Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The Century War - War with Islam?

   
Author Topic: The Century War - War with Islam?
David G
Member
Member # 8872

 - posted      Profile for David G   Email David G         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a blog recently written by writer Dan Simmons. I found it interesting, provocative, disturbing, and well written, and I don't yet know what to make of it. Dan Simmons often writes with irony and hidden meaning. But I thought I would run it by all of you smart and opinionated Hatrackers to see what you think.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting read.

I think it assumes too much though. It assumes that even should our military fail to do whatever it is that it's trying to do now in the Middle East, that when the Islamic crazies come to invade America, that we'll simply lie down and let them have it, or that the Europeans will simply lie down and let them have it. But they won't. Given the correct set of circumstances, Americans and Europeans can be just as brutal as Islamic terrorists can be. We've proved it before, we could prove it again. And once we realized it was a war for survival, the issue of morality and playing fair would fall under the weight of a people facing mortality.

Like I said, that story assumes way too much. Besides, Athens later cracked Sparta open with the help of her allies, freed her helot slaves, and eternally broke Sparta's military advantage. Syracuse was later swallowed by military giants from their north and south using them as a pawn in their bid to control Sicily, and then the Med.

What is the rest of the world doing during all this time? What is going on in Africa? How could Canada possibly split into three nations? Two I could see, barely, but three? Too much of the story doesn't make any sense, even though it attempts to make a prophetic freaky sort of perfect sense. I think it falls short. All in all it's basically a call to war, TOTAL war. He's saying that if we want to win the coming conflict, first of all we'd better wake and realize there IS a coming conflict, and then we'd better do them Greek style, kill all the men taller than the length of a sword, and sell the women and children into slavery. Basically wipe them from existance.

It's an extreme position to take, though it certainly was effective for the Greeks....

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I dunno - the Romans did rather better, and they only did the kill-rape-burn thing to selected cities that had annoyed them, pour encourage les autrex. I think selective terror is much better than wholesale - desperate men who have nothing to lose are extremely dangerous.
Posts: 10593 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, I've gone to reply to this twice and both times I've deleted it.

To sum up... I liked the story. I agreed with the premise.

Lyr, I don't think we'll be angry enough to fight back till it's too late. Europe is already the scene of mass immigration. In case you're forgetting that's how we conquered this country from the natives. And how we took Tejas from the Mexicans.

We had 3000 people in a single day and all we've done is install democracy (sort of) in two terror supporting countries.

Before too long they'll have nukes and we'll have a quarter of the world's population with the means to rain nuclear fire down upon us with the religious furvor to do it.

No nation lasts forever... and they usually fall once they start to think that they WILL last forever.

Pix

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David G.: Are you suggesting maybe that there's the opposite message in this story than there seems to be?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David G
Member
Member # 8872

 - posted      Profile for David G   Email David G         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Teshi, possibly - I don't know. Dan Simmons rarely espouses his personal political opinions on his website. And he intentionally tries to create ambiguity in his work. So when I first read this story, I was somewhat surprised that it appeared so unambiguous (and so political). Of course, the story may be (and perhaps probably is) exactly what it appears to be on its surface. But then if there is some hidden message or meaning, I would expect a Hatracker to find it.

And do you have any thoughts on what the Time Traveler's three last words were?

Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David G:
And do you have any thoughts on what the Time Traveler's three last words were?

David, you might want to look over on Simmons' own forums - there's some speculation there as to the three words. Some people also point out that the post could possibly be related to the date the message came out - though I don't know for certain if it was on the 1st of April [Smile]

[Edited to add the following]
In fact, the last three words could be "Happy April Fools!" or "It's April Fools!" though technically the latter is four words [Razz]

[ April 04, 2006, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Fahim ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
interesting, but extremely unlikely. Since the only concievable way I could think it would happen is a combination of the EU imploding under immigration and the Unity of a Islamic Caliphate fighting a modern way vs the west.

I find the first extremely more likely then the second and even then if Islam united to wage a world war they'ld find every other nation fighting them in the collective best interest of world peace.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like Fahim said...
From DanSimmon's "April 2006 Message",
"Being a sometimes science-fiction writer but not a fool..."
"My finger hovered over the final "1"..."
"I kept my finger poised over the final "1"..."
"Did you fools learning nothing..."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Plato was too stupid to understand Socrates rhetorical question, but does 'democracy' really describe a society in which a very small number of voters is supported by a very large number of slaves?
Can ya guess why Athens voted to execute Socrates?

When 100% of "males taller than a sword" were slaughtered on Melos with 100% of the survivors sold as slaves, can ya guess why the rest of Greece decided to gang up on Athens and its allies upon Athens' attempt to continue that behaviour with the attack on Syracuse?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

100thousand dead in the Tokyo firebombing.

"25to35"thousand dead in the Dresden firebombing: which is an interesting figure in that
24,866 houses were destroyed out of 28,410
75,000 apartments were totally destroyed, 11,000 severely damaged, 7,000 damaged, and 81,000 slightly damaged out of 220,000
Fewer people were killed than the number of homes destroyed? In a city jam-packed with refugees from the RussianFront?

70to80thousand killed in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, with another 10thousand by radiation poisoning by the end of the year. Best estimate of total deaths directly attributable to the bombing is somewhere over 90thousand.

40thousand instantly killed in the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, with as many as another 40thousand killed by radiation poisoning.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Then there are the WWII Pacific island battles...

Iwo Jima: 20,000* Japanese deaths vs 6,821 US deaths : minimum* kill ratio of 3to1
1,083 Japanese PrisonersOfWar : minimum* death rate of 95% amongst Japanese soldiers.

Okinawa: 107,000+ Japanese/Okinawan soldiers dead vs ~12,000 US soldiers dead/missing : minimum kill ratio 9to1
"According to US Army records during the planning phase of the operation, the assumption was that Okinawa was home to about 300,000 civilians. At the conclusion of hostilities around 196,000 civilians remained."

Etc ad nauseum

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

During the Battle of Britain, Churchill had planned to use poison gas should the Nazis have invaded. The stockpiles were in place.
In London, a shipment of poison gas and munitions sank in the Thames after an accidental collision. It's still there because disposal experts have decided that removal is too hazardous.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Americans/democracies are too ?nice? to win a war with authoritarian regimes?
America still has 6thousand active nuclear warheads, and another 20+thousand dismantled but relatively easy to reassemble.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* The weird thing about those numbers is that ~20,000 dead plus 1,083 POWs is ~6,000 short of the ~27,000 Japanese said to have been stationed on IwoJima prior to the battle.

[ April 04, 2006, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, Pix, but this was a demagoguic and... well, obnoxious article. Good lord. If the principle thrust of your argument is essentially straw men arguing against invented battles, something's deeply flawed with your beliefs.

We know tribal Islam's existed for some time now. We know the Middle East, not without our help, is renewing demonization of the West. And we know just how savage and ignorant fundamentalist Islam is. Nothing's particularly new about that, nor has it been for at least half a century.

Now, if you want to read an article I read about a month ago about the advent of terrorism thanks to the increasingly simple manufacture of homemade bombs, then begin discussion of the dangers of fundamentalism, we can talk. If you want to discuss the growing Muslim presence in Europe, and its increasing influence in European politics and riots, we can talk. But this article is masturbatory garbage. Worse, it's masturbatory garbage which congratulates itself on its cleverness in inaccurately presenting and "shredding" (with fictional future events) arguments against total destruction of Muslims.

Ugh. If I wanted to read paranoid fantasy about an ignorant understanding of global politics, I'd hit up Tom Clancy. He at least includes action scenes.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Like Fahim said...
From DanSimmon's "April 2006 Message",
"Being a sometimes science-fiction writer but not a fool..."
"My finger hovered over the final "1"..."
"I kept my finger poised over the final "1"..."
"Did you fools learning nothing..."

And like David G said, "Dan Simmons often writes with irony and hidden meaning."

[ April 04, 2006, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I must say that the analogy of the war on aviation as a comparison to the war on terror, both were only methods so thus we should attack the source not the method.

However the difference is that the Japanese were clearly the source and there was no denying that it was Japanese planes (well... they were a canadian design...) that bombed Pearl.

HOWEVER, after I thought about it a little the analogy doesnt quite work because while it is true Terror is only a method, terrorism has existed since... forever.

The point however the source is not Islam itself or the worshippers we attribute to Islam, there is no concerted attempted by the entire Muslim world and culture to take over the world and impose Sheria unto the western world and make Dhimmi's of us. No more then Christianity today doing the same.

After all Iran and Iraq are BOTH Islams yet they warred during the 70's.

So in a manner of speaking as we think about it the War on Terror cannot become a war on Islam, infact the war on terror is fundamentally correct with we make the method AND the source the same, the Taliban was the source, Al que eda is the method, thus it is correct to invade Afghanistan to depose the Taliban and cripple the Terrorists who do the dirty work.

The difficulty is that the US gov't is too stupid to understand the work, I haven't read all that much documentation on the matter but what I indeed did hear is that Afhghanistan isn't all to much successful as a democracy atm, maybe it well maybe it won't, same with iraq. If from the very beginning we were prepared with International support to prepare fully functioning democratic governments and full domestic support for their establishment with no hidden agenda or strings attached to economic recovery then I have no doubt that the US would've been successful and the WOT would be over within a decade.

But Iraq if the US withdraws could easily become a dismal failure undoing everything and Afghanistan has its own issues and instabilities.

So in a way attacking the source is correct, but identifying the source is much harder to do.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
If from the very beginning we were prepared with International support to prepare fully functioning democratic governments and full domestic support for their establishment with no hidden agenda or strings attached to economic recovery then I have no doubt that the US would've been successful and the WOT would be over within a decade.

Can you actually *instil* democracy in a nation by force? Can you create a government of the people, by the people, for the people, by force if the people themselves are too apathetic to make a decision or are not willing to have the decision thrust upon them? [Smile] Not arguing the current situation in Iraq or Afghanistan here. Just a philosophical question for debate [Smile]
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
According to Blayne, you can if you aren't stupid, and use an international force to support it.
Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
foundling
Member
Member # 6348

 - posted      Profile for foundling   Email foundling         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think Fahims point was that it wouldnt actually be a Democracy if it was instilled by force. The whole shoving it down peoples throats thing kind of takes away from the idea of democracy. And I agree with him.
That said, I think that a stable government can be established if you arent stupid about it, have an international force to back it up, and stop trying to pretend that it's actually democracy you are trying to establish.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It *can* in theory if you make ridiculasly few mistakes, after all the ukrainians welcomes the Germans with open arms at first...

The way to do it is precision bombing that doesn't effect the lives of the oppressed citizens and you set up a democracy with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. No reparations.

Also if you make every effort to win hearts and minds helps too and not give contracts to pet buisnesses.

But prevention is better then cure, if saddam wasnt a cia asset and its govt wasnt overthrown by the CIA i dont think we would be in this mess.

You are not forcing it on them if the people want to change, there's no point in overturning the ant hill if the ants want to be left alone.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Precision bombing and winning the hearts and minds is your key to peaceful regime change and the formation of a democratic society? That's nuts.

Democracy CAN be instilled with force, so long as it is desired by the people, or they are at least receptive to the idea. AND, assuming that their democracy results in a government and system of law that we can agree with. Every time we invade a country with the aim of turning them into a democracy, it makes freedom look like a suicide pact.

How are you going to drop JDAMS in a way that really changes things in the target country? Israel has been lobbing missiles into Palestine and a less sophisticated attempt from the other side into Israel has been underway for 50 years, and neither side is budging. What do you propose hitting in Iraq? Saddam, Uday, Qusay, they all evaporated when they knew the war was on, and finding them would have been hard anyway.

Besides, what you're proposing is impossible. Setting up a democracy with no strings attached? How do you ensure there even IS a democracy without strings attached? One side can democratically choose to disenfranchise another. Or they can democratically choose to make laws like say, executing someone who decides to convery away from Islam to Christianity.

I'd love to hear how you'd create a democracy under the guidelines you've put forth Blayne. Walk us through YOUR Iraq plan.

[ April 04, 2006, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay if you aim to invade a country and not make everyone hate you dont bomb the power plants and other essential infastructure considering it doesnt have any effect whatsoever on the enemies military if theyre creative enough.

I mean no string attached as in not forcing them to humiliating peace treaties or reparations, your the one that invaded them not the other way around.

I am saying that one cant simply use democracy creation as an excuse it has to be the full plan, the end goal not the means to reach a goal. You couldnt waltz into say Russia and enforce western values just because they're gov't is becoming more autocratic, the people have to want freedom for you to be a liberator. Enforcing freedom when they dont want it is pointless and THAT is when it becomes a colony not a liberated comrade in arms.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David G:
This is a blog recently written by writer Dan Simmons. I found it interesting, provocative, disturbing, and well written, and I don't yet know what to make of it. Dan Simmons often writes with irony and hidden meaning. But I thought I would run it by all of you smart and opinionated Hatrackers to see what you think.

Nothing new to me. Hopefully some people will pay attention to him.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The way the world is currently structured, the Islamic countries are pretty much unable to project power. Without this, conquest is beyond their reach. Were they to field a coordinated army that could conquer and hold places, it'd be quickly crushed.

The best they can do is break stuff and kill people from time to time or deny us the oil we need. But, this is necessarily limited. The trying to be a nice guy response to Islamic aggression right now is predicated on the idea that there's a small number of Muslims who are hiding in the much larger population. If there materializes a large Muslim cooperative aimed towards conquest or even just large scale mayhem, the rules of the game will change considerably.

For that matter, if there are major devestating attacks such as with a nuclear bomb, the response to 9/11 will look like a letter to the editor. A large part of the rest of the world will tear apart the Muslim countries looking for those responsible and take steps (heavy-handed, potentially genocidal steps) to make sure the same doesn't happen again.

In terms of power, the aggressive Muslims are like a 12 year old boy trying to fight a fully grown man. It's basically the restraint of the adult that's letting them get away with the little sniping attacks and such. If that restraint runs out, a lot of nasty, brutal things are going to happen, many to people who really don't deserve it.

I really, really hope it doesn't come to that, but, if it does, I'll push the button (or whatever) myself.

Posts: 10134 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
interesting analogy they are kinda like 12 year olds, quibbling amongst themselves. over stuff...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Teshi
Member
Member # 5024

 - posted      Profile for Teshi   Email Teshi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although I was (and still am), highly skeptical of this story's validity as a possible occurance, I thought I would quote this story.

quote:
The "Long War" is the name Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time against terrorism.

Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.

It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years.

Charming.

Either the U.S. government percieves the same threat as Dan Simmons, or the army is mighty trigger-happy.

My only concern would be that it's possible that when the U.S. emerges from the other side of a war like this it may be a phyrric victory for the country, allowing somewhere less involved to take the helm, as it were.

Sorry to open the debate again, but I think we're talking on different grounds than we were when Dan Simmons wrote his story.

Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't know, from my perspective this is a semi-good thing. This is a "war" that needs fighting. Military advancement has laid out a course of allowing less and less people kill more and more. We're quickly reaching (and for some tactics already reached) a place where very few people can kill a whole heap of other people with not all that much in the way of resources.

If we're not going to use offensive strategies to counter international terrorism, we'll be stuck with defensive ones, and they're not going to hack it right now. It's becoming very dangerous to allow those who train and finance terrorists and those who plan and carry out terrorist attacks to have any room to work in.

The main thing that worries me about stuff like what you posted is that it seems we're gearing up mostly on the military/direct use of force side when a full strategy is going to incorporate more than that. But I'm not terribly put out that we're gearing up to fight a "war" against terrorism. I'd be upset if we weren't.

Posts: 10134 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anybody have any idea what actually happened to Dan Simmons' April message? His news section seems to have been going through a gradual process of atrophy. Originally, his messages and some other stuff was missing but the news folder did have some content in there. Today, all you get is the empty news folder. I'm curious as to what is going on since unless Dan Simmons (or his web master) does not monitor their server at all, they should by now know that something is going on ... [Smile]
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Nothing new to me. Hopefully some people will pay attention to him.

I'd originally re-opened this thread because Dan's own message is missing but I'm intrigued by this post ... I take it that you are the writer starLisa? (Just want to verify since I don't want to attribute somebody else's words to you [Razz] ) So you believe that Dan Simmons is right and that the solution is to annihilate all Muslims? (I do have a few questions about the linked article but since I don't know for sure that you are the writer, I will reserve those till I know for sure ...)

[Edit - added disclaimer]
I don't know what Dan Simmons' intent was in writing the article in question and I can't of course know what he intended. However, the story itself seems to advocate the annihilation of Muslims if the world is not to be brought under Muslim rule. (Didn't want the above to sound as if I believed for certain that that is the message Dan actually intended ...)

Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Nothing new to me. Hopefully some people will pay attention to him.

I'd originally re-opened this thread because Dan's own message is missing but I'm intrigued by this post ... I take it that you are the writer starLisa? (Just want to verify since I don't want to attribute somebody else's words to you [Razz] ) So you believe that Dan Simmons is right and that the solution is to annihilate all Muslims?
That's two questions. My answers are yes, and no, in that order.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
That's two questions. My answers are yes, and no, in that order.

OK, then let's take the "no" first. If you don't believe that all Muslims should be annihilated (and that's what Dan's message seems to say with his skewed take on Athenian history), I'm curious, what exactly did you mean when you said "Hopefully some people will pay attention to him."? Is it that you hope that only a few people will pay attention to him? Or that people would pay attention to his warning but not the implied solution? [Smile]

As for the "yes", now I do have a few more questions. You indicate that "peace" in Islam means submission but then you appear to put your own spin upon things by saying that this "submission" means submission of all other people to Muslims. The submission of the weak to the strong. Have you considered the fact that in a religious sense that this makes no sense at all? [Smile] The submission in this instance is to the will of God. Why would a religion be about other people submitting to you? How does that lead to any sort of higher purpose?

Then there is the whole thing about how Jewish people will never surrender and how the Arabs have to be utterly beaten before they would accept surrender - at least, that's how I read the article. This seems to be stereotyping two entire races and saying this is how each and every member of this race will act. I don't agree with the logic or the stereotyping but since it is subjective views, I guess we can't debate that one [Razz]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
That's two questions. My answers are yes, and no, in that order.

OK, then let's take the "no" first. If you don't believe that all Muslims should be annihilated (and that's what Dan's message seems to say with his skewed take on Athenian history), I'm curious, what exactly did you mean when you said "Hopefully some people will pay attention to him."? Is it that you hope that only a few people will pay attention to him? Or that people would pay attention to his warning but not the implied solution? [Smile]
Fahim, I have a problem taking your inferences as a given. Do you get that what you infer from his piece may not be what I infer from it? That it may not be what he intended at all?

When you refer to "the implied solution", you speak of something that you've come up with. Not something that he has or that I have.

However... just to make things a little more clear, if Europe were to some day be taken over by radical, death-cultist, jihadist Islam, as it did in his story, and as a great many Muslims intend that it should, I might very well change my mind. At a point like that, I might indeed see total war as the only viable option.

See, the fact that a US congresswoman is a vicious Jew hater doesn't make me want to bomb Congress. The fact that there are Nazi, white supremecist skin heads out there don't make me want to go out and kill them. Well, okay, that's not really true. I want to, but I wouldn't. I wouldn't, for example, go and kill the two little girls known as Prussian Blue, even though I think the world would be a much better place with them rotting in a hole in the ground.

Similarly, while I would happily bomb Syria (for instance) back into the stone age, were it not for the fact that doing so would actually be progress for them, and while I believe the correct solution to the Palestinian problem is to kick every single one of them out of the Land of Israel, and bar them from ever returning on pain of death, I would not advocate killing Muslims who belong to jihadist mosques (some of which exist here in Chicago), and I certainly wouldn't advocate killing Muslims generally.

I would, however, advocate keeping a very close eye on them, and prosecuting them for any involvement in the mass murder activities which seem to be, to them, what baseball is to Americans.

I would make it very clear to them that the only reason they don't have crosshairs on them right now is that they have not yet succeeded enough in their goals, and that if they ever do become too much of a danger, that can change -- quickly.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
As for the "yes", now I do have a few more questions. You indicate that "peace" in Islam means submission but then you appear to put your own spin upon things by saying that this "submission" means submission of all other people to Muslims.

I don't think that's a spin at all. I think it's well borne out by the history of Islam, and by its current manifestations.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
The submission of the weak to the strong. Have you considered the fact that in a religious sense that this makes no sense at all? [Smile]

No, Fahim, I don't consider that very much. Because making sense isn't at the core of Islam.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
The submission in this instance is to the will of God. Why would a religion be about other people submitting to you?

I'll assume that you're asking this honestly, and not being disingenuous. If a religion has as a core belief that they are intended--required--to rule the world in the name of their God, then submission to that religion is submission to the will of God. In the eyes of members of that religion, at any rate. You know what Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb are, Fahim. I know you do. So why are you asking this? Is it because you think I don't? After reading that article, you can't possibly think that.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
How does that lead to any sort of higher purpose?

Well, I guess it all depends on what you view as a higher purpose, then, doesn't it, Fahim?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Then there is the whole thing about how Jewish people will never surrender and how the Arabs have to be utterly beaten before they would accept surrender - at least, that's how I read the article. This seems to be stereotyping two entire races

Races? There've been Jews who've converted to Islam, and Muslims who've converted to Judaism. Talk of "races" is an attempt to introduce an emotional bias into the discussion, Fahim. Race, by its nature, does not change. Cultures do. Can. And stereotypes often have a solid basis. It's false stereotypes that are bad; not stereotypes as such.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
and saying this is how each and every member of this race will act. I don't agree with the logic or the stereotyping but since it is subjective views, I guess we can't debate that one [Razz]

Guess not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
which congresswoman is anti semetic I wasnt aware there was one.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cynthia McKinney
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swampjedi
Member
Member # 7374

 - posted      Profile for Swampjedi   Email Swampjedi         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, it's a source of constant shame that she's from Georgia. You think she's bad, though - her father is much more virulent.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Fahim, I have a problem taking your inferences as a given. Do you get that what you infer from his piece may not be what I infer from it? That it may not be what he intended at all?

When you refer to "the implied solution", you speak of something that you've come up with. Not something that he has or that I have.

I do understand that total annihilation might not be what Dan Simmons intended. I believe I said as much in my disclaimer above *smile* (I like emoticons but apparently I ran over my quota in this post. So I'm going to use a few non-standard ones in this post ...) I have no idea what Dan intended. I'm not even sure that he was serious about his article since for all I know, it could have been an April Fool's Joke, a bit of promotion for a new book or even a satire along the lines of Swift's "A Modest Proposal". However, you did not indicate what your inferences were in the original post you made. You simply said that you hope that people listen to him. So given that there was no clarification, I can only conclude that you meant the general conclusion that most people would draw based on the article. And no, the general conclusion is not an inference on my part [Razz] I have read Dan's forums, I have read other sites which discuss the message and at least 90% (if not more) think that this was a direct call to war against Islam in a grand scale.

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
However... just to make things a little more clear, if Europe were to some day be taken over by radical, death-cultist, jihadist Islam, as it did in his story, and as a great many Muslims intend that it should, I might very well change my mind.
At a point like that, I might indeed see total war as the only viable option.

I like how you make your own inferences about what a great many Muslims intend and state it as fact [Razz] If a great many Muslims intended what you say, given how many Muslims there are in the world, there would be a lot more violence than there is already. Don't mistake the actions of the few as proof of what the totality (or a great many) wants.

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:

I would, however, advocate keeping a very close eye on them, and prosecuting them for any involvement in the mass murder activities which seem to be, to them, what baseball is to Americans.

I believe your prejudices are showing here a bit [Razz] Why keep an eye on just the "Muslims"? Hasn't the whole human race involved in mass murder activities as you call it at one time or another? Aren't there serial killers everywhere who think murder is a sport? So why this special eye on "Muslims"?

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
As for the "yes", now I do have a few more questions. You indicate that "peace" in Islam means submission but then you appear to put your own spin upon things by saying that this "submission" means submission of all other people to Muslims.

I don't think that's a spin at all. I think it's well borne out by the history of Islam, and by its current manifestations.

I believe you are falling into a very common trap here <g> You equate the actions of the misguided with the religion. There have been other time periods and other people who have done heinous deeds in the name of their religion. Does that make the religion (or their God) the instigator of these actions or the prejudices, bigotry and hatred that is within all of us the actual cause of these actions? You do put a spin there, I'm sorry. The intent of Islam is that man submits to the will of God. You made your own interpretation there to suit your argument *smile*


quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
The submission of the weak to the strong. Have you considered the fact that in a religious sense that this makes no sense at all? [Smile]

No, Fahim, I don't consider that very much. Because making sense isn't at the core of Islam.

Making sense isn't part of human nature you mean? Again, you take the actions of some and impose your biases and views on a religion. It sounds nice if you're rabble rousing but I'm afraid you'll have to back that up with facts (pertaining to the religion - not actions of individuals) if the claim is to actually stand up [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
The submission in this instance is to the will of God. Why would a religion be about other people submitting to you?

I'll assume that you're asking this honestly, and not being disingenuous. If a religion has as a core belief that they are intended--required--to rule the world in the name of their God, then submission to that religion is submission to the will of God. In the eyes of members of that religion, at any rate. You know what Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb are, Fahim. I know you do. So why are you asking this? Is it because you think I don't? After reading that article, you can't possibly think that.

First, I was asking the question honestly. To me Islam is about submission to the will of God. Islam clearly states that others should be left to follow their own path and so I see no reason why I should impose my religious views on others. I submit to God and my covenant, if you will, is with God. It has nothing to do with what others believe or don't believe. Religion at its heart is about faith and belief. If somebody does not have that faith, you cannot instil it in them by means of war or force or torture. It has to be there on its own - or not. So I see no logical reason in trying to force somebody else to believe in what you believe.

In fact, I sometimes think even debate about what Islam means with people who are convinced that it is a thing of evil is pointless since most people would not be convinced anyway - they've already made up their minds <g> However, I still engage in debate because if I do stay silent, there are those who know nothing of either side of the case will assume that those who speak are the ones who are in the right and the silent masses are silent because they have no answer *smile*

Secondly, I had no idea what Dar el Islam or Dar el Harb are before you mentioned them [Smile] So I certainly couldn't be thinking that you didn't know of them. I did a Google search and what I notice, at least on the first couple of pages of hits, is that the references are all by non-Muslim sites and scholars. Is this a deep dark secret if Islam that Muslims do not talk about? <g> Excuse the sarcasm but it does sound like another one of those "us" vs. "them" paranoiac arguments that people come up with just so that you have somebody to hate and to fear. I am a Muslim, I've been brought up as a Muslim all my life but I can honestly say that I didn't even know of these terms till you just brought them up. Sure, Dan Simmons' message might have contained them (I am too lazy to go look it up now [Razz] ) but I still had no idea what they meant till now.

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
How does that lead to any sort of higher purpose?

Well, I guess it all depends on what you view as a higher purpose, then, doesn't it, Fahim?

I guess it indeed does, Lisa *smile* I personally think that all the bickering between Muslims, Christians and Jews should stop since we all obviously believe in the same God. I believe that no religion teaches you to do anything bad. I also believe that people tend to take anything pure and good and subvert it to their own needs. Sometimes they do this insidiously and sometimes they do this outright. But that is not the fault of any of the religions. It's the people. So what do you believe, Lisa? *smile*

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Then there is the whole thing about how Jewish people will never surrender and how the Arabs have to be utterly beaten before they would accept surrender - at least, that's how I read the article. This seems to be stereotyping two entire races

Races? There've been Jews who've converted to Islam, and Muslims who've converted to Judaism. Talk of "races" is an attempt to introduce an emotional bias into the discussion, Fahim. Race, by its nature, does not change. Cultures do. Can. And stereotypes often have a solid basis. It's false stereotypes that are bad; not stereotypes as such.

I believe I was talking about your article which talked of Arabs and Jews - two specific races rather than Muslims and believers in Judaism [Smile] (Just to side-track, is there a single word for believers in Judaism?) So unless you rewrite your article, I believe the the emotional bias is on your part. I was simply commenting on it *smile* And I beg to differ on only false stereotypes being bad. Stereotypes rob an individual of his/her individuality. I'm such and such, so I *must* be so and so? Do you honestly think that is right? And who decides that the stereotyping is false or not? The ones who use the stereotype will swear up and down and sideways that the stereotype applies to the community, race, religion whatever they are talking about and the other side will deny just as vehemently that it applies to them.

[ April 16, 2006, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Fahim ]

Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:Then there is the whole thing about how Jewish people will never surrender and how the Arabs have to be utterly beaten before they would accept surrender - at least, that's how I read the article. This seems to be stereotyping two entire races
Races? There've been Jews who've converted to Islam, and Muslims who've converted to Judaism. Talk of "races" is an attempt to introduce an emotional bias into the discussion, Fahim. Race, by its nature, does not change. Cultures do. Can. And stereotypes often have a solid basis. It's false stereotypes that are bad; not stereotypes as such.

I believe I was talking about your article which talked of Arabs and Jews - two specific races rather than Muslims and believers in Judaism [Smile] (Just to side-track, is there a single word for believers in Judaism?)
Jews are not a race. You can't convert to a race. You can become a Jew. But it's not just a religion either, because you can't stop being a Jew.

Arabs are not a race, either. They are defined by language, primarily, and Arabic speaking Jews are Arabs as well as Jews. Technically speaking. But I was using Arab in the sense of the Arab League. The Arabs who, self-identified, have committed and supported atrocity after atrocity against Israel and Jews since even before the State of Israel came into existence.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
So unless you rewrite your article, I believe the the emotional bias is on your part.

Fahim, please don't confuse your misunderstanding with a lack of clarity on my part. You think Jews are a race. They aren't. You think Arabs are a race. They aren't. Race is inherent and unalterable.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I was simply commenting on it *smile* And I beg to differ on only false stereotypes being bad. Stereotypes rob an individual of his/her individuality.

Perhaps you use them in that way. I won't dispute your judgement of your own use of them.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I'm such and such, so I *must* be so and so?

Who says that?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Do you honestly think that is right?

Did I say I did?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
And who decides that the stereotyping is false or not?

"What is truth?" Oh, come on, Fahim. You can do better than that. Or do you not believe there's such a thing as objective truth?

[ April 17, 2006, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: starLisa ]

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lisa, I see that you neatly sidestep answering any of my questions about your definite positions on a lot of things and move on to a meaningless and pointless debate about whether Jews and Arabs are races or not. Your take on that is yours. My take is mine. So not really something to debate is there? [Smile] Of course, if you were to actually answer some of the questions I pose above as to what you actually believe, then we might have something to discuss ...
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
(Just to side-track, is there a single word for believers in Judaism?)

Yeah, good Jews. Although I guess that's two words.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
(Just to side-track, is there a single word for believers in Judaism?)

Yeah, good Jews. Although I guess that's two words.
So does that make people who don't believe in Judaism bad Jews? ? [Razz] Of course, given your somewhat confusing position as to who is a Jew or an Arab, I am not really sure who you think a Jew is anyway [Smile] (It just occurred to me that perhaps you think that I think that anybody who follows Judaism is a Jew and that any Muslim is an Arab or some such thing - at least some of your statements might lead one to believe that you believe that I believe so [Razz] Just for the record, I don't believe so and that is not what I meant by race when I was talking about Jews and Arabs ...)
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Being an Arab speaker makes someone an Arab?

Good luck telling that to Persian Iranians who speak Arabic (though for many Farsi is the first language, it's a bilingual culture). I don't think you'll like the response you get. Same thing for primarily Arab speakers in northeast Africa, of which there is a sizeable minority.

Posts: 21485 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't have time to respond to all of Fahim's post before.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
Fahim, I have a problem taking your inferences as a given. Do you get that what you infer from his piece may not be what I infer from it? That it may not be what he intended at all?

When you refer to "the implied solution", you speak of something that you've come up with. Not something that he has or that I have.

I do understand that total annihilation might not be what Dan Simmons intended. I believe I said as much in my disclaimer above *smile* (I like emoticons but apparently I ran over my quota in this post. So I'm going to use a few non-standard ones in this post ...)
Kinda wish you hadn't, because it got really annoying.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I have no idea what Dan intended. I'm not even sure that he was serious about his article since for all I know, it could have been an April Fool's Joke, a bit of promotion for a new book or even a satire along the lines of Swift's "A Modest Proposal". However, you did not indicate what your inferences were in the original post you made. You simply said that you hope that people listen to him. So given that there was no clarification, I can only conclude that you meant the general conclusion that most people would draw based on the article.

No, Fahim, you concluded that I meant the general conclusion that you drew based on the article. Don't try and strengthen your position by attributing it to "most people". It's yours.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
And no, the general conclusion is not an inference on my part [Razz] I have read Dan's forums, I have read other sites which discuss the message and at least 90% (if not more) think that this was a direct call to war against Islam in a grand scale.

Which in your mind is no different than... how did you put it again? Right: "all Muslims should be annihilated". But, of course, the two things are hardly the same.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
However... just to make things a little more clear, if Europe were to some day be taken over by radical, death-cultist, jihadist Islam, as it did in his story, and as a great many Muslims intend that it should, I might very well change my mind.
At a point like that, I might indeed see total war as the only viable option.

I like how you make your own inferences about what a great many Muslims intend and state it as fact [Razz]
I'm comfortable with it. And clearly, most Muslims are comfortable with it as well.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
If a great many Muslims intended what you say, given how many Muslims there are in the world, there would be a lot more violence than there is already. Don't mistake the actions of the few as proof of what the totality (or a great many) wants.

I'm not noticing much in the way of "few", Fahim. What I'm noticing is that when terrorists commit their atrocities, they almost always wind up having Arabic names. Funny, that. Must just be a coincidence.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
I would, however, advocate keeping a very close eye on them, and prosecuting them for any involvement in the mass murder activities which seem to be, to them, what baseball is to Americans.

I believe your prejudices are showing here a bit [Razz] Why keep an eye on just the "Muslims"? Hasn't the whole human race involved in mass murder activities as you call it at one time or another? Aren't there serial killers everywhere who think murder is a sport? So why this special eye on "Muslims"?
Because at this point in history, it's Muslims who are the ones engaging in the war against civilization and civilized norms. It's Muslims who invented hijacking aircraft. It's Muslims who spew Jew-hatred at every opportunity. It's Muslims who support the repeated attempts to wipe the State of Israel off the map. It's Muslims who dance in the streets when their "martyrs" murder women and children for the sake of murdering women and children.

And they do so as Muslims, in the name of their "Allah" and what they are taught by their qadis to be Allah's will. It's not as though they're criminal mass murderers who just happen to be Muslim by religion. No: they do this for Islam, and Islam does not cast them out. Far from it.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
As for the "yes", now I do have a few more questions. You indicate that "peace" in Islam means submission but then you appear to put your own spin upon things by saying that this "submission" means submission of all other people to Muslims.

I don't think that's a spin at all. I think it's well borne out by the history of Islam, and by its current manifestations.
I believe you are falling into a very common trap here <g> You equate the actions of the misguided with the religion.
So on the one hand, Fahim, I have you saying this. And on the other hand, I have countless imams and qadis and ayatullahs saying otherwise. Forgive me if I doubt your story.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
There have been other time periods and other people who have done heinous deeds in the name of their religion. Does that make the religion (or their God) the instigator of these actions or the prejudices, bigotry and hatred that is within all of us the actual cause of these actions?

I don't for a second whitewash the crimes of Christendom. I want to puke when I see the Robin Hood stories with the lionization (pardon the pun) of Richard the Butcher. So what? They seem pretty much to have grown out of the whole crusade mindset. When are Muslims going to grow up as well?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
You do put a spin there, I'm sorry.

I'd like to think that the "I'm sorry" is for the inaccurate statement which proceded it. I doubt that, however.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
The intent of Islam is that man submits to the will of God. You made your own interpretation there to suit your argument *smile*

Maybe that's your take on it. That might actually make you a non-dangerous Muslim, Fahim. That's a good thing. I didn't do the interpreting, however. That's what so many death-cultist Muslims say. Why are you a better representative of Islam then they are?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
The submission of the weak to the strong. Have you considered the fact that in a religious sense that this makes no sense at all? [Smile]

No, Fahim, I don't consider that very much. Because making sense isn't at the core of Islam.
Making sense isn't part of human nature you mean?
You know, Fahim, I try to be fairly careful with the words I use. So if I say "making sense isn't at the core of Islam", you can pretty much just assume that what I meant was "making sense isn't at the core of Islam". Had I wanted to say that "making sense isn't part of human nature", I'm fairly certain I could have written "making sense isn't part of human nature". You see?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Again, you take the actions of some and impose your biases and views on a religion. It sounds nice if you're rabble rousing but I'm afraid you'll have to back that up with facts (pertaining to the religion - not actions of individuals) if the claim is to actually stand up [Smile]

So... and correct me if I'm wrong about this, Fahim, you'd like me to give actual citations, quoting Muslim clerics saying the things I'm attributing to Islam? Or would you merely say that they don't represent Islam either? That only you really understand what Islam is all about, and that the insane hordes who murdered people over fracking cartoons just don't get it?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
The submission in this instance is to the will of God. Why would a religion be about other people submitting to you?

I'll assume that you're asking this honestly, and not being disingenuous. If a religion has as a core belief that they are intended--required--to rule the world in the name of their God, then submission to that religion is submission to the will of God. In the eyes of members of that religion, at any rate. You know what Dar el Islam and Dar el Harb are, Fahim. I know you do. So why are you asking this? Is it because you think I don't? After reading that article, you can't possibly think that.
First, I was asking the question honestly. To me Islam is about submission to the will of God.
Which, of course, begs the question: "What is the will of God?" And it's clear that your answer differs from that of many, many, many Muslim clerics and their followers.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Islam clearly states that others should be left to follow their own path

Barf. What's a dhimmi, Fahim?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
and so I see no reason why I should impose my religious views on others. I submit to God and my covenant, if you will, is with God. It has nothing to do with what others believe or don't believe. Religion at its heart is about faith and belief. If somebody does not have that faith, you cannot instil it in them by means of war or force or torture.

See, I like that. If that was the prevailing view among Muslims, 90% of the war and turmoil on this planet would simply cease to exist. Praise, praise, Fahim. You've got my vote.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
It has to be there on its own - or not. So I see no logical reason in trying to force somebody else to believe in what you believe.

Again, that's a Very Good Worldview.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
In fact, I sometimes think even debate about what Islam means with people who are convinced that it is a thing of evil is pointless since most people would not be convinced anyway - they've already made up their minds <g>

Ah, but you see, I don't think Islam has to be a thing of evil. It is flawed, as Christianity is, by being based on false claims about God, but that's not such a huge problem. Islam could be a positive influence on the world.

But that's not currently the case. Maybe you've got some work to do, Fahim.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
However, I still engage in debate because if I do stay silent, there are those who know nothing of either side of the case will assume that those who speak are the ones who are in the right and the silent masses are silent because they have no answer *smile*

In 1967, there was a village called Upper Nazareth. It was built near the town of Nazareth, which was primarily an Arab town.

During the weeks preceding the Six Day War, when the leaders of the Arab countries were fulminating and revving their people up for a war of absolute genocide, an Jewish woman living in Upper Nazareth walked into her kitchen one day, and found a neighbor, an Arab woman from Nazareth, poking around in her cabinets. She asked her what she was doing, and the women explained that very shortly, this house was going to be hers, and she was just checking things out.

The two women had been on friendly terms. There was no animosity in the way the Arab woman said this. It was simply a matter of fact. The Jews were going to get obliterated, and the Arabs were going to take the spoils.

I don't know where you live, Fahim, but the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are positively drooling for the day they get to obliterate Israel. Those who aren't clamoring for the killing, but are ready to profit from it... well, I don't cut them a whole lot of slack.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Secondly, I had no idea what Dar el Islam or Dar el Harb are before you mentioned them [Smile] So I certainly couldn't be thinking that you didn't know of them. I did a Google search and what I notice, at least on the first couple of pages of hits, is that the references are all by non-Muslim sites and scholars. Is this a deep dark secret if Islam that Muslims do not talk about? <g> Excuse the sarcasm but it does sound like another one of those "us" vs. "them" paranoiac arguments that people come up with just so that you have somebody to hate and to fear. I am a Muslim, I've been brought up as a Muslim all my life but I can honestly say that I didn't even know of these terms till you just brought them up.

Oh. I guess this is wrong, then. It's funny how you say things that run counter to what Muslim experts on Islam say. Maybe Islam isn't really for you, Fahim.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I personally think that all the bickering between Muslims, Christians and Jews should stop since we all obviously believe in the same God. I believe that no religion teaches you to do anything bad.

Do you also believe in fairies? How about peanut butter? I'm sorry, Fahim, but that's really naive.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I also believe that people tend to take anything pure and good and subvert it to their own needs. Sometimes they do this insidiously and sometimes they do this outright. But that is not the fault of any of the religions. It's the people. So what do you believe, Lisa? *smile*

I believe that not all religions are true. That many contain aspects of truth, and that among these are Islam and even Christianity. I do not believe that the deities of Islam and Christianity are the same as God. God didn't take on physical form and get killed. God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice Ishmael. But I do think that Islam and Christianity have positive aspects. Currently, however, the positive aspects of Islam are vastly overshadowed by the faith of the death-cultists.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
(Just to side-track, is there a single word for believers in Judaism?)

Yeah, good Jews. Although I guess that's two words.
So does that make people who don't believe in Judaism bad Jews? ? [Razz]
Jews who don't believe in Judaism are bad Jews. Yes. Is that hard to understand?

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Of course, given your somewhat confusing position as to who is a Jew or an Arab, I am not really sure who you think a Jew is anyway [Smile]

It's not a matter of who I think a Jew is. It's a matter of who a Jew is. If your mother was Jewish when you were born or you have converted to Judaism according to Torah law, you're a Jew. Otherwise, you're not. 'Tain't rocket science.

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
(It just occurred to me that perhaps you think that I think that anybody who follows Judaism is a Jew and that any Muslim is an Arab or some such thing

There are Muslims who aren't Arabs. There are Arabs who aren't Muslims. I assume you're aware of that. I know I am.

But yes, anyone who follows Judaism is a Jew. That's kind of a no-brainer. If a non-Jew "follows Judaism", he's actually violating Judaism. If you get what I mean.

Of course, maybe you consider being a Noachide as "following Judaism". I would call it following God's will, but not "following Judaism".

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
- at least some of your statements might lead one to believe that you believe that I believe so [Razz] Just for the record, I don't believe so and that is not what I meant by race when I was talking about Jews and Arabs ...)

Jews are not a race. Deal with it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
(I like emoticons but apparently I ran over my quota in this post. So I'm going to use a few non-standard ones in this post ...)

Kinda wish you hadn't, because it got really annoying.

Well, it's your prerogative to be annoyed. It's my prerogative to use emoticons [Smile] I like using them because it conveys a sense of the emotions behind my words. To use one of your own phrases, "deal with it" [Razz]

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I have no idea what Dan intended. I'm not even sure that he was serious about his article since for all I know, it could have been an April Fool's Joke, a bit of promotion for a new book or even a satire along the lines of Swift's "A Modest Proposal". However, you did not indicate what your inferences were in the original post you made. You simply said that you hope that people listen to him. So given that there was no clarification, I can only conclude that you meant the general conclusion that most people would draw based on the article.

No, Fahim, you concluded that I meant the general conclusion that you drew based on the article. Don't try and strengthen your position by attributing it to "most people". It's yours.

I'm sure most people (yes, I'm bringing in those accursed most people in again <vbg>) would be petrified by such impressive examples of counter logic, Lisa <g> Unfortunately, the fact remains that you did not state your position. You just made a statement that people would heed Dan's warnings and left it that. Of course, if somebody listened to you and went out and started killing people in a "pre-emptive strike", you can always
go back and say that that is not what you or Dan meant, but the inescapable fact still remains that neither of you actually clarified what your position was and left things ambiguous enough that anybody can draw any conclusion they can. However bad the conclusion might be *smile*

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I like how you make your own inferences about what a great many Muslims intend and state it as fact

I'm comfortable with it. And clearly, most Muslims are comfortable with it as well.

Clearly, you can speak for most Muslims in a way that I can't speak for most people [Razz] I like how a rule can work differently for you but then again, I'm coming to see that that's how it goes with you <g>

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
If a great many Muslims intended what you say, given how many Muslims there are in the world, there would be a lot more violence than there is already. Don't mistake the actions of the few as proof of what the totality (or a great many) wants.

I'm not noticing much in the way of "few", Fahim. What I'm noticing is that when terrorists commit their atrocities, they almost always wind up having Arabic names. Funny, that. Must just be a coincidence.

I also notice that all these terrorists happen to be human, must be another coincidence <vbg> I am not apologizing for their actions - they are heinous no matter what race or religion the terrorists belong to. But my question is, how is does having an Arabic name make it automatically the fault of Islam for the actions of these misguided few. And yes, it is a few. Just saying that all terrorists in the recent past are Arabs and so all terrorists are Arabs is a pretty looking argument ... if you were preaching to the choir or to people who can't really follow an argument <vbg> Sure, I'm not denying most terrorists today are Arabs where *you* are. Where I am, most terrorists have Tamil names. Does that make all Tamils terrorists?

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
I would, however, advocate keeping a very close eye on them, and prosecuting them for any involvement in the mass murder activities which seem to be, to them, what baseball is to Americans.

I believe your prejudices are showing here a bit [Razz] Why keep an eye on just the "Muslims"? Hasn't the whole human race involved in mass murder activities as you call it at one time or another? Aren't there serial killers everywhere who think murder is a sport? So why this special eye on "Muslims"?
Because at this point in history, it's Muslims who are the ones engaging in the war against civilization and civilized norms. It's Muslims who invented hijacking aircraft. It's Muslims who spew Jew-hatred at every opportunity. It's Muslims who support the repeated attempts to wipe the State of Israel off the map. It's Muslims who dance in the streets when their "martyrs" murder women and children for the sake of murdering women and children.

And they do so as Muslims, in the name of their "Allah" and what they are taught by their qadis to be Allah's will. It's not as though they're criminal mass murderers who just happen to be Muslim by religion. No: they do this for Islam, and Islam does not cast them out. Far from it.

I think your prejudice is showing again, Lisa - especially when you start frothing at the mouth about how Muslims hate and want to kill Jews <vbg> I'm a Muslim, I have never hated a Jew in my life but of course, you'll have a retort to that about how I'm naive or something superior like that *smile* You go on at length about how Muslims want this and that and that Islam does not cast them out. How exactly is Islam supposed to cast them out? Do you know of any religion which casts out those who commit atrocities in the name of their religion?

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I believe you are falling into a very common trap here <g> You equate the actions of the misguided with the religion.

So on the one hand, Fahim, I have you saying this. And on the other hand, I have countless imams and qadis and ayatullahs saying otherwise. Forgive me if I doubt your story.

So you simply base your decisions on the words of some and not others? Seems hardly the way to go about making an impartial judgement does it? That is, if an impartial judgement is what you are after <vbg> I would think that you might actually want to verify for yourself as to whether the words spouted by some imam is in line with the words of the Qur'an or if what I say is more in line [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
There have been other time periods and other people who have done heinous deeds in the name of their religion. Does that make the religion (or their God) the instigator of these actions or the prejudices, bigotry and hatred that is within all of us the actual cause of these actions?

I don't for a second whitewash the crimes of Christendom. I want to puke when I see the Robin Hood stories with the lionization (pardon the pun) of Richard the Butcher. So what? They seem pretty much to have grown out of the whole crusade mindset. When are Muslims going to grow up as well?

Funny, how you immediately latch on to Christians [Razz] I wasn't even thinking about Christians when I made the above statement. So according to you, only Muslims and Christians have ever committed any atrocities in the name of their religion? My, my ... (Of course, that will earn me another censure along lines of don't be disingenuous or something <vbg>)

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
You do put a spin there, I'm sorry.

I'd like to think that the "I'm sorry" is for the inaccurate statement which proceded it. I doubt that, however.

Applause <vbg> (Please forgive the flippant tone in this set of remarks. I believed that you were somebody who might be reasonable when I started this debate but all I get from you are words to the effect of "I am right, you are wrong and I know I'm right". So you're basically getting a mirror image response <g>)


quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
The intent of Islam is that man submits to the will of God. You made your own interpretation there to suit your argument *smile*

Maybe that's your take on it. That might actually make you a non-dangerous Muslim, Fahim. That's a good thing. I didn't do the interpreting, however. That's what so many death-cultist Muslims say. Why are you a better representative of Islam then they are?

Because the tenets of Islam states that the death cultists aren't Muslims to begin with. So by definition, that makes me the only Muslim standing if you are to compare them and me. And I like how you like to categorise me as a non-dangerous Muslim. To be honest, I find your whole attitude rather pitiable. To live always looking for the dangerous and the non-dangerous, trying to figure out the dangerous from the non-dangerous. Hardly seems the kind of life one would want. But that's neither here nor there - just sharing the mental image I got ... I am sorry that you cannot see beyond your prejudices to the fact that this is not a Muslim issue or an issue which is limited to one race. If you want to kill off all those who'd want to kill you or yours for your beliefs, I'm afraid that there aren't many humans who are going to be left alive afterwards.

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Making sense isn't part of human nature you mean?

You know, Fahim, I try to be fairly careful with the words I use. So if I say "making sense isn't at the core of Islam", you can pretty much just assume that what I meant was "making sense isn't at the core of Islam". Had I wanted to say that "making sense isn't part of human nature", I'm fairly certain I could have written "making sense isn't part of human nature". You see?

Actually, the "Making sense" comment was an ironic commentary on what you "chose" to see as what Islam is - not a correction of your statement *smile* My full sentence there was "Making sense isn't part of human nature you mean? Again, you take the actions of some and impose your biases and views on a religion." Sorry I wasn't clearer. I have no doubt at all that you are very careful with your words *smile*

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:

quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Again, you take the actions of some and impose your biases and views on a religion. It sounds nice if you're rabble rousing but I'm afraid you'll have to back that up with facts (pertaining to the religion - not actions of individuals) if the claim is to actually stand up

So... and correct me if I'm wrong about this, Fahim, you'd like me to give actual citations, quoting Muslim clerics saying the things I'm attributing to Islam? Or would you merely say that they don't represent Islam either? That only you really understand what Islam is all about, and that the insane hordes who murdered people over fracking cartoons just don't get it?

I am asking you to give me citations from the Qur'an which actually says that these people should be doing what they are doing in the name of Islam. My contention always has been about what you attribute to Islam - not the actions of the individuals. People may interpret things any which way they want and throughout history, they have done so as suits their needs and whims. This does not make it the fault of the religion. Of course, you don't seem to see it that way since you appear to be unable to (or unwilling to) separate the religion from the people because of course, then you have nothing to point a finger at since people are everywhere, right? *smile* Muslims have two things that they are supposed to follow - the Qur'an and the prophet's teachings. We have no clergy because we are supposed to find the truth ourselves - not be misled by some power-mad idiot who will lead everybody on a crusade. Of course, people being people, everybody still wants somebody else to show them the path and so you have the clerics who claim that they know the word of God better than anybody else. And you of course, believe them over what I say because they are after all, clerics and they must be right *smile* Don't confuse the stupidity of mindless hordes who cling to whatever is spoon fed to them with true religious teaching ...

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
First, I was asking the question honestly. To me Islam is about submission to the will of God.

Which, of course, begs the question: "What is the will of God?" And it's clear that your answer differs from that of many, many, many Muslim clerics and their followers.

And how does that make my view invalid and that of the misguided Muslim clerics and their followers, right? Yes, I realize that you did not say that they were right or that I was wrong, but do you at least allow for the fact that there might be more than one viewpoint in Islam and that those who claim to work in the name of Islam might be actually wrong, no matter how many or how loudly they speak?

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Islam clearly states that others should be left to follow their own path

Barf. What's a dhimmi, Fahim?

And I'd ask you in return "what is Surah Al Kafiroon" but would you know what I'm talking about? *smile* If you want to find non-Islamic opinions which justify hatred of Islam, you can find a lot of it all over the place. Heck, Dan's article seems to be based mostly on the Wikipedia entry for dhimmi in the first place. But what I find interesting is that I couldn't find any prominent Islamic sites talking about dhimmis. The ones I did find, mention the fact that the term dhimmi and how it was enforced by some of the calph's is wrong. In fact, there is something about the prophet decreeing if you harm the Jews of Madinah, you will find him against you on the day of judgement. However, I can't find the reference at the moment and so I can't be a 100% certain about this. So, what do you have to say about that Lisa? *smile*

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
and so I see no reason why I should impose my religious views on others. I submit to God and my covenant, if you will, is with God. It has nothing to do with what others believe or don't believe. Religion at its heart is about faith and belief. If somebody does not have that faith, you cannot instil it in them by means of war or force or torture.

See, I like that. If that was the prevailing view among Muslims, 90% of the war and turmoil on this planet would simply cease to exist. Praise, praise, Fahim. You've got my vote.

I can't speak for all the Muslims in the world. All I can do is speak for myself and those around me. Sure, there are a lot of people who have listened to the words of hatred all their lives and have not thought to think things through or to look at what Islam actually states. But my parents brought me up to question things and to learn what is right and what is wrong. I know my parents believe the same way that I do. So that is at least 3 Muslims who do think like I do. My contention all along has been with saying that Islam is a religion of violence or that Islam condones the atorcities committed in its name. That part is just people being people. Unfortuhnately, they will continue to be people for as long as this world lasts, I guess.

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
In fact, I sometimes think even debate about what Islam means with people who are convinced that it is a thing of evil is pointless since most people would not be convinced anyway - they've already made up their minds <g>

Ah, but you see, I don't think Islam has to be a thing of evil. It is flawed, as Christianity is, by being based on false claims about God, but that's not such a huge problem. Islam could be a positive influence on the world.

See, the flawed bit is your interpretation. I don't think it is flawed. But you to your beliefs and me to mine *smile*

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
I don't know where you live, Fahim, but the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East are positively drooling for the day they get to obliterate Israel. Those who aren't clamoring for the killing, but are ready to profit from it... well, I don't cut them a whole lot of slack.

Again, what I'd caution Lisa is against lumping all people together whether they be Arabs or Jews. People are people, you have to take them as individuals. Hating (or loving) a group because they represent a group does not do any good. Of course, that's just my viewpoint. Not trying to convert you over, but stating things as I see them. Yes, I agree that there are many Arabs who are misguided in hating Jews. But there are also many Jews who hates Arabs just as passionately. Let us not get into the whole who did what first argument here because we'll sit here going back and forth back to the beginning of time. The point is that it has to stop at some point and that can only happen if all parties stop the hatred and try to realize that we have as many similarities as we have differences. There are mothers on both sides who cry for their dead sons. Is one side's grief any greater than the other side's? Sure, you might dismiss this as mere words, or as bleeding heart liberal or whatever other term is in fashion. But the reason for my original question and my continuing debate is one thing - something that the Buddha said actually but which is also mirrored in all of our religions if we just care to look, "hatred does not erase hatred. Only peace erases hatred".

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
Secondly, I had no idea what Dar el Islam or Dar el Harb are before you mentioned them [Smile] So I certainly couldn't be thinking that you didn't know of them. I did a Google search and what I notice, at least on the first couple of pages of hits, is that the references are all by non-Muslim sites and scholars. Is this a deep dark secret if Islam that Muslims do not talk about? <g> Excuse the sarcasm but it does sound like another one of those "us" vs. "them" paranoiac arguments that people come up with just so that you have somebody to hate and to fear. I am a Muslim, I've been brought up as a Muslim all my life but I can honestly say that I didn't even know of these terms till you just brought them up.

Oh. I guess this is wrong, then. It's funny how you say things that run counter to what Muslim experts on Islam say. Maybe Islam isn't really for you, Fahim.

Come now, Lisa, quoting wikipedia to support your argument? Now you know how reliable wikipedia can be right? *smile* But let me quote straight from the wikipedia entry that you linked to, "Dar al-Islam and its associated terms are not found in the two most basic works of Islam, the Qur'an and the Hadith." I follow the Qur'an and the prophet's teachings (Hadith) as I've mentioned before. So if that term is not there in either one, then how is it that you assume that these are part of "Islam" the religion? Or, you can turn around now and tell me that wikipedia is not reliable at all *smile*

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I personally think that all the bickering between Muslims, Christians and Jews should stop since we all obviously believe in the same God. I believe that no religion teaches you to do anything bad.

Do you also believe in fairies? How about peanut butter? I'm sorry, Fahim, but that's really naive.

Again, that's your opinion reflecting your own viewpoints, I believe *smile* Do not confuse religion with the actions of people. But like a lot of people, you too seem to be unable to do this. Or are you saying that Judaism, Christianity and all the other religions in the world actually have components which tell you to do bad stuff since according to you, to believe otherwise is naivete? Or is it just the specific instance of Islam where you think the religion is not about doing good? *smile*

quote:
Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Fahim:
I also believe that people tend to take anything pure and good and subvert it to their own needs. Sometimes they do this insidiously and sometimes they do this outright. But that is not the fault of any of the religions. It's the people. So what do you believe, Lisa? *smile*

I believe that not all religions are true. That many contain aspects of truth, and that among these are Islam and even Christianity. I do not believe that the deities of Islam and Christianity are the same as God. God didn't take on physical form and get killed. God didn't command Abraham to sacrifice Ishmael. But I do think that Islam and Christianity have positive aspects. Currently, however, the positive aspects of Islam are vastly overshadowed by the faith of the death-cultists.
Again, you to your beliefs and I to mine, Lisa *smile* One thing that I would have to mention is that the death-cultists have no part in Islam. Just because *they* claim they are doing it for Islam doesn't necessarily make it so. But then again, that's the point around which we've been going back and forth for ever, hasn't it? *smile* I believe that Islam, Christianity and Judaism is belief in the same God. There are theological differences but in the end, unless there were three separate incarnations of Moses, it is the God of Moses that all three religions believe in. But that's just my belief. Saying my religion is true and yours is not leads to the same "us" vs. "them" mentality which has been the downfall of humanity for as long as we can remember. Live and let live. Belive what you believe in and let the other person believe what they want. But that's just me *smile*
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David G
Member
Member # 8872

 - posted      Profile for David G   Email David G         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For anyone who may be interested, Dan Simmons has announced that he will be posting in mid-May a new message discussing the purpose of and reaction to his story.
Posts: 195 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fahim
Member
Member # 5482

 - posted      Profile for Fahim   Email Fahim         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yep, saw that and that the April message was back - apparently it was a server outage. So much for conspiracy theories [Razz] I'm really curious about his reasons for the April message - was it all some srt of reaction study perhaps? [Smile] (Can't type much more - have a bum keyboard and the on-screen keyboard is no fun [Razz] So will be back later when I do have a keyboard)
Posts: 136 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2