Full Version: Islamophobia
I may regret opening this can of falafel, but what the hey... 
There seems to be a lot of heat (and hate) generated by any mention of Islam or Muslims. I found this piece today when researching the whole Congressman/Quran issue.
Then, Klein identified it as a hoax, and had this to say about those enthusiastic callers:
If ever there was a valid comparison to Nazi Germany, this could be it. I find it disturbing that so many Americans are so eager to adopt the same methods used by Hitler.
First, a rhetorical question: What the heck has this country come to, that such a large percentage advocate such a heinous thing?
And the real questions:
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
EDIT: Topic title fixed. -AMLord
There seems to be a lot of heat (and hate) generated by any mention of Islam or Muslims. I found this piece today when researching the whole Congressman/Quran issue.
QUOTE
When radio host Jerry Klein suggested that all Muslims in the United States should be identified with a crescent-shape tattoo or a distinctive arm band, the phone lines jammed instantly.
<snip>
Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. "What good is identifying them?" he asked. "You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans." AOL News
<snip>
Another said that tattoos, armbands and other identifying markers such as crescent marks on driver's licenses, passports and birth certificates did not go far enough. "What good is identifying them?" he asked. "You have to set up encampments like during World War Two with the Japanese and Germans." AOL News
Then, Klein identified it as a hoax, and had this to say about those enthusiastic callers:
QUOTE
"Because basically what you just did was show me how the German people allowed what happened to the Jews to happen ... We need to separate them, we need to tattoo their arms, we need to make them wear the yellow Star of David, we need to put them in concentration camps, we basically just need to kill them all because they are dangerous."
If ever there was a valid comparison to Nazi Germany, this could be it. I find it disturbing that so many Americans are so eager to adopt the same methods used by Hitler.
QUOTE
A Gallup poll this summer of more than 1,000 Americans showed that 39 percent were in favor of requiring Muslims in the United States, including American citizens, to carry special identification.
Roughly a quarter of those polled said they would not want to live next door to a Muslim and a third thought that Muslims in the United States sympathized with al Qaeda, the extremist group behind the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
A poll carried out by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an advocacy group, found that for one in three Americans, the word Islam triggers negative connotations such as "war," "hatred" and "terrorist." The war in Iraq has contributed to such perceptions.
Roughly a quarter of those polled said they would not want to live next door to a Muslim and a third thought that Muslims in the United States sympathized with al Qaeda, the extremist group behind the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
A poll carried out by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an advocacy group, found that for one in three Americans, the word Islam triggers negative connotations such as "war," "hatred" and "terrorist." The war in Iraq has contributed to such perceptions.
First, a rhetorical question: What the heck has this country come to, that such a large percentage advocate such a heinous thing?
And the real questions:
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
EDIT: Topic title fixed. -AMLord
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
This boils down to one thing: we are at war and the people we are at war with are Muslims. Glenn Beck on his show today declared that this is the elephant in the room that most people don't want to admit: the West is being attacked by Islam on several fronts.
How can we ease this? Win the war, I guess. Stop them from attacking us (culturally and literally).
Of course, we are not at war with all of Islam, but with a select group of jihadists who see attacking the West as the will of Allah. 99% of American Muslims do not fit into this category (although I've seen some stories about groups in Michigan). We do not need to identify American Muslims. That is utterly stupid. We are being attacked by outsiders, not insiders.
You must keep in mind, however, that when attacked people become protective and xenophobic. It's understandable but we must understand who is attacking us. It is not American Muslims.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
Of course 9/11 is the root cause. 3,000 people who innocently went to worked died. It might seem like cattle behavior, but some Americans want to circle the wagons.
I don't think the average American gives a pass to Saudi Arabia. I don't think the average American differentiates between Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Syria. They just identify them as Muslims--guys who are like the ones who attacked us.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
I don't think Iraq has generated anti-Muslim attitudes. Certainly I could be wrong, but the war is simply not reported in religious context (except the references to the sects involved).
Iran probably does generate anti-Muslim feelings however.
This isn't "thinly veiled" hatred. It is a reaction to being attacked by terrorists. You can't escape the ramifications of this threat. Perhaps it is exaggerated, but there certainly is a threat and people are reacting to it.
This boils down to one thing: we are at war and the people we are at war with are Muslims. Glenn Beck on his show today declared that this is the elephant in the room that most people don't want to admit: the West is being attacked by Islam on several fronts.
How can we ease this? Win the war, I guess. Stop them from attacking us (culturally and literally).
Of course, we are not at war with all of Islam, but with a select group of jihadists who see attacking the West as the will of Allah. 99% of American Muslims do not fit into this category (although I've seen some stories about groups in Michigan). We do not need to identify American Muslims. That is utterly stupid. We are being attacked by outsiders, not insiders.
You must keep in mind, however, that when attacked people become protective and xenophobic. It's understandable but we must understand who is attacking us. It is not American Muslims.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
Of course 9/11 is the root cause. 3,000 people who innocently went to worked died. It might seem like cattle behavior, but some Americans want to circle the wagons.
I don't think the average American gives a pass to Saudi Arabia. I don't think the average American differentiates between Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, or Syria. They just identify them as Muslims--guys who are like the ones who attacked us.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
I don't think Iraq has generated anti-Muslim attitudes. Certainly I could be wrong, but the war is simply not reported in religious context (except the references to the sects involved).
Iran probably does generate anti-Muslim feelings however.
This isn't "thinly veiled" hatred. It is a reaction to being attacked by terrorists. You can't escape the ramifications of this threat. Perhaps it is exaggerated, but there certainly is a threat and people are reacting to it.
Well the timing of this story could not be better...
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/061207/K120708AU.html
Yes there is Islamophobia in sectors of the US, and it has gone byond just simple fear of 'the enemy' as Amlord states it. If you want to get technical, the US isn't at war with 'Islam', it is at war with a terrorist cell, which if it HAS a set religion, is Wahabbism, a direct export of (you guessed it) Saudi Arabia.
I disagree, I think the average US citizen DOES give a pass to saudi Arabia, despite its involvement in every single aspect of the war on terror... on the OTHER side. And I think the dislike of Islam is perfectly represented by a few people on this board who have made their express loathing of the religion all too clear.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/Oddities/061207/K120708AU.html
Yes there is Islamophobia in sectors of the US, and it has gone byond just simple fear of 'the enemy' as Amlord states it. If you want to get technical, the US isn't at war with 'Islam', it is at war with a terrorist cell, which if it HAS a set religion, is Wahabbism, a direct export of (you guessed it) Saudi Arabia.
I disagree, I think the average US citizen DOES give a pass to saudi Arabia, despite its involvement in every single aspect of the war on terror... on the OTHER side. And I think the dislike of Islam is perfectly represented by a few people on this board who have made their express loathing of the religion all too clear.
QUOTE(Vermillion)
And I think the dislike of Islam is perfectly represented by a few people on this board who have made their express loathing of the religion all too clear.
...and cue moif...First I'd like to point out as well that this is not just a fight between the USA and the Islamic world. It is not even a fight between Islam and the West, or between Islam and modern globalisation. It is nothing less than a fight between Islam and the whole planet and any one who tries to deny the global scale of this problem is either a fool or a liar. Every single country in Europe now has extensive problems with Islamic cultural oppression. The bigger the country, the worse the problem. Britain. Germany. France. Holland. Sweden. Denmark. Russia.
And beyond Europe: Azerbajan. Canada.Somalia. Sudan. The Philipines. Thailand. Australia. Indonesia. Cambodia. Malaysia. India. Pakistan. Egypt. Turkey. Yemen. Iran. Afghanistan. Syria.
It doesn't make any difference where in the world you go, where there are Muslims in any numbers, there is social conflict, violence and war until the Muslims form the majority, and then there is oppression, tyranny and an intolerance before which all western and American 'Islamophobia' pales into near insignificance.
Most damning of all however is the constant jihad. The never ending war and central obligation at the heart of the Islamic ideology waged by Muslims against all other people since the time of Mohammed.
There is a saying that if you have a problem with every one else, perhaps you are the problem.
Islam is the problem.
It is not a religion of peace. It does not promote peace or understanding. For well over fourteen centuries this religious ideology has shown itself utterly incapable of reform, of tolerance or of peaceful intentions.
Would be defenders of Islam in the west, operating under the notion of tolerance are always quick to describe it as a peaceful and beautiful religion. They go to great lengths to defend it, calling upon historical examples of Islamic tolerance as their witness, but look close enough, read the history books for yourself and a clear pattern emerges. When ever a dominant power has been Islamic, it has always used every form of oppression, slavery and tyranny to maintain its hold over the 'infidel'.
Today the Muslim world is a great bloated mass of humanity that is growing faster than any other. Muslim majority nations are all over crowded, corrupt and top Amnesty International, and HRW's lists of oppressive states and their populations are spilling over into neighbouring regions and gradually taking over there too.
The United States is geographically isolated and so it remains the most difficult place for Muslims to reach. Europe is far easier and has been far more tolerant of Islamic immigration, thus 20 to 50 million Muslims have now settled into Europe and as a direct consequence, where ever concentrations of Muslims gather anti Jewish attacks have soared, sexual crimes have quadrupled and corruption crimes have increased ten fold. Natives are soon made to feel unwelcome as these ghetto's have formed.
Once tolerant European societies are feeling the backlash now. Nationalism, unthinkable a generation ago, is fast returning to main stream politics as ethnic Europeans feel the consequences of their tolerance. States which had nothing to do with Iraq are seeing scenes of low intensity warfare being played out even in their capital city's. Even Bruxelles, the heart of the EU is being dragged into the 'House of Islam'.
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
Remove the cause of the phobia and the phobia will end.
All across Europe, the many governments have tried a full range of various methods by which to ease integration. All have failed. As a result, Europe is seeing harder and harsher laws being imposed to counter immigration, but this is too little too late. The cat is out of the bag now and the intercultural tension is never more obvious than in those states which have kept to the dogged mantra of 'multi culture'. France, Sweden and the UK being the most obvious examples:
QUOTE
"Getting involved in radical Islam is an emotional thing rather than a rational decision," says Abdul-Rahman al-Helbawi, a Muslim prayer leader. "And it's not a matter of intelligence or education - a lot of these radicals in Britain are very well-educated."
In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood. "We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."
Two days later in a prosperous West London cafe, Mr. Helbawi pondered the attacks. "It's not a surprise but I am still shocked," he said. "How can they do this? London is a city for all the world. This is not Islam." Hours after the bombings, Helbawi logged onto an Internet chat room run by British Muslim extremists. "They were all congratulating each other on the attacks," he said. "It was crazy. They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels, as if they had just come back from a battle."
Although so far, there is no evidence that British Muslims were involved in the bombs, there is little doubt that many British Muslims feel that Britain "deserved" the attacks for supporting the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Link. In Dalston market in north-east London on Thursday, "Abdullah," a Muslim watch-mender and evangelist, was in a pugnacious mood. "We don't need to fight. We are taking over!" he said. "We are here to bring civilization to the West. England does not belong to the English people, it belongs to God."
Two days later in a prosperous West London cafe, Mr. Helbawi pondered the attacks. "It's not a surprise but I am still shocked," he said. "How can they do this? London is a city for all the world. This is not Islam." Hours after the bombings, Helbawi logged onto an Internet chat room run by British Muslim extremists. "They were all congratulating each other on the attacks," he said. "It was crazy. They were talking about how they had won a great victory over the infidels, as if they had just come back from a battle."
Although so far, there is no evidence that British Muslims were involved in the bombs, there is little doubt that many British Muslims feel that Britain "deserved" the attacks for supporting the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
Education being the answer implies that Islam is actually the religion of peace our hopeful leaders and academics would all have us believe it is. Unfortunately all the facts in this matter indicate otherwise. Where ever Islam rules there is oppression. Where ever Islam is spreading, there is brutal conflict. In all examples there is an underlying hypocrisy evident in the Islamic perspectve:
QUOTE
Protests aimed at keeping the pope out of Hagia Sophia rocked Istanbul right up to the morning of his visit to the site. Contrast that intolerance with the tolerance granted Muslims in regard to the Al Aqsa mosque — this time, an Islamic site in Jerusalem annexed by Judaism. Unlike the permanent Muslim desecration of Hagia Sophia, after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, the Jews did not deface or convert the mosque into a Jewish synagogue or temple, even though the Al Aqsa mosque is deliberately built atop the remains of the Temple Mount, the holiest site of Judaism and, by extension, an important site for Christians. Moreover, since reclaiming the Temple Mount, Israel has granted Muslims control over the Al Aqsa mosque (except during times of crises).
All this illustrates the privileged status that many Muslims expect in the international arena. When Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories — such as Constantinople, not to mention all of North Africa, Spain and southwest Asia — those whom they have conquered as well as their descendants are not to expect any apologies, let alone political or territorial concessions.
Herein lies the conundrum. When Islamists wage jihad — past, present and future — conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their previous owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage "might makes right." That's fine; many people agree with this Hobbesian view.
But if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam's conquests resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding justice, restitutions, rights and so forth?
Put another way, when Muslims beat infidels, it's just too bad for the latter; they must submit to their new overlords' rules with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for apologies and concessions are expected from the infidel world at large.
Link.All this illustrates the privileged status that many Muslims expect in the international arena. When Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories — such as Constantinople, not to mention all of North Africa, Spain and southwest Asia — those whom they have conquered as well as their descendants are not to expect any apologies, let alone political or territorial concessions.
Herein lies the conundrum. When Islamists wage jihad — past, present and future — conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their previous owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage "might makes right." That's fine; many people agree with this Hobbesian view.
But if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam's conquests resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding justice, restitutions, rights and so forth?
Put another way, when Muslims beat infidels, it's just too bad for the latter; they must submit to their new overlords' rules with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for apologies and concessions are expected from the infidel world at large.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
I cannot say what causes feelings in the heart of US citizens. I only know that my own Islamophobia is not born of any need to find an enemy upon whom to lavish any hatred. My fear of this ideology is based entirely on the many violent actions of its many violent followers as opposed to the utter lack of any evidence to support the notion of the peaceful majority of Muslims I had always assumed must exist prior to the post cold war crisis between Islam and the rest of the world.
Most of all however I am afraid that the Danes will be subject to invasion and probable extermination as so many other infidel peoples have been once their countries were annexed by Islam.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
I have no idea why Americans, may or may not give Saudi Arabia a free pass. If they do, then I've never seen anything to suggest so. I've never yet seen any American defend Saudi Arabia.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Dec 7 2006, 04:10 PM) 
And the real questions:
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
EDIT: Topic title fixed. -AMLord
1. What can be done? Well, Islamists can call off their Jihad, the Muslim world can stop being the predatory and oppressive world that it is, and a renaissance can occur within that "religion" to adopt a stance of tolerance, acceptance, peace, and love. The premise of your post is that is "Blame America First" and I reject that premise completely. Muslims caused the problem, not us.
2. If we educate out people as to the TRUE nature of modern Islam, then perhaps the tensions will become worse. What do you advocate? Propaganda designed to hide the true nature of modern Islam and how it's currently practiced around the globe?
3. Iraq? Please. The Islamists hate us because we run contrary to their 7th century mentality of strict adherence to Islamic law, forced conversion of all infidels (or death), and a new world order where they run things.
4. 9/11 excuse for hatred? EXCUSE ME! We were ATTACKED by Islamist fanatics who attempted to force us to leave the "Islamic world". The hatred is on the side of the Jihad. They RAISE their kids to hate America, Israel, Christians, and Jews. They are breeding an army, an army of haters. Saudi Arabia? Well, they are friendly toward the US. Great. Again, the US is too accommodating, too tolerant, too accepting, and too easy to give other countries the benefit of the doubt. It's our weakness AND our strength as a nation. The hatred could be ended immediately if the HATERS changed direction.
I see no sign of that happening anytime soon. The little-Hitler running Iran is constantly spouting off nonsense about destroying Israel and now he's escalated his rant to include the rest of the world.
Fight them now, or fight them later. It's inevitable. Should we wait until they have the bomb to do so????
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
I will state that I am totally against any actions that are directed at a person or group of people based on religion and/or race. This is totally repugnant to me.
It is a two sided issue. When one side professes hatred that is wrong, regardless of which. And there is at least hatred on the side of the Muslims towards infidels as there is being directed toward them. Both sides need to tone down their radical rhetoric, and radical actions.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
I have always been a firm believer in education. To tell the truth the more Americans learn about Muslims the less they will like them.
I have been told that all religions have fundamentalists. Though I must say I am not too sure what a fundamental Buddhist is like. For most religions those that would be considered fundamentalists are a fairly small minority. That is not true in Islam, the majority are the fundamentalists and that is a major problem.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
Neither, Americans as a whole do not have a hatred toward any religion. They develop hatred when either hatred is directed at them or when attacked.
I think Islamic hatred of America is cause for the reaction. The change needs to start with the Muslims.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
As others have put in 'excuse'???? Excuse my foot, over 3,000 dead on September 11th is not an excuse, it is a war-crime. Committed by terrorists that received their support from American Muslims and Saudi 'charities'
The government's relationship has little to nothing with how the average American views the Saudis. The Saudi government has been active for decades in spreading their form of radical Islam. Which has built most of Mosques here in America. Groups like CAIR have aided and abetted these actions. Several of their leaders have been arrested and deported for raising funds for terrorist groups.
Does anybody here really think that reason for opposing Islam is not based on their actions towards us? As long as they project hatred they shouldn't be too surprised when it is returned. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
I will state that I am totally against any actions that are directed at a person or group of people based on religion and/or race. This is totally repugnant to me.
It is a two sided issue. When one side professes hatred that is wrong, regardless of which. And there is at least hatred on the side of the Muslims towards infidels as there is being directed toward them. Both sides need to tone down their radical rhetoric, and radical actions.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
I have always been a firm believer in education. To tell the truth the more Americans learn about Muslims the less they will like them.
I have been told that all religions have fundamentalists. Though I must say I am not too sure what a fundamental Buddhist is like. For most religions those that would be considered fundamentalists are a fairly small minority. That is not true in Islam, the majority are the fundamentalists and that is a major problem.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
Neither, Americans as a whole do not have a hatred toward any religion. They develop hatred when either hatred is directed at them or when attacked.
I think Islamic hatred of America is cause for the reaction. The change needs to start with the Muslims.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
As others have put in 'excuse'???? Excuse my foot, over 3,000 dead on September 11th is not an excuse, it is a war-crime. Committed by terrorists that received their support from American Muslims and Saudi 'charities'
The government's relationship has little to nothing with how the average American views the Saudis. The Saudi government has been active for decades in spreading their form of radical Islam. Which has built most of Mosques here in America. Groups like CAIR have aided and abetted these actions. Several of their leaders have been arrested and deported for raising funds for terrorist groups.
Does anybody here really think that reason for opposing Islam is not based on their actions towards us? As long as they project hatred they shouldn't be too surprised when it is returned. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Dec 7 2006, 04:10 PM)
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
Probably nothing. Someone will always find a reason to hate someone else. Whether it's their skin color, their comely wife or the fact that they work in the soul sucking department of marketing.
QUOTE
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
I think if Islam is smart they'll continue to keep their beliefs covered up and quiet. Religion of Peace? Uh no.
QUOTE
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
I think that blowing up US Marines, US Naval ships, killing Israelites and beheading journalists ranks much higher. Iraq is more of a result than a reason.
QUOTE
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
Don't kid yourself there are plenty of Americans who'd like turn Saudi Arabia into shadows and glass.
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
Islams should denounce the Jihadist, no longer allow them to use Islam to characterize the radical Jihadist ideology. Force them to segregate their beliefs from what real Islams feel.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?[
Education of Islam would only inflame the situation even worse, considering, much of the text is misunderstood of its meaning, hence, radical Islam.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
This tension has been around well before Iraq, so no.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
Not an excuse, but reality. If you read much of the literature from radical Islam, you will know of the hate for Western ideology. Its like a Wolf pup. Once he taste blood for the first time, there is no other taste to satisfy his hunger. The Jihadist had their taste of American blood and they want more.
Saudi Arabia, for all I care, can be Irans missile test range.
Islams should denounce the Jihadist, no longer allow them to use Islam to characterize the radical Jihadist ideology. Force them to segregate their beliefs from what real Islams feel.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?[
Education of Islam would only inflame the situation even worse, considering, much of the text is misunderstood of its meaning, hence, radical Islam.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
This tension has been around well before Iraq, so no.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
Not an excuse, but reality. If you read much of the literature from radical Islam, you will know of the hate for Western ideology. Its like a Wolf pup. Once he taste blood for the first time, there is no other taste to satisfy his hunger. The Jihadist had their taste of American blood and they want more.
Saudi Arabia, for all I care, can be Irans missile test range.
QUOTE(Lorenq59)
To tell the truth the more Americans learn about Muslims the less they will like them.
I think Islamic hatred of America is cause for the reaction. The change needs to start with the Muslims.
I think Islamic hatred of America is cause for the reaction. The change needs to start with the Muslims.
QUOTE(Tim M)
Islams should denounce the Jihadist, no longer allow them to use Islam to characterize the radical Jihadist ideology. Force them to segregate their beliefs from what real Islams feel.
QUOTE(Lordhelmet)
Well, Islamists can call off their Jihad, the Muslim world can stop being the predatory and oppressive world that it is, and a renaissance can occur within that "religion" to adopt a stance of tolerance, acceptance, peace, and love. The premise of your post is that is "Blame America First" and I reject that premise completely. Muslims caused the problem, not us.
Well, I have to say I expected it, but how disappointing to get this kind of knee-jerk reaction. Somehow, every Muslim in the world is to blame for your tunnel vision ("all Muslims are terrorists")?
The common feeling here is that someone else is to blame for making Americans start to think like Hitler (mark ‘em, put ‘em in camps).I don’t understand this whole business of blaming an entire religion (Islam) and ethnic group (Middle Easterners) for something carried out by 19 people. Did you hate all New Yorkers when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in OK City? Did you advocate blowing up the whole state? McVeigh was an Army veteran; did you hate all Army veterans? If your answer to those questions is “no, of course not, that’s absurd”, then I say to you it is equally absurd to blame millions of people and a particular religion for the actions of 19 men.
I don't see any outrage at America's cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, when that country is where the terrorists came from.
I have no love for the Middle East. I feel the majority of them are a backwards people, with little education and little desire to achieve one. There are so many things I disagree with Islam about; it would take too long to list (but I feel the same way about fundamental Christianity). But I don’t hate ALL PEOPLE who are Muslim. People are individuals, not countries, and not whole religions. If that were the case, then every Christian is responsble for the actions of an Eric Rudolph or a Clayton Waagner or a Paul Hill.
I don’t advocate tattooing them and locking them up in camps, because, damn it, I’m an American, and we’re supposed to be civilized and we were supposed to have learned a lesson from the shameful way we treated Japanese-Americans in WWII.
I guess there's a whole bunch who didn't. And if that's the face our country puts out for the world to see, we deserve their derision.
QUOTE(Daffygrl)
I don’t understand this whole business of blaming an entire religion (Islam) and ethnic group (Middle Easterners) for something carried out by 19 people. Did you hate all New Yorkers when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in OK City? Did you advocate blowing up the whole state? McVeigh was an Army veteran; did you hate all Army veterans? If your answer to those questions is “no, of course not, that’s absurd”, then I say to you it is equally absurd to blame millions of people and a particular religion for the actions of 19 men.
I don't see any outrage at America's cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, when that country is where the terrorists came from.
With all due respect to that perspective, I think your actually missing the point DaffyGrl. I don't see any outrage at America's cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, when that country is where the terrorists came from.
No one has the choice of where they are born or what colour their skin is. This is not about what city, country or region a person comes from. Its about which ideology they choose to adhere to. Muslims choose to be Muslims. They choose to accept jihad against none believers as doctrine. That is the difference. Who actually carries out the attacks makes no real difference in the big picture. It doesn't matter if they are Saudi's, Iraqi's or Americans. What really matters is that these attacks are supported by millions and millions of Muslims, both clerics and their followers, who consider them to be valid in the eyes of Allah.
Maybe the average Muslim has no choice but to follow the herd and I understand and can accept that it is difficult if not impossible to foresake Islam if you live in a Muslim majority country, but that doesn't absolve Islam for the monstrosities being carried out as adirect result of its ideological teaching. Daily.
I can't forgive any one who voluntarily choses to follow an ideology whose basic premise is to regard, and even treat all other humans as lesser beings... because that is what Islam does. At its core, Islam is about subjagation, of the faithful before God and of the infidel before the faithful. People claim all the time that Islam is a religion of peace, but in truth Islam only means peace through submission.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Dec 8 2006, 11:33 AM)
QUOTE(Lorenq59)
To tell the truth the more Americans learn about Muslims the less they will like them.
I think Islamic hatred of America is cause for the reaction. The change needs to start with the Muslims.
I think Islamic hatred of America is cause for the reaction. The change needs to start with the Muslims.
QUOTE(Tim M)
Islams should denounce the Jihadist, no longer allow them to use Islam to characterize the radical Jihadist ideology. Force them to segregate their beliefs from what real Islams feel.
QUOTE(Lordhelmet)
Well, Islamists can call off their Jihad, the Muslim world can stop being the predatory and oppressive world that it is, and a renaissance can occur within that "religion" to adopt a stance of tolerance, acceptance, peace, and love. The premise of your post is that is "Blame America First" and I reject that premise completely. Muslims caused the problem, not us.
Well, I have to say I expected it, but how disappointing to get this kind of knee-jerk reaction. Somehow, every Muslim in the world is to blame for your tunnel vision ("all Muslims are terrorists")?
The common feeling here is that someone else is to blame for making Americans start to think like Hitler (mark ‘em, put ‘em in camps).I don’t understand this whole business of blaming an entire religion (Islam) and ethnic group (Middle Easterners) for something carried out by 19 people. Did you hate all New Yorkers when Timothy McVeigh blew up the federal building in OK City? Did you advocate blowing up the whole state? McVeigh was an Army veteran; did you hate all Army veterans? If your answer to those questions is “no, of course not, that’s absurd”, then I say to you it is equally absurd to blame millions of people and a particular religion for the actions of 19 men.
I don't see any outrage at America's cozy relationship with Saudi Arabia, when that country is where the terrorists came from.
I have no love for the Middle East. I feel the majority of them are a backwards people, with little education and little desire to achieve one. There are so many things I disagree with Islam about; it would take too long to list (but I feel the same way about fundamental Christianity). But I don’t hate ALL PEOPLE who are Muslim. People are individuals, not countries, and not whole religions. If that were the case, then every Christian is responsble for the actions of an Eric Rudolph or a Clayton Waagner or a Paul Hill.
I don’t advocate tattooing them and locking them up in camps, because, damn it, I’m an American, and we’re supposed to be civilized and we were supposed to have learned a lesson from the shameful way we treated Japanese-Americans in WWII.
I guess there's a whole bunch who didn't. And if that's the face our country puts out for the world to see, we deserve their derision.
That was not a knee jerk reaction. As for blaming an entire religion, I don't see that. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but of late all terrorists are Muslims is fairly accurate.
That is part of the reason.
Then if you have ever read the Koran, you might understand my statement. Most religions have books that explain their core beliefs at a certain period of time. Christianity has theirs from a period shortly after their formation of a religion, Judaism didn't write their down for a long period after their formation, Islam's Koran was written down at their founding. I am not going to pretend that any of them is all peaceful and loving, that is not the truth. People that believe in their books being the literally truth as considered to be fundamentalists. As I stated most religions that is a small minority, with the majority are either not knowing, not caring, or realizing that the world changed and what happened, happened but that is not how we now act. Islam is not like most religions in that regard.
The leadership of the Muslim community in America is closely associated with the Wahabism sect of Islam. The reason has a lot to do with the fact that Saudi Arabia has spent billions to promote their sect. Wahabism is one of the least tolerant sects of Islam. It promotes absolute Sunni fundamentalism and is extremely xeno-phobic. I have heard what many an Imam preachs because I do understand Arabic and if it was not during a religious service it would be considered incitement to commit violence.
As for the actions of 19 men, if that was all there was to it then I might agree. The WTC is one of many thousands of terrorists acts. Such as the Munich Olympics, hi-jackings of airliners around the world, Bali bombing, Spain and UK train stations, beheading of journalists, seizing of the US Embassy in Teheran, Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the USS Cole, SS Achilli Lauro, etc. There are literally too many to list. The one common thread is the religion of the attackers.
Do I hate all German's because of the actions of some? No, but I do hold the Germans of Germany in World War II to bear some of the blame, since they put those people in charge and aided them during the war and benefitted from their actions for a while. So they too share the blame.
Until I hear a clear, consistent series of statements from the Muslim community to distance themselves from those acts I continue to hold them to be part of the problem. Especially when we read about many in CAIR leadership rolls that have been arrested for raising money for terrorists groups.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Dec 8 2006, 04:33 PM)
QUOTE(Lorenq59)
To tell the truth the more Americans learn about Muslims the less they will like them.
I think Islamic hatred of America is cause for the reaction. The change needs to start with the Muslims.
I think Islamic hatred of America is cause for the reaction. The change needs to start with the Muslims.
QUOTE(Tim M)
Islams should denounce the Jihadist, no longer allow them to use Islam to characterize the radical Jihadist ideology. Force them to segregate their beliefs from what real Islams feel.
QUOTE(Lordhelmet)
Well, Islamists can call off their Jihad, the Muslim world can stop being the predatory and oppressive world that it is, and a renaissance can occur within that "religion" to adopt a stance of tolerance, acceptance, peace, and love. The premise of your post is that is "Blame America First" and I reject that premise completely. Muslims caused the problem, not us.
Well, I have to say I expected it, but how disappointing to get this kind of knee-jerk reaction. Somehow, every Muslim in the world is to blame for your tunnel vision ("all Muslims are terrorists")?
The common feeling here is that someone else is to blame for making Americans start to think like Hitler (mark ‘em, put ‘em in camps).In what way does "Islams should denounce the Jihadist, no longer allow them to use Islam to characterize the radical Jihadist ideology. Force them to segregate their beliefs from what real Islams feel." make a claim that I am accusing all Muslims of being a terrorist?
Moif, responsible Muslims have denounced the jihadists. Here are just a few sources I was able to find during a short search:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm
http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s720095.htm
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7084
As for violent religions, please. None is more violent than Judaism and Christianity. Just a small sample:
If Christians followed their scripture to the letter (and some do), then we would have our own "jihadists" (and we do). Not all terrorists are Muslim. Muslims just have a much higher visibility right now, and they are easier to identify because they don't "look like us".
http://www.islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm
http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s720095.htm
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7084
As for violent religions, please. None is more violent than Judaism and Christianity. Just a small sample:
QUOTE
Exodus 15:3
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 17:16
For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.
Numbers 10:9
And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.
Leviticus 26:25
And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
1 Samuel 24:4
And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily.
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 17:16
For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.
Numbers 10:9
And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.
Leviticus 26:25
And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
1 Samuel 24:4
And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily.
If Christians followed their scripture to the letter (and some do), then we would have our own "jihadists" (and we do). Not all terrorists are Muslim. Muslims just have a much higher visibility right now, and they are easier to identify because they don't "look like us".
QUOTE(DaffyGrl @ Dec 8 2006, 01:46 PM)
If Christians followed their scripture to the letter (and some do), then we would have our own "jihadists" (and we do). Not all terrorists are Muslim. Muslims just have a much higher visibility right now, and they are easier to identify because they don't "look like us".
Don't quote the Bible, cite some current even stories where people are attacking in the name of Christianity.
Like this one: Man arrested for alleged holiday bomb plot
QUOTE
Federal officials said that in September, Shareef became acquainted with a witness who was cooperating with the FBI and confided to him that he wanted to commit acts of “violent jihad,” as well as other crimes.
The FBI has been aware of the plot and has been monitoring him closely, sources said. The plan was allegedly ideologically motivated.
The FBI has been aware of the plot and has been monitoring him closely, sources said. The plan was allegedly ideologically motivated.
Curiously, the words "Muslim" or "Islam" do not appear in the story, although the attack was "ideologically motivated".
I'm willing to bet he didn't want to commit acts of "violent jihad" in the name of Christianity.
QUOTE(Daffygrl)
Moif, responsible Muslims have denounced the jihadists. Here are just a few sources I was able to find during a short search:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm
http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s720095.htm
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7084
I appreciate the effort DaffyGrl, but I actually already know this and I'm afraid the opinions of a few Muslim academics and secular organisations here in the west do not strike me as speaking on behalf of the 1.4 billion Muslims said to be alive on planet Earth today. I am not convinced these people speak on any one's behalf but they're own and frankly I have seen enough stories about prominent Muslims who say one thing to to the west and quite another to their bretheren that I don't really consider these denounciations to be of much value at all. http://www.islamfortoday.com/60minutes.htm
http://www.freemuslims.org/issues/terrorism.php
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s720095.htm
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=7084
Even if these people (those in the articles you linked to) are bonafide there is also the question of how great a following they have. My knowledge of Muslims in the USA is limited but here in Denmark I have never yet seen Muslims in the street demonstrating against violent jihad, or the usurping of their religion by terrorists. I've seen them demonstrating all manner of other things, like cartoons, or offering support for Hamas, Hezbollah and other violent factions and terrorist causes, but never a single Muslim have I ever seen marching for peace.
Of course, we also have our secular muslim organisations here in Denmark as well and these have made similar verbal protests to the media 'condemning' terrorism in the name of Islam. But the sad truth is that by all reports, these secular and democratic Muslims are widely regarded as traitors by the vast majority of Danish muslims and their leaders have had to be careful what they say lest they receive a death threat in the form of a fatwa. One or two of these moderate Muslims 'leaders' are now under police protection as a result of the lack of support by the Danish Muslim community.
...this despite the fact that Denmark does not officially consider its Muslim population to be either dangerous to the state or generally violent. Apparently its a coincidence that we have three seperate terrorist trials ongoing in this country and all three involve groups of Muslims, not to mention the hundreds of rape cases, riots, gang attacks, bullying and assaults that generate from a 'Muslim community' that openly celebrates when ever al qaeda carries out a successful attack.
Sure, the imams deplore the actions to the Danish media, then later, on Al Jazeera they openly support the actions, often praising those who 'defend Islam'.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
As for violent religions, please. None is more violent than Judaism and Christianity. Just a small sample:
This is another argument I have seen before, and another that doesn't really convince me of much because frankly I don't see many example of Christians choosing to 'defend their faith' by murdering non believers. QUOTE
Exodus 15:3
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 17:16
For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.
Numbers 10:9
And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.
Leviticus 26:25
And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
1 Samuel 24:4
And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily.
The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
Exodus 17:16
For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.
Numbers 10:9
And if ye go to war in your land against the enemy that oppresseth you, then ye shall blow an alarm with the trumpets; and ye shall be remembered before the LORD your God, and ye shall be saved from your enemies.
Leviticus 26:25
And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall avenge the quarrel of my covenant: and when ye are gathered together within your cities, I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.
1 Samuel 24:4
And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the LORD said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Saul's robe privily.
Yes there are violent Christians just as there are violent Jews, Hindi's and members of all the other religions, but none of them threaten the democratic world, at least not any more. If I thought they did, then rest assured I would view them with the same attitude I have towards the multitude of followers of Islam.
There is also another point I'd like to make with regards to Christians. It may not be popular amongst secular scholars or left wing politcians, but the truth of the matter is that western democracy and the freedom of expression it champions grew out of, and despite of the Christian faith and I believe the reason for this is fairly simple. The central theme of the teachings of Jesus Christ, is forgiveness. Thus I believe most Christians do not regard the use of violence as a valid ingredient of their religion, regardless of what the old testament says and regardless of the tradition of Christian warfare. The same cannot be said of Muslims. Mohammed did not preach foregiveness, but submission and the central obligation of Islam is jihad, whether it be spiritual or through warfare.
As far as I am aware, there is no similar compunction to wage war inherent in Christianity or any other major religion, nor do modern Christian priests attempt to justify war using the old testament.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
If Christians followed their scripture to the letter (and some do), then we would have our own "jihadists" (and we do). Not all terrorists are Muslim. Muslims just have a much higher visibility right now, and they are easier to identify because they don't "look like us".
Again I must beg to differ. First of all, there are no Christian jihadi's, since there is no comparative obligation in Christianity. On the contrary, Christians are not supposed to kill other people at all. Yes, I know some few do, especially when the focus is on abortion clinics, but to my mind, this tiny fringe goup of Christian extremists can hardly be compared to the millions of Islamic extremists and the several nations they control.
Second. Muslims are not easier to identify, unless you are thinking of the bearded Mullahs and hijab wearing individuals. In fact most Muslims in the western world dress in western garb with no obvious signs of their religious beliefs. I have myself made assumptions regarding Middle Easterners only to find out in conversation that they were Christians, or even hard core communists.
At the same time, I must also point out that the majority of Chistians 'don't look like us' either but of course there are so few violent problems with the global Christian community that this doesn't really matter. The issue of what people look like only matters when the people in question are Muslim because Muslims are the ones letting off bombs in schools, markets and holiday resorts whilst chopping off heads and raping women to death for internet veiwing by the faithful... on account of their religion.
QUOTE(moif)
I appreciate the effort DaffyGrl, but I actually already know this and I'm afraid the opinions of a few Muslim academics and secular organisations here in the west do not strike me as speaking on behalf of the 1.4 billion Muslims said to be alive on planet Earth today. I am not convinced these people speak on any one's behalf but they're own and frankly I have seen enough stories about prominent Muslims who say one thing to to the west and quite another to their bretheren that I don't really consider these denounciations to be of much value at all.
I sincerely doubt that one group can speak for the entire world population of Muslims. And how would you know what “these people” (an offensive term btw) say to their so-called “brethren”? Are all Muslims automatically liars if they say they do not believe in violent jihad?
QUOTE(moif)
First of all, there are no Christian jihadi's, since there is no comparative obligation in Christianity.
I realize nothing I can say will budge anyone’s opinion here. I hold no great love for Muslims (or any other uber-religious people). But apply the same principles to other peoples and religions. There are Christian terrorists. How many do they speak for? Who knows? (Judging by this thread, far more than I imagined) Does it really matter? You hint that 1.4 billion Muslims are in their heart-of-hearts just like the violent jihadists. So, who’s to say that all fundamentalist/evangelical Christians secretly in their heart-of-hearts wish for the violent overthrow of secularists/Jews/Muslims (pick your group) and plot their demise?
QUOTE
Nagaland Rebels: (1948–present) Active in predominantly Christian state in Hindu India. Involved in several bombings in 2004. Goal: Independence from Hindu India after annexing parts of neighboring Indian states and Burma if it has Christian majority.
The second Ku Klux Klan: while mainly concerned about race was exclusively Protestant and did target (Irish and Hispanic) Catholics.
Army of God: Christian theocracy group that supports and involves itself in terrorist activity.
Christian Identity: a movement consisting of at least 35 hate groups as of 2005, some of which are responsible for violent crimes, and some of which assert that Christ will not return to earth until all Jews and other so-called Satanic individuals are eliminated.[1] Wikipedia
The second Ku Klux Klan: while mainly concerned about race was exclusively Protestant and did target (Irish and Hispanic) Catholics.
Army of God: Christian theocracy group that supports and involves itself in terrorist activity.
Christian Identity: a movement consisting of at least 35 hate groups as of 2005, some of which are responsible for violent crimes, and some of which assert that Christ will not return to earth until all Jews and other so-called Satanic individuals are eliminated.[1] Wikipedia
And how about some of these wackos who killed in the name of Christianity (and other religious besides Islam)? How about the IRA and the British in Northern Ireland?
QUOTE
Ervil LeBaron - Convicted serial killer who led a small sect of Polygamous Mormon fundamentalists
Luc Jouret - A founder of the Order of the Solar Temple. He had been arrested for stockpiling firearms illegally in the center of Quebec before his death linked to cult suicide.
Meir Kahane - Orthodox Jewish rabbi and founder of Kach and Kahane Chai, imprisoned for plotting the bombing of a mosque.
Joseph Kony - Lord's Resistance Army leader, paramiltary and religious group, who has been charged by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
Jeffrey Lundgren - Headed splinter group from Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, executed October 24, 2006, for multiple murders.
Charles Manson - Leader of Manson Family who is serving life for first degree murder
Monte Kim Miller - Founder of Concerned Christians, arrested by Israeli authorities on charges of plotting to cause a violent incident at the Temple Mount.
Shukri Mustafa - Leader of Takfir wal-Hijra who was captured and executed for the kidnap murder of a Muslim cleric.
Fred Phelps - Leader of Westboro Baptist Church, charges for violence are mostly for extortion and assault. Little to no actual jail time.
Jacques Robidoux - Leader of defunct group The Body of Christ who is serving time for first degree murder.
Roch Theriault - Former head of "Ant Hill Kids commune" serving a life sentence in Canada for the murder of Solange Boislard. Subject of film Savage Messiah
Yahweh Ben Yahweh - Head of Nation of Yahweh for RICO charges and conspiracy to commit murder.
Dwight York - Head of Nuwaubianism convicted of multiple RICO, child molestation, and financial reporting charges and sentenced to 135 years in prison. It should be noted his case is currently under appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Luc Jouret - A founder of the Order of the Solar Temple. He had been arrested for stockpiling firearms illegally in the center of Quebec before his death linked to cult suicide.
Meir Kahane - Orthodox Jewish rabbi and founder of Kach and Kahane Chai, imprisoned for plotting the bombing of a mosque.
Joseph Kony - Lord's Resistance Army leader, paramiltary and religious group, who has been charged by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
Jeffrey Lundgren - Headed splinter group from Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, executed October 24, 2006, for multiple murders.
Charles Manson - Leader of Manson Family who is serving life for first degree murder
Monte Kim Miller - Founder of Concerned Christians, arrested by Israeli authorities on charges of plotting to cause a violent incident at the Temple Mount.
Shukri Mustafa - Leader of Takfir wal-Hijra who was captured and executed for the kidnap murder of a Muslim cleric.
Fred Phelps - Leader of Westboro Baptist Church, charges for violence are mostly for extortion and assault. Little to no actual jail time.
Jacques Robidoux - Leader of defunct group The Body of Christ who is serving time for first degree murder.
Roch Theriault - Former head of "Ant Hill Kids commune" serving a life sentence in Canada for the murder of Solange Boislard. Subject of film Savage Messiah
Yahweh Ben Yahweh - Head of Nation of Yahweh for RICO charges and conspiracy to commit murder.
Dwight York - Head of Nuwaubianism convicted of multiple RICO, child molestation, and financial reporting charges and sentenced to 135 years in prison. It should be noted his case is currently under appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Muslims don't have exclusive rights to religious terrorism.
Came out a little short on the questions, huh? 
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
OMG Is that how you would characterize the tension? I would debate the premise that it should be eased. Frankly, I don't think the American public is worked up enough. Do you understand that our enemies call for our death as the first step? That's how they reduce their tension. I think it's time we end the PC war and give them everything we've got. I'm not PC, so don't expect me to play nice. There is only one way to fight a war, and that's without mercy.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
No, it's not up to us to be educated. They drew first blood, it is they who need the education. The Japanese had to learn the hard way, and now they are our friends.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
Excuse me???? Could you be a bit more biased? Who are the ones that killed people over cartoons? They dropped two of our buildings. I think we need to show them what it feels like to have two building fall on top of you.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
Excuse? What's their excuse, 9/11? Would you like us to attack Saudi Arabia? You want to see a big war?
Why do liberals always ask the most loaded and biased questions? I thought this place was about thoughtful debate. If I was a moderator, I'd delete your entire thread and make you ask your questions unbiasedly. And if you didn't I'd make you submit you topic for approval each and ever time until you can get a hold on yourself. This is very disappointing.
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
OMG Is that how you would characterize the tension? I would debate the premise that it should be eased. Frankly, I don't think the American public is worked up enough. Do you understand that our enemies call for our death as the first step? That's how they reduce their tension. I think it's time we end the PC war and give them everything we've got. I'm not PC, so don't expect me to play nice. There is only one way to fight a war, and that's without mercy.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
No, it's not up to us to be educated. They drew first blood, it is they who need the education. The Japanese had to learn the hard way, and now they are our friends.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
Excuse me???? Could you be a bit more biased? Who are the ones that killed people over cartoons? They dropped two of our buildings. I think we need to show them what it feels like to have two building fall on top of you.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
Excuse? What's their excuse, 9/11? Would you like us to attack Saudi Arabia? You want to see a big war?
Why do liberals always ask the most loaded and biased questions? I thought this place was about thoughtful debate. If I was a moderator, I'd delete your entire thread and make you ask your questions unbiasedly. And if you didn't I'd make you submit you topic for approval each and ever time until you can get a hold on yourself. This is very disappointing.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
I sincerely doubt that one group can speak for the entire world population of Muslims. And how would you know what “these people” (an offensive term btw) say to their so-called “brethren”? Are all Muslims automatically liars if they say they do not believe in violent jihad?
I'm sorry but you've lost me. How is 'these people' an offensive term? The stories to which I am refering, of Muslim leaders in Europe and specifically Denmark saying different things to different media, have been exposed by secular Muslim journalists on many occaisions. More often than not, when interveiwed by European media, imams and Muslim scholars will say what they think the western audience wishes to hear, but amongst their bretheren (Muslim extremists often refer to themselves and each other as a fraternity) they will urge violent actions. In one memorable instance of Danish Muslim leaders being filmed on hidden camera by a French Muslim TV crew they advocated the murder of a prominent Danish politician who just so happens to be a secular Muslim. When this film was shown in the national media the leaders implicated tried to laugh it off as a joke. In another example, the infamous (in Denmark) Abu Laban, head of Denmark's largest Muslim organisation, went on Al Jazeera and voiced his support for any action undertaken against the Danish state, not one hour after he'd been interviewed by Denmarks national media saying the exact opposite.
Naser Khader, the democratically elected politician of whom the afore mentioned death threats were made, exposed Laban himself, pointing out the duplicity of the imam as well as many of his fellow 'religious leaders'. Small wonder they want him dead.
Today Naser Khader is escorted, at all hours by a secret police body guard unit because it is inconceivable to the vast majority of the Danish Muslim community that he is anyting but a traitor. He has already been accosted several times, his wife and children have also been attacked, even at their kindergarten, by outraged Muslim citizens.
And no, all Muslims are not automatically liars if they say they do not believe in violent jihad. Jihad is a personal thing I uderstand and it is up to the individual to decide for her/himself what course of action s/he will take. The problem is, so few Muslims are prepared to stand up and denounce violent jihad either because to do so is increasingly hazardous or because they understand that at its core, their religion demands their submission to the divine will of Allah, which is provided to them by men like Abu Laban.
QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
I realize nothing I can say will budge anyone’s opinion here. I hold no great love for Muslims (or any other uber-religious people). But apply the same principles to other peoples and religions. There are Christian terrorists. How many do they speak for? Who knows? (Judging by this thread, far more than I imagined) Does it really matter? You hint that 1.4 billion Muslims are in their heart-of-hearts just like the violent jihadists. So, who’s to say that all fundamentalist/evangelical Christians secretly in their heart-of-hearts wish for the violent overthrow of secularists/Jews/Muslims (pick your group) and plot their demise?
I do not say that 1.4 billion Muslims are just like violent jihadi's in their heart-of-hearts, but rather that 1.4 billion Muslims are not doing anything to prevent the extremist jihadi's from taking over their religion and by my understanding, the reasons why not are because the ideology of Islam encourages violent jihad and because those few who actually do oppose the extremist agenda usually end up dying brutal deaths.QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
And how about some of these wackos who killed in the name of Christianity (and other religious besides Islam)? How about the IRA and the British in Northern Ireland?
The IRA are a nationalist organisation. They have not waged a religious war but to re-unify Eire.QUOTE(DaffyGrl)
The Muslims don't have exclusive rights to religious terrorism.
Indeed they don't and I will never claim they do. They are not dangerous because the nature of the problem they present but rather by the scale. Where as Christian extremists number in their thousands, their Muslim counterparts number in the hundreds of millions. They control vast resources, have entire nations in their control and have infiltrated every single western democracy with the intent to subvert and destroy the existing democratic social structure and replace it with a sharia society.edited to add.
I have no problem with the questions raised in this topic.
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
Well, a attitude adjustment style smacketh down might be in order. It is true that many, many very influential muslims have denounced the Jihadists and terrorists, but it is generally not reported by American media- the one that sticks the most in my mind was when the Chechnyan seperatists took those kids hostage in Russia- the massive protests throughout the former Russian republics and the Russian federation itself, against this action- with signs saying "this is not Islam, we do not suffer the children, take four of us for each child"- it really moved me to see that on Russian and other channels- never even saw one mention of it- it happened in Grozny itself as well! Thousands and thousands of men, in thier best white robes, denouncing this horrible tragedy, never once shown on US TV.
But on the other hand- they have declared war, not just on the US, but on liberal democracy and western civilization. They have, as FF so eloquently put it "drew first blood".
This is one area that I happened to agree with- we should take it too them, and bomb them past the stone age and into the plestiastone era
Seriously- I think at some point, western civilization is going to have to realize that we have a real war on our hands, and take a measured stand against it- the problem is, it is quite easy to other religions in the same net.
But there is a way around that- for instance, the Danish issue- those cartoons- every single immigrant protesting and calling for thier death should have been deported immediately, citizenship stripped, and never allowed again into the EU.
Our very "liberal-ness" may eventually be our downfall- we have religious freedom, and under that guise, it allows the Muslims to directly call for every nation they inhabits overthrow.
I do not differientiate between Christian goverments doing dastardly, terroristic work - the war on Iraq could very well be called the Christian Right wing's first battle, since that base of support allowed GW to do this thing. America has radicalized as well as Islam. And America, by many poeple's definition, including many poeple on this board- we are a "Christian nation"- and a great deal of our foriegn policy is influenced by Christian politics.
That being said- we are open to critisism from within when this happens- and it has worked, we have forced a govermental change. Nothing like that in Islam today!
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
No, not really. the radical faction of Islam has taken over, and those that don't agree have "safety relief valve" like we do of a very vocal moderate to liberal faction. THIS is why so many americans are equally afraid of Christianity- we know, that if they take total control, as they nearly have, we will have the same problems. No- we need to make it too painful to be fundamentalist- we need to hit them where it hurts, and take the war to them.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
America has been a racist and religious nation for a very long time, and , America, as a society, has gone to great lengths to kill and enslave and make second class citizens of those not white and Christian, even in my lifetime. It doesn't take much for us to focus on something like this.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
I think it is GWs relationship with Saudi that gave them the pass- otherwise, it may have very well turned into viewing the Saud's, and rightly so, as the true villians behind 9/11.
Well, a attitude adjustment style smacketh down might be in order. It is true that many, many very influential muslims have denounced the Jihadists and terrorists, but it is generally not reported by American media- the one that sticks the most in my mind was when the Chechnyan seperatists took those kids hostage in Russia- the massive protests throughout the former Russian republics and the Russian federation itself, against this action- with signs saying "this is not Islam, we do not suffer the children, take four of us for each child"- it really moved me to see that on Russian and other channels- never even saw one mention of it- it happened in Grozny itself as well! Thousands and thousands of men, in thier best white robes, denouncing this horrible tragedy, never once shown on US TV.
But on the other hand- they have declared war, not just on the US, but on liberal democracy and western civilization. They have, as FF so eloquently put it
"drew first blood". This is one area that I happened to agree with- we should take it too them, and bomb them past the stone age and into the plestiastone era
Seriously- I think at some point, western civilization is going to have to realize that we have a real war on our hands, and take a measured stand against it- the problem is, it is quite easy to other religions in the same net.
But there is a way around that- for instance, the Danish issue- those cartoons- every single immigrant protesting and calling for thier death should have been deported immediately, citizenship stripped, and never allowed again into the EU.
Our very "liberal-ness" may eventually be our downfall- we have religious freedom, and under that guise, it allows the Muslims to directly call for every nation they inhabits overthrow.
I do not differientiate between Christian goverments doing dastardly, terroristic work - the war on Iraq could very well be called the Christian Right wing's first battle, since that base of support allowed GW to do this thing. America has radicalized as well as Islam. And America, by many poeple's definition, including many poeple on this board- we are a "Christian nation"- and a great deal of our foriegn policy is influenced by Christian politics.
That being said- we are open to critisism from within when this happens- and it has worked, we have forced a govermental change. Nothing like that in Islam today!
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
No, not really. the radical faction of Islam has taken over, and those that don't agree have "safety relief valve" like we do of a very vocal moderate to liberal faction. THIS is why so many americans are equally afraid of Christianity- we know, that if they take total control, as they nearly have, we will have the same problems. No- we need to make it too painful to be fundamentalist- we need to hit them where it hurts, and take the war to them.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
America has been a racist and religious nation for a very long time, and , America, as a society, has gone to great lengths to kill and enslave and make second class citizens of those not white and Christian, even in my lifetime. It doesn't take much for us to focus on something like this.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
I think it is GWs relationship with Saudi that gave them the pass- otherwise, it may have very well turned into viewing the Saud's, and rightly so, as the true villians behind 9/11.
DaffyGrl:
Please, don't be ridiculous. Even if we took the figurative for the literal, the Jewish writ runs from that great sea that we call the Mediterrean, east to the River that we call the Euphrates, north into the Lebanon, and then south to the Wadi of Egypt. So there will be no Jewish jihad to take over the world. Christians were never given a land base, at least not those with a more Gentile heritage, and the command was to save souls and not to acquire land by conquest. That it turned out otherwise is infinitely more a reflection of the perversion of the faith by some than it is a reflection on the faith itself. And for your continuing education: YHWH is a God of war. My namesake: It is not flesh and blood that we contend with, but spiritual powers of darkness in the heavenly places. Is that the war you had in mind?
And, Daffy, the difference here, at least in today's climate, is that you can put our cross in urine and all we'll do is question why our tax money is being used for that purpose, whereas, well, you do recall the response to burning Qurans and cartoons of Mohammed, yes? So what does it mean to be peaceful when you live in a country where 99.99% share the faith and we otherwise see what happens when someone lampoons your prophet? You might otherwise ask the Copts of Egypt just how great their position is in their society.
Christian terrorists, as you called them, well, do you not see the difference here too? Blowing up abortion clinics isn't a theocracy, since you could do the same simply in the atheistic belief that any particular life began when we had unity of female and male gamete and so the destruction of the same, under the conditions described, is murder with malice aforethought [I don't use God to oppose abortion, but human biology and reproduction]. In contrast, what are the other terrorists doing it for? To establish Allah's rule over a humbly submissive one-world ummah? Try reading the literature. How many Christian terrorists, as you called them, have said, no, it wasn't just the murder of the unborn, as you see, my primary goal here is to establish YHWH's or Jesus' rule over America? The people who say that here are usually screwed up in the head, and we see evidence of that in the rest of their lives, but Osama, Hamas, Hizb Allah, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade aren't crazy, but sane, and so instead, they're malignant, and as such, are far more dangerous.
Here's how naive the discussion otherwise is. We will never have peace with Hamas and Hizb Allah and Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyers Brigade and some others, since, well, you know the faith, yes? Once it becomes a Muslim land, it is a Muslim land forever. So asking these particular souls to recognize Israel is asking them to break faith with Allah. Is their breaking faith with Allah a matter of negotiation? Sorry, but as much I disagree with them re the faith, and that's no secret here, I will at least credit them as not having to break their faith to work out a deal. True, they will have to live with the consequences of their faith and actions, but it is both foolhardly and immoral to ask them to break the faith unless your goal is their "conversion" [and not some material and/or political end].
Moif:
It might help if you explain to them the concepts of "kitman" and "taqiya," as that explains how they justify, to themselves and Allah, their saying one thing to us and another thing to the flock. Here is part of what Islamonline.net has to say re "kitman":
"Starting with the good aspects, we can say that a good type of kitman (concealment or hiding) is when you hide things still in process till they are complete. In our life, we may meet people who look with a malevolent eye to what we have, who are jealous that we have this and that, who are envious that we are blessed with this and that. Driven by their envy, hatred and dark intentions, they may plot for us or weave some traps. In order to be saved from their traps, we should keep hush-hush on things that are still in preparation. To this type of hiding, kitman is the best policy. In this regard, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, says in the hadith: “Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish inkitman.”
He himself gave the best example of such a type in the early days of Islam. When the number of Muslims was still small and the community was still weak, there was a big need for concealment or secret call (kitman) so as to save the cause of da`wah (inviting people to Islam) from the fierce enemies."
So, some won't show us their true colors until they have the power over us and so no longer have need to conceal and hide. Then it's a whole new ballgame. And so there is no mistake, what is the ultimate goal of Islam? Allah ruling the world of the humbly submissive one world ummah? And so, Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish in kitman. And so they tell us one thing, but the flock another [the flock is supposed to be trusted to keep the secret, a point not related above but made in the same article]. And to add to what you said, I recall a BBC article interviewing three Muslim youths in Britain, and they made no pretense, but came right out and said, we tell you one thing, we say other things among ourselves.
And, Moif, tell them also, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. We live in Dar al-Harb, the House of War. As Mohammed so famously noted, War is deceit.
Lastly, going back to my remark to Daffy Grl, re once Muslim, Muslim forever, yeah, since it was once Dar al-Harb but then became Dar al-Islam, and so it shall remain forever.
Sorry, one more. If they don't like "jihad," then call it Harb al-Muqqadas [roughly translated as "holy war"]. Mujahadeen is "holy warrior." Maybe Afghanistan and the former USSR can therefore enlighten us, as the presence of a whole bunch of non-Afghanis fighting as "holy warriors" in that Harb al-Muqqadas ought to tell one that the war, at least for some, was as much religous as it was anything else. Of course, their presence and war-making does tend to further show that it is true that some believe that once Dar al-Islam, then always Dar al-Islam, and so they were fighting there in Afghanistan as "holy warriors" in defense of Dar al-Islam. Of course, since we didn't understand them and Islam, then we didn't know that as soon as they were finished with the Russkies, then it was time for them to turn west and deal with those pesky Zionists interloping on land belonging to Dar al-Islam. Osama proves the point. He said two reasons: (1) US troops in Saudi [not only bad in that non-Muslims ought not be present in the land of Mohammed, but since military strength might tend to dictate just who rules, we've Dar al-Islam "reverting" to Dar al-Harb] and (2) Israel, since Israel is Dar al-Harb, while Palestine was, and will soon be again, Dar al-Islam.
And not to get too far off-topic, but that puts your more "moderate" Palestinian Arab in horrible spot, since as I've said before, in war, it's all those on your side and then everybody else, and so the more "moderate" types are in the position of simply not having the ability to restrain Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs, etc., but they will be exposed in any Israeli retaliation since, again, in war, it's all those on your side and then everybody else.
Please, don't be ridiculous. Even if we took the figurative for the literal, the Jewish writ runs from that great sea that we call the Mediterrean, east to the River that we call the Euphrates, north into the Lebanon, and then south to the Wadi of Egypt. So there will be no Jewish jihad to take over the world. Christians were never given a land base, at least not those with a more Gentile heritage, and the command was to save souls and not to acquire land by conquest. That it turned out otherwise is infinitely more a reflection of the perversion of the faith by some than it is a reflection on the faith itself. And for your continuing education: YHWH is a God of war. My namesake: It is not flesh and blood that we contend with, but spiritual powers of darkness in the heavenly places. Is that the war you had in mind?
And, Daffy, the difference here, at least in today's climate, is that you can put our cross in urine and all we'll do is question why our tax money is being used for that purpose, whereas, well, you do recall the response to burning Qurans and cartoons of Mohammed, yes? So what does it mean to be peaceful when you live in a country where 99.99% share the faith and we otherwise see what happens when someone lampoons your prophet? You might otherwise ask the Copts of Egypt just how great their position is in their society.
Christian terrorists, as you called them, well, do you not see the difference here too? Blowing up abortion clinics isn't a theocracy, since you could do the same simply in the atheistic belief that any particular life began when we had unity of female and male gamete and so the destruction of the same, under the conditions described, is murder with malice aforethought [I don't use God to oppose abortion, but human biology and reproduction]. In contrast, what are the other terrorists doing it for? To establish Allah's rule over a humbly submissive one-world ummah? Try reading the literature. How many Christian terrorists, as you called them, have said, no, it wasn't just the murder of the unborn, as you see, my primary goal here is to establish YHWH's or Jesus' rule over America? The people who say that here are usually screwed up in the head, and we see evidence of that in the rest of their lives, but Osama, Hamas, Hizb Allah, Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade aren't crazy, but sane, and so instead, they're malignant, and as such, are far more dangerous.
Here's how naive the discussion otherwise is. We will never have peace with Hamas and Hizb Allah and Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyers Brigade and some others, since, well, you know the faith, yes? Once it becomes a Muslim land, it is a Muslim land forever. So asking these particular souls to recognize Israel is asking them to break faith with Allah. Is their breaking faith with Allah a matter of negotiation? Sorry, but as much I disagree with them re the faith, and that's no secret here, I will at least credit them as not having to break their faith to work out a deal. True, they will have to live with the consequences of their faith and actions, but it is both foolhardly and immoral to ask them to break the faith unless your goal is their "conversion" [and not some material and/or political end].
Moif:
It might help if you explain to them the concepts of "kitman" and "taqiya," as that explains how they justify, to themselves and Allah, their saying one thing to us and another thing to the flock. Here is part of what Islamonline.net has to say re "kitman":
"Starting with the good aspects, we can say that a good type of kitman (concealment or hiding) is when you hide things still in process till they are complete. In our life, we may meet people who look with a malevolent eye to what we have, who are jealous that we have this and that, who are envious that we are blessed with this and that. Driven by their envy, hatred and dark intentions, they may plot for us or weave some traps. In order to be saved from their traps, we should keep hush-hush on things that are still in preparation. To this type of hiding, kitman is the best policy. In this regard, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, says in the hadith: “Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish inkitman.”
He himself gave the best example of such a type in the early days of Islam. When the number of Muslims was still small and the community was still weak, there was a big need for concealment or secret call (kitman) so as to save the cause of da`wah (inviting people to Islam) from the fierce enemies."
So, some won't show us their true colors until they have the power over us and so no longer have need to conceal and hide. Then it's a whole new ballgame. And so there is no mistake, what is the ultimate goal of Islam? Allah ruling the world of the humbly submissive one world ummah? And so, Seek fulfillment for things you want to finish in kitman. And so they tell us one thing, but the flock another [the flock is supposed to be trusted to keep the secret, a point not related above but made in the same article]. And to add to what you said, I recall a BBC article interviewing three Muslim youths in Britain, and they made no pretense, but came right out and said, we tell you one thing, we say other things among ourselves.
And, Moif, tell them also, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. We live in Dar al-Harb, the House of War. As Mohammed so famously noted, War is deceit.
Lastly, going back to my remark to Daffy Grl, re once Muslim, Muslim forever, yeah, since it was once Dar al-Harb but then became Dar al-Islam, and so it shall remain forever.
Sorry, one more. If they don't like "jihad," then call it Harb al-Muqqadas [roughly translated as "holy war"]. Mujahadeen is "holy warrior." Maybe Afghanistan and the former USSR can therefore enlighten us, as the presence of a whole bunch of non-Afghanis fighting as "holy warriors" in that Harb al-Muqqadas ought to tell one that the war, at least for some, was as much religous as it was anything else. Of course, their presence and war-making does tend to further show that it is true that some believe that once Dar al-Islam, then always Dar al-Islam, and so they were fighting there in Afghanistan as "holy warriors" in defense of Dar al-Islam. Of course, since we didn't understand them and Islam, then we didn't know that as soon as they were finished with the Russkies, then it was time for them to turn west and deal with those pesky Zionists interloping on land belonging to Dar al-Islam. Osama proves the point. He said two reasons: (1) US troops in Saudi [not only bad in that non-Muslims ought not be present in the land of Mohammed, but since military strength might tend to dictate just who rules, we've Dar al-Islam "reverting" to Dar al-Harb] and (2) Israel, since Israel is Dar al-Harb, while Palestine was, and will soon be again, Dar al-Islam.
And not to get too far off-topic, but that puts your more "moderate" Palestinian Arab in horrible spot, since as I've said before, in war, it's all those on your side and then everybody else, and so the more "moderate" types are in the position of simply not having the ability to restrain Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs, etc., but they will be exposed in any Israeli retaliation since, again, in war, it's all those on your side and then everybody else.
Daffy you've taken an absolutely bizarre stance here. You're culling together completely irrelevant things and trying to jam them into some sort of Christians are bad guys too argument and it's falling apart faster than you can cut and paste.
Islam compels its followers to wage war on non-believers. It does, it's clear and not at all allegorical. If you are forced to live side by side with non-Muslims as a Muslim you are to tax them and generally punish them relentlessly. It's not a fun religion. See also Sharia Law.
Islam is mostly incompatible with Western Civilization. Unless you want to wear a burkha and be stoned to death for being raped.
The only truly compatible Muslim is one who's barely following the religion at all. Given the choice to spend time with an over bearing Fundamentalist Christian and a Fundamentalist Muslim - I'll take the Christian as he's not likely to cut my head off.
Islam compels its followers to wage war on non-believers. It does, it's clear and not at all allegorical. If you are forced to live side by side with non-Muslims as a Muslim you are to tax them and generally punish them relentlessly. It's not a fun religion. See also Sharia Law.
Islam is mostly incompatible with Western Civilization. Unless you want to wear a burkha and be stoned to death for being raped.
The only truly compatible Muslim is one who's barely following the religion at all. Given the choice to spend time with an over bearing Fundamentalist Christian and a Fundamentalist Muslim - I'll take the Christian as he's not likely to cut my head off.
War and Jihad are the same. We cant take the holy books preachings as example and decide one nation or religion is more warlike than another.
Western nations have been involved in two terribly genocidal and imperialist World Wars in recent times, the US has been at war for centuries, are we warlike because of the Bible, or do we just recite it everytime we are at war? Doesnt every President of the US talk about God being on our side everytime we go to war?
There is a problem right now that has to do with Muslim fundamentalists, but dont they have a problem with American imperialists? attempting for decades to steal their resources and undermine their value systems inside their own countries?
All this 'Muslim problem' did not occur in a vacume.
The tragedies of what happen to women in Islam are due to patriarchy, problems which occur all over the world, not the religion itself. Why are you using womens issues as an incompatability test? Or is it only now convenient?
This war is not about women and clearly you are misinformed. Women are not required to wear burqas except in Afghanistan under the Taliban, Saudi women are required to wear a veil in public, Iranian woman may or may not wear a veil but it is encouraged, and Iraqi women were not required to wear a veil at all. Burqas are sometimes chosen by particularily religious women of these countries, except Afghanistan, where its a requirement by extremist thugs, was for 15 years before we ever considerd them 'bad' people.
If Islam is incompatible with Western civilization because of 'womens issues' then how do you explain that Iraq has reverted to fundamentalist Shiite rule 'under american supervision' which means more women are being killed, ostrasized, sheltered, uneducated, separated AND VEILED than in the time of Hussein, who refused to separate women from men and educated them all equally? Perhaps education about the basics IS lacking in american culture. See how we've been taught things that just aren't true.
On the other hand:
If Islam is incompatible with Western civilization why did we even begin to think we could rape them of their resources and engage in wars opposing mid-eastern countries against each other? Why did we make deals with Saddam Hussein, and why did we try to impose democracy upon Iraq in an arrogance that completely defied logic over historical precident?
They did not 'draw first blood'. They have been subjected to western wars and attempts at colonization since oil was discovered in the region. They booted the British after years of bloody war for oil and the west has never forgiven the outcome. We have meddled in Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq since, pitting them against each other. The creation of Israel and the sidling up and formation of bases in Saudi and the American, and extremely oppressive Haus of Saud dynastic underworkings have been a bone of contention since, uh, oil was discovered in the region. First blood is an american myth, no basis in history.
This is basically the problem, because it is easy to associate a Muslim WAR against perceived or real oppression as an exotic term 'Jihad' and holy book related, where as WAR the US and Western countries perpetrate on muslim countries is not considered by us as Jewish/ Christian, not holy book related , in our minds. However, to them it may very well all be. In Islam, Religion and State are not separate, every action is beholden to God/Allah.
When we, as Judeo/Christian nations make war and try to make other people think and behave, accept our beliefs and trump that 'western civilization is 'better than yours' coming from a completely different frame of mind and RELIGION, we are seen as expanding, religious, imperialist oppressors and of course WAR, or JIHAD is going to be declared. Lets try not to be myopic and single sided.
If it happened to us, everyone of us who owns a gun and everyone else would be out on the streets defending our way of life, everyone! And calling up our christian god at every moment against the heathen invaders.
If Saudi Arabia had bases in our country, and were controlling our economy through strong arm tactics, we would revolt much faster than they have, but the most ludicrous part not accepted even by people with half a brain, is that we trained and armed the 'son' of that same Haus of Saud we love so much in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Bin Laden, so, its just so much blather about whos wrong and who is really a terrorist. We dont know the half of it.
As to violent christians , as a Christian Nation (we are always proclaiming), we went into Iraq and killed possibly 20 times the innocents that died as a result of 9/11. The reason? No one really knows still. A disaster of gigantic porportions, a crusade to bring Democracy and a 'better way' to a nation that supposedly, IS INCOMPATIBLE with western civilization, so WE ARE CONVERTERS. How is that different or less murderous or religious as far as holy books, christian vs. muslim WAR/JIHAD?
One war kills hundreds of thousands with planes and bunker busters, another with planes and suicide bombers, its WAR. No further discussion of holy books necessary, its a rationalization.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
Something else. Simple education about how the west has tried to rip off Mid Eastern oil since it was discovered might suffice, takes about 3 hours. A history of oil dynasties, who is invloved still present day would also help.
An understanding of the Mid-eastern philosophy, religion and internal workings as well. The religion is a smokescreen, for them and for us. The Koran has as little to do with this as the Bible, its just a crutch.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
Weve been being programed to distrust Islamic nations for decades, all the while our government has been making deals, wars and taking sides, and harboring and training terrorists of all factions. They (on the other side) have been taught the same. Its a chess game and truly we are pawns. The sad thing is we are really prone to it, acting like stupid racist sheep, exactly what was expected of us to perpetuate economic wars of conquest.
Western nations have been involved in two terribly genocidal and imperialist World Wars in recent times, the US has been at war for centuries, are we warlike because of the Bible, or do we just recite it everytime we are at war? Doesnt every President of the US talk about God being on our side everytime we go to war?
There is a problem right now that has to do with Muslim fundamentalists, but dont they have a problem with American imperialists? attempting for decades to steal their resources and undermine their value systems inside their own countries?
All this 'Muslim problem' did not occur in a vacume.
QUOTE
Islam is mostly incompatible with Western Civilization. Unless you want to wear a burkha and be stoned to death for being raped.
The tragedies of what happen to women in Islam are due to patriarchy, problems which occur all over the world, not the religion itself. Why are you using womens issues as an incompatability test? Or is it only now convenient?
This war is not about women and clearly you are misinformed. Women are not required to wear burqas except in Afghanistan under the Taliban, Saudi women are required to wear a veil in public, Iranian woman may or may not wear a veil but it is encouraged, and Iraqi women were not required to wear a veil at all. Burqas are sometimes chosen by particularily religious women of these countries, except Afghanistan, where its a requirement by extremist thugs, was for 15 years before we ever considerd them 'bad' people.
If Islam is incompatible with Western civilization because of 'womens issues' then how do you explain that Iraq has reverted to fundamentalist Shiite rule 'under american supervision' which means more women are being killed, ostrasized, sheltered, uneducated, separated AND VEILED than in the time of Hussein, who refused to separate women from men and educated them all equally? Perhaps education about the basics IS lacking in american culture. See how we've been taught things that just aren't true.
On the other hand:
If Islam is incompatible with Western civilization why did we even begin to think we could rape them of their resources and engage in wars opposing mid-eastern countries against each other? Why did we make deals with Saddam Hussein, and why did we try to impose democracy upon Iraq in an arrogance that completely defied logic over historical precident?
QUOTE
But on the other hand- they have declared war, not just on the US, but on liberal democracy and western civilization. They have, as FF so eloquently put it "drew first blood".
They did not 'draw first blood'. They have been subjected to western wars and attempts at colonization since oil was discovered in the region. They booted the British after years of bloody war for oil and the west has never forgiven the outcome. We have meddled in Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Iraq since, pitting them against each other. The creation of Israel and the sidling up and formation of bases in Saudi and the American, and extremely oppressive Haus of Saud dynastic underworkings have been a bone of contention since, uh, oil was discovered in the region. First blood is an american myth, no basis in history.
QUOTE
This is another argument I have seen before, and another that doesn't really convince me of much because frankly I don't see many example of Christians choosing to 'defend their faith' by murdering non believers.
Yes there are violent Christians just as there are violent Jews, Hindi's and members of all the other religions, but none of them threaten the democratic world, at least not any more. If I thought they did, then rest assured I would view them with the same attitude I have towards the multitude of followers of Islam.
Yes there are violent Christians just as there are violent Jews, Hindi's and members of all the other religions, but none of them threaten the democratic world, at least not any more. If I thought they did, then rest assured I would view them with the same attitude I have towards the multitude of followers of Islam.
This is basically the problem, because it is easy to associate a Muslim WAR against perceived or real oppression as an exotic term 'Jihad' and holy book related, where as WAR the US and Western countries perpetrate on muslim countries is not considered by us as Jewish/ Christian, not holy book related , in our minds. However, to them it may very well all be. In Islam, Religion and State are not separate, every action is beholden to God/Allah.
When we, as Judeo/Christian nations make war and try to make other people think and behave, accept our beliefs and trump that 'western civilization is 'better than yours' coming from a completely different frame of mind and RELIGION, we are seen as expanding, religious, imperialist oppressors and of course WAR, or JIHAD is going to be declared. Lets try not to be myopic and single sided.
If it happened to us, everyone of us who owns a gun and everyone else would be out on the streets defending our way of life, everyone! And calling up our christian god at every moment against the heathen invaders.
If Saudi Arabia had bases in our country, and were controlling our economy through strong arm tactics, we would revolt much faster than they have, but the most ludicrous part not accepted even by people with half a brain, is that we trained and armed the 'son' of that same Haus of Saud we love so much in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Bin Laden, so, its just so much blather about whos wrong and who is really a terrorist. We dont know the half of it.
As to violent christians , as a Christian Nation (we are always proclaiming), we went into Iraq and killed possibly 20 times the innocents that died as a result of 9/11. The reason? No one really knows still. A disaster of gigantic porportions, a crusade to bring Democracy and a 'better way' to a nation that supposedly, IS INCOMPATIBLE with western civilization, so WE ARE CONVERTERS. How is that different or less murderous or religious as far as holy books, christian vs. muslim WAR/JIHAD?
One war kills hundreds of thousands with planes and bunker busters, another with planes and suicide bombers, its WAR. No further discussion of holy books necessary, its a rationalization.
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
Something else. Simple education about how the west has tried to rip off Mid Eastern oil since it was discovered might suffice, takes about 3 hours. A history of oil dynasties, who is invloved still present day would also help.
An understanding of the Mid-eastern philosophy, religion and internal workings as well. The religion is a smokescreen, for them and for us. The Koran has as little to do with this as the Bible, its just a crutch.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
Weve been being programed to distrust Islamic nations for decades, all the while our government has been making deals, wars and taking sides, and harboring and training terrorists of all factions. They (on the other side) have been taught the same. Its a chess game and truly we are pawns. The sad thing is we are really prone to it, acting like stupid racist sheep, exactly what was expected of us to perpetuate economic wars of conquest.
QUOTE(Artemise @ Dec 9 2006, 12:22 AM)
SNIP Artemise's post about how Fundamental Islam is all our fault
Basically you argument boils down to this. The Western world has been raping and pillaging the Middle East for oil and so radical Islam rises out of the RoP to fight back. If only we would teach our children what horrid people we are in a few decades everything would be fine.
I mean is that the gist? Am I far off base?
The litany of things you're wrong about regarding the somewhat twisted relationship the West has had with the Arab world is overwhelming. I suspect you are of the mindset that your overly simplistic view of this situation is wholly correct and we need only adjust our views of Good Guys/Bad Guys to correct it. Under normal circumstances I'd suggest some sources to help you understand where you've been led astray and where you can find out what really happened but I alread know I'd be wasting bandwidth.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Dec 9 2006, 09:00 AM)
QUOTE(Artemise @ Dec 9 2006, 12:22 AM)
SNIP Artemise's post about how Fundamental Islam is all our fault
Basically you argument boils down to this. The Western world has been raping and pillaging the Middle East for oil and so radical Islam rises out of the RoP to fight back. If only we would teach our children what horrid people we are in a few decades everything would be fine.
I mean is that the gist? Am I far off base?
The litany of things you're wrong about regarding the somewhat twisted relationship the West has had with the Arab world is overwhelming. I suspect you are of the mindset that your overly simplistic view of this situation is wholly correct and we need only adjust our views of Good Guys/Bad Guys to correct it. Under normal circumstances I'd suggest some sources to help you understand where you've been led astray and where you can find out what really happened but I alread know I'd be wasting bandwidth.
I'm not so sure it's too far off. All of the problems we have with the Middle East today started when the Ottoman empire picked the losing side to back during world war I. If not for that, things would likely be quite different today. The entire Middle East (not including Israel) has come up with roughly the same number of patents in the past ten years that one large American company creates in an average month (from 'The World is Flat'). They don't innovate because they don't have to. If not for oil money, the money we provide in exchange for their resources, along with the weapons we provide, they would have had to adapt without large sources of oil revenue (which has been destabilizing). They certainly wouldn't be a problem to us now. But that's like wishing for an alternate reality which is pointless. Had gunpowder never been invented, things would be different, too....
On to the questions:
What, if anything, can be done to ease the racial/ethnic/religious tension?
Is education about Islam the answer, as Professor Esa and Colonel Ahmed believe? Something else?
I am convinced that there isn't much that can be done. The cliche "education" does seem fitting here. But whose? I'm not sure. It isn't right to paint any religion or ethnic group with a broad brush, especially when only a tiny percent are violent. But on the other hand, it's also true that there is a real threat right now from that fringe group that shouldn't be ignored. And the entire middle east does hate us in general, whether their reasons for hating us are just or not. It doesn't really matter. Their reasons for wanting us dead might be very compelling, but hate tends to take on a life of its own. It works both ways. The more they hate us, the more we start to hate them and vice versa. At this point we're pretty much damned no matter what we do. I've often thought we could undermine support for organizations these days by actually taking their side.
QUOTE(Satirical alternate reality)
In a radical counter move, the US embraces Hezzbolah. Bush writes a “private” letter of praise for Hezzbolah leadership, which is infiltrated easily and published worldwide. Hezzbolah is deemed to be an American pawn and loses all support throughout the middle east. Weapons money is funneled instead into advertisement to promote psychological campaigns that undermine the extent of US support...contests of “Who is less liked by the United States” ensue. Hezzbolah schools offer cash incentives to students for the most persuasive essays and snappy jingles…
The only thing to do is take the source of the friction away if possible. Remove military forces from those areas, ect.
Do you believe it is our involvement in Iraq that has caused these feelings, or have Americans always harbored a thinly-veiled hatred of those people who practice Islam?
I think 911 had more to do with this than Iraq. That's when it started.
If 9/11 is the excuse for the hatred, then why isn't the hatred directed at Saudi Arabians (most of the terrorists' nationality) and our government's friendly relationship with them?
I think you are switching now arbitrarily. A percentage of our population is Islamophobic. Our government is not Islamophobic, not even close. Our government supports Saudi, not our Islamophobic population. Our population doesn't know where Saudi is on the map and certainly couldn't tell you the difference between a Saudi arab or an Iranian Persian.
QUOTE(BaphometsAdvocate @ Dec 9 2006, 09:00 AM)
QUOTE(Artemise @ Dec 9 2006, 12:22 AM)
SNIP Artemise's post about how Fundamental Islam is all our fault
Basically you argument boils down to this. The Western world has been raping and pillaging the Middle East for oil and so radical Islam rises out of the RoP to fight back. If only we would teach our children what horrid people we are in a few decades everything would be fine.
As Americans, we were attacked by the Japanese. As Americans, we were attacked by the Taliban. As Americans, we are attacked around the world for simply being Americans.
Given Artimese's position and MrsP's empathetic response, maybe George Bush was correct - maybe it's our turn. Given past transgressions, it's our right to attack others at any time because we're been treated unfairly. The British (it's always the British's fault as we all know) kept a tyrannical hand over us, raped our women, buggered our children, and viscously tore the tags off our matresses. Japan - quite unfairly - killed a bunch of our countrymen 65 years ago. Muslim extremists destroyed half our country and eliminated many of our freedoms with a pack of razor blades making us all victims.
Maybe we should use the same excuse? I feel like I dropped a couple IQ points just typing this making an absurd point. There is no reason to take the life of an innocent PERIOD.
The only answer to the problem lies with Muslims themselves. DaffyGirl made a reference to crimes committed in the name of religion. It an apples/oranges comparison for one simple reason - Americans have no tolerance for that behavior whatsoever. For pete's sake, the Unabomber's own brother turned him in. And any one of us here would probably do the same. If our next door neighbor were planning to kill someone and wanted our help, our first step as part of that "plan" would be to call the police and lock the sick SOB's up. If they asked for safe haven after killing a bunch of innocents, they would be tucked away safe in a jail cell by the next day. Heck, if you say something that could even be construed as racist (the basis of Islam's hatred towards us), the repercussions are steep.
Conversely, what do fellow Muslims do? Stay silent about Islamic extremists. Provide shelter to terror groups. Everything we as Americans would never do.
That's the problem that needs to be resolved. Muslims need to renounce racism in their midst as loudly as we do the same here. Until they do, it is hazardous to your health to assume any Muslim you meet is peace loving. That's not a "phobia" - it's a basic survival instinct.
QUOTE(DaytonRocker @ Dec 9 2006, 11:27 AM)
Given Artimese's position and MrsP's empathetic response, maybe George Bush was correct - maybe it's our turn. Given past transgressions, it's our right to attack others at any time because we're been treated unfairly. The British (it's always the British's fault as we all know) kept a tyrannical hand over us, raped our women, buggered our children, and viscously tore the tags off our matresses. Japan - quite unfairly - killed a bunch of our countrymen 65 years ago. Muslim extremists destroyed half our country and eliminated many of our freedoms with a pack of razor blades making us all victims.
Maybe we should use the same excuse? I feel like I dropped a couple IQ points just typing this making an absurd point. There is no reason to take the life of an innocent PERIOD.
DR, I'm not sure how anything I wrote excuses terrorist activity. Pointing out the means to how we've arrived where we are doesn't excuse violence against us in any way. Nor did I indicate as much unless you stopped reading my post after the first line.
In deference to Mrs P and Artemise- Americans tend to see things so black and white- and curiously- alot of devout muslims do too- it is usually a "religious thing"- good vs evil, righ vs wrong (quoting GH Bush's quote on the Ministry song "new world order 
) - but, despite our best to make this guy or religion the bad guy, there is good and bad in both. Iran has been said to be a horrible, despotic, however, elected, goverment, that subjugates it's women and does all kinds of horrible things, like DR said- ripping our tags off our mattresses while we sleep
I invite you to take a look at the pics here:
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150377
A beautiful ride from Turkey to Iran and back, with two women and thier two husbands and one single guy on three bikes. Beautiful pics, women nicely dressed, just a head scarf- friendly and open poeple, that usually attempted the Turkish language for the tourists. Not quite the horrible place that I had imagined from our own propaganda. Men and women camping together, women with no headscarves, no problems from anyone.
http://www.ikiteker.org/modules.php?name=F...p;p=67537#67537
I guess I would do it if I could speak Turkish and pass myself off as German or Candian
Pics like this makes a person think that perhaps Iran is not the axis of evil GW made it out to be.
Folks really do need a reason to send thier children to thier death- no matter what race or religion. To say that muslims care less for thier children than our good christian nation is racist and ignorant.
Liberal societies don't have too many suicide bombers come out of thier ranks- you need a catalyst, even in a poor, third world country- and, as Mrs P said- the end of the Ottoman empire and our and Britain's mistakes and backing of horrible despots and arbitrary borders, coupled with the arbitrary creation of Israel in the midst of poeple already living there, giving the very small minority there all the power, well, it is a perfect storm for a global conflict. Islam just happens to be a good vehicle.
) - but, despite our best to make this guy or religion the bad guy, there is good and bad in both. Iran has been said to be a horrible, despotic, however, elected, goverment, that subjugates it's women and does all kinds of horrible things, like DR said- ripping our tags off our mattresses while we sleep I invite you to take a look at the pics here:
http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150377
A beautiful ride from Turkey to Iran and back, with two women and thier two husbands and one single guy on three bikes. Beautiful pics, women nicely dressed, just a head scarf- friendly and open poeple, that usually attempted the Turkish language for the tourists. Not quite the horrible place that I had imagined from our own propaganda. Men and women camping together, women with no headscarves, no problems from anyone.
http://www.ikiteker.org/modules.php?name=F...p;p=67537#67537
I guess I would do it if I could speak Turkish and pass myself off as German or Candian
Pics like this makes a person think that perhaps Iran is not the axis of evil GW made it out to be.
Folks really do need a reason to send thier children to thier death- no matter what race or religion. To say that muslims care less for thier children than our good christian nation is racist and ignorant.
Liberal societies don't have too many suicide bombers come out of thier ranks- you need a catalyst, even in a poor, third world country- and, as Mrs P said- the end of the Ottoman empire and our and Britain's mistakes and backing of horrible despots and arbitrary borders, coupled with the arbitrary creation of Israel in the midst of poeple already living there, giving the very small minority there all the power, well, it is a perfect storm for a global conflict. Islam just happens to be a good vehicle.
Artemise.
Jihad is a personal search for spiritual enlightenment that needs have nothing what so ever to do with warfare or violence. It is a personal decision. Jihad is a temporary religious feature that will end when Islam itself fades away.
War is just war. Aggression manifesting itself in actions that extend far beyond the individual. War is a permanent feature of the human condition. It will never end as long as human beings are subject to needs and emotions.
In point of fact the 'Muslim problem' is far far older than the discovery of oil in Arabia and encompasses many lands which do not even have any oil.
Take your own nation for example. In 1815, long before any one thought to drill for oil in the Arabian peninsula, President Madison was forced to send the US navy's ships to the mediterranean in order to force the Algerine's to stop enslaving Americans as a means of extracting money from the USA. It had long been a practice of the Muslims of North Africa to prey upon European and American ships and coastal settlements for the procuring of white slaves. In todays modern perception of slavery, especially in the USA, slavery means Africans, but in fact hundreds of thousands of Europeans were taken as slaves by the Muslims over the course of centuries. In those days the great 'Imperialist' power that dominated the Middle East was Ottoman Turkey (which also took thousands of Europeans as slaves) and whose power in the region only really ended with the first world war. The Ottomans were also Muslims of course, and their rule and all those who lived under their authority, were Islamic.
The Europeans had lived with and accepted the Barbary pirates, as they were known in those days, for centuries, Since the middle ages, there had been numerous attempts by European nations to put a stop to the practice of pirating and enslaving Europeans, but these had all failed for a multitude of reasons, the main one being it was impossible for Europe to project power into northern Africa for any length of time.
In 1815, the USA was not in any shape to take up the challenge. It was not an 'imperialist power'. It had just negotiated a cold peace with the British after the disastrous war of 1812 and at the time had only one ship-of-the-line (Battleship) and only three senior naval officers deemed capable to undertaking such a project.
Yet the Americans succeeded where hundreds of years of European efforts had failed most probably because the Americans were not prepared to accept being held hostage or forced to pay the traditional ransom, which at the time was set to the fantastic sum of 2 million dollars per year.
The Kings and Queens of Europe had found it easier and cheaper to put up with the Muslims. When their military attempts failed they simply paid up the ransom and allowed the problem to continue and grow. At no point did the European nations form an alliance to end the Barbary practice of enslaving Europeans. For the ruling classes of Europe, such a thing was a minor consideration. In some cases, warships were even built and given to the Muslims as gifts designed to ensure cooperation, but since the North Africans were Muslims, their Islamic laws did not oblige them to honour any treaty or agreement made with the infidel and so the same warships which were sent as gifts designed to court favour were put to use preying on European and later American shipping and scouring the coasts of Europe looking for more slaves.
Authors and scholars in the post 1815 campaign noted the great lengths the USA had gone to to prevent its mariners from being enslaved and the nations commerce being preyed upon. They compared this attitude with the keeping of slaves in America itself and from this early beginning began a popular anti slavery movement. It can't be said that the one led directly to the other, but it was certainly all a part of the process of trying to end slavery.
Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.
It is also worth noting that for the course of the Middle Ages, right up until the post Napoleonic period, the European nations had paid vast sums of money to the Muslim powers. By some estimates the tribute (which is known in Islamic laws as Jizya) was so high it impeded the growth of European economies. Prior to the war of 1815 for example the USA was already giving one fifteenth of its national income, as well as numerous 'gifts' and 'favours' to the Barbary states as tribute and the campaign against the Algerines began when they took an American ship despite all this in an attempt at forcing a new and higher level of tribute.
To this day the nations of Europe (as well as the USA) pay billions of dollars to the Muslim nations of the Middle East. Today it is known as 'aid', though why nations like Saudi Arabia, which is said to control 8% of the domestic US economy, need to be paid 'aid' is any one's guess. It seems to me that far from being 'raped' for their oil, the Muslim states of the Middle East with their vast and ever growing populations are being supported by the west to the extent where they can continue to function at all.
Wars are fought for a variety of reasons and there are similarities to be found between them left, right and centre, but whilst a US president or European king might have declared 'God is on our side', that does not equate the reasons for going to war with religious ideology.
In the Second World War, all sides called upon God, but only one side started the war. A religious war is not a war fought by religious people, but a war fought for a religious cause.
Trying to equate the war in Iraq to jihad is disingenuous. The concept of jihad, as practiced, is 1,400 years old. There is no Christian or Euroecentric comparison to be made, though plenty try to equate jihad to the crusades.
You do not. No one is forced to do anything by the coalition forces. Democracy is about giving the people the right to decide for themselves and the amount of people killed in Iraq reflects the internal divisions in the Iraqi population far more than it does any US led urge to slay in the name of 'holy democracy'.
Or in other words; nothing happens without a reason and its not unreasonable to question the reasons.
Also, I think it is not impertinent to point out that oil is not 'ripped off'. It is bought, and it is bought at great expense. That billions are spent on oil every day and what happens to this money, and where it eventually ends up is all a part of the great global economy.
That nations like Saudi Arabia will never be democratic because the population do not desire democracy so any one wishing to buy oil from such a nation has to either buy from the governin
QUOTE(Artemise)
War and Jihad are the same.
No they are not. Jihad is a personal search for spiritual enlightenment that needs have nothing what so ever to do with warfare or violence. It is a personal decision. Jihad is a temporary religious feature that will end when Islam itself fades away.
War is just war. Aggression manifesting itself in actions that extend far beyond the individual. War is a permanent feature of the human condition. It will never end as long as human beings are subject to needs and emotions.
QUOTE(Artemise)
Western nations have been involved in two terribly genocidal and imperialist World Wars in recent times, the US has been at war for centuries, are we warlike because of the Bible, or do we just recite it everytime we are at war? Doesnt every President of the US talk about God being on our side everytime we go to war?
There is a problem right now that has to do with Muslim fundamentalists, but dont they have a problem with American imperialists? attempting for decades to steal their resources and undermine their value systems inside their own countries?
All this 'Muslim problem' did not occur in a vacume.
Thats right it didn't. There is a problem right now that has to do with Muslim fundamentalists, but dont they have a problem with American imperialists? attempting for decades to steal their resources and undermine their value systems inside their own countries?
All this 'Muslim problem' did not occur in a vacume.
In point of fact the 'Muslim problem' is far far older than the discovery of oil in Arabia and encompasses many lands which do not even have any oil.
Take your own nation for example. In 1815, long before any one thought to drill for oil in the Arabian peninsula, President Madison was forced to send the US navy's ships to the mediterranean in order to force the Algerine's to stop enslaving Americans as a means of extracting money from the USA. It had long been a practice of the Muslims of North Africa to prey upon European and American ships and coastal settlements for the procuring of white slaves. In todays modern perception of slavery, especially in the USA, slavery means Africans, but in fact hundreds of thousands of Europeans were taken as slaves by the Muslims over the course of centuries. In those days the great 'Imperialist' power that dominated the Middle East was Ottoman Turkey (which also took thousands of Europeans as slaves) and whose power in the region only really ended with the first world war. The Ottomans were also Muslims of course, and their rule and all those who lived under their authority, were Islamic.
The Europeans had lived with and accepted the Barbary pirates, as they were known in those days, for centuries, Since the middle ages, there had been numerous attempts by European nations to put a stop to the practice of pirating and enslaving Europeans, but these had all failed for a multitude of reasons, the main one being it was impossible for Europe to project power into northern Africa for any length of time.
In 1815, the USA was not in any shape to take up the challenge. It was not an 'imperialist power'. It had just negotiated a cold peace with the British after the disastrous war of 1812 and at the time had only one ship-of-the-line (Battleship) and only three senior naval officers deemed capable to undertaking such a project.
Yet the Americans succeeded where hundreds of years of European efforts had failed most probably because the Americans were not prepared to accept being held hostage or forced to pay the traditional ransom, which at the time was set to the fantastic sum of 2 million dollars per year.
The Kings and Queens of Europe had found it easier and cheaper to put up with the Muslims. When their military attempts failed they simply paid up the ransom and allowed the problem to continue and grow. At no point did the European nations form an alliance to end the Barbary practice of enslaving Europeans. For the ruling classes of Europe, such a thing was a minor consideration. In some cases, warships were even built and given to the Muslims as gifts designed to ensure cooperation, but since the North Africans were Muslims, their Islamic laws did not oblige them to honour any treaty or agreement made with the infidel and so the same warships which were sent as gifts designed to court favour were put to use preying on European and later American shipping and scouring the coasts of Europe looking for more slaves.
Authors and scholars in the post 1815 campaign noted the great lengths the USA had gone to to prevent its mariners from being enslaved and the nations commerce being preyed upon. They compared this attitude with the keeping of slaves in America itself and from this early beginning began a popular anti slavery movement. It can't be said that the one led directly to the other, but it was certainly all a part of the process of trying to end slavery.
Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938.
It is also worth noting that for the course of the Middle Ages, right up until the post Napoleonic period, the European nations had paid vast sums of money to the Muslim powers. By some estimates the tribute (which is known in Islamic laws as Jizya) was so high it impeded the growth of European economies. Prior to the war of 1815 for example the USA was already giving one fifteenth of its national income, as well as numerous 'gifts' and 'favours' to the Barbary states as tribute and the campaign against the Algerines began when they took an American ship despite all this in an attempt at forcing a new and higher level of tribute.
To this day the nations of Europe (as well as the USA) pay billions of dollars to the Muslim nations of the Middle East. Today it is known as 'aid', though why nations like Saudi Arabia, which is said to control 8% of the domestic US economy, need to be paid 'aid' is any one's guess. It seems to me that far from being 'raped' for their oil, the Muslim states of the Middle East with their vast and ever growing populations are being supported by the west to the extent where they can continue to function at all.
QUOTE(Artemise)
This is basically the problem, because it is easy to associate a Muslim WAR against perceived or real oppression as an exotic term 'Jihad' and holy book related, where as WAR the US and Western countries perpetrate on muslim countries is not considered by us as Jewish/ Christian, not holy book related , in our minds. However, to them it may very well all be. In Islam, Religion and State are not separate, every action is beholden to God/Allah.
By that argument, you could just as easily say the German invasion of France was France's fault for having defeated Germany in the first world war and had nothing what so ever to do with the nazi ideology. I'm sorry but I do not accept your blanket assertion that since war and jihad are two sides to the same coin then they are of the same significance. Wars are fought for a variety of reasons and there are similarities to be found between them left, right and centre, but whilst a US president or European king might have declared 'God is on our side', that does not equate the reasons for going to war with religious ideology.
In the Second World War, all sides called upon God, but only one side started the war. A religious war is not a war fought by religious people, but a war fought for a religious cause.
QUOTE(Artemise)
When we, as Judeo/Christian nations make war and try to make other people think and behave, accept our beliefs and trump that 'western civilization is 'better than yours' coming from a completely different frame of mind and RELIGION, we are seen as expanding, religious, imperialist oppressors and of course WAR, or JIHAD is going to be declared. Lets try not to be myopic and single sided.
If it happened to us, everyone of us who owns a gun and everyone else would be out on the streets defending our way of life, everyone! And calling up our christian god at every moment against the heathen invaders.
Well as my earlier example of the war of 1815 shows, it DID happen to us and your prediction did not come to pass. If it happened to us, everyone of us who owns a gun and everyone else would be out on the streets defending our way of life, everyone! And calling up our christian god at every moment against the heathen invaders.
Trying to equate the war in Iraq to jihad is disingenuous. The concept of jihad, as practiced, is 1,400 years old. There is no Christian or Euroecentric comparison to be made, though plenty try to equate jihad to the crusades.
QUOTE(Artemise)
If Saudi Arabia had bases in our country, and were controlling our economy through strong arm tactics, we would revolt much faster than they have, but the most ludicrous part not accepted even by people with half a brain, is that we trained and armed the 'son' of that same Haus of Saud we love so much in Afghanistan against the Soviets, Bin Laden, so, its just so much blather about whos wrong and who is really a terrorist. We dont know the half of it.
I don't understand your point. That the CIA helped arm and train the Mujahideen against the Soviets is no secret, nor is it particularly significant since at the time the Soviet Union was deemed a serious threat and the Mujahideen were not. Who was to know in the 1970's that Bin Laden, previously known as a play boy customer of the casino's and brothels of Lebanon was going to suddenly find spiritual redemption in Islam? Who could have foreseen that Islam was going to return to its historic jihadist tendencies at all? In the 1970's Islamic extremism was a fringe movement only observed as existing in certain Muslim nations, mostly in Northern Africa. To the majority of observers, Islam was just another dusty old religion and few outsiders understood the implications of the Iranian revolution or the assassination of Anwar Sadat. QUOTE(Artemise)
As to violent christians , as a Christian Nation (we are always proclaiming), we went into Iraq and killed possibly 20 times the innocents that died as a result of 9/11. The reason? No one really knows still. A disaster of gigantic porportions, a crusade to bring Democracy and a 'better way' to a nation that supposedly, IS INCOMPATIBLE with western civilization, so WE ARE CONVERTERS. How is that different or less murderous or religious as far as holy books, christian vs. muslim WAR/JIHAD?
This is utter rubbish. Democracy is not a religion and the war in Iraq was not a crusade. Crusade means to 'take the Cross'. Do you see any one marching under a cross or natives being being forced to take the cross in Iraq Artemise? You do not. No one is forced to do anything by the coalition forces. Democracy is about giving the people the right to decide for themselves and the amount of people killed in Iraq reflects the internal divisions in the Iraqi population far more than it does any US led urge to slay in the name of 'holy democracy'.
QUOTE(Artemise)
One war kills hundreds of thousands with planes and bunker busters, another with planes and suicide bombers, its WAR. No further discussion of holy books necessary, its a rationalization
All war does not conform to the same moral value. There is such a thing as context, and as cause and looking at this to explain why a war is taking place is not 'rationalization'.Or in other words; nothing happens without a reason and its not unreasonable to question the reasons.
QUOTE(Artemise)
Something else. Simple education about how the west has tried to rip off Mid Eastern oil since it was discovered might suffice, takes about 3 hours. A history of oil dynasties, who is invloved still present day would also help.
An understanding of the Mid-eastern philosophy, religion and internal workings as well. The religion is a smokescreen, for them and for us. The Koran has as little to do with this as the Bible, its just a crutch.
Given your misunderstanding of what jihad is, I suggest you are in need of some education on this subject yourself. An understanding of the Mid-eastern philosophy, religion and internal workings as well. The religion is a smokescreen, for them and for us. The Koran has as little to do with this as the Bible, its just a crutch.
Also, I think it is not impertinent to point out that oil is not 'ripped off'. It is bought, and it is bought at great expense. That billions are spent on oil every day and what happens to this money, and where it eventually ends up is all a part of the great global economy.
That nations like Saudi Arabia will never be democratic because the population do not desire democracy so any one wishing to buy oil from such a nation has to either buy from the governin