|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,011 Likes: 31 |
Karl Hungus said: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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
People who kill homosexuals are also "very consistent" with the Bible. I mean, they quote it and all. It must be an evil book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
The Bible was written by men,not by GOD. I find it amusing that men actually believe that they know what GOD is thinking.
Only GOD can speak for GOD, not humans. Humans can only speculate what GOD thinks.
It's amazing how so many people think they know exactly what GOD wants them to do, and that their religion is the one true religion.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
The Bible was written by men,not by GOD. I find it amusing that men actually believe that they know what GOD is thinking.
Only GOD can speak for GOD, not humans. Humans can only speculate what GOD thinks.
It's amazing how so many people think they know exactly what GOD wants them to do, and that their religion is the one true religion.
Odin is the one true god. How else did the Vikings win all those battles for so long?
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
Quote:
Karl Hungus said:
Quote:
Beardguy57 said:
The Bible was written by men,not by GOD. I find it amusing that men actually believe that they know what GOD is thinking.
Only GOD can speak for GOD, not humans. Humans can only speculate what GOD thinks.
It's amazing how so many people think they know exactly what GOD wants them to do, and that their religion is the one true religion.
Odin is the one true god. How else did the Vikings win all those battles for so long?
Mushrooms
 Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
|
|
The conscience of the rkmbs! 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833 Likes: 7 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
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?
Gonna go see 300. More later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
Quote:
Pariah said:
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.
My, someone's cheerful today.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
My Uncle's name is Socrates. So was my Great Grandfather's. That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Pittsburgh Islamic Leader: Author Should Be Killed: 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.” Fucking reporters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
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.
I hate to repeat myself.. but....
Muslims need to lighten the fuck up!
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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."
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 497
400+ posts
|
|
400+ posts
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 497 |
I believe I saw Ayaan Hirsi Ali interviewed on the Colbert Report. Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
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.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=4373448/ 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.
Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
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.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Actually, Ray, while the earlier part of my post was directed more at you, the reference to "religion of peace"TM was not, per se. Read it again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
Y'know, G - Man, that is totally fucking sad. 
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Seems to me it would do the world some good if Disney took these Muslim assholes to court to vindicate its intellectual property rights.
Unfortunately, Walt is still frozen and the company's being run by a bunch of liberal pussies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
I just heard on the news that the show has been pulled because they cannot preach politics at kids.
No word from Disney yet.
I expect they would be afraid of Muslims going to Disneyland and blowing stuff and people up.
Which is a valid concern in this day and age.
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Yeah, as if radical Muslims are waiting for an excuse to attack a major American theme park. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Hamas 'Mickey Mouse' Rip-Off Back On AirA 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Poll: 1 in 4 U.S. Young Muslims OK With Homicide Bombings Against CiviliansOne 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15 |
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!
Praise Allah!
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
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."
...
SR.com
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
|
|
I walk in eternity 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 19,633 |
And that means there's a large number of Muslims in the US itself that support Suicide Bombings.
Wonder how supportive they'd be if it was loved ones and friends who were killed in those bombings?
Or have they so little respect for life that they would shrug and say, " My parents died for the glory of Allah!"
???
"I offer you a Vulcan prayer, Mr Suder. May your death bring you the peace you never found in life." - Tuvok.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
OP
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I somehow doubt that MEM would be so optimistic if, for example, the poll had found that 1 in 4 Christians supported murdering homosexuals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,796 Likes: 40 |
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.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
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."
...
SR.com
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
PJP said:
....................to sin by silence makes a coward out of man.
ah, but other men's sins are before our eyes; our own are behind our backs.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
fear does not exist in this dojo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
If karate used defend honor, defend life, karate mean something. If karate used defend plastic metal trophy, karate no mean nothing.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
