NationStates Jolt Archive

Blaming the Islamic world for the recent London Bombings is the same as blaming Christianity for the Invasion of Iraq, all in favour say Aye, all against say Nay, all others say your piece.

I sayeth maketh a poll. :D

Blaming the Islamic world for the recent London Bombings is the same as blaming Christianity for the Invasion of Iraq, all in favour say Aye, all against say Nay, all others say your piece.



Well to take what you said literally i would have to say nay,ai i am against scapegoating islam.but it think it's safe to say what you meant was more along the lies of 'all who agree say aye,all who don't say nay etc'.in which case i agree,you can't blame all islam for some people using islam as an excuse to incite terror.

Blaming the Islamic world for the recent London Bombings is the same as blaming Christianity for the Invasion of Iraq, all in favour say Aye, all against say Nay, all others say your piece.

Except that the U.S is one of the least religious of the western nations, and very few people I know of have blamed the London bombings (or any terrorist attack, for that matter) on the Islamic world as a whole. Generally it's a more specific accusation, like: "radical Islamists raised in Britain."

I sayeth maketh a poll. :D

Seconded! Aye.

can they eat goat ?

i thought that was against the Qu'ran, or is that chicken ?

Blaming the Islamic world for the recent London Bombings is the same as blaming Christianity for the Invasion of Iraq, all in favour say Aye, all against say Nay, all others say your piece.
When Muslims as a group start turning in everyone who is a suicide bomber, a Jihadist, and a terrorist, then Muslims as a group will no longer be "blamed" for complicity in terrorist acts.

I don't see this as happening anyways soon, perhaps not ever. We'll see.

When Muslims as a group start turning in everyone who is a suicide bomber, a Jihadist, and a terrorist, then Muslims as a group will no longer be "blamed" for complicity in terrorist acts.

Aye I agree with you there...........

can they eat goat ?

i thought that was against the Qu'ran, or is that chicken ?

Goats and chickens are fine. It is pork that is unclean.

To my knowledge, only crackpots are blaming Islam in general. And crackpots can't be reasoned with anyway, so what does it matter?

When Muslims as a group start turning in everyone who is a suicide bomber, a Jihadist, and a terrorist, then Muslims as a group will no longer be "blamed" for complicity in terrorist acts.

I don't see this as happening anyways soon, perhaps not ever. We'll see.

That's like saying Christians as a group should turn in abortion-clinic bombers, Branch Davidians, McVeighs, etc. I doubt if Pennsylvania Quakers or Utah Mormons know the intricate plans of the KKK to firebomb a church in Mississippi.

That's like saying Christians as a group should turn in abortion-clinic bombers, Branch Davidians, McVeighs, etc. I doubt if Pennsylvania Quakers or Utah Mormons know the intricate plans of the KKK to firebomb a church in Mississippi.

Hush, you are arguing with Eutrusca the Centrist. The Centrist knows all!

When Muslims as a group start turning in everyone who is a suicide bomber, a Jihadist, and a terrorist, then Muslims as a group will no longer be "blamed" for complicity in terrorist acts.

I don't see this as happening anyways soon, perhaps not ever. We'll see.
You know, they probably only tell other terrorists and sympathizers about their plans. Muslims "as a group" don't normally get those memos.

That's like saying Christians as a group should turn in abortion-clinic bombers, Branch Davidians, McVeighs, etc. I doubt if Pennsylvania Quakers or Utah Mormons know the intricate plans of the KKK to firebomb a church in Mississippi.

We do; Christians were on the juries that sent the people caught to jail. Just because we don't know the plans doesn't mean we wouldn't turn them in if caught. The problem in the Middle East is that almost nobody is making any effort to condemn or even turn in terrorists; where are the mass protests and the people turning in terrorist cells in their neighborhoods?

We do; Christians were on the juries that sent the people caught to jail. Just because we don't know the plans doesn't mean we wouldn't turn them in if caught. The problem in the Middle East is that almost nobody is making any effort to condemn or even turn in terrorists; where are the mass protests and the people turning in terrorist cells in their neighborhoods?

What you don't know you can't tell. :headbang:

Except that the U.S is one of the least religious of the western nations, and very few people I know of have blamed the London bombings (or any terrorist attack, for that matter) on the Islamic world as a whole. Generally it's a more specific accusation, like: "radical Islamists raised in Britain."
What? The US is one of, if not the, most religious western nation. Compare our level of religiosity to the nations of Europe and we're nearly on a par with the vatican.

Except that the U.S is one of the least religious of the western nations, and very few people I know of have blamed the London bombings (or any terrorist attack, for that matter) on the Islamic world as a whole. Generally it's a more specific accusation, like: "radical Islamists raised in Britain."

Actually America is hugely religious compared to the UK, and many other countries.

To my knowledge, only crackpots are blaming Islam in general. And crackpots can't be reasoned with anyway, so what does it matter?
Actually, it isn´t so easy to tell off that kind of view...at the root of the Islamic religion is the total submission of society to religion...all laws and rules, to apply, must conform to the religious canons...in islamic societies sins equal crimes, as they have never comtemplated the separation between State and Mosque, unlike the West...that is why so many islamic expatriates in western countries have so much trouble adapting, because they wish to continue to practice the interity of their religious-inspired way of life, such as poligamy, the total submission of women...so, the Islamic religion has at its core a fundamental incompatibility with the western lifestile, with democracy, gender equality, separation between the State and the Church...Islam does allow for radical interpretations such has Al-Qaida´s, and the fact that it doesn´t have a central authority stablishing a indisputed doctrine (like the Papaçy) doesn´t help either, as it leaves the mandates of the Quaran totally susceptible for a world of interpretations, including tje extremist ones...

We do; Christians were on the juries that sent the people caught to jail. Just because we don't know the plans doesn't mean we wouldn't turn them in if caught. The problem in the Middle East is that almost nobody is making any effort to condemn or even turn in terrorists; where are the mass protests and the people turning in terrorist cells in their neighborhoods?

Ever hear of Operational Security? You don't go around telling people what you are going to do or what you have done.
I don't remember Southern whites turning out in droves to expose Klan members in the sixties or staging mass protests against them, but that is not the same statement as 'White southerners support the KKK.'
Plus, the US supports regimes in the middle east and elsewhere that supports terrorism, so where is our governments moral outrage on that one?

I only blame the Ilsamic Fanatics, and I do not hold their actions against all of Islam.

Ever hear of Operational Security? You don't go around telling people what you are going to do or what you have done. true, but with media being what it is, it's still surprising that you don't hear of anyone there turning in the cells. Afterall, the media gets all these top secret memos and documents, photos and testimonies, yet they cannot find instances of the Iraqis turning in terrorists?

I don't remember Southern whites turning out in droves to expose Klan members in the sixties or staging mass protests against them, but that is not the same statement as 'White southerners support the KKK.'
Plus, the US supports regimes in the middle east and elsewhere that supports terrorism, so where is our governments moral outrage on that one?"politics make strange bedfellows."

and we are correcting that. slowly but we are correcting that.

Actually, it isn´t so easy to tell off that kind of view...at the root of the Islamic religion is the total submission of society to religion...all laws and rules, to apply, must conform to the religious canons...in islamic societies sins equal crimes, as they have never comtemplated the separation between State and Mosque, unlike the West...that is why so many islamic expatriates in western countries have so much trouble adapting, because they wish to continue to practice the interity of their religious-inspired way of life, such as poligamy, the total submission of women...so, the Islamic religion has at its core a fundamental incompatibility with the western lifestile, with democracy, gender equality, separation between the State and the Church...Islam does allow for radical interpretations such has Al-Qaida´s, and the fact that it doesn´t have a central authority stablishing a indisputed doctrine (like the Papaçy) doesn´t help either, as it leaves the mandates of the Quaran totally susceptible for a world of interpretations, including tje extremist ones...

There is no reason to have secular laws in Muslim society, if God went through the trouble to make the laws, then why should people say they can make laws better than God? Polygamy was adopted as a mercy for women who had no hope of life after the death of their husbands. Before Islam, a man could have as many wives as he wanted, Islam set a limit of four, and only then if you could treat them all equally, a relative impossibility. Women were not meant to live in submission, as is evident by Kajhidah, the Prophet's first wife, a very successful businesswoman, or by Aisha, another of his wives, who was very instrumental in continuing Islam after the death of the Prophet. Fatima, the Prophet's daughter, was also very publicly active in Islam. These women were not ordered under submission, female submission is a cultural carryover from ancient Arabic/Persian/Greek customs as Islam became a world power. Remember, female submission still exists in the West, too. Indonesia, the largest Muslim area in the world, has very liberated women. Islam is very compatible with democracy, recent elections in Iran had a larger percentage turnout (over 50%) than the United States did for the 2004 presidential elections. Originally, the people chose the person who was best suited to lead the group. Again, as time and exposure to the great empires of the day, such as Byzantium, Persia and Egypt, this changed and the paternal divine right to rule was adopted.

true, but with media being what it is, it's still surprising that you don't hear of anyone there turning in the cells. Afterall, the media gets all these top secret memos and documents, photos and testimonies, yet they cannot find instances of the Iraqis turning in terrorists?

"politics make strange bedfellows."

and we are correcting that. slowly but we are correcting that.

When I was in the Marines in Iraq back on 2003, we had people who would come up to us on patrol all the time telling us where others were hiding weapons and stuff. Most of our intel came from the people. As far as I have been told by buddies who have rotated back there, it is still the same way.

There is no reason to have secular laws in Muslim society, if God went through the trouble to make the laws, then why should people say they can make laws better than God? Polygamy was adopted as a mercy for women who had no hope of life after the death of their husbands. Before Islam, a man could have as many wives as he wanted, Islam set a limit of four, and only then if you could treat them all equally, a relative impossibility. Women were not meant to live in submission, as is evident by Kajhidah, the Prophet's first wife, a very successful businesswoman, or by Aisha, another of his wives, who was very instrumental in continuing Islam after the death of the Prophet. Fatima, the Prophet's daughter, was also very publicly active in Islam. These women were not ordered under submission, female submission is a cultural carryover from ancient Arabic/Persian/Greek customs as Islam became a world power. Remember, female submission still exists in the West, too. Indonesia, the largest Muslim area in the world, has very liberated women. Islam is very compatible with democracy, recent elections in Iran had a larger percentage turnout (over 50%) than the United States did for the 2004 presidential elections. Originally, the people chose the person who was best suited to lead the group. Again, as time and exposure to the great empires of the day, such as Byzantium, Persia and Egypt, this changed and the paternal divine right to rule was adopted.

To be honest, it would be better to point out turkey as an example of a democratic islamic state. They don't have a counsel of elders, banning people from running for president (decidedly undemocratic), they have a secular government coexisting with a islamic society, and best of all, they keep the military under control, as opposed to the other way round.

<edit> added democratic, took away ideal

To be honest, it would be better to point out turkey as an ideal for an islamic state. They don't have a counsel of elders, banning people from running for president (decidedly undemocratic), they have a secular government coexisting with a islamic society, and best of all, they keep the military under control, as opposed to the other way round.

I don't recall ever pointing out any existing 'ideal Islamic state.'

Ever hear of Operational Security? You don't go around telling people what you are going to do or what you have done.
I don't remember Southern whites turning out in droves to expose Klan members in the sixties or staging mass protests against them, but that is not the same statement as 'White southerners support the KKK.'
Plus, the US supports regimes in the middle east and elsewhere that supports terrorism, so where is our governments moral outrage on that one?
Tell me, what are the US-supported regimes in the Middle-East? Maybe Saudi-Arabia, who continues to deluge mosques in the West with money so radical islamic clerics can continue to take advantage of the tolerance of their hosts and defend the legitimacy of attacks on innocent westwern citizens...

I only blame the Ilsamic Fanatics, and I do not hold their actions against all of Islam.

If only most people think like you. A thread like this wouldn't be necessary. *Sigh*

Tell me, what are the US-supported regimes in the Middle-East? Maybe Saudi-Arabia, who continues to deluge mosques in the West with money so radical islamic clerics can continue to take advantage of the tolerance of their hosts and defend the legitimacy of attacks on innocent westwern citizens...

Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan are great examples. It is Saudi oil tycoons who use thier American dollars to finance terrorism, so I guess everytime we buy fuel we are getting a bad return on our investment.
Saudi has an AWFUL human rights track record, especially in regards to it's treatment of women.

When I was in the Marines in Iraq back on 2003, we had people who would come up to us on patrol all the time telling us where others were hiding weapons and stuff. Most of our intel came from the people. As far as I have been told by buddies who have rotated back there, it is still the same way.
great to hear that!

unfortunately, stories like that really don't hit the general public back home. I can see why they don't print it (even without naming names) but it does show that the Iraqis are trying to take control away from the terrorists.

Blaming the Islamic world for the recent London Bombings is the same as blaming Christianity for the Invasion of Iraq, all in favour say Aye, all against say Nay, all others say your piece.

The text above is a false accusation.

If only most people think like you. A thread like this wouldn't be necessary. *Sigh*
Seriously.

There is no reason to have secular laws in Muslim society, if God went through the trouble to make the laws, then why should people say they can make laws better than God? Polygamy was adopted as a mercy for women who had no hope of life after the death of their husbands. Before Islam, a man could have as many wives as he wanted, Islam set a limit of four, and only then if you could treat them all equally, a relative impossibility. Women were not meant to live in submission, as is evident by Kajhidah, the Prophet's first wife, a very successful businesswoman, or by Aisha, another of his wives, who was very instrumental in continuing Islam after the death of the Prophet. Fatima, the Prophet's daughter, was also very publicly active in Islam. These women were not ordered under submission, female submission is a cultural carryover from ancient Arabic/Persian/Greek customs as Islam became a world power. Remember, female submission still exists in the West, too. Indonesia, the largest Muslim area in the world, has very liberated women. Islam is very compatible with democracy, recent elections in Iran had a larger percentage turnout (over 50%) than the United States did for the 2004 presidential elections. Originally, the people chose the person who was best suited to lead the group. Again, as time and exposure to the great empires of the day, such as Byzantium, Persia and Egypt, this changed and the paternal divine right to rule was adopted.
If islamic societies never change the religious-inspired laws, than they can never adapo tp rapid social change...or else they´ll just have to stubornly continue refusing to be awarw of the change around them...it´s really not material wether the submission of women has its roots in Islam proper or in an alien region...fact is there as been no outcry from the religious stablishement in Islamic societies against that ill-treatement of women (honour killings are still quite common in Pakistan and Iran). In western societies, courts and police forces do not treat battered women has if their husbands have the God-given right do dispose of them as they see fit...the US doesn´t have a council of "enlightened" clerics with the power to vetoe certain candidates wich intend to run for office for an alleged lack of compliance with islamic rules, has happens in Iran...

great to hear that!

unfortunately, stories like that really don't hit the general public back home. I can see why they don't print it (even without naming names) but it does show that the Iraqis are trying to take control away from the terrorists.

Because the media is consumerist and sensationalist-driven! As long as people read articles and buy publications that talk about what Tara Reid and Lindsay Lohan wore a month ago, we are screwed on getting important news.

To be honest, it would be better to point out turkey as an ideal for an islamic state. They don't have a counsel of elders, banning people from running for president (decidedly undemocratic), they have a secular government coexisting with a islamic society, and best of all, they keep the military under control, as opposed to the other way round.
Yeah, but it took a military coup leaded by the Young Turks to downthrow a Islamic regime and set up a western-style governement

If only most people think like you. A thread like this wouldn't be necessary. *Sigh*same with thoughts against Chrisitans or any other "Group" *Double Sigh*

I don't recall ever pointing out any existing 'ideal Islamic state.'
sorry. Post edited

Because the media is consumerist and sensationalist-driven! As long as people read articles and buy publications that talk about what Tara Reid and Lindsay Lohan wore a month ago, we are screwed on getting important news.
and the fact that Bad News sells. Here in Hawaii, our newspaper had the tragic death of a local child at the hands of her parents as front page news and the Launch of Discovery was on the sidebar... :(

That's like saying Christians as a group should turn in abortion-clinic bombers, Branch Davidians, McVeighs, etc. I doubt if Pennsylvania Quakers or Utah Mormons know the intricate plans of the KKK to firebomb a church in Mississippi.
Yes, as any self-respecting Christian should turn in any so-called "christian terrorist." Whether "Pennsylvania Quakers" personally know any "abortion clinic bombers" or not, they can still bring pressure on those who might. Your argument doesn't hold water. Whether you personally know a terrorist or not, if you belong to a group which is being defamed by them, I would think you would do everything in your power to make it stop.

Hush, you are arguing with Eutrusca the Centrist. The Centrist knows all!
Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

By the way, the Indonesia that has so many liberated women has also states where the islamic law applies, with its delightful array of corporal punishements...cutting of the hands, public beheadings, the works... ;)

If islamic societies never change the religious-inspired laws, than they can never adapo tp rapid social change...or else they´ll just have to stubornly continue refusing to be awarw of the change around them...it´s really not material wether the submission of women has its roots in Islam proper or in an alien region...fact is there as been no outcry from the religious stablishement in Islamic societies against that ill-treatement of women (honour killings are still quite common in Pakistan and Iran). In western societies, courts and police forces do not treat battered women has if their husbands have the God-given right do dispose of them as they see fit...the US doesn´t have a council of "enlightened" clerics with the power to vetoe certain candidates wich intend to run for office for an alleged lack of compliance with islamic rules, has happens in Iran...

It does matter, because Islam does not condone treating women that way. Secular baggage wrongly hitched it's way into Islam. And, western societies only recently began treating battered and raped women with any seriousness. Last year in Iran, the people (well, a mob) hung four men from a streetlight for raping a girl. Even here in the United States, female voters turned out in droves to help defeat the Equal Rights Amendment when Congress voted on it in the 80's.
The religious establishment in Islam has no founding in the Qur'an. Every person is to have a personal relationship to God, clergy is not neccessary. Unfortunately, they have become established anyway. Remember, every institution is conservative, it wishes to either maintain or increase it's power. So, these institutions see no reason to change thier rhetoric when it comes to women, although the governments of Iran, Egypt and Jordan have taken some tenuous steps in the right direction.

Maybe corporal punishment works for them! Who are we to say that Indonesia can't amputate hands? Why bother to get upset when Myanmar kidnaps 10 year old girls so that their "soldiers" can have somebody to rape repeatedly?

Is it just because Indonesia is a US ally? that's hypocritical.

By the way, the Indonesia that has so many liberated women has also states where the islamic law applies, with its delightful array of corporal punishements...cutting of the hands, public beheadings, the works... ;)

...and? They don't have a huge, expensive jail system either, do they?
Cutting off hands and beheading people sucks, but so does locking them up for life or sitting them in the chair. I guess punishing criminals is crappy period, but letting them run around would be worse. :fluffle:

Personally, I blame the media blamers.

As for me being obligated to turn in terrorists, you show me one and I'll turn him in. Oh, wait, you don't know where they are or what one looks like either? Pity.

Add your flammage to the list: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437176

You realise you are now just spamming that?

It does matter, because Islam does not condone treating women that way. Secular baggage wrongly hitched it's way into Islam. And, western societies only recently began treating battered and raped women with any seriousness. Last year in Iran, the people (well, a mob) hung four men from a streetlight for raping a girl. Even here in the United States, female voters turned out in droves to help defeat the Equal Rights Amendment when Congress voted on it in the 80's.
The religious establishment in Islam has no founding in the Qur'an. Every person is to have a personal relationship to God, clergy is not neccessary. Unfortunately, they have become established anyway. Remember, every institution is conservative, it wishes to either maintain or increase it's power. So, these institutions see no reason to change thier rhetoric when it comes to women, although the governments of Iran, Egypt and Jordan have taken some tenuous steps in the right direction.
You continue to present Islam a set of rules wich were later distorted by geographical accidents and institutions like the islamic clergy, to further their own agenda...as if Islam was simply a "Religion of Peace" totaly corrupted by some later mishaps...its curious, that´s the explanation still offered nowadays by many communists to absolve communism from the terrible things done in its name...as if a ideology or religion had a pure essence that had nothing to do with the use that its believers give it...but Quaran always needed clerics to teach it, as Christianity needed priests and ministers...the islamic scholars cant be put aside quite simply because they are the interpreters of the faith...if we are trading real world stories, did you hear that one that took place in India a couple of days ago? In a region under Charia, a woman was raped...one of the top Islamic board of scholars ruled that her marriage has nullified, because she had become "unclean", not adequate for her husband...it didn´t matter if she had been forced to have intercourse.
In the England, the Suffragettes, although initially inprisioned for their campaign, weren´t subject of public floging...

...and? They don't have a huge, expensive jail system either, do they?
Cutting off hands and beheading people sucks, but so does locking them up for life or sitting them in the chair. I guess punishing criminals is crappy period, but letting them run around would be worse. :fluffle:
Oh right, its the same to amputate one´s limbs than putting one in jail (by the way, i dont condone capital penalty) :rolleyes:

but Quran always needed clerics to teach it

Actually, no it didn't. It still doesn't. Qur'an is in the heart, not in the mind.

Actually, no it didn't. It still doesn't. Qur'an is in the heart, not in the mind.
Actually it isn´t, my new-age friend. The Quaran is a revelated religion (such as christianism) in what its followers see as a holly book and so it must be interpreted by scholars...if it was like you claim, the fathers that profess islamism wouldn´t send their children to madrassas.

You continue to present Islam a set of rules wich were later distorted by geographical accidents and institutions like the islamic clergy, to further their own agenda...as if Islam was simply a "Religion of Peace" totaly corrupted by some later mishaps...its curious, that´s the explanation still offered nowadays by many communists to absolve communism from the terrible things done in its name...as if a ideology or religion had a pure essence that had nothing to do with the use that its believers give it...but Quaran always needed clerics to teach it, as Christianity needed priests and ministers...the islamic scholars cant be put aside quite simply because they are the interpreters of the faith...if we are trading real world stories, did you hear that one that took place in India a couple of days ago? In a region under Charia, a woman was raped...one of the top Islamic board of scholars ruled that her marriage has nullified, because she had become "unclean", not adequate for her husband...it didn´t matter if she had been forced to have intercourse.
In the England, the Suffragettes, although initially inprisioned for their campaign, weren´t subject of public floging...

I am trying to make the distinction between Islam and stupid people tricks committed in the name of Islam.
It is awful that a woman was raped and her clergymen did not come to her aid. I do not mean to marginalize what happened to her, but dude, it happens the world over, under the guise of every religious and political system. It sucks, and needs to be changed. You have no argument from me there. My point is to say that such an act has no Qur'anic basis.
Believers do impart thier own interpretations of the religions that they practice. Otherwise, the religion would be unattainable. But change and corruption are two different things, and I would hope that you can see the difference between what is written and largely practiced, and what some idiots decide to do. Fred Phelps cites scripture for his arguments, that doesn't mean that he is a good Christian, and it doesn't mean that Jesus hates homosexuals. He has corrupted the religion for his own purposes.

Actually it isn´t, my new-age friend. The Quaran is a revelated religion (such as christianism) in what its followers see as a holly book and so it must be interpreted by scholars...if it was like you claim, the fathers that profess islamism wouldn´t send their children to madrassas.

According to Qur'an, men (women, too) are born with Qur'an in their hearts. It is wordly things that pervert it.

But dont you see that using that same kind of reasoning you can almost justify any ideology or religion, independentely of the practices of their followers? Heck, fascists can claim that the original Fascist idea was distorted by Mussolini and its followers...you can claim that nazism was at heart a begnin scholl of thought and that Hitler gave it a bad name, that racism was an idea with merit but wrongfully put into play...of course many right-wing american politicians and firebrand evangelists condemn homosexuals in the name of Christ, but their beliefs dont serve as basis to the law of the land... ;)

Fred Phelps ...
Word. Christian Fundamentalists are just as bad as Islamic Fundementalists who are just as bad as any other type of fundie.

Sergio, read Mein Kampf? Hitler dictated the doctrine for the Nazis, and yes, he described the Germans needing lebensraum,and all that other kind of stuff. It CANNOT be argued that Nazism was at any point in its conception benign

It is wordly things that pervert it.

Something most people fail to notice when they assume their religious texts are pure, untainted truth.

According to Qur'an, men (women, too) are born with Qur'an in their hearts. It is wordly things that pervert it.
Again,if that was the way islamic societies saw things, they wouldn´t go to the trouble to send their sons and daughters to islamic schools.

Word. Christian Fundamentalists are just as bad as Islamic Fundementalists who are just as bad as any other type of fundie.
Christian fundamentalists don´t go around planting bombs in Saudi Arabia´s public transportation sistem.

Christian fundamentalists don´t go around planting bombs in Saudi Arabia´s public transportation sistem.

No, they stick to physicians, Federal Buildings and abortion clinics

Let's just ban all religions and blame the US

Christian fundamentalists don´t go around planting bombs in Saudi Arabia´s public transportation sistem.

No, they just bomb abortion clinics. http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/hall/topimages/sign.jpg <--American Fundementalist Baptist group.

Again,if that was the way islamic societies saw things, they wouldn´t go to the trouble to send their sons and daughters to islamic schools.

Many Muslims in the US send their children to Islamic schools so that their children will grow up around other Muslims. Qur'an is something you have to decide upon for yourself. Even if your parents are Muslim, you are not until you decide to be so.

I think you'd be surprised how Islamic societies see things. Don't take the king's and mullah's opinions as truth when you won't look at Qur'an itself first. Kings and Mullahs are corrupt and power hungry.

Many Muslims in the US send their children to Islamic schools so that their children will grow up around other Muslims. Qur'an is something you have to decide upon for yourself. Even if your parents are Muslim, you are not until you decide to be so.

I think you'd be surprised how Islamic societies see things. Don't take the king's and mullah's opinions as truth when you won't look at Qur'an itself first. Kings and Mullahs are corrupt and power hungry.

Yeah, kids here can go to islamic schools. But then again, they can also go to christian :)

No, they stick to physicians, Federal Buildings and abortion clinics
I wouldn´t know what happens in the US with the theocratic loonies...here in Europe, christians pro-life don´t bomb abortion clinics...but even if christian fundamentalists do use direct action in the US, they don´t form terrorist cells in islamics coutries to attack civilians...or fund churches in islamic territory and pay the residing priests and ministers to preach a message of unmitigated hate against their host societies...this, of course, in islamic countries that don´t outlaw the chriistian faith.

I wouldn´t know what happens in the US with the theocratic loonies...here in Europe, christians pro-life don´t bomb abortion clinics...but even if christian fundamentalists do use direct action in the US, they don´t form terrorist cells in islamics coutries to attack civilians...or fund churches in islamic territory and pay the residing priests and ministers to preach a message of unmitigated hate against their host societies...this, of course, in islamic countries that don´t outlaw the chriistian faith.

Most Christian denominations in Europe and the Middle East aren't Baptist/Evangelical as they predominantly are in the United States, and those sects tend to be where the abortion clinic bombers and terrorists come from.

Got to go...thanks for the spirited chat

I wouldn´t know what happens in the US with the theocratic loonies...here in Europe, christians pro-life don´t bomb abortion clinics...but even if christian fundamentalists do use direct action in the US, they don´t form terrorist cells in islamics coutries to attack civilians...or fund churches in islamic territory and pay the residing priests and ministers to preach a message of unmitigated hate against their host societies...this, of course, in islamic countries that don´t outlaw the chriistian faith.

So, how is bombing an abortion clinic not attacking civilians?
You are taking specific, narrow situations and applying them wide scale. That's dishonest. Most priests do not get paid or funded to preach hate (some do it for free), but to imply that all churches are funded to preach hate is ridiculous. I have never heard a hate-speech here at the Lawrence Islamic Center. Maybe you should go to the mosque and hear it for yourself before you condemn us all.

I guess I'm not clear on exactly what Islam is, except in the general sense. I have learned that there are many movements in Islam, so I don't understand what both attackers and defenders of Islam are talking about except the general umbrella concept of Islam as a personal walk and a religion of peace.

To the defenders of Islam, I respect your views and your faith. But can you speak for your religion as it is preached and practiced in other parts of the world? As an American Protestant Christian, can I speak for the Catholic Church, or the Chaldean Church in the mideast? I do not, I can only speak within my frame of reference.

It strikes me, that like the Bible, the Quran has room for liberal, moderate, and conservative interpretations.

Here are some movements, and you'll find they have very different perspectives. Some are liberal, some rigidly orthodox and traditional. Some may even offer more aid and comfort to fundamentalist terrorists than others.

Wahhabism
Salafism (Salafiyah)
Deobandi (also Darul Uloom)
Jamaat-e-Islami
Muslim Brotherhood (Jama'at al-ikhwan al-muslimin, also Ikhwan)
Taliban
Hizb ut-Tahrir
Islamic Jihad (Egyptian and Palestinian)

Why should all Moslems be the scapegoat? They shouldn't. No one should be a scapegoat. It is likely that some movements, some Mullahs, some communities are worthy of blame for aiding, abetting, and promoting terrorism - not all. Put the blame where it lies, and not just on the individual terrorist - he doesn't exist in a social/religious vacuum. True and faithful Moslems should dissasociate, both in word and deed, from the actions of their brethren (as they are beginning to do).


There is an excellent thread on this here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314

I guess I'm not clear on exactly what Islam is, except in the general sense. I have learned that there are many movements in Islam, so I don't understand what both attackers and defenders of Islam are talking about except the general umbrella concept of Islam as a personal walk and a religion of peace.

To the defenders of Islam, I respect your views and your faith. But can you speak for your religion as it is preached and practiced in other parts of the world? As an American Protestant Christian, can I speak for the Catholic Church, or the Chaldean Church in the mideast? I do not, I can only speak within my frame of reference.

It strikes me, that like the Bible, the Quran has room for liberal, moderate, and conservative interpretations.

Here are some movements, and you'll find they have very different perspectives. Some are liberal, some rigidly orthodox and traditional. Some may even offer more aid and comfort to fundamentalist terrorists than others.

Wahhabism
Salafism (Salafiyah)
Deobandi (also Darul Uloom)
Jamaat-e-Islami
Muslim Brotherhood (Jama'at al-ikhwan al-muslimin, also Ikhwan)
Taliban
Hizb ut-Tahrir
Islamic Jihad (Egyptian and Palestinian)

Why should all Moslems be the scapegoat? They shouldn't. No one should be a scapegoat. It is likely that some movements, some Mullahs, some communities are worthy of blame for aiding, abetting, and promoting terrorism - not all. Put the blame where it lies, and not just on the individual terrorist - he doesn't exist in a social/religious vacuum. True and faithful Moslems should dissasociate, both in word and deed, from the actions of their brethren (as they are beginning to do).


There is an excellent thread on this here:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314

*Applauds*
That was really well put... cookie? Even rigourously orthodox can still be against terror, so possibly we need to find an appropriate name for those who use their ideology as an excuse for terror as a way of distinguising those from others who merely are very devout.

*Applauds*
That was really well put... cookie? Even rigourously orthodox can still be against terror, so possibly we need to find an appropriate name for those who use their ideology as an excuse for terror as a way of distinguising those from others who merely are very devout.

Well, thank you - the cookie looks excellent!

I think accuracy is important, particularly in this instance - or any time religion is implicated with evil.

Additionally, I have been saying for some time that the millions of Moslems and their organizations would potentially prevent some misunderstandings between themselves and the rest of the world by denouncing the evildoers with all the force they can muster. And the rest of the world owes them the respect of accepting their actions for what they are. This will help identify organizations and nations that promote terrorism and make it much harder for terrorists to survive.

I remain concerned that there is potential for a significant, unfair, backlash that can threaten not only their community but the rights of believers everywhere. Undesireable racially-based political parties wait in the wings, in several countries, for such an opportunity.

So, how is bombing an abortion clinic not attacking civilians?
You are taking specific, narrow situations and applying them wide scale. That's dishonest. Most priests do not get paid or funded to preach hate (some do it for free), but to imply that all churches are funded to preach hate is ridiculous. I have never heard a hate-speech here at the Lawrence Islamic Center. Maybe you should go to the mosque and hear it for yourself before you condemn us all.
Again, its quite clear that a high number of mosques and madrassas in the west are funded by Saudi money to spread Wahabism...mosques in London, Paris, Madrid and such...and it is equaly clear that vast numbers of westen-born muslims integrate that kind of hate gospel...of course bombing civilians in clinics is wrong...but what i claimed is that christian fundamentalists dont go around bombing targets in muslim countries just because they are muslim...

Again, its quite clear that a high number of mosques and madrassas in the west are funded by Saudi money to spread Wahabism...mosques in London, Paris, Madrid and such...and it is equaly clear that vast numbers of westen-born muslims integrate that kind of hate gospel...of course bombing civilians in clinics is wrong...but what i claimed is that christian fundamentalists dont go around bombing targets in muslim countries just because they are muslim...

And again I have to ask what your point is? Most mosques do not allow those guys to go and preach. Go to your neighborhood mosque, hear what they preach, and get back to me.
Do you have a survey to cite that can support your claim that 'vast numbers of western-born muslims integrate that kind of hate gospel?' Cause I have never heard it, but then again, I have only gone to one mosque, but, that's probably one more than you have gone to.
Despite what you may have been told, Muslim terrorists do not attack the West because we are predominantly Christian, or because they hate or are jealous of our freedoms. That answer is a total cop-out.

And again I have to ask what your point is? Most mosques do not allow those guys to go and preach. Go to your neighborhood mosque, hear what they preach, and get back to me.
Do you have a survey to cite that can support your claim that 'vast numbers of western-born muslims integrate that kind of hate gospel?' Cause I have never heard it, but then again, I have only gone to one mosque, but, that's probably one more than you have gone to.
Despite what you may have been told, Muslim terrorists do not attack the West because we are predominantly Christian, or because they hate or are jealous of our freedoms. That answer is a total cop-out.
Yes they do allow their return and yes large groups of western-bred muslims do accept this gospel of hate...look at the bombers in London (on both times)...take a walk in muslim neighbourhoods in London and register the soundbytes...muslim clerics have been seeking refugee status in the UK for yeras now and when they get due to lax legal frame, they take advantage of the country´s hospitality to propagate rabid hate against the "infidels" (any resemblance with the current state of affair is not a coincidence)...how revealing is to watch a demonstration of women in Bagdad protesting against the intent of the powers-to-be to make islam source of all law...i stick to my guns:Islam is imcompatible with democracy, human rights and an open society.

And by the way, what´s your view on the motives behind terror attacks by muslims on western targets?

And by the way, what´s your view on the motives behind terror attacks by muslims on western targets?

First, let me ask you if you would bomb another group of people halfway around the world because they were more free than you.

First, let me ask you if you would bomb another group of people halfway around the world because they were more free than you.
In the case of the London bombings, the bombers were native britons and not from another country

In the case of the London bombings, the bombers were native britons and not from another country

With the way you dodge questions, you must be a Republican! Or, rather, the British equivalent. :)

That's like saying Christians as a group should turn in abortion-clinic bombers, Branch Davidians, McVeighs, etc. I doubt if Pennsylvania Quakers or Utah Mormons know the intricate plans of the KKK to firebomb a church in Mississippi.

The problem with this comment, is that the abortion clinic bombers and McVeighs of the world were acting without help of the church. The Muslim terrorists get support from various clerics, if you tie back a terror attack, chances are you will find a cleric or twelve that helped them in one form or another.

Al Quada isnt some crackpot Michigan Milita type thing, they get material and safehaven support from Mosques and Clerics. The Branch Davidians were exactly like the muslim terrorists in every form, but you notice they had to build their OWN savehaven, that isnt needed in the muslim world, the terrorists have a vast network of safehavens, a majority of them being mosques.

Some of you people really need to read up on how this stuff works before you make comments on it.

A good start would be inside 9-11 by Der Spegal (sp?) mag, it goes through exactly everything that happened and what happened afterwards, youll be suprised on how the hijackers got their money via local mosques and other various organizations in the USA. Hey i can be fair and say maybe the mosques didnt know what the money was being used for (yeah right, and im stupid), even so they have dirty money flowing through their muslim support groups, which makes them just as responsible and therefore not a scapegoat.

Seriously some of you are really stupid making comments about shit you dont even understand, get off your internet soapbox and read on the subject before you start stupid ass topics

With the way you dodge questions, you must be a Republican! Or, rather, the British equivalent. :)
No, actualy i´m portuguese and vote center-right...but, although you haven´t answered my question i´ll answer yours: those among the terrorists that do travel half the world to bomb western capitals are not guided by:
- outrage on the traditional american bias towards the israelis in the Middle East (this would never apply to European targets);
- hunger for revenge because of the participation of western countries on the ocupation of Iraq;
-or any other "we-the victims-must- blame-ourselves-for being- slaughtered-by-the poo- islamic- warriors -of -freedom" lame excuse

The problem with this comment, is that the abortion clinic bombers and McVeighs of the world were acting without help of the church. The Muslim terrorists get support from various clerics, if you tie back a terror attack, chances are you will find a cleric or twelve that helped them in one form or another.

Al Quada isnt some crackpot Michigan Milita type thing, they get material and safehaven support from Mosques and Clerics. The Branch Davidians were exactly like the muslim terrorists in every form, but you notice they had to build their OWN savehaven, that isnt needed in the muslim world, the terrorists have a vast network of safehavens, a majority of them being mosques.

Some of you people really need to read up on how this stuff works before you make comments on it.

A good start would be inside 9-11 by Der Spegal (sp?) mag, it goes through exactly everything that happened and what happened afterwards, youll be suprised on how the hijackers got their money via local mosques and other various organizations in the USA. Hey i can be fair and say maybe the mosques didnt know what the money was being used for (yeah right, and im stupid), even so they have dirty money flowing through their muslim support groups, which makes them just as responsible and therefore not a scapegoat.

Seriously some of you are really stupid making comments about shit you dont even understand, get off your internet soapbox and read on the subject before you start stupid ass topics

Der Spiegel.
Don't be an asshole. It isn't nice.

Der Spiegel.
Don't be an asshole. It isn't nice.
Granted the final ofense wasn´t called for, but a excelent assesment of the situation

First, let me ask you if you would bomb another group of people halfway around the world because they were more free than you.
I would, if i were someone interpreting islamic religion in a fashion that it allows:to try to build a global caliphate and restore long lost muslim glory

We are disliked by many people for our duplicity on matters such as human rights, self-determinism, ending tyrrany, and bringing justice to the world.
We place great value on human rights, then support the Sandistas, who killed civilians indiscriminately. We keep people like Saddam Hussein, Shah Pahlavhi and Islam Abduganievich Karimov in power against the wishes of thier people, allowing them to commit grave atrocities against thier populations.
We say that democracy must be brought to the world, but we support rulers who are singularly authoritarian and would never allow an election to take place in thier country, again, Saddam and the Shah work, as does ol' Noriega. We say that justice must be served, yet we refused to return the Shah to stand trial in Iran, prompting the students to storm the embassy and hold American prisoners hostage for 444 days, an event that could have been ended if we turned a criminal over to the Iranians to stand trial for his crimes. Instead, we essentially said that his life was more important than our own citizens.
What may come as a big suprise to many people is that many Muslims look to the ideals of the west welcomingly, but distrust our proven practice of what we actually do. They see us support terrible people to keep the price of crude low, and are disgusted that material things are more important than humanity. Muslims have a big dislike of hypocracy, and in dealing with the west, they have a track record of little but.
Now, here is the statement that will cause a flame war. Who is the biggest supporter of terrorism? The American Public. We refuse to make our government accountable for it's dealing with other people, so it continues to do stupid things, such as supporting the Taliban before 9/11. We fund terrorists DAILY by lining the pockets of Saudi oil tycoons, who then give the money to radicals. And we are getting a shitty return on our investment.

I would, if i were someone interpreting islamic religion in a fashion that it allows:to try to build a global caliphate and restore long lost muslim glory

Pretty much the premise of the book "What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle East Response" by Bernard Lewis. Not a bad read, but dealt overly with the Ottoman Empire.

We are disliked by many people for our duplicity on matters such as human rights, self-determinism, ending tyrrany, and bringing justice to the world.
We place great value on human rights, then support the Sandistas, who killed civilians indiscriminately. We keep people like Saddam Hussein, Shah Pahlavhi and Islam Abduganievich Karimov in power against the wishes of thier people, allowing them to commit grave atrocities against thier populations.
We say that democracy must be brought to the world, but we support rulers who are singularly authoritarian and would never allow an election to take place in thier country, again, Saddam and the Shah work, as does ol' Noriega. We say that justice must be served, yet we refused to return the Shah to stand trial in Iran, prompting the students to storm the embassy and hold American prisoners hostage for 444 days, an event that could have been ended if we turned a criminal over to the Iranians to stand trial for his crimes. Instead, we essentially said that his life was more important than our own citizens.
What may come as a big suprise to many people is that many Muslims look to the ideals of the west welcomingly, but distrust our proven practice of what we actually do. They see us support terrible people to keep the price of crude low, and are disgusted that material things are more important than humanity. Muslims have a big dislike of hypocracy, and in dealing with the west, they have a track record of little but.
Now, here is the statement that will cause a flame war. Who is the biggest supporter of terrorism? The American Public. We refuse to make our government accountable for it's dealing with other people, so it continues to do stupid things, such as supporting the Taliban before 9/11. We fund terrorists DAILY by lining the pockets of Saudi oil tycoons, who then give the money to radicals. And we are getting a shitty return on our investment.
Ok, it had to happen sooner or later: the victims are to blame for the agression that the terrorists carry through.
The so called "humanity"? Well, it was quite "human" of the revolutionairies in Iran to overthrow the governement so they could just go back to opressing women...do remember that two wrongs dont make a right, as it isn´t praiseworty to put a dictatorship in place of another. Its appaling to justify hostage taking; the US would return the Shah to a so called "revolutionary court", where he would simply be given no chance of a fair trial.
Granted the US foreign policy has rarely ben exemplary, but realpolitik enters into play here: oil must be had from someplace. The taliban proved useful as a proxy guerrila against the soviets, but the americans never thought it would turn on them. If the muslim world doesn´t approve of hipocrisy in international affairs, why didn´t they utter a thing when militias sponsered by the islamic governement in Sudan waged massacre after massacre on the christian and animist populations of the south?

Ok, it had to happen sooner or later: the victims are to blame for the agression that the terrorists carry through.
The so called "humanity"? Well, it was quite "human" of the revolutionairies in Iran to overthrow the governement so they could just go back to opressing women...do remember that two wrongs dont make a right, as it isn´t praiseworty to put a dictatorship in place of another. Its appaling to justify hostage taking; the US would return the Shah to a so called "revolutionary court", where he would simply be given no chance of a fair trial.
Granted the US foreign policy has rarely ben exemplary, but realpolitik enters into play here: oil must be had from someplace. The taliban proved useful as a proxy guerrila against the soviets, but the americans never thought it would turn on them. If the muslim world doesn´t approve of hipocrisy in international affairs, why didn´t they utter a thing when militias sponsered by the islamic governement in Sudan waged massacre after massacre on the christian and animist populations of the south?

Excellent points! But no, the victim is not at fault here, I merely mean to make people aware that actions have consequences, and as long as we continue to treat people unfairly and then consider them stupid barbarians, they will suprise us, by doing things like flying airplanes into buildings.
Women in Iran hold more representative government positions, per capita, than women do in the US, and participate far more in government in modern Iran than they did under the Shah. There are now more female physicians than male in Iran, and more women are educated than ever before. The Shah would not have gotten a fair trial, he was needed to fuel the bloodlust that was raging against his Savak, which was not above raping ten year-old girls to get thier parents to talk. Do you think that Saddam will get a fair trial? Will the US ever be held accountable for selling him chemical weapons which he used against Iran and the Kurds?
Oil. It always comes down to this, doesn't it? I would think that with the amount of reserves that we have, we could develop other energies, use our reserves while doing it, and then we could really stick it to these assholes that use oil money to terrorize people.
Lot's of Muslims did speak out against the Sudan massacres. They just don't wear signs saying 'I'm a Muslim" while doing it. With how Islam is set up, the individuals will protest things, we don't feel comfortable to say that 'Kansas Muslims are Against ______" because we can't speak for another person, even when we know we are in agreement. We do not have a Pope to make a broad decision on our behalf.
Sure, we Americans never thought that the Taliban would turn against us, but we did know that thier beliefs were diametrically oppossed to ours, and we supported them anyway. We paid for them to oppress thier women and silence opposition, now we cry because they bit the hand that fed them. You can't train a pitbull to visciously defend it's yard without the chance that it might get out and kill the neighborhood children.
You are pretty cool, Sergio, I like debating with you. Even if you are Portugese. :p

Nay; I disagree.

Excellent points! But no, the victim is not at fault here, I merely mean to make people aware that actions have consequences, and as long as we continue to treat people unfairly and then consider them stupid barbarians, they will suprise us, by doing things like flying airplanes into buildings.
Women in Iran hold more representative government positions, per capita, than women do in the US, and participate far more in government in modern Iran than they did under the Shah. There are now more female physicians than male in Iran, and more women are educated than ever before. The Shah would not have gotten a fair trial, he was needed to fuel the bloodlust that was raging against his Savak, which was not above raping ten year-old girls to get thier parents to talk. Do you think that Saddam will get a fair trial? Will the US ever be held accountable for selling him chemical weapons which he used against Iran and the Kurds?
Oil. It always comes down to this, doesn't it? I would think that with the amount of reserves that we have, we could develop other energies, use our reserves while doing it, and then we could really stick it to these assholes that use oil money to terrorize people.
Lot's of Muslims did speak out against the Sudan massacres. They just don't wear signs saying 'I'm a Muslim" while doing it. With how Islam is set up, the individuals will protest things, we don't feel comfortable to say that 'Kansas Muslims are Against ______" because we can't speak for another person, even when we know we are in agreement. We do not have a Pope to make a broad decision on our behalf.
Sure, we Americans never thought that the Taliban would turn against us, but we did know that thier beliefs were diametrically oppossed to ours, and we supported them anyway. We paid for them to oppress thier women and silence opposition, now we cry because they bit the hand that fed them. You can't train a pitbull to visciously defend it's yard without the chance that it might get out and kill the neighborhood children.
You are pretty cool, Sergio, I like debating with you. Even if you are Portugese. :p
When will the west overcome the "white man´s burden"? Why must we punish ourselves for the wrongs that islamic terrrorists inflict on our capitols? Do you honestly believe that the bombers of 9/11 were opressed and treated unfairly?They were college graduates, coming from upper-middle classe backrounds. They reaped the benefits of western education, attendding european and american universities. What did the victims of the WTC ever did to a middle-class saudi? To be quite honest, i dont approve of this modern-day cultural relativism, as if all cultures had equal intrinsic value. Western culture is quite superior to muslim-dominated culture. In the former, free iniciative and scientific research flourish. In the latter, any kind of intelectual dissent meets a harsh stiffling. In the west we no longer have a crime of blasphemia...
Curious you should mention Iran...the way i see it, Iranian society has been in the grips of a hearth-shattering struggle for quite some time between what as been called a "liberal" side and the religious-supported conservative side. What we saw from the latest elections was that a) young people, the foremost supporters of president Kathamy, felt frustrated from the slow pace of political reform and so didn´t vote, b) the religious watchdogs were able to vetoe many of the "liberal" candidates, c) it all came down to a contest between and a conservative and a ultra-conservative (some would call him a radical). The latter won, so now Iran is under the rule of a man that took part of the hostage taking in the american embassy and whose political program would please Khomeini. Women´s rights will quite cedrtainly merit his full atention on the days to come, but probably not in a way that pleases western viwers...
When i mentioned the Darfur massacres, i was actually refering to the absence of any action from the Islamic Conference (i believe that´s its name) a international board of muslim countries. Dont doubt that many muslims in the US demonstrated in the US (never heard of it, though) but i would lile to see such civic movements in countries with islamic governements...
In the matter of the taliban, i would partially agree, although i would make a caveat...the US, pushing its own agenda, funded the talibans in their struggle to frre Afghanistan...at the time, there was no talk of a muslim terrror group bent on building a world caliphate...
By the way, nice exchanging views with you too, but way the remark about my nationality?