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
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
