Islam: fear trumps freedom

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Very emotive - you fit in "chaos", "murder", AND "freedom" in one sentence. Is this the O'Reilly Factor?

 

[Matt Kidd]

Very emotive - you fit in "chaos", "murder", AND "freedom" in one sentence. Is this the O'Reilly Factor?

 

 

irony

[Bug]

Can we really kill all Muslims? Is that what you want? I doubt it. What are the options? I think it starts with looking at ourselves, NOT because we are inherently wrong but because we have the ability to change ourselves without violence.

 

You present a false and bogus choice.

Nope. It was brought up by the people who foment hatred against ALL muslims.

 

Kill all muslims? Please..

Did you see the "I doubt it" part? Regardless, dwell on that feeling.

 

The point here is muslims are immigrating to other countries and demanding that those countries change, and muslims are threatening acts of terror against those that they deem are acting in ways that are offensive (oh the horror) to their beliefs.

This is patently unjust. A workable solution that directly addresses the specific problem is needed and deadly force is warranted.

 

Sorry, but I'm not CHANGING my country or myself one fucking iota with respect to free speech or anything that someone from islamofuckistan feels is offensive. Period.

Free speech is the issue in the original discussion. Unfortunately, it turned to hatred of all muslims rather quickly.

I cite Deitrich Bonhoffer. He was a catholic priest and a renowned philosopher. He chose to stay in Nazi Germany in order to fight the good fight against the Nazis. He was one of the masterminds behind the nearly successful assasination of Hitler in the bunker. My point is, what made people "Nazi" is in all of us and it takes people like Deitrich Bonhoffer to show us the way. Deitrich was at once proof that a people is not inherently evil and that moderates need to stand up even at great cost.

He was the very last man executed by the Third Reich.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Bug

[KaskadskyjKozak]

The point here is muslims are immigrating to other countries and demanding that those countries change, and muslims are threatening acts of terror against those that they deem are acting in ways that are offensive (oh the horror) to their beliefs.

This is patently unjust. A workable solution that directly addresses the specific problem is needed and deadly force is warranted.

 

I have no idea what you just said. Deadly force is warranted? For whom - the cartoonists?

 

 

Free speech is the issue in the original discussion. Unfortunately, it turned to hatred of all muslims rather quickly.

 

I'm sorry, but that is complete and total bullshit.

 

I cite Deitrich Bonhoffer... My point is, what made people "Nazi" is in all of us

 

I reject this as well and it has nothing to do with the debate.

 

I love how you guys are trying to justify the extremist muslims who kill over a friggin' cartoon by blaming the west, and accusing our people of being the "haters" and "nazis".

 

[sobo]

...Deitrich was at once proof that a people is not inherently evil and that moderates need to stand up even at great cost...

Well said. So where are all of the moderate Muslims who need to stand up even at great cost and take back their faith from the radical extremists? Oh, that's right. They're worried about having their throats slashed or their heads cut off. The Rise of the Third Reich all over again.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

...Deitrich was at once proof that a people is not inherently evil and that moderates need to stand up even at great cost...

Well said. So where are all of the moderate Muslims who need to stand up even at great cost and take back their faith from the radical extremists? Oh, that's right. They're worried about having their throats slashed or their heads cut off.

 

I think it goes deeper than simply fear of retribution for many "moderates".

 

[sobo]

well, I'm sure that's a large part of it anyway...

[Fairweather]

 

So why is he for water boarding? If you don’t speak out against such an act openly and clearly….then you are for it.

 

 

He IS against it...and has been very vocal in his stance opposing the Bush Administration in this regard. Maybe you should study McCain's positions on issues before you flap.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

well, I'm sure that's a large part of it anyway...

 

One thing worth pointing out here. Look at the division Iraq has caused within our country. Look at the constant debate and criticism. Is it even remotely possible that this division and bitter debate is NOT visible to the muslim world?

 

Now where is the debate on their side concerning terrorism? It's pretty damn silent by comparison.

 

But I guess we should keep "looking at ourselves".

 

[mattp]

I love how you guys are trying to justify the extremist muslims who kill over a friggin' cartoon by blaming the west, and accusing our people of being the "haters" and "nazis".

 

Nobody here seems to be doing that as far as I can tell. I argued that the history of the world isn't as one sided as you would like it to be and Bug argued that we should look at the world as it is and try to make choices that will promote the peace and stability that our leaders say in their speeches that we are seeking.

 

Its too bad you find that so threatening and that other Americans, like you, respond with "f-that. We're going to continue being idiots."

[Fairweather]

well, I'm sure that's a large part of it anyway...

 

One thing worth pointing out here. Look at the division Iraq has caused within our country. Look at the constant debate and criticism. Is it even remotely possible that this division and bitter debate is NOT visible to the muslim world?

 

Now where is the debate on their side concerning terrorism? It's pretty damn silent by comparison.

 

But I guess we should keep "looking at ourselves".

 

If American troops were not in Iraq, I strongly suspect that the usual america-is-bad voices both here and around the nation would be equally angry about Afghanistan.

 

Also: I see a lot of moral equivalence claims re The Crusades. It's important to note that Christianity has undergone radical reforms since that time and the Catholic Church no longer holds any monopoly on "Christianity". Islam has not undergone any reformation--or even really moderated its 8th century tenets. Let's please stop digging up the 800+ year old Crusades as a valid point. Let's talk about TODAY. Islam is a bankrupt religion.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I love how you guys are trying to justify the extremist muslims who kill over a friggin' cartoon by blaming the west, and accusing our people of being the "haters" and "nazis".

 

Nobody here seems to be doing that as far as I can tell. I argued that the history of the world isn't as one sided as you would like it to be and Bug argued that we should look at the world as it is and try to make choices that will promote the peace and stability that our leaders say in their speeches that we are seeking.

 

Its too bad you find that so threatening and that other Americans, like you, respond with "f-that. We're going to continue being idiots."

 

First of all, I never said the history of the world is "one sided". So don't put words into my mouth, or attribute a position to me.

 

Secondly I interpret Bug's and a few other comments here differently than you. Bug clearly stated that this thread has turned to "hatred" of "all muslims". I call bullshit on that. Furthermore, he interjected the premise that "we all have a little nazi in us" by citing some philosopher whom he admires. So your denial that this is occurring falls flat.

 

Thirdly, I reject this notion that "Americans are being idiots", by arguing for FREE SPEECH. Goddamnit, you're the guy who's constantly whining about how Bush is supposedly dismantling the constitution, and I don't see any freedom more important than freedom of speech, which these terrorist bastards are openly attacking.

 

And I will remind you that if you are saying "Americans" are idiots for being "offensive" to muslims, the topic at hand are cartoons originating in Euroland not America.

 

[Bug]

I have no idea what you just said. Deadly force is warranted? For whom - the cartoonists?

 

 

Free speech is the issue in the original discussion. Unfortunately, it turned to hatred of all muslims rather quickly.

 

I'm sorry, but that is complete and total bullshit.

 

I cite Deitrich Bonhoffer... My point is, what made people "Nazi" is in all of us

 

I reject this as well and it has nothing to do with the debate.

 

I love how you guys are trying to justify the extremist muslims who kill over a friggin' cartoon by blaming the west, and accusing our people of being the "haters" and "nazis".

Where death threats are made and some carried out, the individual perpetrators should be sought out and prosecuted. If they resist with violence, they should be subdued with whatever force is necessary.

You reject that we are all capable of being Nazis while at the same time standing up for acts that are considered war crimes by the rest of the worls and many of us here in the US.

There is no justification for the extremist muslims nor is there any justification for the extremist factions in this country that have led us into another unwinnable war against a global entity whose vast majority had no intention of committing violent acts against us.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

nor is there any justification for the extremist factions in this country that have led us into another unwinnable war against a global entity whose vast majority had no intention of committing violent acts against us.

 

Hussein signed an unconditional surrender and violated its terms as well as subsequent UN resolutions. We had every right to invade at any time as a consequence.

 

Going to war in Iraq (again) is not comparable in any way to terrorism. We are not the extremists. Sorry, but we will never agree on this.

 

[mattp]

Hussein signed an unconditional surrender and violated its terms as well as subsequent UN resolutions. We had every right to invade at any time as a consequence.

 

Only if you assume that we had a right to carry out enforcement of UN resolutions without letting the UN decide how to do so, or if you assume that the reason we invaded Iraq had much to do with enforcing any UN sanctions. Neither is true.

 

As for the history of Islam, you have rejected the idea that there could have been any historic tolerance or liberalism or whatever associated with the Golden Age of Islam, but you are incorrect in your argument on this point. It is not "moral relativism." It is history. It is simply not the case that Europe (or Europe and the U.S.) = good guys and Moslems = bad guys. It wasn't true a thousand years ago and it is not true today.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Hussein signed an unconditional surrender and violated its terms as well as subsequent UN resolutions. We had every right to invade at any time as a consequence.

 

Only if you assume that we had a right to carry out enforcement of UN resolutions without letting the UN decide how to do so, or if you assume that the reason we invaded Iraq had much to do with enforcing any UN sanctions. Neither is true.

 

As for the history of Islam, you have rejected the idea that there could have been any historic tolerance or liberalism or whatever associated with the Golden Age of Islam, but you are incorrect in your argument on this point. It is not "moral relativism." It is history. It is simply not the case that Europe = good guys and Moslems = bad guys.

 

You're attributing statements/positions to me once again that I never have stated, but that's par for the course with you, eh counselor? Enjoy your evening.

 

[STP]

I suggest it's rather the opposite. The ones benefiting are the opportunists who gain political capital by pushing hate. Who benefits? The Muslim immigrants to Europe or the anti-immigrationists? Same applies here (America) with regard to other matters.

 

Not taking sides here, given that the immigration has produced problems with nonintegration but that's another problem seeking another solution.

 

i must say you are greatly mistaken. for once i must agree with fw on this one. the problem is islam and the immigrants themselves. maybe less turks. being immigrant myself i can't agree nor accept their mentality. they do move to different countries, with long history and culture. simply you can't show up and try to change these countries into muslim republics, just because you moved there.

you can't even compare immigrants from mexico and other latin countries to what's happening in europe.

and maybe you should posting your uneducated opinions maybe you should read some history books to understand the whole issue.

 

You have some strong feelings there, Sparky. Can't say much for your reading comprehension though.

[JayB]

Hussein signed an unconditional surrender and violated its terms as well as subsequent UN resolutions. We had every right to invade at any time as a consequence.

 

Only if you assume that we had a right to carry out enforcement of UN resolutions without letting the UN decide how to do so, or if you assume that the reason we invaded Iraq had much to do with enforcing any UN sanctions. Neither is true.

 

As for the history of Islam, you have rejected the idea that there could have been any historic tolerance or liberalism or whatever associated with the Golden Age of Islam, but you are incorrect in your argument on this point. It is not "moral relativism." It is history. It is simply not the case that Europe (or Europe and the U.S.) = good guys and Moslems = bad guys. It wasn't true a thousand years ago and it is not true today.

 

I actually agree with you on this point. I would not consider the practices of those who ruled the Islamic Caliphates from the 8th to the 14th century "liberal" in any modern sense of the word, but the term may have been apt if you consider the alternatives available at the time.

 

One question worth pondering, though, is "what happened?" If you think that the modern, contemporary West and the modern, contemporary "Dar El Islam" are equally liberal you are clearly smoking trainloads full of crack via firehose hooked up to a 10,000 horsepower, turbo-diesel air-compressor each and every second of your existence. How did this happen? If you are as familiar with the history of Islam as you claim to be, you will be able to articulate a reasonable answer.;

[STP]

PqbQWxHIn4U

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I actually agree with you on this point. I would not consider the practices of those who ruled the Islamic Caliphates from the 8th to the 14th century "liberal" in any modern sense of the word, but the term may have been apt if you consider the alternatives available at the time.

 

Jay, I've read that the Romans were "tolerant" of religion too. Tolerant as long as you stayed in your place. And of course, there was no doubt as to who was a first class citizen - and who was not. To be in a position of power you had less room to deviate from the norm. And of course, there was always an undercurrent of brutality and the cheapness of life, even during Pax Romana.

 

So, when someone tries to claim that the Golden Age of Islam was marked by religious "tolerance", you'll have to excuse me for challenging just exactly what that means. Judging from the course of history, including the rise and spread of Islam, I have a pretty damn good idea.

 

[mattp]

If you are as familiar with the history of Islam as you claim to be, you will be able to articulate a reasonable answer.;

 

Kiss off with the snide quips there, JayB. I did not claim any special familiarity. I reported that I read ONE book on ONE climbing trip, and I was surprised to learn that there was a time when Islamic rule in their golden age was relatively tolerant. It had been posted here that Islam is and always was intolerant and that is certainly what I had thought until I read a little history.

 

As to what happened? Good question.

 

In the context of a discussion entitled "Islam: fear trumps freedom," it is equally important, in my opinion, to ask how any potential policy on our part now may feed or not feed the mindset behind terrorism, of which a general intolerance is probably only a part.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

It had been posted here that Islam is and always was intolerant and that is certainly what I had thought until I read a little history.

 

That has NOT been posited. What has been stated is that there are ample examples of intolerance from Islam throughout its history. A little "balance" for the constant barrage of examples of Christian "intolerance" that we get here.

 

Moreover, as I state above, I question just what this tolerance you cite constituted. What you read is of course a combination of the author's opinion and your interpretation of his word.

 

[mattp]

Islam is a very effective viral religion. It was a millennia ago and it still is. You’re either one of them via birth or conversion or you are to be destroyed. That worked in tribal times and seems to be the view of many now.

[olyclimber]

What you read is of course a combination of the author's opinion and your interpretation of his word.

 

And the above is your interpretation of what Matt was conveying, and this in turn is my observation and reading of what you wrote, which I interpret in my own way. Of course you're now reading what I wrote and interpreting that, and anything you reply with I will thus interpret again.

 

Its sort of like that game where you whisper in ear the person to the left of you, and they in turn pass it on.

[pink]

what's this thread about anyway and hasn't it been done before? let's all take some acid and have a frickin orgy.