posted
It wasn't a religious conflict, but atrocities in the Sri Lankan civil war have definitely been committed in the name of religion. Several of the splinter groups keep themselves religiously pure, arguably making them religious terrorists.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fugu, there are more people in the Southern Baptist Convention than there are members of the Sikh religion. I'm begging you, give me something harder. This is too easy.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: It wasn't a religious conflict, but atrocities in the Sri Lankan civil war have definitely been committed in the name of religion. Several of the splinter groups keep themselves religiously pure, arguably making them religious terrorists.
Please feel free to give us some links. Do bear in mind, if these are crazy splinter groups that you're talking about, I already crushed the argument that splinter groups are representative of the larger religion. Thoroughly crushed.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven, what do you think of all of the Muslims who do not condone violence? kmbboots provided a list of Islamic organizations that actively oppose violence and list reasons based on their faith.
When you say things like:
quote:...because certainly the Muslims aren't known for their ability to play well with others.
you are still speaking of 1.6 billion people as if they were one group and one mind. How many Muslims have you met? Talked to? Had dinner with?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: steven, what do you think of all of the Muslims who do not condone violence? kmbboots provided a list of Islamic organizations that actively oppose violence and list reasons based on their faith.
When you say things like:
quote:...because certainly the Muslims aren't known for their ability to play well with others.
you are still speaking of 1.6 billion people as if they were one group and one mind. How many Muslims have you met? Talked to? Had dinner with?
You may not have read the paragraph that I posted twice on the previous page, so I'll post it a third time, for your edification.
"A good example (of why I need BIG proof) is that I heard an interview with a Muslim college student on NPR about posted notices by Muslim students about Muslim student gatherings on the bulletin board at his college's student union (I think it was U of Chicago, but I could be wrong). He said that the English statements on the notices were all about peace, brotherhood, etc. The Arabic translation on the same notice was all about "kill the infidel", etc. No joke, these people are crazy."
Bear in mind, the students that were writing "kill the infidel" on these posters in Arabic were not even terrorists. How much sneakier and hate-filled are the terrorists themselves? They come into this country, get jobs, work, live, etc....but they still harbor so much hate and violence, deep, deep in their hearts. Other immigrant groups are different. You don't see the Hindus/Taoists/Buddhists blowing stuff up, committing mass killings, etc.
This is just how it is. Please don't think I see Christians as having clean hands, either. Currently they behave better, but historically, it's a dead heat.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read this paragraph several times. And you are still taking one example of what some Muslim students did at one college. What do you think of the Muslim student that reported it? Of the Muslims that oppose the actions of these students? Why do you think this made the news? Because it was an extreme event. It was dealt with.
You go from "some students" and "the terrorists" and "the extremists" to "the Muslims." Why do you keep doing that?
And please, tell me: how many Muslims have you met and talked to?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
No it was not. This student related something that happened years ago, when he was in college, as an example of how the Muslim community says one thing, and promptly does another. These other students committed no crime. None of them were terrorists. They sure hated American citizens, by and large.
My point is, if the average Muslim thinks/acts like those students, how much sneakier, more hate-filled, and dangerous are the crazy ones, that actually end up doing a 9/11?
These people are not to be painted with the same broad brush as other major religions. In my humble opinion.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that many. Probably less than ten, if you only count face-to-face meetings, and don't count interactions in convenience stores.
When I see beheadings on youtube, the evening news, etc., I don't need to meet these people in person. I don't WANT to, thank you very much. They can keep their machetes to themselves.
Beheadings? Man, these people are crazy. When's the last time you heard of a Hindu beheading someone, for religion?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You see a beheading on YouTube. Performed by an extremist. An extremist, by definition, does not represent the average views of his people. I don't know anyone who wants to meet an extremist.
And these are your words:
quote:Do bear in mind, if these are crazy splinter groups that you're talking about, I already crushed the argument that splinter groups are representative of the larger religion. Thoroughly crushed.
Your words.
There is a Muslim in my lab. He's a great guy. One of my closest friends works daily with Muslims. She works for an inter-religious non-profit. She tells me stories of how they are great Americans. They care about their community and their children. They are open and friendly and give back to the community. Go talk to one of them. You'll learn a lot, unless you stick with your arrogant ignorance.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osama bin Laden isn't part of a splinter group. He's just a Wahhabist. Nadal Hassan wasn't part of a splinter group. They're just Islamic.
You can say, "oh, it's the fault of the extremist clerics. Only some clerics are extremists." Yeah, bullshit. They day the extremist clerics start calling themselves something different than the other Muslims around, then I'll call them a "splinter group." Until then, they're just Middle Eastern Muslims to me. If they won't give me a different name to call them, I can't call them by a different name. "Extremist" is not a religious denomination, genius.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What? It's what *they* call themselves? So anybody acting in the name of a religion automatically represents it? Really?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Islamic Society of North America condemns in the strongest terms the attack on soldiers at Fort Hood, resulting in the murder of at least a dozen soldiers and the wounding of many others. We express our deepest condolences to the victims and their families.
quote:MPAC and the Muslim American community unequivocally condemn this heinous incident. We share the sentiment of our President, who called the Fort Hood attack "a horrific outburst of violence."
quote:“We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No religious or political ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.”
Nadal Hassan was an Islamic individual of which this Islamic community "condemned in the strongest terms" or "unequivocally condemned" or "condemned in the strongest possible terms." I can't see your willingness to ignore the clear and straightforward messages of the Islamic community as anything but arrogance, stupidity, or racism.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What? It's what *they* call themselves? So anybody acting in the name of a religion automatically represents it? Really?
Well, yeah, I'd say so--and so would you, if we were talking about Christian extremism, you double-standard holder. If Hasan's fellow Muslims had really had a problem with crazy extremism, they'd have turned him in already. The warning signs were there. His superiors said so. At least, from what I've read.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale "I can't see your willingness to ignore the clear and straightforward messages of the Islamic community as anything but arrogance, stupidity, or racism."
You're the first person I've ever dealt with that might actually deserve the name "LefTaliban." LOL
Grow up. I work with a Muslim too. She's actually pretty hot, doesn't wear the hijab. It's possible I'd even ask her out, if I got a chance. It's not her I'm really worried about, anyway. If she has a crazy brother, unmarried, in his 20s or 30s, yeah, now HE might worry me, if he worked there.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow right back at you. Who do you think would be safer, you on vacation in Western Pakistan, or a Pashtun tribesman or Taliban fighter on vacation in your town?
That's right. Those people's idea of appropriate behavior is vastly different from both yours and mine.
What really worries me is the deception and collusion. I don't mind someone hating me and wanting me dead, relatively. It's when that person pretends to like me, workes beside me for years, then, one day, yells "Allahu Akbar" and declares it's open season on stevens, that really ticks me off. LOL
I realize that the Muslims are carried along by forces larger than themselves. There's almost no economic opportunity in their homelands, and tremendous overpopulation, and they've lived in isolation for hundreds of years, ever since the Silk Road fell into disuse.
However, I think it's important to call a spade a spade. Nobody gets a free pass with me. Let's face it, everybody who's arguing with me here would be more than happy to rail on Conservative Christians for pages and pages of thread. Fine. I support that, so long as its factual railing (and you don't have to get rude to rial on them, between Jack Chick and Fred Phelps, etc., they provide people with tons of material). However, Muslims don't deserve to be a part of our technological society if all they're going to do is fly planes into buildings and shoot up unarmed soldiers, unarmed pregnant women, etc. If my Muslim co-worker were male, that'd worry me, until I felt sure I had a better understanding of him. It's not like I suspect every unmarried Muslim male in his 20s or 30s...but I'm not about to trust sane Muslims to turn in crazy ones. When's the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by one American Muslim turning in another one?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I knew that a Taliban fighter was next door, that would freak me out. If I knew that there was a Muslim living next door, that would not freak me out. If this Muslim neighbor acted secretive, seemed angry all the time, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would freak me out. But the fact that he is Muslim would not. If anyone else lived next door, acted secretive, seemed angry, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would also freak me out.
Do you think that the Muslims in this country that make up the organizations linked to above would not report terrorism if they knew of it? I'm guessing that you think that they would not, and that is what I just don't understand.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When's the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by one American Muslim turning in another one?
When was the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by an American Christian turning in another one? What, you never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing? Plenty of Christian terrorists, in fact given the demographics of the US, probably more of them (domestically) than Moslems.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmmm, going back and ignoring some of the emotions and stuff here.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Mucus, I see what you're getting at. I think though, that obviously characterizing Islam as a religion in sum that encourages terrorism is obviously a mistake, if only because the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Well, I'm not sure I necessarily buy that particular line of reasoning. The majority of the Aztecs probably didn't do human sacrifice, but I would be surprised if a majority actually opposed the practice.
That said, we can roughly guesstimate from the above Pew survey that a majority of Muslims do not in fact approve of say suicide bombing. However, we do have a level of support for it ("often/sometimes justified" support of roughly 8% in the US to roughly 16% in Western Europe and roughly 30% in Egypt or Jordan).
So yes, on one hand it is a mistake to characterize Islam in whole as a religion that approves of suicide bombing. But still, I'd be fairly surprised if we found anywhere near that level of support in say Tibetan Buddhism despite a much more critical situation.
quote:What I still think hasn't been shown clearly is that Islamic terrorists do definitely commit acts of terror because they are Muslim, where any totally different religious group in the same circumstances would definitely *not* commit acts of terror.
See, this is true. But in a way, I don't think there would be anyway to truly test this without a time machine and a mind writer ala Dollhouse. Otherwise, I think we could both go around and around arguing why this factor might explain why this group found terrorism a viable option or why not.
So this is why we have to settle for "close enough" and I think the histories of Xinjiang and Tibet before and after the end of the Chinese civil war are similar enough that we can draw some conclusions about how easily each group resorts to violence under pressure.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth pointing out that the West, too, has a tradition of approving people who make a last stand against overwhelming force, knowing they are going to die. The problem with suicide bombings is not the suicide, but the target. And the West has an extremely undistinguished record of deliberately targeting civilians.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone thought that "sometimes" justified could in fact be a Muslim who was thinking about a situation far different than the one they are in now? After all, there are few of us who wouldn't be willing to go to extremes if we were backed into a real corner, and we felt our very existence was at stake. It's that old philosophical problem of, "Would you kill 1 man you know to save a million you don't."
I would say that I believe it is possible, in some situation (though not any I know of at the moment), that suicide bombing could be the lesser of two evils.
Also, let us not forget, civilian targets have never actually been considered completely forbidden. In the Middle Ages entire villages were torched in order to prove a point. You may have reached the high point of avoiding civilian targets in the 17th and 18th centuries when Armies pretty much lined up on battlefields, but even then I suspect there were some civilian casualties. By the time you get to our own civil war, we're back to burning as we go, inevitably causing civilian death by starvation if nothing else. Once we got aircraft, it became standard procedure to bomb large cities of the enemy, long before there could be any serious attempt at pinpointing specific military targets. At the same time, submarines were sinking any and all "enemy" ships, including passenger liners. And of course, we can't forget the biggest of them all, our nuclear bombs!
Even today, we can't say we go out of our way to avoid civilian casualties. We partner ourselves with Israel who seems determined to continue to live by "an eye for an eye". We've caused, by most eyewitness accounts I've heard, an under reported number of civilian deaths in Iraq (though still probably less than Saddam would have caused by now). I'm listening to "We Were One" (an audio book about US troops in Falusia), and there is a story about an allied Humvee that callously drove through a persons yard and killed someone, and never even looked back. Another one of the soldiers saw it, and did the best he could to make up for it, but nevertheless, nothing was officially done.
While I would not say I'm "for" suicide bombing, it's hard for me to really say that all Muslims should be convinced that there is NEVER a time or place for it. After all, we, as US citizens seem to be able to turn our heads away from the civilian casualties we cause, so long as we think it's for "the greater good".
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another point to consider. Let us suppose that the Moslem religion is, indeed, a danger to the western world. What are we going to do about it? Is anyone here (other than me and presumably Lisa) willing to straightforwardly stand up and say "This religion must be eradicated, by force if necessary"? I will point out that no widespread religion has ever been destroyed except by force. Education - a euphemism for "state-enforced religious indoctrination" - just makes people teach their children to parrot the state's words in public, and do actual worship in private. Secret Jews, anyone? And Spain had its secret Moslems, too. Although probably not as many as the Inquisition claimed to have caught.
A clarification of my previous post: Pointing out the existence of a Western tradition of civilian targets and suicide missions, indeed of a moral equivalence between us and them, is not intended as saying we should do nothing. Quite the opposite: I'm saying we should stop squealing about how immoral this form of war is, and do to the Arabs what we did to the Germans and Japanese: Retaliate in kind, with more and better weapons.
So, a challenge to both sides of this debate: What are you going to do about it? The right is correct in arguing that Islam is a danger. Fine, now what? The left is correct in arguing that there is moral equivalence. Fine, now what? Neither side, as far as I can see, is putting forward any sort of plan of action.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Another point to consider. Let us suppose that the Moslem religion is, indeed, a danger to the western world. What are we going to do about it? Is anyone here (other than me and presumably Lisa) willing to straightforwardly stand up and say "This religion must be eradicated, by force if necessary"? I will point out that no widespread religion has ever been destroyed except by force. Education - a euphemism for "state-enforced religious indoctrination" - just makes people teach their children to parrot the state's words in public, and do actual worship in private. Secret Jews, anyone? And Spain had its secret Moslems, too. Although probably not as many as the Inquisition claimed to have caught.
A clarification of my previous post: Pointing out the existence of a Western tradition of civilian targets and suicide missions, indeed of a moral equivalence between us and them, is not intended as saying we should do nothing. Quite the opposite: I'm saying we should stop squealing about how immoral this form of war is, and do to the Arabs what we did to the Germans and Japanese: Retaliate in kind, with more and better weapons.
So, a challenge to both sides of this debate: What are you going to do about it? The right is correct in arguing that Islam is a danger. Fine, now what? The left is correct in arguing that there is moral equivalence. Fine, now what? Neither side, as far as I can see, is putting forward any sort of plan of action.
posted
"Quoted for truth". It means either that the quoter does not trust the quotee to refrain from editing the post, and so is making a separate copy of the original words; or else that the quoter agrees with the quotee, and is making a separate copy in order to increase the total amount of truthful words in the world.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I quoted for the latter meaning, as I tried to make that point around 3 pages ago. KoM did a better job.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I did. How could it be otherwise?
That aside, what is your answer to the question, other than agreeing that it's an important one? Are you willing to use force to eradicate Islam, do you prefer some other means of eradicating Islam, or do you perhaps think that it can be reformed? Or do you have a fourth alternative?
I assume you are not willing to convert or to live as a Jew under sharia, or other variants of surrender. It's worth pointing out, though, that any war does have the option of surrender, or of a negotiated peace; it's only because the English-speaking countries have been so extraordinarily successful in their wars that you rarely hear it mentioned. This is a point on which in a different conflict we might have something to learn from Germans, French, Russians, Japanese, and all the other nations who have swallowed defeat at one point or another and gone on with their lives. A possible alternative to genocide is, perhaps, to get real energy independence; this is fantastically inefficient economically speaking, but "defense before affluence", as Adam Smith reminds us. (Or more defiantly, "Millions for defense but not a cent for tribute!") Let the price of oil drop to its pre-1970 level of a few dollars a barrel, and the Moslems can rant and rave all they like; they won't have the money to hurt anyone. The difficulty is, though, that other people like oil as well; if the US stops buying, China, Europe, and Japan will all gladly step up. It seems a bit difficult to provide energy independence for them on top of the US.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're asking me, my answer is that the assumption is ridiculous. That's like saying, "what would you do if one day you woke up and all the air outside your home was jelly?" How am I supposed to come up with a reasonable answer?
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: What? It's what *they* call themselves? So anybody acting in the name of a religion automatically represents it? Really?
Well, yeah, I'd say so--and so would you, if we were talking about Christian extremism, you double-standard holder.
You are absolutely wrong in that assumption, and what's more, I think you know that, and are just being a petulant child.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If - and a big if - being clear, that this is not what I believe, but just playing with KoM's hypo - Islam is indeed, in itself, dangerous - then I'd try my best to first wage a cultural war.
Try to use cultural influences to convert, have fall away, or secularize the majority. This would be done subtly, not to create any clear sides so as to avoid any real war.
If that failed, or was only semi-successful, I think it would be best to weigh the danger with the costs of a war seeking to "eradicate" that religion. If the danger is higher than the cost, then we should start real war with the most extreme factions and the governments that support them or are unsuccessful at reigning them in.
If the costs were as steep as the danger, or higher, then I suppose we'd have to bear the situation until the playing field changes.
We're doing a little bit of that right now, mostly, because I don't think we have enough data to make any real determinations that should affect policy.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:When's the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by one American Muslim turning in another one?
When was the last time you heard about a terrorist plot foiled by an American Christian turning in another one? What, you never heard of the Oklahoma City bombing? Plenty of Christian terrorists, in fact given the demographics of the US, probably more of them (domestically) than Moslems.
Yes, KoM, I know. I have no excuse for those Christians, and I'm just glad that Eric Robert Rudolph was not from my county in NC. Bear in mind, I am not a Christian, although I've got nothing against the Quakers and Unitarian/Universalists. They're nice folks, and I wouldn't probably have problems dating members of those religions.
I think it's a bit dickish to come to this country and criticize its citizens, who have been so kind as to allow your foreign-born butt to stay here. If you took some Norwegians and isolated them as badly and as long as a lot of backwoods Christians have been, you'd see some crazy fundamentalist-type stuff from those very Norwegians (more probably their descendants). That's just human nature. That doesn't mean it's great, just that it's human nature.
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: If I knew that a Taliban fighter was next door, that would freak me out. If I knew that there was a Muslim living next door, that would not freak me out. If this Muslim neighbor acted secretive, seemed angry all the time, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would freak me out. But the fact that he is Muslim would not. If anyone else lived next door, acted secretive, seemed angry, and gave me ugly, hate-filled looks, that would also freak me out.
Do you think that the Muslims in this country that make up the organizations linked to above would not report terrorism if they knew of it? I'm guessing that you think that they would not, and that is what I just don't understand.
Your first paragraph I agree with. Your second paragraph, was, I hope, written by a crack-addicted family member who paid you $20 to let him finish your post.
Seriously, yes, I suspect the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims are pretty much in collusion, to the degree of not turning in fellow Muslims. Not all off them. A lot, though.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, yes, I suspect the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims are pretty much in collusion, to the degree of not turning in fellow Muslims. Not all off them. A lot, though.
Do you have any idea what a nutjob this makes you sound like? You really think that there's a billion person conspiracy to cover up the actions of a tiny percentage? Posts: 49 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: And that's where your reality and my reality are fundamentally different.
I haven't the slightest idea what the Muslims in those organizations would do. I couldn't care less. The question is, what is the next one I encounter going to do, be a good boy, or a bad boy? Mine is a natural caution, born of looking carefully at the people I get on planes with, trying to figure out if one of them plans to yell "Allahu Akbar" and fly us into a building. I don't care about the Muslim you work with, or the one you live beside. They don't concern me. The next one I encounter concerns me. Political correctness does not override my caution. If I meet a strange dog, my first thought is not "am I prejudging this dog unfairly?". I am too busy checking his behavior for danger signs versus signs of friendliness.
I think you're right. Your reality is all about somebody's feelings, or some such. My reality is all about not dying at the hands of a crazy man, among other things. I sincerely hope, for your sake, that if you ever have the crappy luck to encounter a crazy person like Nadal (or that guy that shot up the church, Jim Adkisson), you react the smart way and stay alive. Safety first. Call me a Neanderthal, but...safety first.
Let's face it, while profiling sucks, we all do it. What do we do when we see a young black man that looks like a gang member? We watch him and steer clear. It's the same thing. It might not be pretty...but it saves lives. I'm not about to sacrifice my safety, or my family's, or anyone else's around me. Hate me if you want. I'd still save you from a Nadal, or a Jim Adkisson, if I could. You'd probably complain afterwards because I punched him too hard, and engaged in excessive brutality, but I'd get over it. I'd have to, because clearly nothing convinces you.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, yes, I suspect the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims are pretty much in collusion, to the degree of not turning in fellow Muslims. Not all off them. A lot, though.
Do you have any idea what a nutjob this makes you sound like? You really think that there's a billion person conspiracy to cover up the actions of a tiny percentage?
OK, seriously, the name-calling is unnecessary, don't you think? I'm a nutjob?
I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think that people
a. don't care b. don't want to get involved c. are afraid of Muslim reprisals d. aren't paying full attention, because, after all, a devout Muslim is a good one, right? The crazy devout ones can slip under your radar, if your main focus in judging someone is how devout they are.
So, ignorance, apathy, excessive religious zeal, and fear. No, there's no conspiracy. That's like saying there's a conspiracy among young people to form gangs and deal drugs. Yeah, they're all in on that together. LOL
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Seriously, yes, I suspect the majority of Middle Eastern Muslims are pretty much in collusion, to the degree of not turning in fellow Muslims. Not all off them. A lot, though.
Do you have any idea what a nutjob this makes you sound like? You really think that there's a billion person conspiracy to cover up the actions of a tiny percentage?
Well, believe it or not, there is a large percentage of Americans who feel the same way steven does, including much of the media. I guess you could compare it to the whole 'stop snitchin' movement within the black community, where there may be an exaggeration in the reporting of the phenomena, but there is some truth behind it. These things do happen; turning these bad guys in could result in violence towards your own family in some places, and yet its very easy for us to consider not turning them in just as bad as the crime itself. It's not an easy situation, and I'm sure not sure what I would do in that situation. Yes, taking a stand against these people would be the right thing to do, but for many Middle Eastern Muslims who think that us Americans are just as bad as the terrorists (and depending on your opinion, there is justification for this), I'm not sure there's a whole lot of motivation to do the right thing.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: While I would not say I'm "for" suicide bombing, it's hard for me to really say that all Muslims should be convinced that there is NEVER a time or place for it.
I'll quickly note that I didn't exactly say that all Muslims should be convinced that there is never a time for suicide bombing. I mean, it should be fairly obvious that suicide bombing (or the related act of flying planes into buildings) is a awfully effective and cheap way of terrorizing a society.
My previous contention was merely that I suspect the statistics describe a greater tendency toward violence, one that can be compared to the greater frequency of non-violent protests (at least to others) like for example, self-immolation when looking at groups like Buddhists or Falun Gong.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Well, believe it or not, there is a large percentage of Americans who feel the same way steven does, including much of the media. I guess you could compare it to the whole 'stop snitchin' movement within the black community, where there may be an exaggeration in the reporting of the phenomena, but there is some truth behind it. These things do happen; turning these bad guys in could result in violence towards your own family in some places, and yet its very easy for us to consider not turning them in just as bad as the crime itself. It's not an easy situation, and I'm sure not sure what I would do in that situation.
I'm not sure what I would do, either. But that's not what I'm talking about.
You folks are confused. I'm not talking about policy decisions, or broad judgements preached from some bully pulpit. I'm talking about law-enforcement-level profiling, and individual-citizen-level profiling. It's not pretty, but brother it works. Hate me for saying it, but...I'm no martyr, willing to die for political correctness. If you folks want to be, more power to you, but don't expect me to suddenly change. I didn't live to 34 with all parts intact and working reasonably well by ignoring common sense in life-or-death situations. Either physical safety is your #1 priority, or something else is. Your call, but don't expect me to change my call.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... So, a challenge to both sides of this debate: What are you going to do about it? The right is correct in arguing that Islam is a danger. Fine, now what? The left is correct in arguing that there is moral equivalence. Fine, now what? Neither side, as far as I can see, is putting forward any sort of plan of action.
I don't know if I'm included in this challenge. In brief, while I agree with the right that Islam is a danger, I don't think that it is a significant enough danger to us as North Americans to spend much time on it as opposed to all the other problems we face. I also think the left is correct in asserting some level of moral equivalence.
That said, I don't necessarily think that we as North Americans need a plan of action, rather we need a plan of inaction. I suspect that our half-hearted attempts at "helping" things in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around Israel are rather making things worse, if only by putting North Americans directly in harms way and radicalizing our own Muslim populations.
Other jurisdictions may need other strategies.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Human nature inclines us to do something, to resolve situations. Often, what we do to resolve a situation is worse than leaving the situation unresolved.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the first step in any plan I think would have to be removing the half-hearted qualifier from any efforts.
Half-hearted is exactly the kind of thing that's gotten us into so much long-term trouble. If we weren't so committed to half-assing it in Afghanistan, I'd be much less uncomfortable with future prospects in that area. And coming from that area.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, KoM, I'm interested in when and why you started saying "Moslem" as opposed to "Muslim." I have been assuming you were doing it as a tongue-in-cheek crack at hillbilly crackers who talk about "A-rabs," or maybe 19th century English writers who called them "Muhammadans," or some variant. My dictionary sites "Moslem" as a mere variant spelling, and not a derogatory one, but I had been under the impression that it was considered passé.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truly, I have no idea. I think in fact I use the two spellings interchangeably. It's not a conscious device, just a habit.
ETA: The Norwegian spelling is "muslim", uncapitalised, but the pronunciation is quite different, roughly "mush-leem". Perhaps I'm subconsciously spelling it differently because I'm thinking in English and thus internally pronouncing it rather differently from what I associate with 'muslim'?
[ November 17, 2009, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
