're obviously traumatized enough to seriously suggest it... Oh, and bomb a few little countries while you're giving it some thought.
Quote: You say we live in fear and yet we haven’t lashed out the way one of your caliber thinking would predict. If we really weren’t any better than the Middle Easterners, we wouldn’t have given them enough respect to actually take them to war instead of bomb them back to Allah.
So instead you're taking them to war, then bombing them back to Allah.
Quote: If anything, our responses have been inferior to what we should be dealing out.
Statements like that evidence the kind of resentment you deny having. Obviously it manifests in a different way than it does in them, because we're talking about different cultures, but the end result is exactly the same.
Quote: You see Mxy, the terrorist attacks aren’t going to stop even if we did cease our siege of the Middle East. So it wouldn’t be very bright to just ‘turn the other cheek.’ That eight year old would definitely suffer as a casualty, but your suggestion that we should allow ourselves to be killed for the sake of those innocents (who’re probably going to grow up to fanatics in the future) is both unpractical and suspiciously retarded. I’m sure you didn’t care when Hezbollah kept bombing Israel even after Israel pulled out of Gaza, but they sure as hell cared when Lebanon’s powers ended up killing their citizens.
I’m rather confused as to how you’d think there would be any sort of peace if we stopped fighting. I guess you just forgot to take into mind the chicken and the egg. i.e. You refuse to analyze my culture in pursuit of only empathizing with another that opposes mine.
I'm not suggesting you stop defending yourself: that would actually be as retarded as you suggest (though nowhere near as idiotic as wiping out an entire culture). I can see how what I wrote could give that impression, but that's not what I meant. Obviously the terrorists need to be found and stopped, but if you really want to solve the problem, at the same time you should be taking a more civilized approach and reach out the innocent people of the ME. As I said before, even if they're innocent and don't deserve any sort of punishment, the problem does begin with them, or their general mood to be more precise. Instead what do you do? You ostracize them, you insult their culture, you call them "scum" on the basis of their ethnicity (not even their culture!). You take it out on the little guy and that translates on the big guy getting more pissed. Inversely, if the little guy calms down the big guy will eventually disappear. For example, if our hypothetical 8 year old kid wasn't just a "tough shit" "they brought it on themselves" scenario but an actual tragedy you showed remorse about, when a terrorist comes by and makes him an offers he probably wouldn't say yes. Of course that terrorist still exists and of course he needs to be punished, but without the motivation his kind would die out.
Maybe you consider this far-fetched, but wouldn't it be worth trying? Weren't you taught that there's nothing more sacred than life? Isn't a civilized approach worth it for the possibility that it might help stop more death and the eventual genocide?
Quote: It becomes more and more clear to me that the only reason your country has no problem going there and perpetuating the violence is because you, too, have been raised to respond violently.
Which means you’re making an unfounded assumption about my history. This is because you boil down America to a stereotype of violence based on gun ownership and [jingoism/blind patriotism]. What you refuse to take into account is that America is country that’s in an ideological conflict with itself. My mother and father for example are both on opposite extremes of the political spectrum. Neither of them however, gave much of a crap about how I turned out after I turned 16. In which case, I was raised in a very nebulous atmosphere that didn’t involve a lot of extremes until I actually bothered to discover them for myself. So no points for you.
Don't take things so literally. I'm not talking about your parents saying "Hey Parys, violence is good!", I'm talking about your culture accepting it as a valid first option and not a last resort.
Quote: They don’t have these kind of options in the Middle East. It’s undeniably an oppressive culture, which doesn’t allow any form of dissent away from the norm. It doesn’t make sense to compare my upbringing to theirs except for the sake of being facetious—As per your usual mannerisms in an argument.
Believe it or not, they don't have "terrorist school" in the Middle East. If they're predisposed to violence then it's indirectly; in the same way that I'm suggesting you are.
It says a lot that you're not offended because I'm saying you're inferior to them, but for saying that you're equal. To you that's unthinkable. Another cultural trait, I think.
Quote: If the recordings they left were identical to that of Reb and Vodka’s, then that means they were victims of the clique. If the recordings were about Allah, that would make them fundamentalists. If they didn’t leave recordings, that would be evidence of fanaticism until an observation of their lifestyle and personal beliefs would say otherwise.
I don't think the recordings or any sort of evidence would matter. The great majority of you would only see arabs attacking americans. The Iraq War is proof that small details like evidence don't have a great deal of importance to you.
Quote: To conclude whether or not the inadvertent sacrifice of the kid’s family is an acceptable risk that’s proportionate to the past loss, as well as potential future loss, of American lives. When one cultural ideology is threatening the survival of another, you have to ascertain those kinds of balances.
I'd rather concentrate on finding a way so it doesn't come to that, because that kid is just as important as any american boy.
Quote: Would you compromise your principles? Don’t bother answering, I already know you wouldn’t.
If it was for a worthy reason, such as, oh, I don't know, finding an alternative to genocide, I'd be willing to shove my individuality up my ass.
Quote:
Quote: I don't need to say I could be wrong, because to me that's implied in everything everyone says, including myself.
But you wouldn’t consider it while you’re arguing or else you’d destroy your consistency. How can you expect to be taken seriously when you operate on a pre-disposition of possibly being wrong? The answer is that you don’t operate on such a pre-disposition because you don’t make reservations or compromising statements.
I don't take either of us seriously. I realize we're just two kids pretending we know what we're talking about, and I imagine you must feel as glad that I'm not in a position to take any important decisions as I am that the same's true for you.
Quote: What you’re ignoring is that you’re continually telling me that your way is the greater good when I’m making an effort to prove to you that your viewpoint is corrupted. If I actually think that I act for the sake of the greater good when you say I’m doing the exact opposite, how is that all on its own supposed to convince me that I’m wrong? You don’t even bother empathizing with my views and you expect me to turn over in my beliefs?
The fact of the matter here is that you’re incapable of viewing me and my culture in an objective light because you still hold a grudge against it. There’s really no use trying to convince someone who thinks the worst of you, for whatever reason possible, of anything.
I think I view your culture with much more objectivity than you do. You may argue that I hold a grudge, but even if that was true I'd say your perspective is a lot more compromised simply because you haven't experienced other cultures. Also, again, comparing you to a culture that you consider inferior or whatever doesn't mean I think the worst of you, at least not from my perspective. I just feel like a kid in a schoolyard watching two other kids fight. They both look as "dumb" to me for doing it.
Quote: But you do take extreme positions. The only reason you don’t think so is because you’re used to thinking of “extreme” as a form of violence. Telling another culture to be pacifistic when it’s surrounded by hostile elements is just as much an extreme position as being open to endorsing or participating in a war.
Argue that my ideas are extreme all you like, they'll never get anywhere near as drastic and irrevocable as wiping out an entire culture. I consider your views extreme because they don't allow the existance of any other option, you think the same about me because I don't think that's fair.
Quote:
Quote: I don't support abortion for the same reason: I personally don't think a two week old fetus is alive, but what if it is? That fetus is worth defending for that posibility alone.
That much I agree with, but I don’t see that as being extreme so much as it is common sense.
Exactly. And abortion is extreme, because it's irrevocable decision that doesn't consider the posibility of being wrong. You see what I'm saying now? Genocide is a million times that. It's only common sense to be against it.
Quote: If one of those perspectives undermines the others and encourages you restrain the more hostile one(s), then that proves that you don’t actually believe all philosophies are equal. And since cultural individuality is built upon mass practiced philosophies, that means that not all cultures are equal or “equally valid.”
In pursuit of the greater good some individual philosophies have to be sacrificed, but we shouldn't forget that they're exactly that: a sacrifice. That doesn't mean the rest are more important, it only means they're lucky of being the majority.
Quote: Are you honestly going to tell me that you don’t feel a viewpoint that’s violently disharmonious with all others isn’t “incorrect?”
How could I say that to you when I see your viewpoint as disharmonious and still willingly interact with you? I disagree with you but that doesn't make you incorrect.
Quote: We weren’t actively fighting the ME when the USS Cole was hit or the WTC was attacked both times and yet we were still being assaulted.
You did, however, get involved with them in the past as part of another "endless" war (that I'm guessing you would have also suggested ending with an a-bomb), and the actions that you then saw as justified indirectly caused those attacks. There are a lot more factors to consider, yes, but it's undeniable that this makes them part of the viscious circle.
Quote: Now that we’re engaged in a war with them, we’ve stymied the fanaticists of the population and our heightened security both in America and in Europe has intercepted numerous terrorist attempts. Our greater success at fighting terrorism on both fronts proves that just raising security here, when we can also be interrupting their ability to plan there, is an inadequate strategy.
It's also an inadequate strategy to concentrate in the attacks, that are only a symptom, and ignore the cultural problem that causes them. A problem like that can't be solved with violence.
Quote: The greatest obstacle I encounter when arguing with you Mxy is that you suffer from the delusion that America is the root of all the violence. Do you honestly think that America would be left alone by the rest of the world if it just withdrew into itself? Time and again, we’ve been shown that things don’t work that way.
If you showed respect, I think you would receive it back. It works for those of us who tried it. You have a long list of countries who feel animosity towards you precisely because you insist in meddling in other people's business to solve your inmediate concerns, which in the long run brings you more troubles. Instead of taking responsibily and learning from your mistakes, you simply rinse and repeat and let the problems grow.
Quote: There are much more terrifying things in this world than the US Mxy. It’s rather tragic, and stupid, that you were raised to believe that we’re the monsters under your bed.
So you're not conditioned by your parents or your culture, but I obviously must. Your opinion comes from "finding out thing for yourself", while mine is simply an effect of being raised in a certain way. I was actually raised in a pretty neutral enviroment: my parents are moderate representatives of each side of the fence, so nobody talks politics at home. It's not like there's any arguments either, cause they're not really that passionate about it. I grew up during a transitional time when everyone thought it was best not to discuss certain things, because the dictatorship had just ended and some people still felt very strongly about it. Only later on I read up on some stuff I never quite understood, and decided that it wasn't fair that a great part of the whole mess was caused by a bully nation.
Quote: That’s not evidence of pre-disposition. I just as easily say that I acknowledge that possibility that I’m wrong regarding all things,
You only say you do, but your extreme postures show that you don't really do it.
Quote: but I’m not about to admit it when you give me no evidence to the contrary except for your feelings. Socrates didn’t use his feelings as evidence, he inferred upon reality based on logical observations.
I'm aware that I'm no Socrates, but trust me, neither are you.
Quote: Again, past history of international relations shows us that the world is pretty much apathetic to the mass extermination of people aside from some lip service that it’s an awful tragedy. The spotlight is only on us because everyone is s bitter towards us. We’re trying to protect our population whilst the ME inserts itself into our culture and harms us and yet you put China, Russia, the ME itself, and the nations within Africa, in the background even though their violence and oppression towards others is totally unprecedented.
Darfur isn’t going to be avenged. The ME will be though (if the world actually DID react). Not because it’s a tragic loss; it’s just because everyone hates America.
You cite these horrible examples as if the fact that they haven't received proper attention made genocide acceptable. It's still a monstruous crime, and by so thoroughly analyzing the reaction it would or wouldn't get you're only diverting attention from the action itself. I don't care if the precendent says the rest of the world wouldn't do something: they should do something every time it happens, whether the criminal is the US or Guatemala. Since it's never happened in the scale you're suggesting, I'm guessing this would be our wake up call.
Quote: The world is petty, jealous, and pathetically shallow. I’m glad that I’m not considered apart of its population considering every other country makes such great efforts to distance themselves from us.
Once again, that's psychopathic behaviour. You don't play well with other kids because you've stolen all their lunchboxes, don't you know? You've had a "we're more important, fuck the rest" attitude since like the 50's... and now you're surprised that others don't like you? You admit that everything you do, you do for your own interest. That unfortunately evens out any good work you might do, at least in perception, because the rest of the world is expectant to see what you're trying to pull off this time. You've taught us to never take your actions for what they appear to be, so you can't be surprised that the majority of us distruts you.
Quote: But we shouldn’t have to waste our time on this idea that all views need to be taken into account.
That kinda fucks democracy in the ass, doesn't it? Now you're not only talking about cultures being inferior or superior, it's also your own countrymen. What happened to "all men are born equal"?
Quote: It’s very possible that a civil war would actually give you what you wanted Mxy. Depending on who won it of course.
You still don't get it. The very idea of a civil war goes against "what I want".
Quote: Fuck them. And fuck you.
Speaking of resentment...
Quote: As I said: The world is dishonest, conniving, ungrateful, and pathetically/impressionably shallow. I have no problem disassociating myself from such an establishment.
A community debate over religious freedom surfaced in Western Pennsylvania last week when Dutch feminist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who has lived under the threat of death for denouncing her Muslim upbringing, made an appearance at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown.
slamic leaders tried to block the lecture, which was sponsored through an endowment from the Frank J. and Sylvia T. Pasquerilla Lecture Series. They argued that Hirsi Ali’s attacks against the Muslim faith in her book, “Infidel,” and movie, “Submission,” are “poisonous and unjustified” and create dissension in their community.
Although university officials listened to Islamic leaders’ concerns, the lecture planned last year took place Tuesday evening under tight security, with no incidents.
Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali’s appearance.
“She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death,” said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976. ...
So, let's recap: When an ex-Muslim appeared at the University of Pittsburgh, Muslim groups tried to have her speech shut down. And they made it clear that if they had the power, and US law were written according to shari’a, Hirsi Ali would not simply be prohibited from speaking.
According to the president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, Imam Fouad ElBayly, she’d be dead.
And in a perfect example of the bizarre disconnect between reality and the shiny happy multicultural world of the media, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review calls this a “debate on religious freedom.”
You know, I tried to be a nice guy and not be pissed at all Muslims after 9-11, but events and news from the past 6 years or so has really changed that...
..and they'd kill the very few who dared to criticize their faith.
Quote: the G-man said: So, let's recap: When an ex-Muslim appeared at the University of Pittsburgh, Muslim groups tried to have her speech shut down.
Many people protest many things and many people don't want someone to speak about something they don't like.
Quote: And they made it clear that if they had the power, and US law were written according to shari’a, Hirsi Ali would not simply be prohibited from speaking.
so you're complaining that someone is saying that they would kill if it were only legal to do so? What about abortion doctors who are threatened daily, some of whom are actually killed? I find any violence abhorrent, you obviously like to pick and choose which religion to focus on.
Quote: According to the president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, Imam Fouad ElBayly, she’d be dead.
And Bush is a fucking retard, doesn't mean he speaks for me. So this fucking retard imam doesn't speak for every one in his faith.
Quote: And in a perfect example of the bizarre disconnect between reality and the shiny happy multicultural world of the media, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review calls this a “debate on religious freedom.”
Well it's not a debate on religious freedom. the woman is in fact not being religious, it is a free speech issue. and she has every right to speak, and these people have a right to protest, i just hope they are being grandiose in their comments, they don't seem like real threats. And we live in a multicultural world because we live in a world of many cultures. get used to it, g-man. there are many races, many creeds, we can either keep blowing each other up or we can reach an understanding and learn to balance things. perhaps once evolution breeds out people like you.
Quote:
Fucking reporters.
on this i agree. reporters, especially tv reporters, and especially fox news reporters are scum who miss the noble part of their job to get sensational stories.
The irony here, of course, as noted before, is that you're doing your level best to defend a belief system that will kill people like you (gay, Jewish, liberals) far more readily than people like me (middle aged culturally conservative white men)
Quote: the G-man said: The irony here, of course, as noted before, is that you're doing your level best to defend a belief system that will kill people like you (gay, Jewish, liberals) far more readily than people like me (middle aged culturally conservative white men)
No, I'm defending the belief system of the few muslims i have known personally in my life. they were good people who hated violence and had solid convictions about their faith and were raised on the more peaceful teachings. And when one of those guys talked bad about gays I told him off for for being a bigot. Quite frankly I think all religions are kind of kooky. And all religions have those who use it as a compass and those who use it as an excuse to be assholes. I won't judge one person or a group as a whole for the actions of a violent minority. I would say that muslim leaders need to remind their people about the actual teachings of their faith and the original definition of "innocents."
And, I've acknowledged there are Muslims who aren't violent wackjobs. However, it seems whenever you read about their "leaders," those leaders are, in fact, the wack jobs. If moderate Muslims want their religion to be viewed more positively they should clean it up themselves.
Quote: the G-man said: And, I've acknowledged there are Muslims who aren't violent wackjobs. However, it seems whenever you read about their "leaders," those leaders are, in fact, the wack jobs. If moderate Muslims want their religion to be viewed more positively they should clean it up themselves.
Moderate Muslims might be afraid of being targeted for death if they try to "clean up" the wack jobs themselves.
Quote: Moderate Muslim MP too much for US TV channel
An American public broadcaster has refused to air a programme featuring Social Liberal MP Naser Khader, claiming it 'demonised' Islam
A programme pitting moderate Muslim voices against fundamentalists was cancelled from American public television network PBS's upcoming schedule because it saw the programme as being too 'one-sided' in its portrayal of Muslims. The programme, 'Islam vs. Islamism: Voices from the Muslim Centre', was to be one of 12 documentaries for PBS's 'America at a Crossroads' series, which began last week, but another programme about Muslims the station believed to be less controversial was shown in its place.
Social Liberal MP Naser Khader is featured in the programme as an example of what non-fundamentalist Islam represents for millions of Muslims worldwide.
Khader - along with the documentary's director and producers - slammed PBS for what they saw as politically motivated censorship. The MP said the station's decision to pull the documentary from its schedule would only fuel public perception of Muslims as radicals.
'I don't understand it,' Khader told Berlingske Tidende newspaper. 'The problem with not making room for a programme like this is that it gives a minority of Muslims a monopoly on how Islam should be interpreted. PBS should have backed the moderate forces instead of failing them.'
PBS, which used over $720,000 on the programme, denied charges that it had been suppressed and indicated that being 'moderate' or 'extremist' depended on your point of view.
'It was rejected for the series because it was considered highly one-sided and alarmist in its approach,' PBS's Robin MacNiel said on a US talk radio programme.
Khader dismissed that claim and said the film was a 'credible and important' portrayal of the majority of Muslims living in Western countries.
'The US pretends that they don't have a problem there. That's why they let imams and religious organisations act as the spokesmen for all Muslims, even though they're not.'
Director Martyn Burke believes that influential conservative Muslims - including a prominent British TV producer and one of the series' advisors who is director of a leading US university's Islamic World Studies department - pressured PBS to pull the documentary.
Burke also claimed that PBS told him to fire his two partners on the project.
'I've never experienced anything like this,' Burke said. 'These people really believe that moderate Muslims like Naser Khader aren't real Muslims. PBS wanted us to show the extremists as being more soft and cuddly, but we had to draw the line on that. It would have been dishonest.'
I wasn't sure what thread to put this in, so I chose this one.
Quote: Karl Adler Hungus said: I won't judge one person or a group as a whole for the actions of a violent minority.
Last week the respected University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) released its most recent survey of Muslim attitudes on America, terrorism and related topics. It surveyed attitudes in four representative Muslim countries: Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia and Morocco. A columnist for the Washington Times asks:
What percentage of the polled Muslims are in favor of terrorist attacks on civilians -- and note the question doesn't say American civilians, which presumably would be more popular than attacks on even Muslim civilians, as the general form of the question suggests?
To varying degrees, 27 percent of Moroccans, 21 percent of Egyptians, 13 percent of Pakistanis and 11 percent of Indonesians approve of terrorist attacks on civilians -- and not just American civilians.
Extrapolating those percentages to the world Muslim population, roughly 250 million Muslims may approve, under some circumstances, of terrorist attacks on civilians generally. One might reasonably guess a somewhat larger number would favor it if limited to American victims.
Of course, as the study points out, "Large majorities [57 percent to 84 percent] in all countries oppose attacks against civilians for political purposes and see them as contrary to Islam." We must be grateful for such mercies.
But when, to fairly extrapolate these numbers, about a quarter of a billion Muslims are in favor of civilian terrorist attacks, I think prudent people are entitled to be alarmed at the magnitude of the threat.
Also, based upon the above, it appears that anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of all Muslims may be in favor of terrorism against civilians. Even though this is a minority, it is hardly a "tiny" one. I would certainly be comfortable guessing that its a much higher percentage then, say, the percentage of Christians who favor bombing abortion clinics (to use one oft-overused counter example).
So, when up to one third of a religion, including many of its leaders supports terrorism against civilians, is it completely unfair to challenge its status as a "Religion of Peace"TM?
Quote: the G-man said: Also, based upon the above, it appears that anywhere from one-quarter to one-third of all Muslims may be in favor of terrorism against civilians. Even though this is a minority, it is hardly a "tiny" one. I would certainly be comfortable guessing that its a much higher percentage then, say, the percentage of Christians who favor bombing abortion clinics (to use one oft-overused counter example).
ok, so there are a lot of muslims who support or agree with killing civilians. there are a lot of christians who get blood thirsty in terms of what they support too. but how many muslims out of that group are actually killers? my whole point is that i refuse to condemn ALL members of any race or religion for the actions of others in that group. While my personal views of muslims come from knowing liberal American muslims and discussing world events with them, so maybe I don't truly know what a foreign muslim is thinking, i will always have the outlook that not all people are bad. I will always feel that people have it within themselves to be decent and I will always feel that everyone ultimately just wants to have peace and safety for their family. Even terrorists see what they're doing as fighting off foreign invaders, of course they become monsters in doing so. But if I were to agree with you and condemn muslims because their are muslim terrorists, shouldn't i hate all christians because george w. bush has killed hundreds of thousands in his "crusade" to bring "god's freedom?" I think religion in general is flawed, i think religion is a backward leftover from primitive humanity that needed to explain where the sun goes at night and why earthquakes happen, and i think religion (all religion) is used as a crutch and as an excuse to do aweful things. If you watch the Beatles Anthology they have a section during the "bigger than jesus" that shows a Klansman talking to a reporter about how his "terror organization" will not let jesus be insulted. But not all christians are like that, not all christians shoot abortion doctors.
Quote: So, when up to one third of a religion, including many of its leaders supports terrorism against civilians, is it completely unfair to challenge its status as a "Religion of Peace"TM?
I never called it that, did I? If I did it was an error on my part. I think Bush actually said that. Judeo-Christian religions are all kind of nasty and bloody. From the Crusades to circumcision. But there are always good people speaking softly amongst the crowds of shouting idiots. I just won't get on board with your angle that an entire race/religion is bad.
Fox News reports on this video of a Palestinian children's show featuring a Mickey Mouse lookalike indoctrinating kids with anti-American, anti-Israel, and pro-terrorist rhetoric.
A Mickey Mouse look-alike named Farfur is teaching Palestinian children the ABCs of terror on Hamas' official television station, Al-Aqsa TV.
On the weekly program "Tomorrow's Pioneers," Farfur and a young girl name Saraa' tell children to pray five times each day and drink their milk, while urging the children to "resist" the "oppressive invading Zionist occupation."
Excerpts from episodes that aired last month show the squeaky voiced mouse egging on children with nationalistic fervor.
"We, tomorrow’s pioneers, will restore to this nation its glory, and we will liberate Al-Aqsa, with Allah’s will, and we will liberate Iraq, with Allah’s will, and we will liberate the Muslim countries, invaded by murderers,” Farfur says in one episode that aired in April.
The message seems to be working. Poems and songs submitted by young viewers contain violent imagery. "Rafah sings ‘Oh, oh,’" one caller says as Farfur mimes carrying a rifle. "Its answer is an AK-47."
You can watch the video and have a laugh over life imitating "SNL TV Funhouse," but really this is no laughing matter and speaks to the real tragedy going on in the Muslim world--the incitement to violence of young children.
For all those calling on us to reach out to "moderate Muslims", this is a troubling reminder of what we are dealing with.
A weekly children's show on a Hamas-run TV station featuring a Mickey Mouse lookalike preaching Islamic domination was broadcast as usual Friday, two days after the Palestinian information minister said it would be suspended immediately.
The show, featuring a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice, made headlines worldwide because the character has preached against Israel and the U.S. and urged Palestinian children to fight Israel. It is broadcast on Hamas-affiliated Al Aqsa TV.
Hamas, which is sworn to Israel's destruction, shares power in the Palestinian government with the moderate Fatah movement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
One out of four young U.S. Muslims believe homicide bombings against civilians are OK to "defend Islam," according to a new poll.
The poll by the Pew Research Center also finds some Muslim Americans seem to be separating from mainstream America in their attitudes toward the War on Terror and U.S. Mideast policy.
The study found that among the nation's younger Muslims, 26 percent say homicide bombings can be justified "in order to defend Islam from its enemies."
"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.
The Pew poll also found that almost half of the nation's Muslims are more likely to identify themselves as Muslims first and then Americans, with 47 percent placing religious affiliation above nationality.
Helllllo Kiddies! Mickey always starts everyday with praising Allah, and asking for the death of Jew rats and American infidels!
Now Minnie is going to share with us how you can grow up to be big boys and girls! Only big boys and girls can wear bombs to kill the enemies of Islam!
Quote: Most U.S. Muslims Reject Suicide Bombings By ALAN FRAM Associated Press Writer May 22, 2007
WASHINGTON — One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says.
The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country's Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.
Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.
While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.
"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.
He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation _ a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.
U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas."
Federal officials have warned that the U.S. must be on guard against homegrown terrorism, as the British suffered with the London transit bombings of 2005.
Even so, U.S. Muslims are far less accepting of suicide attacks than Muslims in many other nations. In surveys Pew conducted last year, support in some Muslim countries exceeded 50 percent, while it was considered justifiable by about one in four Muslims in Britain and Spain, and one in three in France.
"We have crazies just like other faiths have them," said Eide Alawan, who directs interfaith outreach at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich., one of the nation's largest mosques. He said killing innocent people contradicts Islam.
Andrew Kohut, Pew director, called support for the attacks "one of the few trouble spots" in the survey.
The question did not specify where a suicide attack might occur, who might carry it out or what was meant by using a bombing to "defend Islam." ...
Quote: the G-man said: I somehow doubt that MEM would be so optimistic if, for example, the poll had found that 1 in 4 Christians supported murdering homosexuals.
How do you figure?
Personally I've been on the other end, where some people like to use the tactic of judging a group (gay, Dem,liberal) by using a small number with a extreme view to attack me. I believe I could point you to some examples on this very board G-man.
Let's not condemn the majority because of a small miniority.
Quote: Most U.S. Muslims Reject Suicide Bombings By ALAN FRAM Associated Press Writer May 22, 2007
WASHINGTON — One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances, though most Muslim Americans overwhelmingly reject the tactic and are critical of Islamic extremism and al-Qaida, a poll says.
The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of the country's Muslims, revealed a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society. Its largely mainstream members express nearly as much happiness with their lives and communities as the general public does, show a broad willingness to adopt American customs, and have income and education levels similar to others in the U.S.
Even so, the survey revealed noteworthy pockets of discontent.
While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
That sentiment is strongest among those younger than 30. Two percent of them say it can often be justified, 13 percent say sometimes and 11 percent say rarely.
"It is a hair-raising number," said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, which promotes the compatibility of Islam with democracy.
He said most supporters of the attacks likely assumed the context was a fight against occupation _ a term Muslims often use to describe the conflict with Israel.
U.S. Muslims have growing Internet and television access to extreme ideologies, he said, adding: "People, especially younger people, are susceptible to these ideas."
Federal officials have warned that the U.S. must be on guard against homegrown terrorism, as the British suffered with the London transit bombings of 2005.
Even so, U.S. Muslims are far less accepting of suicide attacks than Muslims in many other nations. In surveys Pew conducted last year, support in some Muslim countries exceeded 50 percent, while it was considered justifiable by about one in four Muslims in Britain and Spain, and one in three in France.
"We have crazies just like other faiths have them," said Eide Alawan, who directs interfaith outreach at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, Mich., one of the nation's largest mosques. He said killing innocent people contradicts Islam.
Andrew Kohut, Pew director, called support for the attacks "one of the few trouble spots" in the survey.
The question did not specify where a suicide attack might occur, who might carry it out or what was meant by using a bombing to "defend Islam." ...
that means absolute shit MEM....I saw that article in the USA Today and it made me laugh. They supposedly "condemn" the actions of the extremists, but what do they ever do about it? Nothing. No Muslims except for a very very tiny select few ever do enough to publicly fight or condemn Muslim Extremists....................to sin by silence makes a coward out of man.
Pakistan Jails Couple in Sex Change Case By ASIF SHAHZAD, Associated Press Writer Mon May 28, 2:20 PM
LAHORE, Pakistan - A couple who sought legal protection from harassment were separated and sentenced to three years in prison Monday for lying to a Pakistani judge that surgery had turned one partner into a man.
The case of Shumail Raj, who was born female but had breast- and uterus-removal operations 16 years ago, and Shahzina Tariq has raised issues of homosexuality and transsexuality largely taboo in this conservative Muslim society.
The couple, who married last year, had approached the Lahore High Court for protection against harassment by Tariq's relatives. They said they wed to protect Tariq from being sold into marriage to pay off her uncle's gambling debts.
Court-appointed doctors who examined Raj ruled the earlier operations were not complete and that Raj was still a woman. The couple admitted they had lied about 31-year-old Raj's gender because they were in love and wanted to live together. Raj, who has a close-cropped beard, has expressed a desire to go abroad for surgery to become male.
"There are certainly laws to deal with perjury, so they deserve due punishment," said Hina Jillani, head of the Legal Aid Center of the nongovernment Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. "But what I believe is that they should have been given some more leniency.
"Since our society sees such relationships as immoral and illegal, the couple certainly has this pressure on them. That is why they lied to the court."
Presiding Judge Kahawaja Mohammed Sharif, announcing their conviction for perjury, said he was issuing a "lenient" sentence, below the seven-year maximum, because they had apologized.
The judge also fined them $165 _ two months salary for an average Pakistani _ and dropped a charge of committing an act of unnatural lust, which can be punished by life in prison.
Raj and Tariq, 26, appeared shocked by the verdict. Their eyes widened as Sharif announced their punishment, and they briefly clasped each other's arms before police led them away.
Defense attorney Zahid Husain Bokhari said the couple would appeal.
Raj, wearing a short-sleeved white shirt and jeans, urged President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to step in. "Musharraf is talking about moderation and enlightenment. We hope he will do something for us," Raj told reporters outside the court.
Asked about the prospect of three years in separate jails for women, Raj said: "No matter, no matter. We love each other."
Raj gave Tariq, wearing a dark veil and a shawl over her head, a hug from behind before the two got into a waiting police van and were driven away to the different jails.
The court will resume hearings on June 22 on whether to annul the couple's marriage, which Tariq's family says contravenes Islam and Pakistani laws against same-sex unions.
The vast majority of Pakistan's 165 million people are Muslim, many of them with conservative values.
The judge on Monday ordered police to begin a criminal investigation of the surgeons who operated on Raj and report their findings at the June hearing.
Dr. Ejaz Bhatti, head of the state-run Services Hospital in Lahore who led the court-appointed panel of doctors that examined Raj, said sexual reassignment surgery was illegal in Pakistan other than in cases where a person was born with a hormonal disorder.
He alleged that Raj had intentionally had received male hormone injections _ the first such case he had encountered during a 25-year medical career.
Palestinian children as young as 5 are being indoctrinated into a life of jihad, according to a report on a Hamas television station.
The program, which aired May 31 on Al-Aqsa TV and was translated into English by the Middle East Media Research Institute, shows boys participating in a kindergarten graduation ceremony at the Islamic Association in Gaza dressed in military garb and touting "death for the sake of Allah."
In front of a cheery mural that shows children laughing as they run through a field with balloons, these camouflage-clad boys instead participate in military-style maneuvers. Some are masked in balaclavas, wearing black vests and carrying what appear to be toy AK-47s.
"Who is your role model?" the masked boys yell. "The Prophet."
"What is your path?" they continue. "Jihad."
"What is your most lofty aspiration?" they cry. "Death for the sake of Allah."
It was the 29th graduation ceremony for the association, the show's host said.
A British government report on UK universities says that some Islamic studies departments are ‘breeding radicals’
Islamic studies departments at British universities may be fuelling extremism among students, according to a Government report. In a major review of the way Islam is taught on campuses, ministers will today call for courses to be improved to stop students being exposed to teaching that condones terrorism.
The report will also suggest that a network of Muslim faith advisers should be created to give impressionable youngsters spiritual guidance - and stop them falling under the influence of radicals. The move comes amid growing fears that universities and colleges are being infiltrated by fanatics recruiting for jihad.
Sheikh Musa Admani, the Muslim chaplain at London Metropolitan University and an adviser to Bill Rammell, the higher education minister, said he was aware of at least four universities in which students had been “groomed” by extremists.
Other experts suggest the number is as high as 25. Some students had gone to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight, it is claimed.
Quote: the G-man said: C'mon, Pariah, the Jesuscamp kids always pose with automatic weapons, just like the Jihadists.
This is brainwashing. This is the same militant mindfucks that they do in the radical islamic camps you're talking about. But these are christians so you'll ignore it.
In the Al Aqsa TV Show Pioneers of Tomorrow, the degenerate child abusers of Hamas have replaced their evil jihad-spouting Mickey Mouse clone with a new character: Nahoul the Killer Bee, who tells empty-eyed child host Saraa he plans to “take revenge upon the enemies of Allah.”
Quote:
Saraa, child host: Who are you, and where did you come from?
Nahoul the Bee: I am Nahoul.
Saraa: Nahoul who?
Nahoul: I’m Nahoul, Farfour’s cousin.
Saraa: What do you want?
Nahoul: I want to continue the path of my cousin Farfour.
Saraa: How do you want to do this?
Nahoul: I want to be in every episode with you on the Pioneers of Tomorrow show, just like Farfour. I want to continue in the path of Farfour – the path of Islam, of heroism, of martyrdom, and of the mujahideen. Me and my friends will follow in the footsteps of Farfour. We will take revenge upon the enemies of Allah, the killer of the prophets and of the innocent children, until we liberate Al-Aqsa from their impurity. We place our trust in Allah.
A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested at at Khartoum's Unity High School yesterday, and accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam.
Her colleagues said that they feared for her safety after reports that groups of young men had gathered outside the Khartoum police station where she was taken and were shouting death threats.
The Unity school is a Christian-run but multi-racial and co-educational private school that is popular with Sudanese professionals and expatriate workers.
Teachers at the school, in central Khartoum, a mile from the Nile River, said that Gibbons had made an innocent mistake by letting her pupils choose their favorite name for the toy as part of a school project.
Under Sudan's Sharia law, blasphemy could attract a large fine, 40 lashes or a jail term of up to six months.
But, hey, I'm sure there are recent examples of Christians or Jews whipping teachers for blasphemy....riiiight?
A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested at at Khartoum's Unity High School yesterday, and accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam.
Her colleagues said that they feared for her safety after reports that groups of young men had gathered outside the Khartoum police station where she was taken and were shouting death threats.
The Unity school is a Christian-run but multi-racial and co-educational private school that is popular with Sudanese professionals and expatriate workers.
Teachers at the school, in central Khartoum, a mile from the Nile River, said that Gibbons had made an innocent mistake by letting her pupils choose their favorite name for the toy as part of a school project.
Under Sudan's Sharia law, blasphemy could attract a large fine, 40 lashes or a jail term of up to six months.
But, hey, I'm sure there are recent examples of Christians or Jews whipping teachers for blasphemy....riiiight?
As we now know, the teacher was sentenced to 15 days in prison, having already served 5 of those days.
And now crowds outside the prison want to kill her.
Would someone please tell those people that the 1 st century BC is now long over????
By ABDULLAH SHIHRI, AP 2 hours ago RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A gang-rape victim who was sentenced to six months in prison and 200 lashes for being alone with a man not related to her was pardoned by the Saudi king after the case sparked rare criticism from the United States, the kingdom's top ally.
Outrage over the sentence prompted unusually strong comments from President Bush, who said that if the same thing had happened to one of his daughters, he would be "angry" at a government that didn't protect the victim. The White House called the sentence "outrageous."
In past weeks, Saudi officials have bristled at the criticism of what they consider an internal affair _ but also appeared wary of hurting their image in the United States.
Bush's National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the White House thinks the Saudi king "he made the right decision" by pardoning the woman.
With the pardon, King Abdullah appeared to be aiming at relieving the pressure from the United States without being seen to criticize Saudi Arabia's conservative legal system, a stronghold of powerful clerics adhering to the strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.
Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Sheik said the pardon reported by Saudi media Monday does not mean the king doubted the country's judges, but that he was acting in the "interests of the people."
"The king always looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he becomes sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, though he is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair," al-Sheik said, according to the Al-Jazirah newspaper.
"Certainly, we're pleased that that action occurred," State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said. "I think everyone was rather astonished by the initial verdict and I hope this puts this case to rest. We're glad that this particular case has been dealt with and that the king has taken the actions that he has."
The victim _ known only as the "Girl of Qatif" after her hometown in eastern Saudi Arabia _ was in a car with a man in 2006 when they were attacked and raped by seven men.
She was initially sentenced in November 2006 to several months in prison and 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man with whom she was neither related nor married, a violation of the kingdom's strict segregation of the sexes.
The woman, who was 19 at the time of the rape, has said she met the man to retrieve a picture of herself from him because she had recently married.
The seven men who were convicted of raping both the girl and the man were initially sentenced to jail terms from 10 months to five years. Their sentences were increased to between two and nine years after the appeal.
The case sparked increased international outcry recently after the court more than doubled the sentence last month to 200 lashes and six months prison in response to her appeal. Joining the U.S. criticism, Canada called the ruling barbaric.
Earlier this month, Bush expressed his anger over the sentencing.
"My first thoughts were these," Bush said. "What happens if this happens to my daughter? How would I react? And I would have been _ I'd of been very emotional, of course. I'd have been angry at those who committed the crime. And I'd be angry at a state that didn't support the victim."
The controversy erupted as the United States was trying to ensure Saudi Arabia's participation in the November Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md. _ which the kingdom attended.
In the U.S. ahead of the conference, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal was visibly irritated when he was asked about the case by journalists. He said that the storm being raised over it was outrageous, but also promised the sentence would be reviewed.
The kingdom's Justice Ministry has defended the sentence, saying the girl was having an illicit affair with the man.
Al-Sheik said Abdullah was the only official who could issue a pardon, and he did so despite the government's view that the Saudi legal system was "honest" and "fair."
"The king's order consolidates and confirms what is known about the Islamic courts," al-Sheik told Al-Jazirah. "Efficient judges look into different cases and issue their just verdicts and those convicted have the right to appeal."
Attempts to reach the woman's lawyer by telephone went unanswered Monday.
More telling remarks from the followers of Islam, spoken from the highest pundits of Allah's chosen ones:
THE ISLAMIC MINDSET
The Islamic Ruling Committee in Al Azhar, based in Cairo, ruled that Islamic states must acquire nuclear weapons for their defense, this according to the http://www.WorldTribune.com [January 23, 2003] .
One of the members of Islam's highest ruling Committee, Sheik Ala A-Shanawi, went on to say, “The founder of Islam, Mohammad, would have acquired a nuclear bomb to fight his enemies.” This statement sounds more "offensive' than "defensive', wouldn't you say?
Sheik A-Shanawi is no minor cleric in the Sunni Muslim's highest authority for application of Islamic law. When he gives a ruling, he represents the official position of the Sunni Ruling Committee, which is headed by Sheik Al Hassan.
According to Sheik Al Hassan, “Getting to know the enemy and realizing the different ways to deal with it is a religious obligation. If a neighboring county is known to possess a nuclear weapon, then we must do all in our power to do the same.”
Again, speaking for the Islamic Ruling Committee, A-Shanawi announced, “All Islamic nations are required to seize nuclear weaponry, giving the [Islamic] nations the utmost respect. We see how far behind our nation is as a result of not being prepared as well as it should be, while the enemy has equipped itself with the best weaponry there is, which it will use to harm and destroy Muslims.”
One of Islam's own great scholars, Dr. Zarin Koub, former head of the department of history and religion at University of Tehran, wrote: “From the beginning, its [Islam's] spread was accomplished through physical violence, bloodshed and war. Violence not only against non-Muslim infidels, but also against fellow Muslims. Much of Islam's spread in the world was the result of traders and Sufi missionaries, this is true. Yet the weaponry—scimatars and sabers, all through the art and symbolism of Islam, makes violence and war a central theme of Islam … Mohammad both taught and practiced violence from the beginning.”
Today, I was thinking about a show Showtime had on about '96 or so called 'Twisted Puppet Theater'. It was a skit show with, of course, puppets that were foul mouthed, dark, and even perverted. It came on after a stand-up mish-mash show called 'Full Frontal Comedy' where they'd show the most foul mouthed comedians with dancing naked chicks for transitions. Anywho, I looked up on YouTube to see if they had anything for this one season show and was surprised (to find anything at all, really) that the show was prophetic.
Muslim chaplain 'smuggled' box cutters into jail: A Muslim chaplain for the city Department of Correction was arrested this morning for allegedly trying to smuggle in three box-cutters to a lower Manhattan jail. The imam, Imam Zul-Qarnain Shahid, has worked as a DOC jail chaplain for three years.
A Manhattan hearing on homeland security exploded yesterday after an Arab-American activist testified that she was taught as a youngster to "hate Jews" and "hate America," enraging a Brooklyn lawmaker who gripped a Koran and grandly accused her of spreading "hate and poison."
"Check what's going on -- it's not a secret," Nonine Darwish, president of Former Muslims United, said at a heavily policed state Senate hearing on homeland security at 250 Broadway.
"You're supposed to hate Jews, you're supposed to hate America, you're supposed to hate Western culture," said Darwish, who grew up and was educated in Egypt and came to the United States in 1978.
But the facts remain pretty much the same. Islam is a violent religion and surrounding culture. And it's not fairly comparable to Christianity in its origins and violence
Related to G-man's remarks 3 posts above this, CBS' program 60 Minutes tonight aired a 15-minute segment about how tolerance in London toward Islamic radicalism is creating a fertile environment in London for radical Islamic terrorism, which is widely called "Londonistan".
Here's a link to both text and video of tonight's CBS report:
That basically, there is no separation between Islam and Radical Islam. They are one and the same, says a reformed terrorist activist leader interviewed (former islamic activist/militant Hassan Butt). Any deceit or crime is permissible and forgiven by Islamists, so long as it serves expansion of Islam, and it causes destruction and chaos in the West.
I'm struck, years later, at how that line by an islamic radical, is identical to the infiltration mentality of William Ayers and Saul Alinsky (leftist radicals whose ideology I'd never heard of in 2007). The radical left and radical islam are identical in their tactics.
And as is manifest in the "arab spring" in Egypt' Libya and elsewhere (Ayers, Code Pink and other leftist radicals trained the Arabs in effective street demonstration tactics), are working in a united front to bring down the capitalist West.
Another report I saw said Canada averages about one honor killing a year among its muslim population, but that excludes hundreds of beatings that may eventually become honor killings.
Well, muslim fanatics attacked pretty much all our embassies across the islamic world in the last week, as well as in London(istan), Paris, and Australia.
So glad we bought so much good will in the islamic world by fighting an unofficial war in Libya.
it's also happening here. Muslims are gathering en masse and threatening the American embassy. The funny thing is that the local news interviewed some of the people in front of the gathering and they admitted that they haven't seen the "youtube movie", which makes you wonder just how many of them are out there threatening to kill innocent people because they were offended by a video they haven't seen yet.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood accused of paying gangs to rape women
Published December 05, 2012
FoxNews.com
Egypt’s embattled Muslim Brotherhood regime is paying gangs of thugs to rape women and beat men who gather in Tahrir Square to protest the power grab of President Mohamed Morsi, say activists.
In a bitter replay of the Arab Spring protests that brought down President Hosni Mubarak nearly two years ago, protesters have flooded the Cairo square to denounce Morsi, who has stripped the judiciary of power and is rushing through an Islamist constitution. And while Mubarak is now in prison for using violence to quell protests targeting him, Morsi’s regime is now accused of doing the same.
“This is still happening now,” Magda Adly, director of the Nadeem Center for Human Rights, told The Times of London. “I believe thugs are being paid money to do this ... the Muslim Brotherhood have the same political approaches as Mubarak.”
Hundreds of thousands of Egyptians have gathered in the square to protest the new constitution and to call for Morsi’s ouster. Morsi briefly fled the Itihadiya presidential palace in Cairo Wednesday, after the complex was surrounded by tens of thousands of protesters chanting slogans reminiscent of those used during the revolution that ousted Mubarak. The protesters scrawled anti-Morsi graffiti and waved giant banners carrying images of revolutionaries killed in earlier protests.
A protester the newspaper identified as Yasmine said she was attacked while videotaping demonstrations. She said about 50 men surrounded her and began tearing off her clothes, grabbing her breasts and sexually assaulting her. She said she suffered internal injuries and was unable to walk for a week.
The Daily Mail reported that most attacks take place at night when men form a human chain around women, then move in for the assault. Two men told the paper they were paid to attack women.
“We're told to go out and sexually harass girls so they leave the demonstration," one said.
The current crisis pits his Muslim Brotherhood and their ultraconservative Islamist allies against a coalition of youth groups, liberal parties and large sectors of the public. It began on Nov. 22, when Morsi decreed himself and his party above the judiciary and escalated after the Muslim Brotherhood pushed through a draft constitution without the participation of liberals and Christians.
The constitution faces a Dec. 15 referendum, but opponents and the nation’s judges have signaled they won’t take part in what they consider a sham process.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the religion itself is the enabling force behind their violent behavior? Or are we still stuck on the whole 'all cultures, philosophies, and faiths are equal' BS?
Over the last 1400 years, 270 million non-believers were murdered by Muslim jihadists. Islam destroyed the Christian Middle East and Christian North Africa. It is estimated that upwards of 60 million Christians were slaughtered during this conquest. Also, half the Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus murdered. Islamic jihad also destroyed over 10 million Buddhists. In other words, Islam is a killing machine.
At least 1,400 children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, a report has found.
Children as young as 11 were raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, it said.
The report, commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council, revealed there had been three previous inquiries.
Council leader Roger Stone said he would step down with immediate effect.
Mr Stone, who has been the leader since 2003, said: "I believe it is only right that as leader I take responsibility for the historic failings described so clearly."
Professor Alexis Jay
The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled "racist" if they focused on victims' descriptions of the majority of abusers as "Asian" men.
Professor Alexis Jay, who wrote the latest report, said there had been "blatant" collective failures by the council's leadership, senior managers had "underplayed" the scale of the problem and South Yorkshire Police had failed to prioritise the issue.
Prof Jay said: "No-one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013."
Revealing details of the inquiry's findings, Prof Jay said: "It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered."
The inquiry team found examples of "children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone".
Five men from the town were jailed for sexual offences against girls in 2010, but the report said police "regarded many child victims with contempt".
District Commander for Rotherham, Ch Supt Jason Harwin said: "Firstly I'd like to start by offering an unreserved apology to the victims of child sexual exploitation who did not receive the level of service they should be able to expect from their local police force.
"We fully acknowledge our previous failings."
Ch Supt Harwin said the force had "overhauled" the way it dealt with such cases and had successfully prosecuted a number of abusers.
But he admitted: "I accept that our recent successes... will not heal the pain of those victims who have been let down."
'Racism' fear
The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
Failures by those charged with protecting children happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 which both the council and police were aware of, and "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham".
Prof Jay said the first of these reports was "effectively suppressed" because senior officers did not believe the data. The other two were ignored, she said.
The inquiry team found that in the early-2000s when a group of professionals attempted to monitor a number of children believed to be at risk, "managers gave little help or support to their efforts".
The report revealed some people at a senior level in the police and children's social care thought the extent of the problem was being "exaggerated".
Prof Jay said: "The authorities involved have a great deal to answer for."
A victim of abuse in Rotherham, who has been called "Isabel" to protect her identity, told BBC Panorama: "I was a child and they should have stepped in.
"No matter what's done now... it's not going to change that it was too late, it should have been stopped and prevented."
The scale of this report is simply staggering and some of the detail extremely hard to read.
It lays out how Rotherham Council and the police knew about the level of child sexual exploitation in the town, but didn't do anything about it.
They either didn't believe what they were being told, played it down, or were too nervous to act. The failures, the report says, are blatant.
The report estimates 1,400 children were sexually exploited over 16 years, with one young person telling the report's author that gang rape was a usual part of growing up in Rotherham.
The processes for dealing with these crimes have got better in the last four years, but still improvements need to be made.
There were more apologies from the council today but the report's author says they are too late.
Speaking about her abuser, Isabel said: "I think because the police were aware and social services were aware and he knew that and they still didn't stop him it I think it encouraged him.
"It almost became like a game to him. He was untouchable."
Speaking after the publication of the report, Victims' Commissioner Baroness Newlove said: "I'm appalled by the extent of the horrific abuse endured by these vulnerable victims.
"It's deeply distressing how the authorities failed to protect these young people and their voices were not heard.
"Everyone involved needs to take responsibility for the shocking failings that this report has exposed. This must not happen again.
"I want to see every one of these victims getting the right support now and for as long as it takes them to help them on the path to recovery."
Maggie Atkinson, children's commissioner for England, said the number of identified child victims was "largely consistent" with the findings of their own national inquiry into "child sexual exploitation in gangs and groups".
Sure, nobody expects The Washington Post Editorial Board to earn a “Profile in Courage” entry anytime soon. But with its September 16 editorial on the systematic decades-long sexual abuse of children in Rotherham, England, the Board showed the same cowardice that enabled the Rotherham abusers.
According to the Post, “Sorting out why officials closed their eyes or looked the other way as an estimated 1,400 young girls were raped and brutally exploited from 1997 to 2013 will require Rotherham and the rest of Britain to come to grips with uncomfortable questions about race, class and gender.” But what about the uncomfortable questions about Islam? Unlike a previous report in its own paper, the editorial never mentioned that.
Oh, the Post tip-toed up to the I-word, but never summoned the will to use it. Instead, and without apparent irony, it stated, “Among the disturbing explanations for this complicit indifference is the fear of appearing insensitive or even racist since the perpetrators were members of the local Pakistani community.” Police and officials didn’t want to “rock the multicultural community boat,” in the words of a local official.
So according to the Post, it was an ethnic thing – something Pakistani Christians will be distressed to learn. It had nothing to do with a religion that views women as chattel, that forces pre-pubescent girls into arranged marriages with old men, that sometimes features forced female circumcision, and whose Sharia law punishes women for their own rapes.
How could a faith that countenances stoning adulteresses and throwing acid in the face of uncovered women engender sexual violence against girls? And why would Rotherham authorities be skittish about questioning men whose coreligionists respond to cartoons with murder and rioting?
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that to the Post, such sexual abuse can only be about “race, class and gender.” After all, the Catholic Church isn’t involved.
JESUS CHRIST MOTHERFUCK--WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!?
A story of rampant child abuse—ignored and abetted by the police—is emerging out of the British town of Rotherham. Until now, its scale and scope would have been inconceivable in a civilized country. Its origins, however, lie in something quite ordinary: what one Labour MP called “not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat.”
Imagine the following case. A fourteen-year old girl is taken into care by the social services unit of the town where she lives, because her parents are drug-addicted, and she has been neglected and is not turning up in school. She is one of many, for that is the way in Britain today. And local government entities—Councils—can be ordered by the courts to stand in for parents of neglected children. The Council places the girl in a home, where she is kept with others under supervision from the social services department. The home is regularly visited by young men who try to entice the girls into their cars, so as to give them drugs and alcohol, and then coerce them into sex.
The girl, who is lonely and uncared for, meets a man outside the home, who promises a trip to the cinema and a party with children of her age. She falls into the trap. After she has been raped by a group of five men she is told that, if she says a word to anyone, she will be taken from the home and beaten. When, after the episode is repeated, she threatens to go to the police, she is taken into the countryside, doused in petrol, and told that she is going to be set alight, unless she promises to tell no one of the ordeal.
Social workers tell girls they cannot help them
Meanwhile she must accept weekly abuse, in return for drugs and alcohol. Soon she finds herself being taken to other towns in the area, and hired out for sexual purposes to other men. She is distraught and depressed, and at the point when she can stand it no longer, she goes to the police. She can only stutter a few words, and cannot bring herself to accuse anyone in particular. Her complaint is dismissed on the grounds that any sex involved must have been consensual. The social worker in charge of her case listens to her complaint, but tells her that she cannot act unless the girl identifies her abusers. But when the girl describes them the social worker switches off with a shrug and says that she can do nothing. Her father, his drug habit notwithstanding, has tried to keep contact with his daughter and suspects what is happening. But when he goes to the police, he is arrested for obstruction and charged with wasting police time.
Over the two years of her ordeal the girl makes several attempts on her own life, and eventually ends up abandoned and homeless, without an education and with no prospect of a normal life.
Impossible, you will say, that such a thing could happen in Britain. In fact it is only one of over 1,400 cases, all arising during the course of the last fifteen years in the South Yorkshire town of Rotherham, all involving vulnerable girls either in Council care or inadequately protected by their families from gangs of sexual predators. Almost no arrests have been made, no social workers or police officers have been reprimanded, and until recently the matter was dismissed by all those responsible as a matter of no real significance. Increasing public awareness of the problem, however, led to complaints, triggering a series of official reports. The latest report, from Professor Alexis Jay, former chief inspector of social work in Scotland, gives the truth for the first time, in 153 disturbing pages. One fact stands out above all the horrors detailed in the document, which is that the girl victims were white, and their abusers Pakistani.
Sociologists convinced government that the police are racist
Fifteen years ago, when these crimes were just beginning, the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry into the conduct of the British police was made by Sir William Macpherson a High Court judge. The immediate occasion had been a murder in which the victim was black, the perpetrators white, and the behaviour of the investigating police lax and possibly prejudiced. The report accused the police – not just those involved in the case, but the entire police force of the country – of ‘institutionalised racism’. This piece of sociological newspeak was, at the time, very popular with leftist sociologists. For it made an accusation which could not be refuted by anyone who had the misfortune to be accused of it.
However well you behaved, however scrupulously you treated people of different races and without regard to their ethnic identity or the colour of their skin, you would be guilty of ‘institutionalised racism’, simply on account of the institution to which you belonged and on behalf of which you were acting. Not surprisingly, sociologists and social workers, the vast majority of whom are professionally disposed to believe that middle class society is incurably racist, latched on to the expression. MacPherson too climbed onto the bandwagon since, at the time, it was the easiest and safest way to wash your hands in public, to say that I, at least, am not guilty of the only crime that is universally recognised and everywhere in evidence.
Police more concerned with political correctness than crime
The result of this has been that police forces lean over backwards to avoid the accusation of racism, while social workers will hesitate to intervene in any case in which they could be accused of discriminating against ethnic minorities. Matters are made worse by the rise of militant Islam, which has added to the old crime of racism the new crime of ‘Islamophobia’. No social worker today will risk being accused of this crime. In Rotherham a social worker would be mad, and a police officer barely less so, to set out to investigate cases of suspected sexual abuse, when the perpetrators are Asian Muslims and the victims ethnically English. Best to sweep it under the carpet, find ways of accusing the victims or their parents or the surrounding culture of institutionalised racism, and attending to more urgent matters such as the housing needs of recent immigrants, or the traffic offences committed by those racist middle classes.
Americans too are familiar with this syndrome. Political correctness among sociologists comes from socialist convictions and the tired old theories that produce them. But among ordinary people it comes from fear. The people of Rotherham know that it is unsafe for a girl to take a taxi-ride from someone with Asian features; they know that Pakistani Muslims often do not treat white girls with the respect that they treat girls from their own community. They know, and have known over fifteen years, that there are gangs of predators on the look-out for vulnerable girls, and that the gangs are for the most part Asian young men who see English society not as the community to which they belong, but as a sexual hunting ground. But they dare not express this knowledge, in either words or deed. Still less do they dare to do so if their job is that of social worker or police officer. Let slip the mere hint that Pakistani Muslims are more likely than indigenous Englishmen to commit sexual crimes and you will be branded as a racist and an Islamophobe, to be ostracised in the workplace and put henceforth under observation.
No one will be fired
This would matter less if fear had no consequences. Unfortunately political correctness causes people not merely to disguise their beliefs but to refuse to act on them, to accuse others who confess to them, and in general to go along with policies that have been forced on the British people by minority groups of activists. The intention of the activists is to disrupt and dismantle the old forms of social order. They believe that our society is not just racist, but far too comfortable, far too unequal, far too bound up with fuddy-duddy old ways that are experienced by people at the bottom of society – the working classes, the immigrants, the homeless, the illegals – as oppressive and demeaning. They enthusiastically propagate the doctrines of political correctness as a way of taking revenge on a social order from which they feel alienated.
Ordinary people are so intimidated by this that they repeat the doctrines, like religious mantras which they hope will keep them safe in hostile territory. Hence people in Britain have accepted without resistance the huge transformations that have been inflicted on them over the last thirty years, largely by activists working through the Labour Party. They have accepted immigration policies that have filled our cities with disaffected Muslims, many of whom have now gone to fight against us in Syria and Iraq. They have accepted the growth of Islamic schools in which children are taught to prepare themselves for jihad against the surrounding social order. They have accepted the constant denigration of their country, its institutions and its inherited religion, for the simple reason that these things are theirs and therefore tainted with forbidden loyalties.
And when the truth is expressed at last, nobody is fired, no arrests are made, and the elected Police and Communities Commissioner for Rotherham, although forced to resign from the Labour Party, refuses to resign from his job. After a few weeks all will have been swept under the carpet, and the work of destruction can resume.
The same fear of being labeled "racist" that prevented reporting of Major Nadal Hasan by other military staff, before his shooting up the Fort Hood military base.
And even now anti-American leftist Obama still has it labeled as "workplace violence" rather than as the Islamic terrorist attack it truly is. Hasan has six figures in back pay piling up for him from the military, while soldiers who were shot by Hasan are denied medical coverage for their injuries by Hasan, because technically they are "workplace violence" and not as the combat injuries they truly are.
Things seem to work the same way on both sides of the Atlantic.
And in Australia as well, as cited in a rape case I linked here years ago. And Canada as well, in cited honor killings, and in the terror exported across the border to the U.S. by Canadian muslims.
I'd love one president in the Western world with the balls to export any muslim citizans or residents in their country who were even slightly radical-Islamic. Make it clear that if they are going to immigrate to the West, they have to cease behaving like medieval barbarians, and truly assimilate.
CNN) -- Six Iranians who were arrested after making a dance video set to Pharrell Williams' song "Happy" received suspended sentences of six months in prison and 91 lashes, the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said Thursday, citing sources close to the accused.
Another person involved in the making of the video, Reihane Taravati, received a suspended 12-month prison sentence in addition to suspended lashes, the rights group's executive director, Hadi Ghaemi, said. Authorities accused her of possessing alcohol and posting the video online, the group said.
A trial was held early last week.
The sentences of prison terms and lashes are suspended for three years provided the seven people -- Taravati, director Sassan Soleimani, Neda Motameni, Afshin Sohrabi, Bardia Moradi, Roham Shamekhi, and a person known as Sepideh --- don't engage in any more "wrongdoings," the organization said.
The accused were charged with "participation in producing a vulgar video clip" and conducting "illicit relations," according to the human rights group.
The "Happy in Tehran" video received international attention when it was posted on YouTube. The three men and three women were arrested May 19 by Tehran police for helping make an "obscene video clip that offended the public morals and was released in cyberspace," the Iranian Students' News Agency reported. Director Soleimani was arrested the next day.
Following the arrests, Iranian authorities forced the young people to repent on state TV.
Just like in the original video, the Iranian fan version features a montage of men and women dancing to the song in a variety of settings.
At the time, Pharrell, who is known professionally by his first name only, denounced the arrests.
"It is beyond sad that these kids were arrested for trying to spread happiness," the Grammy Award-winner said on his Facebook page.
Not on the same scale as beheading and crucifying children, but still manifesting the brutal suppression of freedom in the Islamic world.
91 lashes each (suspended, probably only because it looks pointlessly awful to the rest of the world). For making a happy video.
But hey, I'm just "islamophopic". The ISIS-Lite crowd over at CAIR can surely spin this to portray Islam in a positive light.
The French love their food, and being French they claim almost anything appetizing as their own. Such as croissants. But croissants are Austrian, and while we don’t know the precise origins of the pastry, one of the most likely explanations is that they were invented in 1683 to commemorate the Catholic victory over the Turks who were trying, in their “peaceful” way, to take Vienna, destroy the churches, forcibly convert the people to Islam, rape the women, and so forth. Allegedly, the city’s bakers had stayed up all night at work and so heard the Muslims trying to tunnel their way in. They alerted the garrison, Vienna was saved, and in mocking memory of the Ottomans, crescents—or croissants—were invented.
The story may or may not be true, and while I certainly hope it is—it's a delightful story behind a delicious food—it is the reaction of some Muslims rather than the debatable authenticity of the tale that is of greater interest. You see, the croissant is banned in many Islamic countries and societies. It may seem a trivial anecdote, a piece of mere historical confectionary. But, no. Within the ostensibly banal behavior of a religion we can see its deeper meaning and manners.
Which brings us to the invasion of the ancient Christian town of Maaloula in Syria by an al Qaeda-linked rebel group. The town is remarkable on many levels, one of which is that it is one of the few places left in the world where a dialect of Aramaic, the language of Jesus, is still spoken. The Christians are both Catholic and Orthodox, and the local Muslims are extremely unusual in that they have not been Arabized; the people of Syria and much of the Middle East are not ethnically Arab, and the language and culture of Arabia were forced on them along with the then new, Arabian religion of Islam. As soon as the Islamists entered the town recently they began destroying ancient churches, murdering people, and threatened others with beheading unless they converted to Islam.
I have written before in this publication and in others, and have broadcast on my television show in Canada, about the reality of Islam and Muslim attitudes towards Christians. It’s one of the reasons why I receive death threats and abuse. But this story cannot be told often enough. And the indifferent, secular world has to be reminded and reminded again that the genocidal eschatology of fundamentalist Islam, now the driving and dominant trend in the religion, has to be resisted for the sake of the entire democratic world—but most immediately for any Christian living in a Muslim-dominated country.
There is hardly much need to repeat the blood-red litany of crimes committed by Muslims in the last twenty years alone in the name of Islam. Indonesian Christian schoolgirls beheaded on their way to class; suicide bombings of crowds of innocent people; the torture and rape of women who dare to uncover their faces in public; the constant murderous targeting of children; the obsession with mutilation and beheading; the glorying in death and pain; the “honor killings”; the grooming of young girls; the rape gangs and the forced female genital mutilation; and on and on. None of it is justifiable, or even understandable, on any grounds. It has nothing to do with western imperialism, Israel, poverty, or oppression. Many of the victims are other Muslims, almost all are harmless civilians. Yet even though the Islamists hardly even bother to try to justify their actions, almost every one of them is immediately analyzed, explained, and even partly justified, by Western leftists and Islamic fellow travelers. We are told that this has nothing to do with Islam but everything to do with injustice and religious extremism—and extremism, they continue, is the fault not of Islam but of all religions.
Which would contain at least a tincture of credence if we lived in fear of Unitarian terrorists, Lutheran killers, or aging Catholic nuns intent on suicide bombings. The chattering classes smother themselves in denial and relativism partly because they are physically terrified of offending Islam, but also because they so detest Christianity that they simply cannot acknowledge that followers of Christ behave in a far more civilized and peaceful way than followers of Mohammad. That Christians are so often victims of Muslims makes the denial even easier, because if anyone deserves to suffer, it is surely those awful Christian types who in the West want to stop men from marrying men and women from marrying women, who oppose abortion, and who think people shouldn’t use sex as a coffee substitute.
And here, surely, is the epicenter of the problem. In their private moments, the mainstream commentators who make apologies for Islam while slamming Christianity admit that living in an Islamic society would be horrendous, particularly for them. But, of course, they don’t, for they live in America, Canada, Britain, and France. And while Muslim intolerance is an inconvenience, it seldom troubles them directly because they are invariably white, wealthy, and never visit the Muslim communities in their own cities. There is no chance of being silenced at the next dinner party or threatened at the weekend’s book launch. They know it happens in Pakistan, Africa, and the Middle East, but they don’t live in Pakistan, Africa, and the Middle East. That’s where poor and foreign people, black and brown people live and—while they would hyperventilate at this—there is more than a dash of racism and snobbery involved in all of this.
The religious people giving the chatterers a hard time in their homelands are Christians, and in particular Catholics. So in response they constantly link the Christians to the Muslims, and speak of the problems of religion instead of the problems of Islam. We see this when celebrities condemn the Pope but remain silent about the Ayatollah, write angry letters to Moscow about its legislation preventing public displays of nudity and perversion but pen not a word when the genocide of Christians begins in Egypt. They even rounded on super-atheist Richard Dawkins when he merely stated the fact there have been more Nobel Prizes won from a single Cambridge University college than from the entire Muslim world. When, however, Dawkins had made the most repugnant comments about Catholicism, they cheered him on. Objective truth about Islam is forbidden, gutter opinion about Catholics is perfectly fine.
I’d like to think that this will all change in the coming years, and in some circles that might be the case. Yet each time Islamists attack western countries, the response from the pundits and professional talkers is not clarity of thought but simply more pretense. We saw this after 9/11, as well as after the Madrid and London attacks. During the Second World War fifth columnists were arrested, in the war against Communism the traitors were exposed, but in the war against Islamic extremism the home front is frighteningly weak. When the going gets tough, the tough get Catholic. At least I pray so, because it may well be our only hope.
The 1683 Vienna story of symbolic Croissants refers to a pivotal moment in history, when the Ottoman Empire was about to invade further into the Christian world, and was turned back at the gates of Vienna, Austria. If not for that pivotal battle, Europe might all be Muslim now. The Moors in Portugal, Spain and Southern France ruled similarly another large chunk of Europe for roughly 900 years, and the last were driven out in 1492, the same year Columbus discovered America. All of the Middle East and Northern Africa was Christian before the muslim Caliphate swept across these regions.
Beyond that, it goes into a nice litany of the bloody history of Islam, and of the naïve, if not malicious, false moral equivalency Western liberals in the media create between Christianity and Islam.
This Bill Maher show has gotten a lot of controversy in the last day or so, for his hard stance on the clear and consistent murderous brutality of Islam. I'm always amazed when Bill Maher says something I'm in agreement with.
The polls of muslims worldwide demonstrate that a vast percentage, if not a majority, endorse violent jihad, terrorist bombing in the U.S. or European countries they live in, endorse Osama Bin Ladin, endorse Al Qaida, endorse ISIS.
Franklin Graham, the son of Rev. Billy Graham and the president and CEO of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, says President Obama, like President Bush before him, just doesn’t understand Islam.
Graham noted Obama’s recent comments on the conflict in the Middle East.
“In his speech, the president made this baffling comment about Islam: ‘Islam teaches peace. Muslims all over the world aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country,’” Graham wrote in a recent commentary for Decision magazine.
But [Graham] said that [Obama's quoted view of islam] just doesn’t line up with the facts that people see.
Obama, he asserted, doesn’t understand Islam.
“Even President Bush in the previous administration called Islam a peaceful religion. Both men have done a great disservice to the American public by not understanding Islam and its teaching in the Quran,” Graham wrote.
He noted he recently was in Lafayette Square, across the street from the White House, to pray for Pastor Saeed Abedini, an Iranian-American who has been imprisoned for two years in Iran “simply because of his Christian faith.”
“Islamic terrorists are indiscriminately and brutally killing all who stand in their way, as evidenced by the gruesome, demonic images of recent beheadings of American and British journalists. For Muslims, peace comes only through submission to Islam. When they speak of peace, they mean submission to their religion,” he said.
“This is why, as we prayed for the release of Saeed and persecuted Christians, I spoke to the president via the media and loudspeakers,” he said.
His message was simple: “Mr. President – followers of a peaceful religion do not cut off the heads of innocent people in barbaric fashion. … Mr. President – believers in a peaceful religion do not kidnap 300 young schoolgirls as Boko Haram did in northeastern Nigeria in April and reportedly [sell] them to men to be sex slaves. … Mr. President – men who practice a peaceful religion do not detonate bombs on an American street during a marathon race to kill and maim innocent people. … Mr. President – no one who belongs to a peaceful religion would even consider hijacking airlines and flying them into buildings occupied by thousands of innocent people beginning their workday. … Mr. President – no peaceful religion would tolerate, let alone practice, female circumcision, require a woman to have her husband’s permission to leave her home and take up employment, and restrict her ability to receive justice.”
Graham continued, “Mr. President – a peaceful religion would not condone and allow a father to drown a daughter in a swimming pool in front of the family in the name of family honor because she might have stayed out late in the evening with her boyfriend.”
And pointedly, he asked, “Mr. President – why haven’t the 3.5 million Muslims in North America rejected this gross, barbaric and despicable behavior by their fellow Muslims on American soil?”
In his commentary, headlined “Is Islam Really a Religion of Peace?” in the November Decision, he cited Obama’s claim al-Qaida and Boko Haram are guided by an ideology that will “simply wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted and refuted in the light of day.”
“That simply is not the case,” he said. “Islam … is a false religion [that is] guided and characterized by treacherous deceit.”
Obama attended Islamic schools in Indonesia during his youth, and many members of his extended family in Kenya are Muslims. He once said in an interview that the call to Muslim prayer was the most beautiful sound on earth.
Graham sparked a controversy two years ago when he was responding to questions about Obama’s faith.
In a report in the Christian Post, he described how Obama responded to a question of how he came to faith in Christ by explaining he was working as a community organizer, and people asked him where he went to church. He said he didn’t, they told him he needed to, and he ended up at Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s congregation in Chicago.
Graham said he accepts Obama’s statement that he is Christian, but noted: “Islam sees him as a son of Islam because his father was a Muslim, his grandfather was a Muslim. All I know is under Obama, President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries.”
Pressed about Obama’s faith, Graham said: “I think you have to ask President Obama. You can ask me do I believe if you’re a Christian but I think the best thing for a person is to ask you directly. He’s come out saying he’s a Christian so I think the question is what is a Christian?”
Graham said he could not support Obama as a candidate because of his positions on abortion and traditional marriage. Obama’s faith “has nothing to do with my consideration of him as a candidate,” Graham said.
That same year, CBN reported, Graham said Obama was defying God by supporting “gay marriage.”
“President Obama has, in my view, shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage,” he said. “It grieves me that our president would affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more.”
A CNS report also noted that Graham said some people in the Obama administration are “hostile to Christians” to the point they “are anti-Christ in what they say and in what they do.”
His comments came as part of an interview about religious persecution in the U.S. armed forces.
The cultural relativists on the Left and apologists for radical Islam like to blame the Crusades for almost everything. The Muslim extremists are only responding to the deeds of Christian extremists, the argument goes. In his new book, Sir Walter Scott’s Crusades and Other Fantasies, former Muslim Ibn Warraq takes on this misleading theme intended to blame the West for the Muslim world’s troubles.
The claim that the Crusades are the starting point of Islamic jihad is basically the political application of, “For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.” It equates the Christian beliefs driving the Crusades with the Islamic beliefs driving jihad.
Ibn Warraq’s new book tackles this misconception. Islamic atrocities were not provoked by the Crusaders’ own reprehensible acts, but preceded them. Islamic jihad was not triggered by the Crusades; it preceded them.
In fact, as explained by Warraq and in books like The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and What’s So Great About Christianity, the Christian world was reduced to about one-third of what it was by the sword of jihad. The Crusades were launched with the objective of, without any exaggeration, saving Europe and Western civilization from Sharia.
My personal experience in school is that the opposite was taught. The Crusades were framed as offensive and the jihads as defensive. The Crusaders were depicted as barbarians, particularly to Jews. I cannot recall hearing about a single Islamic atrocity before or during these wars.
This is a common phenomenon, Warraq explains, and it’s part of an overall trend when it comes to education about the history of Islam.
“What are seen as positive aspects of Islamic Civilization are ecstatically praised, even exaggerated, and all the negative aspects are imputed to the arrival of the pestilential Westerners, and where the Arabs, Persians and Muslims in general are seen as passive victims,” Warraq said in an interview.
As proof, Warraq and the other authors mention the countless mass killings and persecutions of Christians and Jews before the Crusades. The destruction of over 30,000 churches during a 10-year period starting in 1004 AD is little-known. So is the burning of crosses, the beheading of converts to Christianity from Islam, the destruction of Christian holy sites like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the forced tax for non-Muslims (the jizya) and the list goes on and on.
Modern-day Islamists and their apologists point to these times as proof of the historical tolerance of Islamic civilization. Islam-ruled Spain (Andalucia) and the city of Cordoba are held up as the golden examples of interfaith coexistence. For example, the Islamic Society of North America’s official publication included an article in its March-April issue titled, “Andalucia: Paradise Still Lost?”
One of the most interesting claims made in Waraq’s book is that the Crusades did not have a permanent impact on the Muslim psychology. Part of the reason is because the Muslim world viewed the wars as an overall victory.
“Many believe that modern Muslims have inherited from their medieval ancestors memories of crusader violence and destruction. But nothing could be further from the truth. By the fourteenth century, in the Islamic world the Crusades had almost passed out of mind,” Warraq said.
This begs the question of what revived the relevancy of the Crusades in how the Muslim world views the West.
Warraq says that the Crusades were reentered into the discourse by Europe. Imperialism was purposely framed as a continuation of the Crusades; something particularly agitating for the growing Arab nationalist movement.
“Nineteenth, and even early twentieth century Europeans unashamedly used crusader rhetoric and a tendentious reading of crusader history to justify their imperial dreams of conquest,” according to Warraq.
The Arab world’s insecurities over its falling behind were blamed on the European colonists that were viewed as Crusaders. This theme “eases the guilty consciences of the Arabs themselves: it is not their fault that they are such abject failures—it is all the fault of the Crusaders.”
In addition, attributing the backwardness of the Muslim world to the “Crusaders” allowed Sharia Law to escape responsibility. At the same time, complaining about the Crusades actually provided Muslims with hope in the face of Western superiority.
As Dinesh D’Souza explains, “So the Crusades can be seen as a belated, clumsy and unsuccessful effort to defeat Islamic imperialism.”
However, Warraq emphasizes that his point isn’t to blame the West for its use of Crusader rhetoric. The jihad existed before the Crusades and during the period when they “had almost passed out of mind” of the Muslim world.
“My point is that Islamic jihad did not end with the defeat of the Crusaders. On the contrary, in Islamic doctrine all the later Islamic conquests were seen as a part of the religious duty of carrying out jihad until the entire world submits to Islam,” he said.
Blaming the Crusades is a way of denying the Islamic supremacist ideology that has driven the conflict from the beginning.
________________________
About Ryan Mauro
Ryan Mauro is a fellow with the Clarionproject.org, the founder of WorldThreats.com and a frequent national security analyst for Fox News Channel. He can be contacted at ryanmauro1986@gmail.com.
"Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is their destination." Quran 9:73
Have you heard that Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live peacefully and that only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence? That's like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone. Neither does it explain why religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries.
In truth, even a tiny minority of "1%" of Muslims worldwide translates to 15 million believers - which is hardly an insignificant number. However, the "minority" of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means of achieving them is much greater than this. In fact, it isn't even a true minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined.
The following polls convey what Muslims say are their attitudes toward terrorism, al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, the 9/11 attacks, violence in defense of Islam, Sharia, honor killings, and matters concerning assimilation in Western society. The results are all the more astonishing because most of the polls were conducted by organizations with an obvious interest in "discovering" agreeable statistics that downplay any cause for concern.
(These have been compiled over the years, so not all links remain active. We will continue adding to this).
World Public Opinion: 61% of Egyptians approve of attacks on Americans 32% of Indonesians approve of attacks on Americans 41% of Pakistanis approve of attacks on Americans 38% of Moroccans approve of attacks on Americans 83% of Palestinians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (only 14% oppose) 62% of Jordanians approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (21% oppose) 42% of Turks approve of some or most groups that attack Americans (45% oppose) A minority of Muslims disagreed entirely with terror attacks on Americans: (Egypt 34%; Indonesia 45%; Pakistan 33%) About half of those opposed to attacking Americans were sympathetic with al-Qaeda’s attitude toward the U.S. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
And we let these people immigrate to our country... why?
Quote:
Pew Research (2010): 55% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hezbollah 30% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hezbollah 45% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hezbollah (26% negative) 43% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hezbollah (30% negative) http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
Pew Research (2010): 60% of Jordanians have a positive view of Hamas (34% negative). 49% of Egyptians have a positive view of Hamas (48% negative) 49% of Nigerian Muslims have a positive view of Hamas (25% negative) 39% of Indonesians have a positive view of Hamas (33% negative) http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are justified. 35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall). 42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified (35% overall). 22% of young Muslims in Germany believe suicide bombings are justified.(13% overall). 29% of young Muslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.(25% overall). http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
Pew Research (2011): 8% of Muslims in America believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (81% never). 28% of Egyptian Muslims believe suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified (38% never). http://www.people-press.org/2011/08/30/m...-for-extremism/
Pew Research (2013): At least 1 in 4 Muslims do not reject violence against civilians (study did not distinguish between those who believe it is partially justified and never justified). http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/To...full-report.pdf
World Public Opinion: Muslim majorities agree with the al-Qaeda goal of Islamic law. Muslim majorities agree with al-Qaeda goal of keeping Western values out of Islamic countries; (Egypt: 88%; Indonesia 76%; Pakistan 60%; Morocco 64%) http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
World Public Opinion: Attitude toward Osama bin Laden: Egypt: 44% positive, 17% negative, and 25% mixed feelings Indonesia: 14% positive, 26% negative, 21% mixed feelings (39% did not answer) Pakistan: 25% positive, 15% negative, 26% mixed feelings (34% did not answer) Morocco: 27% positive, 21% negative, 26% mixed feelings Jordanians, Palestinians, Turks and Azerbaijanis. Jordanians combined for: 27% positive, 20 percent negative, and 27 percent mixed feelings. (Palestinians 56% positive, 20% negative, 22 percent mixed feelings). http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
Pew Research (2010): 49% of Nigerian Muslims have favorable view of al-Qaeda (34% unfavorable) 23% of Indonesians have favorable view of al-Qaeda (56% unfavorable) 34% of Jordanians have favorable view of al-Qaeda 25% of Indonesians have "confidence" in Osama bin Laden (59% had confidence in 2003) 1 in 5 Egyptians have "confidence" in Osama bin Laden http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
That one says it all, whether or not "radicals" have "hijacked a world religion." 92% of Saudis, the heart of Islam, say that even ISIS conforms with the values of Islam.
Would that Barack Obama could read this poll. Or even cared what the actual truth is.
Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. 7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified. http://cnsnews.com/node/53865 (Pew Global Attitudes Project September, 2009)
Pew Research (2010): 84% of Egyptian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 86% of Jordanian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 30% of Indonesian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam 76% of Pakistanis support death the penalty for leaving Islam 51% of Nigerian Muslims support the death penalty for leaving Islam http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
World Public Opinion: 81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 76% of Pakistanis want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 49% (plurality) of Indonesians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country 76% of Moroccans want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/feb09/STARTII_Feb09_rpt.pdf
Pew Research (2010): 77% of Egyptian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 58% of Jordanian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 36% of Indonesian Muslims favor floggings and amputation 82% of Pakistanis favor floggings and amputation 65% of Nigerian Muslims favor floggings and amputation http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/
Pew Research (2013): According to an interpretation of this study, approximately 45% of Sharia supporters surveyed disagreed with the idea that Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/To...full-report.pdf
Pew Research (2013): Large majorities of Muslims favor Sharia. Among those who do, stoning women for adultery is favored by 89% in Pakistanis, 85% in Afghanistan, 81% in Egypt, 67% in Jordan, ~50% in 'moderate' Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, 58% in Iraq, 44% in Tunisia, 29% in Turkey, and 26% in Russia. http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/To...full-report.pdf
Pew Research (2013): Honor killing the woman for sex outside of marriage is favored over honor killing the man in almost every Islamic country. Over half of Muslims surveyed believed that honor killings over sex were at least partially justified. http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/To...full-report.pdf
Pew Global (2006): Only 7% of British Muslims think of themselves as British first (81% say 'Muslim' rather than 'Briton') http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/254.pdf
Wenzel Strategies (2012): 58% of Muslim-Americans believe criticism of Islam or Muhammad is not protected free speech under the First Amendment. 45% believe mockers of Islam should face criminal charges (38% said they should not). 12% of Muslim-Americans believe blaspheming Islam should be punishable by death. 43% of Muslim-Americans believe people of other faiths have no right to evangelize Muslims. 32% of Muslims in America believe that Sharia should be the supreme law of the land. http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2012/10...-of-expression/ http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2012/10/poll-nearly-half-of-us-muslims-believe.html
Pew Research (2013): "At least half' of Muslims surveyed believed polygamy is morally acceptable. "Muslims in most countries surveyed say that a wife should always obey her husband." (including 93% in Indonesia and 65% in Turkey). Only 32% of Muslims in Indonesia say a woman should have the right to divorce her husband (22% in Egypt, 26% in Pakistan and 60% in Russia). http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/To...full-report.pdf
I went on at length posting the links, just in case the original site disappears later.
But that very clearly establishes what the consensus of opinion is, among both the collective Islamic world, and among muslim immigrants to the U.S., Canada and Europe.
And what it clearly establishes is that despite what Barack Obama has been saying the last few days about terrorists "hijacking" the religion of islam, waging violent jihad terrorism worldwide IS representative of Islamic religion and sharia law. To at least a vast minority, if not a majority of muslims worldwide.
One of the more harrowing stories out of the New Year’s Eve celebrations from around the globe came out of the country of Germany. Just weeks after German Chancellor Angela Merkel was distinguished by TIME as being the person of the year — largely for her willingness to open German borders to migrant refugees — the country saw a shocking number of reported rapes and sexual assaults. By reports, over 1,000 men allegedly terrorized females in various German cities on New Year’s Eve.
German police, stunned at the turn of events that developed with increased frequency over a number of hours, called the unprovoked attacks “a completely new dimension of crime.” A prominent German police chief was shortly fired thereafter for his perceived mishandling of the threat.
But it would seem that Germany is far from the only European nation to see a severe and horrifying spike in sexual assault violence in recent weeks. The Daily Mail is now reporting that assaults have been carried out in Sweden, Finland, Austria, and Switzerland as well; in the city of Kalmar, Sweden along, 15 women has reported sexual misconduct to local authorities.
The police spokesman for Kalmar, Johan Bruun, told the Daily Mail, “We are aware of what happened in Germany but we are focusing our investigation on what happened in Kalmar.”
The effort on the ground in Germany by law enforcement has been significantly ramped up since news of the New Year’s attacks made front pages of the international media. 31 suspects have been detained by federal officers; many of the individuals across all of these countries have been identified by authorities as asylum seekers or migrants from places like Iraq and Northern Africa.
A German refugee worker revealed, “The perception of refugees has changes with each new incident like this. Most people used to have sympathy for them, but that is changing, you can see it in people’s attitude and hear it in the way they talk about foreigners.”
According to the Daily Mail, members of Austrian police have also been accused of allegedly covering up a series of attacks in the city of Vienna.
An Iraqi migrant has admitted raping a 10-year-old boy at a swimming pool in Austria because he had not had sex in four months and it was a “sexual emergency”.
The 20-year-old man is accused of attacking the boy in a cubicle of the Theresienbad swimming pool in Vienna, telling police he had “followed his desires”.
The victim had to be hospitalised following injuries inflicted by the suspect, who worked as a taxi driver after arriving in Austria via the Balkans in September, and who has a wife and daughter back in Iraq.
After the attack, the suspect left the cubicle and went to enjoy himself by springing from the three-metre-high diving board while the victim alerted a lifeguard, Austrian newspaper the Kronen Zeitung reported.
An ambulance was called immediately and police arrested the man at the pool.
He told police during interrogation that he knew he had made “a huge mistake” and that he had left a “big scar on the boy”.
But he said he had “followed his desires,” adding: “I haven’t had sex for four months.”
The man explained that before coming to Austria he had been with a woman in Iraq who wasn’t his wife, who he said had been constantly ill since the birth of their daughter.
In Austria, he had “not withstood not having any sex because he had a marked surplus of sexual energy”, he said in interrogation.
The man said he knew that having sex with 10-year-old boys was “forbidden in any country of the world”, the Kronen Zeitung reported. The man is currently in custody.
The attack took place on December 2, but police said they did not release details to “protect the victim”.
But police have now officially announced the details of the crime after reports emerged on Facebook, with the Kronen Zeitung reporting the incident in December following unofficial confirmation.
But Thomas Keiblinger, spokesman for the state police in Vienna, denied any suggestion that details of the crime had been withheld from the public over concerns of fuelling anger among the Austrian population because the suspect was a newly-arrived refugee.
That the man was a migrant “played no role whatsoever”, he told the Kronen Zeitung.
In Austria there were 126 convictions for rape in 2014, 58.7 per cent of which were committed by Austrian nationals, while 34.9 per cent were committed by non-EU citizens, according to the country’s federal agency for statistics.
There are dozens of similarly horrifying stories, but there's too many for me to find the time to post, and I don't want to cop out by just leaving a bunch of links. Suffice it to say, more women and children are getting raped everyday because Islam is a disgusting philosophy, with an accompanying culture, and Muslims are awful, grotesque people. Despite this fact, Europe's MEM-endorsed EU elitists and their lapdog governments do nothing to stop such injustices, and--in fact--keep them under wraps when they can get away with it.
The dreary reality here is that these well-to-do and innocent, if herbivorous, Europeans are being placed on the sacrificial altar of cultural Marxism--to the sole benefit of the globalist elite.
And guess what: this shit is coming straight to our doorstep. Hoo-ray.
Police in central Ohio shot and killed a man who stormed into a restaurant owned by an Israeli Arab. The man was wielding a machete and randomly attacking patrons, authorities said.
Police were called to the Nazareth Restaurant on the northeast side at about 6 p.m. EST, after reports an armed man was attacking people in the building.
The owner of the restaurant, Hany Baransi, is an Israeli Arab originally from Haifa, according to his daughter Rachel Joy Baransi.
The suspect fled and police caught up with him about five miles away, authorities said. He was armed with a machete and knife and lunged at a police officer before he was fatally shot, media said, citing law enforcement officials.
At least five people inside the Middle Eastern-food restaurant were hurt, including one person who was in critical condition, officials said.
The suspect had walked into the restaurant and argued with an employee before leaving, returning with the machete a short time later and attacking customers, police said.
Just the latest, from a machete-wielding devotee of the Religion Of Peace.
A 24-year-old woman, and speaker for the German “Left Youth” party was gang-raped by 3 immigrants on January the 27th, in the city of Mannheim.
German police are still carrying out their investigation, but on January the 30th, the woman, wrote an apology on Facebook, addressed to the immigrants who allegedly raped her. Here’s a few excerpts from the now-deleted post:
“Dear male Refugees, you are probably my age. Probably a few years younger. Maybe older. I am so terribly sorry! I did not see what happen before and I did not experience your grueling escape.”
“I am glad and happy that you made it here. That you have left the IS and its war behind and that you didn’t drown in the Mediterranean sea. But I fear that you are not safe here.”
“Burning refugee centers, violent attack on refugees on the street and a brown mob in the streets. I have always fought against this situation.”
“I wanted an open Europe, a friendly one. One in which I like to live, one in which both of us are safe. I am so sorry. For both of us I am so unbelievably sorry.”
“You, you are not safe because we live in a racist society. I am not safe, because we live in a sexist society.”
“But what I really feel sorry about is the case that the sexist and borderless acts that I suffered will lead to you being exposed to more and increasingly aggressive racism.”
“I promise you that I will scream. I will not let it happen anymore. I will not sit idle and let racists and concerned citizens turn you into a problem.”
“You are not the problem. You are no problem at all. You are a beautiful human being that deserves freedom and security as much as anyone. Thank you for your existence and nice to have you here.”
Wow! Ladies and gentlemen, I introduce to you: brainwashing. This is insanity! This is not the mind of a rational person..
Just recently, an Austrian woman’s 10 year-old son was raped by an Iraqi immigrant and she apologized to her children for telling them to “welcome refugees“ – she woke up and realized what’s going on.
But some people are just too far gone…
This is the mentality we're dealing with. Absolute tolerance and accommodation, absolutely. Fucking fucked the fuck up.
Just yesterday, if I were to make a satirical joke about something like this happening, lefty fucks would have rehashed phrases like "exaggeration" and "slippery slope". Now here we are. Watch MEM and his ilk ignore this shit.
Watch as the world yawns at Christians being slaughtered for their beliefs.
Didn't you get the talking points memo, Pariah?
All the Islamic genocide that happens worldwide on an almost daily basis can't be criticized, according to Obama, because hundreds of years ago Europeans did some "questionable" things in the name of Christianity?
So those 200,000 Christians that were murdered in the last year alone, that means nothing in the face of "bigotry" toward muslims. Muslims who are, in fact, the ones actually killing people.
You can't suddenly start getting ornery when the enemy is standing on your very doorstep. That needs to happen prior to the incursion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see that Swedish communities are finally telling their corrupt politicians "enough with the bullshit", but I'm not convinced they're willing to take the necessary steps to do anything about these injustices. Sweden's leaders should have been executed by roaming citizen groups well over a decade ago.
It's the same as here in the U.S.: Police and federal agencies treat illegal immigrants better than they treat taxpaying citizens. And more than that, EVEN WHEN CRIMES ARE REPORTED, the government and liberal media do their damnedest to pretend it never happened.
This perfectly defines the core of the problem. We expect muslims to do what they do, when they immigrate to Western countries. The true problem is the misguided weakness and self-loathing of western leaders, who are in a position to demand muslims should either assimilate or leave. But leaders who instead apologize for superior Western cultural values, and destroy their own cultures from within, in some perverse redefinition of racism and multiculturalism, and one-sided caricature of "fairness".
Fifteen men who "systematically" groomed and sexually abused teenage girls in Halifax have been jailed.
They were convicted of child sex offences including rape, grooming and trafficking during three separate trials at Leeds Crown Court.
Prosecutors praised the "immense courage and bravery" of the two victims who gave evidence against the men.
The longest sentence passed was 25 years in what was described as a "complex and lengthy operation".
The gang of men abused a young girl in Halifax and Bradford between 2009 and 2011, the Crown Prosecution (CPS) said.
Another victim was also sexually assaulted by one of the gang members. 'Largest' investigation
Peter Mann, head of the complex casework unit at the Crown Prosecution Service for Yorkshire and Humberside, said: "These men are responsible for a range of crimes involving child sexual exploitation and abuse.
"One victim was sexually assaulted in a car.
"The second victim was groomed, and systematically exploited by the older men she associated with. Some of her abusers acted together as a group, grooming her and plying her with drink and drugs. Others took advantage of her individually."
West Yorkshire Police said the abuse was first reported to its officers in 2012 by the victim, who was then aged 15 and living in Halifax at the time. A second girl who came forward gave evidence against another gang member. Background: The victim
The main victim in the case was 13 years old when she was first abused. The girl was said to have come from a chaotic family background who had become addicted to drugs and alcohol during the period of the attacks, which stopped in 2011. She was eventually taken into social care. Now 21, she is living a new life with a baby, miles away from Calderdale.
The force said the case was "the largest and longest running investigation into child sexual exploitation in Calderdale".
"It led to a major investigation with police conducting nearly 60 hours of interviews with two victims. Detectives also processed 1,848 statements, 2,963 exhibits and more than 20,000 items of disclosure," police said.
In total 25 men were charged. During the trials four defendants were cleared by a jury while three others were acquitted on the orders of the judge.
Mr Mann described it as a "complex and lengthy operation" and said the girls had shown "immense courage and bravery in reporting these matters to the police and in providing evidence".
"He said his client is unable to walk long distances and need a wheelchair. She was eventually able to escape the building.
Six men aged in their 20s were arrested in the days that followed they were later released. Sweden's Expressen newspaper reported that the suspects were all asylum seekers and that the attack allegedly took place at asylum accommodation.
Large crowds gathered in protest and marched in the town. The head of Gotland police Torbjörn Nilsson said: 'Gotland is safe, compared to other places, and there are few crimes compared to the rest of the country. But the way people have now acted is unprecedented.' "
5 immigrants Gang-Raped a woman in Wheelchair on Gotland island in Sweden this weekend.
Police interview them and let them go.
People protest.
Police send riot police to crush the protest and ferry the rapists off the island.
Police arrest man who videotapes the rapists and ransack his home and harass his wife.
INTERNET on Gotland is mysteriously out for two whole days.
In the new, Sweden gang-raping a woman in a wheelchair is fine but protesting against it will get you arrested.
The fact that they disconnected the island from the internet (probably to prevent it from being used to organize protests) worries me. This is new; I have not heard of Sweden disabling the internet in local areas to prevent/discourage protests before.
A 9-year-old White girl was repeatedly beaten, sexually assaulted, and emotionally tormented by a group of migrant children at her school. However, instead of reporting it to the authorities, the school decided to cover up the sickening abuse, giving outraged parents a 5-word, infuriating excuse.
The parents of the young girl demanded answers after their child revealed the horrors she was forced to face on a daily basis. The child explained that she was regularly called “pussy” and “whore,” and subjected to beatings on the school playground and bus. The final straw came when she shamefully divulged how some of the students had pulled her pants down in the cafeteria and proceeded to grind sexually against her while the other children watched.
“We got explained to us by a school staff that our daughter was blonde and sweet and so excited to embark on. She had a mind of her own and it made it even more fun for them,” the mother told Swedish Television News Sörmland. “My daughter was standing with a tray in the dining room. Then, they pulled down her pants and humped her while everyone watched.”
In my speech to the Republican National Convention in July, I recited a list of terror attacks that had occurred in the previous 37 days. This week, German special forces arrested a Syrian refugee who authorities said was on the verge of committing an attack similar to those we saw in Paris and Brussels. The foiled attack was one positive outcome, but it is again worth remembering the cascade of recent attacks in which our enemies have succeeded.
Consider the list of attacks just since my speech to the Republican National Convention in July.
Only a few days after that speech, an attacker pledging allegiance to ISIS blew himself up outside of a concert venue in Germany, wounding 12.
"Treason" deals with a traitor from within the U.S. government. But in fact, the real treachery is the willful blindness that prevents us from dealing with radical Islamic terrorism for what it is.
Two days later, in Normandy, France, ISIS attackers slit the throat of an 85-year-old priest and took nuns and parishioners hostage.
In August, we saw the first ISIS attack in Russia when men armed with axes and guns attacked traffic police in Moscow.
In Strasbourg, France, a Jewish man was stabbed by an attacker shouting “Allahu Akbar.”
In Toulouse, France, an Algerian attacker entered a police station and stabbed an officer in the neck.
In Germany, an attacker at a music festival screamed “Allahu Akbar” while stabbing and critically wounding an older married couple.
In Australia, a man screamed “Allahu Akbar” while stabbing a 21-year-old British backpacker to death, and fatally wounded a man who intervened to try to save her.
In Roanoke, Virginia, a Muslim man attacked and critically wounded a couple as they entered their apartment building, and authorities said they believed the attack was ISIS-inspired .
In September, an Afghan immigrant perpetrated multiple bombings in New York and New Jersey, wounding 29 people.
The same week, an immigrant from Turkey shot and killed 5 people in a mall near Seattle, Washington.
And finally, just last week, a man stabbed two police offices in Brussels, Belgium in an attack authorities described as terror-related.
Consider it honestly: How many of these incidents had you heard about? How many of those you’d heard about would you have remembered?
Our amnesia about these horrific attacks is a symptom of our failure to be honest about the nature of the threat we face. Our officials and our media elites behave as though they are isolated incidents, when in fact they are part of a clear and totalitarian ideology that is spreading across the planet.
The deceit and self-deception about this very real threat is the topic of my new book, "Treason," with my extraordinary coauthor Pete Earley. "Treasson" is a novel, so it is fictional, but for anyone who has been keeping up with the news, it bears a striking resemblance to the real world.
For example, "Treason" features a president who refuses to use the term “radical Islamic terror.”
It features an FBI and a Department of Homeland Security which, because of political correctness, won’t monitor mosques even when they are frequented by radical imams.
It features radical Islamist front-groups in the United States that lie about their intentions and try to intimidate those who speak out about the threat.
The fact that these details sound so familiar is a sign of why we are witnessing these accumulating atrocities--and why we remember so few of them just months later.
"Treason" deals with a traitor from within the U.S. government. But in fact, the real treachery is the willful blindness that prevents us from dealing with radical Islamic terrorism for what it is.
Without being honest about the threat and a major shift in strategy, the danger will only get worse.
Indeed, FBI Director James Comey recently warned of a surge of terrorists out of the Islamic State who seek to carry out attacks in Europe and the U.S. “At some point there’s going to be a terrorist diaspora out of Syria like we’ve never seen before,” Comey said. “We saw the future of this threat in Brussels and Paris.” He added that future attacks will be on “an order of magnitude greater.”
You’ve just read the list of terror attacks in the last 3 months. An “order of magnitude greater” would be ten times that many, and ten times as deadly. Such is the danger of continued dishonesty. That is the danger that led us to write "Treason."
Gingrich's list of just a few weeks of the most recent attacks, and the reluctance of the liberal/politically correct media in both Europe and the U.S. to report these incidents, and the suppression by Obama and other national leaders that prevents FBI and military leadership from neutralizing these threats, is a telling overview of the threat we face, and the danger Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and the shadow party they represent, are putting all of us in.
The transition to globalisation is hurting people in the same way that the Industrial Revolution hurt people.
.... yes?
Any news stories on non-Muslims gang-raping people? Or are you just being selecti... no, that couldn't be right. Surely you wouldn't choose specific examples just to perpetuate your argument without considering a wider data pool or addressing counter-arguments?
Actually, here is an example. In Australia at present there is a Royal Commission (an independent judicial inquiry) into institutional responses to abuse of children with most of the attention being paid to Catholic clergy. The stories of systemic rape and abuse are horrific. One incident occurred at a Catholic church a block away from my house. By your logic, all Catholic clergy should be imprisoned or expelled from the country. The evidence is overwhelming that Catholic clergy repeatedly committed sex crimes against kids and the Catholic establishment tried repeatedly to cover it up either through denials, aggressive litigation, or by moving offending priests to different districts, where they would commit further offences against new kids. Its an institutional problem. (I hasten to add that testimony also came from secular government institutions, Anglican institutions and Jewish institutions.)
The logical fallacy is that the pool of Catholic offenders is small. It might even be disproportionately higher compared to the incidents of sex offences in the greater pool. But that doesn't mean that all Catholic clergy should be castigated, jailed or expelled from the country.
Sweden, the rising rape capital of Europe, with special thanks to Islamic immigrants. Rape is up over 1,000% since "multiculturalism" and Islamic immigration began. And neither the Swedish government or the Swedish media wants to report it.
And, once again, President Trump was portrayed as wrong by the media, but was actually right. And endeavoring not to turn the U.S. into another Sweden.
A National Review article on the truck attack in London last year, that details the history of the attacker, a criminal who was converted to radical islam in prison, moved to Saudi Arabia for further radicalization , and moved back to the U.K. to carry out his jihad mission.
Andrew McCarthy snaps into focus the larger context:
Quote:
There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system.
Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western.
and
Quote:
Like the conversion of Masood, the conversion of Birmingham [a city strangled in muslim no-go zones, essentially densely muslim-populated colonies within the larger city] has been a function of this defining Islamic attribute. Individual Muslims may assimilate, but Islam doesn’t do assimilation. Islam does not melt into your melting pot. Islam, as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna proclaimed, is content with nothing less than political, cultural, and civilizational dominance.
There is no such thing as "multi-culturalism". There is only the transition period during which one culture overtakes and replaces another. If it is permitted to do so.
At an August 12th "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, Nazi-sympathizer James Alex Fields Jr. allegedly drove his car into a group of counter-protesters and murdered Heather D. Heyer. In the aftermath, virtually all commentators condemned the attack and the ideology that inspired it. But then some partisan commentators began to argue that Antifa, a self-styled group of anti-fascist protesters who want to beat up Nazis, were also inciting violence at Charlottesville.
There are certainly plenty of Left Wing thugs and terrorists, but there have not been many attempts to compare them to other ideologically-inspired terrorists who have committed murder on American soil, until my recent Cato Institute blog on the subject.
Information on terrorist attacks and the terrorists themselves in the United States is available from the Global Terrorism Database, the RAND Corporation, and other sources. I further grouped the ideology of the attackers into four broad categories of Left Wingers, Nationalists and Right Wingers, Islamists, and Unknown/Others.
Terrorists murdered 3,342 people on U.S. soil from 1992 through August 12, 2017.
Islamist terrorists are responsible for 92% of all those murders. The 9/11 attacks, by themselves, killed about 89% of all the victims during this time. During this time, the chance of being murdered in a terrorist attack committed by an Islamist was about 1 in 2.5 million per year.
Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists are the second deadliest group by ideology, as they account for 6.6% of all terrorist murders during this time. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the second deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history, killed 168 people and accounted for 77% of all the murders committed by Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists. The chance of being murdered in a Nationalist or Right Wing terrorist attack was about 1 in 33 million per year.
Left Wing terrorists killed only 23 people in terrorist attacks during this time, about 0.7% of the total number of murders, but 13 since the beginning of 2016. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists have only killed five since then, including Charlottesville. Regardless, the annual chance of being murdered by a Left Wing terrorist was about 1 in 330 million per year.
Terrorists inspired by Nationalist and Right Wing ideology have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists since 1992. Terrorists with unknown or other motivations were the least deadly. Islamists swamped them all.
There is some ambiguity in counting terrorist attacks by ideology, but only with a minority of deaths. Islamists and unknown/other terrorists are easy to categorize. Left Wing terrorists included communists, socialists, animal rights activists, anti-white racists, LGBT extremists, attackers inspired by Black Lives Matter, and ethnic or national separatists who embrace Socialism. Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists include white nationalists, neo-Confederates, non-socialist secessionists, anti-communists, fascists, anti-Muslim attackers, anti-immigration extremists, sovereign citizens, bombers who targeted the IRS, militia movements, and abortion clinic bombers.
My terrorism research focuses on deaths committed by terrorists because that is the easiest and the least ambiguous metric to analyze the damage committed by terrorism. Attacks could be as minor as a pipe bomb left by a bulldozer that explodes at 2:30 a.m., or as deadly as the 9/11 attacks that killed 2,983 people and caused billions in property damage, so counting the number of attacks by ideology does not reveal much.
The risk of being killed in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil is small. The chance of being murdered in a non-terrorist homicide from 1992 through 2017 was about 1 in 17,000 a year, which is about 133 times as great as being killed by a terrorist. Islamist terrorists are the deadliest in U.S. history—and certainly since 1992. Islamism is an ideology created overseas, while much of the ideology that inspires Nationalist, Right Wing, and Left Wing terrorism is homegrown.
The number of people killed in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil is small, but some ideologies inspire more terrorism than others. Islamists have killed about 14 times as many people as Nationalist and Right Wing terrorists who, in turn, have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists. Keeping these numbers in perspective should help cut through the partisan spin after the Charlottesville terrorist attack.
__________________________
Alex Nowrasteh is an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute’s Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.
92% of all terrorism deaths in the U.S. from 1992 to 2016 are from Islamic terrorism. Gee, I'm shocked.
"Right wing" terrorism deaths are a distant second, due to the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (although I would argue that unlike Islamic terror, you'd be hard pressed to find any Right-wingers who endorse that bombing). Despite being a high body count, it was an isolated incident without a movement behind it.
Leftist killings actually have the highest count in the last two years. I would guess that stems from Black Lives Matter killing cops in the latter months of Obama's presidency. Interesting how that stopped right after Trump was elected.
The Las Vegas Stephen Paddock shooting took place a few months after this study, and could have skewed the findings. Pending further information, it would go in the "unknown/other" category. And it appears the casinos are obstructing investigation of the facts in that case.
I like that D'Souza doesn't just define what Islam is, he also describes what we are, as a nation, as a culture.
He addresses the narrative fronted by both western Leftists and Islamic radicals, that the U.S. is an "Empire" or imperialist. He clarifies that we share and help in partnership with other nations, we don't take and hold dominion over them. The Iraq war from 2003-2011 is an example. We didn't seize their oil assets, or even take a portion of them to recoup the cost of the war. The way China is developing in African and Latin American nations, conversely, is a form of empire. Only more of an economic empire. While their host states are developing nations, the Chinese are not helping or training locals, all the key positions are held by Chinese nationals brought in. And if China were to leave, the locals could not sustain what the Chinese have built.
The American (and European) way is free will. Islam is about submission. China is about submission.
Sexual violence perpetrated by ISIL includes using rape as a weapon of war;[716] instituting forced marriages to its fighters;[717] and trading women and girls as sex slaves.[718]
There are many reports of sexual abuse and enslavement in ISIL-controlled areas of women and girls, predominantly from the minority Christian and Yazidi communities.[719][720] Fighters are told that they are free to have sex with or rape non-Muslim captive women.[721] Haleh Esfandiari from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has highlighted the abuse of local women by ISIL militants after they have captured an area. "They usually take the older women to a makeshift slave market and try to sell them. The younger girls ... are raped or married off to fighters", she said, adding, "It's based on temporary marriages, and once these fighters have had sex with these young girls, they just pass them on to other fighters."[722]
The capture of Iraqi cities by the group in June 2014 was accompanied by an upsurge in crimes against women, including kidnap and rape.[723][724][725] According to Martin Williams in The Citizen, some hard-line Salafists apparently regard extramarital sex with multiple partners as a legitimate form of holy war and it is "difficult to reconcile this with a religion where some adherents insist that women must be covered from head to toe, with only a narrow slit for the eyes".[726]
As of August 2015, the trade in sex slaves appeared to remain restricted to Yazidi women and girls.[718] It has reportedly become a recruiting technique to attract men from conservative Muslim societies, where dating and casual sex are not allowed.[718] Nazand Begikhani said of the Yazidi victims, "These women have been treated like cattle ... They have been subjected to physical and sexual violence, including systematic rape and sex slavery. They've been exposed in markets in Mosul and in Raqqa, Syria, carrying price tags."[727] According to UN Reports the price list for IS sex slaves range from 40 to 160 US dollars. The younger the slave the more expensive. Girls and boys between the age 1–9 are referred to as the most expensive, with the cheapest being women between 40 and 50 years old.[728] According to another source the price of a slave equals the price of an AK-47.[729]
A United Nations report issued on 2 October 2014, based on 500 interviews with witnesses, said that ISIL took 450–500 women and girls to Iraq's Nineveh region in August, where "150 unmarried girls and women, predominantly from the Yazidi and Christian communities, were reportedly transported to Syria, either to be given to ISIL fighters as a reward or to be sold as sex slaves".[720] In mid-October, the UN confirmed that 5,000–7,000 Yazidi women and children had been abducted by ISIL and sold into slavery.[668][730] In November 2014 The New York Times reported on the accounts given by five who escaped ISIL of their captivity and abuse.[731] In December 2014, the Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights announced that ISIL had killed over 150 women and girls in Fallujah who refused to participate in sexual jihad.[732] Non-Muslim women have reportedly been married off to fighters against their will. ISIL claims the women provide the new converts and children necessary to spread ISIL's control.[733]
Shortly after the death of US hostage Kayla Mueller was confirmed on 10 February 2015,[734] several media outlets reported that the US intelligence community believed she may have been given as a wife to an ISIL fighter.[735][736][737] In August 2015 it was confirmed that she had been forced into marriage[738] to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who raped her repeatedly.[739][738][740] The Mueller family was informed by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had sexually abused Ms. Mueller, and that Ms. Mueller had also been tortured.[740] Abu Sayyaf's widow, Umm Sayyaf, confirmed that it was her husband who had been Mueller's primary abuser.[741]
In its digital magazine Dabiq, ISIL explicitly claimed religious justification for enslaving Yazidi women.[742][743][744] According to The Wall Street Journal, ISIL appeals to apocalyptic beliefs and claims "justification by a Hadith that they interpret as portraying the revival of slavery as a precursor to the end of the world".[745] ISIL appeals to the hadith and Quran when claiming the right to enslave and rape captive non-Muslim women.[742][746][747] According to Dabiq, "enslaving the families of the kuffar and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Sharia's that if one were to deny or mock, he would be denying or mocking the verses of the Quran and the narration of the Prophet ... and thereby apostatizing from Islam." Captured Yazidi women and children are divided among the fighters who captured them, with one-fifth taken as a tax.[747][748] ISIL has received widespread criticism from Muslim scholars and others in the Muslim world for using part of the Quran to derive a ruling in isolation, rather than considering the entire Quran and hadith.[742][746][747] According to Mona Siddiqui, ISIL's "narrative may well be wrapped up in the familiar language of jihad and 'fighting in the cause of Allah', but it amounts to little more than destruction of anything and anyone who doesn't agree with them"; she describes ISIL as reflecting a "lethal mix of violence and sexual power" and a "deeply flawed view of manhood".[733] Dabiq describes "this large-scale enslavement" of non-Muslims as "probably the first since the abandonment of Shariah law".[747][748]
In late 2014, ISIL released a pamphlet that focused on the treatment of female slaves.[749][750] It claims that the Quran allows fighters to have sex with captives, including adolescent girls, and to beat slaves as discipline. The pamphlet's guidelines also allow fighters to trade slaves, including for sex, as long as they have not been impregnated by their owners.[749][750][751] Charlie Winter, a researcher at the counter-extremist think tank Quilliam, described the pamphlet as "abhorrent".[751][752] In response to this document Abbas Barzegar, a religion professor at Georgia State University, said Muslims around the world find ISIL's "alien interpretation of Islam grotesque and abhorrent".[753] Muslim leaders and scholars from around the world have rejected the validity of ISIL's claims, claiming that the reintroduction of slavery is un-Islamic, that they are required to protect "People of the Scripture" including Christians, Jews, Muslims and Yazidis, and that ISIL's fatwas are invalid due to their lack of religious authority and the fatwas' inconsistency with Islam.[450][448]
The Independent reported in 2015 that the usage of Yazidi sex slaves had created ongoing friction among fighters within ISIL. Sajad Jiyad, a Research Fellow and Associate Member at the Iraqi Institute for Economic Reform, told the newspaper that many ISIL supporters and fighters had been in denial about the trafficking of kidnapped Yazidi women until a Dabiq article justifying the practice was published.[754][755] The New York Times said in August 2015 that "[t]he systematic rape of women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the organization and the radical theology of the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an institution."[718] The article claims that ISIL is not merely exonerating but sacralising rape, and illustrated this with the testimony of escapees. One 15-year-old victim said that, while she was being assaulted, her rapist "kept telling me this is ibadah"; a 12-year-old victim related how her assailant claimed that, "by raping me, he is drawing closer to God";[718] and one adult prisoner told how, when she challenged her captor about repeatedly raping a 12 year old, she was met with the retort, "No, she's not a little girl, she's a slave and she knows exactly how to have sex and having sex with her pleases God."[718]
In July 2016 it was reported by an AP investigation that ISIL was using mobile apps like Telegram to sell their sex slaves and identify the slaves of other ISIL members at checkpoints.[756] In 2016, the Commission for International Justice and Accountability said they had identified 34 senior ISIL members who were instrumental in the systematic sex slave trade and planned to prosecute them after the end of hostilities.[757]
Granted, ISIL is a bit more extreme than other forms of Islam. But their recruitment drive enticements, brutal treatment of women, rape, and slavery are rooted in islamic ideology of what is acceptable treatment of women as the spoils of war. "Firmly established by Sharia law and the Quran", in the "familiar language of jihad and 'fighting in the cause of Allah'". And they are widespread, way outside the realm of ISIS, in places such as Sudan and Nigeria.
And that's not even getting into the beheadings and other murders and atrocities cited outside of what I quoted. Disgusting and brutal are words that only begin to express the inhumanity that is standard practice for these people.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. sent home 21 Saudi military students following an investigation into the deadly shooting last month by one of their fellow trainees at the Pensacola Naval Air Station, an attack that Attorney General William Barr said was an act of terrorism driven by some of the same motivations of the Sept. 11 plot.
The trainees who were removed had jihadist or anti-American sentiments on social media pages or had “contact with child pornography,” including in internet chat rooms, officials said. None is accused of having had advance knowledge of the shooting or helped the 21-year-old gunman carry it out.
The Justice Department reviewed whether any of the trainees should face charges, but concluded that the conduct did not meet the standards for federal prosecution, Barr said.
The Dec. 6 shooting at the base in Pensacola in which Saudi Air Force officer Mohammed Alshamrani killed three U.S. sailors and injured eight other people focused public attention on the presence of foreign students in American military training programs and exposed flaws in the way cadets are screened. Monday’s resolution singled out misconduct by individual cadets but also preserves the training of pilots from Saudi Arabia, an important ally in the Middle East.
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave complete and total support for our counter-terrorism investigation, and ordered all Saudi trainees to fully cooperate,” Barr said. “This assistance was critical to helping the FBI determine whether anyone assisted the shooter in the attack.”
Barr said the kingdom has agreed to review the conduct of all 21 to see if they should face military discipline and send back anyone the U.S. later determines should face charges.
Law enforcement officials left no doubt that Alshamrani was motivated by jihadist ideology, saying he visited a New York City memorial to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend and posted anti-American and anti-Israeli messages on social media just two hours before the shooting. Last Sept. 11, Barr said, Alshamrani posted a message that said “the countdown has started.”
Officials had earlier said that Alshamrani hosted a party before the shooting, where he and others watched videos of mass shootings. The gunman had also traveled back and forth between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. and had taken to Twitter before the shooting to criticize U.S. support of Israel and accuse America of being anti-Muslim.
On the morning of Dec. 6, the gunman walked into a building on the grounds of the Navy base and shot his victims “in cold blood” as Marines who heard the gunfire from outside yanked a fire extinguisher off the wall and rushed to confront him.
The gunman shot at a photo of President Donald Trump and another former U.S. president and witnesses reported he was making statements “critical of American military actions overseas” during the attack, FBI Deputy Director David Bowdich said.
Alshamrani, who was killed by a sheriff’s deputy during the rampage at a classroom building, was undergoing flight training at Pensacola, where foreign military members routinely receive instruction.
The December shooting raised questions about how well international military students are screened before they attend training at American bases. Some lawmakers, including a top Republican ally of Trump, have called for Saudi Arabia to be suspended from the American military training program.
Trump called for the program to be reviewed. But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the program needed to be reevaluated after the attack.
National security adviser Robert O’Brien said in an interview on Fox News that the shooting “showed that there had been errors in the way that we vetted” the students. The actions being taken by the Justice Department and Defense Department to remove the Saudi students are to “protect our service men and women,” he said.
Twelve of the trainees who were removed were assigned to the base in Pensacola and nine others were assigned to Air Force bases in the U.S., including in Mississippi, Texas and Oklahoma, a senior Justice Department official said. The trainees were all removed from the U.S. on a Saudi government aircraft on Monday, the official said.
Of the 21 sent home, 17 had social media containing jihadi or anti-American content, though there was no indication that anyone was affiliated with a particular group. Fifteen had some kind of contact with child pornography. One of the trainees had possessed over 100 images of child pornography and had searched for the material but the U.S. attorney’s office determined there wasn’t enough evidence to warrant federal prosecution.
In a statement, the Saudi embassy called the shooter a “disturbed and radicalized” individual who acted alone and who does not represent the values of Saudi Arabia or the hundreds of thousands of Saudis who have lived and studied in the U.S. over the decades. It said it had fully cooperated with the U.S. investigation and would continue to do so.
“It is worth noting that the military training that the US provides to Saudi military personnel has enabled Saudi soldiers, pilots and sailors to fight along their American counterparts and against our common foes,” the statement said.
Federal officials are still investigating the shooting and examining evidence. Last week, the FBI asked Apple to help extract data from two iPhones that belonged to the gunman, including one that authorities say Alshamrani damaged with a bullet.
Investigators have been trying to access the two devices — an iPhone 7 and an iPhone 5 — but have been unable to access them because the phones are locked and encrypted, according to a letter from the FBI’s general counsel, Dana Boente. The FBI has received a court authorization to search the phones and the devices have been sent to the bureau’s lab in Quantico, Virginia, he said.
The investigation is considered a “high-priority national security matter,” Boente said in the letter.
FBI officials have sought help from other federal agencies and other experts, and investigators have been trying to guess the passwords, but those efforts have been unsuccessful, according to the letter.
Apple said in a statement that it has already provided investigators with all the relevant data held by the company and would continue to support the investigators.
While Apple and the FBI have been in discussions over the last week, Apple has not yet told the Justice Department whether the company has the capability of accessing the phones, another senior Justice Department official said. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.
So... we're training pilots for the Saudis, they're guests in our country, and they still hate us, and view Jihadist/anti-American websites. And child porn.
And we station troops in their countries to protect them, and bring them here to train them... why, exactly?
I like the redneck phrase "Kill 'em all, and let God sort it out." There was a time when we needed the middle east, now we're oil independent and a net exporter of oil for the first time in 70 years. So it's time to pull out.
And if Iran or any other mideast nations pursue nukes that could endanger us, we could just do air strikes and targeted raids to eliminate that threat, without keeping a major presence in muslim nations. As Lt. Col. Douglas MacGregor said, "They've been killing each other for 1,000 years, so we should just get out of their way and let them kill each other."
Wow.
), they're not robbing banks. They have motives beyond just being evil.
You don't think distributing free spirits (npi) to all the nations of the world will solve our problems?
